Sitting of 23 April 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Monmouth, in the room of Sir John Stradling Thomas, Kt.—[Mr. Ryder.]
HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 April 1991.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Scientific Research
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the state of scientific research in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): No Sir. Britain has a science base of remarkable quality and the Government will continue to provide appropriate support for it.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not now time for a full-scale inquiry into the levels of funding available to scientific research and the rates of pay available to university teachers? Does the Minister share the concern that has been shown by others about the conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which, for example, showed that this year the science and engineering research council has enjoyed—if that is the right word—a 3 per cent. increase over its budget of last year? Does he also agree that it is time that the Government came forward with reasonable and adequate resources to enable university employers to pay a more reasonable level in wage settlements than the 6 per cent. currently on offer?
    Mr. Howarth: The Government have advisory bodies—the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology—that are well placed to advise us on scientific research and I see no need for a special inquiry. We are considering the report of the House of Lords Select Committee, and the Royal Society is conducting its own inquiry, so we need no further inquiry. As for resources, the Government have
    884
    increased the science budget by 22 per cent. since they have been in office. That matches the expansion of gross domestic product. We shall continue to support British science, but the extent of that support depends on the progress of the economy.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that concern about that matter is not confined to one side of the House? The wise warnings of Sir Claus Moser last August should be taken seriously.
    Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend represents Cambridge, he is particularly knowledgeable on, committed to, and concerned about those matters, but he will also be immensely proud of the outstandingly distinguished science work that takes place in Cambridge. I was disappointed because, after Sir Claus Moser made his speech at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, I suggested that it might be helpful if we met to talk on the subject. However, he declined to take up my invitation.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that we need action, not another inquiry? We need wide-ranging action not only on resources, which have fallen far behind those of our industrial competitors, but on science education. There are many priority areas within science to which resources need to be switched, such as the realignment of defence research. It is clear that the Government are failing the nation.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the introduction of the national curriculum and the redefinition and improvement of science education for all our children. He has also overlooked the remarkable increase in the number of students undertaking science and engineering courses. As for action, the hon. Gentleman may have been a little disappointed by the Labour party's policy document that was issued last week. I found it remarkably vague and imprecise. His party seems to have adopted a policy of favouring particular sectors of science. It seems both foolish and wrong in principle to politicise decisions about scientific priorities. That document proposes the borrowing of unspecified sums to support the hon. Gentleman's purposes. It proposes to reduce defence spending, again on an unspecified scale. It is an extremely unimpressive prospectus.

    Standardised Testing
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the introduction of standardised testing in schools.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Seven-year-olds will be tested nationally in English, mathematics and science for the first time this summer. Tests in other subjects and for other age groups will be phased in over the coming years.
    Mr. Amos: As many parents do not take seriously their responsibility in bringing up their young children, does my hon. Friend agree that standardised testing at the age of seven years will give schools the opportunity to monitor and identify pupils' achievements in relation to their ability? Does he accept that that will be of enormous value in channelling more assistance to those who are in need,

    885
    and that the tests are nothing to do with pass or fail? Instead, they relate to identifying needs and channelling help to where it is needed.
    Mr. Eggar: I much agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that the results of the assessments and tests should be passed on to parents in a readily understandable way through annual reports. We shall be publishing a leaflet to accompany the reports, which we hope will help parents understand the results of the reporting mechanism.
    Mr. Rees: If one of the tests shows a particularly low grade for a seven-year-old child, who will be responsible, within the school, for testing further to ascertain whether there are special disabilities such as dyslexia? If there is such a problem, what power does the Secretary of State have to tell local authorities to provide remedial classes—it would be no use for parents to take that course—in such cases? I am extremely dissatisfied for personal reasons, but I am not making a political point. I think that we have forgotten that something may be wrong, and that not enough has been done for those who suffer from dyslexia.
    Mr. Eggar: I understand and share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about dyslexia. In 1981, I initiated the first Adjournment debate on dyslexia. The results of national curriculum testing, especially in English, will enable teachers to identify children who are working towards level 1—in other words, those who have not attained that level. I would expect teachers and head teachers to get together to try to identify why a particular child had not achieved level 1 and then to formulate a system of help and assistance for that child. Outside help from the school, such as that from a child psychology support, may be needed.
    Mr. Straw: Statementing?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says, it might be appropriate to go towards statementing. Each individual child will have to be dealt with, however, as an individual, depending on the result of the tests.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of parents in my constituency are much in favour of tests at the age of seven years? Will he accept also that we all believe that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum so that teachers can spend the maximum time with children rather than going through procedures that at present are rather tortuous?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree that we must continue to work towards reducing bureaucracy. I intend, as a result of the national pilot of tests of seven-year-olds, to ascertain whether we can simplify the procedures.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that, while teachers are showing a high level of professional dedication and commitment in administering the tests, there is great anxiety among teachers and, I think, parents about the amount of curriculum time that has to be devoted to the tests? For example, at a school that I visited yesterday in Peterborough, every half day between now and half term is being devoted to the administration of the tests and that is disrupting the teaching of children. As the Minister referred to this year's tests as a national pilot, may we take
    886
    it that Ministers will examine carefully the experience of the standard assessment tasks to ascertain whether they can be slimmed down further so that they serve a purpose without over-burdening teachers or disrupting teaching?
    Mr. Eggar: I have no hesitation in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. We must examine carefully the results of the national tests to determine whether the right balance has been struck between manageability on the one hand and fairness to the child on the other. We shall examine that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give us his views, I shall be delighted to take them into account.

    Truancy
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the current level of truancy and on the figure for each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): The proposals that we published last week will enable truancy levels to be measured, for the first time, on a standard national basis. They require schools to record attendance in a way which identifies unauthorised absence, and to publish their rates of unauthorised absence.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, which is overdue. Will he look again at the inflexibility of the school-leaving age and perhaps link truancy with training? Is he aware that in France, Germany and Italy, youngsters are allowed to leave school and embark on a proper training course or apprenticeship, so long as it is an integral part of education? Is he aware that that would reduce truancy because young hands and minds could get involved with something they know and understand? At the moment, some youngsters who are forced to stay on at school until 16-plus as a minimum, often become the truants who cause the vandalism and troubles in our society.
    Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about our proposals. We want to see a better and earlier vocational training in schools, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend decided in January to allow schools more flexibility over the curriculum from the age of 14 onwards.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of his proposals, which I received yesterday. Is he aware that punitive methods and measures in relation to young truants will not necessarily be effective unless more work is done in looking at how youngsters who are truanting spend their time? I think that he will find, if he talks to his colleagues in the Department of Employment and studies the report on the illegal working of children, that large numbers of young truants are working illegally.
    Mr. Fallon: I know of the hon. Lady's long-standing interest in the matter. If she has any evidence that children are being employed illegally, she should forward it to my Department or to the Department of Employment. I accept that it is not simply a question of punitive measures. We have, under the Children Act 1989, new instruments, such as education supervision orders, which come into

    887
    force later this year, and which I hope local education authorities will consider alongside the increased fines that are proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill.
    Mrs. Gorman: Having taught in secondary schools for 10 years before coming to this place, I am aware that truancy is often linked to tedium. Will my hon. Friend accept that the curriculum is still far too academic as it concentrates on the passing of O-levels and does not contain sufficient in the way of practical subjects to interest children? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that we should consider allowing children to leave school a little younger so that they can obtain the experience of practical work that they desire.
    Mr. Fallon: Hon. Members will agree that children should leave school fitted for the world of work. We want schools to have more flexibility so as to ensure better and earlier vocational training alongside more traditional academic achievements.

    Bradford CTC
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the amount of grant paid in 1990 and 1991 to the most recent practicable date to the city technology college in Bradford.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Total grant aid to the Bradford CTC was £2·9 million in the 1989–90 financial year. For the 1990–91 financial year, the total grant was £4·7 million.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it outrageous that those sums were paid to an elitist private school which is needlessly duplicating the local authority provision, when the total amount of capital expenditure for the whole of the Bradford local education authority in the current year is about £9 million? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that there are expanding rolls in Bradford and that at least £30 million is needed to repair many of Bradford's crumbling schools, to provide permanent extensions and to replace the more than 500 temporary classrooms that are now in use? Are not the Government's priorities typified by J. K. Galbraith's phrase "private affluence and public squalor"?
    Mr. Clarke: I have never heard such nonsense. Capital allocations to local government this year have been increased ahead of inflation. Bradford receives an allocation of £9·4 million for its schools and that sum has not been affected by the further sum that has gone into Bradford to invest in its splendid new city technology college. It is an essential part of effective inner city policy that the extra money provided should not just be spread over every deprived borough in the country, allowing each to carry on doing a little more of what was being done already, but should be invested. The Bradford CTC is a spectacular example of what can be done to provide opportunities for children of all abilities from deprived parts of Bradford, to raise expectations and to bring about new good practice in the education system of Bradford. The subscriptions of parents and the opportunities, which people are seeking, to teach and to be taught in Bradford show that this is a valuable new asset to the city for the education of people from deprived backgrounds that would not have come about without the CTCs.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Bradford CTC is proving extremely popular with teachers and pupils, that there are more than 1,000 applications for 12 teaching posts, and that this year, 660 students applied for 250 places? Is not that proof of the college's success, and is not that what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) detests?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Far more parents want to send their children to city technology colleges than there are places for them. There are also far more children waiting to be taught in them than can be admitted, and the teaching posts are hugely popular and sought after. I know from meeting people who are already teaching in the CTCs of their enthusiasm for, and commitment to, new methods of delivering high technology education, and that is one of the more exciting aspects that I encounter in the course of my job. The opposition of the Labour party to CTCs is unbelievably mean minded and small minded. Its view appears to be that the education system of Bradford should not enjoy a valuable innovation of this kind until every other school can be exactly the same.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities regarding the report on nursery education "Starting with Quality".
    Mr. Eggar: "Starting with Quality" dealt with the educational experiences of the under-fives across various settings. It has been sent to all local education and social services authorities for them to consider how it might be acted on in their areas.
    Mr. McKay: The Minister will have noticed that the report says in its introduction that one of its terms of reference was quality, but that quantity should also be considered. What measures has he taken to ensure that local government has enough finance to carry on expanding nursery provision so that there is a nursery place for the child of every parent who wants one?
    Mr. Eggar: The answer is, a great deal. Over the past 10 years, the number of places available for nursery-age youngsters has increased by 150,000. This year alone we are providing local education authorities with £100 million more than what was spent last year on nursery education.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that universal provision of nursery education cannot be justified on grounds of cost, and that the present variety of provision for pre-school children is largely beneficial to the needs of children today?
    Mr. Eggar: It is certainly difficult to understand how the priorities of educational spending could extend to cover universal nursery education as against some sort of assistance for young people under the age of five either in day care on in pre-school playgroups. The Labour party takes that view as well—at least the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), Opposition spokesman on public expenditure, shares that view. She made that very clear when she held my post about 12 years ago, when she could not find the resources either.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that if the Government were prepared to switch the money that they have so far earmarked for city technology colleges to nursery education, we could have another 20,000 places this year? When will the Government accept their responsibilities, listen to His Royal Highness and recognise that they are responsible for giving our children the best possible start in life?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady has not reached level 1 in maths. Even if the money were diverted from the CTC programme as her party advocates—it would amount to about £15 million a year at most—it would provide only 50 part-time nursery places for every local education authority in the country.
    Mr. Walden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the introduction of sound and structured nursery education by a Conservative Government would be enormously popular with the women of this country who, I believe form an electoral majority? Is he also aware that royal assent for such a measure already exists in that the Prince of Wales recommended it in his speech yesterday? Will my hon. Friend talk——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Three questions are a bit much.
    Mr. Walden: There are many things, Mr. Speaker, of which my hon. Friend should be aware.
    Mr. Speaker: He may be made aware of two. Let us have the answer, please.
    Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for yet again making me aware of his views.

    Further Education
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of local education authorities to discuss the funding of further education.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Funding issues are discussed in many of the meetings which I and my ministerial colleagues have with representatives of local education authorities.
    Mr. Lofthouse: What proposals does the Secretary of State have for the expansion of post-16 education during the next two years? Surely he must agree that there should be some local democratic accountability in this crucial sector.
    Mr. Clarke: We aim to continue the rapid expansion of education and training opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds and my recent announcement about giving further education colleges and sixth-form colleges the same status that the polytechnics have used so successfully in higher education during the past two or three years was aimed at that. Extra resources are already going into that sector. The standard spending assessments for education authorities this year are up by 16 per cent. and inflation will be much lower than that in the forthcoming year. The hon. Gentleman's own excellent Wakefield district college had £2 million invested in it last year.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the removal of polytechnics from local education authorities has been a great success, setting
    890
    them free to develop and enabling many more students to attend a degree-type course? Does he further agree that to give higher and further education colleges the same kind of freedom would enable them to develop likewise and to be a similar success in future?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that giving independent status to polytechnics has proved to be an unmitigated success and they have made a major contribution to expanding the numbers in higher education during recent years. It is on that model that the principals of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges that I have met universally welcomed my proposals. They see the same opportunities for themselves providing a much broader range of opportunities for more young people both of an academic and vocational kind.
    Mr. Fatchett: There will be widespread support for the Secretary of State's acknowledgement of the value of further education. Against that background, why are the Government cutting so substantially resources for youth training, much of which goes on in further education colleges, and why has virtually every Conservative local education authority cut its further education budgets? Why did the Secretary of State not pay one official visit to a further education college before he made his statement on 21 March about the future funding of such colleges?
    Mr. Clarke: It is entirely for local authorities to decide how they use the increased resources that we make available to them, but it cannot be true that widespread cuts are being made in further education when the financial allocations to local authorities have increased by 16 per cent. compared with last year, in a year when inflation is likely to be 5 per cent.—a real growth of more than 10 per cent. If such cuts are being made, there is a substantial switch of resources by some strange local authorities into other things. Our policy is to give higher priority to further education. I do not think that the Opposition will oppose our policy. Further education is now getting more attention and encouragement than it has ever received in the past.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the light of the recent announcement that consideration is being given to ensuring that there is one separate funding body for all the post-school education system in Scotland, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Scottish counterpart, given that that most surely has implications for his Department as well as for Scottish local authorities?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, it does not. I always tell Scottish National party Members that Scotland has a totally devolved system of government and I have no responsibilities for education there apart from those for higher education. I made my announcements in England after discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The construction of funding councils for Scotland is a matter for him and he will take his decisions in the light of Scottish circumstances.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the polytechnics would get the scheme parity that they deserve if they were called universities?
    Mr. Clarke: I am anxiously considering a number of matters relating to the present status of polytechnics and

    891
    universities. At this stage, I can say only that I will take my hon. Friend's opinion very much into account, as I always do.

    Further Education Qualifications
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering regarding the reform of qualifications for post 16-year-olds.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment are considering a number of proposals for improving qualifications for post 16-year-olds. We intend to publish a White Paper shortly, setting out our plans for education and training for the 16 to 19 age group.
    Mr. Patchett: When will the Government sort out the jungle of post-16 qualifications and devise a system that meets the needs of the 1990s?
    Mr. Eggar: The National Council for Vocational Qualifications has made significant progress, but there is still some ground to be made up. We hope to see considerable simplification of the existing vocational system over the next two years. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    Mr. Hannam: In welcoming the progress that has been made, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider in particular the problems that confront disabled students, who often do not reach the necessary standards of levels by the age of 16 and who need special help and attention between the ages of 16 and 19?
    Mr. Eggar: Certainly.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister personally accept the argument that the present academic-vocational divide should be ended in favour of a single system? Does he agree that such a system should apply to those who leave school at 16 and that there should be guaranteed access to it by 17 and 18-year-olds, so that they may achieve nationally recognised qualifications, which may even lead them to a college or university education?
    Mr. Eggar: We certainly need to dispel any idea of an academic-vocational divide, which is not helpful. We also need, as I believe the hon. Gentleman accepts, dramatically to increase the post-16, full-time staying-on rate. The hon. Gentleman's question raises a number of issues to which there are various answers, but I am broadly in agreement with him.

    Reading Methods
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to reform the training of teachers in reading methods; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fallon: We have asked the——
    Mr. Bill Michie: What about my question, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman next.
    Mr. Fallon: We asked the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to conduct an inquiry into how
    892
    students are trained to teach reading, and to advise, before the end of the year, on whether any amendments are needed to the criteria used for course approval and whether further guidance should be given to institutions. My right hon. and learned Friend commissioned that inquiry in response to public concern and in the light of the professional advice received from Her Majesty's inspectorate and others. We see action on teacher training as one of the keys to the problem.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appropriate that education questions should be on the Order Paper today, as it is Shakespeare's birthday? Does he agree also that the Prince of Wales was speaking for millions of parents when he voiced frustration at those educationists whose experiments in the teaching of reading have done so much to fail millions of pupils? Will he ensure that the inquiry that he has just announced is not subverted by those same educationists in his Department, local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate?
    Mr. Fallon: I certainly agree with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Teachers must be taught how to teach reading, which are the most effective methods and, above all, that teaching skills cannot be acquired simply by children browsing through books—as some of the shadowy education experts appear to believe. That is one purpose of the inquiry.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister apologise to the people of this country for the Government's neglect of the teaching of reading in the past 12 years and for their abandonment, in 1988, of the national monitoring of reading standards? Does he accept that the Secretary of State and his predecessors have approved every teacher training course into which they are now launching an inquiry? Is not that a classic case of political buck-passing? Will the Minister and the Government accept responsibility where standards are inadequate and make way for a Labour Government who will put reading standards first?
    Mr. Fallon: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the Dispatch Box to apologise for the incompetent performance of authorities such as the Inner London education authority, which ran schools like Culloden primary school in Tower Hamlets until April last year. This Government have introduced the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, have revised the criteria and have now asked it to conduct an urgent inquiry into the methods of teaching reading.
    Mr. Soames: What conclusion does my hon. Friend draw, and what implications are there for the training of teachers, from the excellent articles that appeared in The Mail on Sunday recently about the failure of teachers properly to teach children at Culloden school to read?
    Mr. Fallon: It was parents who first raised the alarm at Culloden school. However, rather than attacking the messenger, I should have hoped that the head teacher and governors of the school would concentrate on the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate and the finding that, in more than two thirds of the classes in that school, the standards of reading were poor.
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) for misreading my Order Paper.

    Seven-year-olds (Testing)
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions he has made about the publication of the tests of seven-year-olds.
    Mr. Eggar: I expect schools to publish their results this summer. They have certainly been encouraged to do so.
    Mr. Michie: The Secretary of State must be aware of the concern about the publication of crude aggregate figures, which could lead to a false market in schools. Therefore, as I understand it, authorities such as Sheffield will not publish the results this year. Will the Secretary of State rethink the matter and allow local authorities the discretion to decide whether to publish?
    Mr. Eggar: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, parents make judgments about schools on hearsay, on subjective values. Surely it is right that where there are objective assessments of how a school is doing, that information should be in the public domain to enable parents to choose between schools on a better-informed basis.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the publication and provision of tests for seven-year-olds does not necessarily mean that our children are being branded as failures in any way? Will he explain to Opposition Members and others who are providing a misleading impression of Government policy that this is a good policy, that it is right for our young people and that it should not be misrepresented in such a way?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, who has much experience in this area. The purpose of the tests is to assess how children are doing and to identify weaknesses and strengths, so that weaknesses can be remedied and strengths further enhanced.
    Ms. Gordon: Will the Minister explain the connection between the proposals to publish tests of seven-year-old children and the outrageous treatment of Culloden school, which will exacerbate children's problems and not help them? Is that an attempt to stampede parents, who know that the tests for seven-year-olds will be severely damaging to their children's self-image and self-confidence, into supporting them?
    Mr. Eggar: I am extremely surprised at the attitude of the hon. Lady. HMI made an objective assessment of Culloden. I should have thought that it was in her constituents' interests to ensure that that school remedies the defects identified by HMI in a way that will benefit children and parents.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress made in establishing grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have opted for grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: A total of 147 schools have balloted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status. Of
    894
    those, 127 schools have submitted applications and a further 20 applications are awaited. Of the 127 applications, 71 have been approved, 12 have been rejected and 44 have yet to reach me for decision.
    Mr. Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that where applications for grant-maintained status have local merit they will be supported locally, even by Labour councillors in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition?
    However, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a recent decision by his Department has caused great difficulty for secondary schools in Taunton, in view of the imbalance between schools in the north and the south of the town? Will he or one of his ministerial colleagues meet me and representatives of the local education authority to discuss how we may sensibly proceed?
    Mr. Clarke: On the first point, I agree that supporters of grant-maintained status are to be found among governors and head teachers of all political persuasions. With regard to the second point, I know of my hon. Friend's discontent at the recent decision affecting schools in Taunton. The reasons for that decision were given to him. Officials of my Department have met officials of Somerset county council and I had my first meeting with the chairman of the council's education committee yesterday. When I hear the results of the contacts about how we should go forward I shall certainly consider whether I or one of my ministerial colleagues should have the meeting for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that, this very day, the parents of children at Waltham Toll Bar comprehensive school, in my constituency, are completing their ballot papers on the question whether they should seek grant-maintained status? As most grant-maintained schools are 30 per cent. over-subscribed, what advice does my right hon. and learned Friend give to those parents?
    Mr. Clarke: Giving myself rapid legal advice, I must conclude that it would be most inadvisable to suggest how people should vote in the ballot, as an application would come to me for decision. However, I can confirm in general terms what my hon. Friend has said. The existing grant-maintained schools have been a huge success. The best advertisement for grant-maintained status comes from the teachers and parents. Anyone who visits any of these schools will find that it benefits enormously from the ability to control its own affairs.
    Mr. Flannery: Why does not the Secretary of State occasionally talk about reality to the House of Commons? We expect it, but we do not get it. Only about 50 schools—he says 70, but people disagree—have applied for grant-maintained status. There are scores of thousands of schools in the country and virtually none—expressed as a percentage—have asked for grant-maintained status. Why does not the Secretary of State tell us the truth—that this policy is a complete failure?
    Mr. Clarke: The number of schools balloted that are in favour of grant-maintained status has almost doubled during the five months that I have been in the Department. It is obvious that we are about to have a flood of applications. As for reality, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there are not scores of thousands of schools in the

    895
    country; there are just a little over one score of thousands. I expect that, before very long, most of them will have grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in addition to The Times newspaper's description of the opting-out policy as "an evil", the Roman Catholic archbishop. and bishops have described it as "un-Christian"? The Conservative education chairwoman of Bromley education committee, Mrs. Joan Bryant, has resigned in protest at precisely the kind of disruption to local education that has been identified by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). Given that the Conservatives' prediction at the previous election was that 50 per cent. of schools would have opted out by now, whereas less than half of 1 per cent. have done so, why does not the Secretary of State accept that this policy is both educationally and morally bankrupt?
    Mr. Clarke: Pretty silly things are said in local campaigns when ballots are held on grant-maintained status. However, to describe that as evil, un-Christian and morally bankrupt is going a little over the top about a policy that is a huge success in schools that have attained grant-maintained status. The hon. Gentleman frequently advises me to visit more schools. I trust that my diary allows me to d o so without cancellation. I advise him to visit a grant-maintained school and a city technology college, where he will see that his opinions are based on prejudice. He will encounter people who are achieving all the benefits of our very enlightened reforms.

    School Places
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what special arrangements he makes for ensuring that there is sufficient provision of primary and secondary school places in areas under the planning control of urban development corporations.
    Mr. Fallon: It is for local authorities to make proposals to ensure that there are sufficient school places available, whether in urban development areas, or elsewhere. My right hon. and learned Friend always considers proposals for new schools on their merits and in the light of all the relevant information that is available.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that a memorandum that I sent to his colleague shows that in the London borough of Newham, south of the A13, which is an area as big as Earl's Court to Waterloo and Chelsea to the middle of Hyde Park, there is an abundance of primary schools but no secondary schools? As the borough lies within the area of the London Docklands development corporation and as large numbers of people are likely to move there, is not it the Government's responsibility to ensure that there are both primary and secondary schools in the area so that the population of Newham is not prejudiced? Where else in the country do such conditions exist?
    Mr. Fallon: The fact that there is a successful development corporation at work in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as there is in many other areas of the country, has nothing to do with school planning provision in that area. It is a matter for Newham and Newham
    896
    alone. I note that this year Newham has been allocated £8·6 million for capital expenditure on schools, as against £5·6 million last year.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Prime Minister agree that under the proposed council tax the price of protecting the rich will be that the rest of us will have to pay more? Given that the Labour party proposes to protect the interests of retired people, does the Prime Minister believe that someone who lives alone but who has an income of £50,000 or £100,000 a year and owns two properties should or should not be entitled to an automatic 25 per cent. rebate on both properties, when a couple who are struggling just to make ends meet will get no relief at all? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he talks about developing a classless society?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement, setting out the details of our new proposals immediately after Question Time. Whether people live in a large, small or medium-sized property, they will have to pay less under Conservative local government than they do under Labour.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend reflect today on the great respect that there is in my constituency for the way in which he kept his nerve during the local government review and was not pushed into making a premature announcement? Would not it have been wiser for his political opponents to give him the credit for that, particularly as their policies are the result of three years of hand-wringing and head-scratching before they decided to go back to where they started from?
    The Prime Minister: To be fair to the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition did precisely what I did in terms of consulting and waiting before introducing proposals for his own tax. As he wrote in April 1990:
    "We are currently consulting widely with people in local government about our proposals. Our proposals have been planned and tested. Our aim is to get the system right rather than to announce it prematurely."
    That is what we did and we were both correct to do so.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that Mr. Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors was right to say today that this awful recession
    "is a failure of Government economic management"?
    Is not it clear that, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister must bear a special personal burden of guilt?
    The Prime Minister: If the difficulties that the economy faces are solely the result of domestic economic mismanagement, it is an oddity that there are recessions in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland and in many other countries.
    Mr. Kinnock: Last week's figures from the Government showed unemployment soaring and output and productivity collapsing. Today's figures show that imports and exports are wildly out of balance again, with imports rising twice as fast as exports. When all that is the case, is it any wonder that the Institute of Directors, like everyone else, understands very well that this is a recession hand-made in Downing street by the right hon. Gentleman?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to examine the trade figures more carefully, he will find that export volumes are up on last year and import volumes are down.
    Mr. Kinnock: In so far as there is any improvement year on year in the import figures, would it have been any wonder, when the right hon. Gentleman has flattened the economy, that imports should have been falling? Instead of that, imports are rising twice as fast as exports. Why is not the Prime Minister man enough to accept his share of the blame?
    The Prime Minister: What we are flattening is inflation and interest rates; both are falling.
    Mr. Forman: Is not it clear to my right hon. Friend and to the House that interest rates and inflation will fall in the remainder of the year and that it will be possible for economic recovery to come as a consequence? Is not it equally clear that any Government who had a policy of increasing the rates of tax on incomes, without telling the British people exactly what those rates and what that coverage would be, would be both working against the interests of recovery and not levelling with the British public?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As he knows, inflation has fallen by nearly 3 per cent. since October and will show a further dramatic fall again next month. That has paved the way for five interest rate cuts. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this morning, the economic recovery will gather pace in the second half of the year.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister concerned that after 12 years of Conservative Government, one third of our seven-year-olds are still being sold short on the learning of their mother tongue, English? How can he explain that?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made clear on a number of occasions the importance that we attach to the basics in the curriculum—the most important of all being English. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about such matters, perhaps he will offer us his clear and unequivocal support for testing so that we can determine precisely what is happening and improve it.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the cost of the new council tax comes to be analysed per household, all policies should be taken into account? If a policy included the scrapping of any capping on local authority spending or the re-creation of the Greater London council, one thing is clear: it would cost every London household an absolute fortune.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition for local government would lead to a massive and costly disruption.
    898
    The Labour party proposes two upheavals: first, a return to the rates, which would mean massive bills for many people in different parts of the country; and, secondly, ever-rising bills because Labour refuses to cap spendthrift councils.
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Employment that there needs to be yet another job creation scheme to massage the figures before the next general election, or will he side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wants nothing to do with it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would know, if he studied these matters, that we now have in place in this country the largest training programmes that we have ever had.
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves: The Prime Minister will be aware from his visit to my constituency last week how much my constituents appreciate the community charge reduction scheme. Many couples benefit to the tune of £500, while families of three benefit to the tune of £800. Does he understand the anger of my constituents at the Labour party's action last Wednesday in trying to scrap the community charge reduction scheme?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly understand that. I think that anybody would be extremely angry indeed not only at the Labour party's plans for that, but on examining the details of what it proposes to replace the community charge with.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today that, despite the desperate need to improve his electoral chances at the next election, he will not be extending his safe-haven policy to representatives of other small, distant minorities, such as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?
    The Prime Minister: I am at the moment fully occupied with dealing with safe havens in Iraq.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the widespread calls for Britain to adopt an industrial strategy, has my right hon. Friend ever met anyone who would like to go back to the days when we last had an industrial strategy, when British Airways was rated by passengers below Aeroflot, when British Steel was the world's largest loss-maker and when British Leyland was the butt of international jokes?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, as my hon. Friend intimates, I have never met anyone sensible who wished to return to such a process. But, of course, Opposition Members have policies remarkably like that, with the return of quangos, enterprise banks and all the nastiness of the 1970s.
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Now that the Prime Minister and the Government have recognised the unfairness of the payment of 20 per cent. of the poll tax by the poorest people in the country, why does not he act now and abolish the 20 per cent. payment? Why is he planning to continue the misery and suffering of thousands of poorer families for a further two years?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would be better employed asking his own leader why he should wish to abandon the community charge reduction scheme.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is surprising to hear the Leader of the Opposition praying in his support the chairman of British Petroleum, who spoke against the Government today, bearing in mind the fact that much of the inflation has been caused by petrol companies putting up prices more than they should and paying themselves more than they should? What lead is that and what example is that for the Leader of the Opposition to give to the rest of the country?
    The Prime Minister: The statement by the chairman of British Petroleum was certainly odd in that respect, although he did make the very wise statement that pay settlements are often too high, that the labour market remains riddled with imperfections and that while it remains so riddled it is prevented from working properly.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martlew: The Prime Minister, when being interviewed last week by Brian Walden on television, said that some of the principles of the poll tax need to be enshrined. Does the Prime Minister still stick with that statement, or is he going to change his mind again?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has just invented a new definition of impatience. He need wait but a matter of minutes and he will know.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no Government under his leadership will ever introduce a national minimum wage? Will he confirm that such a policy would destroy jobs and massively increase unemployment, as well as wipe out the system of apprenticeships?
    The Prime Minister: I can most certainly confirm all those matters. The estimate of the Department of Employment officials is that a minimum wage would cost between 750,000 and 1 million jobs.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: As the original poll tax was the beloved flagship of the Prime Minister's predecessor, is it surprising that some of the more ardent supporters of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) believe that the Government are betraying the true faith of Thatcherism again today? Is not it understandable that the right hon. Lady is pretty cross about the record of the Government since she left office?
    The Prime Minister: I have never seen the hon. Gentleman as someone who could adequately reflect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that parts of the country such as Bristol would benefit from being unitary authorities and that the Government have no intention of following the Labour party lead and imposing regional authorities, which would mean just another tier of local government?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will also cover such matters in his statement shortly.
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has a real problem in his Cabinet—a truant? What action is he prepared to take about the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, during his period in the Department, has spent less than one working day in state schools?
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Lady sees the full range of proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has prepared for education she, like everyone else, will be bound to applaud them.
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Currie: Does the Prime Minister agree that the most significant aspect of local government finance is how much is raised and what the money is spent on? Does my right hon. Friend have a view on the proposal of the leader of Derbyshire county council and of some Members of the House that there should be no controls on council spending? Does he agree that that would lead to huge increases in bills under such councils?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have to be controls over levels of local authority expenditure, for two reasons—first, to protect community charge payers and ratepayers and, secondly, in the interests of the wider economy.

Local Government Review (England)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about two consultation papers that the Government are publishing today—on the structure of local government in England, and on our proposal for a new council tax to replace the community charge.
The consultation paper on local government structure builds upon the announcement that I made on 21 March. As I made clear then, the Government intend no significant changes in the structure of local government in London or the metropolitan areas. In the remainder of England today, services are provided both by county councils and by district councils.
The Government believe that this structure of two tiers needs to be re-examined for the following reasons. First, unitary authorities are more clearly responsible for the delivery of services, and more clearly accountable for the bill local people are expected to pay. Secondly, two tiers may lead to excessive bureaucracy and duplication of effort. Thirdly, the Government are committed to developing the concept of enabling authorities. Councils will increasingly be able to take advantage of competition between those seeking to provide a service. It is therefore less important today to insist on councils of a particular size. Fourthly, the Government intend to increase the momentum of their existing policies to enable decision-making and responsibility to be more directly in the hands of the people. Fifthly, the present structures of local government do not win universal favour with local people, who have their own ideas about what sort of structure would best reflect local loyalties and communities.
We therefore propose to establish a body to draw up recommendations——
Hon. Members: A quango.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House and the country have been waiting for this statement. Let us hear it in silence.
Mr. Heseltine: We therefore propose to establish a body to draw up recommendations for improving the structure of local government area by area, taking account of local views and the costs and benefits of the change. The proposed local government commission would consult on its recommendations and submit them to the Secretary of State. Final decisions would rest with Parliament.
The Government do not intend that either county or district councils should be abolished wholesale. In some places, it may be best for existing authorities to be merged; in others, the best approach may be to create or re-create quite different authorities. In some areas, there may continue to be two tiers. In all cases, the Government will expect a proper regard for economy and effectiveness of service delivery to feature in any new arrangements. The consultation paper maps out how this process would work and invites views.
The second paper sets out the details of the council tax with which the Government intend to replace the community charge. Subject to consultations, that will be in 1993. The House will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget announced a significant reduction in the amount of local tax revenue, to a level that the Government believed should be maintained in the longer
902
term. In consequence, the new tax will need to raise less than either the rates during their last years or the community charge during its first. So average bills can be substantially lower than the last average rates bills or the average community charges paid last year.
The council tax will have a property and a personal element. Each household will receive a single bill on the assumption that it consists of two people. Households with only one adult will be entitled to a 25 per cent. personal discount. This means that 90 per cent. of all adults will be taken into account in household bills. It is therefore not the Government's intention to provide for supplements for households with more than two adults. There will be no need for a register of council tax payers.
As each household will receive only one bill, the tax will be easy to administer. The amount of council tax payable will vary according to the value of the property but will vary only within a limited range. Properties in England will each be allocated to one of seven bands. There will be no need for precise valuations of every house or flat, nor need there be regular general revaluations. People in the lowest property band of property will pay about two thirds of those in a property in the middle band in the area. Those in a highest band property will pay about two thirds more than those in the middle band in the area. This means that a household in a highest band property will pay about two and half times as much as those in the lowest band. We shall avoid the very high bills which discredited the rates.
Each year the Government will announce for each band the amount of council tax necessary for a council to provide a reasonable level of service. The grant mechanism will remain broadly unchanged. This year, a council that spent reasonably would have charged a household of two or more people in a top band property no more than £668, and such a household in a lowest band home no more than £267. This year, households with one adult would have paid no more than £501 in the top band and no more than £200 in the lowest band.
People on low incomes will receive rebates in addition to any discount to which they are entitled. there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. The maximum rebate for those at the income support level will be 100 per cent. Students, student nurses, apprentices and youth training trainees will be automatically entitled to personal discounts.
The council tax payable will relate to how much the council spends. Where councils spend more, all households will have to pay more. The same percentage increase will apply to all household bills. Similarly, the benefit of low spending will be passed through to all council tax payers.
The Government will restrain increases in local authority spending through capping. The threat of capping has been effective this year and we shall ensure that we have the powers appropriate to the new tax.
We shall ensure that no one faces an unreasonable increase in their bill between one year and the next as we change to the new system by the use of appropriate transitional relief.
Following the conclusion of our consultations in mid-June it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to give effect to their conclusions in the next Session of Parliament.

903
Copies of the consultation documents and examples of council tax bills are available in the Vote Office and are being sent to all local authorities and their associations today.
The council tax will be simple and cheap to collect. It will require less of single adults than larger households. It will not impose excessive demands on any household. It will make a clear connection between what councils spend and what people pay. It will be seen to be fair.
I commend these proposals to the House and the country.
Mr. Bryan Gould: It still seems that the hardest word for the Government to say is "Sorry". Is it not remarkable that we have still not had a single word of apology from the Government for the billions of pounds that they have wasted, the chaos and confusion that they have inflicted, and the misery that they have caused to millions of people?
The Secretary of State's statement is, of course, an implicit admission that a disastrous mistake has been made. The pity of it is that the Government have not the guts to make a proper job of correcting that mistake. The party that brought us the head tax now offers us what it wants us to believe is a "stand on your head" tax. Whether it is heads or tails, the people remain the losers.
Some lessons have been learnt. On structure, the Government appear to be offering genuine consultation in contrast to the gimmickry that they offered on poll tax replacement. Provided that we are satisfied that there will be no political gerrymandering, that the appointments to the commission will be free from political bias and that no new attempts at undermining local government will be made, we intend to make a positive response to the Government's proposals on the subject.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the poll tax have not been learnt. The new proposals may have flown the poll tax nest, but they are still the product of a disreputable union between the poll tax and political panic—a sort of mongrel tax which inherits the worst features of both its parents. Is it not clear that the people will want to know whether the proposal will be as fast, as fair or as simple as the fair rates proposal which we have put forward and which every opinion poll shows to be at least twice as popular as any other proposal?
Is not today's announcement a guarantee that, with a Tory Government, the poll tax will stay until at least 1993 and until well beyond that date, according to the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors? Is not the Secretary of State telling us in other words not that the poll tax will go but that it will stay? Why did not the Government take up our offer of co-operation on a short Bill, the Poll Tax (Abolition) Bill, which would ensure—[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Gould: Why did not the Government take up our offer of a Poll Tax (Abolition) Bill which would ensure that this year's poll tax bills will be the last? Why should people, for at least another two or three years, have to put up with all the unfairness and unworkability of the poll tax and with a local tax which, according to Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is £140 per household higher than it need be?
904
Why has not the Prime Minister learned that the unfairness of the poll tax made it so hated? Why are the Government at it again, skewing their new proposals so that the richest are protected from paying their fair share? Do not they realise that every pound that the rich do not pay will be added to someone else's bill—the bills of precisely the same people who were so hard hit by the poll tax? Why does the remaining element of a head tax, which counts for much of the total bill, still bear no relation to the ability to pay? It is the discredited poll tax principle all over again.
Why should a single millionaire get 25 per cent. off his bill while families or pensioner couples struggling on a low income must pay the full whack? How will the number of people in a household be confirmed if not by reference to the electoral register? Will not that mean an invitation to many people to trade their vote for the sake of a 25 per cent. reduction in their bill? What will be done about the "John Major problem"—the person who registers at one address but lives at another, perhaps more highly valued, property?
Why have the Government opted for an untried and excessively complicated new scheme based, I assume, on capital values? Incidentally, will the Secretary of State confirm that we are talking about capital values? If not, what is he talking about? What reliance can be placed on the Government's figures which, as no new capital valuation has been carried out anywhere, are totally invented and therefore arbitrary and misleading? Do the figures come from the same computers that assured us, less than two years ago, that the poll tax would average only £176? Will not the seven bands—no doubt reflecting the seven strands of opinion in the Cabinet—mean endless appeals and a disincentive to home improvement?
Does the Secretary of State recall the scorn that was poured on a property tax based on capital values by virtually all his Cabinet colleagues? How many of them does he now expect to resign? Does he recollect his predecessor, now the Tory chairman, describing his proposal as "a rottweiler's breakfast"? Were his colleagues being honest then, or are they being honest now? Does he remember saying that the more the Government considered a single person discount,
"the more we became convinced that it helps significantly the better-off"?
Does he still hold that view, or is this another example of the celebrated Heseltine flip—or should it be flop? How long can he expect such flip-flopping to carry credibility?
How many of his colleagues does the Secretary of State expect to support the new tax in the Division Lobbies? How many of them will claim that this is the end of the poll tax and applaud it, and how many will condemn it on the same grounds? How many will claim, with equal vehemence—especially in Scotland—that the essentials of the poll tax have been retained? Which way does he expect the Prime Minister to jump on that issue—not so much the Heseltine flop as the John Major straddle?
Have not the Government, once again, failed to disentangle themselves from the poll tax? Are we not still paying the price of a Government who are too weak and too divided to summon enough nerve to kill it off? Even now, after 12 years and £14 billion, with a poll tax that costs the taxpayer £18 million per day, all we are offered is a consultation paper.

905
The consultation that will really matter will take place on 2 May and at the general election, when voters will express their determination to kill off this Tory tax once and for all by electing a Labour Government.
Mr. Heseltine: Yesterday, the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), said that the Labour Government would repeal our proposals. Today we have been told by the Opposition's Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), that they will adopt a constructive approach to them. If we have heard the constructive approach, I would rather have the old-fashioned opposition. When I listened to the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Government should apologise for our new proposals, when he speaks on behalf of a party that is committed to returning to the rates, which were described by the Leader of the Opposition as the "most unjust" of all taxes, I found it mind-blowing.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the issue of capital values has been invented. In fact, it came from the valuation officers. They are the people who would be involved with any revaluation of any sort, whether under the hon. Gentleman's proposals or under ours. The hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] These valuations were provided to my Department by the valuation office of the Inland Revenue, and that is the only basis upon which any Government could carry out a proper assessment. I am asked by the hon. Gentleman whether they would be working to capital values in relation to the property element, and the answer is yes. That is a simple answer.
It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman that our system was complicated. If the House refers to the Labour party's document entitled "Fair Rates", it will discover that its method of valuing properties is based on building costs, repair costs, rental values and capital values. And then there are personal discounts. That is precisely a formula for complication.
When we consider the certainty of the proposals that we are putting to the House, the Opposition fail by that test. They are not offering us an alternative. Instead, they are offering us an alternative next year of a return to the rates. That will be followed by another upheaval by moving to another tax in the following year. They cannot give any indication whatsover of what that tax will be. If anyone had any doubts about the wisdom of what the Government are doing, they will have none after listening to the hon. Gentleman.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House heard the Secretary of State for the Environment say that he has announced a consultation document, and I have no doubt that we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss it between now and June—[Interruption.] Order. I must take into account the fact that there are two more statements to be made before we consider the Ports Bill, to which 18 groups of amendments have been tabled, which will be followed by consideration of a training levy order. I shall allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.30 pm. We shall then move on to the Welsh statement, and after that the Scottish statement.
Sir Norman Fowler: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? Is he aware that the reaction from the Labour party demonstrates that its fox has been shot? Will he remember that one of the things that helped to ditch the community charge was the level at which that charge was introduced? Therefore, the public will welcome his assurance that the charges will be introduced at the level that he has set out to the House.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. The House will understand that the figures that I have introduced are based upon this year's budgets, as adjusted for the different costs of collection, and percentage of collection, to bring us into line broadly with the sort of calculations that the Labour party has been parading. I believe our figures to be accurate and consistent with CIPFA, whereas the Labour party's figures are not. Indeed, they have been disowned significantly by CIPFA during the past few days.
We are determined that levels of expenditure are kept under control by tight capping regimes. Right hon. and hon. Members will want to view with suspicion any calculations of the Labour party, because the Labour party will remove any constraints on the expenditure and conditions of local government.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweeed): Is it not clear that what the Secretary of State has produced is not son of poll tax but son of rates, preserving many of the faults of the rating system while not being based firmly on ability to pay, as a local income tax would have been? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a relatively low earning couple will find themselves paying the same as a four-earner family next door? Why has he tilted the system to ensure that the very rich pay very little more than those on low incomes? Will people be able to appeal if they believe that their property has been placed in the wrong band, and how many appeals does the right hon. Gentleman expect? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the poll tax will be with us until at least March 1993? What will next year's poll tax bills be like?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that when we brought about the substantial reductions in the headline charge and introduced the community charge reduction scheme, the Chancellor said that we intended to preserve the new balance broadly struck between what was raised locally and financed centrally. I do not expect there to be a significant number of appeals—although, of course, the procedures will provide for appeals—because we shall be talking about a banding system, and I do not think that many people will wish to query the bands in which they find themselves—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that our system has been designed to constrain the level of charges at the upper end.
We must take into account the fact that in the present circumstances, where certain authorities in this country are quite uninterested in any concepts of fairness, the Government have a responsibility to be sure that no one is expected to pay a disproportionate charge as a result of high-spending authorities.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for confirming the Government's commitment to a system of financing local councils that people will recognise as being simple to administer, easy to

907
understand and fair in its application, in contrast to a Liberal policy that would cost at least 3p on everyone's income tax and a Labour policy the cost of which the Leader of the Opposition either does not know or dare not reveal.
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the proposals of the Liberal party, across the country on average, for every £10,000 of taxable income, the taxed person would pay £330 towards the local services, and that would be extremely punitive at certain levels of income.
Mr. John Fraser: Since the element in the expenditure of local authorities which is paid for by central Government and the uniform business rate will remain the same, will not the new system mean that there will be vast variations in the council tax between one local authority area and another, the multiplier effect meaning, in effect, that if local government expenditure is increased by about 1 per cent., the rates bill—or whatever one might care to call it—will then go up by about 6 per cent.?
Mr. Heseltine: There will, of course, be variations, because it is the Government's intention that, where local authorities indulge in high spending, the consequences of the excess spending fall on the local council tax payers. Equally, where local authorities spend reasonably, or underspend, the benefits will flow through to their local council taxpayers.
When right hon. and hon. Members have had an opportunity to examine the exemplifications, they will see that that principle is followed through and that in certain areas—for example, Wandsworth and Westminster—very low charges are possible as a result of the arrangements that we have made, whereas, on the other hand, in certain authorities, significantly higher charges flow from the decisions of the local authority.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate the Secretary of State warmly on retaining the keynote features of the community charge in the new council tax— fairness and accountability—and I am confident that the new tax will be widely honoured. 'Will he remind the public that, while he is accepting consultation with members of Her Majesty's Opposition, so far they have been able to offer the electorate only a pot of fool's gold?
Mr. Heseltine: I strongly support my hon. Friend's view. The incidence of people to homes in this country show that a very high proportion of people come within a local tax, assuming two persons per household. About 38 million out of 42 million will broadly come within the incidence of our proposals, and many of the people in the remaining category will have been left out as a result of the arrangements that we have announced.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reaction of his hon. Friends today is similar to their reaction when the poll tax was introduced? It will be interesting to note the situation in a year from now.
A terraced house on the periphery of my constituency is worth, say £40,000. A similar property in the city centre is worth £130,000 or £140,000. Will both be in the same band?
Mr. Heseltine: They would not: they would be in bands some way apart to reflect those figures, because it is to be presumed that people living in a property worth £40,000 are likely to have a lower income than people living in a property worth £120,000.
Mr. Nigel Lawson: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Lawson.
Mr. Lawson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that, if there is to be a local tax at all, it should be a property tax based on capital values—that is clearly the right answer—but is he aware of the widespread relief that there will be throughout the country both that the Government have had the courage and common sense to consign the poll tax to oblivion, and that they have come to a firm decision as to the nature of its replacement?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose views on this matter are very close to my own.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman said not a word about the special problems and needs of people with severe disabilities. Will he be restoring to them the benefits of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 so that they will no longer be penalised if they require a larger house or an extra room?
Mr. Heseltine: Yes, I can confirm that.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the boundaries of the economic regions are reviewed, because they are the basis on which housing investment programme payments and transport supplementary grants are made initially, and they have never been set by the Boundary Commission for England or pursuant to any criterion laid down in any Act of Parliament—or even in a statutory instrument?
Mr. Heseltine: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. When he looks at the exemplifications of our figures he will find that the concept of a national band works perfectly acceptably. I shall look into the matter of the boundaries of economic regions and write to my hon. Friend about it, although I do not think that it relates to this matter.
Mr. William Ross: I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and I thought that I heard him talk about structure and finance, but not a single word did he utter about the functions of local government or about how major functions such as the police and education will be funded. Will they be covered in the review?
Mr. Heseltine: Yes, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The consultation document lists the existing functions in the various tiers of local government and states that we are working on the assumption of those functions being as they now are, or of changes clearly envisaged in Government plans. I also referred in my statement to the idea of the enabling authority which has significant implications for function delivery; but it is for my various colleagues in the Government to announce any changes relating to their functions from time to time.
Mr. Paul Channon: Apart from the welcome announcement that my right hon. Friend has made about the council tax, and in particular about its level, which will be most acceptable, will he say a little more about proposals for changes in local government structure, which will be widely welcomed? When does he think that changes in the area,s about which there is not a great deal of controversy will take place on the ground?
Mr. Heseltine: The Government are going to proceed area by area. I hope that the first of the new authorities will come into existence in April 1994. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. We shall be looking at the matter area by area, and we expect a disparate pattern to emerge in the light of local circumstances.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Given that the Secretary of State has said today that the poll tax is dead, but not until 1993, how will he answer those with suspicious minds who will say that this has more to do with the pre-election strategy of the Tory party than with serious policy? He introduced a Bill to reduce this year's poll tax bills by £140 and his colleagues brought in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, so why does not he bring in a Bill today to abolish the poll tax?
What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the fact that, by all estimates, 18 million people have not paid all last year's poll tax and many of them have not paid any of it? Why has he said nothing today about the court cases, the bailiffs and the prison sentences? If he thinks that the poll tax battle is over, he ain't seen nothing yet.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is a living example of why his party has thrived so long in opposition and will continue to do so. It is precisely that sort of attitude which reflects so clearly in the judgments that we have to make about the way in which Labour authorities behave. The hon. Gentleman asks about pre-election announcements. The Conservative party is quite keen on winning elections. I know that the Labour party does not expect to.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his new proposals contain a transitional relief scheme to help the introduction of the new system, discounts for single people living alone and a capping mechanism to stop the worst excesses of the loony left? Is he aware that none of those advantages figures in the Labour party's proposals, which shows that it still does not understand how to finance local government?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall have discounts and exemptions to deal with those people whom I have listed. We are determined to intensify the capping regimes to bring down local expenditure and, therefore, local council taxes. We certainly will have a transitional relief scheme, but I am in something of a difficulty, when it comes to the Labour party's proposals, because its published documents say that it will have a transitional relief scheme, but its chief spokesman says that it will not.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that banding simplifies administration but it involves an element of rough justice because the amount to be paid depends on the property band in which one's home is placed? Will he therefore reconsider his suggestion
910
that not many people would seek to appeal against the banding, particularly if there is to be no individual valuation of properties?
Mr. Heseltine: No, I think that, when hon. Members have had a chance to look, they will find that the difference between the bands means that people will be unlikely in large measure to seek to take advantage of an appeal procedure. But I do not wish to make an issue of that. The procedure will be there, and people will be fully entitled to make use of it.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his new proposals, on which he and the Government should be congratulated, will immediately produce a situation that will be broadly seen as fairer than the community charge and the rating system, and levels of payment which are broadly acceptable? Can he confirm that future house values will be based on current values rather than on rebuilding costs? If so, is he aware that that will ensure that older, traditionally built houses will not be clobbered merely because they have immense rebuilding costs?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I agree that the tax will be seen as fair and acceptable. I can confirm that under our announcements there will be no reflection of the rebuilding costs in the valuations. The property element will be based on capital values. At the same time, it must be made clear that one of the complications of the Labour party's scheme, as I understand it—I confess to a certain rudimentary knowledge of that—is that it will have rebuilding and repair costs and property and rental values all in one package, if that can be believed.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that we will now see an end to the nonsense of Westminster and Wandsworth receiving massive bribes and handouts while Bassetlaw district council in my constituency never received one penny in rate support grant for 10 years and, morever, lost the high rates that it used to get from the pits and power stations? Will we now see an end to that unfair system, so that all councils have handouts that bear some relation to their needs?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman only has to look at the disposition of grants to inner-London authorities to realise that neighbouring Labour councils receive significantly more than Wandsworth. The result is that Wandsworth and Westminster, by prudent housekeeping——
Mr. Ashton: What does that have to do with it?
Mr. Heseltine: Because I was asked about the distribution of grant, as though that is something which is totally reflected within the level of charges—it is not. The hon. Gentleman will discover that it is not just grant distribution that influences charges but local authority spending decisions. That will be seen in exemplifications across the country. I confess that I do not have before me the figures for Bassetlaw, but I shall be surprised if the situation is as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Nevertheless, I will write to him.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his welcome

911
statement. For most people, the important thing will be the bottom line. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in rural areas such as Devon, the majority of households will pay less under his new scheme than they would under the old rating scheme, if it had been uprated from 1973 to 1993?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, of course, is right in realising that the big switch made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Budget brings about a result broadly on the lines that he suggests. Council taxpayers in Devon, for example will benefit significantly from the fact that their county council is within 0·1 per cent. of the level of reasonable spend.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the very real problems confronting excellent city councils such as Leicester, which are struggling desperately to provide worthy services to their citizens under the weight of the chaos caused by the poll tax? Does he accept that that chaos will inevitably continue for at least two more years? What transitional relief does he propose, if any, to allow councils to do their job of serving their citizens in their areas?
Mr. Heseltine: Leicester would probably do better if it had kept down its community charge, and went on to keep its local tax down.
Mr. Janner: But there would be no services.
Mr. Heseltine: It is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman making that argument, because Conservative authorities all over the country are providing services that are more than adequate, at very much lower levels of cost.
Mr. James Cran: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents are delighted at the opportunity that he is giving them to get rid of Humberside county council. As it has, in a sense, already been got rid of by a Boundary Commission report, should not that consideration be put at the top of the list to be drawn up by my right hon. Friend's new commission? My right hon. Friend will be aware also that my council is concerned about revenue support grant. Will he confirm that it is not set in ferroconcrete, and that he is prepared to consider further representations?
Mr. Heseltine: As to the grant distribution system, broadly speaking, we do not intend to change it—but we always listen carefully to representations about standard spending assessments. Switching SSAs in the direction of one authority invariably means that other authorities lose out, with consequent complaints. The Humberside issue has been proceeding along its own track and the Government have no intention of intervening to change the process that is at work.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of all right hon. and hon. Members, I ask for single questions, as that will be fairer.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State is contrite about the 20 per cent. minimum community charge, and says that it will go under his new council tax. Why has he failed to bring a measure before the House to
912
abolish that charge from this year's poll tax, and from last year's and next year's poll tax? Unless he does so, people will continue to run up huge debts.
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to that aspect. The hon. Gentleman will he Cully aware that the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, and by myself in later statements, are of significant help to people on lower incomes.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the appalling record of the London borough of Lambeth, which never collected all its rates or community charge. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend's Department published figures showing that £30 million of Lambeth's community charge remains uncollected this year. Does my right hon. Friend believe that his new council tax will be collected by Lambeth, or is it a Labour council out of control?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised a most interesting question, because it so happened that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) revealed the inadequacy of Lambeth's delivery in the matter of collecting its bills, and made it absolutely clear that it has nothing to do with the community charge. What it was about was the inadequate management of that authority. The fact of the matter is that Lambeth is owed £28·9 million in respect of rents, £28 million in domestic rates and £13·7 million in business rates. Anyone who wants to understand why Lambeth is responsible for charging people what is inevitably a high community charge, should have regard to its inability to collect the revenue to which it is entitled. Perhaps it is a chilling example of the concern that we have about Labour authorities that the Labour party has now been driven to the point where it has sacked the significant leaders of Lambeth council.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: When the Government introduced the poll tax, they told us that it was done to extend democracy and introduce accountability, that it would be based on fairness and that it would be easy to collect. It was introduced with a chorus of support from the Government Benches. Now they tell us, after a £14 billion mistake and waste of money, that they will introduce another tax that will be fair, accountable, democratic and simple. Why should the electorate believe in the judgment of the Government? They know that this is an election ploy for a Government who will be defeated.
Mr. Heseltine: I was extremely interested in the hon. Lady's references to extending democracy, as she speaks for a party that has sacked the Labour deputy of Wirral council, and Labour councillors in Liverpool and Lambeth. If that is not curtailing democracy, I do not know what is.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept thanks from my constituents who live in low-rated houses and, because many of them are single households, also thanks from those who will be relieved about the 25 per cent. reduction on single households? Will he also accept our grateful relief that he is capping Lancashire?
Mr. Speaker: One question please, Dame Elaine.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I missed one earlier.
Mr. Speaker: Bad luck, but only one question now please.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the county council——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Lady that this is hardly fair to her colleagues.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the county council be capped?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has drawn my attention today and earlier to the overspending practices of Lancashire county council, which must be of considerable concern to her and to many people who live in her constituency. I appreciate her comments about the help that we have brought to people who live in low-rated houses. Certainly, we have introduced a community charge reduction scheme which will be of considerable benefit this year and we very much welcome the opportunity to extend the principle that people should be personally involved in this process by introducing the 25 per cent. discount.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State agree that the public humiliation that the Government have suffered over poll tax is well deserved, in view of the fact that the Conservative party allowed common sense to be overridden by party political ideology? More important, many thousands of people in my constituency are having to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax or more, although they are very poor and can ill afford to do so. In view of that, why does not he introduce legislation to stop it now, before we have another two years of asking people for money that they do not have?
Mr. Heseltine: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that we are now discussing arrangements for the new tax for 1993, and I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that we have removed the minimum contribution.
Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend deserves the widespread congratulations that he has received this afternoon and that he will undoubtedly get during the next few weeks. Can I ask him to be on his guard lest the country at large considers that it has broadly two property taxes with no difference? Will he underline the three threats to widows, spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the fact that the valuation basis of the Labour party's proposals means there will have to be four separate values every year?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's question and I hope that the Labour party will now take the trouble to spell out the implications of the figures involved in its new tax—not the one-year resting point on the old rates, but what it intends in the longer term.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State, when deciding the terms of reference for the reconstruction of local government, including the financing of services, take into consideration the fact that the standard spending assessment has worked unfairly against some authorities? Will he consider whether there should be equalisation in the future?
On the tax itself——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Just that one question, please, in fairness to other Members.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will read with interest what the consultative document says about parishes, and we shall undoubtedly hear his views, along with those of everybody else. I cannot add to what I said a few moments ago about standard spending assessments. We look at these matters constantly. In any system of distributing Government grants, SSAs have always given rise to controversy.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, according to our interpretation, the word "fair" implies the protection of people from the excesses of high-spending councils? In contrast, the Labour party, with its so-called fair rates, would go back to the bad old days of no protection, when councils could spend exactly what they liked, with no control whatsoever and no protection for single people.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the Labour party's proposals is that the party cannot give any details whatsoever about them. Even worse, the Opposition would incite local authorities to continue the upward spiral of expenditure, with devastating consequences for some of the least privileged people in our society.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that finance from national taxes will be made available in sufficient quantities to hold local taxation permanently at the new level he proposes?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the chance to repeat that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought about a new balance between local taxation and central taxation, he made it clear that the Government intended to maintain that balance.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the majority of the residents of the borough of Macclesfield will warmly welcome a majority of the proposals that have been announced by my right hon. Friend today. I say so as those people live in a borough whose authority underspent SSA by 11·3 per cent. My question is a direct one, and concerns the future structure of local government. Does my right hon. Friend think it fair that Cheshire county council, which produced a figure that only just prevented it from being capped, and which is controlled by Labour with support from the Liberal Democrats, should be allowed to allocate £100,000 of hard-pressed ratepayers' and community charge payers' money for the purpose of defending itself against what the people may wish to do in the future with regard to a unitary or all-purpose authority at district or borough level?
Mr. Heseltine: Obviously I cannot prejudge any decisions about the way in which unitary authorities might operate in Cheshire. However, the commission is unlikely to be influenced by public relations campaigns involving high expenditure. It will want to give people a much fairer chance against the big battalions and bureaucracy.
Mr. Max Madden: As the poll tax is now universally seen as one of the most expensive political

915
fiascos in British political history, as well as being divisive and unpopular, will the Secretary of State do something to help the poorest this year and next year by bringing forward his proposals to cancel the minimum charge, by cancelling the 20 per cent., and by introducing a more generous rebate system? Does he realise that there would be Opposition support for an arrangement to rush legislation through the House to give real help now to the poorest people?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the minimum contribution by the poorest people carries with it an uprating of social security benefits to enable them to make payments broadly in line with the 20 per cent. We are talking today about the system that is to be introduced in 1993—not about arrangements for the years between now and then.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Given that my right hon. Friend is dealing with valuations in broad classifications, may I ask him whether he addressed the problem of the injustice of tax on home improvements, which was a feature of the old rating system, and would presumably be a feature of the Labour party's proposed system? Can I give my constituents an assurance that anyone who installs central heating or double glazing will not have to pay an extra tax, as under the old system?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We do not envisage that to improve or change one's home would cause a house to move from one band to another.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I say to the Secretary of State that, just like the lettered number plate, this approach is very divisive and invites the worst form of coarse and vulgar consumerism? Can he imagine what will happen in two or three years' time when there are band A, band B and band G properties, with people wanting to indicate their social mobility by moving up bands? Does he not think that that is divisive?
Mr. Heseltine: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is fair to say that the Labour party's "Fair Rates" document also referred to a banding concept. We have not suddenly introduced a new concept. The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the effects of adopting the simple system that we have proposed.
Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will come as very good news to the many thousands of my constituents who live in small, old terraced properties, who formerly paid low rates and who were very badly hurt by the community charge?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. When people have considered and understand the exemptions, I believe that those who feel that in recent times they have paid more than they ought to pay will be reassured.
Mr. Eric Illsley: The Secretary of State's powers of capping will affect local authority budgets, which are based on standard spending assessments. Last year, in the coming year and in years to come, they will be based on 1981 census data. Will he confirm that the standard spending assessments are to be retained under the new system, and that therefore all the
916
charge-capping problems will remain? Authorities such as mine will therefore not receive adequate grant support to reflect their social and economic needs.
Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's authority has been capped. The standard spending assessment system will be part of any mechanism for distributing central Government grant. Whether it is called the grant-related expenditure assessment, the standard spending assessment or the needs element, it will be there and will always create controversy. Each local authority will want more. The problem is that it will not be prepared to recognise that that is the position of every local authority.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he assure my constituents who, under the old rating system, suffered increases under a Labour-controlled council of up to 42 per cent. in one year, that that will be impossible under his proposals?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall look closely every year at the Government's proposals for capping arrangements. We intend to bear down on high-spending authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with a general answer today, since we have not yet begun to consider the rules that will apply next year.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Secretary of State will be aware that his statement will meet with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people of this country, since it does not address the problem that has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends: the fact that local authorities ought to receive what they require to meet their needs. Poverty, high unemployment and poor services in many of our cities will not be remedied by his statement. He will not con the people.
Mr. Heseltine: By and large, people have come to understand that Liverpool's problems were not created by the grant distribution mechanism. If that statement needs any reinforcement, the Opposition would not have needed to sack councillors standing in the name of the Labour party and to replace them with councillors who can do the job better.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme suffering of the people of Ealing, including students, nurses and others, in 1987 when the then Labour council increased the rates by 65 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend's proposals lead to discounts for student nurses and apprentices? Will they pay something, or will they pay nothing?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the transfer of control of Ealing to a Conservative administration was like a great light coming over the horizon and I am grateful to have the opportunity to pay tribute to that. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that, under the new arrangements, students, YT trainees, apprentices and student nurses will qualify for personal discounts.
Mr. Michael Carr: Although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's consultation proposals on the structure of local government, can he give an assurance that any local authority structure that emerges will not ignore the special needs of rural areas?
Mr. Heseltine: That is a very interesting point, and it is one of the reasons why we have referred in the consultative document to the possibility of different patterns of authorities emerging. It is also one of the reasons why we have referred to the potential role of parishes.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his speech today—the content, the delivery and everything about it—in comparison with that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), which was poor, lacking in content and did not hold the attention of the House, will be widely respected throughout the country, not least in Cleveland? My right hon. Friend may like to learn at this stage that the Labour leaders of Middlesbrough, of Stockton and of Hartlepool councils have joined the Conservative leader of Langbaurgh council in asking for the abolition of Cleveland county council, as did the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) on Radio Cleveland yesterday, when he also warned his party against regional government.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise, although he qualified it towards the end of his remarks. He would not expect me to be drawn on the relative merits of yes or no to Cleveland, although I know what a formidable advocate he will be on one side of the argument.
Mr. David Blunkett: I was going to ask the Secretary of State about the chip shop factor, which is when there is a chip shop on one side and a disco on the other. Without individual valuation, a person ends up paying just as much as the person who overlooks the local park. However, as I am confined to one question, may I ask him this? The question is simple. Taking the average amount that a two-person household would pay under Labour's scheme as £333 and using like with like, is it not a fact that, under the scheme announced this afternoon, the con tax would cost the same two-person household £400?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman really asked two questions. First, he raised the issue of a chip shop on one side of the road and something else on the other. There is an appeals procedure which is perfectly open to anyone who thinks that he has been adversely affected. Doubtless that will now be seen as an incitement to every chip shop owner in the country to march towards Whitehall to appeal against what we are doing. We will treat them as fairly as chip shop owners deserve.
To go back to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, the fact is that if one has a similar sum to collect, the same number of people and the same number of properties, the average under any scheme must be the same.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members whom I have unfortunately been unable to call that, if they table questions tomorrow to the Department of the Environment, they will be answered in a fortnight's time.

Local Government Review (Wales)
4.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance in Wales, and in particular about the Government's proposals for the new council tax to replace the community charge.
I will be consulting widely in Wales on the basis of the paper that we have published today. As right hon. and hon. Members will see from the consultation document, the new council tax provides for a single bill for each household based on the value of the property, with a discount for single-person households. There are provisions for transitional relief, rebates for the most needy and discounts for student nurses, and so on, as well as for single occupiers, and there will be no register for adults. I believe that the system will be fair, equitable and simple to administer.
The House is already aware of the substantial benefits for Welsh community chargepayers which I have recently been able to announce. The generous local government finance settlement for 1991–92 enabled local authorities to set community charges some £130 less than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I was also able to make available a total of £62 million for the community charge reduction scheme. Finally, and most important, the Government have provided £300 million to reduce by £140 the community charges set by authorities throughout Wales. The upshot of all this is that the average community charge in Wales before the award of community charge benefit will not exceed £95.
The proposals announced today must be seen in that context. The new arrangements that we are proposing will provide for a fair and durable system of local taxation in Wales. I am placing in the Library exemplifications of the consequences of the new scheme. These are based on 1991–92 expenditure by Welsh local authorities and the current level of central Government support, to which I have already referred. The Government's intention is that the balance between central and local taxation established in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement should be broadly maintained in the longer term.
As I have said, I want to consult widely on the basis of the paper published today. There may be areas where Welsh circumstances are different from those elsewhere, and so the detailed arrangements for Wales may need to differ. I am asking local authorities and others to put to me their suggestions for the particular matters on which separate Welsh arrangements would be appropriate. I trust that Labour Members may now at last be willing to contribute to that debate and consultation, and I would also welcome further contributions from those who have already been willing to participate in the consultation process and have given me the benefit of their views.
I should just say a further word about local government structure and functions. I told the House on 21 March that I wished to consult further with local authority associations before taking matters forward. I met the associations on 11 April and am pleased to tell the House that we had a very positive and constructive exchange of views. I now propose to reflect on what was said to me and then, in the early summer, to publish a consultation paper

919
which, among other issues, will identify the facts which need to be borne in mind in considering any reorganisation.
Our review of local government finance functions and structure is making considerable progress. The Government intend to establish for Wales, as for Britain as a whole, a system of local government which can serve us well for many years to come. The consultation paper issued today is a major step forward in that process, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Barry Jones: On structure, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any commission in Wales must be able to generate cross-party support? Will he guarantee that the commission will not be packed with an anti-Labour membership? Will he now accept that Labour's policy principle in Wales of a single tier of most-purpose local authorities is already backed by the districts and counties of Wales?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Labour's plans for changing the structure of local government were published several years ago, following extensive consultation? The right hon. Gentleman is riding on Labour's coat-tails here. He is engaged on a policy clothes-stealing exercise, is he not?
The right hon. Gentleman now gives weight to the consultative process, as he must. May I remind him that, in the 1980s, the consultations on the poll tax were nothing less than a sham—a bitter farce? When the representatives of the Welsh councils tell him that they want to return to the rates, with enhanced rebates, will he accept their advice?
Is it not true that, under the council tax, rich people in Wales will get special treatment from the Government? The banding exercise is not equitable. Will the Secretary of State admit that the hated poll tax will remain for a further two or even three years in Wales? That will be resented throughout Wales. Why does the Secretary of State not accept our offer of a Poll Tax (Abolition) Bill, which would speedily end a tax that is hated and rejected by all our people throughout the Principality?
Some houses in well-heeled areas of Wales are worth a quarter of a million pounds or more. The average price of a mid-Glamorgan house is but £31,600. Does the Secretary of State seriously recommend a tax under which the occupant of a mansion will pay only two and a half times the tax paid by someone in a humble home in the bottom band of the Government assessment? Are not the Government protecting the rich and the super-rich?
The Secretary of State, in his former office, played a special role in perfecting the poll tax. Now the central tenet of Government policy is to dump the poll tax. Has not the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly trumpeted the merits of that tax? Does he not carry special responsibility for the hardship, distress and anger that it has generated throughout Wales? Will he now apologise to the people of Wales for his special role in establishing the hated tax? He lacked credibility as he made his statement today.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, whatever panic-stricken stratagems he is prepared to adopt, the parliamentary skins of his colleagues will not be saved in Wales? The people of Wales will make their judgment on 2 May and in the general election that is soon to come.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not know which way to jump, and he finished by jumping in all directions at once. First, he said that we had stolen his proposals. Then he said that the new tax was still the poll tax. I was totally confused, as were most hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman's first question did not relate to anything that I said or to anything in the consultation document. He must have thought that I had announced a commission today, but I did not do so. I know that some of his friends in local government would like to have an independent commission to tell us in Wales what to do, but I believe that we can decide that for ourselves. I am not minded to set up a commission, and that decision has the strong support of all the district councils.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that local authorities in Wales had agreed on their preferred form of local government. It is true that, when local authority representatives came to see me, they said that we should move towards single-tier local government, but when they were asked about the size and number of the single tiers, they did not agree among themselves. We must not let the hon. Gentleman pretend that the councils agree. The Government believe in facing up to the disagreements as well as to what is agreed, so that we can produce a solution that will last for many years.
I have read the Labour party's proposals for local government, and I asked a reasonably random selection of people in Wales whether they understood what the proposals meant. I did not find anyone who understood them. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that I had stolen the Labour party's clothes. The hon. Gentleman may be better dressed than I am, but his proposals have been covered in a cloak. I have simply snatched away the cloak so that people can see his proposals. He is right to recognise that some elements in our announcement today were in the Labour party's proposals, too, but they were subsquently denied.
Banding is one example. On 1 July, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) prepared a confidential discussion document advocating a tax based on five bands of property values. Today, it was educational to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham attacking a proposal based on seven bands, having already accepted the nature of our proposal.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside then said that the Government were merely returning to the rates. We are doing no such thing. The Labour party proposes to return to the rates, or rather, to something called a graduated rateable value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members cannot have read the document "Fair Rates". Rebuilding, maintenance and repair costs, and private rents, would be taken into account in calculating graduated rateable values. That would not happen immediately, however. First, it was suggested, we should return quickly to a register based on 1973 valuations. The spectacle that the Labour party offers, with its idea of a Poll Tax (Abolition) Bill, is that we should return immediately to the rates.
I remind the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that, in Gwent, where a contest is looming for a parliamentary seat, the Leader of the Opposition spoke about rates. He was in Pontllanfraith—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]. I am merely using the pronunciation used by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). He described all rates —[Interruption.] Labour Members should listen to the

921
words of their leader. They do not like what I am saying, but this is the system to which they propose to return. The right hon. Member for Islwyn referred to
"the most unjust of all taxes—local rates."
Yet that is what the Labour party now proposes.
Yes, the voters will make a choice on 2 May. They know that to vote Conservative will be to vote for councils that cost them less and give better services, whereas to vote Labour would mean voting for higher spending and higher bills.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat what I said on the previous statement. I shall ask for single questions——
Mr. John Maxton: And short answers.
Mr. Speaker: —and I hope that the answers will be short, too. That would enable me to call all the hon. Members who have been rising. In any event we shall have to move on to the Scottish statement by 5.15 pm.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reconcile what is left of the view of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) with the football hooliganism of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that he would repeal the new tax before he even knew what it would be? The new tax is a huge improvement. Will my right hon. Friend tell us who will conduct the banding operation, and on what principles?
Mr. Hunt: We have been guided by the Inland Revenue valuation office in reaching the statistics in the exemplifications. We are now consulting on the way in which we shall deal with valuations, but in the consultation paper we rely on the Inland Revenue valuation office. We have included a provision, which we believe local authorities will welcome, to enable them to buy in local professional expertise and experience where they consider that to be necessary.
On the first point, I would ask the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to consult not only the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Either they intend to repeal their proposals, or they will have positive consultations. As I have said, my door is always open. Why will not the hon. Gentleman follow the example of the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, and come in and consult properly?
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Secretary of State agree that today he has announced the introduction of another property tax? Does he also agree that he said on 3 March 1990:
"How much more abominable than a tax on widows? But this is what the rating system is."?
Surely what the Secretary of State has announced is very similar to the rating system. Surely widows living alone in houses will be adversely affected. What about second homes? I gather that there will be a special dispensation for second homes, and that it will be far cheaper for second-home owners than for the people who live there permanently to live in Wales. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?
Mr. Hunt: On the question of second homes, I make it absolutely clear that I intend to consult. That is one element where, if people follow the lead that I wish to give, in Wales we may decide to introduce different provisions from those which will apply in England and elsewhere. The proposal in the consultation paper for. England does not meet the special problem of second homes in Wales.
Secondly, it is precisely to meet the problems of single-parent families and widows that we are introducing a special discount for single-person households.
Mr. Ian Grist: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no local authority tax will be popular and that the new tax replaces one which was uniquely unpopular because, uniquely, it asked every adult to pay? That was the underlying reason for the unpopularity of the community charge. In the new banding system, will the figures be absolute, based on valuation, or will a house be placed within a particular band between an upper and lower limit, without being identified by precise pricing? Does he also understand—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions. That is enough, thank you.
Mr. Hunt: The value of the banding system—originally advocated, I concede, by the hon. Member for Dagenham —is that it removes the need to have properties individually valued. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) proposes not merely a return to the rates, with all their injustice, but revaluation within two years of every property in Wales. The banding proposal gives us an opportunity to move away from revaluations and to place properties within a band which everyone can see to be fair and equitable.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I ask the Secretary of State to remind the people of Wales that the poll tax will be maintained in 1991–92 and 1992–93? Even with transitional relief and the community charge reduction scheme, how much more will householders in my constituency have to pay for the perpetuation of the poll tax, even compared to his so-called fair system?
Mr. Hunt: Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am willing to consult local authorities on the best and quickest way to move from the community charge to the new system. The first responses that I have had from them are that the date that I have announced is the earliest possible time at which the new system can be put in place. But the hon. Gentleman's constituents were paying £248 actual rates on average in Merthyr Tydfil. Under the same system and with the same proportion of local government expenditure raised locally, that would have risen to £291 this year. Under the proposals that I have announced today, in the hon. Gentleman's area the average bill per household in 1991–92 would be £112.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In welcoming the burial of the poll tax, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that thousands of people are in difficulties this year? Can he ensure that such people are given some help to overcome the debts that they have built up? I have one specific question for the Secretary of State. Will he address the question of water rates? The consultation paper refers to the domestic water charges in Scotland and the possibility of bringing them into the orbit of the new

923
structure. Does that mean that there could also be a rebate system in Wales to help the much-beleaguered Welsh water rate payers?
Mr. Hunt: Nothing in the consultation paper deals with the water rates. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we have a generous rebate system under the community charge. As he knows, under that rebate system, those who have to meet the 20 per cent. payment are allowed far more in income support than the amount that they actually have to pay. That is reflected in the latest figures for Wales, which show that not 90 per cent.—the figure used by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside in his calculations—but 96 per cent. of the community charge has been collected and that 98 per cent. of what local authorites expected to receive has been collected.
Mr. Ray Powell: We all know that the reason we are discussing a new proposal to replace the poll tax is the result of the Ribble Valley by-election. I do not want to go on for long, but a great deal should be said and many questions should be put to the Secretary of State about his statement today. Does he accept that the best way of consulting—I have listened to him mention the word "consultation" 20 times since he began his statement—is probably the by-election that will take place in Monmouth? If a Labour Member of Parliament is elected there, will the Secretary of State scrap the proposal that he has offered us today?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has his own views on why the proposals have been made. I believe that they represent a fair and equitable way to proceed. On consultation, I ask again why the Labour party has decided to throw a cloak over its own proposals and refused even to discuss them with me. Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, my colleagues in the Conservative party and the local authority associations have come to consult me. The only people who were absent front the consultations were the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues. I repeat that my door is open and I am willing to consider and consult with the hon. Gentleman, as and when he is ready at last to come in and see me.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) should study the figures for Ogwr. If he does so, he will see that our proposal is a good deal for not only the people of Ogwr but the people of Monmouth.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State realise that he has put on the most brazen performance today? He came to that Dispatch Box over the dead body of his sacred principle that everyone must pay. It is the most humiliating about-turn that I have ever seen from a Secretary of State for Wales. Does he accept that it is particularly worrying that he has said with pride that we are to have no commission to give independent advice in Wales? Instead, a man of past evangelical single-mindedness will impose a system by diktat.
Mr. Hunt: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman listened. If he had done so and if he had also listened to the voices of the district councils in Wales, including those being raised in his local council election campaigns, he would realise that all parties alike would like to see us resolve the matter within Wales. Why does the right hon. Gentleman want a commission? Who does the right hon. Gentleman think could sit on some great independent
924
commission to tell us in Wales how to conduct our affairs? As far as I am concerned, we can do that in Wales with no help from a commission.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that thousands of university students live in my constituency. Can he clarify the position of four students sharing the same rented house?
Mr. Hunt: They will all be covered by the personal discount. Unless there are two adults in the household, the students will get the maximum personal discount. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the consultation paper, which sets out the position clearly.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State regret not consulting widely about the introduction of the poll tax? Who does he believe was more correct a year ago in the Ogwr borough council chamber—he referred to that council earlier—was it a leading Labour councillor, Dick Power, who said of the poll tax:
"This is ill thought out and a nightmare to administer"?
Or was it the leader of the Conservative group on Ogwr borough council, Councillor David Unwin, who said:
"Next year, when we are deciding the poll tax for 1991–92, we will be wondering what all the fuss was about."
What does the Secretary of State think the former Prime Minister would have thought of that?
Mr. Hunt: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do; does he want to go back and rehearse past battles? Ogwr will get a very good deal out of the proposals. Whereas the rates paid in Ogwr in 1989–90 were £332, the average bill per household in 1991–92 under the proposed system would be £108. I work very closely with David Unwin, and I look forward to his joining us in the House after the next general election.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Since the community charge was introduced after hon. Members spent a great deal of time in Standing Committee considering the legislation, and since not one amendment was accepted by the Government, will the Secretary of State now put forward in a consultation paper to the Cabinet the proposal that the work that we do in Standing Committee is reformed to ensure that the Government do not remain intransigent to every good amendment?
Mr. Hunt: What I will rehearse again to the House is the fact that, whenever we discuss local government finance, we all should reflect that the actual level of every local bill depends on the spending plans of every local authority. That is true under any system. The clear message for everyone in Wales on 2 May is that, if they have Conservative councils, they cost them less and they get better services.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: On banding, will the Secretary of State confirm that people in the most expensive houses will have to pay only two and a half times what people in ordinary houses will pay? There is a much greater disparity in house prices, with the largest houses being 10 times as valuable as smaller ones. Would not a linear relationship between liability and house values be fairer? Is not the purpose of banding to protect people in very large houses and to protect the rich?
Mr. Hunt: No. When the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to look at the documents which I have placed

925
in the Library, he will see that the vast majority of properties in Wales fall into the middle and lower bands; 5 per cent. of all properties in Wales fall into band G, which covers properties valued at over 200 per cent. of the average property. Those householders will pay two and a half times as much as those in lower bands. I believe that that is an adequate reflection of the fairness of the new system.
Mr. Peter Hain: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the logical flaw in his proposals for the reorganisation of local government is the absence of any strategic authority for the whole of Wales? Will he stop dithering on the subject and agree to set up an elected assembly for Wales here and now?
Mr. Hunt: Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt to move from the Prime Minister to myself the "dithering" appellation, which failed as much with the Prime Minister as it will with me, I am not persuaded by the case that has been put to me on an assembly. [Interruption.] Yes, I have said this before and I will say it again and again and again. I still await an adequate explanation of how the work of such an assembly could sensibly interact with that of the Secretary of State. There was a noticeable lack of interest in the idea shown by the local authority associations that I met recently. District councils were very fully represented and many speakers put forward the same view as one from west Wales, who said that he did not think that we should even begin to think about setting up an assembly until we had resolved the whole question of the structure of local government.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recall that I have written to him and asked him oral and written questions on the loony feature of the poll tax as it is administered in Newport? What will he say to the lady from Bassaleg and Rhiwderin who last night in The Argus asked why she should be paying £50 more in poll tax than people are paying a few yards away in Wentlooge? Is it not likely that the crazy system of the charge reduction scheme will be repeated in the new poll tax, which will be equally irrational, absurd and unjust?
Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the shadow Secretary of State for Wales asked me a question, and also when questions were asked earlier by the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. They both conceded that there was now an end to the poll tax. For the hon. Gentleman to continue to perpetuate this nonsense that the proposal is still the poll tax is an absurdity.
926
As to Newport, the hon. Gentleman will know that the community charge reduction scheme was based on the average rates paid in a community. That is the basis on which the calculation is made; it is very simple and easy to understand. In Newport, the average rates paid in 1989–90 were £381; in 1991–92 the average council tax per household will be £199. The people of Newport will be able to see how much they will benefit through the action taken by the Government both in resources and under the new system.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State remember that many farmhouses in Wales, for historical reasons which no longer apply, are substantial buildings, much larger in proportion than the income of those who occupy them and work from them? Will he advise the Inland Revenue of that to ensure that, when the district valuer has to band farmhouses, farmers do not find their homes put in an unfairly high band?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, I hope that hon. Members have understood that the proposal that I have brought forward looks at Wales as a country in itself. There is no transposition to Wales of values in England. We will adjudicate on our own values through the help of the Inland Revenue valuation office. That is clear.
Mr. Paul Murphy: Since the Secretary of State, more than any other member of the Cabinet, personally imposed the poll tax upon an unwilling Wales, since he personally presided over the squandering of over £100 million on administering the tax in Wales, and since, in trying to get out of the mess, he has plunged Welsh councils into financial and administrative chaos, how can he in all honesty remain in his job?
Mr. Hunt: It is quite disgraceful of the hon. Gentleman to say that his colleagues and my colleagues in local government have moved into administrative chaos. I have met the local authority associations many times. The one thing that I have said to them consistently and with great pride is that I believe that the way in which they dealt with the community charge system was an example to every other local authority in the United Kingdom. The way in which they have collected the community charge is an example to everybody else in the United Kingdom—viz. the fact that they have been able to collect 98 per cent. of what they calculated they would raise through the community charge system.
I take as much pleasure in abolishing the poll tax or community charge as I did in abolishing the unjust domestic rating system to which the hon. Gentleman's party plans to return Wales after the next election, if it were to come to office.

Local Government Review (Scotland)
5.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the application in Scotland of the Government's proposals for the new council tax.
The consultation paper that the Government are publishing today describes proposals for Great Britain as a whole, and the new council tax will operate in Scotland in the same way as has been described for England and for Wales. I set as objectives in my statement of 21 March the requirement that the new tax should be easy to administer, that it should spread the burden as widely as possible, and that it should enable councils to remain accountable to their electors. I also told the House that the tax would have elements based both on the value of each house and on the number of people living there. All these objectives are achieved in the new council tax.
As elsewhere, for the purposes of assessing the property element in the new council tax, domestic properties in Scotland will be divided into seven bands centred on the value of the average Scottish domestic property. Each household will get a single bill. The tax will assume a two-person household, with a 25 per cent. discount for single households and 50 per cent. discounts for unoccupied properties. About 3·5 million adults in Scotland would therefore be taken into account; that is about 90 per cent. of the total. The discount, rebate and transitional arrangements will also be the same as in England and Wales.
I assured the House, in my earlier statement, that the new tax would not suffer from the defects of the old domestic rating system: that disproportionate burdens would not be placed on a small minority of households and that there would not be the unreasonable fluctuations that we had following revaluations. Those objectives are also achieved by the proposals that we have published today.
I am today placing in the Vote Office estimates of likely tax levels for single and two-adult households in each local authority area in Scotland in each of the proposed seven property bands. The majority of Scottish households are in the lowest three bands, where the average bill for a two-person household is £380 or less, and £280 for a one-person household. The range of bills depends on local authority spending decisions, but at this year's spending levels, bills for two-adult households would range from £260 to £730 throughout Scotland—the average being £420. However, if local authorities spent at the level of grant-aided expenditure—the basis for grant distribution—the bills would be much lower.
Two proposals in the consultation paper are specific to Scotland. I undertook in my earlier statement to ensure that the now reduced burden that local taxpayers will face is not increased, once again, to unacceptable levels by local authorities' spending decisions. I therefore propose to bring my capping powers into line with the powers of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales in order to achieve this. I also propose, as a consequence of the ending of the community charge, to introduce new arrangements for the payment of water and sewerage charges in Scotland. The proposed new system is the subject of a separate consultation paper, which I am also publishing today.
928
As I said in my statement of 21 March, I retain the right to vary details of the new tax slightly in Scotland, to take account of distinctive Scottish circumstances and to ensure consistency with the rest of Great Britain. At present, I see no need to exercise that right, given the satisfactory formula that we have now achieved for the new tax.
The consultation paper confirms that there will be separate consultation about the structure of local government in Scotland. I intend to publish two consultation papers on this subject, the first of which will appear in a few weeks' time and will deal with the broad principles that should underlie a reform and a possible move to a new single-tier structure.
I am confident that the proposals that we are announcing today represent a major advance in the way in which we fund local government in Scotland. They have my strong support and I believe that they will be well received in Scotland. I look forward to wide consultation on them, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Seldom can a Minister have made a more embarrassing appearance at the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman has had to concede that, on the essentials, the Labour party has been right all along. He is here to bury the poll tax which he was once so determined to praise as a remarkable success story. The Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) have been scathing in their denunciation of any form of property-based tax. Do they really believe that they carry credibility if they now argue the merits of exactly such a system? What explanation can the Secretary of State offer to hide the plain fact that the policy that he now advocates is demonstrably humbug and hyprocrisy? It is sad that, having accepted the general principle, Ministers have managed to get so wrong the practicalities dictated by logic and the Labour party.
I welcome the exemption from the present 20 per cent. rule for those on income support. It would be monstrous if those on subsistence incomes faced cuts to compensate for the increases allegedly to meet poll tax payments, as suggested in the consultation document. The consultation document also suggests that students, student nurses and those on youth training schemes will be entitled to personal discounts. At present, students pay 20 per cent. What will they pay under the new system? How many households in Scotland, and what percentage of the total households, will qualify for 100 per cent. rebates? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that Scotland expects the 20 per cent. rule to go now? If it will be wrong in 1993, when the new system will be introduced, it is wrong now.
A key objective of the Labour party has been to help people who were struggling to meet local tax bills. The 25 per cent. rebate system is a gesture that does not effectively target those in greatest need. How will applications for the 25 per cent. personal discount be checked? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, whatever emerges from the muddled consultation document, the electoral register will not be involved? Otherwise, there will be a clear incentive for many people to opt out of the democratic process.
It is also clear that many of those who will benefit from that 25 per cent. discount are unlikely recipients of such help. Some will be well off, some young single people in employment and some single people living alone, but by no stretch of the imagination in financial difficulty. It is not a

929
targeted benefit but a clumsy device unrelated to the ability to pay. Help must be given, but surely it would be better to concentrate on a targeted scheme or an effective rebate system in which all the money available would be concentrated.
Why should I be offered a 25 per cent. reduction when so many of my constituents have been left in poverty? Is that a realistic and effective use of scarce resources? Can the Minister confirm that the cost of this 25 per cent. discount or rebate—perhaps he could give the figure—is not being met by central Government but will be paid for by higher contributions from other households?
Is it not the case that the system has been rigged to protect the better off living in top-range properties? Is not the key the Secretary of State for the Environment's threat that the amount payable will vary
"only within a limited range"?
Are not those weasel words—a dishonest way of saying that those in modest houses will subsidise those who live in top-range properties? Will those proposals apply in Scotland and, if so, can it be right that the most expensive property in Newtown Mearns or Morningside pays, at the most, only two and a half times the most battered council house in Easterhouse or Pilton?
Will not the seven-tier banding system be cumbersome and complex and seen by many as rough justice? The Secretary of State has unveiled figures for what average bills would have been if his scheme had been in place this year. Clearly, to do that he would have required a valuation base. Can he tell the House what that was, whether it was based on capital values and who supplied it?
There is a rumour, which I find it difficult to believe in terms of its ingratitude, that the assessors' departments of local authorities, which have been martyred by their attempts to make an unworkable poll tax work, will now lose responsibility for valuation under the new system, and that, in Scotland, it is to be handed over to the Inland Revenue. Why? Is that a tribute to the tremendous job done by the Inland Revenue in keeping the valuation base in England and Wales up to date in recent years?
Is it not totally unacceptable that the system cannot be in place before 1993 at the earliest? If the Secretary of State started with the present valuation roll now, with drive and initiative, he could end the misery of the poll tax within a much shorter time scale than he sets out. Is it not essential that he does so? If the poll tax limps on for two full years it will destroy confidence and leave local government with appalling problems of collection. Does he not see that the faults that he is building into this Tory tax will hit services and, in a blatant attempt to placate those at the opposite end of the income scale, those, who are often the most vulnerable, who rely on those services?
If the new system means moving to the English system of standard spending assessments and fierce cutting powers that leave the Secretary of State as a virtual dictator, it will be no service to local democracy. The Secretary of State boasted that he would have great powers of discretion over the Scottish system. Is it all to boil down to restrictions imported from the Department of the Environment, a power to vary the details slightly, and a promise that, in any event, the powers will not be used, at least in the immediate future?
930
Can the Secretary of State define the powers that he has achieved and the battles that he has won in Cabinet? His answer to that question should not greatly elongate his reply. He must know that his folly and that of his Government has cost Scotland dear. We have suffered years of chaos, extravagance and destructive waste. His blind loyalty to a system that he now concedes is fatally flawed has damaged local democracy and divided communities in bitterness.
After a decade, the Government are back where they started. Those who are responsible still enjoy office and power, but this shameful story of malice and indecision will not be forgotten. The errors and miscalculations behind today's insincere charade will not be forgiven.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked many questions and welcomed certain aspects of our proposals. He seems to be uncertain whether to welcome the scheme because he thinks that it is the same as rates, or to oppose it because he thinks that it is not. Let me assure him that the scheme is not the same as rates. The electorate will have a clear choice between our new council tax and Labour's "back to the rates" policy at the next election. If rates in Glasgow, and probably in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, had been retained, the average rate for a £75,000 house would be about £1,100. Our council tax would produce about £490.
The hon. Gentleman asked what students will pay. Students will be eligible for a discount. A student will be likely to pay the council tax only if he is a householder and owned a property. He will then be liable to pay for the property element.
The hon. Gentleman asked me who will qualify for rebates. The consultation paper indicates that those on income support—students, student nurses, apprentices and YT trainees—will qualify. We are, of course, consulting on the rebate scheme.
The checking of applications for discounts will be a matter for local authorities to decide on. I see no need for the electoral register to be involved in the process. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether discounts will be funded from within the local government system: yes, indeed they will. All our calculations take account of the likely number of discounts that will arise.
The hon. Gentleman referred to top-rate properties and suggested that our proposed banded arrangements will introduce protection for them. Yes, indeed they will. That will be one of the important differences between our proposals and the old domestic rating system. Under the old system, higher-valued property bore a grossly unfair proportion of the burden of local government expenditure.
I believe that it is right to have a system in which the range will vary no more than two and a half times between the top band and the bottom band, bearing in mind especially that the system will contribute about 11 per cent. of the total cost of local government spending in Scotland, the rest coming from business rates and a central Government through income tax, value added tax, and other such taxes.
Mr. Dewar: And VAT.
Mr. Lang: I said VAT.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the seven-tier banding system might be unwieldly and a form of rough justice. The very fact that there will be seven bands shows the range within which different types of property and

931
different values of property can be accommodated. It will lead to a smooth and progressive relationship with the liability of residents to pay within the bands. Valuation will be supervised by the Inland Revenue's valuation office. Private sector valuers will be used to achieve a valuation base and to locate individual properties within the bands. We are still considering the possible role of Scottish assessors in the system. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to consult us, we shall be interested to hear any suggestions that he has to offer.
We propose to introduce the new tax in 1993. I hope that the Opposition will give us as fair a wind as they can to ensure that we keep to that objective.
I have the power to vary any arrangement in Scotland so as to meet any difficulties that could arise for payers in Scotland as a result of the different nature of the Scottish domestic property base and the different levels of spending, and of central Government funding. I do not believe that it will be necessary to make use of that power because of the formula that we have achieved, but it remains in place.
When I reflect on the hon. Gentleman's peroration I reflect also on what the Leader of the Opposition said about domestic rates, which he described as the
"most unjust of all taxes."
The right hon. Gentleman was right, and I am surprised that he is prepared to lead a party that wants to return to domestic rates.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I repeat to the House what I said previously'? The House knows that we are discussing a consultation document. There will be plenty of opportunities between now and June to discuss it further. As there are 18 groups of amendments to the Ports Bill, in which there is a great deal of interest, and a ten-minute Bill, I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 5.55 pm. I hope that during that time I shall be able to call all those who wish to question the Secretary of State for Scotland. That should be possible if they ask only single questions. We shall start with Sir Hector Monro.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, coupled with the current reduction of £140 in the community charge and his insistence on keeping down local government expenditure, the new scheme will be widely welcomed in Scotland? Will he say a little more about standard charges and any other anomalies that he has had to remove from the current community charge with the welcome changes that we have following the abolition of that and of the old rating system?
Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to our proposals. He might like to know that the average bill for the two-person household in Annandale, Eskdale and Nithsdale would be about £290 under our proposals as we are illustrating them today. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the reduction introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which a switch of emphasis took place between local government and central Government, thus reducing the overall level of moneys required to be raised at local level.
My hon. Friend will know that the standard community charge was considerably modified over the past two or three years to remove some of the worst of the
932
anomalies. I believe that the system is much more stable now. To a large extent, the sort of arrangements that exist for the standard charge will carry over to the new arrangement.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not extraordinary that, after the debacle of the past two years—the abolition of rates and the introduction of the poll tax—both the Labour and Conservative parties are now united in their commitment to bring back the rates with added confusions of their own? Surely it is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should be remitting the matter to the Inland Revenue. As it is qualified for tax assessment, would not it be more appropriate to ask it to assess for local income tax rather than property valuation, for which it is not qualified? Is it not a fact that capping will become a feature of the scheme, which makes accountability—the original claim of the Government—a mockery? For the next two years we shall continue to have the shambles of the poll tax, only worse.
Mr. Lang: Every hon. Member should reflect on the fact that we are putting a much more substantial proportion of resources into local government from central Government. It is important to ensure that that does not leak away in the form of higher spending by local authorities but goes to the benefit of local residents. It is important that we have an adequate capping mechanism.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the proposals that we are now putting before the House are the same as rates. He could not be more wrong. Rates on a £50,000 house in his constituency would have risen to £540, compared with £250 under the council tax. A personal element is provided for within the council tax, and there is a banding of properties that affords a protection that the old rating system never did.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I should declare an interest as chairman of Historic Scotland. May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind—I think that it is a matter that will be borne in mind by Members of all parties—the fact that the value of a house is not a sign of people's ability to pay and that the fragility of the heritage of Scotland, of which I am privileged to be in charge, is an extremely subtle matter? If buildings that require normal duties of upkeep as part of the heritage of Scotland are to be burdened with a tax that has nothing to do with their upkeep, my right hon. Friend must be careful to ensure that the Government, in giving a grant for their upkeep, do not destroy them by the tax that is being introduced.
Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. He is right to draw attention to the important advantages that will be derived by the owners of Scotland's historic buildings. It was precisely such buildings that bore an undue proportion of the domestic rating burden and a lack of incentive to improve and maintain. Now, because the burden will be more evenly and equitably spread, they will be protected from such burdens, and from the depredations of high-spending local authorities. That will lead to a continuing improvement in the quality of the fabric of Scotland's built heritage.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State, after turning somersaults on a full stomach, having eaten a bellyful of his own words, is understandably queasy and cannot focus on the main issues. Is he aware that the shambles that he has now produced means

933
that the poll tax will exist for another two years, that councils will be in great difficulty, that low-paid people will still not have the full rebates to which they are entitled and that we need swift action to move much faster than the right hon. Gentleman currently proposes, rather than wait for another two years? Will he think again, withdraw this nonsensical review and introduce proposals for a rapid change which, with the co-operation of the Opposition, he would get through?
Mr. Lang: We are moving as quickly as is sensible, practical and prudent, and I believe that the new system, when in place, will be found to work smoothly and effectively and be simpler and fairer than what has gone before. In the meantime, the fact that we have reduced the burden that falls on local government by a substantial amount as a result of the switch from local to central taxation will considerably reduce the difficulties and anxieties that people will face. In addition, as I said, I am taking powers to strengthen my ability to cap local authorities that overspend. If the need arises, I shall use such powers to protect residents from high spending.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the sensible use of VAT to reduce bills will produce a bill for North Tayside for the lowest band of property of about £250 and for the highest band of about £600? If those figures are accurate, they show clearly that the new tax will be seen by the Scots as a big improvement on rates or community charge.
Mr. Lang: The figures that my hon. Friend uses sound about right to me. The arrangements that we are introducing into the new system will give protection to property owners, will ensure that local authorities are not able to impose an unduly high burden on them and will see that the burden is sensibly spread across the whole population.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this form of roof tax, make the same claim that the Secretary of State for Wales made, which is that, when the new scheme is introduced in three or four years' time, that will be the final death of the poll tax? Has the right hon. Gentleman costed the new scheme? For example, what will it cost to advertise and administer?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is unduly pessimistic. I sincerely hope that it will not take three or four years to introduce the new tax. I hope that we shall be able to introduce it by 1993 and abolish the poll tax then, because this is an infinitely better and more efficient system. I anticipate that the costs of administration and collection will be substantially reduced over those of the poll tax.
Sir David Steel: I hoped that, as Scotland was lumbered with the poll tax a year earlier than England and Wales, the Secretary of State would be leading the campaign to get rid of it a year earlier than in England and Wales, instead of which he is reported as trying to fight a rearguard action to keep it. Will the valuations take account of the condition of property, given that there will not be individual house valuations, or will a person living in a large slum pay more than someone living in a small decent house?
Mr. Lang: As for the alleged reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, I hasten to reassure him that they are and were entirely without foundation. I have never read so much fantasising as I have in the last few weeks. The valuation process is intended to achieve as accurate a valuation as possible. It will not be such a detailed valuation as existed under the old rating system, and it will be open to any householder who feels that his property has been placed in the wrong band to appeal against that. The incentives will be that much less to do so because, with a range of seven bands, the variation in bills between the different bands will not be so substantial.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question that was put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? Why should a person who is so rich that he lives in a large mansion set so well back from the road that his house is out of sight from the ordinary public pay only about two and a half times the amount paid by a council tenant? The right hon. Gentleman said that that was fair. Will he kindly explain why he thinks it is fair?
Mr. Lang: It is fair because what happened under the domestic rating system was unfair, when there was no protection for those in more valuable houses. A range of two and a half times between the highest and lowest bands is about right, given the rebate scheme which we shall be introducing and given the fact that we are talking about 11 per cent. of the cost of local government. A substantial proportion of the rest will come through indirect and direct taxation, to which the better-off in society will contribute much more than those on low incomes.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to those local government officers who, in council offices throughout the country, have tried to make the poll tax work and who will continue to have that job? Will he clarify the manpower implications to today's statement for local government and explain why he is encouraging the use of assessors from the private sector when there are skilled and professional people in local government well capable of discharging that task?
Mr. Lang: I pay tribute to the officials in local authorities that have administered the poll tax efficiently, as some of them have. As for the manpower implications of the change to the new arrangements, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed figures now, but in the course of the consultation process a clearer picture may emerge.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about valuation is that the Government took the view that the most effective way to get the new system up and running quickly and with the appropriate accuracy of valuation was to use Inland Revenue valuation officers, supervising the arrangements and employing, as appropriate, valuers from the private sector. It is in everybody's interest that we get the new system up and running as quickly as possible, and I believe that what I have described will achieve that.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we in the SNP have extreme difficulty in accepting his figures, in view of the fact that it took him two months to respond to our statement about a local income tax? We shall wish to discuss the matter with him further. Is he further aware that the new scheme

935
smacks of a band-aid tax, with the whole thing stuck together to give a spurious view of coherence that it totally lacks? Those who are interested in decision-making and responsibility in local government read centralising forces into the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
If the right hon. Gentleman is really interested in getting the scheme up and running, why will he not, in view of the scarcity of Scottish legislation before the House, immediately introduce a Bill giving 100 per cent. rebates, so making it clear that students and others will not have to pay the tax and showing that local authorities in Scotland will not again have to go through the stupid exercise of trying to collect money from people who manifestly cannot pay?
Mr. Lang: The question of rebates in the remaining two years of poll tax is still under consideration. The hon. Gentleman says that the new tax lacks coherence. We have worked on the proposal carefully and gone into all the issues in great detail. I urge him to examine it more carefully, when he will find that, far from lacking coherence, it is an extremely coherent and effective system. I welcome the sign that I took from his remarks that he will take part in the consultation process. I shall look forward to his submissions once he has had an opportunity to study the detail of the matter.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State now eat humble pie and admit that he has been forced into a U-turn in the face of the massive demonstration of people power, including a disciplined, conscientious campaign of civil disobedience to an extent not seen in Scotland for centuries? Will he admit that, if everybody had dutifully touched the forelock and stumped up every penny of poll tax on demand, the right hon. Gentleman would not have been forced into making his historic statement to the House today?
Mr. Lang: The main reason why we had to decide that the community charge was no longer viable was its failure to control high-spending local authorities. It was perfectly clear from some of the levels of poll tax that some local authorities sought to impose on their residents that the tax was no longer an acceptable method of funding local government. Far from carrying out a U-turn, we are going on both from the discredited domestic rating system and from the community charge, with its shortcomings, to a new system which is infinitely better than both.
Mr. John McAllion: Since 1989, the Secretary of State has personally and passionately defended the defining characteristics of the poll tax—the liability of everyone to pay something, the requirement for a poll tax register, the rejection of any sort of property tax. This afternoon he has been forced to eat his words. How can he with any honour hang on to his high office when his personal credibility has been so undermined by the retreat of his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet? Should not he and the other poll tax fanatics in the Scottish Office do the decent thing and resign?
Mr. Lang: This is the first local government finance system that I have helped to design. I believe that it is more effective than the community charge system or the domestic rating system. I believe that it meets the objectives that I set out in my statement on 21 March. Once the hon. Gentleman has considered it further, he will think so, too.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to the recent council elections when there were Tory party posters all over Scotland condemning what they called the roof tax? The Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends have today announced a seven-band roof tax for the United Kingdom and for Scotland.
Since we have a proposal today offering transitional benefits and payments to millionaires, why cannot we have immediately a one-clause Bill that will do away with the minimum contribution of 20 per cent.?
Mr. Lang: The roof tax was locked up so quickly when the Labour party realised how unpopular it was that it is difficult now to scrutinise its details. As far as I am aware, it had few of the features of our new council tax, which will limit the burden on householders in the top band to paying two and a half times what those in the bottom band will pay. The system includes a personal element in the form of the 25 per cent. discount for one-person households, and the new system avoids arbitrary revaluation leaps every few years. It will operate fairly and, unlike the roof tax, it will gain widespread acceptance.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to explain why England is to have a commission to consider structural changes but Scotland is not? Will he also meet representatives of the Keep Scotland Tidy campaign to consider the removal of the vultures from rooftops and advertising hoardings placed there by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and now looking like chickens that have come home to roost?
Mr. Lang: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's history as a former president of COSLA, I can reassure him that I look forward to further consultations with that organisation on these proposals and to the opportunity to discuss the proposals that we announced on 21 March, following which I went to the COSLA annual general meeting the next day.
As for the vultures, they flew away from the rooftops as soon as the Labour party abandoned its roof tax proposals, recognising that that system was not viable. The hon. Gentleman can rest happy: there is no question of the vultures reappearing against the background of these extremely effective and efficient proposals.
Mr. James Wallace: In the past, the Secretary of State has said that local accountability is an important feature of a local tax. How does he see local accountability, operating in the islands areas, when his illustrative bilks show that there will be no local tax and when, regardless of the size of house in which they live, people will still have to pay 2·5 per cent. more in a national tax in an area in which the cost of living is already among the highest in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman always draws attention to the fact that the situation in the islands is different—as it is in this case. Spending in the islands is below assessed need—a lesson that I wish many other local authorities would learn. Our present grant distribution assumptions mean that there would be no council tax in those islands, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that should be dealt with, in the interests of equity. We shall be willing to discuss the matter in the course of consultations to try to achieve a system that is fair.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his credibility is at an all-time low following his humiliating U-turn and the mess that he has created and announced today? Does he realise that there is an easy way to get some of that credibility back? It is to announce today that he will abolish the 20 per cent. rule, which affects so many pensioners and unemployed and disabled people, and that he will consider rebating them for the extra year that they have paid the poll tax.
Mr. Lang: I have no announcement of any sort to make about that. We are contemplating a new kind of tax and a new kind of arrangement for it. It is the Labour party which would lose credibility if ever it sought to implement its proposed return to unfair rates, not least because of the impact that that policy would have on the business community in Scotland, for which the Opposition propose to remove the harmonisation progress that we have achieved in the past few years—progress towards a uniform rate and the reduction of business rates all over Scotland. The Labour party's policy would allow local authorities to let rates rip, to the extreme detriment of business throughout Scotland.
Mr. William McKelvey: The Secretary of State must realise that the millionaire living alone, perhaps in Eastwood, might be content to wait until he receives his 25 per cent. rebate—lonely money. But there are many lonely, poor people who cannot afford to pay the poll tax and who never have been able to afford it and who have run up debts, thereby contributing much to the £600 million arrears faced by Strathclyde. What will he do to assist Strathclyde with its massive arrears bill and to help people caught in the poverty trap who cannot afford to wait until 1993 for an easing of their pain?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the fact that under the community charge system rebates are paid up to 80 per cent., and that the remaining 20 per cent. for which people are liable is taken into account when calculating income support. The difficulty facing many people on income support is that many hon. Members in the Labour party, and in the Scottish National party until recently, encouraged non-payment. That created difficulties for local authorities such as Strathclyde and for people who took the advice proffered to them so irresponsibly; and the responsibility for those problems lies with many hon. Members in the Opposition parties.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does not the Secretary of State see that, by insisting on retaining a link with the poll tax through the personal discount, he is building in some of the same problems as existed with the poll tax? The fact is that many people who live in two-person households will register elsewhere so that their households can get a discount, and they will be able to register with households containing two or more people without adding to those households' bills. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the tax will be discredited from day one because of that possibility of evasion.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has a mind which seems to seek out methods of evasion. It will be up to local authorities to ensure that there is no evasion; in any case, there will be little incentive for evasion, because this is a fair tax which will be well imposed at a reasonable level.
938
The discount is expressed as a proportion of the property element and is thus a progressive tax: the personal element will increase the higher the band.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Can the Secretary of State explain why a house with two people and only one income has to pay more than a house with only one person and one income?
Mr. Lang: If she looks at the figures, the hon. Lady will see, when she has had the chance to study them carefully, that the system is a fair one which takes account of the difference in the burden that falls on a house with two or more occupants and the burden that falls on a house with only one occupant. The 25 per cent. discount is a fair way of taking account of that difference, against the background of a rebate scheme.
Mr. Mike Watson: I should like some clarification from the Secretary of State. The consultation paper seems to reject the idea of capital values as a basis for assessment and speaks of bands expressed as a percentage of the average national property value. What is that average national property value? Will it be set at a United Kingdom level or a Scottish level? Is there a distinctive Scottish element to the proposal? If so, what form will it take?
Mr. Lang: Property bands will be based on values of properties within a Scottish context. Those valuations will be different from valuations in Wales and England. We are going for capital values because they are banded and their impact is thus dampened; the impact of the capital value of a house on what a person has to pay is modified. That is a more sensible, fairer and more realistic way of proceeding than reverting to the notional rental value basis used under the old domestic rating system.
Dr. John Reid: Does not the Government's ignominious retreat today show that they do not even know how to retreat in good order? Have they not forgotten the first law of Healey—when in a hole, stop digging—and staggered from one tax which was unfair and unjust to another which is unfair, unjust and complicated, with this band, that band and the next band? Every day will be 12 July for the next few years in local government. Why are we discussing today how to raise tax for local government, in what form it will be raised, how it will be capped and how it will be spent when it has not yet been decided when to issue the consultation paper on what form local government in Scotland will take?
Mr. Lang: I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that our first consultation paper on the structure of local government will be issued in a few weeks' time and it is not necessary or desirable to rush that process either in the preparation of the document or in the consultation period that will follow. We intend to consult widely on the structure of local government because we intend to get it right. We have considered carefully the system for the funding of local government and once the hon. Gentleman has become more familiar with it, he will realise that it is not nearly so complicated as he thinks it is at first glance and that it will work effectively.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has referred to possible changes in water charges, which will be of particular interest to fish and food processors in the Grampian region who pay the highest water rates in

939
the United Kingdom. What steps will he be taking to ensure that the industrial voice is heard in the consultations, and does he expect that the charges in water and sewerage charges will be implemented at the same time as the council tax?
Mr. Yeo: The proposals on which we are consulting concern personal water and sewerage charges. In the past, sewerage charges have been absorbed within the community charge system, whereas water charges were separately billed as a community water charge. Therefore, we have to take account of the need to reform that as well as reforming the community charge. We shall consult on that and the hon. Lady will have every opportunity to study the paper, and, if she wishes, to submit her views.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Llinlithgow): In the consultation paper, will there be an appendix or a specific explanation of those points where Ministers now think that the Wheatley report was wrong? Will there be a full explanation of the amount of compensation that will have to be paid to officials in Strathclyde, Lothian and elsewhere if there are to be changes?
Mr. Lang: I will obviously consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. We have not yet written the consultation paper, but we will bear in mind his suggestion that we should make reference to the Wheatley commission, possibly in an appendix or in the body of the paper. With regard to compensation, it is certainly part of our purpose to ensure that any change to any new system of local government structure in Scotland should achieve that changeover with a minimum of expense, disorganisation and disruption, learning the lessons that we should all learn from what happened last time.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Is the Secretary of State aware that a couple in modest circumstances owning a small house in Gorgie in Edinburgh will find their house in the same tax band as a large three or four-bedroomed house in rural Scotland owned by a single person who may well receive the 25 per cent. rebate? Where is the link with ability to pay, and why should most houses in Edinburgh find themselves in the top three bands in the new tax system?
Mr. Lang: The problem that Edinburgh faces is that it has a high-spending district council. The solution to the problems that are faced in Edinburgh lies in the hands of the local authorities, both district and regional.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State knows that there is more than one way in which to arrive at the capital value of a property. What principles of valuation will be used by the Inland Revenue in deciding into what band particular houses should fall? If a householder embarks on improvements such as installing double glazing, central heating or a new bathroom, will that take the house from one band into another, thereby incurring additional cost?
Mr. Lang: The precise details of the basis of valuation will obviously be part of the consultation process, but essentially it will be the market value that arouses the interest of the valuation office. It is most unlikely that in the vast majority of cases changes such as the installation of central heating which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned would lead to a change of valuation banding. Only a substantial change in the nature of a house would
940
lead to an upgrading from one band to another. But even if there were such an upgrading, the relative movement in terms of the extra burden of local government tax would be small because of the existence of seven bands and the gradation which exists within them.
Mr. George Foulkes: As we know from the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment that he believes that a commission is necessary to carry out the review of local government in England, and as on the last occasion that there was a major review of local government in Scotland it was carried out by the Wheatley commission, how can the Secretary of State honestly believe that a review of local government can be carried out systematically and, above all, fairly without an independent commission in Scotland? Will it not be yet another political gerrymander by the Secretary of State?
Mr. Lang: No, there will be no question of any Conservative Member contemplating gerrymandering of any kind. The very existence of the Wheatley commission and the work done by it gathered together a large amount of information that will prove a useful quarry as we review the reform of local government. The local government commission contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be an advisory body and my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Government would decide what changes to make and what form they would take.
It is proposed that the local government commission will replace the local government boundary commission in England and undertake its work on a long-term, gradual, area-by-area basis, taking account of the wide diversity of local government structures in England. In Scotland, we have a much greater cohesiveness and coherence in the system and I believe that it will be possible, without haste and without lack of consultation, to move to a single tier process that will win general acceptance.
Mr. Ron Brown: The Secretary of State has admitted little today, but he has admitted that the poll tax has been a mistake. Why should the low-paid in Scotland pay for the Government's mistake? Why should working-class people pay for their mistake? Surely there should be an amnesty. Even Charlie Gray, the leader of Strathclyde regional council, has argued for that. Mr. Gray is not a left—winger I understand that he is a moderate—so surely his views should be taken into consideration. I understand that they reflect the general consensus within COSLA. Will the Government listen to reason in Scotland? Clearly, many feel that the only alternative to the Government is a Scottish Parliament with proper economic and political powers so that the Scottish people can run their own affairs.
Mr. Lang: I always listen with great care to anything said by the leader of Strathclyde council, although it is intriguing to find him forming an axis with the hon. Gentleman. Whether that is a reflection of the way in which the Labour party is going, I do not know. Suffice it to say that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like everyone else in Scotland, will, once he has digested the proposals, find them a good, sound and secure way forward for local Government funding.
Mr. John Maxton: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the people of

941
Scotland, who have suffered under the poll tax and seen their local government dive into crisis as a result of it, expected today to see some sense of shame and regret that the tax had been imposed on them by the right hon. Gentleman who, as a Minister, served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill which introduced it?
After the humiliating climbdown that we have seen, the people of Scotland expected to see the Secretary of State and his Ministers announce their resignations today. Why is he allowing the crisis that is now facing local government in Scotland and the poverty that is facing so many people there to continue for at least another two years instead of, with our support, introducing legislation that would bring back the rating system on 1 April 1992, abolish the 20 per cent. minimum payment, backdate rebates and get rid of the poll tax once and for all and do it efficiently and quickly.
Mr. Lang: Far from regret, I feel a sense of pride that we have achieved a new system of funding local government which is infinitely better than the domestic rating system of the community charge. My involvement in the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred was, as he recalled, primarily concerned with the standard community charge and the introduction of the new arrangements for business rates. I believe that what we have done for business rates in Scotland is widely welcomed and will be greatly to the advantage of the Scottish economy. It is clear that, at the next general election, the Scottish electorate will have a choice between our new, simple, easy-to-collect and fair council tax, or returning to the old rating system under Labour. I have no doubt which they will choose.

Local Government Review (Scotland)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell]

Garden Supplies(Sunday Trading)
5.59 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fifth Schedule to the Shops Act 1950 to make lawful the sale of garden supplies on Sundays.
As the House may know, I am not only chairman of the Conservative parliamentary horticultural committee and the parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, as is shown in the Register of Members' Interests, but I have a large number of garden centres in my constituency. I am therefore delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill, which has the aim of making one small improvement to the way in which Sunday trading laws operate.
It forms no part of my purpose to rehearse the arguments for and against wholesale reform of the Shops Act 1950. Those arguments have been made on several occasions over the past decade or so—most recently, last month, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) introduced new proposals relating to the vexed issue of Sunday trading. I am delighted to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that I have no intention of embarking on a discussion of the complex arguments involved in the wider debate on Sunday trading. That would be far too major and wide-ranging a debate for an occasion such as this.
The measure that I propose should be seen for what it is: a tiny change that is designed to reflect contemporary reality. My Bill has little bearing on the wider debate about the future of the 1950 Act, which will have to wait for some time yet. The Bill suggests that garden supplies should be added to the list of exemptions that are contained in schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950, to make lawful the sale of garden supplies on Sunday. The Bill would set no precedents, nor would it trigger any controversy over Sunday trading laws, and it could be implemented immediately. It is not the thin end of the wedge.
Throughout the ages, part of the strength and richness of our national life has stemmed from the special status that Sunday holds. The best safeguard of that status is not to be found in legislation, but in good sense and contemporary custom. People, not laws, make Sunday special.
Part of the pleasure of Sunday is that it is a time to reflect, worship, rest, and enjoy oneself. One way that millions of British people enjoy themselves on Sunday is by gardening. It is something of a national obsession. Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers, but today we are a nation of gardeners. It strikes me as perverse that one of this nation's most innocuous creative hobbies, which is enjoyed by countless millions on one day more than any other in the week, should be hampered by the exclusion of garden supplies from the list of goods that shops are allowed to sell on Sunday.
In an age in which the law allows people to relax and enjoy themselves in countless other ways on Sunday—by attending any number of sports events, visiting the park or local cinema, or walking around a stately home or castle—it is peculiar in the extreme that the law hampers us from indulging in that most British of pastimes—gardening.
Every time the Sunday trading issue is raised, the House has great fun comparing and contrasting the anomalies that exist in current legislation. Under current law, selling

943
plants, flowers and vegetables is legal, but selling trowels, spades, hoes, and pots is not. Who would have thought that it would be illegal to sell a common or garden watering can on Sunday?
Sunday is the busiest day of the week for garden centres, when as much as 40 per cent. of their weekly turnover is achieved. Around 2,000 centres open each Sunday, and many depend on Sunday sales for their very existence. Only a handful stay closed. People want to garden on Sunday, and to buy the supplies that they need on that day too. As the majority of garden centres open on Sunday anyway, my Bill would not mean more Sunday openings; it would just mean more legal Sunday openings.
I say to those who argue that legalising the Sunday trading of garden supplies would adversely affect the work force by taking away their one day of rest, that most garden centres encounter no difficulty in recruiting weekend staff, even for Sundays. Many people are happy to work that day in exchange for another day off during the week. In that way, they can earn overtime pay on Sunday, as well as have another day off in the week free to run errands or to shop themselves on a day when stores are far less crowded than they are on Saturdays.
No one goes to work in a garden centre in the expectation that it will close on Sunday. That would be like going to work in a national museum on the assumption that it will close on Sunday—the very day that most of the public actually have a chance to visit it.
People do not complain about the Sunday opening of garden centres. In fact, it is generally assumed that they are legally open that day—which is not surprising, given that public demand has led to garden centres opening on Sunday. For many, a Sunday afternoon visit to a garden centre is a family outing. There is no outcry over the lack of law enforcement in closing garden centres on Sunday. In fact, enforcement of the law in that regard is notoriously patchy and unfair. Some local councils turn a blind eye to Sunday trading; some enforce it here and there, and others actively encourage it.
Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950 identified goods and services that were then needed on Sundays in the ordinary course of life. I am sure that schedule was not meant to be cast in stone, never to be changed. I imagine that, had
944
garden centres existed in 1950, the wording "fruit, flowers and vegetables" that schedule 5 currently contains would have read, "garden supplies, flowers, fruit and vegetables."
Forty years ago, it was recognised that the list of exemptions would need to change, to keep with the times. The fact that thousands of garden centres, employing thousands of people, open on Sundays is testimony to the need for change. To the best of my knowledge, no organised group opposes trading by garden centres on Sunday.
The Bill makes a modest addition to the list of goods that can be sold in shops on Sunday, and will relieve many people who run garden centres of the fear of prosecution. It will ensure that Britain's gardeners have a chance to buy the supplies that they need, when they want them. The Bill will not alter Sunday's special status. I venture to suggest that it will probably enhance it, and, crucially, will not impinge on the rights of those who work in Britain's garden centres. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give the Bill their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Marion Roe, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Dame Peggy Fenner, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Cecil Parkinson and Mr. Timothy Raison.

Garden Supplies(Sunday Trading)

  GARDEN SUPPLIES (SUNDAY TRADING)
  Mrs. Marion Roe accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fifth Schedule to the Shops Act 1950 to make lawful the sale of garden supplies on Sundays: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 May and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), whom I thoroughly support in this matter, referred to Britain's gardeners. May I remind her that section 5 of the Shops Act 1950 has never applied to Scotland, which is a Calvinist country? We have never had any difficulty. We garden on Sundays, and we welcome it. After all, religion started in the Garden of Eden, and I think that she should copy the example of Scotland.

Orders of the Day
  Ports Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ports Bill
    New clause 2

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROPOSALS TO MAXIMISE EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN EQUITY OF SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
      ' .—(1) The power under subsection (2) below—

      (a) is exercisable by a body which is a relevant port authority in any case where that body proposes to form or has formed a company in pursuance of section 1 above; and

      (b) is exercisable by a body which was such an authority immediately before the transfer under section 2 above to a company formed by that body of its property, rights, liabilities and functions;

      and references below in this section, in relation to any such body, to the relevant company are references to the company it proposes to form or has formed (as the case may require).
      (2) The body concerned may on such terms as it thinks fit agree with any persons who at the time of the agreement qualify for assistance from it under this section—

      (a) to indemnify those persons in respect of the whole or any part of any expenditure to which subsection (4) below applies; or

      (b) to discharge on their behalf the whole or any part of any liability to which that subsection applies.

      (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above persons qualify for assistance under this section from any body if—

      (a) each of them satisfies the employment condition as regards assistance from that body;

      (b) they have formulated a proposal for maximising participation by employees of the relevant company in ownership of its equity share capital; and

      (c)they appear to the body concerned to be best placed to secure the implementation of such a proposal.

      (4) This subsection applies to any expenditure or liability of the persons concerned incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the proposal mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above.
      (5) A person satisfies the employment condition as regards assistance under this section from any body—

      (a) so long as it is a relevant port authority, if he is employed by it; and

      (b) after it has ceased to be such an authority, if he is employed by the relevant company.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.10 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 3—Financial assistance for proposal to maximise employee participation in equity of the company.

    New Clause 12

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP SCHEMES
      '(1) Before inviting bids for their holding any relevant port authority under Part I or Part I of this Act shall give employees (including management) of the successor company the opportunity to put together a bid to purchase the holding, and the authority shall accept such a bid without inviting competing bids providing the following conditions are met:—

      (a) the amount of the bid represents at least the market value of the authority's holding in the successor company, such market value to be certified by independent professional advisers acceptable to the appropriate Minister; and

      (b) the structure of the bid must incorporate a substantial element of employee shareholding, ("substantial" in this context meaning that at least 25 per cent of the ordinary voting capital of the acquiring company should be held by, or on behalf of, employees, in addition to those held by directors and senior managers of the acquiring company).

      (2) Financial assistance shall be available in respect of bids put together substantially by management and employees of the successor company and incorporating a substantial element of employee shareholding in order that those involved in preparing such bids are able to obtain the appropriate level of professional advice. Subject to the overriding discretion of the appropriate Minister, 75 per cent of fees and costs (including value-added tax) incurred for this purpose may be reimbursed out of moneys voted by Parliament up to a maximum amount (on which the 75 per cent reimbursement will be based) of £80,000.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
      Amendment No. 53, in clause 8, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
      '(6A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6) above, in deciding whether or not to confirm the scheme, the Minister shall have regard to the implications of the scheme for those currently employed by the relevant port authority and for their pension and employment rights, and to any proposals in the scheme designed to promote employee participation in the company.'.
      Amendment No. 57, in clause 12, page 9, line 36, after '(2)', insert
      'Except as provided for in subsection (2A) below,'.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 9, line 37, at end insert—
      '(2A) Levy shall be charged at one half of the rate stipulated in subsection (2) above, in circumstances where at least fifty per cent. or more of all the securities disposed of are transferred to employees of the relevant port authority or to a trust fund created or operating for the benefit of the said employees, except that where, within five years of the original disposal of securities, as a result of subsequent transfers inter vivos of the securities, more than fifty per cent. of the securities are held by persons other than the said employees, or trust fund, the company shall be charged a further levy of one half of the rate stipulated in subsection (2) above.'.
      Amendment No. 61, in page 9, line 37, at end insert—
      '(2A) In the case where the successful bidder for the authority's holding in the successor company incorporates a substantial shareholding by, or on behalf of, employees or former employees or their dependants of the successor company and its subsidiaries ("substantial" in this context meaning that at least 25 per cent. of the ordinary voting capital of the acquiring company should be held by such employees, in addition to those shares held by directors and senior managers of the acquiring company) the levy shall be charged at the rate of 50 per cent. on the consideration given for the securities disposed of.
      (2B) In the event that the percentage of the ordinary voting capital of the acquiring company held by or on behalf of such

      947
      employees falls below 25 per cent. within five years of the date of the initial transfer of securities in the successor company, the Secretary of State may require the payment by the chargeable company of an additional levy, which levy may be an amount up to 20 per cent. of the consideration given for the securities at the time of their initial transfer (or, if lower, up to 20 per cent. of the market value of the securities at the time the employee holding falls below 25 per cent.).'.
      Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10, 15 to 17 and 22 and 23.
      Mr. McLoughlin: First, may I draw the attention of the House to new clause 2, tabled in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. These amendments fulfil a commitment that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) when I accepted in principle an amendment that he proposed in Committee to enable port authorities to repay the costs incurred by their management and employees in buying or attempting to buy the authority's successor company. The main amendment is new clause 2, which substantively gives effect to my hon. Friend's proposal. Perhaps inevitably, there are a number of changes in the drafting, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Government's amendment goes at least as far as—and in some respects possibly further than—his proposal did in providing practical assistance for management-employee buy-outs when ports come to privatise themselves under the new legislation.
      I will mention briefly the other amendments grouped with new clause 2.
      New clause 3 makes equivalent provision to new clause 2 for the Port of London Authority and the new Tilbury company. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential to new clause 2. If a port authority has incurred liabilities by giving financial assistance to a management-employee buy-out team before transferring its undertaking to its successor company, those liabilities of course need to be excluded from the transfer, and remain with the former port authority. Amendments Nos. 10, 16 and 17 are drafting amendments consequential to new clause 3, in particular of the need to relate the definition of "the port of Tilbury" to that clause.
      Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 define what is meant by the terms "equity share capital" and "maximising participation by employees of the company in ownership of its equity share capital", which are used in new clauses 2 and 3.
      Amendment No. 9 enables an authority to offest against the proceeds of disposal on which levy is payable any costs that it may incur as a result of meeting the expenses of a bid mounted by its management and employees, whether or not that bid is ultimately successful.
      An amendment along those lines was proposed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich when he made his important proposal, now reflected in the new clause 2. that the authority should be able to reimburse the expenses of a management and employee buy-out team.
      The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made in tabling his amendment in Committee was valid. Obviously, if an authority is to pay these expenses, they must be clear at the outset how the cost is ultimately to be met, given that their own assets and liabilities will in due course be transferred to the successor company after disposal. One possibility would be to let the new owner of the successor company eventually pick up the liability. But
      948
      that approach would mean that, if an outside bidder purchased the company, he would then be saddled with meeting the expenses of a rival bid that had failed, a result which could hardly be justified.
      Accordingly the Government accept that these expenses, like those that the authority incurs directly in organising the disposal, should be allowable as a deduction against the amount liable to levy.
      Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 further underline the Government's commitment to the encouragement of management-employee buy-outs. Amendment No. 7 fulfils a commitment that I made in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), when I accepted in principle an amendment that he had tabled. I undertook to table an amendment which would reflect my hon. Friend's views, as expressed in his own amendment, and he will see that the amendment now before the House is very close to what he proposed.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that this embodiment in the legislation of the Government's wish to encourage management-employee buy-outs is a useful addition to the Bill.
      Amendment No. 15 makes similar provision to amendment No. 7 about the exercise of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's powers concerning the disposal of the port of Tilbury by the Port of London Authority.
      Ms. Joan Walley: I am sorry that we are so late in commencing our discussion of the Bill. I have a feeling that if the Bill is passed without our amendments it will be as expensive a mistake as the poll tax, which was the cause of the delay that kept us from further consideration of this Bill.
      The Minister says that the new clause is all about money. The amendments in this group deal with employee share ownership bids, to some extent with the port of Tilbury and with various aspects of pensions. The point is that they are all concerned with money. The question is whether the commitment given by the Minister in Committee allows him to give an assurance to the House that proposals on employee share ownership plans and other forms of management and employee share ownership will be able to go ahead, or whether trust ports forced into privatisation and seeing ESOP schemes as perhaps the best way out will be so unfairly disadvantaged that they will not be able to achieve the ESOP scheme that they want.
      6.15 pm
      We remain fundamentally opposed to the privatisation of trust ports and to the sale of the municipal ports. We had hoped that a general election might intervene early enough to prevent this measure from going through—it still could. If the legislation goes ahead, an employee-management buy-out could give the local work force some hope of being able to continue to play a vital part in the local economy.
      The amendments that we have tabled provide for a series of changes in the legislation that will promote share ownership schemes in the event that this unwelcome legislation is passed.
      New clause 12 allows the authority to accept a bid from employees and managers "without inviting competing bids" provided that certain safeguards are met. Therefore, we are not saying that the ports should be

      949
      given away per se, but that there could be safeguards and we have given an illustration of what they could be. The safeguards relate to the market value being independently certified and to the bid incorporating a substantial element of employee shareholding—at least 25 per cent. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the fact that those making such bids should have access to financial assistance. For that reason our new clause provides for the reimbursement of £80,000.
      Amendment No. 61 states:
      "the levy shall be charged at the rate of 50 per cent. on the consideration given for the securities disposed of."
      We have to consider the Government's proposals in detail as well as the other amendments that have been tabled in this group, because we want the best possible scheme to be written into the Bill.
      I am not sure what the Government proposals mean. I am not clear how much further they take us down the route to employee and management share ownership. Amendment No. 7 states:
      "The appropriate Minister shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers or other persons employed by the successor company of the whole or a substantial part of its equity share capital."
      Unlike the Minister's proposals, ours show in detail how that could be done. For those reasons, we press the House to accept the direct and detailed proposals that we have made. We feel that the Government have not included the detail that we would like.
      In Committee, the Minister said that too much preferential treatment would destroy competition and that there was a danger that, if there were no competition, no other bids would be put alongside the ESOPS. He said that share ownership schemes might result in delays in the trust ports paying off their debts to the Government. The Government must address the whole issue of competition. They must tell us where they stand with regard to the question of employee and management share ownership. Does the concept have their support in principle only? Will the Minister say whether the terms of the amendments could be made more detailed, perhaps in another place?
      In Committee, I said that should privatisation go ahead there would be some support among the Tilbury work force for such schemes. I expressed serious concern about the possibility of the Tilbury management's taking a naive view. The position might not be as easy as the management thought. I said that it was more likely that a large predator company would come along and would then want to sell everything off.
      I should like to draw to the attention of the House press reports suggesting that Hong Kong International Terminals has expressed great interest in buying out the port of Tilbury. Given all the Minister's assurances with regard to management and employee share ownership—and to Opposition Members, employee share ownership is important—I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House how the arrangements will fit in with his amendments. How are they affected by the information that there will almost certainly be bids such as the one from Hong Kong International Terminals?
      The Minister may say that if there were no competition, the Tilbury employees would be worried about the danger of buying something that might not be a going concern in the future. If privatisation is to go ahead, this kind of share ownership could be the best of a bad job. These amendments do not provide employees or management with the assurances that they sought.
      950
      The issue of pensions is included in this group of amendments. The Minister looks puzzled. Does he intend to refer to this matter at a later stage? The amendments on employee share ownership plans are related to those that concern the pensions of the Tilbury work force. I reiterate the Opposition's view. Given all the problems that have arisen from previous privatisations, and all the real fears of employees, when public utilities have been sold off, about their pensions being kept on the same basis, will the Minister avoid simply repeating the assurance that he gave earlier? Can he tell us that he has found a way round the problem whereby about 400 employees of the Port of London Authority will be worse off as a result of these proposals?
      It is important, in this context, to emphasise that the pension fund of Port of London Authority employees is so healthy that those people could have index-linked pensions in the not too distant future. Clearly, that is a benefit that employees transferred to the port of Tilbury would not enjoy. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House on this point.
      Finally, there is the issue of the Port of London Act 1968. Members of the Standing Committee had difficulty determining exactly what constitutes the port of London, and what constitutes the port of Tilbury, for the purposes of deciding which port owns what. The 1968 Act is now out of print, and we still do not have a clear definition. Is the perimeter fence at Tilbury the determining factor? Can the Minister assure us that what belongs to Tilbury will stay with Tilbury and that large tracts of land will not be transferred?
      Mr. Richard Holt: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady just after she started her speech, but I am grateful to her for giving way now. She referred to the future. Can she tell the House whether the Labour party is committed to renationalising trust ports?
      Ms. Walley: I repeat my party's assurance that it intends to implement an integrated transport policy, in which ports will play a most important role. We shall set up the advisory bodies that are necessary to secure investment in a national infrastructure. Our policies are laid out clearly in the party's documents. The hon. Gentleman seems to be uncertain as to the status of trust ports. I do not know whether I should be in order if I were to give him a history lesson. These ports have been held in trust by authorities. I think that I have dealt more than adequately with the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Mr. Holt rose——
      Ms. Walley: I shall not give way again. I want to get on with this important group of amendments relating to management and employee share ownership schemes.
      Mr. Holt: It is a debate.
      Ms. Walley: Yes, it is a debate.
      We should seek ways of making sure that the Bill will result in the introduction of the best possible share ownership schemes. The amendments that we have tabled give more than a general commitment to such schemes. We spell out how they could be introduced and implemented. To that end, we have consulted those who are in the best position to give advice.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing:I shall leave aside the future, as we are debating this Bill. The query of the

      951
      hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was inappropriate. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the definition of the port of Tilbury was debated in Committee. She may have noted that amendment No. 65, which is in my name and has been selected for debate, refers to the cartilage of the port of Tilbury. Is it not a fact that certain installations at Tilbury have an accepted geographical boundary? Is not the boundary indicated in some map, or set out in the Bill?
      Ms. Walley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. He has echoed a discussion that we had in Committee, when it seemed that we should be referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It seems impossible to determine which part of the port of London belongs to the Port of London Authority, and which part belongs to Tilbury. We pressed the Minister about the issue. Members of the Committee had a copy of the very glossy brochure issued by the port of Tilbury, in which red and green squares indicate the various operational parts of the port. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House a full audit of the land available at the port of Tilbury, and will make absolutely clear, before any sale, what exactly is being sold.
      In Committee, it was said that discussion of this matter was premature, and that we should wait until the whole mechanism was set in motion. What we need is a full audit of the land. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us more detail about which land belongs to whom. As I said, the 1968 Act is out of print. I found it almost impossible to get a copy. It would help if the Minister defined the land that belongs to each port and say why there cannot be a full audit of that land.
      Mr. Spearing: Bills usually contain definition clauses. At the end of this Bill I see that there is a clause with the rubric "Interpretation". Is my hon. Friend telling the House that in Committee the Government were unable to present either a map or a draft deed defining the boundaries of this possible future port—I say "possible", as the Bill has not yet been passed. If one purchases a house there is, at the very least, a boundary map. How on earth can the House of Commons consider the future sale of a port whose boundaries have not been defined? If my hon. Friend does not know the answer to that question, will she invite the Minister to intervene and tell us?
      6.30 pm
      Ms. Walley: I share my hon. Friend's concern. He has expressed it much better than I could have. In Committee, the Minister for Shipping was unable to say what land belonged to the port of London, what land belonged to the port of Tilbury and which part of it would be sold off. We pressed the Minister for the details, but he did not provide us with a significant answer. We have had to wait until now, presumably because of the pressure that we have exerted, for the Minister to define the port of Tilbury as that which is defined in the references to be found in the Port of London Act 1968. The Minister does not appear to be willing to deal with that question now. Perhaps he intends to deal with it later.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I should point out to the hon. Lady that, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled amendment No. 65, that would be the most appropriate place to deal with the matter.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My intervention, in the form of a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), related specifically to my amendment, which Mr. Speaker has kindly selected. However, in the debate on this clause, we have discussed the port of Tilbury. It runs as a theme throughout the Bill. Is it in order for the House to consider a Bill that would permit the Secretary of State to sell part of a publicly owned property—the port of London—without the part that is proposed to be sold having been defined? I know that you cannot answer that question immediately, but there are some hours yet before Third Reading. Therefore, I draw it to your attention.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he will take into account the fact that the Minister said that he believed that it would be more convenient to deal with the matter when we reach amendment No. 65, which has been selected for debate.
      Ms. Walley: The Government are attempting to sell off something that they do not own; furthermore, they do not even know who owns it. That is extraordinary. It emphasises the terrible way in which this privatisation is taking place—presumably because the Treasury want to get their hands on the money. When the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is debated, I shall seek guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it would be in order for the sale of this part of the land to proceed without that information having been provided.
      Ports that are against privatisation have expressed great interest in employee-management share ownership schemes. I cannot express too strongly the keen disappointment that is felt within the ports following the Government's insistence on going ahead with auctioning off the trust ports, by means of sale by tender. Many ports would have preferred an unlisted quotation and the opportunity to explore with the managers of local authority pension funds and their customers ways in which to make a bid. It was agreed to go forward on that basis in the case of Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which was so severely damaged in the other place that its future is being considered in this Bill.
      Whatever the Government say, the simple fact remains that the sky is the limit. They will not tell the House what positive action they intend to take so that these schemes can go ahead. Unless our amendments attract support and unless we can persuade the Government to go down this road, it will be impossible, whatever they may say, to establish employee-management share ownership schemes.
      Mr. Michael Irvine: On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said that he was considering how best to encourage management-employee buy-outs. New clauses 2 and 3 and the related amendments make it clear that his considerations have been fruitful. Management-employee buy-outs faced a major difficulty arising from the provision for competitive bidding. It was quite clear that to set up a competitive management-employee buy-out would be complicated, requiring specialist legal and financial advice and a range of valuations of property and equipment.
      It was suggested that, in the case of an average port, the cost could amount to about £250,000 and that, in the case

      953
      of larger ports it could amount to considerably more. That would have been a very real deterrent to a management-employee buy-out bid. As the Bill was drafted, in the event of the bid failing, managers and employers would have been at risk of having to find the money to meet those costs themselves.
      The problem does not apply just to this privatisation or to privatisations generally; it applies also in commerce when companies wish to sell off part of their operations by means of a management-employee buy-out. In the commercial world the problem is usually overcome by the vendor agreeing to underwrite the cost of legal and financial advice and the necessary valuations.
      Specific statutory authority is needed to permit such underwriting in this case. It is interesting to note that there are precedents for such assistance to other management-employee buy-outs of state industries, or parts of them. In Committee, I made the point that such assistance was afforded when the National Bus Company was privatised. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) gave a better example—the important privatisation of Harland and Wolff. A clause similar to new clause 2 was introduced to facilitate that management-employee buy-out, with very good results.
      In Committee, I sought to move an amendment to deal with the difficulty. I acknowledged that my amendment was imperfect and I withdrew it when the Minister accepted that its provisions contained force. I am glad to see the new clauses and amendments, which put the matter far better and far more effectively than my amendment did.
      I know that there is a great deal of interest in a management-employee buy-out in my constituency port of Ipswich, not only among the managers, but among all who work in the dock. I suspect that that is the experience of many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. It is significant that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) got herself into a contortion when she explained how she was basically opposed to this privatisation yet she was in favour of management-employee buy-outs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the new clauses and amendments.
      Mr. John Prescott (Kingston-upon-Hull, East): The hon. Gentleman did not quite understand the intent of what my comrade the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Ms. Walley) said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Comrade?"] It is a good and useful description. The Tory twits come out with silly nonsense.
      When debating the Bill, we have to deal with matters in the order in which they appear in the Bill. The Bill is basically intended as a privatisation measure and we are against the privatisation of the trust ports. The difficulty associated with the trust ports—that of getting access to develop their assets—can be dealt with by a harbour revision order. We explained that on Second Reading and in Committee. We should prefer such an order. In the course of this debate, we must keep within the context of the Bill.
      The Government have claimed that they want an ESOP arrangement. Given that, we have tried to make the point that if they wish to do that, heavy costs are involved. In that sense, we have an agreement. We may not have an agreement on what we do with the trust funds and on how
      954
      we might deal with the ports. In the context of the Bill, it is right for my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North to make her point.
      Mr. Irvine: The problem facing the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North is that, from an ideological viewpoint, they do not like privatisation, but they know very well that, among the dockers, the idea of a management-employee buy-out has a lot of support. It has a lot of support in Ipswich, and I believe that it has a lot of support in other ports. I welcome the new clauses and the related amendments, which clear the way for such management-employee buy-outs.
      Mr. James Wallace: The fact that the Government have tabled amendments to promote employee participation in management-employee buyouts, that the Labour party has tabled similar amendments and that I have tabled amendments towards that end shows a remarkable consensus that management-employee buy-outs tend to be a good thing. We should therefore examine in some detail, if not at great length, the extent to which the new clause tries to promote an objective that is shared by hon. Members of all parties.
      It is fair to say that there will be some cases in which the number of employees is not sufficient for such a buy-out. However, one would have hoped to find other provisions in the Bill which would seek to promote some employee participation, even if it does not amount to a buy-out.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) was perfectly right to point out the number of additional expenses, especially the expensive buying in of professional expertise, which will be necessary to allow management and employees to put together a package. Undoubtedly, the new clauses and supporting amendments go a considerable way towards helping to promote management-employee buy-outs by taking that cost off the shoulders of those seeking to put together a package, if the trust port or company wishes such a package to go ahead. I note that the new clause says that the trust port
      "may on such terms as it thinks fit agree with"
      the bodies concerned. It is a permissive provision rather than one that would require the trust ports to agree.
      I also note that the provision will come into play only if there is an association of employees and management. They will have to have formulated a proposal to maximise employee participation. The third condition, which is contained in new clause 2(3)(c), is that the employee-management team must
      "appear to the body concerned to be best placed to secure the implementation of such a proposal."
      Will the Minister tell me what he understands by that? Does it mean the best proposal of a series of potential management-employee buy-outs, or does it mean that the management-employee buy-out seems to be the best of numerous proposals, including non-management-employee buy-outs? If the latter interpretation is intended, it begs a further question about whether there are other provisions in the Bill—or more likely, not in the Bill—which would try to give some encouragement to management-employee buy-outs.
      Amendment No. 58 was a stab at answering that question. Given the resources available to us, I do not pretend that it is the best means of trying to promote an employee buy-out, but it would at least allow for the levy to be at one half of whatever is stipulated in cases in which

      955
      there is a management buy-out. That would give management and employees a certain edge in putting together a package.
      6.45 pm
      Amendment No. 53 not only relates to encouraging proposals to promote employee participation in the company, but suggests that, when considering schemes, the Minister should have regard to the pension and employment rights of those employed, irrespective of whether it is a management-employee buy-out.
      That point was made to me last week by employees when I visited the port of Poole. They want some assurance about the transfer of pension rights and about the theoretical possibility—which may be more than theoretical—that the business might not continue as a port as we know it with stevedoring and cargo handling, and that the person purchasing the port might carry out an activity entirely different from the main port activity, which could put many people's jobs in jeopardy. I suspect that there are similar concerns at other ports. People want some assurance that the rights of employees would at least be taken into account when the Government consider various schemes. Such an assurance would be welcome, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
      Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in this debate. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) raised an important point on Second Reading, which was taken up in Committee. We have congratulated the Minister on the draftsmanship and workmanship of the new clauses. From what the hon. Member for Ipswich has said, it seems that the new clauses are a straight lift from the Bill that privatised Harland and Wolff. That privatisation has been a great success in terms of productivity, management and competition. I visited Harland and Wolff not long ago, and I saw how well it is doing after privatisation. If the wording of the new clauses has the same impact, we should welcome it.
      My worry on behalf of those who have invested their lives in the docks is that the wording of the new clauses is not strong enough to ensure that there is worker participation that includes employees rather than simply the management. I am somewhat reassured by amendment No. 7, which says:
      "In exercising his powers under sub-section (2) above the appropriate Minister shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers or other persons employed by the successor company".
      That may cover my concern. The only way in which the Government could entirely cover my concern would be for them to accept new clause 12, which was tabled by the Opposition.
      The point that there would be massive expenditure by any management-employee team who wished to compete with the godfathers of the shipping trade was well taken in Committee. Such godfathers might want to come into the port as it came up for privatisation, and it would be difficult for employee-management buy-out teams to compete. We know that the Tees and Hartlepool port went to celebrated merchant bankers in the City of London, who came up with a scheme that was so disastrous that it was kicked out. in the other place.
      Mr. Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of those godfather shipping companies have
      956
      acquired the companies in the ports industry that are already in the private sector? Is that not an unnecessary scare?
      Mr. Bell: I do not think that it is a scare, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has mentioned one already. When I was in Northern Ireland, I talked to the people at Warren Point; they are in the same situation as Felixstowe. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, mentions Sealink, and there are quite a number of others that I could mention, such as Hanson Trust. I could mention quite a number of companies which may not have thought of the great assets that are linked to our ports and are there for the taking under the Government scheme. We are debating a way of preventing these predators from moving in, of giving the management and the employees, who are the ones who have invested their lives in the business, a chance to maintain that investment and—to get back to our central point—of seeing that there is a benefit for the local community.
      I think that we are all aware of what is out there in the wide world waiting to try to take over our ports. Therefore, anything that strengthens the concept of the management buy-out, which is a buy-out with a strong employee interest—we are not interested in a straightforward management buy-out that leaves the employees out in the cold—must have the support of the House.
      My feeling is that, to overcome the essential difference between us—the emphasis in the Government wording is on management while the emphasis in ours is on employees—the House would be better served if the Government accepted new clause 12 at this stage.
      I am grateful that I am following the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I sympathise with his other problems. It is good to see that, despite the difficulties he has had in his constituency in Orkney, he has nevertheless maintained a strong interest in this Bill, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
      I therefore hope that I can persuade the Minister, in my usual seductive fashion, to look again at new clause 12, which is our new clause, to pit that against new clauses 2 and 3 and to give us credit on this occasion for getting the balance right in the interests of the employees and of the local community.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I think that this has been a useful start to the debate. I tried to explain in opening and putting forward the Government amendments that the Government are committed to seeing management and employees given every incentive and certainly put at no disadvantage. I can say, with regard to a point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that the new clause is designed to enable the authority to work out which are the best placed of the management-employee buy-outs to sponsor. He may remember that that was a question on which I was asked for clarification by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). That is certainly the Government's intention.
      New clause 12, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) tabled, is basically a well-balanced combination of the unacceptable and the unnecessary. Taking the latter first, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause has been anticipated in the Government's amendments on financial assistance in new clause 2 and, in the case of the PLA, new clause 3. As far

      957
      as the unacceptable part is concerned, subsection (1) would completely undermine the Government's policy of inviting competitive bidding for the ports by giving a MEBO team first refusal in every case. That goes far beyond the intention of providing a level playing field for all possible potential bidders. We believe that it is right to establish the market price of a port by competitive bids rather than by a theoretical valuation. If there were to be a theoretical valuation and that proved to be wrong, who would be the people shouting the loudest about the Government's selling off at a lower price than could be expected? We all know who would be shouting the loudest and most vociferously. It would obviously be the Opposition.
      Ms. Walley: In view of what the Minister has just said, will he tell the House why it was possible to do that in the case of Tees and Hartlepool, and to come to an agreement on £62 million—my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong—and comment on the fact that there should be tax amounts based on £31 million, that is 50 per cent? Why was it possible to do that in the case of Tees and Hartlepool but not possible in the case of the other trust ports? Will the Minister tell the House that?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The House is dealing with a Government Bill; it is not dealing with the private Bill that passed through the House and has not made all the progress which its promoters would have liked.
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Minister, of course, is seeking an explanation for the point which my hon. Friend put, but the essence of the matter is this. The Government supported the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill; they supported the principles and the financial measures in that Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friend's question is pertinent. Why is it not now a possibility even under this Bill?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The Government made their position quite clear at the time of the starting of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill; we said that we would bring forward our own legislation which would enable all trust ports to follow the system of privatisation. That was not the case at the time when Tees and Hartlepool first promoted their private Bill. The House is not now dealing with a history lesson on the earlier private Bill; it is dealing with the Bill that is before it.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister says that that was not the case when we were dealing with the private Bill, but he must recognise—I am sure that he will not deny it—that the Bill before us was going through the House a few weeks behind the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which had been through the House and was in the Lords. Therefore, his explanation is not adequate.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I do not have the precise dates before me, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill began its stages in the House in March 1989 and the Government's Bill was announced in November in the Gracious Speech.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman's dates are wrong. The Bill did not come to the House until 27 November 1989, and it was kept in the House for many months after that in Committee, and some weeks after that before hon.
      958
      Members could examine the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority proposals on site. Therefore, I am suggesting to the Minister—and I am sure that he will react honourably to this—that the point he is making to my hon. Friend is invalidated because the private Bill was running only a few weeks ahead of the Bill to which he is now addressing himself.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I should like to correct myself and apologise, in part, to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that it was in November 1989. And of course the Gracious Speech in which the Government's intention to bring forward a ports Bill was announced was in November 1990. So I was perfectly right in saying that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill started a long time before the Government secured the position in the legislative programme to bring forward the Bill that is before the House tonight.
      Mr. Holt: It may assist my hon. Friend and all Opposition Members who are floundering to know that I moved the Second Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill on 15 March 1990, when 29 Opposition Members voted against it
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we can make some progress instead of going through a history lesson. I want to deal with various amendments put forward by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
      First, I believe that his amendment No. 53 is unnecessary, because the Bill already takes care of some of the hon. Member's concerns and a tabled Government amendment would take care of the remainder. The transfer of undertakings regulations apply to the employment rights of those affected by transfers under the Bill. Although the regulations do not apply to occupational pension schemes, the general transfer clause 2(2) —this is the important point—ensures that the rights and liabilities of a port authority would be transferred to its successor company and the rights and liabilities of the employees in relation to such a scheme would continue. It is later on, when we come to deal with Tilbury, for special reasons that were discussed in Committee, that the position is different. I therefore hope that it will be seen that there is no need to pursue amendment No. 53.
      The amendment would also require the Minister to have regard to the promotion of employee participation. Provision for this is already made in Government amendment No. 7, which is cast in similar terms and would have substantially the effect desired by hon. Members. I could offer the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland a long explanation in respect of amendments Nos. 57 and 58, although I do not know whether I need to do so. I realise that the amendments are well intentioned, but they would give too much of an advantage, and it would not help management-employee buy-outs to reduce the levy to 25 per cent. in such cases. The hon. Gentleman should think through what effect that might have on the base price and on price pegging. We will deal with the matter in greater detail when we discuss the proposed levy.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that the amendments would give too much of an advantage. Then he said that they would not help. Which of those statements is right?
      7 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments would not help in respect of the amount that would have to be paid, but they would not provide the level playing field that the Government want, either. Although my two statements may appear contradictory, I believe that they can both be defended.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: If the Government are serious in claiming that they want to give port employees the opportunity to be involved in management-worker bids, why does the Bill not discriminate in favour of such people? The people most likely to ensure that a port continues to function as a port are those who have spent a lifetime working in it. Probably generations of their families have worked in the industry, too. The Government pay lip service to the idea, but they are not prepared to remove the disadvantages to such people, even if they recognise them.
      Mr. McLoughlin: It is partly because of such considerations that the Government seek to give people who have worked in the ports all their lives and contributed a considerable amount a share in their companies, and to allow them to play a more positive role. They are likely to benefit the most if companies are successful, and that is precisely what privatisation will achieve.
      I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments, and that the Opposition will feel able not to press their amendments.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I want to reason out my argument with the Minister, without challenging him, because that is the best way to elicit a response to the good sense in new clause 12.
      I apologise for repeating myself, but the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was brought to the House of Commons, without consultation with anybody, on 27 November 1989—the deadline for the submission of private Bills. During the following year, that Bill spent most of its lame in the House of Commons The proceedings of the Committee that dealt with it were protracted and its deliberations were held up, because its members insisted on seeing the Tees and Hartlepool port authority on site—much against the wishes of the Chairman of the Committee. The present Bill eventually came to the House in the latter part of 1990, following the Queen's Speech. A procedural motion was needed for the reference, following a message from the House of Lords, to take the Bill to the other place.
      Perhaps the Minister will think again about new clause 12, which says:
      "Financial assistance shall be available in respect of bids put together substantially by management and employees".
      Under the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill the management would have been permitted to seek financial resources to assist a management takeover. Such a takeover would have involved, first, the setting up of a holding company and, secondly the port authority's becoming a subsidiary company of the holding company. The Government supported that Bill then and agreed that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill could raise its own finances. The Minister's approach to this Bill contradicts the Government's previous position.
      Two or three months ago, the House of Lords turfed out the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill because it
      960
      was said that the Government were introducing a Ports Bill. The Government must have been cognisant of the provisions of their own Bill, which rejects financial assistance for management takeovers, whereas the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill allowed for such assistance. That reveals a dichotomy in Government thinking. They supported the provisions of the private Bill on management takeovers, but the public Bill does not embody support for the same principle. The Minister is a reasonable man. He must respond to that argument. I do not think that his promotion prospects will be diminished if he responds in the proper manner.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I now have the timetable before me, and I hope that it will not stretch your patience too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I give some details. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said, the Bill was laid on 27 November 1989 and Second Reading was on 15 March. I remember enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion, although I hope that his speeches tonight will be shorter. The Bill went into Committee on 15 May and came out on 25 July. Third Reading was on 22 October 1990. The Bill had therefore gone through all its stages in this House when the Government's intention to introduce a Ports Bill in their own time was announced in the Gracious Speech. A revival motion was debated after the Gracious Speech, on 4 December.
      On Second Reading, in response to a question about the private Bill from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said:
      "No such advice will be given to the sponsors of that Bill or to the sponsors of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which is going through this House. Those private Bills were sponsored by the port authorities in question. It is entirely for them to decide whether they wish either to continue with their Bills or to wait and then use the provisions of this Bill." —[Official Report, 28 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 670.]
      The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill did not go all the way through the House of Lords, although I understand—I am not 100 per cent. sure of the procedure in the other place—that an attempt could be made to overturn the Committee's decision. We have always made it perfectly clear, as the Secretary of State did on Second Reading, that the provisions of any of the private Bills before the House at that time might come within the scope of this Bill if they did not succeed. That is what the House is discussing now.
      Mr. Holt: Before he finishes speaking, will my hon. Friend reflect on what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said about the reasons why their Lordships threw out the private Bill of which I was a sponsor? The report said that it was not felt that the management would have the experience to move into new areas of activity. What has changed, now that we are dealing with a Government Bill? Why should managements now be deemed to have sufficient experience to overcome the objections voiced in the House of Lords?
      Mr. McLoughlin: We have always made it plain that any trust port can come under the provisions of the Government's Bill. I cannot be responsible for the reasons on which the upper House decided, in its wisdom, to report. All that I can be responsible for is the Bill at present before the House of Commons. I commend the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROPOSAL TO MAXIMISE EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN EQUITY OF THE COMPANY
      ' .—(1) Where the Port Authority propose to form or have formed a company in pursuance of section 18 above ("the relevant company"), they may on such terms as they think fit agree with any persons who at the time of the agreement qualify for assistance under this section—

      (a) to indemnify those persons in respect of the whole or any part of any expenditure to which subsection (3) below applies; or

      (b) to discharge on their behalf the whole or any part of any liability to which that subsection applies.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above persons qualify for assistance under this section if—

      (a) each of them satisfies the employment condition;

      (b) they have formulated a proposal for maximising participation by employees of the relevant company in ownership of its equity share capital; and

      (c) they appear to the Port Authority to be best placed to secure the implementation of such a proposal.

      (3) This subsection applies to any expenditure or liability of the persons concerned incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the proposal mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above.
      (4) A person satisfies the employment condition as regards assistance under this section—

      (a) before the transfer under section 19(6) above, if he is employed by the Port Authority in that part of their undertaking which consists in operating the port of Tilbury; and

      (b) after that transfer, if he is employed by the relevant company.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

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

    New Clause 4

      TREATMENT OF NET PROCEEDS OF DISPOSAL OF OWNERSHIP
      ' .— (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the sums paid by the authority to the successor company under section 4(4) above shall be treated as accumulated realised profits of the successor company.
      (2) The amount which under subsection (1) above falls to be treated as accumulated realised profits of the successor company shall be—

      (a) increased by any amount by which the asset value on the transfer to the successor company under section 7 above exceeds the liability amount; or

      (b) reduced by any amount by which the liability amount on that transfer exceeds the asset value;

      as the case may require.
      (3) In subsection (2) above—
      "the asset value" means the aggregate value of the assets transferred; and
      "the liability amount" means the aggregate amount of the liabilities transferred.
      (4) For the purposes of this section the value of any asset and the amount of any liability transferred to the successor company under section 7 above shall be taken to be its value or amount determined in accordance with any provision made by the scheme under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 below (transitional provision as to accounts, etc., of the successor company).'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a short new clause, intended to make clear the accounting treatment of the net proceeds of sale of a port after the levy on proceeds and any tax liability has been paid. Without such a specific provision, there might have been doubt whether the net proceeds of disposal could be treated as accumulated realised profits of the successor company available for distribution. The new clause makes it clear that that is the case.
      Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving that explanation to the House. I read the entire new clause with great perplexity throughout the afternoon. I even missed the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment on the so-called abolition of the poll tax. I still could not make head nor tail of the new clause.
      As I understand it, the Minister said that the new clause defines an asset on which tax has already been paid. When I read the new clause in relation to schedule 1(9), I wondered how I would annotate the Bill for legal publishers and how I would square schedule 1, paragraph 9 with the new clause. I wondered what explanation I would give. Is there a contradiction in terms between schedule 1, where the assets are described, and new clause 4, as explained by the Minister?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I think that the answer to that question is no.
      Mr. Bell: The Minister is improving somewhat on Mark Twain, who, when asked the distance from Nashville to New Orleans on the Mississippi, said with great prompitude that he did not know. I suspect that that was the true answer that the Minister gave. It was with a nod of the heads of the—two, four, six—seven officials in the Box that he was able to give such a prompt answer. In any event, the explanation seems to be that the assets of the port are assets on which taxes have already been paid and on which taxes are not likely to be paid a second time.
      Mr. Prescott: Is new clause 4 in any way related to the new clauses which affect clause 16, in which estimates are made of what the assets are, what will be taxed and what will be the Government's take? I take it that the Minister does not think that that is so.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. This is a fairly technical matter. We shall come to the points that he made, and it is clear that we shall have a long debate on them. The new clause has been tabled simply for the avoidance of doubt and uncertainty and to make clear the accounting treatment of receipts of a somewhat unusual nature, in that they represent part of the purchase price returning to the purchaser. We have sought to clarify that matter.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      THE REQUIRED PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS
      ' .— (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, this section applies to—

      963

      (a) any person transferred by virtue of the transfer under section 19(6) above from the employment of the Port Authority to that of the company who—

      (i) immediately before the date of the transfer was a member of the Port of London Authority Pension Fund ("the Fund"); and

      (ii)ceased to be such a member by virtue of the transfer; and

      (b) any person who, after that date, acquires pension rights under any pension scheme provided or amended in pursuance of any provision made in accordance with the following provisions of this section by the scheme under section 19 above (a "relevant pension scheme") by reason of the death of a person within paragraph (a) above;

      but only, in the case of any person within paragraph (b) above, as respects the pension rights by virtue of which he falls within that paragraph.
      (2) Any person to whom this section applies may elect in such manner as may be prescribed that this section shall cease to apply to him; and if any person within subsection (1)(a) above—

      (a) ceases to be in continuous employment; or

      (b) voluntarily withdraws from a relevant pension scheme;

      otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed, this section shall cease to apply to him except as respects pension rights which have accrued to him before that time.
      (3) The required provision for the protection of pension rights mentioned in section 20(1A) above is provision for the purpose of securing that—

      (a) no person within subsection (1)(a) above is placed in any worse position by reason of—

      (i) ceasing to be a member of the Fund by virtue of the transfer of employment mentioned in subsection (1)(a); or

      (ii) being prevented from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under a relevant pension scheme by any subsequent change of employer which does not affect his continuity of employment;

      (b) no person to whom this section applies is placed in any worse position by reason of—

      (i) any winding up, in whole or in part, of a relevant pension scheme; or

      (ii) any amendment of a relevant pension scheme which results in benefits under that scheme being reduced or contributions by employees being increased.

      (4) The references in subsection (3) above to any worse position shall be construed, in relation to a person within subsection (1)(a) above, as references to a position which is any worse than his position immediately before he ceases to be a member of the Fund.
      (5) Provision made by virtue of subsection (3) above may impose duties (whether as to the provision or amendment of pension schemes, the purchase of annuities, the making of payments or otherwise) on persons, other than the Port Authority, who are or have been employers of persons within subsection (1)(a) above.
      (6) Duties imposed on any person by any such provision may include duties owed to persons of whom he is not and has not been an employer.
      (7) The scheme under section 19 above may also provide for any dispute arising under any such provision to be referred to arbitration.
      (8) So much of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether any employment is continuous shall apply for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above as if those subsections were contained in that Act.
      (9) In this section—
      "employer", in relation to a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, includes that other company;
      964
      "pension", in relation to any person, means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of him, and includes a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable and a return of contributions, with or without interest or any other addition;
      "pension rights", in relation to any person, includes—

      (a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of him; and

      (b) any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of him;

      and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
      "pension scheme" means any scheme for providing pensions to or in respect of any persons;
      "the Port of London Authority Pension Fund" refers to the Port of London Authority Pension Fund established under section 5 of the Port of London Act 1928; and
      "prescribed" means prescribed by the scheme under section 19 above.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 49, in clause 19, page 16, line 12, at end insert—
      '(5A) The scheme shall contain provisions for the setting up of a mirror-image pension scheme identical in all ways to any scheme operated by or funded in whole or in part by that authority. The Secretary of State shall provide for the funding of this scheme equivalent to the amount held in respect of each member's accrued pension benefits, allowing for expected future pay increases. Bulk transfers without consent should be conditional upon the Actuary to the transferring scheme supplying a certificate of broad equivalence. Pensionable service shall be regarded as not having terminated in any change of scheme.'.
      Government amendment No. 4.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: The purpose of new clause 1 is to require the transfer scheme under clause 19 to include provision for the protection of pension rights of members of the Port of London Authority pension fund who are transferred from the employment of the PLA to that of the new company and who cease to be members of the fund by virtue of the transfer. That point caused anxiety among all members of the Committee. I hope to explain to the House how the Government intend to tackle it.
      The protection of such pension rights was an important point and it was raised often in Committee. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). In Committee I said that it was the intention of the PLA that benefits available to employees joining the new company would be no less favourable than those under the PLA pension fund, and that the Government intended to give statutory effect to that. New clause 1 and amendment No. 4 have been tabled to implement the undertaking that I made to the Committee.
      I said to the Committee that the detailed provision was likely to be more suitable for inclusion in the scheme of transfer under clause 19 than in the Bill itself, and this has turned out to be so. The details will therefore go into the scheme, and the purpose of these is to require the scheme to include such provision.
      The House will appreciate that the provisions of the new clause are complex. In essence, they establish a category of protected persons and they require that such

      965
      protected persons are not placed in a worse position through ceasing to be members of the PLA pension fund or for other specified reasons, such as the winding up or amendment of a pension scheme provided by the successor company.
      The persons to be covered by these provisions are transferred employees who are contributing members of the PLA pension fund immediately before transfer day and certain dependants of such employees. Transferred employees will retain their protection so long as they are "continuously employed", as defined in the clause.
      The scheme under clause 19 will require the employer of the protected persons to ensure that such persons will continue to enjoy pension rights that are no worse than they would have been if they had continued to be members of the PLA pension fund as it was before the transfer date. The clause also enables any dispute in respect of the protective provision to be referred to arbitration.
      I have given only a summary of new clause 1, but I hope that the House will recognise from the details of the new clause that we have been concerned to make full provision for the protection of the people concerned.
      Amendment No. 4 is a paving amendment for the new clause. It amends clause 20, which provides for the supplementary provision that may be included in a scheme under clause 10. Amendment No. 4 inserts into clause 20 a requirement for the scheme to include the provision for protection of pension rights described in subsection (3) of new clause 1.
      Amendment No. 49, tabled by Opposition Members, has basically very similar objectives to those in the amendments which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has tabled. I am told that some of the phraseology used would be difficult to interpret. It also seems to require the Secretary of State to fund a pension scheme to be available to the transferred employees and this would be quite unacceptable. I hope, therefore, that Opposition Members will withdraw their amendment and that the House will accept the amendments that I have described. They should go a long way to allaying the fears of the employees to be transferred from the PLA.
      Ms. Walley: We are pleased that the Minister has introduced proposals to deal with pensions. He was right to say that the interview caused great anxiety in Committee, certainly among Opposition Members. We pressed the Government on the matter at great length. The Minister referred to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). I do not see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. I wonder where he is.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the non-attendance of my hon. Friend. He is serving on a Select Committee, so he cannot be here this afternoon.
      Ms. Walley: I am grateful for that explanation. I was referring to the debates and disagreements in Committee. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to be here, but we have had an explanation from the Minister of his whereabouts.
      We had a commitment from the Minister that the Government would return with the mechanics of introducing detailed proposals to enshrine the pension rights of the workers in the legislation. We are pleased that
      966
      the pressure that we applied has borne fruit and that the Government have addressed the issue. Previously the Bill ignored it.
      The Minister referred to our amendment, which sets out the principles of a pension scheme that will in no way undermine the rights of the Tilbury workers and those remaining with the Port of London Authority. The Minister promised to state in the Bill that the same benefits would be available from the new company. I want to press him further. I want from him an absolute assurance that the Government's amendments, technical and complicated as they are, will satisfy the concerns of the port of London work force.
      We debated the matter at length in Committee, when we echoed the concerns of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the prospective candidate for Thurrock, Andrew MacKinley, whom I am pleased to see in the Strangers Gallery.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady knows, under our procedures we do not refer to people outside the Chamber.
      Ms. Walley: I am grateful for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I was interested to hear the Minister say that the amendments which he has tabled would mean that the employees would not have worse conditions at the date of the sale. One point which we should address is that employees who are covered by the Port of London authority pension scheme can look forward to index-linked benefits, because that is a healthy fund, with large investments.
      I appreciate that we are dealing with a complicated and technical issue and that what the port of London pension fund can and cannot do is enshrined in legislation. However, I want to press upon the Minister concerns that have been brought to my attention by people employed by the Port of London authority. I quote directly from a letter:
      "It is therefore most imperative that, if it is not possible to remain within their own fund, then Government statutes should provide that whatever future pension changes that are imposed on us, they will not diminish in real terms the members' final settlements."
      The pension benefits of some 400 workers may not seem an important issue in direct comparison with the other matters with which we are concerned in the Bill, but pensions will clearly be crucial when those workers reach retirement age. It is up to the House to protect their interests fully. I do not know whether the Minister will address the matter in more detail, but we do not want people to be worse off as a result of the Government's proposals. We need further clarification from the Minister.
      Mr. Loyden: I support fully what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has said. Many of us have been concerned in the past about pensions when employees have been transferred from one company to another. In many cases the workers find themselves worse off. I hope that the Minister will take into account the principle that those covered by the pension scheme at present will be no worse off and will gain any advantages that accrue from index linking in future. My hon. Friend has made the case, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that it was fair of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) to maintain that the point was ignored earlier. As I said in Committee, the Government always intended to address the point that Tilbury was different from all the other trust ports in that it was being split from the Port of London authority. The problem did not arise from the other trust ports, where there was a straight transfer.
      For the hon. Lady to say that the matter was ignored was to over-egg the importance of the Opposition's case. We always accepted that it would be an important part of the Bill. Certainly I would not say that it was not important for the House to spend time on the pensions of 400 people. It is exceptionally important and vital for those people that we get the clause right.
      That is why the Bill will provide that the scheme proposed for the privatisation will ensure that those people are treated in the same way as those who are in the PLA scheme. It is impossible for them to remain in that scheme, because they will cease to be employees of the port of London. I do not think that anybody should be under any misapprehension that we intend to make sure that they get equal treatment to those who remain in the scheme.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      SUPPLEMENTARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO LEVY UNDER SECTION 16
      ' .—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order substitute for any percentage for the time being specified in section 16(2) above such other percentage as may be specified in the order.
      (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, any amount payable or paid by any company in respect of levy under that section on any disposal shall be allowable as a deduction from the consideration in the computation under the 1979 Act of the gain accruing to that company or to any other person on the disposal.
      References below in this section, in relation to any disposal on which levy under that section is chargeable, to the levy amount are references to any amount so payable or paid in respect of the levy.
      (3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply where—

      (a) apart from the deduction of the levy amount an allowable loss would accrue to the company or to any other person on the disposal; or

      such a loss would so accrue if the levy amount were deducted;

      but in the latter case the person making the disposal shall be treated for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains as if the disposal had been made for a consideration of such amount as would secure that neither a gain nor a loss would accrue to that person.
      (4) Subsection (2) above shall not apply where a disposal on which levy under section 16 above is chargeable is one which, by virtue of section 267(1) or 273(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (company reconstructions and amalgamations and transfers within groups of companies), is treated as made for a consideration ("the original consideration") giving rise to neither a gain nor a loss.
      (5) Where in any case within subsection (4) above the original consideration is less than the market value at the time of the disposal of the land or interest in land which is the subject of the disposal, the consideration for which the disposal is treated by the provision in question as being made shall be increased by—

      (a) the levy amount; or

      968

      (b) the excess of that market value over the original consideration;

      whichever is the less.
      (6) Except as provided above in this section, no amount payable or paid in respect of levy under section 16 above or interest on such levy shall be allowed as a deduction or otherwise taken into account in computing any income, profits or losses for any tax purposes.
      (7) There shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund—

      (a) all payments received by the appropriate Minister in respect of levy under section 16 above; and

      (b) all interest paid to the appropriate Minister by virtue of any provision of an order under that section.

      (8) In this section "allowable loss" has the same meaning as in the 1979 Act; and in section 16 above and this section—

      (a) "the 1979 Act" means the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979; and

      (b) references to an interest in land include any right in, over or in relation to land.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
      Amendment No. 47, in clause 16, page 12, line 21, leave out from 'be' to end of line 34 and insert
      'charged at the rate of one hundred per cent. on the amount of the gain, and shall be payable by the chargeable company to the Secretary of State.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 29 to 37.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments constitute a significant change to the arrangements envisaged in the Bill for the Government's levy on onward disposals of land. They take account of almost all of the concerns that were expressed about the arrangements by my hon. Friends in Committee. They do not, I surmise, take account of the views of the Opposition, because there was a total divide in Committee on the points. I do not wish to say anything further about what happened in Committee, but instead to deal with the heart of the matter.
      The Government take the view that the sale of a port under the Bill will be carried out through a process of competitive tendering. Nevertheless, it is still possible that land which some of the ports hold will turn out to have a significantly higher value than was appreciated at the time of sale.
      In such cases, the subsequent sale of such land would be subject to capital gains tax. But we consider that there should be a further levy on the enhanced value of such property to prevent excessive windfall gains for the purchaser of a port in the same way. As I explained a few minutes ago, we see the levy on the proceeds of disposal as preventing excessive windfall gains at the time of sale.
      Of course, as I made clear in Committee, one of our objectives in seeking the privatisation of major trust ports is to make it easier for them to realise the value of their property holdings, so we need to strike a careful balance between preventing excessive windfall gains and deterring the port companies from turning their property to best account. The balance is difficult, and a number of my hon. Friends, who, I expect, are representative of opinion on this side of the House as a whole, made it clear during debates in Committee that they did not feel we were striking the right balance, but instead that the scales were too loaded against the ports.

      969
      Amendment No. 27 clears the way, in drafting terms, for amendment No. 28. That amendment is designed to answer most of the points that my hon. Friends have made. First, it defines the disposal of land or an interest in land in terms of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979. That makes it clear that we are envisaging not a new tax, but rather a levy, or surcharge based on existing tax earnings. In particular, this responds to concern about the levy being charged for deemed disposal on the granting of planning permission. With the new formulation, that falls outside the scope of the levy, and, indeed, amendment No. 32 specifically deletes it from the Bill.
      Secondly, although we continue to see the need for the levy to operate over 10 years, because a reduction to five years would encourage companies simply to defer disposals until they escaped levy altogether, we accept that, after the first five years, the rate should be tapered.
      Thirdly, we have also taken account of the combined effect of the levy and of CGT on gains resulting from land disposals. This is the most obvious example of the need to strike a balance that I have just mentioned. Accordingly, the rate of levy is to be 25 per cent. for the first five years, reducing to 20 per cent. in years six and seven, and to 10 per cent. for the rest of the 10-year period.
      If I may anticipate the provisions in new clause 9, the House will see that subsection 2 provides for the levy to be deductable against capital gains for the purpose of capital gains tax. That means that, for the first five years, the maximum combined effect of the levy and of CGT will be 49·75 per cent. of the chargeable gain, falling after five years to 46·4 per cent., and after seven years to just under 40 per cent. I pointed that out to Committee members in a letter that I wrote to them a few weeks ago, because I knew that they would want the full details of that important matter.
      The remaining amendments on clause 16—Nos. 29 to 36—are drafting consequentials either of amendment No. 28, or simply of the need to move one or two of the existing provisions in clause 16 into new clause 9.
      7.30 pm
      Two other points of interest to my hon. Friends will be dealt with in due course by the order to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, under subsection (3). First, that order will provide that the base date for the valuation of land for the purpose of the levy will be the date on which the company ceases to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the former port authority, that is the date on which the disposal begins. The base value will be the market value at that date.
      Secondly, there is clearly little point in applying the levy to minor disposals of land. Accordingly, a de minimis provision is needed, and the order will provide that individual disposals worth less than 2 per cent. of the proceeds of sale of a port, provided that they fall below £200,000, will be excluded from the levy. The order will also provide that the levy will be payable only on disposals of a value amounting cumulatively over the whole of the clawback period to more than 10 per cent. of the proceeds of sale of a port, provided that they do not exceed a cumulative total of £500,000.
      Mr. Wallace: May I respond to the Minister's point that the base date for calculating the value and the increase
      970
      will be the date of transfer to the new company, when the company will cease to be a subsidiary of the port? Does that mean that, if the value of transfer is fixed on, say, 1 January for a transfer that will take place on I May. and planning permission is obtained in March for land that, accordingly will increase substantially in value after the date on which the price was agreed, that increase will not be reflected if there is a subsequent sale at a much enhanced price?
      Mr. Mcloughlin: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that issue when I have thought more about his question. I shall try to answer him at some stage during the debate.
      New clause 9 consists partly of provisions transferred from clause 16 and the provision to which I have already referrred, and makes the levy deductible against gains for the purpose of capital gains tax. It also includes provisions, in subsections (3) to (5), to ensure that the payment of a levy will not be allowed to create a loss for the purpose of capital gains tax. Finally, amendment No. 37 is a drafting consequential later in the Bill.
      This is an important aspect of a privatisation of this sort, where unforeseen gains may arise on the subsequent sales of land. In drawing up these amendments, we have taken the views expressed in Committee carefully into account, and I hope that my hon. Friends, if not Opposition Members, feel that the package of measures that we now have extends the right balance of interests between the new port owners and the taxpayer beyond the disposal into the early years of privatisation. I therefore hope that the amendments will be acceptable to the House.
      May I return to the question of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? The example that he gave might be the case, but I shall confirm that to him later. If necessary, I shall write to him in due course.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I hope that the Minister will accept that the House needs to be quite clear about the meaning of new clauses 9 and 16 and the amendments under consideration.
      New clause 9 states:
      "The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order substitute for any percentage for the time being specified in section 16(2)."
      That is rather a dog's breakfast. It does not tell the House very much—we shall have to vote on it—about the impact that it may have on the ports. For example, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority had disposable assets of some £60 million. The Minister should recognise—we have often repeated the fact—that, when the levy under that Bill was 50 per cent. or nearly £30·5 million, we understood the extent to which the port authority would be denied half the value of the disposable assets and that the holding company would have the rest. That would go against the raising of moneys for the flotation. Moreover, we could measure the extent to which the subsidiary company—the port—would be disadvantaged.
      The Minister is not listening to me. Hon. Members would be wise to consider the point that I am making. The new clause affects many ports and the employment prospects of those who work there. Although hon. Members may not have job security, we are much more privileged than those who must suffer the vicissitudes of economic recessions. The issue concerns jobs, men and management, and the extent to which the Government are

      971
      seeking, rather greedily, to accrue to the Treasury moneys which they have not helped to earn. That is the nub of the problem.
      Will the Minister consider this serious matter objectively? Before the House votes, it is entitled to know the exact implications of this important new clause and the amount of money that we shall take from those ports, which will not have been earned by the Government. It will be a windfall for the Treasury, which will benefit in the same way as it has in every privatisation so far. The Government have done little for the economy but, by selling off the plate and silver, they have given the Treasury millions of pounds.
      The Bill deals with small ports as well as large ones. To put it in perspective, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is the third largest port in the United Kingdom in terms of volume of trade. However, the Bill deals with many other ports which come way down the scale, with assets of less than £60 million or even as low as £20 million.
      If, under new clause 9, the Secretary of State is allowed, with the usual wording,
      "with the consent of the Treasury"—
      not of the House—to tinker with the provisions already in the Bill and change the circumstances in which the levy would be applied, thereby altering the percentages in the Bill, we should know beforehand what effect that will have on the ports that the Government seeks to privatise.
      Anyone who runs a business would want to know his returns as a percentage of his turnover and the tax that he would have to pay. Somebody may buy into the business. If that somebody is not the House of Commons or those who draft legislation but the Government of the day with the consent of the Treasury, that is not an interesting business arrangement, because they are in the same pot together. The Prime Minister is the First Secretary to the Treasury. Naturally, the business wants to know the course that the Government will take in the absence of any democratic processes being put into effect.
      The Bill provides that in the first year
      "the levy shall be 40 per cent. of the corporation tax payable by the company."
      In the second year, it will be 32 per cent.; in the third, 24 per cent.; in the fourth, 16 per cent.; and in the fifth, 8 per cent. How have the Government arrived at these percentages? Instead of 40 per cent. in the first year, why not 41 per cent. or 39 per cent? Instead of 32 per cent. in the second year, why not 28 per cent?
      The term "corporation tax" does not present us with a specific figure. As we are taking money from other's pockets, the House is entitled to know by what tests, criteria or judgments the Government arrived at the percentages to which I have referred. We all know that, if there are no factors in an equation save X, the value of X can quickly be ascertained. Does the House know what "corporation tax" means in the sense of real money?
      I am expected to vote on these issues this evening. Well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, according to our procedures, the Government would welcome a decision by the Opposition not to vote on the new clauses and amendments to enable them, the Government, quickly to take the Bill through the House this evening. Of course no one wants to stop the Government taking their Bill through its various stages of consideration unless an important matter of principle is involved. Governments govern and Governments get their Bill, but all Administrations have a responsibility to explain to the
      972
      House how they have arrived at their figures, bearing in mind the fact that the Treasury will be given consent to change the figures.
      In effect, we are being asked to approve the new clause and then to go to the Strangers' Bar for a pint of beer, or the Tea Room for a cup of tea or coffee, and say to ourselves, "We have done a good job. A non-elected body called the Treasury will be able to change the figures in future." That is not a responsible way to deal with our ports. I hope that the Minister will respond to his natural inclination to honesty and explain why elected Members of this place are expected to agree to the Treasury being empowered to alter the figures in future.
      Mr. Prescott: We are discussing a controversial issue, and in Committee certain Conservative and Opposition Members united to defeat the Government. There will certainly be a Division this evening. I hope that I can have the attention of the Minister. I feel that too many discussions took place in Committee between the hon. Gentleman and the Government Whip. That led to a motion being tabled that meant that the new clause would be discussed at a late stage during our consideration of the Bill on Report. It is the usual practice of the House to deal with new clauses, and especially those tabled by the Government, at an early stage on Report. It was argued, however, on the basis of tortuous reasoning, that new clause 9 could be dealt with at a late stage. It happens, of course, to be the most controversial new clause and one on which there will be a Division.
      I say with all respect to the Minister that my hon. Friends have worked well with him in a spirit of co-operation despite our opposition to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman could have given some warning of the move which I have described instead of causing us to be heavy at this stage. We said that we did not agree with their proposal and would debate the issue in full. That, of course, would have delayed progress. I think that the Government indulged in shoddy practice, especially as the Minister wrote to inform me of the formula that had been adopted for the clause on 2 April, almost 21 days ago.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to steamroller the Bill through the House. When it comes to any Divisions that might take place, he might then understand why we took the course to which he has referred.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Prescott: I shall wait to see what happens. The Minister has given a generous apology and it is accepted. The reason behind the Government's actions is another matter, and one that could be debated all night. As I have said, I accept his apology.
      Where will the money come from? That is the controversial issue. How will the Treasury get its share of the money that is in the land banks? Not all the trust ports are involved, and there are more than 100 of them. The controversy arises because of the criteria that are set out in the Bill. The relevant sum is £5 million for compulsion and only certain ports are candidates when it comes to the Treasury stepping in at some stage—that is, if the Treasury wants to take the opportunity of compulsory sale. In any event, the Government can exercise the relevant powers after two years. The present Government will not be in

      973
      office at the end of that period and we, the next Labour Government, will be able to use the excessive powers that the Bill provides to achieve different objectives and to meet different ends. I hope that everyone is aware of that.
      In debating the new clauses and amendments, we are dealing with asset stripping. How can the Government take powers to ensure that they have access to what are considered to be community assets that are locked into the special arrangements of trust ports? This is not the first Bill to deal with trusts. I recall, however, that the Treasury chose not to take any money from the Trustee Savings bank. It seems that it has changed its view, perhaps because it has seen a great deal of land value attaching to the trust ports. In effect, it is saying, "There is a great deal of land value and we could have access to the money."
      That is part and parcel of the Government's privatisation policy. It has nothing to do with a ports policy or with securing a more effective arrangement for the ports. It has nothing to do with helping ports that have genuine difficulties. There are others, of course, that are more than prepared to continue as before because they have not experienced difficulties. At the same time, other ports have experienced difficulties because of trust agreements.
      It has not been possible to gain access to land values for development purposes, because it is a requirement of the trust that development must be in the interest of the port. I well understand that, and it would have been possible to meet the difficulty without privatising trust ports. It would have been necessary only to introduce a harbour revision order—that has already been done in some instances. That meets the problems of gaining access to assets to enable ports to be developed in the interests of the ports. The Government have even assisted those who have chosen to take that way forward.
      The Government could introduce legislation or accept that the private Bill procedure could be pursued. Perhaps our debate goes to the heart of the private Bill procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has talked, naturally, about Tees and Hartlepool, and one of the purposes of the debate is to discover how much money is available. There were some who were staggered when they learned how much money was available at my hon. Friend's port. They thought that that did not matter because of capital gains tax procedures, but some fancy dancing by some fancy tax lawyers showed that the Government would not get the money by means of the capital gains tax. It was then realised that a tighter procedure would have to be used, and that is what the clause is about.
      The Government are not concerned with making it easier to raise capital. They are more concerned about the Treasury getting its take. It must be said that the Government have been clear about what they want to achieve. They say that they want to reduce obstacles to the development of ports and to enable other objectives to be pursued. If possible, they would like to give preference to a management-worker buy-out. That is the Government's declared aim, although some statements of late do not encourage one to believe that that is their purpose. I was doubtful about it from the beginning, but we are aware of the Government's declared aim. That being so, I feel that they would have adopted a different formula from the one
      974
      that is before us and that which appears in the amendments to clause 16. We must consider how effective the formula will be in meeting the Government's objective of helping the ports to develop.
      I cannot emphasise enough the fact that this is really about the Treasury getting more of the resources that are available. We have the declared aim to see the proper development of the ports, because of limits on asset development, but the port authorities could now face a problem in view of the formula with which they are faced.
      In other words, if the local authorities or trust authorities could be sold to private companies without any money being removed, it is clear that the amount of money retained in the companies would be considerable, simply because the value of those companies would be considerable.
      The consequence is that with such rich asset values, their market value would be high from the point of view of potential development, and other predators might be interested in them. That might lead those wishing to buy a port finding that the value is higher than the actual asset value. That would make it difficult for preference to be given to a management-worker buy-out, and there are many examples of cases where such proposed buy-outs have not been able to raise sufficient money to buy at the required price.
      The Government wish to allow competitive tendering. In other words, it will be an auction, with those concerned making bids. The Government said in Committee that they would not necessarily accept the highest bid. Certainly there is no requirement on them to do so. Reports have appeared in various newspapers giving the view of the Secretary of State, and although I am not sure that it is the view of the Department of Transport—perhaps the Minister will make the position clear—The Guardian stated that the Department of Transport had indicated that the highest bids would almost certainly secure ownership of the ports.
      Is that true? If so, have the Government changed their position on the matter? If it is true, it is important for us to delve into the issues raised by the new clause because we are speaking of the employee share ownership plan—the ESOP arrangements—and the fact that the management-employee buy-out could run into trouble trying to raise the necessary money. Others may think of higher sums, setting a higher market value than the management-worker buy-out could accomplish. Borrowing against assets is the way in which most management-employee buy-out operations work.
      We are tonight discussing the question of obtaining a balance. The Government have constantly told us that we must secure a balance that will not prevent the proper development of the port. In other words, sufficient resources must remain to enable port assets to be developed, with the port developing into other spheres, having been freed from its trust requirements.
      On the other hand, there is the problem of sufficient assets remaining in the port to attract others to put in a higher price, discouraging the management-worker buy-out. Unless the Government are prepared to intervene as a matter of policy to ensure that there is a management-worker buy-out, I cannot see how that balance will be achieved.
      Mr. Wallace: I understood that part of the Government's objective was to try to avoid asset stripping.

      975
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there were a provision which discouraged the port—albeit the privatised port—from selling off land to a speculator at a great price, the port might be encouraged to develop that land for port purposes, rather than it being sold and used for purposes which might be unrelated, it having been sold to a third party, to the port and its development?
      Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will be aware that we spent a considerable time in Committee examining that issue. We are anxious to ensure that whatever development takes place, it is port related. We are concerned with asset development, but that does not come well from a Government whose primary purpose, as outlined in the clause, is to achieve asset stripping. They say that it is being done in the name of the community, and their first justification for that is the argument that they have already made many loans. Hon. Members on both sides will agree that the Port of London authority is an exceptional case in that respect, which is why the PLA is being dealt with separately in the Bill.
      It is clear from the Minister's statements in Committee that the total sums paid in loans given under the various harbour revision instruments have been very small indeed. They have been nothing like the sums that are likely to be generated by the selling off of assets. In other words, this has nothing to do with getting our money back, which would be a reasonable argument for the Government to use.
      This is really about getting access to the surplus value, and those are assets which the Government do not own and for which they have done nothing. This is simply a means of getting money for the Treasury. if anyone doubts that the new clause is part of a financial measure, it is clear from the drafting that we are in the realm of the tax lawyers, and in the new clause the Treasury makes that absolutely clear.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The question of land, as my hon. Friend says, is important. The Bill would not protect the proposers of any buy-out from subsequently undertaking unrelated port activities, using the land to obtain quick returns and high profits, whereas port investment is long-term, gives a low rate of return and provides low profits.
      Mr. Prescott: The history of port development proves that to be true. My hon. Friend knows from previous debates about ports and transport issues—and certainly from what I have said during my 21 years in the House—that we are greatly concerned about that problem. The same fears were raised during, for example, Tory Government inquiries about ports. It is clear that developments have worked to the disadvantage of ports. Indeed, one of the first debates that I attended concerned the Merseyside authority, and at that time the Selsdon man of the then Tory Government claimed we had allowed the port to go to the wall. The Government ceased saying that when they discovered that lots of old ladies had shares in pension funds invested in the Merseyside authority. So they decided that a rescue operation was necessary and that the full rigour of the market should no longer apply.
      There is a legacy of problems with which we are now having to deal, and I was surprised to hear it suggested that only one shipping company had been involved in purchasing ports. In fact, there have been a number of such purchases. Sealink bought out a number of
      976
      companies. Hon. Members may recall the celebrated occasion when P and O spent most of a night pouring champagne for Tory Members in the hope that they would stay and vote at the conclusion of the proceedings. They were led into the Lobby by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
      That shows how far people will go under the private Bill procedure. It need not be done under that procedure any longer. They will simply make a bid, and it is clear that many are interested in bidding, not simply for the development of the asset land but to eliminate competition. That makes one ask whether the Monopolies and Mergers Commission procedure will apply if, for example, an owner buys a port up the road and commences to close it down. Will the Government then intervene?
      That shows how important it is to have the sort of national ports council that we seek, an issue that will arise when we debate later amendments. We must preserve the existing assets to enable port-related developments to take place. My hon. Friends and I intend no criticism when we say that an amendment that we tabled on the subject has not been chosen, but I am anxious to make it clear that the issue is of great concern to us.
      What proportion will the Government take? It has been said that, apart from proceeds worth 50 per cent.—we shall debate that later—we are now talking simply about the disposal of the land. The Government's original position involved their taking 50 per cent., although they amended that in Committee.
      Mr. McLoughlin rose——
      Mr. Prescott: I know the point the Minister has in mind. It was 50 per cent. over 10 years, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not talking simply about corporation tax. I am referring to the Government taking 50 per cent. of the proceeds, although it comes to much more than that now. I am talking only about the first share of the value, so if it is £100 million, the Government are entitled to £50 million. With 35 per cent. corporation tax on the other half, we have the figure that concerned the Minister in Committee, representing the Government having 67 per cent. of the take.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Really?
      Mr. Prescott: The Minister will recall the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and other Conservative Members in Committee on an amendment that was carried and included in the Bill. They argued legitimately that it should not be more than 50 per cent. and that to take more would be exorbitant. They put forward a tapered formula which would provide a lower proportion. The amendment of the hon. Member for Dover was accepted and is expressed in the Bill as a proportion of corporation tax.
      The argument in Committee was to the effect that the figures provided a take of nearly 50 per cent. The Minister put forward the counter-argument that it was about 18 per cent. less than we had calculated.
      Mr. McLoughlin rose——
      Mr. Prescott: I will give way to the Minister shortly. Having suggested that it was 18 per cent. less, he thought the matter over and said that 18 per cent. was not acceptable. In the event, it is 17·9 per cent. In other words,

      977
      on the Minister's formula, to reduce it by 18 per cent. would not be acceptable but to reduce it by 17·9 per cent. makes it acceptable.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me how Opposition Members voted on the amendment that they are apparently now seeking to overturn?
      Mr. Prescott: I do not want to complicate matters, especially as we have difficulty making sure that the Minister keeps to facts and figures. His concentration in these matters is not that great and his explanations are not always that clear. I have been re-reading the Official Report of our proceedings in Committee and have found myself utterly confused by his explanations.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned with variable amounts, an issue to which I shall return. After all, the Minister is taking powers in the new clause to enable him to be variable. Is he not taking powers to vary the percentage, whatever it is? I do not know how much the figures can vary, but I do know that the Government can specify whatever percentage they want, as the Secretary of State decides. When I am Secretary of State I will be happy to exercise that judgment.
      8 pm
      Originally, as I said, a 67 per cent. take was envisaged. Then the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) and for Dover moved amendments that would have resulted in a take of just under 50 per cent. Interestingly, they argued that the Tory Government were adopting a socialist land value tax. I readily accepted that argument, thinking that I could see another use for this Bill when I get hold of it, when I will be able to vary the percentage myself. I will be able to stipulate or reject any scheme that I choose to. That is almost as good as what happened with an Industry Bill that the Tories brought in in 1974. It provided the incoming Labour Government with all sorts of powers, and I look forward to being able to use the powers given under this Bill.
      I hope that those, such as the Waterfront partnership, who have advised the Government on this matter will not come and advise me—I do not want advice from them.
      Now the Government have come along with another formula in which they accept that there should be a taper. The period involved is a compromise. The first part of the new clause takes the five-year period into account, but it then embraces longer periods. The percentages will vary as between the periods involved. I assume that these ideas are in line with what the industry wanted. The Opposition do not have the advantage—or disadvantage—of having the industry talk to us, a fact about which I have complained before and which I shall take into account in different cicumstances in times to come. We have had to rely on the figures before us.
      Now the Government have decided that the take will be no more than 49·7 per cent., including the levy and the share of corporation tax. The British taxpayer is to be denied the extra 18 per cent. and the Government have given up their claims about returning the money to the community. I do not know what changed the Government's mind; I only know that the Minister could not carry through his ideas in Committee with the support of Conservative Members. After a few shots across their bows, the Government have given up on the 18 per cent.
      978
      The Minister said in Committee that he could not see the Government giving up the difference of 18 per cent. It seems that he has been told to do so, although the Secretary of State has scuttled off now, so we cannot find out his thinking on the matter.
      The Government have come round to 50 per cent., and one of our amendments argues for 100 per cent., with the period limited to five years. The rationale behind that is that we want to prevent predators coming in. We want to let them know that all a port's value has been removed so it is no longer an attractive proposition—unless the predator merely wants to buy it up so as to close it down and eliminate competition. If the Government leave 50 per cent. of the cash value in a company and that company is sold for £100 million, there will still be enough value in it to encourage predators to buy it.
      The Opposition wish to eliminate this value, although we know about the problems of removing all the cash from a port company: that may prevent the port from developing. The idea is to give the port access to the extra value, and with the five-year limitation we could rule out this problem.
      This is not our formula: it is the Government's idea. We would not do any of this in the first place, but given the choice between a P and O buy-out and a managers and workers buy-out I would put my money on the latter every time. Consortiums of property companies will not have the interests of port development at heart.
      This will be a better formula and it is interesting that the Government have been forced to change their minds. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about his highest bid argument and about the ESOP arrangements. Was the report in The Guardian about selling to the highest bidder correct? It is important to know that; the trust ports need to know, and it is relevant to the possible development or selling off of the municipal port authorities, to which the local authority ratepayers have contributed. If the formula is used and the Government give the excess to the Treasury instead of keeping to a formula under which we could readily identify what goes to the local authorities, there will be real problems with these varying percentages.
      In Committee, we supported the 10 per cent. amendment so as to defeat the Government—I admit that. And we did defeat them, because the Government could not justify the 50 per cent. take. We told the Government that we would give them the chance to return and justify the idea to the House, but the Minister has failed to do that. If that is because of political realities, he should admit as much. Perhaps, on the other hand, the Treasury thought that the take was too high. Or perhaps the Minister included the new formula to satisfy Conservative Members with the 50 per cent. idea, hoping later to operate the variable machinery in the new clause so that the Government could get what they wanted quietly and without controversy by order under the Bill. We need a better explanation of all these matters than we have had so far.
      Mr. David Shaw: The Opposition are clearly wrong on this issue. They are obsessed with the idea of asset-strippers and speculators and do not understand the needs of modern ports facing the 21st century. Those ports want to develop their assets, especially in places such as Dover, and not only assets related to the ferry industry but

      979
      those which will broaden ports' development so as to promote tourism, for instance, to the benefit of local people.
      Moreover, other ports might want to expand into non port-related activities, thereby benefiting their communities by increasing local employment. At present they are somewhat stymied in what they can do. This Bill is designed to free up assets, and over the years that will increase employment opportunities in those areas.
      Those of us in Committee who tabled the amendment that I moved wanted to ensure a balance between the interests of the taxpayer—obtaining reasonable proceeds for the taxpayer—and the interests of the ports. We were worried that the original wording advanced by the Government made calculations of the levy complicated, and that the tax rate on some calculations could have exceeded 70 per cent. Moreover, the levy would have operated as a disincentive to reasonable land sales, whether in the form of management buy-outs by others who might acquire the ports later.
      I congratulate the Minister on the difficult negotiations through which he has gone and on the way in which the Department of Transport has managed, under his skilful guidance, to negotiate with the Treasury a deal which, although perhaps not too beneficial to the ports, is certainly not as advantageous to the Treasury as was the original deal. The Treasury has managed to extract its pint of blood in the form of a little extra for the taxpayer. We are worried that the taxpayer might take too much out of the privatisation and that other possible acquirers of the ports might lack an incentive to buy them out. I realise that the Minister and the Treasury have a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer receives a good share of these resources—and so he will.
      My hon. Friend the Minister should be congratulated on taking our points on board. The calculation of the levy is now much easier. It is much closer to capital gains tax principles which are widely understood by business and industry. The tax rate, having been reduced below 50 per cent., is obviously acceptable and is much better than it was. The tapering principle ensures that, if management is fortunate enough to acquire the port, there will not he a massive disincentive to reasonable asset sales. If asset-strippers really do exist, which I doubt—there are more likely to be genuine operators who want to ensure that assets are properly utilized—they will suffer from the fact that, under the tapering system, the tax is higher in the earlier years and reduces in the later years.
      All in all, my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government should be congratulated on getting the clause into a sensible format. We who want privatisations to be encouraged, which I think goes for all of my hon. Friends—as opposed to Opposition Members, who sought in Committee to discourage privatisation and to remove the incentives from those who work in the ports to bid for them—are pleased with what the Government have done.
      Mr. Wallace: I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his kind comments earlier on events in my constituency and for the advice that he gave me.
      When this matter was debated in Committee, I was occupied elsewhere and missed the vote. As I understand it, on a recount the Government lost the Division on the amendment and they had to table new clause 9 to ameliorate the effect of clause 16.
      980
      It is difficult to work out the Government's precise intentions. I agree with much of the analysis of the Bill by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and, in particular, of the objectionable parts of the Bill about the compulsory nature of privatisation and those parts which relate to the levy on the proceeds of sale. However, different considerations apply to the provisions relating to the levy on a subsequent sale of land.
      Much has been made of how much the Treasury would like to get its hands on through particular provisions in the Bill. I do not doubt that that may be one of the motivating factors, but if it is to rely on the proceeds under clause 16 and new clause 9, no such economic planning could take place. There is no mention in the financial memorandum of any likely proceeds or revenue to the Treasury which might come from clause 16. That would depend on how many ports were privatised, on how many ports subsequently sold land and on whether the sale of that land would lead to a sizeable gain to which the levy would be applied. Therefore, I do not think that that is the primary concern of the new clause.
      However, the new clause is an attempt to stave off the worse effects of land speculation. I well remember the privatisation of Scott Lithgow in Greenock and Port Glasgow and the Government arrangement which allowed the sale of additional land to, I think, Trafalgar House at a relatively low price. Subsequently, the land was sold at quite a premium. There was considerable outrage at the use of public funds to help the sale and at the great profits that the private sector reaped from the sale.
      If the Government are trying to discourage such land speculation and the taking of land out of port development, that should be encouraged. If they are trying to achieve a balance so that at least some proceeds from the sale remain with the port, providing additional capital for port development, although that is clearly a difficult balance to strike, an honest effort has been made to strike it. I do not think that the arguments that we have heard so far from the Opposition, not least the 100 per cent. levy which at times seemed to contradict the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, persuade me that that would be a better balance than the one proposed in the new clause.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was right to say that the levy could be varied with the consent of the Treasury and by affirmative order of the House. Therefore, if it were to be changed, the House would have an opportunity to take a decision on it. It could not be done without the matter coming before the House.
      Mr. Leadbitter: That usually happens late at night when everyone has gone home. Let me put a simple point to the Minister, who is always anxious to reply to points made. In March 1988, the Secretary of State for Transport made clear in an address to the British Ports Federation his disappointment at the ports' reluctance to respond to his invitation to privatise. The Bill comes in the light of that reluctance. Does the Minister suggest that, in the circumstances and having regard to the levy and the little bit that would be left to the ports, the Bill benefits the Treasury or the ports?
      Mr. McLoughlin: There is no doubt that the Bill will be a tremendous benefit to the ports industry in the United Kingdom. It builds on a number of changes which have taken place over some years. However, that is probably more relevant for the debate on Third Reading.
      I agree partly with the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The Opposition seem to want 100 per cent. for five years, although in Committee they voted for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). That would seem to be the most damaging of all, because it would delay any development in the ports for five years.
      Mr. Prescott: The only trouble with that statement is that it is not in line with the facts. The hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) wrote to all the ports concerned, and they wrote back saying exactly the opposite—they did not believe that this was helpful and they did not want to be forced into such a position. If the Minister believes that, why did he not leave it to the ports to make the decision instead of being forced into privatisation?
      Mr. McLoughlin: We are dealing with the levy on disposals of property after the port has been privatised; we will come later to the compulsory element.
      The Government have tried to take on board the concerns which were ventilated in Committee by my hon. Friends, and that is why the concession has been made. We have tried to make far clearer exactly how and on what criteria the money will be raised. There was confusion as to whether it was capital gains on top of the 50 per cent. That is why we have tabled new clause 9, about which I wrote to the Opposition and all members of the Committee before the Easter recess.
      I have explained the reasons for what the Government have done. This represents a fair response to the criticisms made by my hon. Friends. I think that the Government have got it right. It is a fair balance for the ports industry to know exactly what kind of development would come under the windfall gains. We do not want to see huge windfall gains go: that is why, for 10 years, there will be some repayment to the Government, but on a tapering basis. That is fair.
      Mr. Prescott: One of the amendments to clause 16 concerns a variable application. Is it possible that, by a new order, the Secretary of State could secure more than 50 per cent., or does new clause 9 set the limit? Might one end up with a levy of more than the 50 per cent. suggested by one amendment to clause 16?
      Mr. McLoughlin: No. I made perfectly clear the procedure in respect of the amendments under consideration. A change could be made, but it would have to be done by affirmative order. However, I cannot help it if particular hon. Members are not present at the relevant stage. If they feel strongly enough, they will be certain to be present. On occasions, affirmative orders have attracted a very high attendance, depending on how controversial they are.
      New clause 9 strikes a fair balance between the concerns that were expressed by my hon. Friends in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 164.

      Division No. 120]

      [8.20 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Alexander, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Amos, Alan

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Arbuthnot, James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ashby, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Baldry, Tony

      Gregory, Conal

      Batiste, Spencer

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Grist, Ian

      Beith, A. J.

      Ground, Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bellotti, David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hannam, John

      Benyon, W.

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Harris, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Bowis, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hill, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Hind, Kenneth

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

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

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

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Burns, Simon

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunter, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Jack, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jackson, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Carr, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Churchill, Mr

      Key, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Kilfedder, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Colvin, Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knapman, Roger

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Couchman, James

      Knowles, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knox, David

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

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Day, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Devlin, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Livsey, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dover, Den

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dunn, Bob

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Evennett, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Maclean, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Mans, Keith

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maples, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Franks, Cecil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Maude, Hon Francis

      French, Douglas

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Fry, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      983

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mills, lain

      Steen, Anthony

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stern, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Norris, Steve

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paice, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tracey, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trotter, Neville

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Portillo, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Redwood, John

      Walden, George

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walker, Bill (Tside North)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Waller, Gary

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Ward, John

      Rost, Peter

      Watts, John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Wells, Bowen

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Speller, Tony

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Squire, Robin

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

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

      Allen, Graham

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Donald

      Doran, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alexander

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Battle, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Flannery, Martin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Flynn, Paul

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

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Benton, Joseph

      Foster, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foulkes, George

      Blair, Tony

      Fraser, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galloway, George

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Buckley, George J.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hain, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Home Robertson, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Crowther, Stan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      984

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lamond, James

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Radice, Giles

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Randall, Stuart

      Lewis, Terry

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Livingstone, Ken

      Reid, Dr John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Robertson, George

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terence

      McCartney, Ian

      Rowlands, Ted

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Salmond, Alex

      McLeish, Henry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madden, Max

      Short, Clare

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      Meale, Alan

      Straw, Jack

      Michael, Alun

      Turner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Vaz, Keith

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Walley, Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Morley, Elliot

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Murphy, Paul

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Nellist, Dave

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      O'Brien, William

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Patchett, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Pike, Peter L.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Prescott, John

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 13

      CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY
      `(1) There shall be established, within twelve months of this section coming into effect, a National Ports Council, which shall consist of representatives of Government, port authorities or where appropriate their successor companies, local authorities covering the areas in which ports are located, and workers in ports, and of individuals with relevant experience and expertise in the industry, according to a scheme of appointment to be approved by the Secretary of State.
      (2) The Council shall be consulted on the exercise by the appropriate Minister of his powers under sections 5, 7 and 8 of this Act, and by the Secretary of State on the exercise of his powers under sections 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 26 and 27 of this Act.—[Ms. Walley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Walley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 25, in clause 8, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
      `(6A) The Minister shall not confirm a scheme under subsection (6) above unless he is satisfied that suitable provision has been made by the scheme for the establishment and maintenance of an advisory committee representative of users of and interests in the harbour to be consulted by the

      985
      company and empowered to advise the company upon matters apertaining to the use and management of the company's harbour undertaking.'.
      No. 43, in clause 9, page 6, line 44, at end insert—
      'local authority, representative trade unions and conservation bodies.'.
      No. 44, in clause 11, page 8, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) The Secretary of State shall—

      (i) give written reasons to the authority for rejecting the authority's scheme;

      (ii) consult the authority and local authorities concerned before proposing the scheme;

      (iii) allow a period of three months for modifications to be proposed to the scheme.'.

      No. 69, in clause 19, page 15, line 43, at end insert—
      'and users of that part of the Port to be designated as the Port of Tilbury'.
      Ms. Walley: The important aspect of the new clause is that we feel that it is important that there should be a national ports council. The new clause provides that
      "representatives of Government, port authorities … successor companies, local authorities … workers in ports, and … individuals with relevant experience and expertise in the industry"
      would all be included in such a council, which would be there to be consulted by the Secretary of State and the Minister when they were carrying out various duties imposed on them by this legislation.
      Amendment No. 43 also applies to schemes initiated by the Secretary of State. In effect, it means that, when the Secretary of State gives any direction to a relevant port authority under this section, he or she would have to consult the
      "local authority, representative trade unions and conservation bodies"
      as well as the authority. Our amendment allows for further modification of the compulsory powers contained in the legislation. Rather than the Secretary of State merely consulting the port authority concerned before preparing the scheme, we would require the authority to be sent written reasons for rejecting its scheme. We would also require full consultation, and a period of three months for modifications to be proposed.
      I must express some anxiety that our amendment No. 40 has not been chosen for discussion, because that might have given us the opportunity to debate in more detail the issue of compulsion and the reserve powers that many ports are so concerned about. Judging by the comments that the Minister has just made, that will have to be an issue on Third Reading.
      The House should realise that the new clause and the amendments tabled in our name get to the heart of the Bill. They set out our policies on ports, and we feel that it is important that the public should know where the Opposition stand on these issues. In case we have any further interventions similar to those at the beginning of this debate, I should add that those policies are clearly set out in our policy document.
      The House should express some concern about the fact that we are told that we are dealing with a ports Bill, but, as those of us who have debated the so-called Bill in Committee realise, it is not a ports Bill but a Government con. It is all about making money for the Treasury—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has already demonstrated to the House—so
      986
      that it can take the proceeds of selling off more national and local assets. I hasten to add that the Government do not even own those assets.
      The Bill is presented by the Secretary of State for Transport, yet, as we have already clarified, one has to search the print of the legislation thoroughly to pinpoint anything to do with transport. In stark contrast, our policy gives top priority to the development of an integrated transport system, in which ports policy would dovetail into national and local infrastructure and whereby national and local planning decisions could be made in accordance with it. It is our intention to ensure that ports, docks and waterways policies are incorporated into that. Our proposal for a national ports council, which would advise on ports policy, is a key way to bringing that about.
      By contrast, the Government have introduced free market conditions of competition, with the abolition of the National Ports Council and the removal of regulations governing port development. This legislation takes us one step further down the road of determining transport policy by market forces alone.
      Our national ports advisory body, as well as advising on the development of a national ports policy, would seek to reintroduce ways in which a port could be involved in investment and would require a port operating licensing system. We feel that we cannot leave important decisions about investment in our transport infrastructure to be made on the basis of market forces, and in the secrecy of commercial confidentiality. That is what is presented to us in this Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are just as important. Here we are dealing with a part of the Bill that seeks to compulsorily privatise trust ports that do business above the £5 million line. The intention is to privatise those ports whether or not that is what they want. That type of compulsion cannot be justified in any way. The Minister has attempted to convince the House that this is an enabling measure. If it really is an enabling measure, why is the Minister intent on forcing privatisation through the House, whether the trust ports want it or not? If he has failed to convince them that voluntary privatisation is a good thing, he should at least include further safeguards, as our amendments seeks to do.
      Anybody who knows anything about trust ports, or anybody who has visited a trust port, or any hon. Member who has a trust port in his constituency knows that, while there is some support among the, trust ports for enabling legislation, there is no support whatsoever for the compulsory element that is introduced in clause 9. Our amendments provide for consultation with the local authorities and for a means of giving real reasons after a period of three months. These are methods of modifying the compulsory elements of the Bill.
      From discussions that I have had about Poole harbour, I understand that the Minister has said that he is giving very careful consideration to the question of compulsion, and has reiterated his view that this is an enabling measure. Will he tell us how he proposes to proceed? If this really is an enabling measure, he ought to be able to accept our amendments. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would provide for the inclusion of conservation bodies, as well as incorporating local authority and trade union representatives. In Committee, we heard that the trust ports had somehow managed to preserve the balance of interests of

      987
      all the organisations using them. Our amendments would ensure that, in the context of the compulsory aspect of privatisation, some regard had to be paid to those bodies.
      By way of amendment No. 40, we could have sought to ensure that, on environmental and other grounds, certain trust ports would not be caught by the net of privatisation. That issue will now have to be dealt with on Third Reading. It is absolutely crucial that an authority whose scheme has been rejected he given written reasons. There should be proper consultation, not just with the port authority but with all local authorities, before a scheme is proposed. There should be a period for modifications to be proposed. In that regard, these are reasonable amendments.
      I want to refer again to a point that was put to me very forcefully by representatives from Poole. The Minister has told them that this is an enabling measure, but it is not. I understand that there will shortly be a debate in Dorset—near Poole—and that many people will speak against privatisation. So far, however, it has not been possible—in Poole, of all places—to find one person to make the Government's case. If that is so, the Minister should at least see the virtue of these very reasonable amendments. They would provide for further consultation prior to compulsory privatisation. I commend them to the House.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I should like to draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 25, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). My hon. Friend tabled a number of amendments, the general purpose of which is to draw the attention of the House to the interests of the recreational users of harbours. He apologises sincerely for his absence tonight. He had a very long-standing engagement, and I am sure that hon. Members will understand his difficulty.
      Perhaps I should declare an interest. First, I am a parliamentary adviser to the British Marine Industries Federation, which, in fact, has nothing to do with this amendment. Secondly, one of my more esoteric posts is Admiral of the House of Commons Yacht Club. We have a very close relationship with the Royal Yachting Association, which has been instrumental in requesting that the point of view of recreational users be taken into account. I accept that, in the trust ports concerned—with the possible exception of Poole—the interest of the recreational user is likely to be very modest.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) will move amendments at a later stage. No doubt he will refer to this matter, so I will not dwell on it. At present, the recreational interests have a representative on the appropriate body, and in some cases the Royal Yachting Association actually nominates that person. Under this Bill, there is no provision for such interests to be giver any consideration at all.
      I am sure that the Minister, having considered our amendments, appreciates that it would be unreasonable to expect the ordinary person who simply wants to use the local waters for recreational purposes to be subjected to the totally material, although perfectly legitimate, interests of the commercial management of a new trust port. There was an unfortunate time when one harbourmaster took the view that all pleasure boats should be excluded. For that purpose, fees and machinery that were unreasonable,
      988
      albeit within the law, were introduced. Happily, the matter has been resolved, but there is naturally concern that such a situation could arise again.
      I realise that that is not the intention of this Bill, but I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that he will not forget the interests of the users of small boats. Their recreation provides massive employment, and many people at all levels derive much pleasure from it. The purpose of the amendment is simply to draw attention to this matter, and to ensure that the vast commercial machinery that is about to swing into operation will not result in the little local man being forgotten.
      Mr. Wallace: These amendments give us another opportunity to explore the criteria that will underlie the Secretary of State's decision on which ports should be privatised. The Minister will recall that this matter was raised several times in Committee. At no time was he able to produce a list of criteria. At no time was he able to give the Committee any inkling as to the matters that would be taken into account—other than the threshold of £5 million, which is stated in the Bill.
      But the amendments give us an opportunity to raise other matters too. Although the new clause does not refer specifically to port users, that point is covered by amendment No. 25, and will no doubt be referred to by those who have experience and expertise in the industry. That is important to port users.
      Concern has been expressed that privatisation might mean that individual ports would fall into private hands and that that could result in the creation of a monopoly. If a shipping company that was a regular user of a port sought to become its owner, it could use its position to discriminate against other port users and further its own ends. It could exclude rather than promote competition, which is one of the objectives of the Bill. It could also lead to the concentration of an excessive number of ports in a limited number of hands. Associated British Ports may already be eyeing up some of the ports that may be privatised.
      The Government ought to take account of the position of port users and of the fears that have been expressed about the threat to competition. How does the Minister intend to protect the interests of those who might be termed captive port users after privatisation? Has he managed to flesh out what he said in Committee—that he would look into the procedures to be followed when the proposed charges are thought to be unreasonably high? Objections can already be made under existing legislation, but in Committee the Minister said that he would re-examine the procedures. I hope that he will tell the House whether he has been able to do so and what he intends to do about them.
      Privatisation could lead to takeovers and monopolies. The General Council of British Shipping says that an analogy could be drawn with the bus industry, where deregulation led to a spate of takeovers and mergers. Efforts were made to resist them, but the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's view was that, as takeovers and mergers had not taken place in a substantial part of the United Kingdom, it did not have the power to consider their possible consequences.
      If it appears that a privatised port may be owned by a single large company, which would result in a monopoly and the restriction of competition, will either the Secretary of State for Transport or the Department of Trade and

      989
      Industry be able to refer the matter to the Director General of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? It is important that port users should have an answer to that question. The Government have not yet given them any assurances on how they intend to deal with potential monopolies. I therefore hope that the Minister will address their concerns.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I was disappointed not to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. Unfortunately, I was press-ganged on to a Standing Committee that considered the London Underground Bill. I should have loved to be a member of the Committee that considered this Bill; I take a great interest in ports, since my constituency contains Blyth port, which comes within the £5 million to £6 million bracket.
      After the Bill was introduced, I met many people who said that they did not want Blyth port to be privatised. There was talk of a management buy-out, but that is another matter. The Minister has paid no attention to the amendments or to the pleas that have been made on behalf of the ports, and I do not think that we shall get very much out of him this evening.
      Blyth port employs 2,000 people, but it is on the borderline when it comes to the £5 million or £6 million level. The Minister therefore ought to provide conciliation procedures for little ports before they are privatised. Larger ports may probably buy into little ports such as Blyth and Poole, strip them and take away all their facilities, such as their roll-on/roll-off vessels. That would result in the death of little ports such as Blyth and Poole. The jobs that they provide would die with them.
      Blyth is unique in many senses. It has been run efficiently for many years. If, however, a successor company comes in after privatisation and takes away its facilities, its profitability will die. It costs £2 million each year just to dredge Blyth harbour. I have said before that I believe that Tees and Hartlepool port authority will want to buy Blyth and strip it of all its facilities. The port of Blyth owns a great deal of land, which would be sold off to the highest bidder—most probably to a development company that would build yuppie houses on the river banks. That would lead to the loss of 2,000 jobs. The port authority told me tonight that it will have to buy a new dredger; the old one is nearly kaput. A new dredger would cost about £1 million.
      I beg the Minister to consult those port authorities that are on the borderline and give them the chance to run the harbours in the way they have always been run, rather than to rip them off. I ask him to let local people have a say in running Blyth harbour, which has created many jobs. Blyth has proved that. I hope that the Minister will consider ports such as Blyth, which are on the borderline and should not be privatised.
      Mr. Barry Field: I support amendment No. 25. Especially in the Solent area, my experience has been that the main concern of yachtsmen is not whether there is an advisory committee. Most harbourmasters are mindful of the need to liaise with their local port users, whether commercial fishermen, yachtsmen or the shipping fraternity at large. Yachtsmen are concerned mainly about
      990
      the high cost of mooring fees, especially in marinas that have been purchased by a company that has established a monopoly.
      I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House that those matters are not referable to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because they do not come under the Fair Trading Act 1973. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) tabled new clause 7, which was not selected for debate this evening, and I added my name to it. I was not surprised that it was not selected for debate, because it goes beyond the ambit of the Bill.
      We have a difficulty. Although amendment No. 25 makes a fair and reasonable attempt to deal with the problem in which not only yachtmen, but the pleasure boat industry and the marine industry generally have found themselves, the need for it would be removed if the Office of Fair Trading could look at such matters.
      The Bill has a fairly narrow purpose. I hope that, with his shipping hat on, my hon. Friend the Minister, who effectively deals with all matters aquatic, may yet be persuaded to encourage our hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry to extend legislation into the sensitive area because of the concern that is felt.
      I believe that I am correct in saying that, in putting that point of view to the House, I have the full backing of all yachting interests, and especially of the Royal Yachting Association, which has grown increasingly concerned about the monopoly in the ownership of marinas, especially along the south coast.
      9 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: A number of points have been raised in the debate. I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) in saying that I understand that it is possible for the matters that he raised to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, they need to be referred by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because they are part of his responsibility. I hope that that clarifies my hon. Friend's point.
      Mr. Barry Field: That is a helpful answer, which will be most useful.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that I have helped my hon. Friend in his search for clarification. My hon. Friend successfully helped the General Council of British Shipping, so he knows that there is a way in which a challenge can be made to harbour charges.
      My answer also partly deals with the question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I said in Committee that I wanted to consider his worry. To progress further, we may need additional legislation and I shall consider that in the light of events. If the problem is serious and there is a necessity to ease the procedure, I may need to consider the matter in due course. We want to keep it under close attention.
      I know that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) was unable to be a member of the Committee, and that he followed the Committee proceedings with interest and concern. I hope that I can give him some reassurance. The Bill does not say that the port of Blyth must be privatised. The Bill is specific. If the Government intended that all ports with a turnover of more than

      991
      £5 million were to be privatised, the Bill would say that; it does not. The Bill gives the Secretary of Stale for Transport the right after two years to compel ports with a turnover of more than £5 million to come forward with a scheme, and he will do that after consulting the local port authority.
      The hon. Member for Blyth Valley asked for consultation. I can assure him that a provision for consultation is included in the Bill and that consultation will happen. I do not expect him to say now that he welcomes the Bill, but I hope that I have allayed some of the fears that he rightly expressed on behalf of his harbour authority. That point is an important provision in the Bill. We should want discussions in great detail with all the harbour authorities that had not privatised their operations after two years on why they had not privatised them and whether privatisation might be the best course. I hope that with those words, I can give some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Prescott: Is not the Minister telling the House that the Government are one of the main beneficiaries of what they judge to be the best scheme for that port? All he is actually saying is that the Government will spend a little time consulting the authority but, if the Government do not agree with the scheme brought before them, as required, within those two years, they can impose their own system. They have the main advantage and incentive because they want the money. How can there be any independent assessment in a consultation procedure of that kind?
      Mr. McLoughlin: Try as I may to convince the Opposition, I do not expect to do so at this late stage. That is not the sole intention of the Bill. It is not intended to be a money-raising Bill for the Treasury. If that were the case, there would be a 100 per cent. levy and a 100 per cent. clawback levy on any period thereafter.
      I must admit that I cannot find any agreement with new clause 13. It would provide for the establishment within one year of enactment of a national ports council consisting of representatives of the Government, port authorities or their successor companies, local authorities, port workers and what I can only describe as miscellaneous experts. It seems to me that the Opposition would want every single body to have representation. Opposition Members were attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon for supposedly setting up quangos, yet they seem to be tabling new clauses that would do exactly that. There is little that I want or need to say about the so-called national ports council. I do not think that my hon. Friends will find very much to commend it and I hope that, if the Opposition seek to press the new clause to a vote, it will be rejected.
      Some people seek to establish organisations or bodies to get things done. The Opposition, by contrast, seek to establish them to get things delayed. That is exactly what new clause 13 would do. That is the way to pay twice over to go nowhere—once the cost of the delays and once the cost of the body that caused them. That may seem acceptable to the Opposition but it does not seem acceptable to me, and I strongly urge the rejection of what we believe to be a very unconstructive amendment.
      I must also ask hon. Members to reject amendment No. 43, as they rightly did when it first appeared in Committee. I think that it is unnecessary. I recognise, of course, that
      992
      the bodies mentioned in the amendment may have views on the privatisation of the port. That is precisely why they will have an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State once the authority has submitted its scheme, quite apart from the fact that the Government have tabled amendments making the order confirming a scheme of this sort subject to affirmative resolution. That was one of the commitments that I gave in Committee and which was welcomed by the Opposition, the British Ports Federation and, generally, by the trust ports themselves.
      Finally in this group, amendment No. 44, another old friend, covers much the same ground as amendment No. 43, except that it relates to the situation, which is likely to be rare, in which the Secretary of State is obliged to propose his own scheme of privatisation. This amendment adds relatively little to the provision in the subsection that it is designed to replace, and which provides for the Secretary of State to consult the port authority before preparing his own scheme. It is obvious that, in so doing, he would provide it with reasons why he was unable to accept its scheme and, if the authority was able to propose relevant modifications, the Secretary of State would clearly wish to consider those before starting the laborious task of preparing his own scheme. The amendment has little real purpose except to build in delay through requiring consultation with interests that will, in any event, be able to make representations to the Secretary of State once he has prepared the scheme.
      It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) had to say about that policy, because she mentioned the Labour party candidate for Thurrock. On many occasions she has been very careful not to dissociate herself from the things that he says. I will quote from a recent article in Tideway when the hon. Lady went to Tilbury not so very long ago——
      Mr. Prescott: Has the Minister been there?
      Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, of course I have been there. I have been on a number of port visits, and I know that the hon. Lady has tried to do the same during the Bill's progress. When I went there, the people I met were very keen to see privatisation and to take part in it.
      Ms. Walley: The Minister says that the workers favour privatisation, but is he confusing that idea with their approval for an employee-management share ownership scheme? Those two things are not the same. A work force may be wholly in favour of such a scheme in the event of privatisation, but may not otherwise favour privatisation.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I disagree entirely. Work forces may want a management-employee buy-out, and I wish them success, but they are keen on privatisation per se, too. They have seen the advantages that it has brought to many other ports, and also the benefits that have resulted from the abolition of the dock labour scheme. That has put Tilbury in the happy position of being able to compete effectively with ports in neighbouring areas.
      The Labour candidate for Thurrock said:
      "If, unhappily, the port is sold before the general election, the next Labour Government will introduce public control of Tilbury and other ports."
      That is the idea behind the new clause.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Has my hon. Friend heard the story that, when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) went round Tilbury, a senior docker——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The new clause is about consultative machinery. I hope that we can return to discussing that subject.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have tried to show that the consultative machinery would be a way of delaying privatisation. The Opposition see it as a way of retaining control. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have no truck with it and will reject the new clause.
      Mr. Prescott: The name of Mr. MacKinley has cropped up constantly throughout the debate. I do not wish to repeat the mistake of monitoring whether that person may be in the building, but he has probably spent more time here while we have been discussing the port than has the hon. Member whose constituency is involved. That is a matter of record.
      The issue behind the amendments is the right of appeal. If one does not like the idea of a national ports council, one can dismiss it.
      As for local or national representation, I thought that citizenship rights were the mode of the moment. The Tories insist left, right and centre on the individual's right to claim protection from excessive use of power by the state—or, as it would be in this case, the harbour authority. That is a proper argument, and through the amendments we suggest that there is a need for an independent body, which we have called the national ports council. Similar recommendations have emerged repeatedly from inquiries into the ports industry. Some have argued for a national ports authority, but we suggest a national ports council, because that was the last body that the Government abolished in the early stages of the development of their plans for the ports. We argued against that abolition, and the arguments that we used then are relevant to the present debate.
      We have been talking about the problems of compulsion. Judgments have to be made, and there will be disagreements between the ports authorities—at present, those are the trust boards—and the Government. They may have different ideas of how the scheme should turn out, and it will be an area of dispute between them. We cannot rely on the Government to be independent in this matter. They are the main beneficiary of the scheme, so they have a vested interest in getting the best price. They cannot be the sort of independent body that one would wish to see in such circumstances. That was one of the reasons which led to a national ports council.
      Different groups involved with a port may gain control of the port authority—for example, yachting interests in a marina or in the Merseyside port, where the users take control. Any user of the port has a vested interest in keeping the prices down and not spending a great deal of money to develop the port. There are many examples of that. Often, it is not in the interests of the port or the communities that depend on it to allow a single group to dominate. The amendment seeks to create the possibility of an appeal against a decision affecting a port.
      Another possible dispute was mentioned in the debate. Charges are extremely controversial in a port. The fishing or yachting community may feel that the charges imposed exploit the position or are against their interest. They need
      994
      a means to appeal against them. The National Ports Council was the original body to which appeals could be made. Now the appeal has to be made directly to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a vested interest in the disposal of the ports. That does not give me any confidence that the new body will be independent.
      Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. I was instrumental in persuading the General Council of British Shipping to take the first appeal to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State found in my favour. How could that not be an independent decision?
      Mr. Prescott: Perhaps it has not dawned on the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State, in the name of the Government or in any case the Treasury, will take the proceeds of the sales. The Secretary of State clearly has an interest. In the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the Secretary of State was clearly independent. He had no interest in it, whatever the final outcome. It was a dispute between two parties about charges. In the matters dealt with by the Bill, the Secretary of State will clearly have a vested interest in matters of controversy.
      No one can be satisfied that a dispute about prices will be dealt with impartially. Prices at ports very much affect the asset value of a port, the estimated revenue and other matters that we have discussed. Without wishing to stray, a good example of that is that, if one has tough price controls, it is difficult to sell at a good price on the market. We saw that with gas and electricity. One has to create balances. The Secretary of State will make the judgments.
      The National Ports Council would be relevant where there was an element of user-domination. There might be a dispute about proper representation on the port authority. There are hundreds of trust ports and the procedures that lead to the nomination of those who sit on the boards are medieval. It is impossible to change the procedures. Bridlington is not in my constituency, but I have had constant complaints that the people who use the port cannot get the majority interest on the board. Seats on the board are handed down from one person to another as in freemasonry. Those people then decide who shall have access to the port.
      I remember a diving company complaining to me that it wanted to do salvage work off Bridlington but could not get access to the port. I had no interest whatever in the company. The port had made a judgment that it wanted yachts in the port because they were more in keeping with the port. But it was a commercial port with fishing, yachting, diving and other activities. Perhaps the harbour could not take all the ships and could not cope with the demand on it. A dispute arose. In such disputes there should be a body to which such disputes can be referred for a judgment to be made. That is a legitimate argument. Such a body could function at either the local or national level. There is an argument for it to operate at local level. However, a national body could link infrastructure investment between ports.
      Ports are an important part of our investment and development. The Government can have a view. Both Labour and Tory Governments pursued the arguments about roads to the ports. Often, they built the roads to the ports and the shipowner decided to move to some other area, where roads had not been built to the port. The ports

      995
      with the roads did not have the traffic and the ports without roads demanded that we invest in road infrastructure again. That is a duplication of investment.
      Ports are often played by the shipowners. The port of Bristol is a classic example. It demanded and required more and more investment in containerisation. Shipowners then did not offer the port contracts. Shipowners hake mobile assets and can play one port off against another. The result is that the facilities are duplicated. That is an expensive way of dealing with port development. There is a great deal of evidence of that.
      In all other European countries there is some form of national ports council or authority. Whether the Government are on the left or the right, they see the need to ensure that the communities' interests are guarded in one way or another. The matter cannot simply be left to market forces. We have a similar argument about competition. The Minister said that we should be reassured that any monopolistic tendencies or uncompetitive practices would be referred by the Department of Trade and Industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is the case under the monopoly legislation at present.
      I recall the case of the buses in either Portsmouth or Southampton, which the Department of Trade and Industry referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Association. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission considered whether the company, having purchased another company, could provide a service in the public interest, because that is at the heart of the monopoly legislation. The MMC found that it could, but the then Secretary of State ruled against the MMC because he wanted more competition. That issue involving transport was decided not by the Secretary of State for Transport but by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is not right. Transport issues should be judged by the Department of Transport and not by another Department.
      The Minister talked about user representatives making recommendations. People who use the ports, whether they be fishermen or yachtsmen, have a right to representation. The Minister should remember that he, as Minister for Shipping, and Lord Sterling told us all what we should do about the shipping industry. No one else was involved apart from the Government and the industry, through Lord Sterling.
      When the Minister made recommendations about the fishing industry. he thought it right to leave out the representatives of all the bodies that should have been involved, so I find his arguments today rather odd. There has been talk about the corporate state argument. That is a good example of it.
      There are many good examples. To cite a further important one, when the Government did away with the National Ports Council in legislation, we made the point that if responsibility was passed over to port authorities they might not give the Government the independent information needed for an assessment of the productivity of ports. Governments should be able to make judgments about whether ports can reach certain levels of efficiency.
      Through the National Ports Council, the Government could get confidential information to enable them to judge whether ports could do better. When the private ports came together in the British Ports Federation, they did not want to give the information to the Government because it was commercial. They do not want to give information to the community, and the Minister cannot get access to it.
      996
      Any advice that could be given to the Department of Transport would be welcome. If the Minister had had more advice on the dock labour scheme, he might have been more successful in dealing with the problem of compensation, when the Government had to pay £120 million instead of the £20 million that they had estimated. Good professional advice might have been useful to those dealing with the dismantling of the dock labour scheme.
      For many reasons, it would be good to have a body to advise the Government. We think that there should be such a body and that people should have representation. It would be good for the user and it would certainly be good for the country. It would result in better decisions. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that we will come to a meeting of minds on the new clause. No doubt the House will reflect its view shortly.
      I inadvertently omitted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) when I was summing up earlier. His point about facilities for small boats and yachts is very important. I am sure that the trust ports consult users about various aspects of their operations. No doubt the successor companies will do the same. I think that it is right that the companies should be allowed to decide on their own means of consulting their customers and others with a legitimate interest in the ports. I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend on various occasions. Obviously, we shall want to keep a close eye on what goes on to see if there are problems such as my hon. Friend has referred to. If problems arise, we may have to address them by other means.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 210.

      Division No. 121]

      [9.23 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Clelland, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Anderson, Donald

      Cohen, Harry

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Corbett, Robin

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Crowther, Stan

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cryer, Bob

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cummings, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Battle, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, Margaret

      Darling, Alistair

      Beith, A. J.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart

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

      Bellotti, David

      Dixon, Don

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Eadie, Alexander

      Benton, Joseph

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blunkett, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Buckley, George J.

      Foster, Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Canavan, Dennis

      George, Bruce

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gordon, Mildred

      997

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Murphy, Paul

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Nellist, Dave

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Brien, William

      Hain, Peter

      O'Hara, Edward

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Patchett, Terry

      Haynes, Frank

      Pendry, Tom

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Pike, Peter L.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Henderson, Doug

      Prescott, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Home Robertson, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hood, Jimmy

      Radice, Giles

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Randall, Stuart

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Robertson, George

      Illsley, Eric

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Rogers, Allan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terence

      Lamond, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Salmond, Alex

      Lewis, Terry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Short, Clare

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCartney, Ian

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      McKelvey, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      McLeish, Henry

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Straw, Jack

      Madden, Max

      Turner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Vaz, Keith

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wallace, James

      Martlew, Eric

      Walley, Joan

      Maxton, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Meale, Alan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Winnick, David

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Worthington, Tony

      Morley, Elliot

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowis, John

      Amos, Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

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

      Ashby, David

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Burns, Simon

      Baldry, Tony

      Burt, Alistair

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butterfill, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Benyon, W.

      Carttiss, Michael

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Chope, Christopher

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Colvin, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Couchman, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cran, James

      998

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

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

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Devlin, Tim

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Dover, Den

      Maclean, David

      Dunn, Bob

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Maples, John

      Evennett, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fallon, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Favell, Tony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Mills, lain

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Franks, Cecil

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Freeman, Roger

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      French, Douglas

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gale, Roger

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Norris, Steve

      Gill, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Patnick, Irvine

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Portillo, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Redwood, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gregory, Conal

      Riddick, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Grist, Ian

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Ground, Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hague, William

      Rost, Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Harris, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Squire, Robin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hill, James

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

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

      Stevens, Lewis

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Irvine, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jack, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Jackson, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Thorne, Neil

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Tracey, Richard

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Trotter, Neville

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Key, Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Walden, George

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Knapman, Roger

      Waller, Gary

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ward, John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Watts, John

      Knowles, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Knox, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Wilkinson, John

      999

      Yeo, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      FORMATION OF COMPANIES FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN STATUTORY PORT UNDERTAKINGS
      Mr. John Ward: I beg to move amendment No. I, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
      `(f) any harbour authority which has not received any grant from public funds other than any grants under the Enterprise Scheme during a period of five years ending with the passing of this Act.'.
      The amendment would exempt from compulsory privatisation any port that had not received subsidy from the taxpayer during the past five years. The House will know by now that my constituents are satisfied with the present arrangements for the management of Poole port and harbour. They do not wish to have a change of management forced on them by Government.
      Apart from satisfying local people, the present harbour commissioners have not received a penny piece in direct subsidy from the Government in over 20 years. It seems wrong that they should be under threat from an action by a future Minister which would place at risk the good relationships and control of environmental conditions which are in place.
      I have so far been unable to persuade the Government that the compulsion element should be removed from the Bill. The amendment would mean that only ports that have needed public subsidy in the recent past could be privatised by compulsion. The amendment would exempt ports such as Poole from compulsory privatisation, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
      Several Hon Members rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr.——
      Mr. Robert Adley: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward)——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not calling the hon. Member by name was a temporary lapse on my part. He and I have known each other for many years. Mr. Adley.
      Mr. Adley: I am sure that it is permissible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for us to forget each other's names momentarily once every 21 years.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Poole is a fellow Dorset Member who may be too modest to say that he never misses an opportunity to protect, as he sees it, the interests of his constituents and his constituency.
      I should, by way of declaration of interest, point out that in a few days' time the company with which I am connected, Holiday Inn, will be signing a contract with Poole borough council to build a hotel. I say that lest any mischievous journalist thinks that I am speaking for any reason other than in support of my hon. Friend.
      We Dorset Members like to stick together. Poole is undoubtedly one of the most efficient, well-run ports in Britain, and my hon. Friend made the valid point that a port which has not been in receipt of any central Government financial assistance should be entitled to have
      1000
      some control over its own destiny. Even my hon. Friend, who perhaps occasionally shades his politics slightly differently from me, will not object to my saying in supporting him that the presumption in favour of privatisation regardless should always be tempered by local and national circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will pay heed to the pleas of my hon. Friend, who, I reiterate, always does so much to protect the interests of his constituents.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who takes a great interest in all transport matters, not least in those that we are considering tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has made many approaches to me on the subject. I visited Poole harbour with him on a day when the weather was not wonderful and was given a noisy welcome.
      I have listened to the arguments put by my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. My hon. Friend has shown understandable concern during the earlier stages of this Bill for the well-being of Poole harbour and its users and his views, as well as those of the harbour commissioners, about the proposed reserve power of compulsion are well known. Nevertheless, I am sure that he is at one with the Government in supporting the main purpose of the Bill, which is to enable those trust ports that wish to do so to transfer themselves to the private sector.
      Unfortunately, the amendment that he has tabled to clause I would deny this benefit to a very large number of ports, simply because, for whatever reason, they are not among those that benefited from public money during the recent past. Indeed, some of the ports excluded by the provision would be precisely those that have shown the most enthusiasm for privatisation, and it would make no sense to penalise them because they have not received any grant from Government in recent years.
      Mr. Spearing: I can see why, for technical reasons, the Minister feels that the amendment goes too wide. Has he any response to the excellent document sent to various hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he agree that returning power to the people, in line with the announcements that we heard earlier today, is one of the Government's objectives? Why cannot he undertake to move, in another place, an amendment stipulating that trust ports that do not wish to be privatised will have the freedom to decline?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps missed some of our earlier deliberations on the enabling powers in the Bill, under which trust ports can propose themselves for privatisation. The Government believe that the larger trust ports should be in the private sector, but the Bill includes only a reserve power. It does not say that all trust ports will necessarily be privatized—an important distinction. As I have often said, if the Government intended to privatise all the trust ports, the Bill would say so. But the Bill recognises the differences among the many trust ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole speaks for Poole; the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) would, I am sure, make a good case, as he saw it, for Lerwick. We cannot judge all the trust ports in the same way, which is why the Bill is drafted as it is.

      1001
      For the reasons that I have explained, I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw it.
      Ms. Walley: The amendment has a great deal to commend it. We have just heard from the Minister another example of the back-pedalling that seems to be taking place on this Bill. He seems to be saying that all trust ports are equal, provided that they have a turnover of more than £5 million and regardless of what some of that £5 million has to be spent on—important dredging work, and so on. However, quite apart from the attempts that we have made to create exemptions for environmental protection or on grounds such as those offered in this amendment, the message seems to be that some ports are not as equal as others in the matter of compulsory privatisation. It seems that, if an hon. Member can make a strong enough political case and bend the ear of the Minister, he can gain assurances that the Secretary of State will not use these draconian powers in his constituency.
      I am sorry that the Minister dismissed the amendment out of hand. We believe that it would clarify the issue and remove some of the trust ports from the net of compulsory privatisation by which they do not want to be caught. Sooner or later, we will be able to see exactly what the Minister's proposals are.
      Like the Minister, I visited the port of Poole. It was a fine day and I suspect that my welcome was probably warmer than his. He at least had the grace to tell the House that he had a noisy welcome. It was a noisy welcome because everybody in Poole is united in the view that, however much this may be a piece of enabling legislation, they do not want is forced upon them.
      9.45 pm
      I understand that the chief executive, Hamish Green, will be speaking against compulsory privatisation at the debate on 15 May at Bournemouth polytechnic. I suspect that many, quite apart from the chief executive, the harbour commissioners and Poole and District Fishermen's Association and its secretary, Ray Knight, whom I met yesterday, including the environmentalists, agree wholeheartedly with the amendment.
      If the Minister is not prepared to take on board, openly and honestly, the ideas behind the amendment, he should face the fact that the Government have not been able to convince the trust ports of the merits of privatisation. If he does not choose to apply the compulsory parts of the Act to them, he should at least be able to tell the House on what grounds he will be excluding certain ports. For that reason, the amendment has our support.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 2

      TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
      Amendments made: No. 5, in page 2, leave out line 28. No. 6, in page 2, line 30, at end insert
      `; or
      (c) to any liability of the authority incurred by virtue of section (Financial assistance for proposals to maximise employee participation in equity of successor companies) below in connection with any proposal for maximising participation by employees of the successor company in ownership of its equity share capital.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 5

      CONTROL BY APPROPRIATE MINISTER OVER EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY'S FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
      `( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (2) above the appropriate Minister shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers or other persons employed by the successor company of the whole or a substantial part of its equity share capital.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 8

      SCHEMES MADE BY A RELEVANT PORT AUTHORITY
      Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 6, line 12, at end insert—
      `(c) he shall require the memorandum and articles of the company to determine port activities as the main activity of that company.'.
      The amendment speaks for itself. After the transfer of functions, the governing documents will be the memorandum and articles of association of the company. The Secretary of State will ultimately have power to determine the contents of the memorandum and articles. They will presumably be framed in such a way as to be attractive to people who might want to buy the shares. The objects clause in the memorandum of association determines the activities in which the company can lawfully engage and that could provide for diversification or for other activities besides port activities.
      The Bill should be about transport. It should be committed to making sure that our ports can properly fit into Britain's transport infrastructure. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that, as happens now, plcs taking over the trust ports will be able to diversify to such an extent that port activities will not be the main activities at the heart of the new company. That is why we have tabled the amendment and seek to deter corporate raiders.
      The Bill may free financial constraints on the ports, as the Government claim, but we believe that the ports should then be free to maintain activities and not to diversify into property development and all the worst examples of property speculation that we have seen.
      The amendment would keep the essence of trust ports after privatisation. That is an issue on which we had considerable discussion in Committee. I remind the Minister that, in commenting on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, and on the proposals that did not complete their course in this House, the House of Lords Select Committee reported on 21 February 1991:
      "It is envisaged that the new company would enjoy unlimited freedom to expand its business activities into any sector and geographical area it chooses."
      I emphasise the word "geographical" because right hon. and hon. Members expressed concern that a new company need not even be based in the area of the trust port that it took over.
      The report went on:
      "It would thus be possible for the privatised authority to undertake commercial activities of which it has no experience and which are far removed from the business it knows well; namely, running a port and conserving a river. We accept that the authority intends at present only to expand into transport, distribution and warehousing services and into property development, and it has recruited expert managers in these areas. But nothing in the Bill would prevent even further diversification in the future."

      1003
      The report added:
      "Exposing the holding company to such risks could endanger a successor company's ability to fulfil its statutory obligations and to carry on its core business of running the port. That could have a detrimental impact on local industry and the local community.">
      Those few sentences make the case. Whatever may be the Government's intentions, and regardless of whether they will force privatisation on trust ports that do not want it, unless we can write into the memorandum and articles of association the direction that the port should be the company's main activity, the Bill will have even less to do with transport than it currently masquerades as having. For those reasons, I press the Minister to say whether port activities should continue to be the function of the new companies, or whether we may expect total diversification and an abandonment of ports throughout the country.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: I wish to establish how the Government will use the powers contained in subsection (6), as amended by amendment No. 60, which would give the Secretary of State the authority to direct that a company's memorandum and articles of association could be changed, pending certain representations when a scheme is produced. I should like to hear the Minister's views in the context of recreational users such as yachtsmen and the owners of other pleasure boats.
      From the Minister's comments in respect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and representations and consultations between various users and the company, I fear that everything will be left to market forces. If there is to be a change of powers and responsibilities, the fear among yachtsmen and other pleasure boat users is that there could be a serious loss of facilities.
      We must rid ourselves of the misconception that all people who sail boats are rich, because that is not the case. Boating is one cif the most popular sports in Britain. It is enjoyed by millions of people and millions of boat owners. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs. That is one good reason why I hope that he will be able to answer my question.
      I am worried about people on low incomes, who have boats, but who cannot afford to put them in the larger marinas and use all the facilities offered to boats moored on the fingers there. Often their boats are on loose moorings in an estuary or a large harbour. I believe that such people feel threatened by this legislation.
      When a scheme is submitted by a port authority, what will be the Minister's attitude if representations are made to him about it by the Royal Yachting Association? Would he say that it was a matter for market forces, or would he use his powers to direct that the memorandum and articles of the company can be amended? Those powers do exist.
      Yachtsmen arid pleasure boat users want to know what the Government's attitude will be towards their sport. Will the Minister leave it to market forces or will he have sympathy?
      I am not asking the Minister to refer to specific schemes, but yachtsmen and British boat users will want to know exactly what the Government's attitude will be towards using those powers.
      Mr. Barry Field: As it was a Labour Chancellor who put value added tax on yachts, and in view of the hon.
      1004
      Gentleman's concern, will he tell us whether it would be Labour party policy to abolish VAT on yachts and pleasure boats?
      Mr. Randall: What a silly question. I am sure that you would rule me out of order if I answered it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have genuine concern for people who enjoy sailing and boating, which is a healthy sport, especially for young people, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is insulting them. I am trying to find out whether a large number of those people will be threatened by the Government's policy. If the Government are going to leave ports to market forces, one can conclude that millions of pleasure boat users will be threatened.
      When the Minister responds to the debate I look forward to hearing whether he will have sympathy or whether he will leave the matter to market forces and not use his powers to preserve an important sport and recreation.
      Mr. Spearing: Although I happen to be a member of the RYA and therefore understand the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I do not speak as a member but because I want to probe the Minister more closely. I fancy that he may reject the amendment because of the words "main activity" or because of the use of the adjective "main" in relation to the word "activity". I foresee a lawyers' field day discussing that.
      If the Minister rejects the amendment I shall ask him to concede that hon. Members on both sides of the House are genuinely concerned about the ambit of the activities of the companies that he wishes to come into existence. If he declines the invitation of my hon. Friend the member for Kingston upon Hull, West, will he agree that some sort of clause—it may be too late for this House, but it could he included elsewhere—should be included in the Bill? It could run something like this: "It shall be a requirement of the memorandum and articles of the company that the activities of the company shall be principally those which are closely associated or closely related to port, haven or marine activities", although I admit that that is not a good immediate draft.
      Surely that is what the House would expect such a company to be. One does not expect a port and harbour company suddenly to become an office organisation or to sell off land so that a marina is left as a tiny pool in the middle, even if commercial activity stops. That is a matter about which many people are concerned. We have seen how market forces operate along the Thames. Pressure is in their very nature. If the Minister is unable to accept this amendment, will he at least consider the introduction of some such provision as I have just rather badly outlined?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman was right to suggest that I was unlikely to accept the amendment. The Opposition have overlooked one of the main purposes of the Bill, which is to allow trust ports to privatise themselves. They may wish to do so partly for the purpose of gaining the freedom to diversify their activities. Not long ago, I visited one of the trust ports. I shall not say which one.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Ports Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have just been referring to a visit that I paid to one of the trust ports. As we were passing a hanger, I was told that it had been rented out to a company. I said, "No doubt the company's activities are port-related." In fact, I did not realise that the charter requires such activities to be port-related, but there were a number of red faces around when I was told, "Possibly it ships in one or two things each year, but I do not think we could claim that its activities are totally port-related." I do not want to put such a restriction on the activities of trust ports.
      Sale objectives will be agreed between the port and the appropriate Minister before the privatisation process gets under way. The Bill provides for a period of consultation. If the Royal Yachting Association, for which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Randall) spoke, has representations to make, it will want to put them forward at the appropriate time. [Interruption.] I did not intend to indicate that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for the RYA. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a similar point earlier.
      I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Randall) rejected as nonsense the very telling point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). This amendment is too restrictive, and I hope that the House will reject it.
      Ms. Walley: It may have escaped the Minister's notice, while he has been so busy with this Bill, that VAT has been increased to 17 per cent. Amendment No. 60 refers to the determination of port activities as the main activities of a company. Our intention is to ensure that ports that are operating effectively at present are enabled to continue to carry out their responsibilities. That should not be prevented by the takeover activities of predators. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken on board the spirit of the amendment. I can assure him that the matter will be pursued with vigour in another place. If he has any regard for the genuine concern of people throughout the country about the state of ports in 10 years' time, the sentiments that are expressed in this amendment will have to be taken into consideration during the period of consultation to which he has referred.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 9

      SCHEMES INITIATED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Mr. Ward: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 44, at end insert:
      `(6A) If, after consulting an authority as provided in subsection (6) above it appears to the Secretary of State that a direction under subsections (2) and (3) above ought not to be given to that authority, he shall not give the authority such a direction at any time within a period of five years commencing with the date on which he first so consulted the authority.'.
      1006
      I had hoped that the Minister would be convinced by the strength of the argument put to him by many of my constituents that the element of compulsion should be removed completely from the Bill. That has not happened so far. As the Bill stands, should the Minister agree with local representatives not to use his compulsory powers to require them to prepare privatisation schemes, there is nothing to prevent the hon. Gentleman, or his successor, from returning to the question within weeks or months, having had a change of mind, and requiring privatisation to proceed. With such a sword of Damocles hanging over any organisation, it would be impossible for it to take sensible planning or commercial decisions, or to negotiate with financial institutions the financial arrangements that they have been prepared to make available in the past to trust ports, which would be under a continuing blight, due to the threat of such a decision being made by the Minister.
      For many years the Poole harbour commissioners have successfully managed their own financial affairs. They have financed the development and improvement of the harbour without any call on Government funds. If financial institutions have no guarantee that harbour managers will continue to hold their present responsibilities, such sensible financial arrangements could come to a halt overnight. Surely no hon. Member can envisage any commercial institution working under such conditions. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this modest amendment. It would enable at least some long-term planning—for five years—following the Minister's acceptance that privatisation is not immediately required.
      Mr. Wallace: I support the amendment. I attempted to introduced a similar amendment by means of a new clause that was not selected for debate. Under my scheme a trust port could have attempted to maintain the status quo. Its effect would have been very much the same as the amendment moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). I visited Poole last week. The weather was exceptionally good. No political significance can be read into the weather that greeted me and that which greeted the Minister. One could not help but be impressed by the work of the harbour commissioners over a number of years and by the way in which they have developed Poole harbour. They have tried to maintain its special characteristics, including its environmental characteristics. That alone makes Poole a special case. I hope that the Minister will take that into account if he ever decides to exercise the powers that new clause 9 gives to him.
      All the trust ports have their own characteristics. I argued on many occasions in Committee that the Lerwick harbour trust has its own particular characteristics. I refer to the way in which it has responded to the challenge of the oil industry. During the last 20 years, its income has grown from £40,000 to well over £5·5 million. It has diversified its activities and has invested in farming, a town centre car park, an industrial estate, a state-of-the-art fish processing factory and a four-star hotel that was opened by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.
      The success of the efforts of many harbour trusts ought to be recognised. Moreover, if the Minister decides that a harbour trust need not be privatised, it should be free from the threat of privatisation for a number of years, or a brake could be applied to much-needed developments.
      This is a sensible amendment. Both the hon. Member for Poole and I agree that the compulsory element is

      1007
      unacceptable, but the amendment does not preclude the Government's option to go down that road. However, having decided against such a course, the Government should allow the harbour trusts to get on with the job which in many places, such as Poole and Lerwick—two ports of which I am aware—they have been doing well for the past 20 or more years.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I want to speak on the amendment because of the threat that privatisation poses to the fishing fleets around our coast, of which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware. I understand that there is a fishing fleet in Poole which is concerned about the threat from the potential privatisation of the trust ports.
      I take the point made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). Successful ports such as Lerwick and Poole, which have put a great deal of finance into the infrastructure, and have run themselves extremely well and successfully, need reassurance such as he suggested.
      I am especially concerned to put the view of the many fishermen who have written to me because they are concerned about the steps that the Government are taking. As a result of the distinct lack of a Government fishing policy, fishing fleets are under threat. They have been declining and they are often forced into corners of ports. In some cases, they are no longer the major financial contributors to the ports. They fear that, if the ports were privatised, there would be a more lucrative source of income from marinas and developers which would force traditional fishermen out of their livelihood and their traditional facilities. They support the amendment, and I ask the Minister to take their needs into account. I assure him that the fishing fleet do not support him or the Bill.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I recognise the purpose behind the amendment. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the weather that I encountered in Poole. It was fairly lousy when I arrived, but it improved as the day went on.
      It is important that the enactment of the Bill does not result in ports being kept in a constant state of uncertainty about possible privatisation. If, two years or more after enactment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State enters into consultations with a port authority about possible privatisation, but decides not to direct that authority to submit a scheme of transfer, it will clearly be helpful for him to tell the port when he next proposes to review the situation, or he may decide that the circumstances of a particular port are such that the need for further consideration will not arise.
      When we had a meeting yesterday with fishermen from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), I was struck by a point which they made vociferously. My hon. Friend has consistently pressed the Government to make various amendments to the Bill and he has made his point effectively, as I will explain. The issue is whether we should build such a proposal into the Bill. I and my right hon. and learned Friend have given a good deal of thought to this, and we have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. My conclusion is that his proposal would help ports which we decide should not be pressed into privatisation when we consider their arguments and that we should incorporate such a provision into the Bill.
      1008
      My hon. Friend the Member for Poole is probably used to hearing my next words. I am told that the wording of the amendment is not entirely satisfactory, but, if he will withdraw it, I will undertake that an amendment that will have the same effect will be tabled in another place.
      Mr. Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      THE ANNUAL TURNOVER REQUIREMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 9
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 7, line 41, leave out '£5 million' and insert '£13 million'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 55, in page 8, line 1, leave out '£5 million' and insert '£13 million'.
      No. 56, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
      '(7A) In calculating the turnover limit, for the purpose of subsections (6) and (7) above, no account shall he taken of income of the port authority which has been derived from charges for cargo handling.'.
      Mr. Wallace: The amendment would replace the figure of £5 million with the figure of £13 million as the threshold beyond which the Government may exercise the powers in clauses 9, 10 and 11 to compel a privatisation. I must make it clear that the amendment does not imply that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends accept the case for compulsory privatisation, although we accept that if trust ports wish of their own free will to privatise themselves, that should be permissible. The Bill makes that far easier than a private Bill would because the private Bill procedure is cumbersome and can often thwart the intentions of the trust ports.
      We object to the compulsory element in this, but, accepting that it is the Government's intention, it is only right that we probe it and find out why in the world they have put the cut-off point at £5 million. I raised the question in Committee and did not receive a proper answer. I will come on in a moment to review the one answer that the Minister gave in Committee.
      10.15 pm
      The reason why I have chosen £13 million as opposed to the £10 million that I mentioned in Committee is that, quite apart from the fact that it takes in a number of other ports, not least Aberdeen, it has the merit of being consistent with the point that I was trying to make in Committee. I chose £10 million and then increased it to £13 million because I was picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was Secretary of State for Transport. On that occasion, attending a lunch at the British Ports Federation, he is reported in the federation review for April 1988 as saying the following:
      "We see privatisation as relevant primarily for the larger ports. We would not force the smaller ports down that road, though privatisation would not be ruled out if they wished."
      Basically, that is the general intention of the Bill: that the smaller ports should not be forced down the road if they do not so wish, but that, if they do so wish, the procedure should be simplified and they should be able to do it.
      On that occasion the then Secretary of State for Transport mentioned a figure of £ 10 million as the cut-off,

      1009
      or threshold. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) says from a sedentary position, I have increased that figure to take account of inflation, particularly the rampant inflation that we have had under the Conservative Government over the past three years.
      We therefore have a position consistent with that taken in 1988 by the then Secretary of State for Transport and we have not yet heard from the Government why they have chosen a much lower figure. They have not given us any other indication of the criteria which they applied and we have not had any real indication of why the figure for the threshold has been pitched at £5 million rather than at £13 million.
      The one possible explanation which the Minister offered the Committee was this:
      "The Government felt that a £5 million turnover demonstrated a level of activity at which the Secretary of State could use his reserve powers to introduce an element of compulsion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 28 February 1991; c. 209.]
      That does not answer the point at all; it restates in a different way what is already in the Bill.
      I believe that the Minister owes it to the House and, in particular, to those trust ports that would be affected by the £5 million turnover cut-off, to say why he picked on that figure. Clearly, it is a figure of some significance; it means that ports with a turnover above £5 million become subject to central direction by the Secretary of State which would not be there if a different figure had been chosen. The ports that would be affected by this—I believe that Dundee comes into the £5 million category—are Blyth, Lerwick, Poole, Milford Haven, Aberdeen, Harwich haven and Clyde.
      I ask the Minister to try to give a better explanation than he has up to now or, better still, to accept the logic and the consistency of the previous Secretary of State for Transport and apply the £10 million, allowing an element for inflation.
      The other amendment in this group is No. 56, which would mean that in calculating the turnover limit no account would be taken of the income of the port authority derived from charges for cargo handling. This is the result of many of the representations made, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by the Blyth harbour commissioners. They point out that the Government have said on many occasions during the passage of the Bill that their aim is to create a so-called level playing field. I think that there must be more level playing fields now than there are acres of grass. We are always being told about creating level playing fields.
      Many port authorities have not traditionally undertaken any cargo-handling operations. Shipping companies reserved any cargo handling activities for themselves or for private stevedoring companies. At the inception of the trust ports, many shipping companies managed to ensure that they had a continuing legal right to discharge and load their vessels, and trust port authorities therefore had different functions, many of which involved improving and managing the ports, primarily by way of river conservancy and by developing port facilities.
      In time, however—not least because of the financial effect of the massive reductions in labour required, but also because of other developments in the ports—a number of ports developed handling capability, although that was not true of all of them. The port of Blyth has an annual
      1010
      turnover of £5·5 million, about half of which—£2·8 million—represents cargo handling activities. Yet other ports that do not have cargo-handling functions may not reach the £5 million threshold and will therefore escape the central direction of the Secretary of State for which the Bill allows. In terms of harbour activity, and the activities to which the Minister referred in Committee, however, such ports will not be caught, whereas Blyth, a substantial 50 per cent. of whose turnover is attributable to cargo handling, will be caught. There is an important distinction to be drawn.
      That is yet another example of how different harbours and different harbour trusts may wish to apply different criteria and in the absence of an alternative criterion from the Government, it is not unreasonable that the harbour trusts should draw the attention of the House to particular factors affecting their operations.
      I hope that the Minister will be persuaded by my arguments and that common sense will prevail. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the amendments so reasonably suggested by my hon. Friends and me.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the amendment. Like other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north of Scotland, I have received sustained representations about the Bill, particularly from representatives of Aberdeen harbour.
      I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State has left his place. To some extent, he has spoken with forked tongue on the matter. On one hand, he says that the Bill is not directly targeted at ports such as Aberdeen and that the Government have bigger ports in mind, while on the other, it has been widely reported that the Conservatives propose to include in their Scottish manifesto a pledge to sell off local authority ports in the north of Scotland. In those circumstances, assurances to the effect that Aberdeen will not face compulsory privatisation ring somewhat hollow. If tiny fishing ports are to be sold off—one wonders who will buy them—it seems unlikely that, in the long run, the Government will hang back when it comes to Aberdeen.
      Whatever happens, I have no qualms about the future of Aberdeen as a port, because it provides an essential service and operates in the interests of the local community. It is a matter of considerable concern to me that the Government seem to believe that commercial accountability is the only criterion by which ports should be judged. The ports provide an essential community service. The Minister will know that the dispute affecting the fishing harbour in Aberdeen was the trigger for the legislation under which the dock labour scheme was abolished and I supported—indeed, had called for—such legislation at the time, because I felt that the port of Aberdeen was being killed off.
      I do not approach the matter in a dogmatic or purely ideological manner. I am merely interested to ensure that Aberdeen has a port that best serves the interests of the local community. The Secretary of State should not be able to determine on a whim—at the stroke of a pen, and for ideological reasons—that the ownership and management of a port should be fundamentally changed. That is not a satisfactory situation. There is no guarantee that the views of the trustees or representatives of the local community will be taken into account.
      Naturally, I support the amendment, because it removes such uncertainty from Aberdeen harbour authority.
      Mr. Loyden:: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the basic faults of the Bill is that it takes no account of the long-term location and activities of the ports and that it is based on current economic judgments which may change considerably in the years that lie ahead? No one can forecast with any certainty where trade will grow and where it will decline. Therefore, it is essential that there is a body that overlooks port location, so that such difficulties can be overcome.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has a point. I do not wish to detain the House, but I should stress that it is desirable to have ports with different structures of ownership and management—a diversity that creates genuine choice. I have no problem with that. However, I object to the idea that a port should be forced to change its status, not because it seems in the best interests of the long-term development of the port—that may be an appropriate decision for some local authorities—but because, for ideological reasons, the Secretary of State has decided that he does not like the way in which the port is being run, even though the port users and the local community are entirely satisfied.
      Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State appoints the members of the boards.
      Mr. Bruce: As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) says, we are increasingly being run by boards appointed by the Secretary of State specifically to implement the wishes of the Secretary of State and the Government, who cannot get a political mandate in Scotland for the changes that they seek to bring about.
      One is left with an unanswered question. If the Scottish Conservatives put in their manifesto a pledge to privatise all local authority ports and, as I predict, lose every parliamentary seat in which the ports are situated, will they still regard that as a mandate and disregard the clearly expressed wishes of the local community? The answer is, of course, that they will. They are not interested in local democracy or local communities. The Government are being as dogmatic as they have accused the Labour Government of being in the past. They are trying to impose an idelogical decision on a body which is currently constituted to serve the interests of the local community. Unless the Government can justify that change of use and explain why they believe that it is necessary, the House should accept the amendment. Indeed, the main thrust of the Bill should not be there in the first place.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not wish to detain the House long. I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said. However, I am unaware—I admit that I have been otherwise engaged for part of the debate this evening—of any promise by the Secretary of State not to use the powers in the Bill to compel Aberdeen harbour board to seek full commercial status in the market. If he has given such a promise, it is not worth anything.
      In Committee I got into trouble for quoting American presidents and vice-presidents. It was once said about the vice-presidency of the United States that it was not worth a bucket of warm spit. Any promise from this Government has exactly the same credibility. The whole thing is nonsense. There is no point in taking a reserve power to
      1012
      compel a port to be privatised when it does not enter the private sector of its own volition, if one does not intend to use that power.
      Without going into too much detail—given the time of the evening—the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that, apart from the local authority representatives, every member of Aberdeen harbour board is appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland after discussion with the various user interests in the port of Aberdeen, such as the fishing industry, the oil industry, general commercial industry and general users of the port. They are all consulted and have representatives on the board nominated by the Secretary of State.
      If the members of the board are unanimous about anything, it is that they do not wish the harbour to be privatised by the diktat of the Secretary of State. The members have said that they see no reason why the harbour should go into the private sector. It is doing extremely well. Its turnover is holding up. It has invested in the port out of its own revenues. Development plans for the next few years show that there is to be another £10 million of development at the port, all of which will be generated from its own income.
      People may sometimes say that the arrangement between the users of the port and the harbour board is too cosy and that the revenues are used for the benefit of the users of the port. Who else should have the benefit of the money that is coming in if not the people who use the port? They are saying that they are perfectly happy to pay such reasonable harbour dues as the board may decide, provided the decisions on how the money is spent are made locally.
      I have had several representations from private companies, including one only a couple of days ago, about the fact that Aberdeen harbour board might be thrust, against its will, into the private sector. They view that prospect with abhorrence and have asked me to do what I can to ensure that the good arrangements which they have at Aberdeen are not disturbed. I understand that the Minister will not withdraw the reserve clause, and that he will not drive that coach and horses through his Bill. We should disturb the trust ports as little as possible.
      10.30 pm
      As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has said, the idea that the local authority ports may shortly be privatised has been widely floated. I shall not attempt to go through every port north and south of Aberdeen, but we know that Aberdeen is a trust port and would be caught as the Bill stands. Fraserburgh and Peterhead are both trust ports. As I recall, they are well below the current limit and are unlikely even through inflation or by changes in trade to come up to the limit. Further round the coast are Buckie and Lossiemouth, which I understand are local authority ports. It would be nonsense for the Government to privatise Aberdeen harbour board compulsorily because it is caught by the legislation, leave Fraserburgh and Peterhead out for the moment, and sell the local authority ports.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman should not give them ideas.
      Mr. Hughes: The idea is already there. We know what the hidden agenda is. The intention is to sell everything that moves and everything that does not move because they need the money for other nefarious purposes.
      Mr. Bell: I apologise for intervening in a fine speech so late in the evening, but the turnover at Peterhead is £1·5 million. We know that the Treasury is not interested in such a small sum.
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is far too generous. We have to act on the supposition that the Government have a shelf life at least until June 1992. On that basis, as they scrabble around to try to get money to meet the magical figure of 20p in the pound for income tax or to find some way to bolster up the poll tax, which will still be in existence, and as they scrabble around for every financial inducement that they can use to buy votes, even a port with a turnover of £1·5 million will not escape the net, especially if they proceed to sell the local authority ports.
      It does not make sense to have a patchwork of different activities along the same coastline. I know what the Government are up to. I join the hon. Members for Gordon and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) in an appeal for the limit to be raised. The higher it is, the better. I shall certainly support the amendment.
      Mr. McLoughlin: In some ways, this has been one of the more interesting debates, if we look back at what was said in Committee. I was taken by what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said tonight. It would probably have been better if the amendment had been moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said:
      "The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) would reduce, through amendments Nos. 8 and 9, the threshold to £1 million. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and his hon. Friends would increase it, through amendments Nos. 120 and 98, to £50 million."
      Then he said:
      "I may be adopting the classic Liberal position in opting for £10 million."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 February, 1991; c. 200.]
      What has happened to that classic Liberal position? The classic Liberal position just happened not to take account of Aberdeen. What the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland probably did not know was that his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon had written to the Secretary of State to complain about the fact that Aberdeen would be included in the forced privatisation. The classic Liberal position was that one hand did not know what the other hand was doing.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister will know, if he reads a little further, that if he had accepted my amendments Nos. 105 and 199, Aberdeen would not have been affected anyway. He ignores the fact that my hon. Friend and I object, as a matter of principle, to the compulsory privatisation of Aberdeen or any threshold being inserted in the Bill. Has not the £10 million classic Liberal position been overtaken by rampant Tory inflation?
      Mr. McLoughlin: That was a nice try, but I still think that we smoked out where the classic Liberal position was in that case.
      A number of points have been made, but I cannot be held responsible for all the speculation that may appear in newspapers about what may be in future Conservative party manifestos. The fact that the press are more interested in Conservative party manifestos but share little interest in the Liberal party's manifesto may be because they know that we are more likely to be in a position to carry out our manifesto commitments.
      1014
      This is not the first attempt to raise the threshold to £5 million. In Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland sought to take it up to £10 million, but that could have got him into trouble with the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), as Aberdeen would still have been included in the original amendment. At least the figure of £10 million would have had the virtue of being a round figure, whereas £13 million has, despite the Opposition's arguments, nothing to commend it and no rationale.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked how we reached our decision of £5 million. As I said earlier today, and in Committee, that figure relates to the company's turnover and the likely prospects of its being successful in the private sector. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the Secretary of State, in consultation with various bodies, appoints all the members of that harbour authority. If we intended to privatise come what may, we would have another way to achieve our aims.
      The clause requires companies to find out whether they would be better off in the private sector. We have accepted that there will be an affirmative resolution where we force a scheme to come forward.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, we should not give the Minister ideas. However, it was always at the back of my mind that he would use the precedent that the Secretary of State for Transport used when he was Secretary of State for Scotland—he brought his cronies to the health board to do his dirty work. I would not put it past the Minister to do the same when it comes to appointing members of the harbour board.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have made it clear that the Government would like the larger trust ports to go into the private sector. When I visited Aberdeen, I was struck by the way in which the port operates and by the fact that it has characteristics that other trust ports throughout the country do not have. Trust ports are diverse.
      Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that the snapshot judgments that are being made purely on the question of ports' present financial positions would, two decades ago, have excluded Felixstowe from any development. How can the Government base their assessment of the future of the port transport industry on snapshot pictures taken at this stage, without having full regard to consequences that may occur in the future? I repeat that many successful ports in the United Kingdom, by the Government's criteria, would not exist today.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Many successful ports are already in the private sector and have done well through being in it. Indeed, one of the reasons why Felixstowe did so well was that it was out of the constraints of the national dock labour scheme.
      When we abolished the national dock labour scheme, Aberdeen was a great beneficiary. It was not opposed to it, and managed to secure much Government money via the abolition of that scheme.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has urged me to accept amendment No. 56. Ever since hon. Members have discovered that the Bill contained a turnover limit, they have been thinking of items to leave in the scheme and of others to remove from it. That comment applies especially to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

      1015
      In Committee, we heard about dredging, conservation charges and fishery operations. We have been told about cargo handling receipts this evening, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend in another place will suggest pilotage fees at a later date. That is another part of the operation that can be tried on. They may go on to argue that every aspect of turnover should be removed from the statement of turnover.
      Despite the arguments that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has advanced, I see no reason why cargo handling receipts and the other normal commercial activities of many ports should not be considered elements of turnover, if the ports carry out the work themselves. We are seeking a broad measure of port authorities' operations, and it does not make sense to seek to exclude the areas of activity to which I have referred. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Ms. Walley: I put on record the Opposition's total resistance to the compulsion provisions in the clause. There is no substitute for removing the reserve powers. If the Minister understood that, we would not be considering amendments that represent an attempt to change the formula so that we have an exclusion zone based on a turnover of £13 million rather than one of £5 million. The compulsion provisions are wrong, and they should be removed.
      When the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) was speaking to amendment No. I on Poole and the five years during which there would be no further consideration of privatisation, I attempted to intervene. As the hon. Member for Poole probably had an inkling that the Minister would take on board the terms of the amendment, I think that it would have been helpful if I had had the opportunity to express our real concerns about Poole and British Petroleum's proposals for Hook island, which show that at least five years are needed if a balanced view is to be reached of what is happening, and if the concerns of the fishermen and the environmentalists are to be properly taken on board. It must be understood clearly why such important changes are going ahead.
      If the Bill did not contain the element of compulsion, we would not need to start playing about with figures. The Opposition have received many representations from the trust ports to the effect that it should be left to them, the ports, to decide whether to proceed. No playing around with figures can alter those representations. The £13 million formula would clearly be preferable if it were to take some of the trust ports out of the net of compulsory privatisation. The arguments on behalf of Aberdeen have been well advaricd by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Anything that removes the compulsion provisions should be supported.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) is right: if the compulsory element were removed from the Bill, there would be no need to table amendments such as those that are before the House. Equally, there would be no need to try to devise criteria if the Government would only put before us some of their criteria. It was the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that prompted him to write to the Secretary of State to make out the case of Aberdeen, with which I entirely agree. There is no dispute between us. We are entirely opposed to the compulsion.
      1016
      There is a split, however, in the Tory ranks, between a Tory Secretary of State for Transport in 1988, who said that he would not force smaller ports down the road to privatisation, and a Tory Secretary of State for Transport in 1991 who is forcing the smaller ports down that road. That is a fundamental split in Government ranks. The Minister has not explained why the figures of the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) have not been accepted, so we shall divide on the issue.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 176.

      Division No. 122]

      [10.44 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Illsley, Eric

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lamond, James

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Battle, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Beckett, Margaret

      Livingstone, Ken

      Bell, Stuart

      Livsey, Richard

      Bellotti, David

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Benton, Joseph

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McLeish, Henry

      Blunkett, David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Caborn, Richard

      Martlew, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Maxton, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Michael, Alun

      Clelland, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Nellist, Dave

      Cohen, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cousins, Jim

      O'Hara, Edward

      Crowther, Stan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cryer, Bob

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Prescott, John

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Dixon, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Doran, Frank

      Reid, Dr John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Robertson, George

      Fearn, Ronald

      Salmond, Alex

      Flynn, Paul

      Short, Clare

      Foulkes, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fraser, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Fyfe, Maria

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Galloway, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      George, Bruce

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Turner, Dennis

      Gordon, Mildred

      Vaz, Keith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Walley, Joan

      Hain, Peter

      Ward, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Henderson, Doug

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Home Robertson, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hood, Jimmy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. Alex Carlile

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Amos, Alan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ashby, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Baldry, Tony

      Bottomley, Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      1017

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Fry, Peter

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gale, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Goodlad, Alastair

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

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burns, Simon

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, William

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hannam, John

      Chope, Christopher

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

      Churchill, Mr

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Colvin, Michael

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cran, James

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Day, Stephen

      Hill, James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Dover, Den

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

      Dunn, Bob

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Irvine, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Jackson, Robert

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Franks, Cecil

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Freeman, Roger

      Knapman, Roger

      1018

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knox, David

      Speller, Tony

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Steen, Anthony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stern, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Summerson, Hugo

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      Mans, Keith

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Maples, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tracey, Richard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Trotter, Neville

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Mills, lain

      Walden, George

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waller, Gary

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Warren, Kenneth

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Watts, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      Norris, Steve

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Paice, James

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wilkinson, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Yeo, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rost, Peter

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Amendment accordingly negatived

    Clause 11

      SCHEMES MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9, line 26, after 'order', insert
      `which shall not come into effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 63, in clause 22, page 18, line 17, after 'State' insert `by order'.
      Amendment No. 59, in clause 32, in page 23, line 28, after 'section', insert '8(7), 11(8)'.
      Government amendment No. 19, in page 23, line 30, at end insert
      `(2A) No order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before. and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
      Amendment (a), in line 10, leave out `; or'.
      Amendment (b), in line 11, at end add
      `; or
      (e) under section 22(2) above.'.
      Amendment No. 75, in page 23, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
      Government amendment No. 20, in page 23, line 31, leave out from `containing' to end of line 34 and insert—

      `(a) an order under section 8(7) or 19(7) above other than one within paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (2B) above; or

      (b) regulations under section 24 above;'.

      Amendment (d), in line 3, leave out '8(7) or'.
      Amendment (e), in line 4, leave out '(a) or'.
      Government amendment No. 21.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 23, line 39, at end insert—
      `( ) If, apart from the provisions of this subsection, the draft of an order to which subsection (2A) above applies would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.'.
      Mr. Bell: Amendment No. 42 reflects our concern that affirmative resolutions should be debated on the Floor of the House when we deal with the privatisation of trust ports under the Bill.
      I am aware that amendment No. 42 is subsumed in Government amendment No. 19, which calls for a draft instrument containing any order to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. This was discussed in a fine and constructive debate in Committee. The Government listened to the Opposition's points and agreed that it would not be right for an order to be made simply on the fiat of a Secretary of State for Transport or a Minister.
      I was amused earlier when the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) whether the Labour party would renationalise the ports. The ports are trust ports and therefore are not nationalised, but in any event the powers in the Bill could, if they became law, be used by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) if there were a Labour Government, and I doubt whether many ports would be privatised. Therefore, the question whether the Labour party would nationalise such ports does not require a great deal of reflection.
      However, the Government listened to the arguments and accepted that they should not have an administrative fiat over the ports, and certainly not over those ports
      1020
      which are compulsorily privatised. Whatever the Government say, there is no great will among British ports to be privatised. There may have been such a will when the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) began the process some three years ago. He turns his head with great alacrity at the mention of his name, and I am glad that he is here because he was the Secretary of State who invited the trust ports to take the private Bill procedure of the House of Commons. Tees and Hartlepool was the first port to do so. But the actual procedure, as he envisaged it, has changed drastically in the past three years, and certainly since he left office.
      11 pm
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that, at that time, the former Secretary of State for Transport said that there was no question of trust ports being privatised against their will. However, the right hon. Gentleman is in his place tonight to support the Government, despite the fact that they are contradicting the policy upon which he embarked three years ago. It is one of the Opposition's jobs to highlight the little ironies that arise in the Government's actions over the years.
      Some ports may have seen some merit in privatisation when it was first suggested by the right hon. Member for Southend, West, as they could perceive a form of management buy-out that would keep their ports in local hands. That would—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—benefit the local community and users and put the existing management's expertise to good effect.
      A different Bill is now before the House, and it is clear that the competitive tendering element will mean that many ports will be found not in the hands of their existing management but in those of predators of the kind that Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), do not believe exist. If ports anticipate that they will be taken over by outside bodies, they will not take the voluntary privatisation route, and there will he coercion of the type for which the Bill makes provision. That shows the importance of this House and the other place having placed before them orders that can be the subject of debate.
      In Committee, the Minister rejected at every turn our proposals for proper consultation with local authorities and trade unions, so it is proper that the House should be given an opportunity to debate affirmative resolutions. Earlier, in the debate on the levy, the Minister pointed out that such debates, which need not be held late in the evening, can be well attended.
      We hope that the Government's amendment, which is supported by ours, will allow for proper debate and make the Minister accountable. However, if there is an election and a change of Government, the entire procedure will fall by the wayside. Meanwhile, the House wants an assurance that there will be proper debates on affirmative resolutions covering the variety of interests to which the Bill refers.
      I commend amendment No. 42, while acknowledging that it is subsumed in Government amendment No. 19. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled amendments to amendment No. 19, and no doubt we shall hear from him on them, and from the Minister as to whether he is prepared to accept it.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I declare my interest, as I shall be a parliamentary adviser to Port Enterprises Ltd. with effect from 1 May.
      The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) addressed a concern that I share, and, perhaps surprisingly, his conclusions are not wholly dissimilar from my own. Amendment Nos. 75 and 76, with amendments (d) and (e) to Government amendment No. 20, are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). They can best be explained in this way. The Bill makes provision for a compulsory 42-day consultation period in respect of individual port privatisation schemes, with the intention of an order being tabled bringing a scheme into effect, using the negative resolution procedure. For that to happen, the order must lay for 40 parliamentary days before it is confirmed. At any time during that period it can be prayed against, which would occasion a debate in the usual way. During that process no privatisation can take place.
      At first, that sounds perfectly innocuous, but on closer examination it seems clear that that would create an inordinate and unnecessary delay for those major trust ports which wish to privatise, which is an important point.
      The effect of the laying of the order having to be measured in parliamentary days means, as far as I can tell, that the earliest time in which a scheme could be approved would be by 19 December 1991, and if one makes the not unreasonable assumption that a general election might intervene, it would be the end of January 1992. Obviously that would create a disturbing and damaging period of uncertainty for each of the trust ports which wanted to privatise, especially bearing in mind competitive tendering, which is quite rightly the process preferred by the Government.
      Therefore, the amendments give those ports privatising themselves, using the enabling powers in clause 8 of the Bill, the ability to have the order approved by the Secretary of State without recourse to further parliamentary procedure.
      The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to the fact that the Government will accept an amendment to clause 32 to give those ports that are being privatised compulsorily the right to an affirmative resolution procedure. I shall entirely understand if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary chooses to make that concession. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I are talking about ports proceeding in different ways—on the one hand compulsorily and on the other, willingly. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will make that concession, and I could well understand the contrary argument.
      As for those ports acting directly in accordance with the policy in the Bill—doing precisely what the Government want, by bringing themselves forward for privatization—it does not seem necessary for them to have to go through that parliamentary procedure.
      In short, my amendments would enable those ports that want to privatise to get on with it, without even more parliamentary procedure. I hope that the Government will accept that they are within the spirit of the Bill and that the idea behind them, if not their wording, will commend them to my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Spearing: I support amendment No. 42, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I have tabled another set of amendments to the Minister's amendments that would include in this rather
      1022
      dense and convoluted legislation the requirement for an affirmative resolution instrument to come before the House in regard to those parts of the Bill dealing with the port of Tilbury. I support amendment No. 42 and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments, because I do not think that amendment No. 19, which he will no doubt press, requires an affirmative resolution instrument for the port of Tilbury.
      Tilbury docks remain perhaps the most important, or the only substantial, docks in the port of London. The relationship between Parliament and the law in the development of the port of London over the ages has been significant. Therefore, it is not for the House to have the power to approve a major change—or something more than a change—in the structure of what remains of the port of London. It would be totally inappropriate.
      There used to be a law which permitted cargoes to be discharged only on the legal quays, upstream and downstream of London bridge. That was opposed by dock interests, and the House passed dock Bills approving the construction of docks. The port of Tilbury is the modern name for Tilbury docks, which were excavated and made operational in 1886 by the then East and West India dock company. They turned out to be white elephants. Dock companies in London were competing with one another in bankruptcy, so the privatisation of any docks in London would be a 19th-century step, to some extent.
      If the Government have their way, there will not be more than one dock company in London. However, there will be other wharves with which there will be direct competition. Then there is the question of competition from continental ports. There is no doubt that the port of Tilbury, although it is the nearest to London, will not be the only one serving London and the south-east. Dunkirk, Antwerp and others will be rivals, especially with the opening of the channel tunnel.
      The creation by the House of the Port of London authority, together with the voting in of the administration in 1906, was a momentous step. In effect, the port of London was the pioneer trust port. Constitutional books throughout the world indicate that the Port of London authority, which was introduced by the Government of Mr. Asquith, was a model. It was set up to create a river highway by means of dredging; to be a navigation and safety authority; to take over the functions of the dock companies; to be a warehousing body; to provide specialist services; and to plan expansion. I did not always agree with it in its later stages, but, as a public authority, it fulfilled those purposes.
      The King George V dock, which is in my constituency, was opened as a public facility. Indeed, the expansion of the rather small Tilbury docks into what we have today was accomplished by way of post-war development under public enterprise. Some hon. Members may remember hearing Dudley Perkins on the radio. His talents as a dock and port manager were much appreciated. He created what today, for PR purposes, is the port of Tilbury.
      I come now to the question of competition. The ports of the near continent—particularly Dunkirk—have received a tremendous amount of public support. This is one area of European Community harmonisation that does not yet seem to have been explored. I am not saying that there should be such harmonisation; I am saying simply that it has not been introduced. With the opening of the channel tunnel, the ports of the near continent will be in direct competition with the Thames. Any

      1023
      installations on the Thames—public, private, or of mixed ownership; dock, river, pier, wharf, pontoon, or whatever—will he aware of this. Here, the Government's optimism may be somewhat misplaced. Capital for the ports of France has been provided by public subscription and Government grants, and the system has worked very well. Alas, successive Governments on this side of the channel have not done likewise for the port of London.
      The Port of London authority is not like any of the port trusts about which we heard in earlier debates. It was established as a sort of co-operative involving port users, municipal authorities, representatives of labour, and the lighterage companies. There never was an election, but that was the concept. However, gradually the port authority fell into the the hands of the Government. Now, every member of the board is appointed by the Secretary of State. Schemes that the PLA puts to the Minister have to be in line with what he wants. It is therefore very important that Parliament have the power to approve or reject.
      The Minister may say, "We have a majority anyway, so why come to Parliament?" The reason is the need for public visibility, for scrutiny. PLA capital development, particularly that at Tilbury, was undertaken with public money. In the early 1900s the House took action in response to the failure of private enterprise. That is a strong case for the principle of trust ports to be extended to the Port of London authority and Tilbury.
      When the docks were built the lighterage industry succeeded in ensuring that a free water clause was included in the docks Bills. It was resented by the wharfingers but welcomed by the dock companies. The result was that transport by water in London was made flexible. A large amount of cargo was discharged into barges and taken up river. It became a very finely balanced transport system. If the port of Tilbury becomes a separate private enterprise—I hope that it does not—the free water lighterage provision ought to be maintained. The Minister may not be able to answer that point now, but if the relevant statutory instrument were to be considered by the House, the matter would be discussed then.
      That is another reason why the Minister ought to accept these modest amendments. They would result in the port of Tilbury having the same conditions applied to it as I hope will he applied to all other United Kingdom trust ports.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Wallace: In Committee I dealt in detail with the arguments in favour of affirmative resolutions. I welcome the fact that the Minister has kept his word and introduced his amendments. A minor difference in detail between my amendment No. 59 and the Government amendment is that my amendment would also apply, where orders were made under clause 8(7), to schemes where a port had been privatised voluntarily.
      The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) seems to regard Parliament as somewhat of an inconvenience; he does not appear to believe that Parliament should have anything to do with the matter. He overlooks the fact that assets currently administered by trustees for the public good are to be transferred into private hands. The trustees may do that willingly and voluntarily, but such a transfer requires scrutiny. Parliament should not be bypassed.
      1024
      The Government amendments meet the spirit of what the Minister promised in Committee. He is therefore to be congratulated.
      Mr. McLoughlin: This has been a useful debate. I am not sure, however, that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will agree with everything that I am about to say.
      Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 reflect the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members in Committee. They felt that, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State confirms by means of an order a scheme that he himself has initiated through a direction to a port that has not submitted its own scheme within two years of enactment, or where he has made the scheme himself by order under clause 11 or clause 19, that order shall be subject to affirmative resolution, thus enabling a full debate to take place in both this House and another place. I know, too, that the British Ports Federation places considerable importance on the matter.
      Hon. Members have, however, drawn attention to a further aspect of the order-making process to confirm schemes of transfer where schemes are brought forward voluntarily by ports. If an order is made to confirm such a scheme, and it is subject to the negative resolution procedures, it may be prayed against at any time within 40 days after it has been made, during which Parliament is sitting. It is very unlikely that the Bill will be enacted in time for schemes to be made before the summer recess. That means that the 40-day period would not begin to run until Parliament resumes after the summer recess and, depending on when Parliament resumes, would continue until the second half of December or even mid-January. It is argued that it would be unrealistic for prospective purchasers of a port to consider making serious bids until there was absolute certainty that an order confirming a scheme of transfer could not be annulled. The ports that are anxious to reap the full benefits of privatisation as early as possible are naturally concerned about the delay, and about the disruption and uncertainty that it would cause.
      It would be wrong, when ports are anxious to achieve privatisation as rapidly as they can, that they should be held back in this way. That applies to the PLA's sale of Tilbury and to other ports under part I. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the amendments which will apply the affirmative resolution procedure when orders are made following my right hon. and learned Friend's exercise of his power of compulsion and of removing any parliamentary process from orders that are made, whether under part I or under part II, to confirm schemes brought forward voluntarily by ports.
      I am advised that certain of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends are technically defective. However, the House would achieve the objectives that I have stated by accepting Government amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 75 and 76 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who made an important point.
      I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. If I understand him aright, there was no concern about the ports that wish to come forward. A number are waiting for the enactment of the Bill so that they can follow through the process of opening up to privatisation.

      1025
      As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly said, the amendments would oblige the Secretary of State to make an order, with affirmative resolution procedure, to confirm any exercise by the PLA of its powers to dispose of Tilbury. That would be a quite impractical method. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that Tilbury is different, partly because its privatisation is contained in the Bill. For the other trust ports, the Bill is an enabling measure, apart from the reserve powers. The privatisation of Tilbury is on the face of the Bill unless the PLA decided not to privatise, in which case the affirmative order and compulsion could be exercised by the Secretary of State after two years. That is not likely to be the case.
      In one respect, the hon. Member for Newham, South was slightly unfair to the PLA. He said that it acted solely as an agent for the Secretary of State. That is wrong, because it acts under its own statute, under which it has responsibilities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that clarification.
      Mr. Spearing: Yes, the PLA acts under both private and public statutes. However, the point is that to divest itself of the operations at Tilbury, it would use the Bill, which the Minister has proposed.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I think that we could split hairs on the argument on many occasions.
      We have had an interesting debate. I hope that the House will accept the reasoning behind my remarks, and will accept Government amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 75 and 76.
      Mr. Bell: I agree with the Minister that this has been an interesting and constructive debate. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the Minister has kept his word in Committee to table an amendment on Report. It broadens the provisions on the affirmative resolution, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 12

      LEVY ON INITIAL DISPOSALS OF SECURITIES OF SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 36, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifty'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 36, leave out `ten' and insert 'one hundred'.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment rectifies a slight mishap that occurred when the Bill was in Committee. In the main, the Opposition brought it on themselves. They tabled an amendment to increase the rate of levy on the proceeds of the port sales to 100 per cent., and spoke vehemently in favour of it. They then somehow managed to vote for a probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) to reduce the rate of the levy to 10 per cent. They got the result they deserved.
      We in the Conservative party are in the familiar position of having to rescue the hon. Member for
      1026
      Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his colleagues from their embarrassment. The hon. Member was quite open in Committee when he said that he saw himself on the bridge and saw the possibility of causing a disaster——
      Mr. Prescott: I said "a revolt in the engine room".
      Mr. McLoughlin: I apologise—he saw a revolt in the engine room and took advantage of it. However, he did say that he would not be surprised if the Government returned to this on Report, and that is exactly what we are doing.
      The issue of the levy has been discussed at great length, but it is an important matter and I make no apology for returning to it.
      The lack of any owner of the trust ports, except the state, means that there is no vendor to receive the proceeds of sale when one of them is privatised. Hon. Members have argued that some or all of the proceeds should go to the nearest local authority, but many of these ports are national rather than local assets, and their relationship with their local authorities varies considerably from one port to the next. Without any levy, the entire proceeds of sale would revert in the form of a windfall gain to the purchaser. That seems clearly wrong, and one side effect is that in theory there would be no limit on the price which a purchaser would be prepared to pay for a port, because he would get the purchase price back as well as becoming the owner of the port. We believe that it is right that the taxpayer should have a share of the proceeds by means of a Government levy.
      The question is, how much should this share be? Let us look at the two extremes. At 10 per cent., the figure currently in the Bill, the purchaser of a newly privatised trust port gets back virtually all the money that he has paid. In a situation of competitive bidding, this would drive the price of the port up to ridiculous levels—a result which could, incidentally, seriously disadvantage a managment-employee buy-out team, which might be ill-equipped to raise the amount of finance necessary to mount a successful bid. An example should illustrate this point. If the value of a port is generally accepted to be about £10 million, a bidder might be prepared to pay as much as £50 million for it. The Government would take £5 million as their 10 per cent. levy, but the bidder, if he were successful, would get back £45 million together with the port, worth £5 million. I think everybody would agree that that would be a fairly good deal.
      From the standpoint of simplicity, a 100 per cent. levy has more to recommend it, since it does not drive up the price of the port; the Government simply take the whole of the proceeds. But this would put the sale of the trust ports on the same basis as that of nationalised industries and would ignore the very significant differences that in fact exist between them. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the idea is not at all popular with all the ports themselves, not least because it appears to ignore the fact that the trust ports are independent of Government. By allowing nothing back to the purchaser, it would not allow them to plough any extra capital back into the industry.
      With the levy at 50 per cent.—the rate of levy originally in the Bill—a balance is maintained between the interests of the taxpayer and of the new port owner. The Government could indeed, as has been pointed out, stand

      1027
      to get something like 100 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. of the actual value of the port by way of levy, since setting the rate at 50 per cent. is likely to cause the price of the port to rise above its market value, although not so much as to distort the bidding process as seriously as a 10 per cent. levy would. But 50 per cent. of the price will revert to the purchaser of the port, and that will be a further incentive for a port to privatise itself, on top of the benefits of privatisation itself. That is because of the extra capital which the sale will generate for the port, which it may need for investment in the port or to use as seems best in its commercial judgment.
      For these reasons, I make no apology for bringing this amendment back to the House. I believe that 50 per cent. is the right level for the Government's levy, and I accordingly commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Prescott: The reason we voted for the 10 per cent., as the Minister knows, is that we wanted to hear from him an explanation that we did not hear in Committee, and which I think we have just heard from him, of how they arrived at the figure of 50 per cent. Our amendment for 100 per cent. tonight gives us a chance to reiterate our committee amendment, although we were not provided with the opportunity to vote for it.
      We voted for the 10 per cent. of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who I see is not here this evening. Is the Select Committee still sitting, or is it on a visit? There are precedents. Those who vote against the Government are often sent to the most attractive places in the world. I do not know whether that is what has happened to the hon. Member for Thurrock, although I note that the amendment relates to precisely the clause about which he was concerned. He said that it entailed exploitation, and that the Government were not entitled to take the money, which belonged to the ports themselves.
      11.30 pm
      The Minister has already conceded part of the argument. His illustration based on everyone operating on the £10 million figure appears to have come from the interesting document made available to the conference held by the Waterfront organisation and produced by Mark Seligman, of the consultants Warburg and Co. Ltd. which dealt wiih getting the capital structure right. That is a very important point, and the matter is highly complex.
      Any hon. Member reading through the passages about how one gets the capital structure of the companies right in such circumstances will realise that the judgment of Solomon needs to be exercised. Presumably that also applies to commercial judgments as to whether one makes a profit or not. The heart of the matter is the question that we are dealing with here: would the Government's take affect that balance? Presumably, not only the share price will be affected by that judgment. Presumably it also affects the possibility of people bidding for a buy-out.
      The Minister made clear what would happen to the value of the company if the figure were 10 per cent.—the figure stipulated in the Bill as drafted following amendments accepted in Committee. I shall not go through all the details. Hon. Members can see from the document how the example is arrived at. It refers to a model company worth £10 million—with a turnover of £10 million—and a profit of 15 per cent. A judgment is made about how the price-earnings ratio is arrived at, and the document gives a net asset value of £5·3 million. The
      1028
      figures are there in the document should hon. Members wish to read them. As the Minister said, if the Government took 50 per cent., it would be equivalent to the £5·3 million net asset value. It would then be argued that the Government were getting 100 per cent., as some hon. Members said in Committee.
      The question that is important to this debate is whether the purchase price for a management-worker buy-out will be affected. I hope that the Minister will now answer a question that he did not answer before. I do not intend that as a criticism, as he had a number of questions to answer, but he now has another opportunity to answer it. The statement in The Guardian said that the Department was making it clear that it would be bound to accept the highest figure. As has been said, that is not necessarily the case under competitive tendering arrangements; they can accept less. But presumably there is a limit to how much less they can accept.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I confirm that the story in this morning's edition of The Guardian is inaccurate and that our original statements to the effect that we may not necessarily go for the highest bidder still hold good.
      Mr. Prescott: That statement will be welcomed by those who want a move in that direction. We have made our position clear. In the main, however, the Government say that it is one of their objectives to do that, and I think that they will have to do it. The interesting question is to what extent the Government are prepared to discount the highest bid in order to accept an employee-management buy-out. That is the importance of the judgments made about the net asset value of the companies and the price that is arrived at.
      The Minister has conceded that, even under his own formula, the 10 per cent. figure would produce a £45 million windfall. Clearly that would be an advantage to the purchaser, who will have no legitimate claim to that money. At least the Government can say that they have a more legitimate claim. That is their argument for the 50 per cent. levy. Unlike the individual who purchases a company with its assets and either makes a killing or not, depending on the Government's levy, the Government will take the money in the name of the community.
      The other side of the coin is the Opposition amendment, which provides for the 100 per cent. figure. The Minister rightly pointed out that that would take out the excess money that can be made. He then said—curiously, in my view—that the company would be like a nationalised industry, because it would not be left money with which to expand. I do not understand that. A public limited company cannot be like a nationalised industry in that sense. The company would have its own debt and equity structure.
      Presumably, before making a bid, the prospective purchasers would make judgments about the distribution of the company's equity, its value and its debts. The judgment whether sufficient resources will be available to meet the investments that might be required to allow the company to expand will depend on the circumstances. In the case of a port such as Dover, for example, the problem is not a shortage of money for use in developing the port; Dover has already done as much as it can in that direction.
      There is a strong argument for gold-plating port investment. We say that the assets could be used for investment in activities other than port-related activity

      1029
      which may be beneficial to the port. That is a legitimate argument. It is about using the extra land that becomes available. There is not necessarily a shortage of money, as the Minister suggested. That is a side issue. We are expected to vote on whether to change the levy from 10 per cent. to 50 per cent., as the Government require, or to 100 per cent.
      As we are agreed that to give the whole windfall to the taxpayer, we should opt for the full 100 per cent. levy in this manoeuvre, and our amendment does so, we can be said to be the taxpayer's champions on this occasion. We are taking the 100 per cent. option. The Minister says that a 50 per cent. levy is better because it will allow some money to go back into the coffers. That is where the formula produced by the expert comes in. He says that, if one does that and buys a company for £10 million, of which the net asset value is less than the market value, one could purchase the company, pay £10 million for it and put £5 million of it—50 per cent.—back in the books.
      It is argued that, somehow, a corporate raider may then decide that it wants to take out that £5 million and put it in some other part of its operation outside port activity. There is nothing to stop it doing that. The important point for the debate is that the job of the people who want to form a management-worker buy-out—that is one of the objectives of the Government—is made much more difficult with a 50 per cent. levy than with a 100 per cent. levy. That is the case by virtue of the Minister's own argument. The 10 per cent. levy is one extreme. The 100 per cent. levy is the other. With a 50 per cent. levy, hey diddle diddle, he thinks he is down the middle, he has landed with the Liberals and he is happy. Fine. But he cannot ignore the fact that that is likely to be less attractive to the buy-out consortium than the 100 per cent. levy.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: No, it is not.
      Mr. Prescott: I am simply using the Minister's arguments. I believe that they are reasonable, but the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) may have a different view. We even argued it out in Committee. But the point is that the 100 per cent. levy is a better deal. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept my view, I suggest—even the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary may get around to reading things—that he reads an article in The Financial Times on 6 January 1991 which dealt with the point. It said:
      "There is little rationale for the proposed 50 per cent. levy. Whatever money a port receives from its sale will revert to the person who buys it …the result will be to drive up the bidding, perhaps beyond the reach of a management-employee consortium."
      The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want to get money out of sales, that is fine: they can take the full 100 per cent. If they want to go halfway, they can take 50 per cent. But that will affect the price, and it is likely to be a disincentive to management and employees to buy out the port, or to make it more difficult for them to do so.
      We started the debate on the point that the Government came along with a generous offer to pay some of the expenses of preparation for an management-employee buyout. That is a helpful move to those who want to be involved in that process. It is all right providing the money to work out the bid, but it is much more
      1030
      important to provide the capital to make the bid. Otherwise, it is just an exercise. Indeed, it is likely to be just that. If the Government stick to the 50 per cent. levy, they will get the worst of all worlds. They could take the full money—the 100 per cent. Or they could take the 10 per cent. Then someone would get a large windfall. I agree with the Government that that is not an attractive way of dealing with the matter. But given the circumstances, the 50 per cent. levy is not the best.
      If we want to give a definite preference to the management-employee buyout, it would be better to vote for the 100 per cent. levy. The Financial Times says so, and it follows from the logic of the argument. It is absolutely right. The Minister has already said that he will not accept the highest bid. He has not said by how much he would discount it. Would it be as much as 50 per cent? I doubt it. Under those circumstances, the Minister has convinced me more than ever to vote for the 100 per cent. levy in order to assist those who wish to take part in a management-employee buy-out.
      Mr. Michael Carttiss: I accept the Committee's decision. I regard it as a mishap—even if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his friends voted with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who I am sure is detained on important business. He has not been sent anywhere. No one offered me the opportunity to go anywhere else. Had they done so, I should have gone to Great Yarmouth, of course. But here I am and I have not changed the view that I expressed in this Chamber on Second Reading.
      It is wrong for the Government to take 50 per cent. of the disposal of the securities of the successor companies of trust ports. I shall not vote for the 50 per cent. which my hon. Friend the Minister is seeking to restore to the Bill. Up to now, he has a good Bill. Even the 50 per cent. clawback on the sale of land I was not too worried about. Here he is spoiling a six-hour day with his attempt to reverse an excellent decision in Committee.
      I object to the 50 per cent. levy for two principal reasons. First, I see no reason why the Government should get a share of the proceeds when they have contributed nothing. We have had much talk about windfall. In the Tory party where I was brought up that was called legitimate profit motive. What is all this nonsense about windfall? Since when has purchasing shares and selling them at a profit, or investing in an enterprise and making money out of it, been a windfall? That is what the Conservative party exists to promote.
      A Minister in a Conservative Government, even in the post-Thatcherite era, should not talk in such contemptuous terms about "windfall", when he knows very well that even under this Government the tax regime will enable profits to be taxed and some money to go back to the community. The Government have given nothing to the trust ports and, in setting them up as private companies, have no business taking any share of the proceeds. That is my first reason for objecting. It offends my concept of the Conservative party's devotion to the profit motive as a proper and legitimate exercise for business people to engage in when purchasing an enterprise.
      My second reason is more local. My port of Great Yarmouth is under the turnover limit of £5 million above which the legislation will operate the compulsory privatisation provision. People in Great Yarmouth will be

      1031
      in the fortunate position of the people of Poole, in the sense that they can or cannot, as they please, go ahead with privatisation.
      The second and far more important reason for my opposing the Government amendment to restore the 50 per cent. levy that they had in the Bill originally is that it will act as a disincentive for the port of Great Yarmouth to go down the path towards privatisation that the Government would surely wish to encourage, and which I have been doing my utmost to persuade the authority and the port users to do. There is no way that I am going back to Yarmouth tonight if the amendment goes through—[Interruption.]Well, at the end of the week or whenever it is. If I lose the argument I might go home and not come back for a week or two.
      There is no reason for my arguing any further in Great Yarmouth for the privatisation of the port if 50 per cent. of the money from the disposal of the shares is to go to the Government. The Government are a successor of many Governments who have contributed not a penny piece to the port of Yarmouth, and they will not get a penny piece except through the proper taxation procedures, which naturally I support.
      I hope that the House will wholeheartedly oppose this ill-conceived amendment.
      Mr. Wallace: As in Committee, I find myself in great sympathy with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). He chides the Government for trying to impose a tax where no tax existed, which ill becomes a Government who have set themselves the standard of being a tax-cutting one. Here we have them introducing a new tax. At least tonight the Minister gave a slightly better justification for the levy than we have heard before.
      When the matter was first introduced as part of the Finance Act 1990, the reason given by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, was that it reflected the fact that Governments had contributed so much to the ports over the years through grants and loans that it was time they got something back. As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth has just pointed out, there are ports to which the Government have not contributed a penny piece, yet they want to take money from them.
      My main objection is that the Government are seizing money because it belongs to no one else. They are doing so because of the decision in the case of the Trustee Savings bank, when the House of Lords took the view that, although a property may not belong to the Government, because it belongs to no one else it must belong to the state. This country has never developed the concept that such property might belong to the people. Many of the trusts were set up to serve the local communities and those who trade in them and the Government are taking money away from those communities.
      11.45 pm
      If the Minister had proposed a levy and said that its proceeds would be reinvested in the communities in which the ports are situated, many of us would have supported it enthusiastically. As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said, the ports cannot exist in a vacuum. In Committee, we heard the details of the long-awaited dual carriageway or flyover in Great Yarmouth. If such transport provision were made there, it would greatly benefit the port. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that any
      1032
      proceeds from the sale of the port to the private sector should be used to finance the infrastructure to support the port. If the Government had adopted such an approach, it would have been supported by the House, but they are pocketing the proceeds of the sale of ports for themselves. I did not think that that was what the Conservative party was about, so I have no enthusiasm for the increased amount that it will put into its coffers.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government do with the money they raise. It goes neither to my right hon. Friends nor to myself; it goes to the people. It goes straight into the Consolidated Fund to provide various services. Some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments are strange, to say the least.
      Mr. Wallace: What objection does the Minister have to that money being reinvested in the communities from which it comes?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The ports are not necessarily local assets but can also be national assets. They may have obtained their wealth from people from other parts of the country. Nobody would argue, for instance, that Dover has obtained its wealth because people from throughout the country use the port. It would be hard to say that the proceeds of the sale of that port should go into the Dover area.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth made a vociferous speech, as he did in Committee, and I respect his position. However, the Government decided the best way to proceed. Although I accept some of the arguments that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East put on record, I have outlined the reasons why the Government decided to take 50 per cent.
      Question put, that the amendment he made:
      The House divided:Ayes 140, Noes 52.

      Division No. 123]

      [11.48 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Colvin, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amess, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Amos, Alan

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Day, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dover, Den

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dunn, Bob

      Benyon, W.

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Evennett, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fallon, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bright, Graham

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Gregory, Conal

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butterfill, John

      Ground, Patrick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, William

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      1033

      Harris, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hayes, Jerry

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Speller, Tony

      Irvine, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Jackson, Robert

      Stern, Michael

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stevens, Lewis

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Knapman, Roger

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Knowles, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Thorne, Neil

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Walden, George

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Waller, Gary

      Maclean, David

      Ward, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mans, Keith

      Watts, John

      Maples, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wilkinson, John

      Mills, lain

      Wood, Timothy

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Yeo, Tim

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Norris, Steve

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paice, James

      Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. David Davis.

      Patnick, Irvine

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lamond, James

      Battle, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Bell, Stuart

      Livsey, Richard

      Bellotti, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bradley, Keith

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Murphy, Paul

      Carttiss, Michael

      Nellist, Dave

      Clelland, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Crowther, Stan

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cryer, Bob

      Prescott, John

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Dixon, Don

      Robertson, George

      Doran, Frank

      Salmond, Alex

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fearn, Ronald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Foster, Derek

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Galloway, George

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wallace, James

      Hain, Peter

      Walley, Joan

      Haynes, Frank

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Henderson, Doug

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Allen McKay.

      Illsley, Eric

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 9,line 43, at end insert—
      '( ) costs incurred in pursuance of section (Financial
      assistance for proposals to maximize employee participation in equity or successor companies) below in connection with any proposal for maximizing participation by employees of the company whose securities are the subject of the disposal in
      1034
      ownership of its equity share capital (whether or not the disposal is made for the purposes of implementing any such proposal);'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 16

      LEVY ON DISPOSALS OF LAND, ETC
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 12, line 15, leave out from 'company"),' to 'a' in line 18.
      No. 28, in page 12, line 19, leave out from 'section' to end of line 34 and insert
      'shall be chargeable in respect of any gain accruing to the company on a chargeable disposal—

      (a) of that land or interest; or

      (b) of an interest of any specified description in the land so transferred or in the land in which the interest so transferred subsists at the time of the transfer under that section;

      made within the period of ten years beginning with the date on which the company ceases to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the body which immediately before the transfer was the relevant port authority in question.
      (2) The levy shall be charged—

      (a) at the rate of twenty-five per cent. on the amount of the gain, in the case of a disposal made within the first five years of the period mentioned in subsection (1) above;

      (b) at the rate of twenty per cent. on the amount of the gain, in the case of a disposal made within the sixth or seventh year of that period; and

      (c) at the rate of ten per cent. on the amount of the gain, in the case of a disposal made during the remainder of that period.

      (2A) The levy shall be paid by the chargeable company to the appropriate Minister.
      (2B) There is a disposal of land or an interest in land for the purposes of this section and section (Supplementary and consequential provisions relating to levy under section 16) below if there would be such a disposal for the purposes of the 1979 Act.'.
      No. 29, in page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      '(a) for determining when and by whom any disposal of land or an interest in land is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as being made;'.
      No. 30, in page 12, line 40, leave out 'those purposes' and insert
      'the purposes of this section;'.
      No. 31, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'those purposes' and insert
      'the purposes of this section'.
      No. 32, in page 13 line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 33, in page 13, line 29, leave out from 'to' to second 'with' in line 30 and insert
      'corporation tax on chargeable gains'.
      No. 34, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'subsection (3) above' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 35, in page 13, leave out lines 35 to 43.
      No. 36, in page 13, line 45, leave out from first 'specified' to end of line 48 and insert
      'means specified in an order under this section.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 18

      POWER OF PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY TO FORM A COMPANY TO OPERATE THE PORT OF TILBURY
      12 midnight
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 15, line 19, after 'activities', insert
      `within the curtilage of the Port of Tilbury.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 20, at end insert
      `not otherwise provided by the Port Authority'.
      Mr. Spearing: Clause 18(1) reads:
      "The Port cf London Authority (referred to below in this Part as 'the Port Authority') shall have power to form a company for the purpose of carrying on—

      (a) that part of their undertaking which consists in operating the port of Tilbury; and

      (b) any activities which appear to them to be incidental
      to or connected with operating the port of Tilbury."

      My amendments would effect the changes implied by their wording.
      This brief debate continues our discussion of the definition and description of the port of Tilbury. At the ninth sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister said:
      "the Government's intentions about Tilbury are clear on the face of the Bill. The document in question"—
      referring to the application from the PLA, I think—
      "which is technical, will determine which properties and functions are transferred to the Tilbury company."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 March 1991; c. 305.]
      The question is: what properties and what functions? Hitherto the Minister has been coy about that. His phrase, on the "face of the Bill", was factually incorrect. These aspects are not on the face of the Bill—but they are in the document referred to. The long title of the Bill in part runs as follows:
      "to provide for the transfer of certain property, rights, liabilities and functions of the Port of London Authority to a company formed by that authority."
      Certain properties, however, are not defined. They could almost be called uncertain properties and uncertain functions.
      I am grateful for the earlier ruling that it is perfectly in order for the House to discuss these matters without knowing what is likely to be transferred. The Minister should tell us a little more about this public relations phrase, the port of Tilbury.
      In an earlier speech, I outlined the development of Tilbury docks. What will be involved in this change? Will the land adjacent to the operational area be included? What about the rail container depot? Or the dock itself? The dock has value: barges and ships, laid up or carrying cargo, can moor there—it can be used as a mobile warehouse. There are stacking and storage areas. There are workshops leased out to operators and used by the port itself. There are berths in the port. There is a grading dock and associated workshops. There is the lock. There is the passenger terminal, which has a landing stage on the river and an adjacent station. There are wharves which can be adapted for various uses—roll-on/roll-off, for instance—and there is the grain terminal. The annual report of the PLA implies that it is part of the so-called port of Tilbury.
      In addition to all that, there are the employees, who are perhaps some of the most valuable assets, although the current managers do not appear to manage them thus. I
      1036
      have been told that many of the tug crew have recently been made redundant, that anybody over 50 working a lock has been shown the door, or rather the river, and that pay has been reduced recently by up to 30 per cent. That may only be a report. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm all those things. But that is not a good advertisement for the port of Tilbury even if people have it slightly wrong, which I do not think they have. As we know, industrial relations there have not been of the best and there is a case at the moment which is sub judice and on which I shall not comment. The Achilles heel of the port of London in the past has been bad industrial relations.
      In the end it would be for the courts to decide what Parliament meant by "certain property". But it is wrong for the House to pass the Bill without a schedule of that property and those functions on the "face of the Bill"—a phrase which the Minister used in Committee. That is not on the face of the Bill and it is not even on the face of Hansard, unless we hear some wise words to the contrary in a moment. The courts cannot look to Hansard, they can only look to the Bill, but at least the House and the public should have something on the face of Hansard.
      As I understand it, the Bill refers to the functions as they appear to the PLA and as the Secretary of State agrees. But the PLA covers a great deal more than the so-called port of Tilbury. It operates in three divisions—the river division, which is navigational, Tilbury division, which is largely cargo, and, surprise, surprise, the property division. The Port of London Authority has no fewer than 16 property subsidiaries, some of them with property in the developing area of the upper pool. They are listed in the annual report. There is an income of £13 million a year from rent and sale of land. Much of it may have been sale of land in 1989, but it is quite a lot. It has 25 acres in what was called Thurrock park, immediately adjacent to the so-called port of Tilbury, and now, I believe, renamed the Capstan centre. In addition, as was said earlier, many cliff marshes further down river are still owned by the PLA. It is as much, alas, a property company these days, as it is a cargo-handling company.
      I understand from the wording of the Bill that any part of those undertakings in operating the port of Tilbury or any activities that appear to be incidental or connected with operating the port of Tilbury could be transferred. The operators could claim that for almost any one of those features. So it would be possible for the PLA to privatise itself—I have heard it described thus—along with any of its assets, which are not subject to parliamentary approval, as we have, alas, decided, and for which the Secretary of State thought that privatisation was justified.
      I have a rather uncharitable feeling that the Minister and the PLA together could more or less disintegrate the PLA as we know it today. The port of Tilbury could have all sorts of subsidiaries up and down the river. Theoretically, it could land cargo on the Terrace of the House of Commons. If Conservative Members continue to vote away the powers of the House of Commons, it might turn into a wharf and that may be related to the port of Tilbury. That may be far-fetched, but what property upstream in London could not necessarily be connected with the port of Tilbury? Any cargo landed there or any cargo transferred there from any wharf on any part of the tidal Thames could be and is connected by water to the port of Tilbury.
      A legal judgment on those matters would probably be made in favour of the Minister and the PLA. Therefore,

      1037
      this provides a channel for the port of Tilbury to expand up and down the river in almost any way that the PLA and the Minister wish.
      Amendment No. 66 would confine activities to those
      "not otherwise provided by the Port Authority".
      The authority provides navigation and other aids, but if the Minister has his way, and if the general election goes his way—which I do not think it will—I suspect that there would not be much of the port authority left, because Tilbury would gobble it all up.
      The Minister may deny everything that I have said. I hope that he does, and that I am wrong. I often put points in the House that I hope are wrong. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to deny the wild scenario that he may think I have painted, and to say what he has in mind. I hope also that he will give an undertaking to table amendments to be considered in another place that will define what are the certain properties and certain functions in question.
      Earlier, in opposing another of my amendments to allow the House to have the final say, the Minister said that the Bill already included such a provision. It does not, and until it does, we should not rest content.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I cannot recommend his amendments to the House because they would be too restrictive of the activities that could be transferred to the new Tilbury company. It could be entirely sensible to transfer activities that are currently undertaken outside the geographical limits of the port of Tilbury.
      In Committee, I mentioned the example of an inland clearance depot that might not relate entirely to the port of Tilbury, and which might lie outside the port itself. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would exclude such a depot from the transfer. The effect of amendment No. 66 is less clear, but it might exclude activities that relate almost but not quite to Tilbury, but which in all logic should be transferred to the new company. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but his amendments are not the best way to proceed.
      When I said earlier that privatisation is on the face of the Bill, I was referring to Tilbury being a specific part of the Bill, as opposed to the other trust ports, which will require an enabling measure.
      Mr. Spearing: The Minister's brevity emphasises the wild scenario that I painted. He did not take the opportunity to deny, other than in the case of a wharf on the Terrace of the House of Commons, the principle that I outlined, which confirms my worst fears.
      The Minister made reference to an inland clearance depot. He may recall that the PLA once had such a facility, at Orsett. I believe that it failed a few years ago, or that it was sold. More likely, it is still the property of one of the PLA's many subsidiaries, and might be reactivated.
      Definitions can perhaps best be dealt with in another place, and I hope that my points will be taken up there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made:No. 10, in page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 19

      TRANSFER TO THE COMPANY OF RELEVANT PROPERTY, ETC., OF THE PORT AUTHORITY.
      Amendment proposed:No. 11 , in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
      `( ) Together with a scheme submitted under subsection (1) above the Port Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State a copy of the memorandum and articles of the company.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
      Mr. Barry Field: This amendment is the result of an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee, at column 302 of Hansard for 7 March 1991, in response to an amendment in my name, but moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) with his characteristic generosity and kindness, as I was unfortunately absent.
      That amendment stemmed from representations by the London General Shipowners Society, and despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister conceded the point with which it dealt, the society continued to be concerned that Tilbury was not to be subject to advertising in part II of the Bill, in the same way as the other ports are, in part I.
      My hon. Friend tackled that issue in Committee by saying that Tilbury will effectively be privatised when the Bill goes on to the statute book, whereas other ports have yet to come forward.
      12.15 am
      Donald Chard, the secretary of the London General Shipowners Society, which is quite an ancient society, as my hon. Friend knows, is still worried about that aspect of part II. Perhaps my hon. Friend might consider writing to him to try to reassure him about it. He continues to believe that by not advertising that aspect of the Bill in the same way as for ports covered in part I, something may be missed from the future consultation process.
      My hon. Friend answered questions in Committee. I hope that he will be able to meet the concerns of the London General Shipowners Society.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall write to the gentleman he mentioned to set out the Government's position.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:No. 12, in page 15, line 39, leave out `submitted under subsection (1) above' and insert 'so submitted'.
      No. 13, in page 16, line 6, at end insert—
      `( ) Before—

      (a) confirming a scheme so submitted (with or without modifications); or

      (b) making a scheme of his own under subsection (4)(b) above;

      the Secretary of State may first (if he thinks fit) give the Port Authority a direction requiring them, before such date as may be specified in the direction, to secure that such alterations are made to the memorandum and articles of the company as may be specified in the direction.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 20

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 19
      Amendments made:No. 4, in page 16, line 39, at end insert—
      '(1A) The scheme shall contain the required provision for the protection of pension rights described in section (The required provision for the protection of pension rights)below.'
      No. 14, in page 16, line 44, after 'Authority', insert
      `(or, where the scheme is made by the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of State)'—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Schedule 2

      GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 19
      Amendment made:No. 24, in page 30, line 28, leave out
      `Port Authority or the company (as the case may be)' and insert 'company;'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 17, line 33, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 71, in page 17, line 34, after `property', insert
      `owned by the Port Authority which is wholly and exclusively devoted to purposes relating to the operation of the said port of Tilbury'.
      Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 71 relates to the deletion of clause 20(4), which states:
      "The granting by the scheme to the company of a lease of any property shall be regarded for the purposes of—

      (a) section 19 above and this section; and

      (b) Schedule 2 below;

      as a transfer of that property to the company by the scheme."
      I would like the Minister to tell us why the clause is there and why he would reject my amendment No. 71 which adds
      "exclusively devoted to purposes relating to the … port of Tilbury."
      He does not say that it is a 500-year lease. As I understand it, this is not a measure of leasehold reform. Otherwise, the transfer of leased property would encourage the company to enter into a lease and to transfer leasehold property to freehold by a statute that appears to be transferring property—public property at that—at controversial compensation.
      This is a brief probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will tell us why the provision is there, how it will be used, and why it should not be restricted soley to the functions of the so-called port of Tilbury.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I fear that the amendments could result in the transfer of some of the property to the new Tilbury company not being handled in the most sensible way. I see nothing objectionable in the property being leased to the new company and it seems to be quite wrong to exclude the leasing of property that is not exclusively used in connection with the operation of the port of Tilbury. That is the reason why we cannot accept the amendments and I hope that the explanation that I have given is sufficient.
      Mr. Spearing: I think that the Minister's explanation is comprehensive and efficient, but again perhaps this is a
      1040
      matter that might be probed at greater leisure in a more appropriate place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 22

      POWERS OF DISPOSAL IN RELATION TO THE COMPANY
      Amendment made:No. 15, in page 18, line 40, at end insert—
      `( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers or other persons employed by the company of the whole or a substantial part of its equity share capital.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 25

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Amendments made:No. 16, in page 19, line 46, leave out `and'.
      No. 17 in page 19, line 47, at end insert ';and
      "the port of Tilbury" means the Port Authority's docks and landing places (both within the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Port of London Act 1968) at Tilbury in the borough of Thurrock in the county of Essex.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 29

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 26 TO 28
      Amendment proposed:No. 18, in page 22, line 32, leave out from 'areas' to end of line 33 and insert
      `inside the limts within which the authority's statutory powers and duties as a harbour authority are exercisable'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. Wallace: This amendment is the Minister's response to an undertaking that he gave in Committee to return to the House with an amendment that would clarify the extent of the harbour authorities' areas with regard to matters contained in this clause.
      The potential problem arises because, under the Pilotage Act 1987 there are some matters that come within the ambit of the harbour authority, but only for the purposes of pilotage. In Committee, I tabled an amendment to clarify the point that for the purposes of this provision we should concern ourselves only with traditional harbour areas, not those covered by pilotage. Does the Minister think that this amendment clarifies that matter? It seems that the situation is left open, at least to some extent. Perhaps I should reverse the tables and suggest that he go away, consider the matter, and have the amendment that I tabled originally introduced in another place. I think that it clarified the situation more successfully than would any words from him. The Secretary of State will be actively involved in any decision under this provision. If the Minister can give the House an assurance that the legislation covers only the harbour area, not the area relating to pilotage, it may suffice.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I can confirm that this amendment arises from the undertaking given in Committee to consider an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The hon. Member's concern was to clarify whether the transfer provisions of part Ill of the Bill would apply to navigational aids in areas where a harbour authority had pilotage jurisdiction extending beyond its limits for other harbour purposes.

      1041
      This question has raised unexpectedly complex legal issues. They have been discussed with advisers of the British Ports Federation, which originally raised the matter. I shall not attempt to burden the House with the legal arguments involved. The amendment is intended to reassure the British Ports Federation that the provisions of part III are aimed only at navigational aids currently provided by the general lighthouse authorities within—for want of a better term—normal harbour limits. I can also give an assurance that, quite apart from this amendment, there is no intention that any transfers of aids to harbour authorities will be made in areas where such authorities have pilotage-only functions. We accept that, as a general rule, navigational aids in pilotage-only areas will have some recognisable element of general navigational usage. In those circumstances, such aids should continue to be the responsibility of the general lighthouse authority.
      I hope that that assurance satisfies the hon. Gentleman. If there is a problem, I shall be happy to look into it in greater depth.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendments made:No. 37, in page 23,1ine 28, leave out 'or 16' and insert
      '16 or (Supplementary and consequential provisions relating to levy under section 16)(1)'.
      No.19, in page 23, line 30, at end insert—
      '(2A) No order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
      (2B) Subsection (2A) above applies to an order which is made—

      (a) under subsection (7) of section 8 above as that subsection applies in relation to a scheme submitted under section 9 above;

      (b) under section 11(8) above;

      (c) under subsection (7) of section 19 above confirming a scheme submitted under subsection (1) of that section in pursuance of a direction under section 23(3) above;or

      (d) under section 19(8) above.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

      No. 75, in page 23, line 31, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Barry Field.]
      No. 76, in page 23, line 39, at end insert—
      `( ) If, apart from the provisions of the subsection, the draft of an order to which subsection (2A) above applies would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.'.—[Mr. Barry Field.]

    Clause 35

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made:No. 22, in page 24, line 5, at end insert—
      ' "equity share capital" has the meaning given by section 744 of the Companies Act 1985;'.
      No. 23, in page 24, line 20, leave out 'References in this Act' and insert
      'In this Act—
      1042

      (a) references, in relation to any company, to maximising participation by employees of the company in ownership of its equity share capital are references to—

      (i) securing the disposal to managers or other persons employed by the company of the whole or a substantial part of its equity share capital; and

      (ii) securing that the persons to whom any such disposal is made comprise the greatest possible number of managers or other persons so employed; and

      (b) references'.—[Mr. Loughton.]

    Schedule 1

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 2
      Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 26, line 19, at end insert:
      'The scheme of transfer under section (2) of this Act shall contain provisions for the setting up of mirror image pension schemes identical in all ways to any scheme operated by or funded in whole or in part by that authority. The amount being transferred in bulk from one scheme to another is to be the amount held in respect of each member's accrued pension benefits, allowing for expected future pay increases. Any existing accrued benefit in the scheme prior to transfer must be retained in the new scheme for the lifetime of that scheme. Bulk transfers without consent should be conditional upon the actuary to the transferring scheme supplying a certificate of broad equivalence. Pensionable service shall be regarded as not having terminated in any change of scheme.'.
      As it is very late, and as the House has further business to dispose of, I shall be brief.
      It is always easy to be wise after the event. I should like to draw to the Minister's attention the situation that arose from previous privatisations and the concern that was expressed about pension rights.
      The Minister said in Committee that all the rights and liabilities of the authority and of the employees would be transferred and would continue after privatisation. He also said that that would not need to be spelt out specifically in the Bill. Our amendment seeks the assurance that the principle of safeguarding pension rights will be adhered to; it is important to obtain that assurance from the Minister.
      Current good practice, outlined by the Department of Social Security'in "Protecting Pensions", must be endorsed by the Minister. There must be a Government commitment for the purposes of the Ports Bill. That is the intention of amendment No. 48. In principle, the amount evaluated for the past service reserve should be the sum that the trustees of any necessary identical scheme require to cover the cost of setting up, for the members concerned, pension credits for past pensionable service equal to each member's past pensionable service benefits in the paying scheme, allowing for rights and expectations based on eventual pay.
      Any existing surplus funds in a pension scheme should be used solely for pensions to the workers. It is important that they should not be seen as a spare asset base to induce privatisation; nor should they be used by a port authority before transfer to the company.
      I should welcome the Minister's reassurance that a watertight provision in any transfer will effectively be included in the Bill.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that the amendment is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary. As some hon. Members will be aware. the transfer of undertakings regulations do not apply to occupational pension schemes. The rights and liabilities of the port authority in relation to pension schemes would, however, be transferred to the successor company, along with other rights and liabilities, by virtue of clause 2(2) of the Bill. This would include, for example, any liability of the company to its employees or to the trustees of a pension scheme to make contributions to the scheme, and in any case where a pension was payable by the port authority itself out of revenue, as distinct from payment out of a funded pension scheme, the transfer of liabilities to the company under clause 2(2) would include a transfer of liability to pay the pension.
      In short, after the transfer date, employees would have the same rights in relation to pensions against the successor company and any pension scheme as they have against the port authority and any pension scheme immediately before the transfer date. There will be no need to set up new pension schemes or to provide for bulk transfer from old schemes to new schemes. That sort of thing may happen where a predecessor undertaking is split up into two or more undertakings, but it is quite unnecessary in cases where the whole of an undertaking and its employees are transferred from one predecessor body to one successor body.
      I understand the hon. Lady's concern. We have, however, dealt in the Bill with the difficulty over Tilbury. I can therefore reassure her that there is no need to pursue the amendment.
      Ms. Walley: I have listened carefully to the Minister and I note his reassurance. I must, however, reiterate how important this issue was in previous legislation. It remains an important issue. If such a provision is not to be written on to the face of the Bill, we shall have to make sure that the Minister honours the commitment that he has just given the House on this most important issue of pensions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 2

      GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 19
      Amendment made:No. 24, in page 30, line 28, leave out
      'Port Authority or the company (as the case may be)' and insert `company;'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      12.28 am
      Mr. Bell: I am glad that there is to be a short Third Reading debate on this important Bill. It has been in the offing for about three years— from the time that the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport. He asked the ports to take the private Bill route, thus corrupting the entire private Bill route in the House of Commons. He brought it into disrepute and, no doubt, into abandonment. after the charade we witnessed with the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill.
      We welcome the day's work because the Report stage has been constructive. We have seen realised many of the Minister's promises in Committee, which were not forced
      1044
      out of him, but brought out of him by persuasion. He listened to the arguments of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. The Bill has been enlarged tonight to extend to the management buy-out concept. When the right hon. Member for Southend, West raised the issue of privatisation, it was not privatisation through a management buy-out that included worker participation.
      The original scheme for Tees and Hartlepool was a glorified management buy-out which had nothing to do with worker participation. There was no original scheme for employee participation at a time when the dock labour scheme had been abolished and the Tees and Hartlepool authority could not get rid of its staff quickly enough, though they had invested their lives in the docks. As a result of parliamentary pressure in the Chamber and in Committee, the Government increasingly accepted the principle that if there was to be a management buy-out of our trust ports as a result of the Bill, it had to extend to the workers who had invested their lives in the docks. This has been a good day's work.
      The levy provisions have also been disentangled. They caused great anxiety and embarrassment to the Government in Committee. We have missed from our proceedings the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). He is engaged on a Select Committee that has sat until 12.30 am and may not even be sitting in this country. We have missed the hon. Gentleman's pure Thatcherite views of what a port should be. I am sure that his, no doubt inevitable, absence, which may not be astonishing to his voters, will be a source of embarrassment to him when it comes to the attention of his constituents.
      The affirmative resolution procedure has been brought into play throughout the Bill. Again, that came from pressure in Committee, which was welcomed by the Opposition. On a variety of occasions, we had sought to extend the Bill to cover local democracy and local trade unions. We now have provision for an affirmative resolution in the House.
      We know about the massive assets. The Government have consistently underplayed the money that will come to the state. There is the 50 per cent. about which we talked, then the 17·5 per cent. capital gain and the land tax—the levy—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred, in which the Treasury, with its eyes lighting up, has seen the pot of gold. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) warned the House that the Bill will not stop at ports with a turnover of more than £5 million, but will continue with ports such as Peterhead which has a turnover of £1·5 million.
      Clearly, the Bill is an ideological measure, although not in the pure Thatcherite sense. If it were, the ports would have been privatised in one fell swoop. The principles of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr Carttiss) would also have been brought into effect. We have seen the dilution of the ideological concept of privatisation, with the extension over two years and the coercion principle. The Treasury will then get its hands on the assets—the pots of gold—which it has found in our ports.
      It is not a dignified exercise for a Conservative Government. The House and the country would have accepted a straightforward ideological commitment to privatisation, but the grubby hands of the Treasury extending into the pots of gold, getting money for the

      1045
      Treasury to lull us, possibly in terms of income tax as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, is an unseemly exercise.
      The original concept of the right hon. Member for Southend, West was the privatisation of ports that wished to be privatised. In the Bill, there are the principles of coercion and compulsion. We are a long way from the idea that ports can be privatised in the national interest and in the interests of the ports themselves. The exercise began as privatisation with the support of management in ports throughout the country. We now see anxiety and quivers of fear in those management boards that they will be privatised, that they will go to the largest bidder on a competitive tender and that, eventually, the local community and the management of the ports will lose out.
      The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, although it will do so eventually through other provisions. The port of Belfast will be a candidate for privatisation. Having visited that port and seen the work force, the docks, the turnover and the work that is done, I know also the anxiety that some third party not related to docks works will come along.
      While the Opposition have much improved the Bill by our constructive work in Committee and while the Government have accepted our suggestions, it is nevertheless a shoddy piece of legislation. It is not dignified for a Government who believe in privatisation to introduce a Bill which is essentially a Finance Bill by another name and which does not privatise the ports as the Government might have wished. The Government, in short, should be ashamed of themselves for this piece of legislation and that is why the Opposition will oppose it.
      12.36 am
      Mr. Ward: I wish briefly to explain why I feel obliged to vote against Third Reading.
      I object to clause 9, which introduces the compulsion element. I have said before, and I make no apology for doing so again, that I fully appreciate the need for privatisation in many cases, but here the principles of local democracy and freedom of choice are being overridden. All the constituents who have spoken or written to me about the Ports Bill have expressed their opposition to it. Poole harbour is unique; my constituents feel, quite rightly, that the Government have failed to recognise this in the preparation of the Bill and that every means should be used to maintain the present regime, which has been so successful.
      I should explain the range of people who have expressed their concern about the Bill. The list includes local authorities, dockers, fishermen, conservationists, wildfowlers, yachtsmen and, perhaps most important, ordinary people who are concerned about the future of the greatest natural asset that a town like Poole could have. There is particular concern that, if the harbour were to be privatised, commercial operations or asset strippers would not leave it as it is today. There has been one well-publicised approach already.
      Perhaps local feelings are best summed up in the words written to me by a constituent who is a former Poole harbourmaster:
      "During 40 years in port administration, I have held a senior post in ports of all sizes and peculiarities, but none so complex as Poole. Here the activities and interests stretch
      1046
      from highly concentrated commercial traffic to bird sanctuaries and nature conservation areas and every conceivable activity and sport in between, each requiring a different understanding and approach, but all ultimately coming under the umbrella of the harbour Commissioners.
      The pressures arising from the desire for profitability and share-holding dividends, expenditure and cash flow would almost certainly result in some activities and usages being developed at the expense of others and once the present situation is upset it would be impossible to restore it."
      The House will also know that the largest onshore oilfield in the United Kingdom lies under Poole harbour and the House will shortly be asked to consider a Bill to allow the construction of an island in Poole bay to act as a platform for oil recovery. This project will need careful control, especially during the construction period, to ensure that the local environment is protected and that there is a minimum risk of interference with fishing grounds. At present, it is envisaged that the harbour commissioners will play a significant role in the control of these activities, and their role is written into the private Bill. Local people have confidence in the harbour commissioners' ability to carry out this function on their behalf. They are less convinced that any private operator would protect local interests as well as the harbour commissioners, who are all local people responsible to local organisations.
      I know that the Minister will say that the Ports Bill is an enabling measure and that the Secretary of State might not require a privatisation scheme to be put forward after local consultation. It is all very well for the present Ministers to say that, but we do not know, and they do not know, what their successors' views might be.
      I have made every effort to persuade the Government to make changes to the Bill. I spoke at length on Second Reading and I have had discussions with Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to impress on them the strength of opposition in Poole to the idea of privatising the harbour.
      The Minister for Shipping visited Poole on 20 March and saw the situation there for himself. I am sure that he would acknowledge that he left for London in no doubt whatsoever of the views of the people that he met that day. The Minister was also kind enough to agree to a meeting with representatives of local fishermen in London yesterday, and again they expressed their views forcefully and clearly.
      I have appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment because of local concern about the environment. He has recently called in a decision to allow house building on 17 acres of land in Poole. I have explained to him that people in my constituency cannot understand why he is not just as concerned about the possible privatisation of Poole harbour, which comprises 10,000 acres of natural harbour and only 50 acres of commercial port.
      I have also tabled amendments in an attempt to remove from the Bill the element of compulsion. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his acceptance of one of my amendments, which proposed that, if Ministers have considered the case for compelling a port to privatise and have decided against doing so, there should be a five-year moratorium before they can return to the question of compulsion. Nevertheless, the compulsion element remains. That is unacceptable to my constituents, and I shall be forced to vote against the Bill.
      12.41 am
      Mr. Loyden: From the outset, those of us who understand the port transport industry have regarded the Bill as a retrograde step. I worked for 28 years in port transport, and I suggest that that gives me some understanding of the industry whose fate will eventually be decided by the Government.
      I do not think that the Government have got it right. Their intervention in this matter defies all the laws of the industry's development. One need only look at the ports that will be affected. I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), whose remarks showed how people feel about the way in which the Government are proceeding on purely ideological and doctrinaire grounds.
      The Government have given us no evidence, in Committee or on Report, to suggest that they understand the present or future position of the ports industry. Communities will express grave concern about the Bill and the Government will reap the whirlwind following the decisions that they have made.
      In Committee, the Government conceded a number of points, and their concessions may well make the Bill more acceptable. Nevertheless, the basic principle behind the Bill is doctrinaire. The Bill is not about the ports industry but about the Government's insistence, on ideological grounds, on proceeding with the privatisation of all those industries whose nationalised status they believe stands in the way of their political ideas.
      That is a condemnation of the Government. They have not taken into account the interests of an industry that has been responsible for the development of the nation's economy. We are an island nation and we depend on the ports industry and on the industries linked to it. It is extraordinary that the Government should now see fit to treat the ports industry in such a cavalier fashion. I believe that they will pay the price for that, and that if they were prepared to put the proposals to the electorate, they would be roundly rejected.
      There is no evidence to suggest that the Government have had regard to the present or future of the ports industry. It is clear that the Government's doctrinaire attitude has superseded all other considerations in the port industry. They have already made grave mistakes on the port industry. As an island nation, we are dependent now and shall be in the longer term on the ports of this country. A grave error has been made. Realisation of that will quickly come about. If the Government cared about the ports industry, they would listen to the voice of the people who work in the industry and those who have managed our ports to the benefit of the economy over the years. If they had done that, they certainly would not have introduced this Bill.
      12.44 am
      Mr. Nicholls: As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, on Second Reading I expressed several worries about the Bill, although I said that I fully supported the policy behind it—as I still do. It would be wrong, in the minute or so for which I intend to detain the House, if I did not say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping and Public Transport for the hearings that he gave me throughout the proceedings on the Bill and the courtesy with which he treated me when I put various
      1048
      points to him. I am extremely grateful to him for addressing all the points, even if at times he did not address them in exactly the way that I had in mind.
      There was never a Bill that was not improved by the processes of discussion with colleagues and consideration in Committee. It is all too easy in such proceedings for Ministers merely to stick to the position that they have adopted throughout and not to be prepared to listen. My hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear throughout that he was prepared to listen. Sometimes he was prepared to agree and sometimes he disagreed. The point is that he was prepared to enter into a dialogue with hon. Members on both sides of the House. He deserves my gratitude and that of the whole House.
      12.46 am
      Mr. Spearing: When I came to the House as the Member for my present constituency, there were 10 miles of deep water quays in the royal docks. There have been no ships for the past few years. The last ship left with a cargo of 20,000 tonnes, and now aeroplanes fly where ships were moored.
      The best thing that I can say about the Bill and those who have promoted it is that the three Ministers involved had the courtesy to be here tonight to listen to what we have to say. The Bill marks the nadir of the Government's record of smashing the combination of public ownership and private enterprise that was initiated by the House as long ago as 1909, when the Port of London authority was founded. It was a public framework within which private enterprise and competition could work. It represented the coming together of London in the civic sense that was highly appreciated at the time.
      Differing economic views and practicalities are such that the authority is being taken apart by the Bill. It is perhaps no coincidence that the motto of the Port of London authority was "Floreat imperii portus", which means "Let the imperial port flourish." But there is no imperialism now. There is only a sense—and hardly that—of pride in our citizenship of the United Kingdom. As I said in my speech, I do not see any way in which the port of London can be sustained against the ports of northern Europe once the channel tunnel is opened, at least, not within the framework of the Bill.
      The Port of London authority had its bad side. It was a lineal descendant of the East India Company, and had all the defects of that company. But its public enterprise, during both the inter-war and the immediate post-war periods, were the authority's high spots, particularly when the scheme worked well.
      The House, indeed the public, and still less the Government, does not understand the difficulties of labour in the port industry. In the words of Mr. Churchill when he spoke in the House on wages councils:
      "The good employer will be driven out by the bad, and the bad employer will be driven out by the worst."
      That is true of port labour. It is almost impossible to understand the feelings of some of my constituents who went to the royal docks only about five years ago on a Monday morning to find that their firm had disappeared. Yes, the offices were locked and the firm had gone into liquidation overnight. Alas, that happens in industry today, but it was not the sort of thing that was endemic in the port industry even a few years ago.
      The docks and the port of London, as Britain's greatest port, have seen dramas of labour relations and of feeding

      1049
      our great city. The number of workers in the port is probably down to 2,000 or 2,500 at most. It is difficult to compile figures now that the port worker classification has disappeared.
      The river highway remains. I hope that the port of Tilbury will not advance up and down stream, as I fear part of the Bill will encourage it to do. If anybody wishes to buy it in these competitive days, and if it ever comes into being, I hope that it will not be bought or controlled from abroad. It would be bad if the port installation of London, or what remains of it, was controlled from another part of the world.
      I fear that the Bill has arisen because the Government have no civic sense, or no sense of the fact that public ownership has a part to play and is not to be derided just for the sake of it. Above all, if the provisions of the Bill are carried out, we in London who prized our port authority, which was established by legislation enacted in 1909, will mourn its passing.
      12.50 am
      Mr. Richard Holt: As the sponsor of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, I have deliberately refrained from participation in the debate on this Bill until now. I have only been prompted to speak by the contribution of the hon. Member for Middlesbrougth (Mr. Bell).
      Perhaps it is worth recalling for the House that we are four days short of the 20th anniversary of the first occasion that I can find when a trust port was privatised. The port of Liverpool was bankrupt and the Government of the day had to privatise it to keep the jobs and to keep the port open. The Hansard records of the debate are available but, because of the late hour, I will not go into them. What we have today is only a continuation of a policy first enacted 20 years ago.
      The Ports Bill is not a shoddy Bill, as it was called, but a very good Bill, because it will enable our ports, at long last, to compete on all fours and fairly with ports on the continent which are privately owned and which move ahead, to their advantage and to our disadvantage.
      In regard to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, the chief executive of that authority, Mr. John Hackney, came in for a great deal of unfair and unwarranted criticism by hon. Members who ought to have known better and who are not here for the Third Reading. Mr. Hackney is a man of great integrity. An apology is long overdue to him from Opposition Members who criticised him for the crime of wanting to make his port the biggest, the best and the first in the country. If that is a crime for a chief executive, would that more chief executives were guilty of that crime.
      The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill would have been the first privatisation measure on the statute book, had it not been for the capriciousness of the way in which our legislation is enacted. Five Members of the other House were allowed to throw out a Bill which had been successfuly through five Divisions in this House and which was supported in the Division Lobby by the Prime Minister. It would be almost unbelievable to people in legislatures all over the world that five capricious Lords can make a decision against the will of the House of Commons.
      1050
      I have heard Opposition Members talk about privatisation of ports being dogma of the Conservative party. Surely nationalisation was dogma of the Labour party. In that context, all political parties have dogma; that is why we are in political parties.
      Tees and Hartlepool port authority was cheated out of its advantage by the actions of the other place. As soon as the Ports Bill is on the statute book, Tees and Hartlepool port authority will be proud once again to be first in line for privatisation.
      12.55 am
      Mr. Wallace: This evening's debates have been useful, and the Bill that will leave the House for another place this evening is better than the one that was introduced and given a Second Reading in January.
      The three improvements that have been made are: first, the assistance given to enable management and employer buy-outs; secondly, the affirmative orders that the Minister has added to the Bill; and thirdly, the concession that he made to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on the stabilising of trust ports, which he has agreed not to privatise for five years so that there is no blight on further development.
      Nevertheless, my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a fundamental objection to the compulsory element of the Bill that empowers the Secretary of State to compel trust ports, against their will, to undertake measures to enter the private sector when such a move is against the collective view of the ports' management. It will necessarily also be against the interests of the community.
      I do not object to the part of the Bill that enables those trust ports who so wish to be privatised. The experience of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill suggests that the private bill procedure is cumbersome and does not allow promoters readily to do as they wish. The blockage is often caused by another Bill in the pipeline that has nothing to do with that private Bill.
      Hon. Members have made numerous attempts to highlight the problems in particular ports. The hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Poole (Mr. Ward) spoke about the problems of the ports in their areas, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke about the problems of the port of Aberdeen. I have often tried to persuade the Minister that Lerwick harbour trust, because of circumstances there, should not be compelled to be privatised if the trustees do not wish. At present, neither the trustees nor the community want it to be privatised.
      The Minister asks us to accept that he will consider all those ports. By now, he recognises that they all have different qualities and facets and that he cannot treat them in a blanket fashion. I welcome the fact that he will visit Lerwick in June. I am sure that he will be impressed by what he sees and will accept that there are compelling arguments why it should not be privatised.
      The Minister has asked us to trust him to make that judgment; he has responded positively and followed up the commitments that he made in Committee. That may cause us to believe that he will approach the matter in good faith. Nevertheless, that can be no substitute for not having those provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) expressed that point well, and there is no need

      1051
      to duplicate his argument. For the reasons he gave, my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against Third Reading.
      Mr. Barry Field: The Bill is a modernising measure and will enable the management structure of trust ports, their general structure and their competitiveness to move into the 1990s.
      I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), as he and I shared responsibility for the Tees and Hartlepool Bill. It was a matter of great regret that it did not succeed in the other place.
      I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to turn up the wick under municipal ports and encouraging them to be privatised, but I perceive among the small ports a stirring of interest in the Bill and the fact that it will enable them to pursue privatisation, although they originally set their caps against it. There is a flood tide of interest in the Bill by ports throughout the United Kingdom.
      The Bill will bode well for us in the future as we approach 1992. Taken together with the recent recommendations for the modernisation of bills of lading, I am sure that our maritime heritage will once again be competitive in Europe. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping will ensure that his name is permanently etched on the maritime history of our great nation by putting forward one more measure: the abolition of light dues. That is a necessary procedure to ensure that we have the most competitive port authorities in Europe.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the General Council of British Shipping and modernise the appeal procedure, which he referred to on Report. He will know that I initiated the first inquiry when the liberalising measure that passed through the House was misinterpreted by the Portsmouth port authority, when it endeavoured to charge the Isle of Wight ferries for pilotage exemption certificates. It was the first time in the history of our nation that an offshore island was charged for setting foot on the mainland of its native kingdom.
      We were successful because of the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, but the procedure is cumbersome. I hope that a binding arbitration system will be introduced that will be more agreeable and more easily used by small shipowners. The experience in Portsmouth and in the Humber of the General Council of British Shipping is that the present systems are arcane and tilted towards the lawyers.
      The Bill has taken a tortuous but enjoyable route because of the responses of my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping to the many arguments that have been advanced. He has listened to all the arguments and responded to many of them in a most agreeable way.
      1.1 am
      Ms. Walley: The Bill's passage through the House has been tortuous. On Second Reading, we were as opposed to clause 9 and all the elements of compulsion that have been referred to this evening as we are now. Some gains have been made, however. For example, the Minister has given assurances on the affirmative resolution procedure, but he has done nothing to allay the genuine fears of the small ports. I only wish that he would visit them all and talk to those who represent them.
      1052
      It is clear that the Minister is concerned with the money that the Treasury will receive following the Bill's enactment. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) summed up what the Bill is about when he said at the outset that it is a Finance Bill by another name. That is exactly what it is. The guns are coming out, but it is clear that there are some Conservative Members who have close associations with trust ports in their constituencies who know only too well that the Bill will destroy the trust that has been built up in the ports over many years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on making a statement that caused the debate to come alive. It is clear that he is concerned about the abandonment of local democracy and the consequences that the Bill will have for Poole.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) talked about the Government's doctrinaire attitude. Unlike the Government, we are committed to taking on board the views of all those in the industry. I give a firm commitment to the House and to all those who have been reading the reports of our debates on the Bill as it follows its stormy passage through the House that we shall undertake full consultations and listen to what those in the industry have to say.
      Some amendments on employee share ownership plans were tabled, but was only lip service paid to them? Will it be possible for all the ports that wish to go ahead with ESOPs to take that course? Will that be possible when we do not have a 100 per cent. levy? I am sad that we did not have an opportunity to discuss on Report the amendments bearing on the environment which we debated in detail in Committee. Other privatisation measures have created precedents for key issues of environmental protection to be weaved into the Bill. Unfortunately, that has not happened in this instance.
      It is extraordinary that, only a month after the now dismembered Nature Conservancy Council produced a major report on estuaries and spelt out the damage that is being done—we heard graphically about what is happening in Poole, for example—the Government have ruled out the idea of conducting an environmental assessment with a view to providing the environmental protection that is urgently needed.
      The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill suffered a stormy passage in the other place, and the references to that measure today have shown the inconsistencies in the Government's policies, especially in their proposed methods of sale and their avowed intention to go ahead with competitive tendering. Indeed, there are inconsistencies and double standards throughout their legislation. As I saw the Minister for Health seated on the Government Front Bench, I thought of the way in which trust ports are being privatised and compulsorily sold off, in tandem with hospital trusts being set up, in, so the Government say, the best interests of the NHS.
      The Ports Bill does not provide the nation with a transport strategy which links port and other investment within the national infrastructure. For what kind of transport policy can we hope? It was made clear at Question Time yesterday that there is a transport crisis in London. Added to the crisis on the roads and rail, we shall have a crisis in the ports once the Bill is in operation. At the same time as going full steam ahead with selling off our ports, the Government should come clean and admit that they have abandoned all intentions of having a transport

      1053
      policy. They are putting the dogma of the marketplace and short-term financial gain in the place of an integrated transport policy.
      1.7 am
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) highlighted the difference of philosophy that exists between hon. Members on the Government and Opposition Benches. We view this as an important Bill for the ports in view of the contribution that they make to the economy and the nation as a whole. The measure marks a further stage in the Government's long-term strategy of progressively opening up the ports industry to market forces. It builds on the obvious benefits to the ports industry and the nation at large of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, which was opposed by the Opposition in 1989.
      We look forward to many trust ports coming forward to become private companies. We also look forward to many of those who work in the trust ports playing a part in the success and future of those ports. Opposition Members would not give them that opportunity. We shall. I hope that Tees and Hartlepool will take advantage of the Bill.
      I pay tribute, and express my thanks, to my officials for the help that they have given me during the passage of the Bill. I commend the measure to the House.
      Question put,That the Bill be read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 30.

      Division No. 124]

      [1.08 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Amos, Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chope, Christopher

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Day, Stephen

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dunn, Bob

      Brazier, Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Forman, Nigel

      1054

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Freeman, Roger

      Mills, Iain

      French, Douglas

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gale, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Norris, Steve

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Paice, James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Patnick, Irvine

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gregory, Conal

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Ground, Patrick

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Hague, William

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Harris, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Speller, Tony

      Holt, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

      Steen, Anthony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Stern, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Irvine, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Jack, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Jackson, Robert

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Trotter, Neville

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Knapman, Roger

      Viggers, Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Walden, George

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Waller, Gary

      Knowles, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Watts, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Wells, Bowen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Yeo, Tim

      Maclean, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mans, Keith

      Mr. Timothy Ward, and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Maples, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bell, Stuart

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Michael, Alun

      Cryer, Bob

      Nellist, Dave

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Prescott, John

      Dixon, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Doran, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fearn, Ronald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Foster, Derek

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Walley, Joan

      Henderson, Doug

      Ward, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

      Lamond, James

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Engineering Industry Training Board
  1.19 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
  The proposals before the House seek authority for the engineering industry training board to raise a levy on employers in the engineering construction and steel erection industries, to finance the running costs of the board and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme. The proposals do not relate to engineering manufacturing, as that part of the engineering industry will move to independent training arrangements around the middle of this year.
  The basis of the proposals is a levy of 1·5 per cent. on the payroll of site employers in the industry, although no levy will be paid on the first £50,000. Additionally, there is a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour, and 1 per cent. on the payroll of head office establishments with more than 30 employees. Those head offices that train satisfactorily, however, will be exempt from all but a small, non-exemptible levy. Because of those provisions, 40 per cent. of firms will pay no levy at all, and a further 8 per cent. only a small amount towards the board's operating costs. The proposals have the support of the employers, as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982, and the full support of the board.
  The House will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain statutory arrangements for those sectors of the EITB. In principle, we believe that independent, employer-led arrangements that have the full support of employers, offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general, the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not a good one. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and I debated that aspect extensively some time ago, in connection with the construction industry training board, so I hope that it will not be necessary to go over that same ground this evening.
  We have retained the statutory principle in the case of this part of the industry because of strong support from employers. The engineering construction industry has particular characteristics that create peculiar training problems. The mobile nature of its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of sub-contracted and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances in this sector of the engineering industry. Let me explain and emphasise that we consulted widely with the industry about the EITB. There was a widespread and strongly held view that independent arrangements should be set up for engineering manufacturing, but that statutory arrangements needed to be retained for engineering construction.
  We were persuaded to accept those proposals, and we intend laying an order before Parliament around the middle of the year that will remove engineering manufacturing from the scope of the EITB and define the boundaries of engineering construction. At the same time, the board will be renamed the engineering construction ITB to reflect that change.
  1056
  We are concerned to ensure that statutory burdens on firms are kept to a minimum, and that firms that train appropriately are rewarded. To that end, we asked the new board to replace its head office exemption scheme by a voluntary code of practice based on the "investors in people" initiative, to raise the exclusion level for small firms and to review the effects of its grant scheme on employers' training. I am looking to the board to address these issues in 1991–92.
  We intend to keep a close watching brief on the new board. Its powers to raise a levy will be exceptional, and the Government, like the House, must be convinced that they are absolutely necessary to preserve the basis of training in the engineering construction industry. The Government have decided, because of the peculiar nature of the industry, to continue with a statutory board for the time being.
  The Government continue to believe, as we argued in the 1989 White Paper, that the most effective incentive for companies to train is a knowledge and understanding of the skill needs, not centralised regulation based on statutory powers.
  I believe that it is right for 1991 that the House should approve the proposals before it, and I commend them.
  1.23 am
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I am conscious that Ministers would like to depart early, so we are considering the possibility of being reasonable this evening and providing that accommodation. However, it is only a tentative proposal at this stage.
  I want to discuss the political impact of Prince Charles's speech on the Conservative party, but being a moderate and reasonable man, I will resist. Suffice it to say that I want to put on the record the fact that, while we may agree with his attack on the educational and curriculum aspects of what the Government have been doing, as a Scot and as a cynic, I take some exception to all of our children being exposed to both Shakespeare and Dickens, without a wider literary menu to select from. However, we should get down to this evening's business.
  This order is important for a variety of reasons. The Minister has highlighted the technical and procedural elements that we are discussing. One important addition is that, for the first time, steel erectors will be included in the arc of the construction industry engineering board, which will be established later this year, when it takes up its formal responsibilities.
  There are three other reasons why this order is important. First, the engineering industry training board, as we know it, will change and is changing. Only 40,000 employees will be covered, in relation to the statutory levy, by this order. Secondly, we have some worries about the effectiveness of the replacement organisations which will be established: the engineering training authority and the engineering construction industry training board.
  Thirdly, the order almost brings to an end the dismantling of part of Britain's training infrastructure. We started with 23 training boards, which were reduced to seven. Then the construction industry put up a formidable fight, due to its influence within the Conservative party, to retain the construction industry training board. Now we are in the sad situation where, because of Government pressure and diktat, and bowing to the marketplace, the

  1057
  engineering industry training board is being dismembered into two organisations to take up responsibility in different sectors.
  I reiterate that this order goes well beyond being merely technical and procedural as regards the skills issue, which is climbing to the top of the political agenda. Far be it from me simply to accuse the Government of playing politics with the future of the engineering industry, but there are sceptics and cynics who believe that a Government so wedded to the idea of the market can at times be oblivious of the views of the industry, as was the case with the engineering industry training board, when views were offered and some were rejected. We now find that the engineering industry training board has put forwards its proposals, and there is great uncertainty about the two components that are being left to carry on the work.
  As we are in the early hours, I shall put it succinctly. This order will result in a 50 per cent. cut in the budget of the new engineering training authority because, with the abolition of the levy, it will mean that its income will drop from about £15·7 million to £8 million, at a time when there is a debate in the United Kingdom about the volume of money that is being spent, the quality of it, and the qualifications that result from that spending.
  There is a possibility that a large number of the supply-side initiatives documented in the recent engineering industry annual report will be abandoned. Sadly, where the statutory levy is dropped, the engineering training authority will no longer be able to budget for youth training.
  It is remarkable to realise that, in 1968, there were 445,000 apprentices and other trainees in manufacturing industry. After 12 years of this Government, by 1990, the figure had dropped to 87,000. As a proportion of all employees in manufacturing, it has dropped from 5·6 per cent. in 1968 to about 1·7 per cent. These figures are shocking. They are a damning indictment of the Government's policies in relation to youth training. This is an implication of the order that should be treated very seriously.
  I want to make a few points, to which I hope the Minister will respond. This order will apply only to the construction sector of the engineering industry training board. By July, we shall have two fully functioning alternative organisations. One is the engineering training authority, to which the Minister has referred; the other is the engineering construction industry training board. The ETA will be responsible for the training of 2 million employees in nearly 22,000 companies; the engineering construction industry training board will be responsible for 40,000 employees. The latter will have a statutory basis; the former will be subject to a voluntary regime.
  The matters that concern us are easy to state. First, with regard to the future of the engineering construction industry training board, the levy is necessary. The board feels apprehensive. It is menaced, threatened, by the review that is to take place in 1992. The Minister could dispel its fears by agreeing with us that the review should be positive and that there should be certainty as to the board's future. But, more important, the Minister should underline the fact that training is a partnership between the training organisations and the Government. There is no room for
  1058
  diktat or dogma. The Government should listen to the key experts who run the industry, and allow those people to judge what is best for them.
  Secondly, there is the question of stability. The industry wants an assurance for the period beyond 1992. That could be secured by way of a statutory levy or a voluntary regime. We are fighting to close the skills gap between Britain and its European competitors, and stability in key sectors of our training infrastructure is crucial. This is a demand to which the Government should accede.
  The third issue is that of assets. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that, with the demise of the engineering industry training board, there will be a coherent policy on assets. These should be distributed fairly between the two remaining authorities, and the most effective use should be made of what is a very substantial amount of money.
  Fourthly, there is a relationship with the training and enterprise councils, which have become the flagship of the Government's training policy. We support the idea of local delivery and the work of the TECs. However, the engineering industry has expressed concern about the councils. The geographical balance can cut across the work of sectors. The Minister ought to reassure the sectors, including the engineering industry, that the role of the TECs will be complementary, that sector initiatives will have equal status, and that there must be dialogue, not only there but also with the Government. It is felt that no such assurance has yet been given.
  Finally, I want to make yet again a point that has been made repeatedly by the Opposition. The Government seem to be obsessed with the idea that a levy must be bad if it is statutory, and that all these organisations must be intimidated into accepting a voluntary way forward. When we lag so far behind our competitors, when there are such skills gaps between the regions of Britain, and when there are such gaps between various sectors of industry, is it right to continue to dictate from the centre? The industry wants to be assured that the Government will not be dogmatic. That will take some doing.
  In the engineering industry, we have the way to Britain's future. The matter cannot be taken lightly. The problems that the industry faces are immense. The issue which dominates its concern is how the Government, if they are still in power in two or three years' time, will respond to the view that the voluntary way, which has been tried for about 150 years, is not working.
  The Opposition do not intend to oppose the order, however, we have welcomed this opportunity to highlight some of our concerns. I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
  1.34 am
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I welcome the order. The engineering construction industry training board will have an important role to play. I welcome the fact that the Government accepted the recommendation that such a training board should be retained. Both employers and clients recognise the need, due to the peculiar nature of the industry, for a central organisation that can provide training for those working both on and offshore and for those involved in building power generation, oil, chemical and most other major processing plants.
  An apprenticeship scheme already exists and is soundly based. Provision must also be made for the training of

  1059
  supervisors and senior managers. An important point that is frequently overlooked is the need for the continuing education of senior engineers and management.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) referred to the training and enterprise councils. The national skills development scheme that is used by the industry has many advantages. People, either skilled or unskilled, can enter the industry at any age and receive training in particular trades. However, the TECs do not cater for this industry's needs; people cannot be drawn from wide areas and trained to cater for specific needs.
  Unemployed people who require training could enter the engineering industry if money were ring-fenced specifically for people on ET in specific trades. There will also be a need for people to learn new skills. Refineries and offshore installations will have to be dismantled. Nuclear plants will also have to be decommissioned and dismantled. Specialist skills will be required and few people possess them. They will have to update their skills.
  We shall also have to cope with demographic changes and with the need to compete for those leaving school and for graduates. The new board will, I believe, adopt the right approach and provide the necessary training so that the industry can cater for specific needs. As the Minister said, the work force is more mobile than is normally associated with engineering activities. When the industry is involved with large installations, a rapid growth in a particular skill is demanded. That means that there needs to be an ability to train many peope in a relatively short time to the level of competence that is required.
  The House set up a structure that will perform that task. The order will provide a training system for the clients and for the people in the industry which will take them beyond the two years that they have at present well into the future. The order will ensure a basis of training that will make a great contribution to industries that are vital to those involved.
  1.40 am
  Mr. Richard Holt: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here at the beginning of his speech.
  I want to make a point about the number of apprentices today. The decline in the number of apprentices began when there was a pincer movement with the raising of the school leaving age and the reduction of the age at which full pay was given. When the industry had young people for five years from the ages of 14 or 15 to 18 and 19, it had long enough to give proper apprenticeship and training. Today, when people cannot leave school until 16 and have to be paid full wages at 18, there is only 18 months in which to try to bring people into the industry.
  I smiled to myself when I heard the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) talk about not wanting centralisation. That is what existed when we had a plethora of training boards. We had centralisation by the Government, which caused industry a great deal of wasted expenditure and which trained few people. The number of apprentices has declined and will continue to decline because that is the nature of things today.
  The country could help to reverse the trend if it could get away from the position that I have been trying to bring to Ministers' attention for almost two decades. We should stop the artificial divide between education and training. The sooner we adopt the system in vogue on the continent
  1060
  the better. We must recognise that people are different—that they have different aspirations, skills and abilities. We should cultivate education and training for them and we might then find ourselves in a position like that in France.
  In France today, people can start an apprenticeship at 14. Some 12 per cent. of all youngsters in France follow that route. Some 23 per cent. follow the next route of super-apprentice, which starts at the age of 15. In that way, France has the apprenticeships, the training and the skills. The youngsters continue to have education at the same time—there is a mix of education and training.
  Yet in this country, because of the way in which the law is framed, no youngster can embark on a City and Guilds or a Royal Society of Arts course, or on any other formal vocational qualifications, which are accepted and known throughout the industry, and we wonder why we lag behind those on the continent. We lag behind because, as someone said recently outside the House, those who theorise in education have said that if one attempts to keep youngsters in a building and is supposed to be teaching them something, one is giving a service to them. One is not. The youngsters would be far better served if they were allowed to undergo vocational training in a mix with education. That would help the problems of truancy, and pof law and order.
  I hope that the Government, at long last, will begin to listen to the voices outside which have been saying that there is no need for the artificial divide in the engineering or in any other industry. We should get back to the recognition that all youngsters are not the same.
  In France, by the time that youngsters reach the age at which they transfer from primary to secondary school, no fewer than 50 per cent. are not in the same year group in which they began their education at the age of five. Some 25 per cent. of them have accelerated by gaining a year, and 25 per cent. have slipped a year. The French see nothing wrong or unusual in that; it is the norm. In this country we should head in that direction so that, ultimately, we shall have a better educated and trained work force.
  I commend what we are doing within the engineering industry because I think that it is an essential prerequisite, but I hope that wider points will also be looked at by my hon. Friend.
  1.45 am
  Mr. Jackson: Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), I and the Government agree about the importance of the engineering industry in general and the engineering construction industry in particular, which is the subject of our debate.
  I remind the hon. Member for Fife, Central that we had an extensive debate in February on the construction industry training board—a very similar proposition—when the hon. Gentleman raised his concern about the Government policy that underlies these proposals in respect of levies. Hon. Members who wish to look this up can do so by consulting Hansard of 25 February, columns 755–69. I do not think we need go over that same ground again tonight. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who did not dwell on that point.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to cuts in the funding of engineering training, but I think that he gave a rather selective figure, because he omitted completely the income

  1061
  coming to the new engineering training authority from voluntary subscriptions, and, indeed, the expenditure that will be undertaken by the engineering companies. We have lots of reasons to believe that that has substantially increased in recent years, along with an overall increase in expenditure by employers on training. The House might like to know that the Government's labour force surveys show that more and more people are receiving training. The numbers in training during the same four-week period increased by 85 per cent. between 1984 and 1990 and by 8 per cent. in the most recent year alone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) put in perspective the points made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central about apprenticeships. I agree very much with him about the need to overcome the traditional divide between the academic and the vocational, between education and training. He may have seen the piece that I did on the subject in The House Magazine recently. I can assure him that his 20-year campaign on this subject will bear fruit. The Government have announced that there will be a White Paper shortly on the 16 to 19 age group, and when my hon. Friend reads that White Paper he will find that we are addressing this issue which he has been pressing so hard on us over the past 20 years.
  The proposals before the House are, I emphasise, particular to the engineering construction industry. They do not represent a change in the Government's view that independent, employer-led and employer-supported arrangements are in general preferable to compulsion. The hon. Member for Fife, Central spoke about the 100 years of the voluntary system. I have to remind him—we covered this topic in the previous debate—that we had an extensive system of compulsion operating in this country for some 20 years down to the early 1980s, and it did not work very effectively. We believe, like most of the other countries that train effectively, that the best way is the voluntary way.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me for some assurances about the review that we propose to have in due course to see how this system is operating and whether we should continue with it. I can certainly give the assurance that we will be open-minded in that review, and in that sense it will be the positive review that he seeks. Certainly we shall bear in mind what he says about the need for stability, but, on the other hand, we want to ensure that we have proposals that will work over the years ahead.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) pointed out and as we recognise, the engineering construction industry is different from most, if not all, other industries and it therefore needs to be treated accordingly. The proposals before the House have the support of the employers in that industry. They have been approved by the board. That they should be approved by the House is not in dispute—the hon. Member for Fife, Central has said that he does not intend to divide the House. I therefore commend them to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

  Smoking
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  1.50 am
  Mr. Alan Amos: This debate is about three main issues: health, environmental protection and individual rights.
  Not only is smoking dangerous to the health of non-smokers, but it is offensive in many other ways.
  "Loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomless."
  That was said by King James I in 1604.
  "it is a shocking thing, blowing smoke out of our mouths into other people's mouths, eyes and noses, and having the same done to us."
  That was said by Samuel Johnson in the 18th century.
  To bring us a little closer to the present, in 1986 the World Health Organisation said on the health question:
  "Passive smoking violates the right to health of non-smokers, who must be protected against this noxious form of environmental pollution."
  The problem is centuries old, and it is still with us.
  I do not seek a ban on smoking as such. If smokers want to kill themselves, that is up to them. But if people have to smoke, let them do it in a designated area so that it does not cause danger to, or interfere with, the comfort and rights of the majority—the two thirds of the adult population who do not smoke, and who have the right to breathe in safe and clean air.
  Let me state clearly that there is no need to spend much time reciting in detail the evidence that passive smoking—that is, breathing in other people's tobacco smoke—kills non-smokers. It is just over three years since the Froggatt report was published. That report stated that passive smoking kills several hundred smokers—through lung cancer—each year in the United Kingdom. Since then, the Government have repeatedly accepted the findings of that report. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, then Minister for Health, said in May 1989:
  "We believe that passive smoking … leads to several hundred deaths a year … the environment is being polluted by those who smoke in public places."—[Official Report,8 May 1989; Vol, 152, c. 614–84.]
  Only recently, an excellent publication entitled "Passive Smoking—a Health Hazard" explained in detail the risks of passive smoking and recommended that action be taken to protect non-smokers. The report was drawn up by the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the British Heart Foundation and the National Asthma Campaign among others. The list comprises 48 bodies—virtually all the eminent health, medical and scientific bodies in the country. The foreword says:
  "On the basis of a large body of research it can now be stated that passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers and serious respiratory illness in babies. Passive smoking may also cause chronic middle-ear disease in children, and recent studies suggest an association between breathing other people's tobacco smoke and heart disease. In addition, passive smoking can aggravate existing illnesses such as asthma … risks of passive smoking are greater than those posed by any other indoor manmade pollutant released into the general environment. This information places a responsibility on employers, who need to safeguard the health of their employees; on those responsible for managing buildings and transport used by the public (and especially

  1063
  those used by children); and on the Government. which has an overall duty to protect public health. Passive smoking is a hazard to health that can be prevented."
  In gist, passive smoking is breathing in other people's tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke is a cocktail of about 5,000 different chemicals, including carcinogens, irritants and poisonous gases. Smokers inhale the chemicals direct into their bodies as what is called mainstream smoke. Tobacco smoke in the air is about one fifth mainstream smoke, exhaled by smokers. A massive 85 per cent. is what is called sidestream smoke, which comes from the end of cigarettes or cigars between puffs. Sidestream smoke contains higher concentrations of many poisonous chemicals than does mainstream smoke. The collective results of more than 20 studies show that non-smokers living with smokers are between 10 and 30 per cent. more likely to get lung cancer than people living with others who are non-smokers.
  Tellingly, if such a contaminant were incorporated into a new product today, it would he immediately banned. The effects on infants of parents who smoke—pregnant mothers in particular—are now well documented and I do not intend to list them in detail.
  Only tobacco companies deny the overwhelming evidence on passive smoking. That is not surprising. They have the most to lose from the increasing number of restrictions on where and when people can smoke. The stakes for such companies are, indeed, enormous. The president of the tobacco multinational R. J. Reynolds has said of the anti-smoking measures:
  "If they cause every smoker to smoke just one less cigarette a day, our company will stand to lose $92 million in sales annually."
  But they are not winning their battle, I am glad to say. In February this year, an Australian court ruled that the tobacco industry was not telling the truth by placing full-page newspaper advertisements which denied that there was any evidence of harm from passive smoking.
  Almost everyone now accepts that passive smoking is a health hazard and that to smoke in public is downright anti-social. It is perhaps that anti-social aspect that makes many people very angry about being forced to breathe in other people's smoke. It is simply unpleasant and unacceptable to go home reeking of tobacco smoke after sitting in a restaurant, pub or some other public place. Why should the majority have to put up with it?
  Some would have us believe that, if we attempted to restrict smoking, we would at the same time restrict smokers' liberty. But one man's liberty is another man's poison. If we are to talk about liberty and rights, I, as a Conservative, believe in the right not to be forced to breathe polluted air. After all, I am doing harm to no one by seeking clean air. But those who smoke fill the air with a cocktail of chemicals including ammonia, benzine, cyanide and formaldehyde.
  As a non-smoker, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not doing you any harm. If I smoke in your presence and near to you, I am endangering your health and I do not believe that I have the right to do that. Nor does anyone have the right to endanger anyone else's health.
  I am pleased to say that many smokers accept the need for restrictions on smoking. A survey for the Consumers Association magazine Which Way to health? found a majority in favour of restrictions on smoking in all public places, such as public buildings, transport, shops, eating places and places of entertainment, except pubs. That majority included a large number of smokers. We are
  1064
  beginning to see a shift towards the smoke-free society that 1 predicted in my previous Adjournment debate on this subject in January 1990.
  Many United Kingdom employers, including Ford and the Metropolitan police, have introduced written policies on smoking. Public transport in London, with the exception of black cabs, is now smoke-free, following the ban on smoking on London buses introduced in February. That example is being followed in many other cities. Many airlines are introducing no-smoking rules, following the example of Air UK and Air Canada, which have banned smoking on all flights.
  I was alarmed to find that the air on board a plane is recycled. That means that the little air nozzle above my head—which I always turned on for fresh air—pumps out carcinogens from the smoking to the non-smoking section. Surely that is proof enough that ventilation will not adequately deal with tobacco smoke. Indeed, one reason why legislation is needed is that voluntary methods, such as better air conditioning and ventilation, offer no solution to the problem.
  The most effective air conditioning system can filter out nearly all smoke particles, but the gases will pass through the filters. Therefore, filtered smoky air recirculated by air conditioning will still contain poisonous and carcinogenic gases. A study carried out by Birmingham university reported on the concept of building sickness and the effects created among office workers of itchy eyes, stuffy noses and dry throats. Good air conditioning systems wholly filter the air, but they recirculate 80 to 90 per cent. of it, bringing the rest in from outside. Consequently, most office air will be recirculated many times before being replaced. The dilution of smoke in the air is therefore very low. Meeting the necessary standards may result in complaints about draughts and will certainly make buildings much more expensive to run.
  Applying an effective system to whole buildings would be prohibitively expensive and still would not protect people sitting near smokers from the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke. As the report on passive smoking concluded:
  "Improved ventilation would not provide adequate safeguards against exposure to environmental tobacco smoke."
  I congratulate the Department of Health on making clear statements that passive smoking does kill, but I press the Government to do even more. We are dealing with a significant health hazard. Passive smoking causes lung cancer as well as having a serious effect on the health of asthmatics and on young children in particular.
  The Government have until now relied on airline operators, employers and others who control public places to take steps voluntarily to protect non-smokers' health, but those measures will go only as far as the tobacco industry will allow. We do not rely on voluntary measures to protect people from other hazards, such as asbestos or chemicals like formaldehyde in the air. Thanks to recent legislation, we do not rely on voluntary measures alone to ensure that our streets are kept clear of litter which is a public nuisance and not, like passive smoking, a health risk. We should not, therefore, rely on voluntary measures to ensure that our air is kept free from tobacco smoke.
  The Government must agree that it makes sense and would be a popular move to introduce legislation making non-smoking the norm in society. That does not mean

  1065
  banning smoking outright, as I made clear at the beginning of my comments, but it means giving precedence to the rights of the non-smoking majority.
  One argument that we constantly hear against using legislation is that bans are unenforceable, yet such legislation works. The Netherlands, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—all modern, western countries—have national or local laws that protect non-smokers. I have witnessed them in action—in New York of all places. Despite its being the last place on earth where one would expect people to accept any rules regarding personal behaviour, New Yorkers have responded readily. I am pleased to say that one cannot walk into any restaurant without being offered a seat at a non-smoking table.
  In this country I know that laws on smoking would be welcomed and enforced. By making the protection of non-smokers a legal requirement, we would find a willing audience. Many employers and restaurant owners have stated that they would like to introduce smoking restrictions, but that they would prefer the Government to take a lead by making non-smoking a requirement under the law.
  On the question of workplace practice, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 requires employers to provide a safe environment, free from risk to health and adequate for the welfare of employees. Under the Act, it is the duty of employers to do everything that is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees. In criminal law, by virtue of section 2(2)(e) of the legislation, employers must ensure that the working environment is safe, but the provision has no teeth when it comes to the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. Measures have been introduced on the grounds of safety and hygiene rather than to avoid the health risks of passive smoking.
  In this country there are, in effect, no legal restrictions on smoking to protect people from environmental tobacco smoke. Yet such measures are widespread throughout the civilised world—in the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, Spain, Belgium and recently Ireland, to name just a few countries. Despite that, however, some progress cannot be prevented. Last year, a social security tribunal ruled that one woman's asthma attacks, brought on by environmental tobacco smoke at work, should be classed as an industrial accident and she was awarded a disability pension.
  I am sure that getting legislation is just a matter of time. Events are moving our way. Until then, I want to help the Government take steps to protect non-smokers now. Therefore, I suggest a five-point plan which should be adopted as soon as possible. Each point can be carried out quickly and easily, and each would take us closer to making non-smoking the norm.
  First, each Government Department should be given 12 months to introduce a formal written policy on smoking. That policy should make no smoking the norm in all Government buildings and should allow smoking only in separate, designated smoking areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health could take the lead, as his Department is most aware of the hazards of passive smoking.
  1066
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment could take active steps towards complying with the terms of the European Community mixed resolution of 18 July 1989. It calls on member states to protect non-smokers' health and to report progress on doing so by July of this year.
  Thirdly, the Health and Safety Executive can be instructed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to implement an active programme for employers and employees which ensures that, not only are the hazards of passive smoking widely publicised, but that a smoking policy to deal with the problem is forcefully advocated. I suggest that the Health and Safety Executive should be set a target of ensuring that more than half of all United Kingdom employers have a proper smoking policy within two years.
  Fourthly, the House should set an example to the nation by returning to the Smoking Rooms. Those used to be—it was before my time—the only places where smoking was allowed but, sadly, that considerate practice is now ignored. We would send a clear signal to non-smokers and smokers alike if we accepted that one Member of Parliament should not pollute another.
  Finally and most important, the Government should support the Bill that I shall introduce tomorrow. It will amend the existing Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to give every employee the right to a smoke-free working environment. It is a simple measure and will not force employers to adopt a particular policy. They will have the right to choose which policy would be best for them, but any employee who was exposed to tobacco smoke would have the backing of the law in getting a smoke-free working environment. Employers would no longer be able to ignore the pleas of non-smoking employees for smoke-free air.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will take note of each of those five points. I believe that they will be widely welcomed and acted upon, given the chance. There is no greater form of indoor air pollution than other people's tobacco smoke, and moves to deal with the problem will be met with strong support and relief from the vast majority of people.
  2.7 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) for allowing me to say a few words at this unearthly hour in the morning. I would not have dreamt of staying up this late if I did not wholeheartedly support what he has said. He made a cracking speech, and it is a great shame that more people did not hear it.
  My hon. Friend said that the polluter must be sharply reminded that smoking is damaging, dangerous and unacceptable to other people. There is also a carrot: those who administer and organise public places such as restaurants, hotels and cafes should realise that, if they provided smoking-free areas, they would attract more non-smokers. Many people like me refrain from going to restaurants and cafes because they cannot stand the inconsiderate smoker who puffs smoke into their faces. As a result, restaurants and cafes suffer.
  Surely the market force argument speaks even louder. Those who complain about the increased costs of running a business would have an easy way forward if they banned smoking other than in defined areas. They would find that

  1067
  their business would increase and prosper. That must be the best way to decrease the number of people who smoke in public places. It is up to the operators to realise that the market force argument would prove the case.
  My hon. Friend's robust and determined attempts to reduce the imposition of smokers on non-smokers were preceded many years ago by the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who took a most unpopular line in trying to stop people smoking. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has carried on that magnificent work and I hope that, in future, the House will have an opportunity to say that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Acton were the early fathers who changed the law so that people who find smoking in public places offensive will be able to thank them for their sterling work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham on the wonderful example that he has given to us tonight.
  2.9 am
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on seeking the opportunity to raise a subject of great concern to us all, and certainly to those of us who want to improve the health of the nation. I share my hon. Friend's deep concern about the damage that smoking can do to people's health. It is the greatest cause of preventable disease in the United Kingdom and is responsible for more than 100,000 premature deaths each year. We have made progress in reducing the prevalence of smoking, but we are not complacent. I welcome the opportunity that is provided by the debate to carry forward the issues of concern for us all, and certainly for my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), even at this unearthly hour. My hon. Friend's consistent concern and championship of the cause have, I believe, helped to change public opinion.
  There has been a dramatic shift in the way in which smoking is perceived in Britain and in the areas in which smoking is regarded as unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Hex ham identified many of those areas, which include public transport, British Airways, Air UK, London Regional Transport and the workplace as a whole, in which many more firms introduced non-smoking policies during 1990. I know that the Action on Smoking and Health consultancy, which is available to those who are thinking of establishing smoke-free policies at work, has received about 200 requests for its services. I pay tribute to the work that is undertaken by ASH. I am pleased to say that the Government are able to fund it to the tune of about £241,000. It has done much to press the issue and bring it to the public's attention.
  In setting out his five-point plan, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred to the steps that are being taken by several Government Departments. It is the intention of those of us within the Department of Health to achieve a smoke-free environment by agreement with the work force. The new buildings that are being planned in Leeds are intended to be smoke-free. During the time that I have been a Minister—over 18 months—many more no-smoking signs have been erected in public places. We shall shortly be producing renewed guidance for smoke-free policies in hospitals. We have commissioned an independent consultant, who has already produced a
  1068
  draft. We shall be consulting within the service shortly before making the guidance widely available. I hope that many others will follow our example.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham will know that the Department of the Environment will soon be producing guidance on smoking in public places, as envisaged by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am pleased that my hon. Friend identified the document that we recently helped to fund called "Passive Smoking: A Health Hazard". It was produced by the Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research fund. That is authoritative information on a subject that is of great concern and importance to us all.
  In his five-point plan, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred to the mixed resolution and the request of the EC for information about the implementation of the directive. I assure him that we shall be providing that information as soon as the Commission formally requests it. We are fully confident that the progress that we have made will be equal to, or ahead of, that of other countries that are carrying forward the work.
  My hon. Friend's suggestion of Smoking Rooms in this place is one that he should take up with the House authorities. He will understand that the matter is not entirely for me. I certainly wish him well. I shall watch the progress of my hon. Friend's Bill with care to see how it develops. There can be no doubt that the contribution of my hon. Friend, with the forthright remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, who speaks so powerfully about the market forces that I believe have substantially but subtly led to changes over many years, have led to developments over the years which no one, whether at work, at business, at play or at home, can afford to underestimate.
  Although the figures have come down significantly—we have had one of the greatest falls in the prevalence of smoking among the countries of the EC—we remain concerned about the amount of smoking among women, particularly young women. That is why one of the first steps that I took on becoming a Health Minister was to launch the teenage smoking campaign, and we have recently announced an initiative on the whole question of smoking by pregnant women. The effect of smoking not only on the mother but on the infant is incontrovertible. About one in 12 pregnant women still smokes, despite the evidence of the effect in terms of the low birth weight of the baby. That issue must be of great concern to us all.
  Of every 1,000 young people smoking now, six will die on the roads, but 250 will die from the habit. Most will die from lung cancer, respiratory disease or heart disease. Many will die in middle age. So we must make discouraging smoking a high priority.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister for Hexham pointed out, our advisory independent scientific committee on smoking and health has made it clear that there is a 10 to 30 per cent. increase in the risk of contracting lung cancer for non-smokers who are habitually exposed to tobacco smoke. That issue must be addressed urgently.
  There are economic advantages from having a no smoking policy at places of work and leisure, including lower cleaning and redecorating costs, reduced absenteeism—50 million working days are lost each year from smoking-related diseases—higher morale and a better corporate image.
  The tide is clearly flowing in the right direction. The incidence of smoking is being reduced, and smoke-free

  1069
  provision is increasing. We must work with employers, managers and consumers to deliver a pleasant and healthy environment. Prevention is better than cure. As a Health Minister, I am involved in improving the services available to sick and disabled people. Smoking is unhealthy and unpleasant. It damages people's health, as the new label on cigarette packages makes only too clear.
  Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend saying that we should introduce legislation, and will she propose that the Government do so?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that the voluntary approach has had great success. Our reduction
  1070
  in the prevalence of smoking has been in the forefront among EC countries. Our action has been effective and powerful and has changed attitudes, understanding and, above all, behaviour. At places of work, in public places and in people's domestic lives generally, the speed with which no smoking policies have been adopted has been powerful and effective. We shall continue to use all the levers at our control—of persuasion and encouragement—enthusiastically to champion the cause that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has brought to the attention of the House today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Two o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards introducing a penalty points system for offending drivers.

  Mr. Needham
  A first draft of a Road Traffic (Offenders) (Northern Ireland) Order to introduce a penalty points scheme has been prepared. The draft order will be finalised following the conclusion of discussions with the Northern Ireland court service and the RUC on the practical implications of the scheme. These discussions are at an advanced stage. It is hoped that formal consultation will take place over the summer months and that the draft order will be laid before Parliament by the end of 1991.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of BSE have been identified to date in 1991; what is the trend; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been 50 confirmed BSE cases in Northern Ireland in 1991 to date. Incidence of the disease continues to increase and is expected to do so for some time until the ban on feeding of ruminant-derived protein takes effect.

  Water
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—what was the public response to the consultations document describing the options for development of a new source of water for the eastern part of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  There was considerable interest in the document from councils other Government Departments, public bodies, commercial concerns, various recreational, environmental and other interests, as well as individual members of the public.

  Their comments were most useful and taking these into account, together with cost considerations, the Department of the Environment has decided to reduce the options to be examined in the environmental assessment to the following three:

  (i) Abstraction from Lough Neagh at Hog Park Point, treatment at Hog Park Point, delivery to the existing Purdysburn service reservoir.

  (ii) Abstraction from Lough Neagh at Hog Park Point, treatment at Forked Bridge, delivery to the existing Purdysburn service reservoir.

  (iii) Impoundment of the Glenwhirry River, treatment adjacent to the dam, delivery to the existing Oldpark service reservoir.

  The environmental assessment is expected to commence within the next three months.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, for each of the last four years, he will list the sums of money that have been paid by his Department as compensation on an ex-gratia basis where there has been misconduct or default by the police or some other agency of the criminal justice system other than cases involving wrongful imprisonment; and if for each such sum he will briefly summarise the circumstances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Compensation on an ex-gratia basis where the police and probation services are concerned is a matter for the police authority or in the Metropolitan police district the receiver, or probation committee concerned.

  Ex-gratia payments made in respect of the prison service cover a range of circumstances and the information requested could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Fox Hunts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of people arrested in the past two years prior to the commencement of a fox hunt and then released without charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Operational policing is the responsibility of the chief officer concerned. I understand that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time asylum seekers have to wait for their application to be decided.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 4 March 1991 at column 10.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of persons charged with offences arising from activities surrounding fox hunting in the past year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of people who are charged is not collected centrally. It is also not possible from information held centrally to identify the number of prosecutions for offences arising from activities surrounding fox hunting.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to privatising the fire service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government have no plans to change the public service basis on which the fire service is provided in this country.
  373
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority to implement recommendations 119 and 29 of the Fennell inquiry report on the London fire brigade.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  London fire and civil defence authority training deals with incidents at underground stations in firefighters' own and adjacent fireground territories. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 22 March at column 251 with regard to recommendation 119.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been promulgated by his Department to local fire authorities and brigades on the wearing and use of extended duration breathing apparatus by firefighters.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  None so far, since trials by a small number of brigades in the use of extended duration breathing apparatus are at an early stage.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the level of criminal offences committed by juveniles who have absconded from local authority care; if such offences constitute a significant part of reported crime in relation to auto-crime and burglary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Information on the number of offences committed by juveniles who have absconded from local authority care is not collected centrally.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what indicators or measures of performance are applied to probation service civil work; and what results have been obtained from such assessment.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  These are the responsibility of the management of local probation areas. Consideration is, however, being given to the establishment of national measures as part of the response to HM inspectorate of probation's recently completed thematic inspection of civil work.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly cost per case in the provision of family conciliation work by the probation service in England and Wales, including local and central costs, in the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Information on the costs of conciliation work is not held centrally.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the probation service in England and Wales, including local and central costs, of family conciliation work in the last year for which records are available; and how many such cases were handled in that year by probation officers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Information is not available separately for the cost of conciliation work. The number of 374
  conciliation cases on which the probation service began work in 1989 was 10,510—table 9.3 of "Probation Statistics England and Wales 1989".

  Immigration (Iraqis)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to review the prohibitions imposed on Iraqi nationals under the immigration rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has removed the prohibitions in the "Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules" which was published on 12 April—Cm 1491. All applications by Iraqi nationals for visas, admission or extensions of stay now fall to be determined in accordance with the normal requirements of the rules.

  Joan Harrison (Murder)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask for a report from the chief constable of Lancashire on the progress of the investigation into the murder of Joan Harrison who died on 23 November 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The death of Joan Harrison has been the subject of a major investigation. A number of suspects have been interviewed, but no one has been arrested and charged; to date 2,320 statements have been taken. The case is reviewed regularly and any new information is fully investigated.

  North Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen there were in the North Yorkshire police in 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  When the Government took office in May 1979 the strength of the North Yorkshire police was 1,337 officers. At the end of February 1991 this had increased to a strength of 1,383 officers. The force had 25 vacancies in February.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the countries the nationals of which currently need visas or entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The countries whose nationals require visas to enter the United Kingdom are listed in the appendix to the Immigration Rules—HC 356. Nationals of other countries, except European Community member states, require entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom for the following purposes:

  (i) permit-free employment as a minister of religion, missionary or member of a religion; representative of an overseas newspaper, news agency or broadcasting organisation; or sole representative of an overseas firm;

  (ii) as a businessman, self-employed person or person of independent means;

  (iii) as a writer or artist;

  (iv) as a dependant of a person in categories (i) to (iii) above or of a work permit holder;

  (v) as the fiancé(e), spouse or other dependant of a person settled here.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new measures have recently been introduced to expedite the handling of drink driving cases.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased that following discussions between representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown prosecution service and the Justices Clerks' Society, agreement has been reached on the way in which alleged offences of drink driving should be handled to ensure that they are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The agreement, which is now in operation, provides that where an evidential breath test is in excess of the legal limit, and there is no subsequent blood or urine test, the person should be charged immediately rather than being released without charge and summoned at a later date. The agreement further provides that for cases where the documentation is complete and no further inquiries are required, the defendant should be bailed to appear at court seven days after his release from a police station. Where there are outstanding inquiries about documents, he should be bailed to attend court 14 days after release from the police station. Where inquiries are necessary for other driving offences, he should be bailed for 21 days. These procedures should ensure that most cases take no longer than 21 days from offence to the defendant's first court appearance at which we anticipate a substantial number of cases will be completed. The target days are of course without prejudice to any more expeditious handling which may be achieved locally. In some cases, where it is not the defendant's first drink driving offence he may well be brought to court within days so that the court can consider whether or not it is appropriate to impose a no driving condition on his bail. These arrangements represent a further significant step forward in dealing with drink drivers. Their operation will be reviewed in 12 months' time.

  BBC2 (Reception)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why television viewers in south-west Scotland cannot receive the Scottish regional programme broadcast on BBC2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In order to receive television programmes, viewers in south-west Scotland depend upon the broadcasts from the main transmitter at Caldbeck in Cumbria which also services that area of England. When BBC2 offers regional programmes, the Caldbeck transmitter broadcasts the programmes appropriate to north-west England. As a result, viewers in south-west Scotland cannot see the programmes appropriate to their region on occasions and they therefore miss broadcasts of a number of significant programmes including major political, cultural and sporting events. To rectify this problem, the BBC has proposed adding a further channel to the output from Caldbeck as it has already done for BBC1.

  We have given this matter very careful consideration. Frequency spectrum is a limited resource. The intensive use of this resource in order to bring four national programme services—soon to become five—to most of this country, means that in some areas, very few channels remain available. Technical studies indicate that, after taking account of the likely needs of Channel 5, only one
  376
  more channel could be used at Caldbeck. We have a responsibility to ensure that this channel is used effectively in the public interest. Under the BBC proposal, the channel would most of the time broadcast the same programmes viewers already have available on BBC2 North West; Scottish regional programmes would only be broadcast for a few hours each week on average. Nevertheless' we recognise the importance of these programmes for viewers in south-west Scotland and we have therefore decided to allocate channel 67 to the BBC for this purpose. But in view of the consideration already outlined, we have to make two provisos. First, we shall need to keep the position under review. Once the current licensing round for Channel 3 has been finalised the independent television company serving south-west Scotland may be able to offer a wider use of channel 67 bringing significantly more choice to viewers in that area. We shall therefore look at the use which the BBC is making of this channel in 1993. If, at that point, we should decide to reallocate the frequency to Channel 3 it would be expected to compensate the BBC for the investment made in re-engineering the transmitters.

  Secondly, the BBC's efforts to introduce the new service should not interfere with its programme of building new transmitters for these communities in other parts of the country who still have no television service at all.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the total number of public sector housing tenants who where in receipt of (a) full housing benefit in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and (b) partial housing benefit in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what estimate has been made of the numbers who will be recipients of (i) full and (ii) partial housing benefit in 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Scottish rent rebate caseload

  Thousands

  11989–90

  21990–91

  31991–92

  Full rebate4

  270

  259

  270

  Partial rebate

  208

  205

  220

  1 Average of four quarterly stock counts.

  2 Derived from November 1990 stock count (latest available).

  3 Derived from family expenditure survey based analysis.

  4 Data shown relates to rent rebates granted on the basis of receipt of income support. Some people not getting income support may also get a full rent rebate, but their numbers are not readily available and they are thus included under partial rebates.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the total amount of direct housing benefit subsidy made available to each district council in (a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91; and if he will give a projection of estimated direct housing benefit subsidy payable to each district council for 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.
  377

  Direct housing benefit subsidy—Scottish district councils

  £ million

  Councils1 2

  1989–903

  1990–914

  1991–925

  Aberdeen

  14·29

  14·74

  14·06

  Angus

  4·95

  5·26

  5·58

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2·08

  2·23

  2·30

  Argyll/Bute

  4·72

  4·83

  4·76

  Badenoch

  0·62

  0·62

  0·66

  Banff and Buchan

  4·56

  4·78

  5·20

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0·83

  0·93

  0·92

  Berwickshire

  1·12

  1·16

  1·24

  Caithness

  1·62

  1·81

  1·84

  Clackmannan

  3·59

  4·04

  4·51

  Clydebank

  6·75

  7·45

  7·69

  Clydesdale

  3·14

  3·69

  3·73

  Cumbernauld

  2·05

  2·12

  2·81

  Cumnock and Doon

  3·30

  3·57

  4·28

  Cunninghame

  10·22

  11·00

  11·83

  Dumbarton

  6·54

  7·69

  7·83

  Dundee

  22·88

  25·70

  27·93

  Dunfermline

  8·54

  9·23

  9·91

  East Kilbride

  0·90

  1·04

  1·22

  East Lothian

  5·93

  6·60

  7·24

  Eastwood

  0·80

  0·87

  0·94

  Edinburgh

  52·68

  53·08

  62·76

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1·47

  1·76

  1·84

  Falkirk

  11·00

  11·68

  12·52

  Glasgow

  129·04

  137·14

  150·17

  Gordon

  2·07

  2·20

  2·43

  Hamilton

  8·74

  9·20

  9·80

  Inverclyde

  9·09

  10·35

  11·62

  Inverness

  4·07

  4·52

  4·38

  Kilmarnock

  6·48

  7·48

  7·58

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1·03

  1·18

  1·22

  Kirkcaldy

  12·01

  13·06

  14·69

  Kyle and Carrick

  8·13

  7·33

  9·73

  Lochaber

  1·16

  1·32

  1·53

  Midlothian

  3·98

  3·81

  3·82

  Monklands

  11·65

  12·27

  13·79

  Moray

  4·86

  5·15

  5·13

  Motherwell

  13·55

  14·56

  14·22

  Nairn

  0·67

  0·57

  0·56

  Nithsdale

  3·08

  3·37

  3·70

  North East Fife

  3·64

  3·62

  3·95

  Perth and Kinross

  6·02

  6·87

  7·35

  Renfrew

  14·59

  17·42

  20·41

  Ross and Cromarty

  3·23

  3·39

  3·93

  Roxburgh

  2·34

  2·49

  2·71

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·67

  0·72

  0·75

  Stewartry

  1·12

  1·20

  1·32

  Stirling

  5·61

  6·85

  7·12

  Strathkelvin

  3·80

  4·29

  6

  Sutherland

  0·74

  0·81

  0·88

  Tweedale

  0·76

  0·80

  0·89

  West Lothian

  7·21

  7·56

  8·07

  Wigtown

  2·61

  2·65

  3·24

  Notes:

  1 The date in the table reflect rent rebate and rent allowance expenditure only.

  2 Subsidy is paid to local authorities on a monthly basis At the beginning of each financial year payments are based on authorities initial estimates They are adjusted as necessary in the light of mid year estimates and final subsidy claims The latter are externally audited.

  3 Based on 47 final claims and 6 mid year estimates.

  4 Based entirely on mid year estimates.

  5 Based entirely on initial estimates.

  6 Estimates awaited.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to provide compensation for those people suffering loss of hearing from industrial processes, including the textile industry, and remove the limit of less than five years ago that the damage was inflicted; and if he will make a statement.
  378
  Mr. Scott
  From October 1974, occupational deafness was prescribed as an industrial disease in respect of a number of occupations. In 1979 the regulations were amended to include cover for processes in textile manufacturing and other occupations, and they were further extended in 1983.

  We are currently evaluating the feasibility of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recent recommendations on the administration and operation of provision for occupational deafness—Cm 1245. A response will be made shortly.

  A time limit on claiming for industrial deafness has existed ever since the condition was first prescribed. There are no plans to change the five-year limit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Holidays
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to abolish the May day holiday in England and declare St. George's day a public holiday instead.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so, though I recognise that this is a holiday that many people disapprove of.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to long-term coalition presence in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  We have made it clear that it is for the states of the region to take the lead in establishing lasting security arrangements for the Gulf, We stand ready to play our part in underpinning such arrangements, if requested, but we have no intention of maintaining a permanent ground force presence in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to bring war charges against Iraqi leaders; and if he will make a statement on British policy on this issue.

  The Prime Minister
  Iraqi leaders bear personal responsibility under international law for their actions. This principle was reiterated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 674. In the case of both the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Genocide Convention of 1948, Iraqi leaders can, in law, be brought to trial before a national court or international tribunal. We and our EC partners have asked the United Nations Secretary-General to investigate how this might be achieved.

DEFENCE

  Tornados
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce arrangements for the return to Britain of Tornado aircraft at present deployed to NATO bases in Germany; and if he will consider joint use by the RAF and the United States Air Force of facilities at RAF Lakenheath.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Local station announcements are to be made shortly on the reductions in the RAF Tornado force in Germany foreshadowed in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 25 July 1990. There are no plans for the joint use by the RAF and the United States Air Force of facilities at RAF Lakenheath.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects of the Gulf conflict on the procurement of equipment for the British Army.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are considering the outcome of the campaign and the conclusions to be drawn from it in this as in other areas.

  Defence Estate
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a list of all sites on the United Kingdom defence estate in excess of 500 acres stating their location, name of establishment and county.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I shall do so shortly.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a list of the number of civilian employees at each of the sites on the United Kingdom defence estate in excess of 500 acres.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. The information requested is not held in this form. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Heckler and Koch
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effect of the purchase of Heckler and Koch by Royal Ordnance on the ability of the United Kingdom defence industrial base to meet the long-term requirements of the armed forces.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We provided confidential advice on the proposed acquisition to the Office of Fair Trading in the usual way.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his German counterpart regarding the purchase of Heckler and Koch by Royal Ordnance.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the management of Royal Ordnance regarding their purchase of Heckler and Koch.
  380
  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Defence Support Agency
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence support agency status for the service children's schools, north-west Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Service Children's Schools (North West Europe), within the British Army of the Rhine, will be launched formally as a defence support agency of the Ministry of Defence on 24 April. The agency comprises 86 schools in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sardinia. It is currently staff by some 1,300 teachers and educational administrative staff, and 1,200 other full and part-time employees; for the financial year 1991–92 it has a projected operating budget of some £40 million cash and over £60 million full cost. The agency's chief executive, appointed through open competition from outside the civil service, is Mr. I. S. Mitchelson.

  The role of Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) is to provide an efficient and effective education service, comparable to good local education authority practice, for the dependant children of MOD personnel in north-west Europe. It must respond not only to the changes in the size and disposition of British forces in Europe as the result of the changing political climate, the Gulf situation and "Options for Change", but also to the requirements of the Education Reform Act and current developments in the management of education.

  I am confident that the chief executive and his staff will meet those challenges, and will maintain the high-quality educational service that SCS(NWE) has traditionally provided. As an agency, SCS(NWE) will have greater executive and managerial freedoms, and there will be increased opportunities for the chief executive to improve the efficiency and value for money of his organisation.

  Accordingly, the chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation as an agency:
  in 1991–92, to maintain at least current rates of pupil success at GCSE and A-levels;
  by 1 April 1992, to develop and introduce systems which will provide a comprehensive measure of pupil performance, in terms of both examination results and other school activities; to formulate policies which aim for a progressive improvement in pupil performance; and to formulate work and activity programmes designed to make residence in NW Europe an educationally beneficial experience;
  by 1 April 1992, to develop appropriate measures of the level of qualification and training of teachers, and to set targets both for the match between teacher qualification and post and for the further training of teachers;
  to establish, by 1 September 1991, a two-year cycle of teacher appraisal;
  to plan and provide, by 1 April 1992, a co-ordinated support service both to voluntary groups catering for under-age school children and children with special educational needs;
  to develop, and introduce by 1 September 1991, a system for assessing parental satisfaction, and to seek progressive improvements in the level of parental satisfaction;
  to develop, and implement by 1 April 1992, processes both to allow parents to take a more active involvement in agency activities and to inform them of relevant educational developments;

  381
  to adhere to the statutory timetable for implementing the requirements of the Education Reform Act;
  by 1 September 1991, to introduce improved management planning and information systems, including development plans for corporate services within the agency and school development plans;
  to keep within the agreed budget;
  by 1 April 1992, to develop a financial information system which captures the full cost of agency activities; permits in-year forecast, monitoring and reporting of expenditure; and allows publication of accounts to Treasury requirements;
  to achieve continuing improvements in efficiency over the next five years by making, in 1991–92, cash releasing efficiency savings equivalent to 1 per cent. of cash costs, and by developing, by 1 April 1992, plans for achieving further efficiency improvements over the following four years;
  by 1 April 1992, to develop and begin to implement plans for the restructuring of the agency and its services, in light of ministerial decisions on "Options for Change" and changes in the deployment of British forces in north-west Europe.

CIVIL SERVICE

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what facilities he is making available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Renton
  The payroll giving to charity scheme operates in my Department, and, if they wish, staff may use this facility to contribute to the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

THE ARTS

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what facilities have been made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries has not been canvassed but staff may certainly use the payroll giving to charity scheme which is in operation—to contribute to the St. John Ambulance Brigade appeal.

  Educational Theatre Companies
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what guidelines the Government have given to the Arts Council on the priority to be given in the allocation of Government funds in respect of educational theatre companies.

  Mr. Renton
  The Arts Council's current three-year plan, which my Department has endorsed, specifically identifies the development of theatre for young people as a drama department objective.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Unquoted Companies (Employee Participation)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many schemes have been approved by the Inland Revenue for profit sharing and share option 382
  schemes under the Finance Act 1988, sections 185–87 and schedules 9 and 10 for employees of unquoted companies; and how many such employees are covered.

  Mr. Maude
  Schemes approved by the Inland Revenue up to March 1991, under legislation now contained in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, including 4,721 discretionary share option schemes and 1,934 all-employee share schemes. Of the latter, 962 were profit-sharing schemes and 972 were savings-related share options schemes. It is estimated that about 200,000 and 2·25 million individual employees had participated in these discretionary and all-employee schemes, respectively, up to the end of March 1990.

  These schemes, many of which include several companies, relate to both quoted and unquoted companies. I regret that information about the numbers of unquoted companies and their eligible employees covered by these approved schemes could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employee trusts established by unquoted companies the Inland Revenue have accepted as qualifying employee share ownership trusts under the Finance Act 1989, section 74 and Schedule 5; and how many employees are now potential beneficiaries under such trusts.

  Mr. Maude
  The Inland Revenue may not learn of the establishment of employee share ownership trusts as defined in the Finance Act 1989 until claims for tax relief are received. Such claims may be made up to two years after the end of the period of account in which the relevant company contributions are made. One trust established by an unquoted company has been accepted as a qualifying employee share ownership trust; it covers about 25 employees. Further trusts are likely to be accepted as qualifying shortly.

  Gross Domestic Product Deflator
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the gross domestic product deflator, quarter by quarter, starting with the first quarter of 1978.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest quarterly estimates of the gross domestic product deflator for 1978 onwards are as follows:

  Implied gross domestic product deflators based on expenditure data

  At market prices

  At factor cost

  1978

  Q1

  50·5

  52·6

  Q2

  52·0

  53·5

  Q3

  52·9

  54·8

  Q4

  54·2

  55·6

  1979

  Q1

  56·0

  57·8

  Q2

  57·6

  59·2

  Q3

  62·0

  62·2

  Q4

  64·3

  64·7

  1980

  Q1

  67·3

  68·1

  Q2

  70·4

  70·6

  Q3

  73·2

  73·8

  Q4

  75·8

  76·6

  383

  At market prices

  At factor cost

  1981

  Q1

  77·6

  78·5

  Q2

  79·0

  78·3

  Q3

  80·3

  79·7

  Q4

  82·4

  81·7

  1982

  Q1

  84·0

  83·0

  Q2

  85·0

  84·4

  Q3

  86·5

  85·7

  Q4

  88·1

  87·5

  1983

  Q1

  89·2

  88·7

  Q2

  89·3

  88·5

  Q3

  90·8

  90·4

  Q4

  92·3

  92·1

  1984

  Q1

  92·6

  92·6

  Q2

  94·2

  94·5

  Q3

  95·0

  95·1

  Q4

  96·4

  97·1

  1985

  Q1

  97·8

  98·5

  Q2

  99·4

  99·4

  Q3

  100·7

  100·4

  Q4

  102·1

  101·7

  1986

  Q1

  102·2

  101·8

  Q2

  103·2

  102·2

  Q3

  103·7

  102·6

  Q4

  105·1

  104·0

  1987

  Q1

  106·4

  105·8

  Q2

  107·9

  107·0

  Q3

  109·4

  108·4

  Q4

  111·1

  110·4

  1988

  Q1

  112·2

  111·4

  Q2

  114·7

  113·5

  Q3

  117·0

  115·9

  Q4

  120·2

  119·7

  1989

  Q1

  121·5

  121·0

  Q2

  123·7

  123·3

  Q3

  124·0

  123·7

  Q4

  127·0

  127·2

  1990

  Q1

  128·5

  128·4

  Q2

  130·0

  132·1

  Q3

  132·4

  134·5

  Q4

  135·5

  138·4

  Winter Letting
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any representations from the holiday flat and self-catering industry concerning the restrictions on winter letting contained in section 50 of the Finance Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.
  384
  Mr. Maude
  I have not received any such representations.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost, per capita, in respect of the recent Gulf dispute.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest estimate for additional defence costs, spread over several years, is of the order of £45 per capita. However, I expect the bulk of costs to be covered by cash contributions generously pledged by other governments.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the difference in tax revenue raised if the 75 per cent. of subcontractors paying schedule D tax, but providing labour only for hire, were on pay-as-you-earn instead.

  Mr. Maude
  This information is not available.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total central Government revenue is raised by value added tax in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Figures for tax revenues disaggregated by tax for the United Kingdom, France and Germany on a comparable basis are published in "Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries" which can be found in the Library.

  Statistics
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for each quarter from the first quarter of 1979 to the first quarter of 1991, the annual percentage increase on the following indices: the retail prices index, the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, rates and the community charge, the tax and prices index, the TPI excluding mortgage interest payments, the TPI excluding mortgage interest payments, rates and the community charge, producer output prices, the gross domestic product deflator, average earnings, whole economy, underlying, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies inflation index.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The table gives the available information. The tax and price index is not available excluding mortgage interest payments or the community charge rates. I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to him today for the gross domestic product deflator.
  385

  Percentage increase on a year earlier

  Date

  Retail prices index

  RPI excluding mortgage interest payments

  RPI less MIPs and community charge/rates

  Tax and price index

  Producer output prices

  Average earnings whole economy underlying

  RPI using new measure of housing costs (IFS)

  1979 Q1

  9·6

  8·7

  8·6

  6·4

  8·7

  —

  —

  Q2

  10·7

  9·5

  9·4

  12·9

  10·1

  —

  —

  Q3

  16·0

  15·1

  15·0

  13·6

  11·6

  —

  —

  Q4

  17·2

  16·5

  16·5

  14·9

  12·8

  —

  —

  1980 Q1

  19·1

  18·0

  17·9

  16·9

  14·9

  20¼

  —

  Q2

  21·5

  20·5

  20·3

  18·1

  15·5

  21¾

  —

  Q3

  16·4

  15·3

  15·0

  17·9

  13·7

  21¼

  —

  Q4

  15·3

  14·2

  13·8

  16·6

  12·3

  18¼

  —

  1981 Q1

  12·7

  12·7

  12·4

  13·5

  10·3

  16

  —

  Q2

  11·7

  12·2

  11·8

  15·3

  9·5

  13¼

  —

  Q3

  11·3

  11·8

  11·4

  14·7

  8·9

  11½

  —

  Q4

  11·9

  12·1

  11·4

  15·5

  9·5

  11¼

  —

  1982 Q1

  11·1

  10·7

  10·4

  14·6

  9·5

  10¾

  —

  Q2

  9·4

  9·0

  8·8

  9·7

  7·6

  10

  —

  Q3

  8·0

  7·7

  7·4

  8·7

  7·4

  9

  —

  Q4

  6·2

  6·8

  6·8

  6·6

  6·5

  8½

  —

  1983 Q1

  5·0

  6·3

  5·9

  5·2

  5·3

  8

  —

  Q2

  3·8

  4·6

  4·6

  3·2

  5·7

  7½

  —

  Q3

  4·6

  5·0

  5·0

  3·6

  5·4

  7¾

  —

  Q4

  5·1

  4·9

  4·8

  4·1

  5·6

  8

  —

  1984 Q1

  5·2

  4·5

  4·5

  4·3

  5·3

  7¾

  —

  Q2

  5·1

  4·9

  4·9

  4·1

  5·8

  7¾

  —

  Q3

  4·7

  4·2

  4·2

  3·5

  5·6

  7½

  —

  Q4

  4·8

  4·1

  4·0

  3·6

  5·5

  7½

  —

  1985 Q1

  5·5

  4·8

  4·7

  4·4

  5·6

  7½

  —

  Q2

  7·0

  5·3

  5·2

  6·4

  5·3

  7½

  —

  Q3

  6·3

  5·4

  5·2

  5·7

  5·2

  7½

  —

  Q4

  5·5

  5·2

  5·0

  4·4

  5·1

  7½

  —

  1986 Q1

  4·9

  4·5

  4·4

  3·8

  4·7

  7½

  —

  Q2

  2·8

  3·3

  2·9

  0·9

  4·3

  7½

  —

  Q3

  2·6

  3·3

  2·9

  0·7

  4·1

  7½

  —

  Q4

  3·4

  3·4

  3·0

  2·0

  4·0

  7½

  —

  1987 Q1

  4·0

  3·7

  3·3

  2·7

  4·0

  7½

  —

  Q2

  4·2

  3·6

  3·4

  2·5

  3·6

  7¾

  —

  Q3

  4·3

  3·6

  3·5

  2·6

  3·8

  7¾

  —

  Q4

  4·1

  4·0

  3·8

  2·4

  4·1

  8¼

  —

  1988 Q1

  3·4

  3·7

  3·5

  1·4

  3·8

  8½

  4·3

  Q2

  4·2

  4·4

  4·3

  2·1

  4·3

  8¾

  5·1

  Q3

  5·4

  5·1

  4·9

  3·4

  4·9

  9¼

  6·2

  Q4

  6·5

  5·1

  5·0

  4·6

  4·9

  8¾

  6·4

  1989 Q1

  7·7

  5·6

  5·5

  5·9

  5·2

  9¼

  6·8

  Q2

  8·2

  6·0

  5·9

  8·4

  5·0

  9

  6·9

  Q3

  7·7

  5·8

  5·6

  7·8

  5·1

  9

  6·4

  Q4

  7·6

  6·1

  5·9

  6·3

  5·2

  9¼

  6·3

  1990 Q1

  7·8

  6·2

  6·0

  6·5

  5·4

  9½

  5·9

  Q2

  9·7

  8·1

  6·8

  7·9

  6·3

  9¾

  6·5

  Q3

  10·4

  9·0

  7·7

  8·8

  5·9

  10

  7·1

  Q4

  10·0

  9·2

  8·0

  9·7

  5·9

  9¾

  7·3

  1991 Q1

  8·7

  8·5

  7·4

  8·2

  6·3

  —

  6·8

  The Gulf
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contributions from other countries to the costs of Her Majesty's Government relating to the Gulf war received in the financial year 1990–91 or received or expected in the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following countries have made or pledged cash contributions towards these costs:

  £ million

  Received in 1990–91

  Received or expected in 1991–92

  United Arab Emirates

  85

  1901

  Kuwait

  110

  5502

  Germany

  275

  —

  Japan

  25

  1583

  Saudi Arabia4

  —

  580

  386

  Received in 1990–91

  Received or expected in 1991–92

  Belgium

  —

  15

  Hong Kong

  15

  —

  Denmark

  8

  —

  South Korea5

  —

  17

  Total

  518

  1,5106

  1 Two payments of $166 million; one received 2 April and the other expected about the end of April.

  2 £110 million received 15 April. Four further payments of £110 million are expected in the middle of each month, May-August inclusive.

  3 Received 2 April.

  4 A payment of $200 million made on 2 April. A further $800 million has been pledged.

  5 $30 million, subject to Korean Parliamentary approval.

  6 The sterling value of payments not yet received and denominated in US dollars will depend on the exchange rate prevailing at the time.

  387
  In addition, some 16 countries have provided assistance in kind.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  'To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in descending order of balance of payment performance(a) cereals, (b) agricultural products as a whole, (c) agricultural products minus cereals, (d) oil, (e) chemicals, (f) iron and steel, (g) coal, coke, and so on, (h) motor vehicles, (i) electricals, (j) visibles and (k) invisibles for the years 1979, 1986 and the latest date available.

  Crude balances1

  £ billion

  1979

  1986

  1990

  SITC2

  5

  Chemicals

  +1·5

  +2·3

  +2·3

  33

  Petroleum and petroleum products

  –1·1

  +3·7

  +1·2

  67

  Iron and steel

  —

  +0·1

  +0·4

  04

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  –0·4

  +0·4

  +0·3

  32

  Coal, coke and briquettes

  –0·1

  –0·3

  –0·5

  716, 75–77

  Electrical machinery

  —

  –2·8

  –3·3

  78

  Road vehicles

  –0·8

  –4·0

  –5·3

  Agriculture3

  –4·3

  –6·0

  –6·4

  Agriculture3 less cereals and cereal preparations

  –4·7

  –5·6

  –6·1

  1 Exports cif less imports fob.

  2 Standard International Trade Classification (Rev. 3)

  3 There is no generally accepted definition of agriculture in the SITC. The figures used cover food and live animals, feed, beverages and other agricultural products (SITC Sections 0 and 4; Divisions 11 and 22 and parts of Divisions 21, 26, 29, 51, 53 and 59).

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations of public policy and public finance follow from the decision that local authorities in exceeding their powers are not required to meet their banking commitments.

  Mr. Mellor
  The House of Lords has ruled that local authorities have no power to undertake interest rate swaps. The Government are studying the full implications of the judgment. The case raises a number of complex issues including the effect on local authorities and their charge payers as well as on banks.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Zoo
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of payments made from central Government to all organisations associated with London Zoo since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  During this period central Government has paid grants worth about £31 million to the Zoological Society of London and the Institute of Zoology. This figure includes about £5·4 million for the institute's research work.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any checks were made by his Department on the use of funds provided by Her Majesty's Government to London Zoo.

  Mr. Trippier
  During the period that the society was in receipt of revenue subsidy and contributions to capital investment, its finances and activities were closely monitored. The £10 million endowment in November 1988
  388
  Mr. Maples
  Figures for total trade are available on a balance of payments basis:

  Balances

  £ billion

  Visible trade

  Invisible trade

  1979

  –3·3

  +2·9

  1986

  –9·5

  +9·4

  1990

  –17·9

  +5·1

  The following table shows crude trade balances1 on an overseas trade statistics basis with the categories listed in the order of their 1990 surplus or deficit.

  was a once-for-all payment, and severed the financial relationship with my Department completely as well as the system of monitoring.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions were attached to funds provided by Her Majesty's Government to London Zoo.

  Mr. Trippier
  The £10 million endowment in 1988 was given to the Zoological Society of London on the understanding that the society had established a subsidiary operating company with a strong management team to run the zoos; this management team had drawn up a master development plan for the zoos to secure their future, and with this endowment the Government's financial commitment to the zoos was at an end.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial requests have been received in the last three months from the London Zoo authorities; and what response has been made.

  Mr. Trippier
  Over the last few months I have discussed with the Zoological Society of London its general financial situation and have reminded it that the Government's financial commitment to its zoos ended in 1988.

  House Prices
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing an index of house prices in real terms, for each quarter from the first quarter of 1979 to the latest available quarter.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The following index has been derived by deflating my Department's mix-adjusted dwelling price index by the retail prices index.
  389

  Mix-adjusted index of United Kingdom house prices in real terms

  (Index: Q1 1979 = 100)

  Index

  1979 Q1

  100

  Q2

  104

  Q3

  106

  Q4

  110

  1980 Q1

  109

  Q2

  108

  Q3

  108

  Q4

  108

  1981 Q1

  105

  Q2

  103

  Q3

  103

  Q4

  98

  1982 Q1

  95

  Q2

  96

  Q3

  98

  Q4

  98

  1983 Q1

  100

  Q2

  102

  Q3

  104

  Q4

  104

  1984 Q1

  105

  Q2

  105

  Q3

  109

  Q4

  109

  1985 Q1

  107

  Q2

  107

  Q3

  110

  Q4

  113

  1986 Q1

  115

  Q2

  118

  Q3

  123

  Q4

  126

  1987 Q1

  127

  Q2

  132

  Q3

  137

  Q4

  144

  1988 Q1

  149

  Q2

  155

  Q3

  173

  Q4

  180

  1989 Q1

  181

  Q2

  182

  Q3

  186

  Q4

  179

  1990 Q1

  174

  Q2

  163

  Q3

  163

  Q4

  158

  Source: Based on prices at completion stage collected in the building society mortgage survey and weighted to reflect a standard mix of sales by dwelling type, size and region.

  Hedgehogs
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the export of live hedgehogs is governed by the CITES agreement; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many licences were issued for the export of live hedgehogs in 1990; and if he will make it his policy to discontinue the issuing of such licences.
  390
  Mr. Trippier
  The export of the European hedgehog is not controlled by the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; the controls that apply were set out in my earlier answer to the hon. Member of 25 February, at column 353.

  No licences to export live hedgehogs were issued in 1990. All licence applications are treated on their own merits, following consultation with our scientific advisers, the joint nature conservation committee.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of Government grant in 1990–91 per head of relevant population in the London boroughs of Hackney, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows: Government grants in 1990–91, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, per head of relevant population are £1,415 in Hackney, £960 in Newham, £396 in Redbridge and £678 in Waltham Forest.

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the maximum level of benzene permissible in petrol(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Five per cent. by volume, in both cases.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to permitting development on green belt sites in the East Thames corridor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Any proposals for development on green belt sites in the east Thames corridor are considered in the light of the planning criteria which apply everywhere in the green belt.

  Irrigation, East Anglia
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many licences for extracting water from bore holes have been granted in each of the past two years to the horticultural industry in East Anglia; and what was the average amount of water permitted for extraction under each licence;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to conserve water in East Anglia by restricting the amount of water permitted for extraction by bore holes by the horticultural industry;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect on water conservation by the horticultural industry in East Anglia of (a) limiting times of the day when water extraction is permitted, (b) limiting the total quantity of water permitted to be extracted by each user and (c) encouraging night-time use of water to reduce evaporation;
  391
  (4) what restrictions have been imposed by the National Rivers Authority on extraction of irrigation water from bore holes by horticultural undertakings in East Anglia;

  (5) whether he will issue a direction to the National Rivers Authority to conserve water in East Anglia by restricting the amounts extracted by horticultural undertakings.

  Mr. Baldry
  These are all matters for the National Rivers Authority. The chairman will write to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to issue a direction to the National Rivers Authority.

  Conifer Planting
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of the consultation exercise on the proposal to exempt parts of the industrial Pennines from the Government's general policy not to grant-aid predominantly conifer planting in the English uplands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our consultation exercise last year gave rise to a large number of detailed responses and we have given careful consideration to these. Although there was support for some planting within the areas identified by the joint Department of the Environment-Forestry Commission working group, the general view was that the present policy adequately caters for the types and scale of new planting which will be appropriate and that the proposed exception would not be helpful. In recognition of this, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have decided not to proceed with the proposal.

  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the budgeted revenue expenditure and sources of income for local authorities in England, and their implication for community charge levels, in 1990–91 and 1991–92, before and after the enactment of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  Following the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991, the average community charge actually paid in 1991–92, taking account of assistance received via income support, is estimated to be £172; charges will account for just less than 15 per cent. of authorities' revenue spending. The corresponding figures before the Act were £274 and 23·6 per cent. respectively; for 1990–91 they were £285 and 26·6 per cent. Full details are given in the table.

  Sources of finance for local authority expenditure: England 1990–91 and 1991–92

  1990–91

  1991–92 before £140 reduction

  1991–92 after £140 reduction

  Estimated expenditure/income (£ billion)

  Gross revenue/budgeted expenditure

  36·48

  39·82

  39·82

  Use of balances

  0·80

  0·62

  0·62

  Budgeted income

  35·68

  39·19

  39·19

  Less Aggregate Exchequer Finance

  23·29

  26·05

  30·88

  392

  1990–91

  1991–92 before £140 reduction

  1991–92 after £140 reduction

  Plus/minus adjustments1

  0·14

  0·35

  0·35

  Raised from gross charges

  12·25

  13·49

  8·66

  Percentage of expenditure

  33·60

  33·90

  21·70

  HEADLINE CHARGE (£)

  357·00

  392·00

  252·00

  Less: Reduction scheme grant

  0·26

  1·70

  1·25

  Estimated community charge benefit subsidy

  1·83

  1·92

  1·06

  Raised from net charges

  10·16

  9·87

  6·35

  Percentage of expenditure

  27·90

  24·80

  15·90

  Less income support2

  0·40

  0·43

  0·43

  Actual charges paid

  9·76

  9·44

  5·92

  Percentage of expenditure

  26·60

  23·70

  14·90

  AVERAGE CHARGE ACTUALLY PAID (£)

  (taking into account income support)

  285

  274

  172

  Aggregate Exchequer Finance (£ billion)

  Business rates

  10·428

  12·408

  12·408

  Specific grants

  3·189

  3·413

  3·413

  Special grants

  0·187

  0·555

  0·555

  Revenue Support Grant

  9·490

  9·674

  9·674

  Community charge grant

  —

  —

  4·830

  Total grants

  12·866

  13·642

  18·472

  Total AEF

  23·294

  26·050

  30·880

  Chargepayers (million)

  Relevant population3

  35·65

  35·54

  35·54

  Equated population4

  34·37

  34·50

  34·50

  1 Adjustments include RSG grants to specified bodies (which are part of AEF but do not go to local authorities); net interest payments by the Collection Fund; the proportion of non-domestic rates collected by the City of London which is retained by the authority's collection fund; the estimated deficit on the Collection Fund in 1990–91; and the budgeted surplus on the Collection Fund in 1991–92.

  2 This amount represents the allowance in income support to cover 20 per cent, of the average charge.

  3 Relevant population indicates the number of chargepayers subject to a full community charge, plus one fifth of students subject to a charge, plus the number of people liable to pay collective community charges.

  4 Equated population is the equivalent number of personal charges which local authorities expect to receive from personal, standard and collective chargepayers.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will happen to the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England during the consultation period on the Government's proposals on local government.

  Mr. Heseltine
  We consider that the commission should continue with its current programme of work. Decisions on the implementations of their proposals can then be taken on the merits of those proposals and in the context of the wider proposals for change in local government.

  Norwich City Council
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out details of the basis of calculation which has led him to require Norwich city council to limit its spending to £15 million in 1991–92, and set out the representations he has had asking him to impose this limit.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: We have received a number of representations to cap excessive budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has designated Norwich city council for capping because he considered that its budget was excessive on the basis of the principles which he has adopted for capping for 1991–92. The maximum budget or "cap" of £15 million proposed by my right hon. Friend represents his view of what is reasonable, achievable and appropriate in the light of the authority's particular circumstances, on the basis of all the information available to him.

  Transport Privatisation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultations his Department has had with local authorities over the proposed privatisation of municipal airports, ports and harbours and bus companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the Government intend to bring forward proposals for the privatisation of municipal airports, ports and harbours and bus companies; and if he will make a statement;

  Local government staffing in England Selected service breakdown (December data)

  Service

  Total (FT+PT)

  Year-on-year change per cent.

  Change since 1975 per cent.

  Full-time equivalent

  Year-on-year change per cent.

  Change since 1975 per cent.

  1975 (See Note 1)

  Education (L/T)

  653,020

  —

  —

  529,937

  —

  —

  Education (other)

  677,999

  —

  —

  410,972

  —

  —

  Construction

  132,715

  —

  —

  132,385

  —

  —

  Social Services

  265,150

  —

  —

  182,512

  —

  —

  Other general services

  595,540

  —

  —

  546,120

  —

  —

  Police (all ranks)

  100,364

  —

  —

  100,364

  —

  —

  1988

  Education (L/T)

  651,728

  –0·4

  –0·2

  502,838

  –0·7

  –5·1

  Education (other)

  649,222

  –1·0

  –4·2

  382,571

  –0·7

  –6·9

  Construction

  101,072

  –5·0

  –23·8

  100,676

  –5·0

  –24·0

  Social Services

  336,756

  0·7

  27·0

  229,675

  1·0

  25·8

  Other general services

  578,597

  –0·4

  –2·8

  518,460

  –0·7

  –5·1

  Police (all ranks)

  118,249

  0·9

  17·8

  118,249

  0·9

  17·8

  1989

  Education (L/T)

  628,414

  –3·6

  –3·8

  481,407

  –4·3

  –9·2

  Education (other)

  627,822

  –3·3

  –7·4

  364,315

  –4·8

  –11·4

  Construction

  97,435

  –3·6

  –26·6

  97,037

  –3·6

  –26·7

  Social Services

  341,366

  1·4

  28·7

  233,953

  1·9

  28·2

  Other general services

  584,767

  1·1

  –1·8

  523,606

  1·0

  –4·1

  Police (all ranks)

  119,605

  1·1

  19·2

  119,605

  1·1

  19·2

  1990

  Education (L/T)

  614,908

  –2·1

  –5·8

  477,204

  –0·9

  –10·0

  Education (other)

  624,957

  –0·5

  –7·8

  363,124

  –0·3

  –11·6

  Construction

  91,118

  –6·5

  –31·3

  90,687

  –6·5

  –31·5

  Social Services

  343,508

  0·6

  29·6

  237,401

  1·5

  30·1

  Other general services

  592,456

  1·3

  –0·5

  529,909

  1·2

  –3·0

  Police (all ranks)

  120,593

  0·8

  20·2

  120,593

  0·8

  20·2

  Notes:

  1. 1975 is the earliest year for which data is available.
  394
  (3) what representations he has received from private sector companies interested in bidding for the municipal airports, ports and harbours and bus companies that the Government intend to privatise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the scope for privatisation of local authority ports, airports, and public transport companies but has reached no conclusions. A company which is in negotiation with a local authority to take a lease of part of their port has been in touch with my Department; no other representations from prospective purchasers have been received.

  Local Government
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the total number of local government staff in the following categories(a) education (lecturers and teachers), (b) education (others), (c) construction, (d) social services, (e) other general services and (f) police in the United Kingdom giving figures for (i) total number of staff and (ii) full-time equivalents for each of the years 1968, 1988 and 1990, or the latest date available showing the percentage increase/decrease in each case.

  Mr. Key
  The information for England is as follows:
  395
  2. Education figures are affected by the transfer of polytechnics from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  3. Other general services figures are affected by the transfer of municipal bus and airport undertakings from the local authority sector in 1986 and 1987.

HEALTH

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the department of psychological medicine of the City and Hackney health authority keeps records of the racial origins of in-patients and out-patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A contact register is being developed for all patients receiving care from the department of psychological medicine at City and Hackney health authority. Patients are asked to identify their own ethnic origin. Where this is not possible, that particular section will be left blank. The register has a security mechanism whereby information relating to ethnic origin is kept confidential and can be checked by the patient on request.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to encourage social service departments to monitor girls from the relevant ethnic communities referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 22 February,Official Report, columns 304–5.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 25 March at columns 322–24.

  Staphylococcus Infection
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the closure of ward 3X at the Royal Liverpool University hospital, following contagion from multi-resistant staphylococcus; and how many other hospitals in the United Kingdom are affected by this bacterium.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A patient recently admitted to the hospital was found to be carrying the organism. Before this was identified, cross-infection occurred in two small units in the hospital. Conventional infection control methods, including the temporary closure of ward 3X, brought the outbreak under control. Ward 3X was reopened on Monday 22 April.

  There are no national figures for the number of affected hospitals. Infection with multi-resistant staphylococcus—MRSA—is not among the diseases which are statutorily notifiable. However, a survey of the incidence of MRSA from 1986–90 is being prepared by the public health laboratory service and will be available shortly.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what matters are currently being considered by the advisory committee on cancer services; and when its next report is expected.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has a standing sub-committee on cancer which advises it on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer and, where relevant, on education.396
  The sub-committee keeps all these topics under regular review. It has recently prepared a manual on quality assurance in radiotherapy.

  Nurses' Pay
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the increase of pay in real terms for nurses in the employ of the health service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Basic pay rates for nursing and midwifery staff and health visitors have increased by almost 45 per cent. on average in real terms since 1979.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 256, what reasons have been given by Dr. Nicolaides for the late notification to the chief medical officer of the abortion of the King's College baby, under ground 2, by selective reduction at 27½weeks gestation, notified to his Department on 11 April 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not the Department's practice to disclose information provided in relation to individual cases of termination of pregnancy.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how man copies of the March 1991 letter from the chief executive of the national health service about the 1 April national health service reforms have been distributed; and at what total cost.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The letter from the NHS chief excutive marking the implementation of the NHS reforms on 1 April has been distributed to all 970,000 employees of the NHS in England. The cost of printing and distributing the letter to health authorities was £127,000.

  Drug and Alcohol Addiction
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend drug and alcohol addiction advice centres.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provision of local services to advise drug and alcohol misusers is a local responsibility. The Government's objective is to ensure that a comprehensive and integrated network of appropriate services is established to help these clients, and to this end has provided the following assistance to local agencies active in this field:since 1986–87, regional health authorities have received additional allocations rising to nearly £16·5 million in 1991–92 for the expansion of services for drug misusers including HIV prevention aspects. This builds upon the network of local services set up by the central funding initiative which made available £17·5 million for 188 local drug projects between 1983 and 1989;
  £4 million has been allocated to the national voluntary organisation Alcohol Concern for the three years starting in 1990–91, for disbursement to local voluntary organisations to support the improvement and expansion of alcohol advisory and counselling services;

  397
  awards totalling £1·4 million have been made to local authorities under the alcohol and drugs specific grant introduced by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. This grant will support expenditure of £2 million in 1991–92. The specific grant is available to local authorities to support voluntary sector organisations providing services for alcohol and drug misusers. This grant should help local authorities prepare for the new responsibilities placed upon them by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990;
  grants are made to help meet the national headquarters expenses of Alcohol Concern, the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and Turning Point, all of which support local agencies providing advice for alcohol and/or drug misusers.

  Prestwich Hospital, Manchester
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the patients of Pinfold, Troy and Tottington wards at Prestwich hospital, Manchester, will be evacuated as advised by the health advisory service/social services inspectorate in its report dated October 1990 No. (90) M1/E.12.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that Clifton house at Prestwich hospital, Manchester, will close by August 1991. Troy ward will close in May, Pinfold in June and Tottington in July.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by each regional health authority the amount of money that was made available to meet the costs of receiving casualties from the Gulf dispute; and how much was actually spent by each regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regional health authorities have incurred only minimal treatment costs, but did incur costs making preparations to treat casualties. Provisional cash limit adjustments were made at the end of 1990–91 based on regions' estimates of their expenditure and are given in the table. Adjustments cannot be finalised until the Department has received and validated final figures.

  £

  Northern

  546,000

  Yorkshire

  542,000

  Trent

  597,000

  East Anglia

  479,000

  North West Thames

  1,249,000

  North East Thames

  325,000

  South East Thames

  670,000

  Wessex

  868,000

  Oxford

  478,000

  South Western

  733,000

  West Midlands

  1,336,000

  Mersey

  739,000

  Numbers of contracts with capitation and continuing care patients

  Region

  Total number of contracts

  None registered

  1–499 registered

  500–999 registered

  1000+registered

  Capitation only

  Northern

  1,288

  136

  466

  302

  384

  15

  Yorkshire

  1,551

  96

  528

  401

  526

  11

  Trent

  1,865

  164

  672

  382

  647

  37

  East Anglian

  803

  46

  263

  160

  334

  24

  North West Thames

  1,855

  222

  997

  407

  229

  51

  North East Thames

  1,610

  185

  810

  338

  277

  29

  South East Thames

  1,691

  164

  767

  392

  368

  36

  South West Thames

  1,530

  171

  712

  349

  298

  37

  Wessex

  1,141

  76

  343

  253

  469

  19

  Oxford

  1,037

  121

  377

  244

  295

  30

  398

  £

  North Western

  763,000

  National Blood Transfusion Service

  75,000

  London postgraduate hospitals (SHAs)

  104,000

  Total

  9,504,000

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities he has made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was informed of the "Over to you, John" appeal at a meeting with national representatives of St. John Ambulance in March, and wished it well. The Department would consider how best to involve its staff in the appeal on receipt of a formal request to participate.

  Chemical Agents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has given to doctors on defence against chemical agents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Specific guidance on the treatment of patients affected by chemical agents was issued to the health service on 28 December 1990, in the context of the Gulf crisis. The same advice was also given to the national poisons information service to ensure a consistent response to inquiries from the health service. In addition various publications on the subject are available.

  Dentists
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (i) how many dentists in each regional health authority had registered no adult or child patients under the new contract by the end of February;

  (2) how many dentists for each regional health authority had registered adult or child patients under the new contract by the end of February in the ranges (a) less than 100, (b) between 101 and 500, (c) between 501 and 1,000 and (d) over 1,001;

  (3) how many dentists had registered patients under 18 years of age only, in total and in respect of each regional health authority, as at the end of February.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives information regarding dentists' contracts, rather than individual dentists, as of 31 March 1991. Many dentists have more than one contract.
  399

  Numbers of contracts with capitation and continuing care patients

  Region

  Total number of contracts

  None registered

  1–499 registered

  500–999 registered

  1000+registered

  Capitation only

  South Western

  1,551

  122

  506

  330

  593

  26

  West Midlands

  1,909

  152

  610

  470

  677

  15

  Mersey

  1,088

  80

  435

  287

  286

  12

  North Western

  1,716

  146

  604

  440

  526

  43

  TOTAL

  385

  Source: Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists had registered adults who were exempt from charges by the end of February.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The precise number of dentists who are accepting adults exempt from charges into continuing care arrangements under the new general dental services contract is not known. Recent information from family health services authorities suggests that the vast majority of dentists are doing so.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of estimates scheduled to dentists in respect of the categories(a) adults over 18 years and (b) children under 18 years for each of the five months from October 1990 to the end of February 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the form requested. Most treatment of children is now covered by capitation fees paid to dentists, and is not claimed by submitting estimates. The table sets out the total number of claims for remuneration for item-of-service treatment of adults. It does not include claims for continuing care payments where no item-of-service treatment has been provided.

  Date .scheduled for payment

  Old contract

  New contract

  Adult Estimates (Item of Service)

  Child Estimates (Item of Service)

  Adults accepted into continuing care

  Adult Item of Service

  Entry payments for children before acceptance into capitation

  Child Item of Service

  Total number of children accepted into capitation

  October 1990

  2,061,768

  895,837

  —

  58,274

  16,233

  3,965

  —

  November 1990

  892,818

  298,824

  2,878,836

  987,973

  164,080

  44,899

  842,628

  December 1990

  411,261

  122,800

  2,267,407

  1,485,230

  250,962

  69,185

  938,317

  January 1991

  226,596

  69,582

  1,736,821

  1,775,067

  216,178

  77,189

  633,040

  February 1991

  140,816

  47,911

  1,617,834

  1,701,166

  227,495

  88,374

  713,169

  Source: Dental Practice Board.

  NHS Internal Market
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether tertiary referrals will be treated in the same way as emergencies for the purpose of payment in the national health service internal market;

  (2) what are the arrangements for paying for tertiary referrals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Tertiary referrals will normally be paid for in the same way as referrals by a GP: district health authorities will contract directly with the units receiving tertiary referrals. The same arrangements
  400

  Total number of adult item-of-service claims

  Date

  Total

  October 1990

  2,120,042

  November 1990

  1,880,791

  December 1990

  1,896,491

  January 1991

  2,001,663

  February 1991

  1,841,982

  Source: Dental Practice Board

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of estimates scheduled to dentists in respect of the categories (i) under the old contract,(a) adults and (b) children under 18 years and (ii) under the new contract (1) adults for registration only and excluding treatment, (2) adults with both registration and treatment, (3) adults for occasional treatment only, (4) children with entry payment claimed and (5) children with no entry payments claimed for each of the five months from October 1990 until the end of February 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives information on estimates under the old contract and claims for remuneration under the new contract, for England and Wales. It is not possible to give separate figures relating to the following categories under the new contract: (i) claims for continuing care payments for adult patients where no treatment fees are claimed; and (ii) claims for occasional treatment.

  as for other kinds of referrals will apply to emergency and non-emergency tertiary referrals not covered in advance by a contract.

  Harrogate Hospitals
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new beds have been provided in the Harrogate district and general hospitals since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. I. Lester, the chairman of the Harrogate health authority, for details.

  Stillbirth
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1990,Official Report, column 507, to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), what consideration has now been given to revising the definition of stillbirth.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 1 March at columns 632–33.

  Wheelchair Patients
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that all doctors' surgeries and all doctors' consulting rooms are accessible to patients in wheelchairs,(a) in private sector surgeries and consulting rooms in London to which NHS patients are referred and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: It is the Department's policy to ensure that facilities are accessible to patients in wheelchairs. Building regulations require reasonable provision to be made for the access of disabled people into and within buildings. These regulations are legally enforceable on both the National Health Service and the private sector. In 1989 the Department published "Health Building Note 40, Common Activity Spaces Volume 4—Designing for Disabled People", a copy of which is available in the Library. The building note gives guidance on designing health care facilities to meet the needs of disabled people. The Department is about to publish building guidance on general medical practice premises which includes specific recommendations on designing for wheelchair access.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Cricket Coaching
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is considering further initiatives to promote the coaching of cricket in schools.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am very keen to encourage cricket in schools both within the curriculum and as part of extra-curricular sport. I am today holding a conference on "Sport and Young People" to which a wide range of physical education and sporting organisations have been invited. Many useful and interesting issues are being raised and I will be considering these further as part of my current review of sports policy.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give consideration to an expansion of grammar school provision.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The organisation of school provision is a matter for individual local education authorities. I will consider any proposals by LEAs to reorganise schools, including proposals for introducing grammar schools, on their merits.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department intends to carry out a survey of the availability of school playing fields; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The provision of school playing fields is the responsibility of LEAs and others in charge of the schools in the light of the standards in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. However, the Sports Council will begin to draw up a register of playing fields during the course of this year. The register will include details of school playing fields.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering regarding change of character of schools when approving grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Schools may not propose a significant change of character in applying for GM status. Inevitably, however, they will wish in the course of time to assess whether their provision reflects local parent demand and changing circumstances. Where they decide to publish change of character proposals I will consider them and any objections on the merits of each case.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in Shropshire have applied for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  Three. Shropshire has one grant-maintained school. A further two schools have submitted applications which will reach my right hon. and learned Friend for decision shortly.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the number of grant-maintained status schools he expects to be operating from 18 September 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future number of grant-maintained schools in operation cannot be accurately predicted, but there are more schools seeking grant-maintained status now than ever before. For example, there are currently 80 schools with grant-maintained ballots pending. This time last year there were seven. In the last three months alone, 48 schools have voted to seek grant-maintained status.

  Reading
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last received an Her Majesty's inspectorate report on the training of students in teacher training colleges in the methods of teaching reading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Ministers receive regular advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate on teacher training as on other aspects of the education system. Her Majesty's inspectorate will be providing advice to Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in connection with the inquiry we have asked the council to conduct, and this will be included in their report at the end of the year.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teaching of reading skills in schools.
  403
  Mr. Eggar
  It must be a priority of every primary school to enable children to read. Advice on good practice was offered in the report on reading by Her Majesty's inspectorate which was circulated to all primary schools in January. The main message was that reading has to be taught, in a structured way, and the most effective teachers used a mix of methods to teach initial reading, invariably including phonics. School reading policies, well organised classrooms, good teaching and regular testing and recording were other important factors in fostering reading skills. The national curriculum for English provides an effective framework for the teaching and assessment of reading skills.

  Swimming Lessons
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about Derbyshire county council's proposals to cut swimming lessons in the county's schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from pupils, parents and schools in Derbyshire about the effect of budget reductions on the education service in the county, including provision of swimming.

  The education element of Derbyshire's standard spending assessment has risen by nearly 15 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1991–92. That is a substantial increase which should enable the authority to finance an education service of high quality if it manages its affairs well.

  Education, South Cumbria
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding higher and further education in south Cumbria.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations in recent months regarding higher and further education in south Cumbria.

  Citizenship
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has reviewed the effectiveness of the teaching of citizenship within the curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  The National Curriculum Council issued guidance on education for citizenship last November. Her Majesty's inspectorate will report on the effectiveness of the teaching of citizenship to my right hon. and learned Friend in the course of their inspections.

  Pupil Assessment
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statment on the introduction of pupil assessment in conjunction with the national curriculum in schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  The first national assessments of seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science will take place this summer. The statutory arrangements for assessing seven-year-olds in other subjects at key stage 1 and for assessing other age groups will be phased in over the coming years.

  Seven-year-olds (Testing)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions he has made about the publication of the tests of seven-year-olds this summer.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie).

  Teachers (Career Changes)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision exists for retraining and redeployment within the education service for teachers or lecturers who(a) wish or (b) are required through redundancy, to change careers.

  Mr. Fallon
  The deployment and redeployment of teachers are matters for individual LEAs and schools, as is responsibility for in-service training. The Department is providing substantial support through grants for education support and training for in-service training, including retraining to teach new phases and subjects.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council; and whether he proposes to discuss the funding of pay awards.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council from time to time; he has no plans at present for a further meeting.

  Sport
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on Saturday sport in schools.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am currently considering ways of encouraging more Saturday sport in schools, including greater partnerships between local sports clubs and schools. The Department is also revising its proposed guidance booklet on the community use of school sports facilities to reflect the recently identified need to amend section 42 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what facilities he is making available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. Staff are encouraged to join the give-as-you-earn scheme which enables them to support the charity of their choice through regular deductions from salary.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the National Curriculum Council to publish guidelines for the teaching of religious education in schools.
  405
  Mr. Eggar
  There are no plans to issue guidance as to the content of individual agreed syllabuses for religious education. This is a matter for each local education authority to determine in the light of the statutory requirements. The National Curriculum Council has, however, a remit to advise at local request on the mechanics of constructing a syllabus taking account of the national curriculum approach of setting clear learning objectives through attainment targets and programmes of study. I understand that the National Curriculum Council is considering the issue of some collated advice of this nature for local education authorities. The timing would be a matter for the National Curriculum Council.

  Graduate Teacher Training Registry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now publish the telephone numbers of his Department's graduate teacher training registry.

  Mr. Fallon
  The graduate teacher training registry is neither funded nor controlled by the Department of Education and Science.

  Oil Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on oil fire-related research in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Science and Engineering Council is currently supporting 17 projects concerned with the controlled combustion of oil, at a total cost of some £2 million. In addition, the Natural Environment Research Council is undertaking much work on atmospheric pollution, a significant percentage of which is on pollutants resulting from fossil fuel combustion and their effects on the environment.

  Truancy
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent consultations he has had with local authorities about truancy from schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, last week issued to local education authorities and others a consultative circular and draft regulations on school attendance. Consultees have been invited to comment on the proposals by 17 June.

  Primary Schools (Administration)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to reduce the burden of administration within primary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has already taken a number of steps to make the Government's reforms manageable for primary schools and to minimise paper work. We shall continue to look for opportunities further to reduce administration.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the pupil-to-teacher ratio of Harrogate schools in 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on Harrogate schools is not available centrally. The pupil-teacher ratio for North Yorkshire local education authority, which includes Harrogate schools, was 19 in January 1979 and 17·3 in January 1990 the latest date for which figures are available.

  School Inspections, Tower Hamlets
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place a copy of the recent Her Majesty's inspectorate report on Culloden primary school, Tower Hamlets, in the Library.

  Mr. Fallon
  Copies of all Her Majesty's inspectorate reports are sent to the Libraries of both Houses on the Friday of the week in which they are published. A copy of the report on Culloden school was sent on 19 April.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on which date he ordered Her Majesty's inspectorate to investigate standards of reading by pupils at Culloden primary school, Tower Hamlets; by what date the report was completed; on what date he first received the completed report; on what date the principal and chairman of governors at the school were first informed of the findings of the report(a) orally and (b) in writing; and on what date the media were first informed by his Department of the findings.

  Mr. Fallon
  On 6 March 1991, my right hon. and learned Friend asked the senior chief inspector—SCI—for information about the standards of reading in Culloden primary school, Tower Hamlets. Since no recent and relevant information was available the SCI took the decision to inspect the school.

  The school was inspected on 18 to 22 March 1991. The report was completed on 10 April and my right hon. and learned Friend received it on the same day. It was printed on 12 April 1991.

  The headteacher was informed orally of the findings of the inspection on the last day of the inspection as is customary. Copies of the report were sent to the headteacher and chairman of governors early on 16 April prior to its release to the press on the same day. HMI met the chairman and governors' body to discuss the report on the evening of 18 April 1991.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will detail the extent of Her Majesty's inspectorate's investigation at Culloden school, Tower Hamlets, enumerating the number of Her Majesty's inspectorate visiting the school, the duration of the investigation and the total cost of the inquiries.

  Mr. Fallon
  Her Majesty's inspectorate inspected Culloden primary school in the week 18 to 22 March 1991. Five inspectors each spent four and a half days in the school and were joined for one and a half days by one other inspector. The total cost of the inspection was £5,760. In addition to the actual inspection, HMI made preliminary visits, attended meetings of the governing
  407
  body and were involved in preparing and writing the report. The total cost was, therefore, approximately £7,680.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of all Her Majesty's inspectorate inspections of primary and secondary schools in Tower Hamlets since 1 April 1990, and a list of all subsequent reports that have been published.

  Mr. Fallon
  During the year in question, 23 inspection visits have been made to primary schools in Tower Hamlets and three to secondary schools; a further three were visited in February 1990. Three special schools were also visited. Although there was feedback to the schools in question during the visits themselves, none of the inspection visits to secondary or special schools were reporting inspections. Consequently they did not lead to published reports. The report on one of those inspection visits to primary schools, Culloden, was published on 16 April 1991. Since 1 April 1990 a report has also been published on Hague primary school, which was inspected prior to that date.

  London Hospital Schools
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in respect of the Hospital Schools in London Bill.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received letters from three London hospitals about the Hospital Schools in London Bill.

WALES

  Education (Science Teachers)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of qualified science teachers in each county who teach in each of the years in (i) the primary schools of Wales and (ii) the high schools of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibility regarding animal welfare in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  High standards of farm animal welfare on farms, during transport, at markets and at the place of slaughter are matters of major importance. The Government are committed to promoting the maintenance and improvement of farm animal welfare standards, and have taken many positive measures in this regard.

  Pharmacists (Advice)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the written advice of his Department to retail pharmacists regarding the methods of disposal for unwanted medicines and poisons returned to them by their customers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain gives advice to community 408
  pharmacists on the disposal of returned medicines. The Department has not issued any written advice in addition to this.

  DUMP Campaign
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of funding his Department has deemed appropriate for the financing of the Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee disposal of unwanted medicines and poisons (DUMP) campaign, during the autumn of 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department will be providing approximately £28,000 in respect of contractor costs for the all-Wales DUMP campaign proposed for the autumn of 1991.

  Teachers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the qualifications of teachers in Wales who take classes in the physical sciences.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am pleased that the latest secondary school staffing survey showed that, taken together, about 95 per cent. of teachers teaching biology, chemistry and physics at GCSE level have a qualification in that subject or in a related science subject. At A-level, at least 95 per cent. have a qualification in the science subject they teach.

  I wish to see an improvement and that is why we have widened the scope of the shortage subject bursary scheme to include all sciences and thus attract more science teachers into the profession.

  Probation Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the teaching force in each of the local education authorities in Wales are probationers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested, based at September 1990, is as follows:

  Percentage of the teaching force who are qualified and on probation

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  2·6

  2·3

  Dyfed

  4·4

  2·5

  Gwent

  2·9

  2·3

  Gwynedd

  2·7

  2·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  2·2

  2·5

  Powys

  2·7

  1·6

  South Glamorgan

  8·0

  3·4

  West Glamorgan

  2·7

  1·4

  WALES

  3·6

  2·4

  Science Teaching
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of non-specialist supply teachers or people with no training in the national curriculum, who take science lessons in(a) the primary schools and (b) the high schools of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No reliable information is available.

  Broadcasting in Wales
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his role and functions regarding broadcasting in Wales.
  409
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Broadcasting is the statutory responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We liaise closely with the Home Secretary on the particularly Welsh features of broadcasting policy. We also advise the Home Secretary on broadcasting appointments related to Wales.

  Pupil Assessment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he will take to assist(a) head teachers and (b) teachers who must assess pupils under the national curriculum.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government have made available considerable assistance to support head teachers and teachers in Wales in preparation for this year's first statutory assessment of seven-year-olds. This includes:approval of specific grant aided expenditure up to £2·3 million in 1991–92 for training and in support of administrative arrangements;
  an extra day's school closure specifically for primary school teachers involved in the assessment of seven-year-olds;
  a computer-based system, developed jointly with LEAs, to cut down the burden of teachers in calculating the detailed assessment results;
  comprehensive guidance material and training seminars provided through the School Examination and Assessment Council and LEAs.

  North Wales Expressway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the north Wales expressway Conwy tunnel to open; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The A55 Conwy crossing scheme is expected to be opened in the autumn of this year as indicated in the 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales".

  Chester-Bangor Expressway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Chester-Bangor expressway to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  £ million

  Rate rebates1

  Gross rate income

  Domestic rate relief grant

  Housing and disabled

  Enterprise zones

  Net rate income

  Net domestic rate income

  Net non-domestic rate income

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 52

  column 6

  column 7

  1975–76

  195

  41

  3

  —

  151

  47

  104

  1976–77

  220

  43

  4

  —

  173

  58

  115

  1977–78

  236

  44

  5

  —

  187

  63

  124

  1978–79

  276

  45

  6

  —

  225

  80

  145

  1979–80

  308

  46

  8

  —

  254

  92

  162

  1980–81

  388

  47

  12

  —

  329

  125

  204

  1981–82

  441

  48

  13

  —

  380

  148

  232

  1982–83

  457

  25

  18

  —

  414

  174

  240

  1983–843

  461

  25

  44

  —

  392

  149

  243

  1984–854

  501

  25

  53

  2

  421

  166

  255

  1985–86

  545

  25

  56

  2

  462

  185

  276

  1986–87

  614

  26

  63

  3

  522

  214

  308

  1987–88

  673

  26

  68

  3

  576

  237

  338

  1988–89

  737

  27

  56

  4

  650

  281

  369

  1989–905

  826

  27

  65

  4

  730

  316

  414

  1 Expenditure by local authorities on rate rebates.

  2 Column 5 = column (1–2–3–4) = column (6+7).

  3 In 1983–84 there was a change in Housing Benefit payments, some payments previously paid by DHSS to recipients of supplementary benefits and classed as "Rates" were from 1983–84 paid by the local authorities and classed as "Rate Rebates". Thus figures from 1983–84 are not strictly comparable with those for previous years.

  410
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Fifty-one of the 60 miles of the A55 between Chester and Bangor are already dualled and open to traffic; eight miles are under construction. Work on the final section, the Aber improvement scheme, is planned to start before April 1994 and to take about 18 months.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle in Wales were confirmed to have had BSE last year(a) under the age of five years and (b) over the age of five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of cattle in Wales confirmed in 1990 to have had BSE is as folows:

  Number

  (a) Cattle with an age at onset of up to and including five years

  574

  (b) Cattle with an age at onset of greater than five years

  433

  (c) Cattle for whom the age at onset is unknown

  37

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1966–67 to 1990–91, otherwise identical in format to table 1.1 of "Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics No. 14", 1990, of rate fund services revenue account but which also distinguishes (a) non-domestic rate revenue from domestic rate revenue and (b) gross rates, net rates and rate rebate grant.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The historical tables referred to are available in Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics (in table 1) for each year since 1975–76. The additional information requested, where available, is shown in the following table.
  411
  4 Figures shown for Rate Income in the L.G.F.S. publications prior to 1984–85 are net of rate rebates and domestic rate relief. From 1984–85 onwards, figures are gross of rate rebates and net of domestic rate relief.

  5 Provisional.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many grade 2 listed buildings have been demolished in Gwent and the Glamorgan counties in the last three years; and what information is held on the circumstances of such demolitions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Before a listed building can be lawfully demolished listed building consent must be obtained. Local planning authorities consider such applications against the detailed guidance issued by my Department. This is contained in Welsh Office circular 61/81, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Where a local authority is minded to grant consent for demolition the papers must be referred to my Department for the case to be examined. In the past three years, in line with this process, two grade II listed buildings have been demolished in Gwent and the three Glamorgan counties with the benefit of listed building consent. In addition, my Department is aware of the demolition of a further grade II structure. An application for retrospective consent for this case is being considered.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the progress of international negotiations towards achieving a consensus on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The second session of the XIth special consultative meeting of Antarctic treaty parties began in Madrid on 22 April.

  Discussion on mineral activities and environmental protection in Antarctica will be taken forward at this meeting and we hope a consensus can be reached.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities he is making available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  This Department has received no official approach about this appeal. No special facilities have therefore been offered, but there would be no objection to officers making collections on their own initiative.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of non-Cypriots now living in(a) northern Turkish Cyprus and (b) southern Greek Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We do not have reliable information on the number of non-Cypriots in Cyprus.

  China
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to the Chinese Government about the denial to local people of the right to attend masses said by foreign priests at the chapel and tomb of St. Francis Xavier on Sancian island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No.

  Thailand
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make United Kingdom attendance at the World bank annual meeting in Bangkok, later in the current year, conditional on the setting of a timetable for elections and a return to democracy in Thailand.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The site of the World bank's annual meeting is chosen by the membership as a whole some years in advance. We have expressed our regret at the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Thailand and our hope for the speedy restoration of democracy. However, the provisional constitution announced on 1 March has set a timetable for elections and a return to democracy.

  Kurds and Shias
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in his efforts to provide the Kurds and Shias in Iraq with safe havens, he will approach the International Committee of the Red Cross and other signatories of the four international conventions of 1949, to which Iraq is a signatory, to bring these conventions, including the creation of protected neutral and safety zones as set out in the Red Cross conventions, Draper 1958, into operation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The provisions of the fourth Geneva convention, such as article 15 which provides for the setting up of neutralised zones in regions where fighting is taking place, are applicable only to international conflicts. During non-international armed conflict, article 3 of the fourth Geneva convention sets out the minimum humanitarian standards which are to be applied.

  The ICRC is, of course, providing humanitarian assistance to those in need in Iraq. We fully support its efforts in this respect.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take any initiative in association with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other signatories of the four international conventions of 1949 in respect of grave breaches, referred to in section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, such as those against Kurds and Shias, including the convention relating to civilians in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Individual Iraqis bear personal responsibility under international law for any grave breaches of the Geneva conventions they order or commit. This principle is reiterated in United Nations Security Council resolution 674.
  413
  We are already in regular contact with coalition allies in connection with the collation of evidence which might support criminal charges against Iraqis or others who are in their custody as a result of the conflict. We understand that the Kuwaiti authorities intend to start such trials in the near future.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there are any proposals to create a safe haven for the Christian peoples of south Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no such plans. Our efforts are directed instead towards averting the impending famine in Sudan through the despatch of substantial amounts of humanitarian aid and to urging on both sides in the long-running civil war the need to settle their differences. We wish to see all religious communities in Sudan play a full part in the country's affairs. This would involve the Government of Sudan providing adequate safeguards for Christians living in the south of the country.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment was made of the effect of calls for insurrection by radio stations on(a) the Kurds and (b) the Shias during February and March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the end of the Gulf conflict those oppressed by Saddam Hussein in the Kurdish north and the Shia south of Iraq decided to rise up against the Iraqi regime. Those concerned took this decision for themselves.

  Border Controls
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place in the Library an English language translation of the Schengen agreement.

  Mr. Garel Jones
  The United Kingdom is not a party to the Schengen agreement, but we have asked the Schengen secretariat whether copies may be transmitted to the parliaments of non-signatories.

  Bahurutshi Tribespeople
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the President of South Africa as a matter of urgency to aid the Bahurutshi tribespeople who were displaced from their homes in Braklaagte on 8 January.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have raised the problems facing dispossessed communities with the South African authorities on a number of occasions. Staff from our embassy have visited the Braklaagte area to see the situation for themselves.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when and how he was consulted by the US office of foreign assets control before it issued its list of specially designated nationals of Iraq on 1 April.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 15 April 1991,Official Report, columns 30–31.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent inquiries he has undertaken to enable him to decide whether the claim made on 1 April by the United States Government that Sollatek UK Ltd. is acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the Government of Iraq is correct; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he supplied to the US office of foreign assets control about Sollatek UK Ltd. following the meeting between his officials and that company on 9 April;

  (3) what recent inquiries he has undertaken to enable him to decide whether the claim made on 1 April by the United States Government that Sollatek UK Ltd. is owned or controlled by Iraqis is correct; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information he supplied to the US office of foreign assets control about Sollatek UK Ltd. prior to I April;

  (5) what evidence he was supplied with by the US office of foreign assets control when it consulted him about its plans to include Sollatek UK Ltd. in its list of specially designated nationals of Iraq.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  DTI officials met representatives of Sollatek on 9 April. The company provided my officials with commercially confidential information which, with Sollatek's permission has been passed to our embassy in Washington to use when making representations to the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, DTOFA. No other information has been supplied to the US DTOFA prior to this.

  Kuwait Oil Field Fires
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if British equipment and personnel are available to assist the extinguishing of oil field fires in Kuwait; how much has been accepted by the Kuwait Government; and what action he is taking to encourage British firms to offer such assistance of Kuwait.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 April 1991]: A number of British companies has put forward proposals to the Kuwait Oil Company for assistance in extinguishing oil field fires. The Prime Minister wrote to the Crown Prince on 27 March offering the services of a consortium of British companies and the fire services, and I was able to discuss these proposals with the Crown Prince, the Minister for Oil and the chairman of the Kuwait Oil Company during my visit to Kuwait on 9–10 April. I hope the Kuwaitis will soon be in a position to respond positively.

  Tourism
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of support he has given to the tourist industry for the Northumbrian region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The English tourist board, which is grant-aided by my Department, has made the following subventions to the Northumbria tourist board in the past five financial years:

  £

  1986–87

  206,000

  1987–88

  204,000

  1988–89

  212,000

  1989–90

  235,000

  1990–91

  385,000

TRANSPORT

  MV Pescado
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which the Pescado, whose wreckage was found on 8 March was lost; whether that vessel was previously involved in any incident since 1980; and if he will set up a public inquiry into the incident.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The loss of MV Pescado is the subject of a full inspectors' inquiry, which is at present in progress. The circumstances of the loss are, at the moment, still unclear. To the inspectors' knowledge, the only previous incidents concerning this vessel were two injuries sustained by crew members while fishing. With the inquiry in hand it would be wrong for me to make any further statement at this stage.

  When the inquiry is complete, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider, in the light of its conclusions, whether a public inquiry should be ordered. If he decides against this, the report of the chief inspector of marine accidents will be published. This will be based on that of the inspectors' inquiry and will include the inspectors' findings in full.

  Marine Accident Investigation Unit
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the staffing levels in the marine accident investigation unit for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The hon. Lady will, of course, be aware that the marine accident investigation branch was set up by Parliament two years ago. Therefore. I am unable to answer the question as submitted.

  When the marine accident investigation branch was set up, the initial staff level was set at 15, and this was achieved by February 1990. The present level has increased to 21.

  Unadopted Roads
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reform the legislation on unadopted roads.

  Mr. Chope
  None, at present.
  416
  Following a review in 1983, it was decided that the basic principles of private street works law should remain unchanged.

  M11
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those who made representations to him and his Department in relation to Mallards Plot 815 along the route of the M11 link road.

  Mr. Chope
  Forest housing association made representations prior to the 1989–90 public inquiry; the Bushberry road and Benn street residents association has raised the matter following the decision of 26 March.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has assessed whether the common land at Quartermile lane, next to Hackney marshes, which it proposes to take for the M11 link road, is capable of use for sporting and recreational purposes; whether the proposed exchange strip of land in front of the new Spitalfields development is capable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Land in front of the new Spitalfields site is being offered in exchange for a length of roadside verge on Quartermile lane; plot 15 in the draft compulsory purchase Order. The exchange land and plot 15 could accommodate comparable recreational activities. The majority of the existing common land at Quartermile lane will not be required by the scheme proposals, but for those other areas which are to be taken, exchange land will be given elsewhere.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available to the hon. Member for Leyton his Department's M 11 link road construction drawings of the Lea bridge interchange, giving an indication of where they differ from the plans his Department placed before the recent public inquiry.

  Mr. Chope
  The construction drawings are not yet available. They will be drawn at a larger scale than the order plans and with appropriate detail.

  Road Building
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment is made by his Department of the quality of land, to replace other land required for road building, for its environmental benefit to the local community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Land is required to be given in exchange only for open space, common or allotment land. My Department assesses potential exchange land against the statutory criteria. The land must be not less in area and equally advantageous. Area, condition, location and use are taken into account. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decides whether the land is suitable only after consideration of any representations and objections in response to his advertisement of the proposal.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how and when he expects to respond to, or comment on, the European Commission report by experts on the ways to reduce road casualties.
  417
  Mr. Chope
  The report to the European Commission by the Committee chaired by Monsieur Gerondeau was published by the Commission on 19 February. I welcome the report as providing the basis for the development of a Community strategy for road safety from which to identify priorities for Community action to reduce casualties. Following our representations, the report is to be considered at the June Transport Council.

  Exxon Valdez
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to the reports and recommendations of the several inquiries into the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska on 24 March 1989 with a view to ascertaining any lessons relevant to the protection of the marine and coastal environment around British waters; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose any practical measures or improvements to environmental control procedures in the light of such reports and recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The US national transportation safety board marine accident report on the Exxon Valdez oil pollution disaster has made a number of recommendations. Many deal with local conditions and operations, but others, in particular those covering double bottoms and oil spill response, are actively being considered by the International Maritime Organisation: fatigue, manning, drug and alcohol abuse were issues already under consideration at IMO. The Department is participating and contributing to these international activities and will support such measures and improvements to international regulations which are seen to be beneficial and practicable.

  On the domestic front, contingency arrangements to deal with pollution at sea in United Kingdom waters are kept under constant review by the Department's marine pollution control unit.

  A thorough examination covering United Kingdom counter pollution responsibilities, communications and resources was carried out following the Exxon Valdez incident. The result, as I announced in the House on 6 March last year, is that the capability of the MPCU to deal with major oil spills has been increased by doubling its contracted dispersant spraying capacity by the use of larger aircraft. The MPCU's ability to detect oil slicks at sea has also been doubled by increasing to two its complement of remote sensing aircraft, which are used to control and direct counter pollution operations. Additionally, this enhanced remote sensing capability has

  £'000

  Actual cash costs

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total Her Majesty's Coastguard costs

  21,762

  23,990

  25,853

  28,584

  29,630

  Auxiliary Coastguard pay, allowances and equipment

  1,956

  2,069

  12,732

  2,078

  2,007

  Auxiliary accommodation costs

  2—

  2—

  2—

  407

  388

  Assuming constant 1986–87 prices

  Inflation factor (per cent.)

  100

  105·45

  113·14

  120·36

  129·98

  Equivalent total Her Majesty's Coastguard costs

  21,762

  22,750

  22,850

  23,748

  22,795

  1 Costs include two years spend on vehicles and boats.

  2 Not available.

  418
  been used to increase by 60 per cent. regular aerial surveillance patrols of United Kingdom waters to deter and detect ships making illegal operational discharges of oil.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rescue equipment, communications equipment and vehicles he plans to make standard issue for the new limited response teams; and what steps he will take to encourage greater use of private vehicles on coastguard duties.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: The concept of initial response teams along with their number, location, and equipment requirements necessary to meet the recommendations of the review is still being discussed and assessed. As far as the vehicular requirements of individual teams are concerned the use of private vehicles will be considered where this would provide the most suitable and cost-effective method of meeting the response criteria recommended in the review.

  Coastguard Review (Humber)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have been held between senior management and local interests in the Humber district of the coastguard review.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: Following my announcement of the coastguard review, the district controller at Humber maritime rescue sub centre made a direct approach to all interested local authorities in his district advising them of the review and inviting written comments. Subsequently, most of these bodies replied. I am satisfied that all local interests have had the opportunity to comment and their views are being taken into account in the draft proposals to implement the recommendations of the review.

  Coastguard Service (Annual Budgets)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the annual budget for the coastguard service for each of the past five years in cash and real terms; and what proportion of that budget is spent on the auxiliary service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: The figures requested are as follows:

  Vehicle Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to his regional traffic area offices with regard to complaints from the public about smoky vehicles; how many such complaints have been received since the publication of the leaflet "Wake up to what you can do for the Environment"; and what action has been taken, or is planned, in respect of such complaints.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 April 1991]: If a complaint is about a smoky vehicle subject to operator licensing, which means most buses and lorries and sufficient details of the vehicle and the incident are provided, the Department will write to the operator. The letter will ask him to have the vehicle checked and to report to the Department, within 10 days of the date of the letter, on the action taken. The letter will also warn that excessive smoke emission is an offence under regulation 61 of the Construction and Use Regulations. As these arrangements have only recently come into force, it is too soon to estimate their impact on numbers of complaints.

  Goole Railway Bridge
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of pilotage companies which, over the last 10 years, or the nearest practicable equivalent time span, have been licensed, or otherwise authorised or entitled, to pilot river craft on the Rivers Humber and Ouse up to the point near Goole railway bridge where pilotage ceases to be compulsory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Associated British Ports has been responsible for pilotage services in this area both as competent harbour authority since 1 October 1988 under the Pilotage Act 1987 and prior to that as pilotage authority for the district under previous pilotage legislation. Only those pilots authorised by Associated British Ports may act as authorised pilots in this area.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions over the last 10 years, or the nearest practicable equivalent time span, on which Goole railway bridge over the River Ouse has been struck in collision by river craft to the extent of causing appreciable bridge damage; and on how many such occasions the bridge has had to be closed to rail traffic.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Since 1981, collisions causing appreciable damage to the bridge structure or its protective fenders and piles have occurred on the following dates:

  Year

  1981

  24 February

  1984

  26 August

  1985

  20 January

  29 November

  1986

  30 May

  13 June

  1987

  27 April

  23 October

  1988

  12 September

  6 November

  21 November

  23 November

  5 December

  420

  Year

  1989

  28 April

  16 October

  1990

  29 January

  20 April

  22 August

  30 August

  12 September

  3 October

  5 October

  After any collision involving the main bridge structure, rail traffic is stopped until an examination is completed by BR's area engineer. The incident on 23 November 1988 was the only one to cause an extended closure of the line.

  Public Transport (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what weight is given in cost-benefit analyses to environmental criteria in assessing road and rail schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: In reaching a decision on a particular transport infrastructure scheme, we take great care to ensure that full weight is given to the environmental as well as the economic consequences. Where a scheme may give rise to significant environmental effects, an environmental assessment is prepared and the impacts quantified, where practical. The full range of evidence on economic, environmental and other effects is gathered to inform decision making, whether or not it can be quantified or expressed in monetary values.

EMPLOYMENT

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which other European community countries supported the United Kingdom's position on Commission proposals at the Social Affairs Council meeting on 26 November 1990.

  Mr. Howard
  At the Social Affairs Council on 26 November, the Council unanimously adopted the health and safety directive on biological agents and similarly agreed a common position on a directive to control the use of asbestos in the work place. There was also unanimous agreement on an action programme in favour of the elderly and on a resolution on the comparability of vocational training qualifications.

  A large majority of delegations agreed with the United Kingdom that rapid progress could be made towards agreeing the proposed directive on the health and safety of temporary workers. A majority of member states including the United Kingdom had significant difficulties with the substance and proposed treaty base of the Commission's proposals for directives concerning the employment of part-time and temporary workers. A minority of other member states also had difficulties with proposals to amend the regulations concerning free movement of labour and social security entitlements for migrant workers; and it was agreed that the proposals should he remitted for further consideration by officials.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people there are outside the guarantee and aim groups on employment training.

  Mr. Jackson
  A total of 62 per cent. of people on employment training were outside the aim and guarantee groups, as at October 1990, the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of employment training schemes that will be required to close as a result of cuts in the training budgets for training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The awarding of contracts for the provision of employment training is now the responsibility of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, and local enterprise companies in Scotland. The Employment Department does not keep figures on the withdrawal or participation of training providers in employment training.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is proposing any new initiative for training provision for special needs groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Local enterprise companies in Scotland and training and enterprise councils in England and Wales have been given the responsibility and flexibility to innovate and arrange the delivery of training to meet the varying needs of unemployed people in their area. I have no plans to set up any new initiatives for training provision for special needs groups.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what current steps he is taking to pursue the objective set out in "Training and Employment" of attracting returners to the labour market.

  Mr. Jackson
  Local enterprise companies in Scotland and training and enterprise councils in England and Wales have a contractual requirement to ensure equality of opportunity in all their activities. Returners to the labour market may enter employment training without being registered as unemployed, providing they have been out of employment for at least two years for domestic reasons. The framework within which local enterprise companies and training and enterprise councils operate gives them the flexibility to tailor their training with their domestic commitments—for example, with part-time participation—the use of distance learning material and support with childcare costs.

  Periods of Unemployment
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the average lengths of time that individuals are unemployed; and whether this varies as between different levels of income before and after the period of unemployment.

  Mr. Jackson
  In January 1991, the latest date for which information is available, the median duration of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 21·7 weeks. Information relating to income is not available.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent changes and reforms he has made in respect of Government training schemes; what is the financial impact of the changes; and what is the basic purpose of these changes.

  Mr. Jackson
  The most important recent change is that responsibility for planning and delivering training programmes at a local level has been given to the new employer-led training and enterprise councils. TECs have considerable flexibility, within a national framework set by Government, to tailor their training to meet local needs, and to evolve innovative approaches to developing skills and supporting business growth. Other significant changes include:Training credits, which are being piloting by 10 TECs, and one local enterprise company in Scotland. This initiative will expand and improve training for young people by giving them the power to choose and buy training to approved standards:
  the development of youth training, which assists young people to achieve nationally recognised vocational qualifications;
  the investors in people initiative, designed to encourage employers to improve performance through effective development to their people;
  education business partnerships, which are joint ventures between TECS and local education authorities involving employers, educationalists and others in the local community.

  The creation of TECs and the flexibilities they have will ensure that programmes are more effective and responsive to both business and individuals. This will in turn lead to improved value for money. The purpose of these changes is to help ensure that our economy has the skills it needs.

  Kilbarchan Quarry
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many times in the past 12 months the quarry in Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire, has been examined by health and safety inspectors.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive's quarries inspectorate has carried out two inspections at Kilbarchan quarry, Renfrewshire, during the past 12 months.

  Employment Office Closures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he has issued to the Employment Service Executive Agency in connection with the closure of employment offices in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Mr. Jackson
  The employment service's roles and responsibilities for the management of its estate are outlined in section 6 of the agency framework document, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. When considering the closure of an office, account will be taken of the comprehensiveness of the service available in the office concerned, business volumes, accessibility to other offices and whether resources are being best used.

  Strikes, Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes in Yorkshire in each of the past 12 years.
  423
  Jackson
  Industrial disputes data are only available by standard region. The data for Yorkshire and Humberside are given below:

  Year

  Working days lost

  (thousands)

  19901

  89

  1989

  325

  1988

  244

  1987

  339

  1986

  250

  1985

  2,076

  1984

  9,354

  1983

  415

  1982

  575

  1981

  449

  1980

  2,832

  1979

  3,115

  1 1990 data are provisional.

SCOTLAND

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evaluation he has undertaken of the enterprise initiative in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The enterprise initiative is a national initiative. Consequently, all evaluations of it have been undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry on a United Kingdom basis, taking account of, but not evaluating separately, Scottish participation.

  January

  February

  March

  April (1 to 15)

  Ullapool

  47

  100

  19

  —

  Peterhead

  —

  —

  190

  69

  No calls were made to Scrabster, Stornoway, Aberdeen or Shetland as these were not designated offices during the period specified.

  Child Care
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been taken into care in each Scottish local authority to protect them from abuse within their family, in each year since 1979.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Community placement1

  Residential placement2

  Community placement1

  Residential placement2

  Community placement1

  Residential placement2

  Borders

  8

  0

  4

  2

  4

  0

  Central

  18

  6

  27

  0

  21

  3

  Dumfries/Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  24

  5

  31

  6

  19

  3

  Grampian

  29

  5

  32

  0

  48

  6

  Highland

  11

  0

  8

  2

  27

  2

  Lothian

  0

  0

  1

  0

  16

  3

  Strathclyde3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  260

  81

  Tayside

  4

  9

  25

  6

  29

  6

  Orkney

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SCOTLAND

  94

  25

  129

  16

  424

  105

  1 Include at home, with relatives or friends, and foster parents.

  2 Include children's homes or hostels, residential schools, and assessment centres.

  3 Breakdown by individual grounds not available for Strathclyde in 1987 and 1988.

  424
  The following evaluations have been published and copies are available in the Libraries of the House:

  Evaluation of the Consultancy Initiatives

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  HMSO ISBN 0 11 514677 6;

  Evaluation of the Consultancy Initiatives—Second Stage

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  HMSO ISBN 0 11 515269 5;

  Evaluation of Regional Enterprise Grants

  Leslie Hays Consultants Ltd.

  HMSO ISBN 0 11 515236 9;

  Evaluation of Regional Enterprise Grants

  Segal Quince Wickstead

  HMSO ISBN 0 11 515273 3.

  Fishing Vessels (Callings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of reported callings by fishing vessels for each month from, and including, January into the ports of Scrabster, Stornoway, Ullapool, Aberdeen and Shetland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  United Kingdom fishing vessels intending to cross the 4° west line of longitude to the north of the Scottish mainland are required to contact a designated office of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. The designated offices were Ullapool, 1 January to 4 March 1991, and Peterhead, 5 March to date. The number of calls received at these offices were as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information relates to 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  The following figures show the number of children who have received compulsory measures of care in relation to grounds (d), (dd) and (e) of section 32(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, that is, as victims of offence, in the same households as schedule 1 offenders, and in the same households as incest victims.
  425
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the expenditure figures for each local authority area in social work each year since 1979 and the percentage of such expenditure on child care.

  Gross expenditure of social work (£000s), 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Borders

  2,732

  3,406

  4,099

  4,698

  5,137

  5,418

  5,881

  6,284

  6,744

  7,563

  8,440

  Central

  6,300

  7,938

  9,992

  11,594

  12,584

  13,939

  15,346

  16,727

  18,012

  19,984

  22,632

  Dumfries/ Galloway

  3,102

  3,812

  4,725

  5,318

  5,642

  6,297

  6,876

  7,566

  8,415

  9,263

  10,680

  Fife

  7,963

  10,451

  13,182

  15,411

  17,140

  18,497

  22,114

  23,433

  25,193

  28,681

  32,255

  Grampian

  11,528

  13,969

  17,706

  19,883

  22,014

  23,838

  25,859

  28,329

  30,388

  35,281

  39,505

  Highland

  4,398

  5,461

  6,942

  8,202

  9,063

  10,233

  11,210

  12,191

  12,458

  13,888

  15,313

  Lothian

  27,688

  36,451

  48,669

  53,111

  54,391

  55,770

  55,531

  59,676

  64,828

  71,844

  77,364

  Strathclyde

  78,713

  97,613

  121,651

  133,324

  144,962

  153,966

  163,267

  178,206

  180,271

  205,669

  230,846

  Tayside

  12,476

  15,764

  19,443

  21,914

  23,634

  25,129

  26,932

  29,553

  30,923

  34,264

  38,318

  Orkney

  723

  902

  1,624

  1,137

  1,221

  1,304

  1,459

  1,675

  1,745

  1,851

  2,172

  Shetland

  755

  958

  1,446

  1,852

  2,075

  2,284

  2,464

  2,691

  2,771

  3,029

  3,245

  Western Isles

  1,284

  1,771

  2,262

  2,686

  3,034

  3,370

  3,295

  3,578

  3,806

  3,875

  4,408

  SCOTLAND

  157,662

  198,496

  251,741

  279,130

  300,897

  320,045

  340,234

  369,909

  385,554

  435,192

  485,178

  Percentage of gross social work expenditure on child care, 1978–79—1988–89

  Percentages

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Borders

  11·8

  13·7

  11·9

  11·8

  11·9

  12·3

  11·3

  10·6

  11·9

  10·5

  9·7

  Central

  22·9

  22·3

  21·8

  21·2

  21·1

  21·1

  20·1

  19·6

  20·1

  17·8

  16·7

  Dumfries/Galloway

  14·5

  14·8

  12·3

  13·7

  14·1

  16·3

  14·0

  13·2

  12·3

  12·6

  14·3

  Fife

  19·8

  20·5

  20·1

  18·2

  18·8

  19·6

  16·1

  15·8

  12·2

  11·1

  9·5

  Grampian

  18·1

  17·3

  17·0

  16·1

  13·4

  15·4

  14·5

  14·5

  16·1

  15·0

  14·7

  Highland

  15·3

  15·1

  14·1

  15·4

  14·2

  13·7

  14·4

  14·4

  14·9

  12·4

  11·5

  Lothian

  22·3

  22·1

  22·0

  22·5

  21·6

  22·4

  19·9

  18·3

  19·9

  19·8

  20·1

  Strathclyde

  23·6

  23·6

  23·2

  23·0

  22·2

  22·5

  21·3

  20·1

  18·3

  19·9

  19·6

  Tayside

  21·6

  22·1

  12·5

  21·8

  21·4

  21·6

  18·7

  18·5

  19·2

  18·5

  16·2

  Orkney

  3·5

  2·9

  2·3

  3·2

  3·4

  3·9

  4·2

  3·6

  3·9

  3·3

  3·9

  Shetland

  6·1

  4·2

  3·5

  4·2

  4·7

  7·0

  7·3

  7·4

  8·1

  6·7

  6·9

  Western Isles

  3·8

  4·2

  3·5

  3·2

  3·3

  3·4

  2·7

  3·3

  3·3

  3·1

  3·3

  SCOTLAND

  21·6

  21·6

  20·4

  21·0

  20·2

  20·7

  19·1

  18·1

  17·5

  17·8

  17·4

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement of Government policy towards provision for the profoundly mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's policy on care for all people with mental handicaps is that where possible they should be enabled to live in the community with appropriate support.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the statutory obligations of central and local government towards the provision of care for the profoundly mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:
  426
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The social work gross expenditure figures for the years 1978–79 to 1988–89 and the percentage of expenditure attributed to child care are set out in the tables below.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

  Section (2)1

  Duty to provide, where need is established material assistance

  Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984

  Section 8

  Duty to provide after-care

  Section 9

  Duty to appoint mental health officers

  Section 11

  Duty to secure training and occupation for persons suffering from mental handicap

  Section 39(3)

  Duty to consider taking people into guardianship

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986

  Section 8

  Duty to consider carer's needs

  Section 13

  Duty to assess needs of young people leaving special care, for social work services

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his estimate of the numbers of profoundly mentally handicapped persons in each region outwith Strathclyde and within each district council area within Strathclyde;

  (2) what is his estimate of the numbers of profoundly mentally handicapped aged 16 years and over.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mentally Handicapped People

    SECRETARY OF STATE'S DUTIES DISCHARGED THROUGH HEALTH BOARDS
    National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978

    Section 1(1)

    Duty to promote in Scotland a comprehensive and integrated health service

    DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
    Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

    Section 5A

    Duty to prepare and publish community care plans

    Section 12

    Duty to promote social welfare

    Section 14

    Duty to provide or arrange home help services

    Section 61

    Duty to register establishments providing social care

    Section 68

    Duty to visit people in social care establishments

  Arson
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many arson attacks there were on Scottish schools in 1990; how many prosecutions resulted from such attacks; and what was the total cost to each Scottish education authority from arson.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, fire brigades attended 322 fires in educational establishments in Scotland, of which 176 were recorded as deliberate or possibly deliberate. Separate figures are not available for the numbers of such fires in schools. Information on prosecutions resulting from wilful fire-raising does not identify the type of property involved. Information on the cost to education authorities from such attacks is not collected centrally.

  Scottish Council on Alcohol

  Albyn House Aberdeen

  Sunnybrae Christian Centre

  Glasgow Council on Alcohol

  Drinkwise Orkney

  Inverness, Designated Place

  Renfrew Council on Alcohol

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  57,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  64,000

  150,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  68,325

  119,000

  5,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  70,100

  109,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  94,658

  109,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  117,045

  70,000

  2,155

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  124,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  143,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  142,190

  —

  —

  39,646

  13,363

  6,750

  —

  1990–91

  128,875

  —

  —

  —

  3,350

  153,350

  25,000

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been reported to children's panels for alcohol-related offences each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on referrals to reporters to children's panels for alcohol-related offences is available for only three regions and for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989. The figures are as follows:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Central

  9

  17

  16

  Grampian

  6

  9

  7

  Strathclyde

  134

  139

  91

  Non-court proceedings

  Reports received

  No proceedings

  No further proceedings1

  Warning letters

  Conditional offers

  Fiscal fines

  Diversions

  Balance resulting in court proceedings

  Court proceedings as percentage of total

  1980

  301,030

  36,324

  n/a2

  2,526

  n/a3

  n/a4

  n/a5

  262,180

  87·09

  1985

  339,317

  65,580

  n/a2

  20,123

  42,269

  n/a4

  n/a5

  211,345

  62·29

  1990

  366,472

  40,813

  12,303

  13,645

  99,791

  16,985

  1,403

  181,532

  49·54

  1 Proceedings discontinued.

  2 Not separately recorded.

  3 Conditional offers were introduced in 1984.

  4 Fiscal fines were introduced in 1988.

  5 No figures are available for the numbers of diversions in 1980 and 1985. Such disposals would have been recorded as "no proceedings".

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total Scottish local authority(a) current expenditure and (b) capital expenditure as a percentage of Scottish gross domestic product in real terms in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16 April to a similar question.

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding is provided by his Department to charities relating to alcohol abuse and related problems; and if he will specify(a) the charity and (b) the amounts given each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Financial assistance under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has been provided in the period concerned to the charitable bodies set out in the table.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of crime reports submitted to the procurators fiscal by the police resulted in court proceedings in 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information which is set out in the table below refers to court proceedings as a percentage of all reports submitted to procurators fiscal, whether by the police or other reporting agency. The first column details the number of reports received in each of 1980, 1985 and 1990. The subsequent columns detail the disposals for each of those years, although some of the disposals may relate to reports received in the preceding year.

  Health Service
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many national health service hospital beds were available and how many patients received hospital treatment in East Lothian in the first three months of 1981 and 1991, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures for the first quarter of 1981 are not available. At that date statistics relating to bed numbers and hospital treatment were recorded on an annual basis only. While statistics are now kept on a monthly basis, the figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent contact he has had with Arthritis Care; what issues were dealt with; and if he will make a statement about the development of rheumatology services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There has been no recent contact with Arthritis Care. The development of rheumatology services is a matter for health boards to determine.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the remuneration given to each health board chairman and members.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Friday 6 July 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker),Official Report, Vol. 175, column 733.

  Fife Social Work Department
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his report by Sheriff Kearney into Fife social work department; and if he will give details of the total costs of the inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The chairman of the inquiry into child care policies in Fife has finished hearing evidence from the parties concerned. My right hon. Friend is in correspondence with Sheriff Kearney about the likely date for submission of his report. I hope that we shall have his report by early summer. Pending completion of the inquiry, it is not possible to estimate its final costs.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is making to publish the management statement for Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Highlands and Islands Enterprise management statement sets out the financial, managerial and operational framework within which Highlands and Islands Enterprise will operate.

  I am arranging for copies to be laid in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Language Disorders
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the specialist schools for children with speech and language disorders in England at which pupils from Scotland are being educated with support from Scottish public funds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Play Areas (Accidents)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been reported hurt in serious accidents in local authorities' play areas in each district in Scotland during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: This information is not held centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans the Government have to put forward proposals calling for a higher status to be given to animal welfare in the treaty of Rome in the context of the inter-governmental conference;

  (2) whether he intends to support the proposal which would give a higher status to animal welfare in the treaty of Rome, tabled by the German Government in the context of the inter-governmental conference.

  Mr. Maclean
  The treaty already provides power for action to be taken on animal welfare in areas which the Government consider appropriate for Community action, notably the protection of farm animals. We will participate constructively in any discussions on proposals to give a stronger emphasis to animal welfare.

  Growth Promoters
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the prevalence of the use of hormones and other illegal growth promoters in other countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Residues Directive 86/469, EC member states are required to carry out a programme of surveillance for residues of veterinary drugs, including hormones and other illegal growth promoters. Details of results are required to be sent annually to the EC Commission, which has responsibility for making an assessment of the position. Results for 1990 are still being submitted to the Commission.

  Private Water Supplies
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the cost to farmers of the plans to charge for the monitoring of private water supplies.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government's consultation paper on private water supplies was circulated to interested parties earlier this year. Comments received including those covering farmers' interests are currently the subject of inter-departmental consideration.

  Irrigation, East Anglia
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the horticultural industry in East Anglia about National Rivers Authority restrictions on the extraction of irrigation water from bore holes.
  431
  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has received a number of letters and telephone calls from, and held meetings with, farmers and growers and their representatives in East Anglia. Their main concern is the possible restriction by the authority of abstraction for irrigation to the hours beween 6 am and noon.

  Whaling
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current policy concerning whaling for scientific and research purposes.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government oppose any whaling for scientific and research purposes unless the International Whaling Commission is satisfied that it would not endanger the whale stocks in question and would provide valuable information that could not be obtained through non-lethal methods. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in sponsoring or co-sponsoring IWC resolutions calling upon the Governments of Japan, Norway, Iceland and Korea to reconsider their research programmes which did not fully meet these criteria. Iceland and Korea are not now carrying on scientific research, and programmes by Japan and Norway involve much lower numbers than was originally planned. We shall continue our firm policy against unjustified scientific whaling.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet his(a) Japanese, (b) Norwegian and (c) Icelandic counterpart to discuss the moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Curry
  The Governments of Japan, Norway and Iceland are kept well aware of our views on the moratorium on commercial whaling. I have also raised it in my recent meeting in Norway with the Norwegian Fisheries Minister. The moratorium will be discussed again at the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Reykjavik at the end of May.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will continue to support a moratorium on commercial whaling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes: the conditions for lifting the moratorium are not met.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has sought any scientific advice on new whaling techniques.
  432
  Mr. Curry
  Developments in techniques have been reported to the International Whaling Commission each year and we shall be seeking a further evaluation of these at the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received about the moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received a great many representations about the moratorium on commercial whaling, many of which recognise the leading role the United Kingdom has played in working for the conservation of whales. We shall continue this work.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which environmental groups he has consulted about the moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials have recently discussed the moratorium on commercial whaling with representatives of Wildlife Link, the liaison body for the following major voluntary organisations in the UK concerned with wildlife: Care for the Wild, the Environmental Investigation Agency, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace UK, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the International League for the Protection of Cetaceans, the Marine Conservation Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the World Wide Fund for Nature. I shall be meeting them myself shortly.

  Screwworm Parasite Fly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money the United Kingdom contributes to the United Nations attempt to eradicate the American screwworm parasite fly in Libya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have been asked to reply. The United Kingdom has given full and early support to the screwworm eradication campaign, having contributed £ 1 million to a Food and Agriculture Organisation multi-donor trust fund. As further results of the programme become known, we will consider additional funding.

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

The British Film Industry
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to assist the British film industry.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are pursuing the initiatives to help the film industry which we announced last June. Through a working party chaired by the DTI, we are looking at ways of increasing private sector investment in production. We are also considering proposals for a film commission and ways to promote British films overseas. We have agreed to provide £5 million over three years to encourage co-production with European partners. We are working with the industry to secure the maximum advantage from European programmes, including the recently extended MEDIA programme.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister say whether, in spite of what he has just said, the Government have the same enthusiasm for helping the British film industry as they had when Mrs. Thatcher convened the seminar at No.10 Downing Street in June of last year? Why, after nearly a year, has the working party's report to which he referred not been issued, particularly as cinema attendances have shown a significant increase in the past year or two? Is the Minister aware that the film industry itself is not asking for hand-outs but is looking for reasonable tax incentives so that it can compete with film makers in other countries?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, much progress has been made. The European Community has extended its MEDIA programme. The report on the proposed national film commission has been completed and is under consideration. The European co-production fund will start shortly as planned. There have been 25 meetings of the working party looking at private sector investment and further meetings are planned. We hope that the report will be ready for this summer.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, although my noble friend's Answer is quite hopeful in a general way, will he not be a little more specific? Does he remember that in his Budget Statement the Chancellor said that, although he could not accept all the film industry 's proposals, he had a great deal of sympathy with them and added, rather constructively I thought, that, if it would bring forward new alternatives, he would look at them with sympathy. Has anything happened in that direction?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there have been a number of meetings. My noble friend is absolutely correct to say that the Chancellor said that he is prepared to consider any new proposals put to him. It is important that we wait until the working party's report is available so that he can look at all the circumstances regarding any new proposals.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister referred many times to the working party set up as a result of the Downing Street seminar. Does he agree that it was set up so that there could be closer integration between the production, distribution and exhibition sectors of the film industry? However, is it not true that, in spite of what the Minister said, the Government have this week ruled out any regulatory action to bring about that integrated structure and are winding up the working party? Would the Minister like to comment on that point?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not think that the Government have ruled out anything. Like everyone else, they are awaiting the working party's report.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on that point, but will the Minister say that the working party is not being wound up? According to my information, which came from a member of the working party, it is being wound up and the Government now refuse to take any regulatory action on restructuring the film industry.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the working party is not being wound up and that we are awaiting its report.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in the mid-1980s the Government ended the Eady levy on cinema admissions for many reasons, including the fact that admissions were at an all-time low? They have now increased by about 40 million a year. Is there any chance that a levy of that kind, perhaps modified, might be introduced in the near future?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not want to pre-empt the working party's report, which looks at ways in which private sector investment in film production might be increased. The Government are looking for voluntary solutions. We welcome the increase in the number of people who go to the cinema and the fact that cinema exhibitors have spent considerable amounts of money in upgrading their cinemas and building new ones, which has led to that encouraging rise in admissions.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if there was sufficient help from the Government for the British film industry, we too might be able to produce cartoon films of Beatrix Potter's works and have Peter Rabbit speaking with an English, or perhaps Scottish, accent and Mrs. Tiggywinkle taking in washing rather than laundry?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we support the industry with over £17 million, including £2 million for British

131
Screen Finance Limited, £1.85 million for the National Film and Television School and £14 million for the British Film Institute.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that something must be wrong when an established film maker such as Sir Richard Attenborough, with films like "Gandhi" behind him, has great difficulty in raising funds in this country for his forthcoming film on the life of Charlie Chaplin, who after all was born in this country? In those circumstances, is it not clearly evident that something should be done?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is always difficult to raise money to make films, but perhaps I should point out the recent example of the Oscar-winning film, "Dances with Wolves". Although this is an American film and production, the director has been quoted as saying that his film could not have been produced without significant United Kingdom investment. There is investment for the right films, both in this country and elsewhere.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for tax purposes films should qualify as plant and machinery, as they presently do in the Republic of Ireland? Does he feel that that might help the industry?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that that is a matter which the working party will consider and so will the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the other decision which was taken after the Downing Street seminar was that there would be £5 million made available immediately to the industry? Will he confirm that nearly a year afterwards not a single penny of that money has yet been spent? Secondly, although he has had a great deal to say about the proposed film commission, will he give the House some idea of its terms of reference? Some of us fancy that it might be somewhat cosmetic.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with regard to the film commission, the industry's working group submitted a proposal to my noble friend Lord Hesketh, recommending the setting up of a national film commission to attract overseas producers to this country. He will make a statement as soon as an examination of the proposal is complete.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister answer the first part of the question please?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I pointed out the various amounts of money that had been given to fund specific bodies. I do not think that I can go further than that.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that still does not answer the question.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are constantly spending money on various aspects of the film industry, as I pointed out, and I explained the budgets that we have.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, following on from an article in one of the Sunday papers, will the noble Viscount tell the House whether the Government have as yet a fixed date to meet the representatives of the film industry?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are meeting representatives of the film industry all the time. The working party will be extended to include other members of the film industry as its work goes forward and before its final report is produced.

Share Ownership
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in widening share ownership, excluding privatisation issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the latest Treasury/Stock Exchange survey shows that in 1991 20 per cent. of the adult population own shares, excluding privatisation shares, compared with 7 per cent. in 1979.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, despite those figures, is the Minister aware that the personal sector is a net seller of equities to the tune of £3 billion per annum? Will he accept that that trend is due to the high cost of dealing for private investors and the lack of effective fiscal incentive? Should that trend continue, is it government policy that the financial institutions should end up in virtually total ownership of British industry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, 20 per cent. of the population now own shares, excluding privatisation shares, and if we include them that figure rises to 25 per cent. The figure has steadily grown in virtually every year since 1979. I accept that a large proportion is still held by the institutions but that is no bad thing. Institutions in themselves are not ogres. In effect, that reflects the dramatic growth in, for example, occupational pension provision as more and more people become entitled to occupational pensions or have taken out personal pensions, and obviously a growth in funds that those institutions now hold.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that employee shareholdings are particularly valuable from the broadest national point of view? Are the Government considering giving fiscal encouragement to their increase?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will know that we welcome all employee profit-sharing schemes or employee save-as-you-earn related share option schemes. He will be aware that they have grown. I believe that by March 1990 some 1,800 such schemes had been approved, with a total of 2.25 million employees benefiting from shares worth an initial value of some £6.5 billion.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are the Government aware that, although it is perfectly true that they have given considerable encouragement to employee ownership schemes, there is some evidence that they

133
seem to be wearying of well doing, and at the moment there are no proposals to carry that excellent process further? There are still many obstacles. Indeed the cost of dealing has been mentioned as being one of them. Apart from that, there are other fiscal obstacles to the spread of ownership which could be removed. Can the Government give us some assurance that amendments to the Finance Bill which are intended to achieve that object will be favourably considered?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there have been complaints that some of the statutory schemes are too complex. But firms can select the schemes which are best suited to their own needs. Her Majesty's Government would like to encourage such schemes and certainly want to see them grow. I mention yet again for the record that some 1,800 schemes had been approved by March 1990.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the greatest obstacles to wider share ownership are, first, the much higher minimum commissions which have prevailed since the Big Bang almost five years ago and, secondly, the very wide spread between bid and offer prices faced by relatively small investors a spread that can be 10 times greater than that enjoyed by institutional investors dealing in very large bargains?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there might be a problem. There are also the problems of lack of awareness, lack of interest and lack of knowledge of the stock market. Privatisations have had a very great success in increasing the public's awareness and therefore increasing the number of other shares in which people have taken some interest.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is not in the least surprising that the costs of putting through a share transaction hardly vary with the size of the transaction. Therefore the difference between bid and offer for a small trader will clearly be much larger than for a large trader.
However, do I recall correctly that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had something to say on this subject in the Budget; namely, that he proposed to try to make it easier for the small trader on these matters? Have the Government any view as to why it should be so much more difficult for someone to trade in stocks and shares than in almost any other goods or services in the economy? It seems a strange state of affairs. In particular are the Government making any progress on what the Chancellor seemed to suggest?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot take the noble Lord much further than to refer to what my right honourable friend said at the time of the Budget. He mentioned share shops and the increased advantages to the general public in dealing in shares by such means. He went on to say in his Budget Statement:
"I am today inviting proposals from the private sector for arrangements to distribute shares directly to the public through high street retail networks".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/91; col. 178.]
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord forgetting that before privatisation 100 per cent. of the population were shareholders?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that. I repeat to the noble Lord that in 1979 only about 7 per cent. of the population owned shares and none of the population owned privatisation shares.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while there are substantial fiscal incentives for personal equity plans, those fiscal incentives are not available for employee stock ownership plans? Have the Government any proposals to even out this playing field?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that there is an uneven playing field. There are fiscal incentives, as the noble Lord rightly says, for PEPs. However, while I boasted earlier about the Government's record in widening share ownership, we should also like to see a greater depth in that share ownership. We see the fiscal incentives in PEPs as one way of encouraging that.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, are there any figures to show how many employees of a firm have shares in that firm?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no figures on that. However, I shall find out whether such figures exist and write to the noble Lord.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct in stating that the Government's privatisation programme has been a help in this area? Surely a number of new investors who have made a relatively easy profit find that when faced with the realities of everyday trading on the Stock Exchange it is a very different matter to work profitably in the stock market.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will find that some 14 per cent. of the public own privatisation shares. Five per cent. own only privatisation shares. A great many people who have been introduced to share owning by privatisation shares have gone on to own other shares because of the greater familiarisation with the stock market and its workings.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with a view formed from personal experience that private shareholders tend to be more loyal to their company than institution shareholders? Therefore, it is unfortunate that the concentration of shareholding is moving away from those who are loyal to those who tend on the whole, regrettably, to take a short-term benefit.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already answered the question. I accepted that the proportion of equity held by individuals might be declining. The percentage of individuals owning shares has increased dramatically.

Developing Countries: Economic Aid
2.54 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are giving or proposing to give to help developing countries to achieve economic development without damaging the global environment.
Lord Reay: My Lords, all British aid is designed to promote sustainable economic and social development while taking account of environmental considerations. We are providing special help to developing countries to tackle global environmental problems such as climate change. Last November the Government announced a new public expenditure survey sub-programme separate from the aid budget for developing countries on global environmental assistance. From this we are contributing £40 million to the global environment facility jointly managed by the World Bank, the United Nations environment programme and the United Nations development programme, and about £8 million to the fund established under the Montreal Protocol to help developing countries phase out ozone depleting substances.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that constructive Answer. Are the Government now preparing for next year's Rio conference where this will be a central issue? If so, what line do they propose to take at that conference in light of the proposal that a special fund should be set up to help developing countries to develop without damaging the environment?
In this very significant area—perhaps the most important of the next 50 years—will the Government consider setting up a working party of members of the Department of the Environment, the Overseas Development Administration, the Department of Trade and Industry and other experts, including those in this House, to prepare a specific policy to place before the Rio conference in its attempts to solve the problem?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the sub-programme to which I referred, which is a new budget line, is managed by the ODA and will be used for Britain's contribution to the global environment facility. We believe that that facility fully meets the needs for new mechanisms to help developing countries. It should become the funding mechanism under the proposed conventions on climate change and biodiversity which are currently being prepared for signature at the conference in Rio to which the noble Lord referred and at which we hope to play a full part.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that with regard to the environment one of the most important ways that this country helps developing countries at present is through the secondment of people from the Forestry Commission and other agricultural organisations to encourage forestry and agricultural matters in those countries?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that our encouragement of forestry is an important part of our aid programme. There are major and growing overseas development aid programmes in the forestry field. For example, in October 1988 the ODA was financing about 80 forestry projects at an aid programme cost of £45 million. In early 1991 the ODA had ongoing, or in preparation, over 200 forestry projects at an estimated aid programme cost of £160 million.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are not the main culprits the countries of the developed world? Can the noble Lord say what specific steps are being taken in this country to develop clean technology? While I agree with what my noble friend said about the importance of the Rio de Janeiro conference next year, will there not shortly be a conference between EC Foreign Ministers and the Foreign Ministers of South America? Is this subject on the agenda for that meeting?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have the agenda to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition refers. I shall look into the matter and let him know.
Technology transfer is an important factor in helping developing countries to tackle their environmental problems. We believe that the commercial mechanisms are the best route for the safe and effective transfer of that technology.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that one of the best ways of helping developing countries is by reducing their burden of debt, much of it incurred when economic conditions were different and commodity prices a good deal higher? Are they following the admirable lead set by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Lawson?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Britain has taken the lead in international debt relief efforts, in particular for the poorest countries which are pursuing economic reforms. At last year's Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Trinidad my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that the Paris Club should reduce by two-thirds the bilateral debt of those countries. We are working for early agreement to that proposal which could lead to a reduction of some 18 billion dollars in the debt of the poorest countries.
Lord Peston: My Lords, did the Minister say that it is the Government's view that commercial considerations should be dominant in considering the development of these technologies? Is he not aware that the most fundamental proposition in the economics of the environment is that that is the one area in which commercial considerations cannot possibly do the right job? It is in no one's commercial interest not to pollute the atmosphere and therefore governments must involve themselves in such matters.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is an over-simplified view. I was referring to the transfer of technology and in countries such as ours the major companies develop

137
and own such technologies. Only if the property rights are respected can the transfer of technology be encouraged.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently the Department of Trade and Industry held a symposium on this subject? It was most impressive and showed the progress that has been made by British firms to develop suitable technologies and equipment for dealing with the environmental problem s. Is the Minister further aware that the main issue is to stimulate the export and transfer of such technologies to the countries which need them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that. It appears to answer the noble Lord opposite.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, in Eastern European countries approximately one-third of the locally produced food is lost between harvest and consumption. In developing countries the amount is about two-thirds. Therefore, is it not more appropriate that the Government should channel aid into transferring technology on packaging and transport? That would considerably increase the local food supply without causing damage to the environment. One notes that from the recorded aid given to, say, Czechoslovakia, it is spent on banks, macro-economics, the training of the federal Minister of Economy and so forth. Does the Minister agree that aid given to keep the food that is grown might be more helpful?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not an expert on the subject raised by the noble Lord. However, I am happy to take on board his point and pass it on to my honourable friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, other than food, the biggest necessity for developing countries is an adequate energy supply. Bearing that in mind, from where do the Government believe that necessity will come, given the increasing world population, without further polluting the atmosphere?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as countries develop they will need to use more energy which could add to global environmental problems such as climate change. There is a need to promote further energy efficiency and conservation so that their development may continue unimpaired without unnecessarily adding to the global environmental damage. The ODA supports projects to promote energy efficiency and conservation in developing countries and intends to continue to do so.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, what support have the Government given to intermediate technology; that is, the designing of equipment which is simple to make locally? People in the third world can use that without the expense and environmentally damaging effect of heavy equipment imported from other countries.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point that has been taken on board by the ODA.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I too was disappointed to hear the Minister's comment about
138
reliance on market forces. Is he aware that the present chairman of his party, Mr. Chris Patten, when he was Minister of State for the Environment said that this is one of the areas in which market forces are not sufficient and in which intervention is essential if disaster is not to follow? Does the Minister accept that this form of intervention and supportive intervention through the DTI could assist in the export of many environmentally friendly technologies which have been developed in this country? That would assist trade in this country while at the same time help to avert the disaster which will arise if the developing countries are not assisted to do so without damaging the environment.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made plain in my original Answer the fact that we are doing a great deal to encourage development while at the same time encouraging protection of the world environment.

NHS Hospital Waiting Lists
3.5 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current average length of waiting lists in NHS hospitals.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, information is not collected for individual hospitals. However, the average number of patents waiting for in-patient treatment in each district health authority at September 1990 was 3,564, excluding those patients who asked to have their admission deferred. The average figure is not meaningful because of the variation in the population served by health authorities and by the hospitals within them. What matters, of course, is the time that patients wait. In 1989-90 the number of patients waiting more than a year fell by 7 per cent. and in the first half of 1990-91 it fell by a further 2 per cent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the British Medical Association believes that the Government are concealing the true situation? It has published its findings showing that there are 16,000 more people on the waiting list than there were in 1990. Can the Minister comment on that and say whether the Government intend to talk to the BMA about it?
Can the Minister also give consideration to another practice that is causing anxiety within the medical profession and among people who must wait for operations? I refer to local health districts being able to pay for patients in their areas to go to specialist hospitals for specialist operations. Is the Minister aware that many people in the medical profession and many patients believe that to be a form of queue jumping totally alien to the concept of our National Health Service?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I contend that the BMA figures are wrong and that ours are right. The figures that I provide at this Dispatch Box are statistically validated unless otherwise stated.

139
I have seen press reports about queue jumping which represent a misunderstanding. In some cases hospitals ask DHAs for money in respect of priority areas; for instance, cancer hospitals may ask for special funds for radiography and chemotherapy.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, according to figures published by the Minister's department last week—not by the BMA nor any other body—there was a total of 957,600 people on the waiting list in September 1990. Does the Minister accept that they are the worst September figures ever recorded since the health service was established? What has happened to all the money that we are continually told is being put into the special fund to reduce waiting lists that the lists should be increasing so dramatically?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there was a decrease of 1 per cent. in the six months to September but there was an increase of more than 2 per cent. in each of the three previous six-month periods. We are treating 1 per cent. more patients from the list than we were last year and 6 per cent. more than two years ago. That answers the question about the special fund.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in the private sector, private health insurance companies are negotiating with hospitals abroad with the object of reducing the waiting lists? Can he say what is the mystery that prevents the National Health Service too from seeking to obtain the same advantages by starting negotiations?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have not come to the House prepared to answer that question. However, I shall be pleased to carry out some research and write to my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, can the Minister explain the phrase "statistically validated" that he used with great assurance as proving conclusively that the Government's figures are right and the BMA's figures are wrong? Alas, in the past many statistics have turned out not to be wholly valid.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is rather a loose definition. I understand that. The system employed by the department is to receive figures from the regions which then have to be looked at and adjusted. I am telling the House that we are being consistent. Perhaps I may add to that. The latest fast track figures show a further 12 per cent. fall in patients waiting for over a year in the five months to February 1991. By "fast track" I mean that those figures have not been through the normal validation checks.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that within the Merseyside Health Authority area the number of people waiting over two years has been reduced by 98 per cent. and there are now only 53 people on the waiting list? That has been achieved by carrying out government policy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I agree with those figures. It is an example of what good management can achieve.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that government policy has depopulated Liverpool from a figure of 800,000 to 500,000?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe that that is another Question.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people on a waiting list for two years—and we understand that the figure is now less than it was two years ago—may well have died in the interim, thus no longer necessitating an operation?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I must acknowledge that that can happen. However, in 1989–90 7.5 million in-patients from all specialties were treated which was over 24 per cent. more than in 1979. A total of 1.2 million day cases were treated in 1989–90, almost double the number in 1979. It is a pity that noble Lords opposite do not acknowledge the success of the NHS, not because that gives comfort to the Government, which does not matter very much, but because they are undermining the work of hundreds of thousands of workers at the rock face of the service.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, gave an excellent reply to a similar Question in another place on 3rd April 1979 when he admitted that the numbers on the waiting lists then were higher than ever before? However, he said that one had to take into account the fact that more patients were being treated then than ever before. Does not my noble friend agree further that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made a very good point in the same reply when he said that one of the reasons for long waiting lists was the way in which the waiting lists were managed or not managed?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I must agree with my noble friend that that was a good reply. The fact is that we are treating more patients than ever before.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it must be that the memory of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, fails him or that his statistical analysis is wrong. Will the Minister accept that the figure of 140,000 more people on waiting lists than ever before is a figure worse than any announced by any Labour Secretary of State? Will he accept also that the September figures which his department published last week show for the first time a fall of 23,000 in the number of in-patients who have been treated? Therefore, the Government's argument that they are treating more patients has also fallen apart.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the figures do not show a worse situation. Many people are on the waiting lists because the service is more active. The number of admissions from the waiting lists in the six months to September 1990 has fallen by 1 per cent. compared with the previous six months. As it happens, that is still higher than the corresponding six months in the previous year. However, such minute fluctuations tell us very little. Since 1979 the annual

141
rate of surgical acute activity, which is so important, has increased steadily with a dip only in 1982 by nearly 30 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question? Is it not true that at present the waiting lists are 140,000 higher than they ever were even in the worst months of industrial disputes under the Labour Government?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord insists upon using the word "worst". The overall figures of those on the waiting lists are higher than they have ever been before. On the other hand, the number of in-patients waiting is lower than when the noble Lord was in office.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people are waiting for treatment and operations which had not been invented and could not have been carried out in 1979? To some extent that is a mark of the affluent and successful society in which we live.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the British Medical Association and the royal colleges are disturbed at the fact that no less than 4,000 beds were closed last year? They are also worried that due to administrative problems patients are put on the wrong waiting lists. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and other noble Lords have said, because of the Government's action in trying to destroy our National Health Service a number of consultants have resigned.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there is no simple relationship between the number of beds and the service we offer. I am not aware of the other problem mentioned by the noble Lord, but I shall look into it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I must invite your Lordships to move on to the next business because we decided that we should bring Starred Questions to an end after 30 minutes.

Business
Viscount Long: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the local government review.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Readings of the Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill and the Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill will be taken.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 50 [Custodial sentences]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95ZA to 95ZD not moved.]
Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Attendance centre orders]:
[Amendment No. 95ZE not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 95A not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton: moved Amendment No. 95AA:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Consultative Council on Youth Crime
.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this section there shall be a body known as the Consultative Council on Youth Crime.
(2) Her Majesty's Government shall appoint not less than twelve members of the Council including representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Department of Health, the prison service, the probation service, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Crown Prosecution Service and national non-governmental organisations.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Consultative Council on Youth Crime to co-ordinate policies to reduce crime among persons aged under 21, to draw up and issue minimum standards for services for young offenders, to establish local committees for the implementation of policies to reduce youth crime and from time to time to issue guidance to local committees established under this subsection.
(4) Local committees established under subsection (3) above shall include representatives of the magistracy, the judiciary, the police service, the probation service, social services departments, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the education service and voluntary organisations.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the insertion in the Bill of a consultative council on youth crime. At Second Reading I indicated that I would move this amendment. It is a proposal that Action on Youth Crime considers to be essential if the new proposals in the Bill, including a youth court, are to work efficiently and to best effect. A conference convened by Action on Youth Crime in December last year was attended by representatives of all those who will be concerned with the working of the youth court. They concurred on the need for a body of this kind. I do not wish to press for every dot and comma of it, but I am putting forward a proposal for consideration by the Government.
NACRO's Young Offenders' Committee is contemplating something on these lines although it has not yet reported. I also draw the Government's attention to the recommendations made by Lord

143
Justice Woolf in paragraphs 10.57 to 10.88 of his report where he calls for a two-tier forum for consultation on much the same lines as my amendment but in more detail, and which should be applied across the board to the whole of the criminal justice system instead of to youth crime only, as I propose.
His proposal is that the new local committee structure should replace the existing regional liaison committees as part of the national council, which is the wider body and the main subject of those paragraphs. He regarded a council structure of this nature as being essential for the whole of the criminal justice system. I, and Action on Youth Crime, are concerned only with youth crime. We thought it appropriate to put forward this amendment to the Bill. Anything wider would be outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not expect that the Government's thinking on this matter has yet been formulated. It is an important subject. I wonder whether they are prepared to make a statement about the structure which I have put forward in the amendment. Perhaps they can give us some early thinking on the structure which Lord Justice Woolf proposes in paragraph 10 of his report. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: From these Benches I support this amendment. One of the defects that Lord Justice Woolf's report revealed was a failure of co-operation between the various agencies that are concerned with the operation of the criminal justice system. Perhaps I may quote very briefly from that report at paragraph 10.169 which states:
"We agree there is such a geological fault in the system. In our view it lies across all the agencies in the Criminal Justice System. It is a failure of co-operation. It shows itself in gaps in communication, in the necessary co-ordination, and in the wider consideration of developments in the Criminal Justice System".
He recommended that the "fault" should be bridged. He said:
"The form of the bridge would have to be determined by those who would have the responsibility for setting it up".
His proposal was that,
"a national forum should be established to consider at the highest level the interaction of each of the agencies to which we have referred. It should consider matters affecting either the Criminal Justice System as a whole or affecting more than one of the agencies which form a central part of that system".
He proposes that it should be called a "criminal justice consultative council". Perhaps the title is not of any great importance. He also recommended the establishment of local committees and said:
"A Local Committee should, within its locality, primarily be concerned with practical problems thrown up because of the interfaces between the various services involved in dealing with crime".
I draw the attention of the Committee to subsection (2) of the new clause which is designed to achieve precisely that kind of co-ordination and co-operation referred to in Lord Justice Woolf's report. The membership of this consultative council would include representatives,
"of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Department of Health, the prison service, the probation
144
service, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Crown Prosecution Service and national non-governmental organisations".
So it is precisely the kind of organisations which Lord Justice Woolf was referring to when he identified what he called the "geological fault" in the criminal justice system.
In subsection (3) of the proposed new clause it is stated that the duty of the consultative council would be to,
"co-ordinate policies to reduce crime among persons aged under 21, to draw up and issue minimum standards for services for young offenders, to establish local committees …"
That is a sensible proposal. It is certainly in line with the philosophy underlying the recommendations in the Woolf Report, though this amendment is probably of necessity somewhat narrower than the proposal which Lord Justice Woolf was making. If there is a gap of the kind which he has identified in the system, perhaps we should be thinking seriously about what we can do to fill it. This proposal goes part of the way.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I also support this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give the Committee some encouragement about it. This provision is very relevant to the present period when there is a prevention of crime week or month in progress. Everything depends very largely on the co-operation between agencies, which have been established by co-operation, in relation to juvenile crime which, as the Committee well knows, has been substantially reduced as a result of that co-operation. It also depends on a direct assault on youth crime because they are the people who commit the majority of crime in this country. They are the offenders who can be turned and changed and made not to repeat offences which they committed in the early years. I support this amendment most strongly and hope that the noble Earl will be able to give encouragement.
Earl Ferrers: The face of juvenile justice has changed beyond all recognition during the past 10 to 12 years. The number of known juvenile offenders under 17 years of age was lower in 1989 than at any time over the past 15 years. With our increased emphasis on cautioning and keeping young people out of the formal court system wherever that is possible, the number of juveniles it has been necessary to bring before the courts has fallen by two-thirds since the early 1980s.
We are all concerned that custody should be the last resort for young people. The use of custodial sentences for juveniles has fallen by three-quarters since 1981. I think that these are all very real and welcome achievements. I am sure that they are supported on all sides of the Committee. It is significant that it has not required a new statutory agency of the kind which is proposed in the amendment in order to bring about that situation.
There have been national initiatives to set the policy context. For example, in 1983 the Department of Health launched a funding initiative for intermediate treatment; and in 1985 the Home Office issued guidance on the cautioning of juvenile offenders. It is not necessary to have a national agency to have coherent national policies. Nor is it necessary to have

145
a national agency or statutory local committees to ensure local co-ordination of policies. The successes I have mentioned have depended upon people working in a range of agencies and functions up and down the country. Close liaison among them has been necessary. Sometimes local committees of one kind or another have been established to inform and guide local practice. This is worthwhile and commendable, but it does not require statutory arrangements to bring it about. Flexibility to respond to local circumstances has been the key.
Similar initiatives are under way with the older 17 to 20-year age group building on the experience with younger offenders. In 1988 the Home Office issued an action plan on tackling offending which encouraged all local agencies to plan systematically together their work with young adult offenders. The probation service was in the lead, and encouraged to submit local action plans to the Home Office. Last year the Home Office issued national standards for cautioning. These specifically encouraged the police to apply to young adult offenders the principles and arrangements, including inter-agency liaison, that have worked so well for juveniles. The Home Office has also established a funding programme for voluntary sector projects working with young adult offenders. To ensure that the projects are integrated with other local arrangements the applications have to be supported by the local probation service.
The noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Richard, referred to the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is quite right that the amendment goes rather less wide than Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. We shall give our considered response to all Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations, including that for a criminal justice forum, in the White Paper which my right honourable friend intends to publish later this year. It is important to be able to see all these recommendations in context as opposed to picking out various bits and pieces and inserting them in the Bill. Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations are very important and need consideration. Action needs to be taken on them in a concerted fashion.
Much relevant work is being done and has been going on for some time in respect of juveniles and juvenile offenders. The Bill will take us further. Of particular importance are the arrangements for dealing with 16 and 17 year-olds. These are very early days, but we are already beginning to see the impact. The number of known young adult offenders was lower in 1989 than at any time in the decade. The number cautioned has been steadily increasing. The number given custodial sentences in 1989 was lower than it has been for many years.
These changes mark real progress. They have been brought about without creating new agencies and invoking new procedures. The Government hope to continue in that way. We would not wish to be diverted from the task by the need to set up and run the arrangements which the new clause would impose. That could be counterproductive. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will
146
agree that it would be better at this juncture not to impose parts of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl sits down, is he in fact saying that if something is recommended by Lord Justice Woolf we must not have it in the Bill? That is what his reply seemed to amount to. It cannot be what the noble Earl meant. I should like him to make it perfectly clear that it was not.
Earl Ferrers: I tried to make it clear to the Committee that Lord Justice Woolf produced an important report which included a great many recommendations. It is important to study the whole report to see how best to include those recommendations in the whole of the criminal justice system, and not pick out odd bits and pieces and insert them in the Bill. The Government intend to reply to Lord Justice Woolf's report in the fairly near future. I am suggesting that it would be better to wait until we have the whole concept of the reply rather than to act upon it piecemeal.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Earl is saying what I was afraid he was saying—that if Lord Justice Woolf makes a recommendation we cannot have it in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is not entirely correct. I think it would be better to wait until we see all Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. We can then see how they can be incorporated in law and in the criminal justice system rather than pick out individual bits and pieces and put them into the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: I had the very exciting experience of speaking in crime prevention week to a crime prevention meeting in Wales. It was aimed particularly at the young. At the meeting all the agencies referred to in the amendment were represented. They were working together. It was so remarkable that one felt that this must happen all over Great Britain. The difference was that in Wales those involved had gone to the Welsh Office which had helped them to set this up. It is not much use having a crime prevention week and spending £4.5 million on advertising and telling people to set up these different groups and then giving them no help or resources. If something of this nature is officially prepared, such groups would be formed everywhere. If it is left to the unfortunate crime prevention officer who will have no extra resources and precious little time, it is unlikely that we shall see really good crime prevention exercises. That is what we want. We want crime prevented.
I would say in passing that in my area the local superintendent set up a splendid youth club four or five years ago. The youth club is now having to close in order to save money for the education service. It seems ironic that at the same time as the Government are calling for crime prevention exercises they are closing some of the very places where young people can go to avoid becoming involved in crime. This will

147
not be a costly consultative council. It will be the national focal point which will stimulate the interest of all the different divisions and areas.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I find it somewhat difficult to know what to do with the amendment. I see the force of the noble Earl's argument that we should wait for the Government's considered response to Lord Justice Woolf before embarking on perhaps a corner of one of his proposals. This proposal could not have been the complete Woolf proposal because of the Long Title of the Bill which narrows our scope to youth crime. That is why the amendment is so narrowly drawn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was absolutely correct. There is a desire for this proposal all over the country among those who will have to work the system. They are ready to co-operate and want to but they do not have the funding. They are very concerned that the youth court will not be a success because machinery of this kind is not being proposed by the Government. They are very anxious about the funding without which they will be bound hand and foot.
I recall that earlier in our proceedings the noble Lord the Leader of the House gave an assurance that there would be no shortage of funds to put the proposals in the Bill into effect. That was a very welcome assurance. However, officers all over the country find that they are not being promised the kind of funds they want. For instance, the north east probation area, far from receiving more money for the new proposals, is being told that it will receive less money. That means at least one whole probation service within that north east area will have to close. That is the kind of discrepancy between what the people on the ground think they will need and what the Government say they will get. The Government would be able to obtain a better idea of the amount of funds local authorities will need if a structure of the kind suggested is set up.
I fear that if nothing of this kind goes into the Bill until the Government have made up their minds in regard to the Woolf Report, the people on the ground will be bereft of the necessary funds and consultatory machinery that they deem to be essential. When I say, "people on the ground" I mean not only the people from whom I am receiving information—the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the Association of Directors of Social Services—but also NACRO and the principal voluntary organisations that will be involved in much of the effort in keeping young people out of prison. They include the National Children's Home and the Rainer Foundation. All those organisations are pressing for this kind of consultatory machinery, as well as Lord Justice Woolf.
I ask the Government to take the matter seriously. I appreciate the improvement in the juvenile crime statistics that has taken place over the past few years. That is a tremendous achievement. However, I do not want to say that it is complacent thinking; it is perhaps inadequate thinking to suggest that that happy result was brought about without machinery of the kind
148
suggested. The way to look at the matter is that a better result would have been obtained if consultative machinery had been in existence.
Lord Elton: Can my noble friend say a little more about the principles behind the amendment? I realise the difficulty in regard to the timing of the Woolf Report and I welcome the improvement in statistics, which is impressive and definitely welcome. However, I have noticed, in an area in which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and I are both active, that a contributory factor to the alleviation of the ills of juvenile offending and custody is the bringing about of co-operation and understanding between the various agencies listed in subsection (4) of the amendment.
Subsection (3) lays various spending duties on the new body, which I understand may be unwelcome to a spending Minister. However, if my noble friend were to examine subsection (4) separate from subsection (3) he could perhaps say something about the fruitful products of co-operation between those organisations which at present are conducted entirely ad hoc or at the instigation of such bodies as the Intermediate Treatment Fund. That organisation goes out into the field to bring the various agencies together, often for the first time, with the result that they develop initiatives which divert young people from custody and provide alternatives to custody when they have offended.
Many of us would be greatly encouraged if we felt that that was the aim the Government were pursuing rather than being told that we must wait to see whether or not it is an aim that they wish to pursue. I commend it to my noble friend as an aim that he should be pursuing.
Earl Ferrers: I assure my noble friend that it is the Government's aim to ensure that the agencies co-operate. In the criminal justice system there are a number of different agencies. They sometimes have overlapping powers and meeting points. It is important that they should not act in isolation. Inevitably, if one is not careful there may be areas where co-operation is not as good as it should be. I have always been amazed, when visiting different parts of the country, to see how good is the co-operation. That should be encouraged.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for saying that he understands the Government's dilemma. It is not a dilemma which makes me wish to frustrate anything that the noble Lord or anyone else wishes to do in regard to the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf. The inquiry was of enormous importance and we must study how best we can put together all the bits and pieces of it. However, we should be cautious before attempting to include bits and pieces of the recommendations—however worthy they may be—in the Bill.
I was concerned to hear the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, say that there is a lack of funding. I shall certainly look at that point. I am bound to say that I have not found that there is a great lack of funding for crime prevention groups. The budget for crime prevention

149
currently runs at around £16 million a year, which is not a n inadequate sum. However, I shall certainly look at the lack of funds which the noble Baroness suggests is occurring in certain areas.
Returning to the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton, I assure the Committee that it is the Government's desire—and a great deal of work is going into it—to ensure that the agencies co-operate.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his intervention. I congratulate him on his ingenuity in introducing the Intermediate Treatment Fund and giving it a puff. I regard it as one of the most essential of all the proposals put forward for keeping young people out of the criminal justice system.
I ask the noble Earl to bear in mind, when he and his colleagues are considering the report of Lord Justice Woolf, that it is not merely the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and myself, and the responsible organisations listed, who want a council of the sort suggested; it is also the view of the conference held before Christmas which was attended by the Solicitor General. All those concerned with the youth court are of the unanimous opinion that some sort of council, as suggested in the amendment, is essential if the youth court is to work properly.
Having said that, I understand the Government's dilemma in regard to accepting the amendment at this stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Review and the Council Tax
3.48 p.m.
TN Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the local government review. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about two consultation papers which the Government are publishing today on the structure of local government in England and on our proposal for a new council tax to replace the community charge.
"The consultation paper on local government structure builds upon the announcement which I made on 21st March. As I made clear then the Government intend no significant changes in the structure of local government in London or the
150
metropolitan areas. In the remainder of England today services are provided both by county councils and by district councils.
"The Government believe that this structure of two tiers needs to be re-examined for the following reasons. First, unitary authorities are more clearly responsible for the delivery of services and more clearly accountable for the bill local people are expected to pay. Secondly, two tiers may lead to excessive bureaucracy and duplication of effort.
"Thirdly, the Government are committed to develop the concept of enabling authorities. Councils will increasingly be able to take advantage of competition between those seeking to provide a service. It is therefore less important today to insist on councils of a particular size. Fourthly, the Government intend to increase the momentum of their existing policies to enable decision-making and responsibility to be more directly in the hands of the people. Fifthly, the present structures of local government do not universally win favour with local people who have their own ideas about what sort of structure would better reflect local loyalties and communities.
"We therefore propose to establish a body to draw up recommendations for improving the structure of local government area by area taking account of local views and the costs and benefits of the change. The local government commission which we propose would consult on its recommendations and submit them to the Secretary of State. Final decisions would rest with Parliament.
"The Government do not intend that either county or district councils should be abolished wholesale. In some places it may be best for existing authorities to be merged; in others, the best approach may be to create or re-create quite different authorities. In some areas there may continue to be two tiers. In all cases the Government will expect a proper regard for economy and effectiveness of service delivery to feature in any new arrangements. The consultation paper maps out how this process would work and invites views.
"The second paper sets out the details of the council tax with which the Government intend to replace the community charge. Subject to consultations, that will be in 1993.
"The House will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget announced a significant reduction in the amount of local tax revenue to a level which the Government believed should be maintained in the longer term. In consequence, the new tax will need to raise less than either the rates during their last years or the community charge during its first. So average bills can be substantially lower than the last average rates bills or the average community charges paid last year.
"The council tax will have a property and a personal element. Each household will receive a single bill on the assumption that it consists of two people. Households with only one adult will be entitled to a 25 per cent. personal discount. This means that 90 per cent. of all adults will be taken

151
into account in household bills. It is therefore not the Government's intention to provide for supplements for households with more than two adults. There will be no need for a register of council tax payers. Since each household will receive only one bill, the tax will be easy to administer. The amount of council tax payable will vary according to the value of the property, but will vary only within a limited range.
"Properties in England will each be allocated to one of seven bands. There will be no need for precise valuations of every house or flat, nor need there be regular general revaluations. People in the lowest band of property will pay about two-thirds of those in a property in the middle band in the area. Those in a highest band property will pay about two-thirds more than those in the middle band in the area. This means that a household in a highest band property will pay about two-and-a-half times as much as those in the lowest band. We shall avoid the very high bills which discredited the old rates.
"Each year the Government will announce for each band the amount of council tax necessary for a council to provide a reasonable level of service. The grant mechanism will remain broadly unchanged. This year a council which spent reasonably would have charged a household of two or more people in the top band property no more than £668 and such a household in a lowest band home no more than £267. This year households with one adult would have paid no more than £501 in the top band and no more than £200 in the lowest band.
"People on low incomes will receive rebates in addition to any discount to which they are entitled. There will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. The maximum rebate for those at the income support level will be 100 per cent. Students, student nurses, apprentices and YT trainees will be automatically entitled to personal discounts.
"The council tax payable will relate to how much the council spends. Where councils spend more, all households will have to pay more. The same percentage increase will apply to all household bills. Similarly, the benefit of low spending will be passed through to all council tax payers. The Government will restrain increases in local authority spending through capping. The threat of capping has been effective this year and we shall ensure that we have the powers appropriate to the new tax. We shall ensure that no one faces an unreasonable increase in their bill between one year and the next as we change to the new system by the use of appropriate transitional relief.
"Following the conclusion of our consultations in mid-June, it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to give effect to the conclusions in the next Session of Parliament. Copies of the consultation documents and examples of council tax bills are available in the
152
Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office and are being sent to all local authorities and their associations today.
"The council tax will be simple and cheap to collect. It will require less of single adults than larger households. It will not impose excessive demands on any household. It will make a very clear connection between what councils spend and what people pay. It will be seen to be fair. I commend these proposals to the House and the country."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I spend very little time on dealing with the matters of structure. I propose that my noble friend Lady Hollis should ask questions about and make comments upon that consultation paper.
However, from the outset, I should like to say that the Labour Party both nationally and locally will take part in the consultation procedure on the structure paper. There is one proviso; namely, that during this period there should be no further moves towards centralisation of local authority services. In other words, the Government must not jump the gun and proceed to diminish the powers and responsibilities of local authorities while the consultation procedure is taking place. On that basis, I believe it is right that we should participate in the consultation on the structure paper.
As regards the taxation paper, the issue is very different. I say that because the Labour Party has a proposal before another place. We have a well-drafted and perfectly well worked-out Bill which shows that it is possible to move to a fairer system of local authority taxation by 1992. If the Government wish to adopt a fairer system as quickly as possible, they will adopt the Bill put forward by my right honourable and honourable friends and then all of us will be in perfect harmony. However, I fear that they will not do so and that we shall have to subject the taxation paper to three major modes of judgment.
First, we must ask whether the Government's proposals are fair and certainly whether they are as fair as the fair rates proposals which the Labour Party has publicly and clearly put forward. Secondly, we must ask whether the Government's claims that their proposals are simple are justified; and, thirdly, we shall have to look at the timing and make a judgment as to whether such proposals are being introduced as speedily as they might be.
I shall deal first with the fairness of the system. Perhaps I may point out in passing that we have had the consultation papers for only 15 minutes and therefore anything we say about them will be provisional and possibly indeed inaccurate. However, we understand from the finance part of the Statement that the ratio of the highest value properties to the

153
lowest value properties will be in the order of 2.5:1. That means that the proposed system will be less progressive than even the rates system was in the past.
It is well known that the rates system was less progressive than the income tax system. I have no doubt that the Liberals will have a word or two to say about that aspect. In effect, it means that the very rich are being protected at the expense of the very poor. The very rich will be the dukes—to repeat Mr. Ridley s analogy which was so helpfully used by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—who will pay a little more than the dustman or the head gamekeeper but not as much more as we, or even the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, think that they should. In other words, relative to other taxation systems, this is still a pretty regressive form of taxation because of the way in which the banding procedures are being adopted.
In other ways, what is proposed is a significant advance. Noble Lords will recall the debates on the Local Government Finance Bill when we spent many hours discussing the issue of accountability, arguing with the Government that it was not necessary for everyone to pay something—a minimum 20 per cent.—to achieve accountability. We have won that argument. We spent many hours arguing the case for student nurses. We won that argument in a vote only to see it overturned by another place. We have also won that battle. So far as student nurses are concerned, we might say that we have won the war. We argued strongly that the poll tax collection costs—even if nothing else was wrong with the system—put it out of court. Now, as I look at the appendices to the consultation document, it is clear that the collection costs for the new system are estimated to be 40 per cent. of the poll tax collection costs. So everything we said about the incompetence and wickedness of the poll tax has now been proved to be true.
With all the changes, this tax will still be unfair. It will be more unfair than it needs to be. It will be more unfair than the rates and more unfair than income tax.
The Government make wide claims for the simplicity of the new tax. They say that because of the banding principle there will be no need for detailed valuations. Yet when we look at the consultation paper in more detail, it is clear that each property will not just be put into a band. I ask the Minister to consider whether those who find themselves at the very bottom of a band will not appeal to be put into the top, of a lower band, which will mean just as much argument, debate and controversy. The bands will have to be consistent across the country even though they are drawn up locally. That means, as the consultation paper says, that the Inland Revenue valuation department will be involved. When we come down to it, I am pretty sure that it means that we shall have a Valuation system just as we had with the rates. It is not clear whether it will be a capital valuation system, a rental valuation system or a rebuild cost valuation system. Those three systems are discussed in the consultation paper. They are all rubbished. In other words, their disadvantages are pointed out.
The Government seem to think that they have found a philosopher's stone by banding and have got away from all the difficulties of each valuation system.
154
I can assure the Government that that is not the case. One does not turn base metal into gold by making the definition of gold a little less rigorous than in the past. In terms of simplicity, if it is the Government's case that they are avoiding valuation, I can tell them that that is not so.
The Government also claim that the tax will be simple because there will be no need for a register. A register will be required to discover whether there is one or more than one person in a household. What will that register be? It is more than likely that we shall not have a poll tax in the strict sense but a tax based on the electoral register, which is the poll tax principle. Only the electoral register will tell us whether there is more than one adult living in a household. Some procedure will have to be designed to guard against those who choose to pretend that there is not more than one person in a household or even those who choose to go camping on the night when it is decided how many people there are in the household. There is no philosopher's stone here either. There is no possibility of avoiding the need for verification of the number of adults in a household. To that extent also, the Government's claims for the new system are wildly exaggerated.
Finally, I come to the question of how quickly the tax can be introduced. We have a proposal before Parliament. If that proposal is adopted, we can proceed and join without difficulty in the consultation about what follows. But, since the Government are determined not to do anything effective before 1993, I fear that our reluctance to participate in that part of the consultation must stand. If the Government propose to introduce legislation in November of this year, that means that if they want to get it through by 1992 and implement it in 1993—it is a tight timetable anyway—they will have to forswear any idea of an early general election, but perhaps, for obvious reasons, they have forsworn that already.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I thank the Minister sincerely for repeating the Statement made in the other place. We welcome the proposal for a commission to be established to review the current structure of local government. We have much in common with the proposals within the document although the omission of London and the metropolitan areas is a grave mistake. London cries out for some type of overall authority, free from Whitehall domination.
With regard to local government finance, we are obviously disappointed that a local income tax has been rejected by Her Majesty's Government. Is the Minister aware that a local income tax seems to find favour with the majority of the electorate, especially as it takes into account the ability to pay, and could, with a little help, be introduced in the next financial year? At least the banded tax proposal, if it is to be based on capital value, accords roughly with the Layfield recommendations made at a time when property values were not so volatile as they are today. That in itself, as the noble Lord has just said, will cause enormous problems for valuation officers. There will have to be some type of a list; otherwise how will people find out which band their property has been

155
placed in? Some people may want the property lifted a band if they want to sell their property. They might want a higher price put upon it.
The method proposed will continue to expose a number of unfairnesses well known to Members of the House and clearly explained by the noble Lord. If the Government are to implement their proposals and if local government is to be able to operate with any degree of sanity, any further change will be totally irresponsible. But why, oh why, the rush? It is important that we get it right this time. There are some in the House, especially on the Labour Front Bench, who believe that we should move into some type of regional structure and remove a great deal of the power from Whitehall.
We continue to regret the capping restraints. We consider that the sooner an electoral system based on proportional representation and annual elections is introduced the better it will be for all. That would at least enable the present over-centralisation of power to be reversed drastically. It could only be of great benefit to the nation.
In conclusion, can the Minister give any indication of what the average community charge is likely to be next year? Will she confirm that VAT is to continue at 17.5 per cent.? I understand from the Budget that it is for one year only.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for giving a cautious welcome to parts of the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spent some time looking backwards. We believe that the whole Statement is about looking forward. His idea of looking for a fairer alternative has a hollow ring about it. As I understand it, the noble Lord and his party would return to the old rates system with a 1973 base. As we all know, that was grossly unfair and is almost 20 years out of date. It would go on with all its unfairnesses.
If we are to believe him, Mr. Bryan Gould has categorically stated that there would be no transitional relief. It would apply to the uniform business rate but not to domestic rates and therefore with all the iniquities and inequities there would be no transitional relief scheme, and that could be a problem. Not only that, but we would then go in for wholesale revaluation, not only on one basis but on capital values, rental values, rebuilding costs and repair costs. All four aspects would be built into the valuation system.
Further, if we are to believe what is said in Fair Rates, there would be a rolling, annual revaluation which would get us away from fluctuations every five years. Annual revaluations on the basis of four different factors would be extraordinary and unbelievably bureaucratic. To end it all, there is a commitment to no limits on local authority expenditure. Suppose this year we had had no limits on local authority expenditure. It is quite interesting that in all its calculations the Labour Party has taken spending this year as a basis for the amount of money that it would raise. However, it is only with the Government's capping system that we have a sensible basis for spending this year. If the Labour Party had
156
been in power, spending would have been let rip all over the country in Labour-controlled authorities. That would be the basis on which it would create its system.
Thus, on any count the system is fairer and simpler. Yes, we have left for consultation the specific way in which houses will be valued. However, they will be valued in one way and for the purpose of putting houses into a band. Once in that band of course there would be an appeals system which would have to work. We suspect that there would be fewer appeals by people to go up a band than to go down a band.
The noble Lord's revaluation system would be extremely sensitive, and a difference of £1 in rateable value would be substantial. There would be fluctuations on every single property. By having seven bands the stability of people on one band relative to another would last a good deal longer. Revaluations would not be required on anything like the scale suggested by the noble Lord. If house prices increased, then any one band in relation to another would rise. If they went down, again the relative difference between bands would also go down.
The argument on simplicity is well won by this Statement. The argument on fairness is also well won by it, unless the noble Lord says that those in the highest band are not being charged enough and that he would levy an even higher rate on those people. We await more details; a considerable amount of detail in the noble Lord's alternative is lacking.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, first gave a welcome to the commission. I know that he and his colleagues have said on a number of occasions that it is time to review the two-tier system of local government. That was a strong message which came to the department as a result of the review being set in train. It is important. I note what he says on London and hope that he will read the chapter on it. We still believe that there is room for improvement in arrangements for London government. It is our view that we do not wish to create a one-tier overall London government.
The noble Lord asked, slightly provocatively, "Why the rush?" We have spent some weeks listening to everyone asking, "Why are we waiting?" The Statement is here. I believe that by all judgments, given that there is no perfect answer on how to raise local taxes, it is fair, it is simple and it will be considerably easier to collect. Most adults in the country will be taken into account in the pricing of the charges on properties.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say a little more about the system of appeals in respect of banding? To whom will those appeals lie? What will be the points relevant to them? Can she also say whether in the system of discounts to which she referred there will be a special system for students? Many people feel strongly that the student is in a special position in the context of local taxation. They hope very much that there may be a system of discounts for students.
Finally, will my noble friend allow me to say how glad some of us are that these proposals involve relating the amount that people have to pay to local government spending? It seems to repeat one of the

157
merits of the older system, that when people vote in local government elections they will vote either for more or for less public expenditure which they will have to meet. Is my noble friend aware that this system seems on the face of it to have considerable merits? Nevertheless, it is obvious that we shall want to discuss it fully when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend for his comments which I imagine he made only on the basis of what has been said so far. I have considerable confidence in his being just as complimentary when he has studied the detail.
There will be a system of appeals. The details still have to be worked out, but anyone who believes that they have been wrongly banded will have grounds for appeal. A judgment will have to be made as to whether the evaluator has made a right or wrong decision. It will be for the local valuation office to make sure that there is consistency not only locally—a point which the node Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised—but across the country. There must be consistency, and anyone who appeals will have to be measured against that consistency.
My noble friend also raised the question of students. There will be a discount for students, student nurses and young people on YTS courses.
As for accountability, it will be clear that an authority spending above the standard spending assessment will levy extra costs on its ratepayers. An authority spending below its SSA will pass on a direct benefit to ratepayers. Thus there will be a clear exposition of what an authority is doing in terms of its spending. I believe that that answers all my noble friend's questions.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, we on this side of the House welcome the consultation paper on local government structure. It is right that in the document there should be no tidy uniformity, provided the Minister will give an undertaking that there will be no gerrymandering. It is also right that the new local authorities should relate more closely to the communities with which people identify. Recent research shows that three times as many people know their district councillors as their county councillors.
It is also right, as the document states, that local government should be fully accountable for its services and bills. As the Minister must accept, that makes a presumption against poll tax capping. It is right to emphasise the role of an enabling authority and therefore the move away from mere size as determining the basis of the dimension of the local authorities. It is right to give a presumption in favour of unitary authorities so that people will at long last know who does what, at what cost and to what standard. All this is to be welcomed and makes a presumption in favour of district councils being, so far as possible, the new local authorities.
However, some questions remain for me to ask the Minister On the first point made by my noble friend
158
Lord McIntosh, may we have an assurance from the Minister that in the meanwhile there will he no further undermining of local authority functions? If education and the police are stripped from local government and if there is further compulsory competitive tendering, much of the proposals will be an empty exercise. What would be welcome is for the Government to consider whether other related functions such as community health may be brought back again into local government.
My second question to the Minister is this. Will the Government use this opportunity, particularly with the unitary authorities, to consider—as many of us including the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, have urged—signing the European Charter of Local Self-Government, with the principles of subsidiarity and general competence? As the Tory Association of District Councils urged, this will bring us into line with the Europe of 1992.
Thirdly, will the Minister think again about the implications of her timetable? After a quick look at the document it seems as though, first, the local government commission has to be appointed; then it must give the outline series of proposals for a structure. Then local authorities will be invited to produce alternative proposals; after which the local government commission will make its recommendations. After that, there will be public consultation, and, finally, the Secretary of State will decide. Then there will be legislation. All that will take place within six months. I suggest to the Minister that, with all the good will in the world, that will probably be an impossibly tight timetable. However, we shall do our best to help it along.
Widdicombe said that local government is government by communities, not of communities. Over the past few years with charge capping, revenue and capital controls and court actions, the Secretary of State has turned himself into the majority vote in every local authority in this land. If by the proposals in this document today the Minister is saying that the Secretary of State proposes to return moral adulthood to the citizens and communities of this country, this structural review will have our full support.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness began her remarks by saying she thought there should be a presumption in favour of district councils. I must make it clear right at the outset that we are not pre-empting the outcome of the consultative phase. We do not presume in favour of any single tier of authority. The noble Baroness made a statement about district councils and perhaps she will stand by it. We are not pre-empting the work of the commission, and there is no prescription from the outset. It will be a question of identifying communities of common interest and identifying what is appropriate for different parts of the country.
The noble Baroness asked me whether I would give an assurance that there would be no further undermining of local authorities. I disagree profoundly with the assumption that the noble Baroness made that there has been such undermining. That is the view of the noble Baroness, but I do not agree with it. There is to be a paper on functions, but there is no threat as

159
regards the proper and effective delivery of services. However, I do not wish to give assurances today on the outcome of the consultative stage on all the issues concerned.
The noble Baroness also referred to compulsory competitive tendering. That system has been successful when it has worked well. I am afraid there is still considerable resistance to the process, but that is changing by the day. We believe that competitive tendering has considerably benefited services. We shall review that measure. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already stated publicly that there may be an extension of compulsory competitive tendering. Therefore I cannot give the noble Baroness any assurances on that point.
The noble Baroness then asked whether we would sign the charter of local government. We have debated such a step many times in this House. We know of a number of countries which have signed the charter but do not abide by it. I believe that Sweden has substantially interfered with the rights and responsibilities of its local authorities although it has signed the charter. We know of some countries which have signed the charter but have not ratified it. We agree with the charter's broad principles and we have never said otherwise. However, we do not consider local government to be a suitable subject for regulation by international convention. We remain of the view that it is proper for local government to derive specific powers from Parliament. The power of general competence is not something that we agree with. The power of general competence is a constituent part of the charter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it is a complete fallacy to suppose that the majority of people in this country oppose the principle that every able-bodied adult should contribute something, however small, towards the cost of local government? What most people objected to as regards the poll tax in its final form—they were quite right to do so—was that it took no account of ability to pay, except in the case of some—not all—of the very poorest people in the community. However, by abandoning the excellent principle of no representation without taxation—many Ministers and Members of both Houses of Parliament and people throughout the country have spent many days in effectively upholding that principle—the Government appear to be swinging from one extreme to another. What incentive will there now be for those—admittedly a minority—who will no longer contribute a single penny towards the cost of local government—an example of such people are strapping 22 year-old scaffolders earning £400 a week and living at home whom we always used to hear about when the Government were plugging the merits of the poll tax—to vote at local government elections in favour of efficiency and against extravagance and the loony Left?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must first put the record straight for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I believe I told her that a separate paper on functions
160
was to be issued. I meant to say that functions will inevitably form part of the discussion on the paper about structure because clearly functions will form part of that debate whether they are delivered by single-tier authorities or two-tier authorities. I meant to say that the discussion on functions will form part of the consultation process.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a survey was conducted on how many households in the country contained one to two adults. We were pleasantly surprised to find that just under 90 per cent. of all households are either two person or one person households.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that 90 per cent. of adults live in one or two person households and not 90 per cent. of households.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I may have to be corrected, but I believe that the percentage of households is as follows. There are 33 per cent. of households with one person and 54 per cent. with two people. That accounts for 87 per cent. of households. Adults come under another column in the document on page 5. Some 2 million households—that is, 10 per cent. of households—contain three people and 3 per cent. of households have four or more people. Therefore by targeting two person households, we cover almost all households. I understand that a high percentage of the 4 million people who constitute the third or subsequent adult in a household are students or people who are exempt, either through the rebate system or through pure exemption. One is left with the kind of people mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. One might refer to them as yuppies, for want of a better word. I am told that those people account for only 2 per cent. of the population. Had we opted for a system based on three adults per household, the bureaucracy involved in adjusting to two adults or one adult households would have outweighed the benefits.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the business rate or contribution fits into this scheme? Is it wholly separate, or is it affected by the seven bands and the other measures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the business rate is entirely separate and remains totally unchanged.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I have a question arising from the Statement on the structure of local government. I was not quite sure about the matter of a county council or a district council structure in any given area. That matter seems to be rather a mixed bag from the Minister's comments. There are certain areas where special considerations will apply. I am thinking particularly of Kent where the Channel Tunnel and the measures to be taken in 1992 with regard to the Common Market will result in immense economic changes and a great deal of industrial pressure. I cannot believe that it would be wise to abolish our particularly efficient county council for Kent and adopt a local structure in an area where there will be such a great need for consideration of the changes that will affect the whole area.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an interesting point. This is not the time to defend a particular local authority. However, the noble Lord made the point that it is not necessarily appropriate to impose a single system on the whole country. We know there is a strong view that the road down which we should go is that of unitary authorities. The scheme will be an orderly one and each part of the country will be considered area by area. The areas will consist of two, three or even more county areas. We shall invite views as regards which areas should be considered first. We hope that after the commission has identified communities of common interest and appropriate tiers of authority as regards the delivery of efficient and effective local services, it will make a recommendation to Parliament, and it will be for Parliament to decide the matter. However, as I said at the outset, the measures adopted for different parts of the country may well differ.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it has been said in the Statement that there will be no need for precise valuation of every house or flat. In speaking to the Statement, the noble Baroness said, referring to Labour's proposals, there would be no need for valuation on anything like the scale that had been mentioned by us. Can she reconcile those two points?
When the uniform business rate was going through the House, two elements were debated, both of which caused concern. From my point of view, the main concern was that the northern parts of the country were considerably subsidising the southern parts, and a rebate was given in regard to the uniform business rate in the South because most people considered that it was too high an increase on the old rateable system.
In the Statement we are told that the level of government grant on business rates is assumed to be the same as in 1992. I should like to ask whether the process established under the old Bill—that is, that the difference between the subsidised rates in the South and North would be slowly whittled away—will stop, or whether the subsidy given to the South by the North will remain in being. Before any noble Lord on the other side of the House starts thinking that this is a good scheme he should consult some of the commercial interests in the south of England as to the possible effect on them of maintaining this measure.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, referred to the uniform business rate. That rate is not part of this system, which is quite different and separate. The noble Lord was quite wrong about the shift of subsidy. In fact, the shift went from the South to the North under the changes. Previously it was the other way round. The change in the uniform business rate was to lessen the burden in the North and to carry the burden in the South.
To compare the two systems of revaluation, the revaluation on whatever basis is chosen for the system that I have advocated today will take the average value of a house countrywide. The highest house will be banded at two and a half times that of the lowest
162
house, so the lowest will come down from average in the middle and the highest will go from average to the top. There will be a difference of 2.5:1 between the top and the bottom.
Therefore, for the purpose of banding only, once a house is in a band the requirement to revalue may not arise at all. There can be no comparison with the scale of revaluation proposed by the Labour Party; it will not be necessary. As we understand it—this is taken exactly from the rates document—revaluation for the Labour Party will be on an annual rolling programme. In other words, there will be a revaluation every year which will take into account four factors: capital values, rental values, rebuilding costs and repair costs. If that is added to there being no capping of local authority expenditure, it will be bureaucratic and highly sensitive to every house that will have to be revalued annually with no transitional relief scheme. There is no comparison whatsoever in terms of which system is the more favourable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe the arrangement is that questions on Statements should last no more than 20 minutes. In fact, we have had 20 minutes and I think it would be right if the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, this matter is so important that perhaps we may extend the 20 minutes.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the rule is an inflexible one, agreed by all parties, that questions after Statements should last for 20 minutes. In the old days the rule used to be relatively flexible, but now it has become more rigid.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely the noble Earl is not quite correct in saying that this is a rule. It is not a rule but a recommendation, and there is a distinction between the two. Surely the House has the right at any time to extend a discussion even though there has been a recommendation that in normal circumstances a time limit should be set.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the recommendation is that the limit should not exceed 20 minutes. If it were extended on any occasion when your Lordships wished to extend it there would be no point in having a rule. That rule was made because a lot of Statements which interrupt the normal business are made in the House nowadays, so one has to have a time limit. I think that the whole of this Statement has lasted about an hour, which makes inroads into the other business. Therefore, while I accept the anxieties expressed by some noble Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.36 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95B:

163
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
Non-appearance of persons aged 16 or 17: plea of guilty
(". In section 12 of the 1980 Act (non-appearance of accused: plea of guilty), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) The reference in subsection (1) above to the issue of a summons requiring a person to appear before a magistrates' court other than a youth court includes a reference to the issue of a summons requiring a person who has attained the age of 16 at the time when it is issued to appear before a youth court."").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 95B.
It is the practice at an adult's magistrates' court to deal with offenders who have committed minor offences—usually traffic offences—and who plead guilty to those offences without the offender actually being required to appear at court. This power is conferred by Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. It saves the courts valuable time and avoids the inconvenience for the offender of having to take time off work or to arrange for children to be looked after so that he or she can appear in court. At present, 17 year-olds can be dealt with in this way by an adult's magistrates' court. However, under the Bill provisions 17 year-olds will in future be dealt with in a youth court. I am sure that the Committee would agree with me that it would be undesirable to clog up the business of the youth courts by requiring 17 year-olds who commit minor traffic offences to appear before the court in every case whether or not they are pleading guilty to the offence.
The proposed amendment therefore extends the powers in Section 12 of the 1980 Act to the new youth courts. The amendment extends the power to cover both 16 and 17 year-olds in line with the general approach promoted in the Bill to treat 16 and 17 year-olds as a distinct group for sentencing purposes.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to ask the Minister what is meant by a minor traffic offence? Does it mean taking and stealing a car?
Earl Ferrers: Minor traffic offences are such offences as exceeding the speed limit or something of that nature, not offences of theft.
Baroness Phillips: In which case, this would not apply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments for treating persons aged 17 as young persons]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 95BA, 95BB and 95BC:
Page 81, line 34, leave out ("After subsection (8) of section 23 of the 1969 Act") and insert ("Section 29 of the 1969 Act shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and after that provision as so renumbered").
Page 81, line 36, leave out ("and section 29 of this Act").
Page 82, line 17, leave out ("37(1)") and insert ("38").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are linked with Amendment No. 94B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 95C:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Accomodation of arrested juveniles
.—(1) Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
"(6) Where a custody officer has authorised an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (1) above the custody officer shall

(a) forthwith inform the relevant local authority of his decision and his reasons for refusing to release him with or without bail conditions and request that authority to move the juvenile into local authority accommodation; and

(b) record those reasons and his contact with that authority."

(3) For subsection (6A) there shall be substituted—
"(6A) Where a relevant local authority receives a request under the provisions of subsection (6) of this section it shall either

(a) make arrangements to receive the juvenile into suitable accommodation; or

(b) refuse it and inform the custody officer that it has decided to do so on one or more of the grounds in subsection (6B) of this section; and

(c) within 24 hours certify that ground or those grounds to the court at which the juvenile is due to appear.

(6AA) The grounds referred to in subsection (6AA) of the section are

(a) that no suitable accommodation was available; and

(b) that it was unable to make suitable arrangements for the conveyance of the juvenile to the accommodation; and

(c) that it was unable to make suitable arrangements for the production of the juvenile to the next sitting of the Youth Court for the area in which the police station at which the juvenile was detained is situated;

and in considering these grounds the authority shall have regard inter alia to the safety and welfare of the juvenile and of other persons and to its duties under sections 22 and 25 of the Children Act 1989.
(6AB) When an authority takes a juvenile into care under subsection (6A) (a) of this section the custody officer shall furnish it forthwith with a copy of the record referred to in subsection (6) of this section.
(6AC) When a juvenile is in the care of a local authority under the provisions of this section it shall be lawful for any person appointed to act on behalf of that authority to detain him.".
(4) For subsection 7 there shall be substituted—
"(7) When a juvenile who has been detained in police custody is first produced to a court thereafter the officer or authority producing him shall also produce to the court

(a) in all cases, a copy of the record referred to in subsection (6) of this section; and

(b) in the case of a juvenile who has not been taken into care by the relevant local authority, a copy of the certificate provided by that authority under subsection (6A) (c) of this section.".

(5) At the end there shall be inserted the following new subsection—
"() The accommodation referred to in subsections (6) and (6A) of this section is accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority within the meaning of the Children Act 1989)."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is no doubt as riddled with error as any other amendment not drawn up by the government draftsman, but I believe

165
that it has a clear intention to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee and the Government.
The purpose is to insert a new clause which will amend Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I should remind the Committee that that section specifies that, where a person arrested for an offence otherwise than under a warrant endorsed for bail is charged with an offence, the custody officer shall order his release from police detention, either on bail or without bail except under certain conditions. Where those conditions apply, the section provides for that person to be held in police custody unless he is a juvenile. If he is a juvenile, subsection (6) applies. That states:
"Where a custody officer authorises an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (1) above, the custody officer shall, unless he certifies that it is impracticable"—
that is the important word—
"to do so, make arrangements for the arrested juvenile to be taken into the care of a local authority and detained by the authority; and it shall be lawful to detain him in pursuance of the arrangements".
The intention of your Lordships when you agreed to those words being in the statute was carefully considered and clearly stated. It was agreed in Committee that the intention was to secure that, except under very unusual circumstances, all arrested juveniles who were not released by the police should be passed by them to the local authority. I had charge of the Bill in the Chamber at the time and that is why I particularly draw the Committee's attention to the matter. The consensus on the matter was so complete that I hardly need spend time convincing the Committee again that it is not a good thing for children of 16, or even 13 and 14, to be locked up in police cells, whether on their own or in company of any kind, overnight.
It is not in question that that does happen. Papers received from the Association for Juvenile Justice relate to cases considered in just two London boroughs over a period of six months in 1989. They show that a juvenile of 15 was held in cells by the police overnight on Sunday 15th February and bailed under SSD supervision on Monday. A juvenile of 16 and one of 14 were similarly held on 8th June. They were conditionally bailed on 9th June. A mere child of 13 was held in the same way on 20th June and remanded into care in a local authority open unit on the 21st. On 10th July, a further 16 year-old was similarly held. He was bailed on conditions under SSD supervision.
In each of those cases, the juvenile was detained by the police overnight in the face of strenuous representations form the local authority that he should be released into its care. In every one of them, the court ordered that release the very next day. That is only a selection of the best documented cases in a small pert of London for a short time. It shows that nationally there is a considerable departure from what I believe we are still agreed should happen.
I can best show how real that agreement was when we framed the law, and how specific were both the concerns and intentions of noble Lords, by reminding the Committee of what happened when we returned to
166
the matter on Report. That was on 26th July 1984. I quote from col. 447 of Hansard in which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said:
"My Lords, Section 37(7)"—
as it then was—
"is mentioned in this amendment, where the word 'impracticable' is used. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has asked me to ask my noble friend whether or not these words are too wide. Will a juvenile be able to be held in custody instead of being put into the care of the social services—which I know everybody wishes to happen, including the Government—if no place can be found for that juvenile? On behalf of my noble friend, may I ask for elucidation of that word?"
The important word is "impracticable". I replied:
"On my noble friend's behalf, may I assure my noble friend … that the intention is simply to provide against rare occurrences. It may happen, for instance, that all the social workers in a particular local authority area are on strike and refusing to accept people—or there may be a blizzard, or something of that nature. It is not a device to slide out of the commitment which we have already given".—[Official Report, 26/7/84; col. 447-8.]
That is a clear indication of what was intended when those words were put on the statute book and it remained the Government's intention when they implemented the Act.
It was certainly still the Government's intention in 1988 because in February of that year the DHSS wrote to the Children's Legal Centre saying in part that, although the department could not give a definitive view of the law:
"we consider that the circumstances that might make it impracticable for a detained juvenile to be transferred to local authority care … might include, for instance, very bad weather, a strike by social workers, or simply the detention of a juvenile very late at night when it might not be possible to make arrangements … We do not think that the lack of secure accommodation would constitute grounds for deciding that it was 'impracticable' to transfer a juvenile to local authority care".
The letter goes on to discuss questions of the need for secure accommodation which I think I have already sufficiently addressed.
Both Parliament and government therefore intended that the police should normally hand such juveniles over to the local authority and, as was made clear in DHSS circular LAC (85)18, that it was not for them but for the local authority to judge the fitness or otherwise of the accommodation used for that purpose. That is what happened routinely in some police forces such as Northamptonshire; but elsewhere, as both NACRO and the Association for Juvenile Justice have made clear to me, it did not.
The difference in practice between police forces is odd and appears to result from differences in the legal advice that they have received. I am assured that the West Midlands police force took counsel's opinion and was advised that young people who were arrested and not released from police custody must be transferred to the local authority unless that was impracticable. The expression "impracticability" did not include circumstances in which the local authority refused to lock up the young person in secure accommodation. However, the advice received by Cambridgeshire police appears to have been different. I am advised that the police there always took the view that it was for the custody officer to decide whether it was practicable for the arrested juvenile to be taken

167
into local authority care and that it requested secure accommodation as a matter of routine. I could quote a letter giving the Metropolitan Police Solicitor's Department's opinion, written in May 1989, but it comes to the same conclusion.
Eventually, there was a test case—Regina v. the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire, ex parte Michel, reported in The Times of 27th April 1990. The judgment in that case supported the view that in such cases:
"the custody officer becomes responsible for all necessary administrative arrangements".
That is contrary both to the intention of the House and of Her Majesty's Government in 1984 and to the view expressed by the Government in 1988. It is also contrary to good practice.
That judgment has given the police licence—almost a duty—to refuse to move juveniles over to local authorities because the police do not think that the accommodation that the local authority proposes to use is suitable. That is the reverse of what we intended when we enacted the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Many noble Lords involved in that debate are here now. It is for the courts to interpret what we said, but it is for us to state what we meant. That is what I am doing now.
A change in the law is needed to remedy the situation which would remove the discretion given to the custody officer by the interpretation that I have just quoted and would restore the duty that we originally intended to impose on him. There must be some discretion, as we have always said. It should be exercised explicitly and under the supervision of the courts.
For that purpose I have proposed an amendment which I have told my noble friend does not claim to be perfect but which clearly illustrates a scheme that would have that effect. It would require the custody officer to continue as at present to record his decision to refuse to release the juvenile and the reasons for it. It would also require him, as at present, to inform the local authority of that decision and to include details of that contact on his record. A duty would then lie on the local authority either to receive the juvenile into suitable accommodation—and it is left to the authority to decide what is suitable—or to certify that a custody officer was unable to do so on one or other of the grounds available to him which are listed in subsection (6AA), not (6A), as I regret to see printed on the Marshalled List. I shall return briefly to those grounds in a moment.
The custody officer's records in every case would be produced for the juvenile at his first court appearance. Where he had spent the night in the cells, the local authority certificate would also be produced. The court would therefore be aware of every decision in the process and of the reasons for it and thus be able quickly to obtain an overview of the practice in its area. Some Members of the Committee might be content with that; others might prefer the court to have some means of exerting pressure if the practice did not meet the explicit intention of the legislation.
I promised to refer to the grounds. I shall refer only to one. The first ground under subsection (6AA) (a) is that the local authority has no suitable accommodation available. I suspect that my noble friend will be tempted to say that the amendment is not acceptable because it places on local authorities a duty that they will not be able to discharge for lack of resources in the form of secure accommodation. It does not. It merely requires them in those circumstances to record the fact and inform the police and courts of it.
I should have thought that social security departments would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate where their resources are not adequate to meet the demands properly made upon them. I hope that the Government will acknowledge the wrong that at present is being done to many children and will undertake to remedy it, if not in this way then in some other way. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Elton. I was involved in this matter at the last stage. I absolutely agree with everything that he said. However, there is some difficulty. We discussed this matter at an earlier stage when, speaking to another amendment, I said that the Association of Directors of Social Services agreed with him. They do not like children staying in police cells or going to prison, but they do not have the resources to build or provide secure accommodation.
That leads us to the word "impracticable". As my noble friend said, one ground under subsection (6AA) (a) is that no suitable accommodation is available. When a child has to be taken into care or housed in the middle of the night, should there be secure accommodation within, say, five miles, it is practicable to take that child there. On the other hand, if there is suitable accommodation but it is 200 miles away, it is impracticable to want to take the child to that accommodation. One comes back to the question of resources. The Association of Directors of Social Services wishes me to say that local authorities want to deal with these children. They want to keep them out of prison and out of cells but they do not have the resources to do so at the moment.
I am sorry that the Committee did not debate the amendment on the Marshalled List which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. If we were able to caution much more widely, there would not be so much difficulty over this question of where one is to house children because many of them could be cautioned. I should be grateful for further elucidation on the word "impracticable".
Lord Elton: We are in Committee and I trust that I may rise briefly to speak to that point. I hope that my noble friend listened carefully to what I said and will read it again before she corresponds with the association of social work directors. There are two things to bear in mind. Every single case that I quoted and a whole clutch more that I have in my file are cases in which the local authority asked to take the child. One of them threatened to use habeas corpus to get the child and was denied by the police because, contrary

169
to the view of the social work department, the police thought that the child ought to be in secure accommodation.
Secondly, as I have already said, if the social services do not have the facilities, now is the opportunity to record the fact publicly before the courts and substantiate their claim. Maybe it will have something to say to those in command of the resources about the way in which in future they should be spent.
Lord Richard: I rise briefly to support this amendment. I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a strong and persuasive case. I was not aware of the precise terms of the debate that took place in this Chamber in 1984 when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed. But that clearly emphasises the intention of Parliament at the time that that legislation was passed.
There is clearly agreement here on a point that needs to be looked at seriously. I am a trifle disappointed that the amendment does not go so far as to try to place an obligation on local authorities to provide the necessary secure accommodation so that young people could be released into it straight away. However, I heard what the noble Lord said. I understand the reasons for what he said and the way in which he has put forward the amendment.
At least if the amendment is passed there is a clear obligation on the custody officer and indeed the local authority to make it perfectly clear that the juvenile is still in police custody in the cells, first, because the local authority does not have secure accommodation and, secondly, because the custody officer asked the local authority whether there was accommodation and received a negative answer. In effect there are two obligations under this amendment put on, first, the custody officer to request and, secondly, the local authority to consider. There is then a third obligation which is to record.
This amendment seems very sensible to me. if the Minister cannot accept it in this precise form, I hope that he will at least accept the argument and its thrust. I find it difficult to imagine a contrary argument but no doubt the Minister will tell us.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to add that it seems to me quite inconceivable that vulnerable young people should be banged up in adult cells in police stations. It is almost incredible that such a practice still goes on. Also, the present situation gives rise to malpractices. As an example, I know of one case in which the police entered a house and found stolen property. They arrested the mother, father and child believing that it was the child who was bringing in the stolen property. They locked up all three in different cells and kept the child and the parents there overnight. They exerted pressure on the child to make a confession because the child had come to realise that it was through his behaviour that his parents were locked up in cells next door, making a great deal of noise and protest about it. That is malpractice. I have seen such things happen. It is about time that that
170
practice was stopped and that in this year of grace young people were never on any occasion kept in adult cells in police stations.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: As the noble Lord referred to me I should like to add a few words. Different areas in this country have varying facilities. By no means are all the facilities that we believe right and proper able to be provided by every local authority. I hope therefore that, whatever is decided as a result of the noble Lord's amendment, there will be flexibility. I know that there is flexibility now. However, if a child were to commit an offence very late on Sunday night, it would be very difficult to get the local authority to take him into care and look after him. The police might prefer to look after him. That is not the answer, as we all know.
I hope that the t's and i's are not crossed and dotted to such an extent that the police might have to put the child almost out into the street or send him to a home that would be completely unsuitable. I ask the Minister to help us by perhaps not drafting this part of the Bill too rigidly.
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose underlying my noble friend's amendment. It is after all designed to protect the interests of young people who have been arrested by the police. That is a matter about which we are all concerned, not because we do not have confidence in the police to treat young people fairly, properly and with due regard to their health, but simply because the young people themselves will be undergoing a profound and possibly unnerving experience by the mere fact of having been arrested and detained by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that it is inconceivable for young people to be banged up—as I think he described it—in adult cells in this year of grace. That is a sentiment with which I believe we can all agree. However, there are circumstances which do not help to meet the aims of that sentiment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that we have to be careful not to make the rules so rigid that they do not cater for some of the special cases.
It was not clear whether the police had power to hold arrested juveniles if they thought that the local authority's proposed arrangements for accommodation were inadequate. Principally that was in terms of security. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the judgment which was given in the case of Regina v. Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire ex parte Michel. The judgment is detailed. I do not wish to summarise it. However, in essence it means that the police themselves have power to hold arrested juveniles if they consider that the local authority accommodation is insufficiently secure.
Perhaps I may quote what I regard as a key passage from the judgment. It states:
"We have no reason to doubt that in practice both local authorities and police officers do their utmost to ensure that this particular object is achieved"—
the objective being to enable the juvenile to be accommodated outside the police station. The judgment continues:

171
"If, however, the only accommodation apparently available for the detention of the juvenile will be insufficient to avoid the very consequences which led to the original decision to refuse bail, the custody officer is, in our own judgment, entitled to reach the conclusion that proper arrangements for the care and detention of the juvenile by the local authority outside the police station are impracticable".
With the greatest respect to the learned judge, I find that a very wise statement. It is wise because it recognises that both the local authorities and the police will do—as they do at present—all they can to look after the interests of the young people. I am sure that is right. Where children are concerned, both these public authorities carry out their functions with sensitivity, compassion and understanding for the young people's needs and wishes. But the judge's wishes were also wise in recognising the overriding factor; that is, the need to have regard to the legitimate call of the public to be protected from offending. There are very difficult decisions to make, especially where young people are concerned. We all look to the police to protect us from crime and to make these decisions on our behalf. They carry the full burden of responsibility if things go wrong. The Government believe that it is right they should have the powers that they need, to be exercised with sensitivity and compassion, in order to make these difficult decisions.
The amendment would in effect shift responsibility for making this decision from the police to the local authority. We believe that it would be wrong to impose on the local authority the heavy responsibility for making these decisions about the need to protect the public before the case has come to court. When it has come to court, the court itself will be able to make the decision. In the interim the responsibility lies, and rightly so, on the police.
It is for that reason that I find difficulty in accepting my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree with me that it is not a difficult problem. It is a question of money. My county council in East Sussex has a small and, I think, effective security accommodation in Hailsham which costs it £200 a night to maintain. That is a considerable sum per year. Does the noble Lord know—and if not can he find out and let the Committee know—how many local authorities have places of secure accommodation and the number that each has. I believe that there are a number of local authorities who have none. Such accommodation is, of course, expensive. The issue is one of money and virtually nothing else.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to come back on this issue. If there is to be flexibility, to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred, and if there is to be a loophole we shall never get children out of penal institutions. At one time I was in great difficulties because our remand home had no accommodation for a child late at night. I was determined that that child should not go into a prison cell. We managed to foster the child with the wife of a police officer.
There are ways of finding other accommodation for children. Until we were able to build new, secure
172
accommodation we found foster homes for the children with the wives of the police. Nothing could have been better. If we do not take a firm line on this matter, such action will not be taken because there will always be the excuse about resources. I strongly support my noble friend Lord Elton on this matter.
Lord Richard: Will the Minister help me with this difficulty? There is a clear division of view as to the situation between what the Court of Appeal said in the case of Michel and what the Department of Health and Social Security said.
In the Court of Appeal, the President, Lord Justice Watkins, said:
"The essential impact of Section 38 in the case of both adults and juveniles is on the critical decision whether the arrested person is to be kept in police detention. Once that decision has been made the custody officer becomes responsible for all necessary administrative arrangements".
In effect, the judgment of the Court of Appeal gives custody officers a licence to refuse to move juveniles to local authority accommodation because in their view it is not what the custody officers consider to be secure accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted a letter written by the Department of Health and Social Security in February 1988. It states:
"Although the department could not give a definitive view of the law"
—of course it cannot—
"we consider that the circumstances that might make it impracticable"
—there is that magic word again—
"for a detained juvenile to be transferred to local authority care … might include, for instance, very bad weather, a strike by social workers, or simply the detention of a juvenile very late at night"
—that deals with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod—
"when it might not be possible to make arrangements to transfer the juvenile".
The letter continues:
"We do not think that the lack of secure accommodation would constitute grounds for deciding that it was 'impracticable' to transfer a juvenile to local authority care".
There is a clear division. What are we to make of that? The Court of Appeal may be declaratory of what the law apparently is, that is indeed its clear function. On the other hand, it is clearly not declaratory of what this House intended and what the DHSS clearly understood the law to be. It is a state of confusion. For the Minister to say that on the whole he is satisfied with the present situation I find disappointing and surprising. He really ought to consider the matter again.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Elton, makes up his mind what to do about the amendment, perhaps I may say this. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has quoted examples where the wife of a policeman was thought to be a suitable person to take charge of a juvenile overnight. If that happens, there must surely be plenty of other individual householders in the country—responsible people who probably live near police stations—who could do the job just as well. I therefore believe that local authority resources and secure places are not the overriding considerations but how much trouble we are prepared to take to solve the problem.
Lord Hunt: I apologise to the Committee for being absent from the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, moved his amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord answered my question in his introduction. I wish to refer to what was said by my noble friend Lord Donaldson and to remind the Minister of the continuing lack of sufficient secure accommodation throughout the country. That has been the case for about 20 years. One reason why local authorities have been laggardly in supplying such accommodation is the continuing flexibility in allowing the police to lock up juveniles in their cells. So long as that happens, there will continue to be laxity on the part of local authorities in providing secure accommodation. I am not in favour of continuing flexibility.
Lord Knights: I had not intended to speak. However, my memory indicates that for many years police officers have been trained not to put juveniles into police cells. That is not to say that on occasions circumstances may be such that there is no other available accommodation. However, for many years it was the intention that juveniles should not be brought into contact with adult prisoners and should be kept in remand accommodation, secure rooms and the like rather than in police cells.
In general it is not police practice to put juveniles into police cells. It is always the hope that there is alternative accommodation within the police station if bail is refused and if the local authority does not have secure accommodation. We must face the fact that not all local authorities have secure accommodation. Many rural areas may never be able to provide it in sufficient quantity or in proper locations in order to cater for all circumstances. It would be impossible for local authorities covering the rural areas in Lincolnshire, for example, to have available secure accommodation immediately to accommodate any juvenile who had been arrested—
Lord Elton: The amendment specifically allows for that circumstance. It invites a local authority to plead inability on those grounds.
Lord Knights: I accept that point; indeed, I had decided not to speak because the amendment refers to "suitable accommodation". However, the thrust of the debate has gone beyond that and has tried to create a situation in which there is no possibility of a juvenile being kept overnight in police cells or police accommodation. That intention can only cause considerable difficulties. If the provision remains as presented by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, it will cover probably 99 per cent. of cases.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: While my noble friend is reflecting on the points that have been made and the answers that he should give, perhaps I may draw together the threads of the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the case of Regina v. Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire, ex parte Michel and repeated my statement that it was the court saying what we had said. That is not what we meant to say; that is on the record. At the time I was the
174
Government's spokesman and the case was reiterated in circulars after I left the Government. That being so, the question is whether it should be left to the courts to tell us what we ought to have meant, as my noble friend would urge, or whether we should consider what we ought to have meant. I feel strongly that it is the latter case but this is no time to open a debate on the issue. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared for Members to discuss the matter on Report if necessary.
It might be helpful to the Committee if I outline the effect of the Cambridge judgment showing what happened in London in 1989. I shall not specify the case, the individuals or the police station. It was then believed that matters were as the court has now declared that they are. On 20th June 1989, A, aged 13 years, was arrested by the police for matters relating to criminal damage and burglary. Following discussions between staff of the social work department and police officers a solicitor of the borough spoke by telephone with Superintendent X and informed him that A was 13 years of age and that a writ of habeas corpus would be sought unless the boy was released. Members of the Committee will understand that by then things had got rather hot. It was also made clear that the local authority was of the view that the use of secure accommodation in respect of A was inappropriate. However, Superintendent X was insistent that the boy would be detained in police custody unless a secure care place was made available.
In the event, an application for a writ was not made that night. Following production at the magistrates' court the next morning, the boy was remanded into the care of the local authority and placed in an open regional remand and assessment unit in west London. That was precisely what the authority was arguing was appropriate, and the court agreed.
I am not attacking the police for whom I have the highest regard. I admire the way in which they cope in difficult conditions, in difficult areas and in cramped quarters. However, I wish to remove from the police a judgment that Parliament and the Government have said should be remitted to somebody else. I wish to give those people any reasonable grounds for saying that it would be inappropriate or impractical to make a transfer. I point my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lady Macleod to subsection (6AA) of my new clause. It does not give an exclusive list of grounds; it is the list that I had in mind when I drafted the amendment late one night. There may be other grounds. I should be happy for the Government to take away the amendment, unscramble it and do something different providing that it achieves for juveniles in police cells exactly what my noble friend sought to do for the same children and young people in his Amendment No. 94B. The issue is the same: in that respect my noble friend is on my side. I ask him to persuade his officials to join him on my side.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend has made two powerful speeches; he has asked me to take the amendment away and look at it. How can I do anything other than that? Of course I shall do so. However, we must remember that there are two points at issue. The first is the protection of the children. No

175
one wishes to see children locked up in police cells. The second is the protection of the public. One can achieve that by ensuring that the actions of children who in certain cases have misbehaved appallingly will not be visited upon them again. My noble friend spoke of a 13 year-old boy who had caused criminal damage.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Knights, with all the authority of an ex-chief constable, say that the police never put children into cells if they can avoid doing so. I once met a chief constable who, as do many people, expressed anxiety about the rate of crime. He said, "What can I do? I take young offenders to local authority accommodation and leave them. They go in through the front door and straight out the back. By the time my officers have returned to the police station the offenders have committed another crime". Therefore such accommodation is not sufficiently secure to detain a person and prevent him committing another crime. That is the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that it is merely a question of money and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that it is not. There is disagreement. However, if there were limitless money, there would be plenty of secure units but money is not everything.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred also to the lack of secure accommodation. It is up to a local authority to decide whether or not to build such accommodation. The Government cannot compel local authorities. Under the Bill the Government will be able to require local authorities to provide accommodation for remanded juveniles but they cannot compel local authorities to provide places. If the local authority wishes to do so, then it receives a 100 per cent. grant.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, asked about the number of places. I cannot tell him how many places there are in each county. To attempt to answer that question would detain Members of the Committee for about 15 minutes. However, I can say that there are about 300 places nationwide which are available to any local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the Department of Health's view. Of course, the officials of the Department of Health are very eminent. But the noble Lord contrasted the view of learned judges. Of course, the view of learned judges is a matter of law which takes precedence. If my noble friend does not press his amendment, I shall take it away to see if we can meet the anxieties which have been expressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to prolong the discussion because the noble Earl has agreed to look again at the matter. I am sure that we are pleased about that.
The position is clear. The noble Earl will recall that we debated the matter last night. The debate does not appear in today's Hansard, having taken place late in the evening. I mentioned a Written Answer given last December by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. It listed local authorities which provide secure accommodation.
The point I made yesterday—I apologise for repeating it, although I now make it to a larger audience—is that the number of places of secure
176
accommodation has decreased over the past 10 years from about 330 to about 295. A very high proportion of that reduction is explained by the fact that the London borough of Wandsworth cut out 28 secure places. That has given rise to a most unfortunate situation in which, almost inevitably, a number of children have found themselves in police cells rather than secure accommodation.
I take the noble Earl's point that local authorities must make the decisions. However, there must be pressure from the Government to ensure an adequate number of secure places throughout England and Wales. Otherwise, there is always a risk that some children will find themselves in police cells.
Lord Elton: Before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I believe that my noble friend has moved his defensive position to a position of re-interpreting what Parliament should have intended in 1984. He is saying that we ought to have meant what we said although what we said appears not to have been what we meant. Parliament has not debated that. I believe it should do so unless my noble friend can find a way out of the difficulty between now and Report stage.
My amendment brings the disparity between resources and demand into the clear and has it recorded before the courts. I am grateful to my noble friend not merely for offering to examine the matter but for the care and attention which I know he will devote to it between now and Report stage. I hope that the happy result may be that he brings forward an amendment which I am able to support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 95CA:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer between youth courts and family proceedings courts
.—(1) Where, in any proceedings before the Youth Court the court is satisfied that the behaviour which constituted the offence was due, to a significant extent, to the circumstances in which the child was living and that it may be appropriate for a local authority to take action under Parts III and IV of the Children Act 1989 the court may ask the family proceedings court to direct the appropriate authority to undertake an investigation of the child's circumstances.
(2) Where the court gives a direction under this section the local authority concerned shall, when undertaking the investigation, consider whether they should—

(a) apply for a care order or for a supervision order with respect to the child;

(b) provide services or assistance for the child or his family; or

(c) take any other action with respect to the child.

(3) Where a local authority undertake an investigation under this section, and decide not to apply for a care order or supervision order with respect to the child concerned, they shall inform the court of—

(a) their reason for so deciding;

(b) any service or assistance which they have provided, or intend to provide, for the child and his family; and

(c) any other action which they have taken, or propose to take, with respect to the child.

(4) Where a local authority undertakes an investigation it shall make a recommendation regarding an appropriate outcome and inform the family proceedings court which shall refer the case to the youth court for sentence.
(5) The information shall be given to the court before the end of the period of eight weeks beginning with the date of the direction, unless the court otherwise directs.
(6) 'File local authority named in a direction under subsection (1) must be—

(a) the authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident; or

(b) where the child does not reside in the area of a local authority, the authority within whose area any circumstances arose in consequence of which the direction is being given.

(7) If, on the conclusion of any investigation of review under this section, the authority decide not to apply for a care order or supervision order with respect to the child—

(a) they shall consider whether it would be appropriate to review the case at a later date; and

(b) if they decide that it would be, they shall determine the date on which that review is to begin.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95CB. Building on the Children Act 1989, the aim of the Family Courts Consortium, of which I am chairman, is to work towards a family court system. As is well known, the Children Act 1989 moved in that direction, creating family proceedings courts within the magistrates' system dealing with civil matters concerning children and young persons.
Juvenile delinquency was left to the juvenile courts. This Bill substitutes youth courts for juvenile courts. The complexion of the magistrates' family proceedings courts will inevitably be concerned with the wellbeing of children and young persons. The renamed youth court, however, dealing with juvenile delinquents, is inevitably likely to be concerned with punishment and the use of penal institutions.
It is acknowledged that the child or young person must be held responsible for his or her actions. To excuse them would be to diminish them. Having said that, two considerations emerge. First, a proportion of juvenile delinquents have unhappy and difficult backgrounds. They may even have been abused. Secondly, the thread running through the Bill is to keep individuals out of penal institutions, out of custody, and, wherever possible, to provide for them to be rehabilitated. Over the past 10 years that has successfully been done by intermediate treatment centres with young persons living at home and attending the centres. I believe that that has diminished the number of young people in custody by 50 per cent.
The two amendments seek to make it possible for the youth courts to have knowledge of the background of delinquents and to employ community methods of dealing with them. Indeed, one would hope that a social report would be available to the youth court so that there was no long period of remand in custody, bearing in mind that there are insufficient secure places in this country. Indeed, perhaps the wording of Amendment No. 95CA should have included the words "after consideration of a social report".
I submit that there must be a welfare element in the youth courts if we are to keep delinquents out of the penal system. When debating Amendment No. 95AA the Minister said that custody should be the last resort. However, if magistrates in the youth courts do not know the background of the child—the delinquent
178
—with whom they are dealing, it is likely that they will commit the child to a penal institution. If they know the social background of the child, then they have a choice as to whether there is a possibility of rehabilitating the child or young person or whether they must send the child to a penal institution.
Unless we deal with that situation and unless there is a crossover between the youth courts and the family proceedings courts, I believe that a number of children who could be dealt with much better in another way will be sent to penal institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], has said. To a certain extent she has tied this amendment with the amendment dealing with police cautioning which I moved and withdrew. However, this amendment deals with children who have gone beyond police cautioning and who are to be dealt with by the courts.
At this point I refer back to my amendment which sought to introduce some kind of central and local government system of committees that would be able to sort out this kind of problem. I reinforce my argument to the Government and ask them to think about that kind of committee system in the light of Amendment No. 95CA.
The family proceedings court should bear in mind that criminal behaviour is not innate; it sometimes has its origin in poor conditions. That is something that the new youth court certainly should take into account if the Bill is to have the effect of excluding young people from prison custody. The more the provisions of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, are available to the courts the better. An informal getting together of people who are happy to look after a child provided he attends what is offered is crucial to the passing of non-custodial sentences. Unless the youth courts are able to take into account the circumstances in which the child is living, they will not be free to order that kind of sentence.
Subject to what the noble Earl says in regard to the two new clauses, I hope that the Government will take on board the import of them even if they are not prepared to accept them at this time.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The main purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the welfare of children involved in criminal proceedings is properly safeguarded. It is an important aim and one which both I and the Government share. I know that Amendment No. 95CA is modelled on Section 37 of the Children Act 1989, but I believe that the circumstances involved in criminal proceedings are different and that this provision is not needed in criminal cases.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that it is most important to ensure that juvenile offenders whose welfare is at risk and who should properly be dealt with in the care jurisdiction rather than by the courts, are identified at an early stage. Mechanisms already exist which allow that to happen. Much relevant information should become available when a juvenile offender's suitability for a caution is

179
being considered. In many areas representatives of all the relevant agencies, including the social services, get together to discuss cases before a decision is taken. There are often home visits. That provides the opportunity to ensure that the welfare rather than the criminal justice path is taken if that is appropriate.
If criminal proceedings are initiated a further safeguard exists. The Crown Prosecution Service must have regard to the public interest in deciding whether or not to prosecute; and the code for Crown Prosecutors specifically requires the welfare of the juvenile to be considered. Again, those cases which would be better dealt with in the welfare system can be filtered out and drawn to the attention of the relevant authority.
For those reasons there should be comparatively few children with unidentified welfare needs in the criminal courts. Most juvenile offenders with overriding welfare needs will have been filtered out at an earlier stage. In other cases the decision will have to be taken to deal with them in the criminal court either because of the seriousness of the offence or for some other reason. The relevant authorities should be aware of their welfare needs.
I am not sure that there is a great deal, if anything, to be gained by introducing the procedure proposed in the amendments in dealing with what is likely to be the small residual category. Courts have a statutory duty under Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to have regard to the welfare of the children who appear before them. Under the Bill that duty will continue to apply to the youth court. Where important needs are identified the courts will be able to alert the local authority. It will then be for the local authority to decide what action to take. In those cases the welfare need is likely to come to light as a result of investigations made by the local authority or the probation service in preparing the pre-sentence report. There is no need for the local authority to be required to conduct a further investigation, which would be the effect of the amendments.
When the Bill comes into force later this year Section 12AA of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—added to by the Children Act 1989—will make specific provision for dealing with children whose offending is linked to home circumstances. Provided certain criteria are met it allows them to be required to live in local authority accommodation for up to six months as a condition of a supervision order. The effect of that is to apply to such children the local authority's duties under Part III of the 1989 Act towards children whom they are looking after. During the period of residence the local authority will be able to reach a considered decision on what further action may be needed to meet the child's welfare needs. That may be, for example, an application for a care order or a supervision order under Part IV of the Act, or any of the other forms of action mentioned in the amendments.
Amendment No. 95CB makes a similar and alternative provision to Amendment No. 95CA. It
180
proposes a much less elaborate structure for local authority investigations; but it leaves rather more questions unanswered.
For the reasons I have given I do not believe that what is proposed by my noble friend is necessary. However, I understand and sympathise with the anxieties which lay behind it and which prompted her to table the amendment in the first place.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that full explanation. I make one comment. The liaison committees, if they exist, know the background and history of the children coming before the courts. Sadly, not every authority in the country has a liaison committee.
I shall read what my noble friend said. If I feel it necessary I shall bring back the matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95CB not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95CC:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
Default power where probation committee fails to discharge statutory duty
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if he is of the opinion that, without reasonable excuse, a probation committee—

(a) is failing properly to discharge any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment; or

(b) has so failed and is likely to do so again.

(2) An order under this section shall—

(a) state that the Secretary of State is of the said opinion; and

(b) make such provision as he considers requisite for the purpose of securing that the duty is properly discharged by the committee.

(3) Where an order is made under this section, it shall be the duty of the committee to comply with the provision made by the order.").
The noble Earl said: It is widely recognised that the provisions in the Bill for dealing with more offenders in the community make it more important than ever to have a probation service which is efficient and effective and accountable to the Secretary of State.
In the Green Paper Supervision and Punishment in the Community we sought views on how the service might be strengthened in order to be better able to meet these new demands. In the light of responses to the Green Paper, on 11th April we published a decision document Organising Supervision and Punishment in the Community which sets out our conclusions on the way ahead. Copies of that document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It includes the proposals to introduce a default power over committees which this amendment seeks to do.
We decided that the probation service should continue to operate as a local service. At the same time, we need to be able to rely on a service which is equally effective and consistent across the country; one which commands the confidence of sentencers. Already a great deal of progress has been made; for example, in setting national objectives and promoting

181
national standards for community service. We are consulting the service on national standards for the other main aspects of its work. But at the end of the day we must be able to ensure that the duties prescribed in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, as amended, and in rules made under that statute are carried out properly.
The amendment we are proposing here is intended to do that by enabling the Secretary of State to intervene if it ever happened that a probation committee seriously or persistently neglected its statutory duties. This would, I am quite certain, be a very rare event. Similar powers already exist in other spheres; for example, over local authorities in relation to their social services functions. Without this clause probation committees could not ultimately be held to account by the Secretary of State for the proper performance of their duties. The majority of respondents to the Green Paper were in favour of a default power, provided there were reasonable safeguards for committees.
What is proposed is very much a power of last resort. Various procedures would need to be gone through before the Secretary of State reached the point of making an order. To start with there would need to be some evidence indicating cause for concern; for example, arising from complaints or from an inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation. Should such evidence come to light the Home Secretary would need to seek a report from the probation committee itself. The clause provides that an order may be made only if a committee has no reasonable excuse for not discharging a duty properly. Should that report be unsatisfactory Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation would be asked to undertake an inspection with a view to advising on the need for a default order. Only when he had received the inspector's report would the Secretary of State be in a position to decide whether a default order was the right way to proceed. At all stages of the proceedings the committee would be kept fully aware of the risk of an order being made and would be given reasonable time to remedy the situation before an order was made. Clearly it would be much better if the committee was prompted to act quickly itself rather than by the Secretary of State having to intervene.
Given all these safeguards, we would expect the power to be invoked very rarely. We do however think that having such a power clearly set out in statute is very important to the success of the Bill's sentencing provisions. The very existence of such a power should itself ensure adherence to national standards. The power would make clear that accountability for the performance of the probation service rests finally with the Home Secretary. Sentencers would be left in no doubt that the service could be depended upon to produce demanding community sentences. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having had some responsibility for the probation service for five years, I have always found the service and probation committees extremely helpful. I can remember very few rows. On one occasion only was it necessary for the Home Office to invite in members of a committee
182
to have a discussion about the candidates for the position of chief probation officer. With that exception, over a period of five years I can remember no particular difficulties. It would be unreasonable to oppose this provision. As the noble Earl said, rarely will it be invoked. I hope that it will never be invoked. One wants to proceed by means of agreement. In my experience it has always been relatively easy to secure that. Nevertheless, with the additional responsibilities which are being placed on the probation service it is reasonable to have this power. That being so, we agree with the noble Earl.
Lord Richard: We on these Benches accept the argument put forward by the noble Earl. We accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [The inner London probation area]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95CD:
Page 39, line 11, at end insert:
("(3A) In paragraph 2(3), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) of such number as may be so specified of justices of the peace for the petty sessions areas of the inner London probation area who are not metropolitan stipendiary magistrates, chosen in such manner as may be so specified by the justices for those areas who are not such magistrates;".").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 95CE. These are minor technical amendments to the drafting of Clause 59 which do not change its intended effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95CE:
Page 39, line 27, leave out ("of") and insert ("for").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Provision of court security officers]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 95CF:
Page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this clause is to try to deal with the situation where a magistrates' committee has decided to contract out for the provision of court security. The precise provisions of Clause 60 seem to establish a regime in which the committee in any petty sessions area shall determine,
"(a) whether court security officers should be provided" and,
"(b) if so, how many such officers should be provided, and whether they should be provided by the committee or by the responsible authority".
Subsection (2) of the clause states:
"As soon as practicable after the making of a determination under subsection (1) (b) above, the committee or, as the case may be, the responsible authority shall provide the required number of court security officers, on such terms and conditions as they may determine—

(a) by employing persons to act as court security officers; or

(b) by entering into a contract with another person for the employment by him of persons to act as such officers".

My amendment seeks to delete paragraph (b). If the rest of the clause is accepted the committee of any petty sessions area could employ persons to act as

183
court security officers, but they would be directly employed. The purpose of my amendment is very simple. It is to urge the advantages of a directly employed labour force by the local committee in order to provide court security rather than that it should be contracted out to the private sector.
The advantages are two-fold. First, the magistrates' committee can have clear control in relation to the recruitment and training of court security officers. Secondly, the court security officers would be accountable to employers and managers who are expert in the requirements and operations of magistrates' courts. By contracting out to the private sector for the provision of court security officers the danger is that standards of court security and order will decline.
I say that for two reasons: first, private security firms perhaps do not have the most appealing record in terms of recruiting and retaining staff of the appropriate calibre. That may be due to the low pay which they receive. Their record on training is not of the greatest. There is an extremely high turnover of staff. There are practically no career prospects in these firms. Secondly, the disadvantage of going out into the private sector, as this clause will permit if it is unamended, is that the general public do not invest the same amount of authority in a security guard as they do in a policeman or prison officer.
In the recent past there have been some very serious incidents at magistrates' courts. For example, there was a shooting at Camberwell magistrates' court and a dangerous assault at Horseferry Road magistrates' court. The security requirements at magistrates' courts are clearly increasing, not diminishing. The Magistrates' Clerks' Society has noted recently an increasingly volatile and unpredictable type of defendant. That refers to some of our earlier amendments. In particular, a larger proportion of defendants are, or appear to be, psychiatrically ill. A pilot scheme to replace the police by private security in magistrates' courts took place in Hull last year. I am told that the clerk to the justices reported great concern about the private firm which undertook the experiment. He said that the recruits were poorly vetted before taking the job. Indeed, one security officer had a conviction for robbery. He also concluded that they were slower to react to potentially violent situations.
The conclusion that I come to, which is why I have put down the amendment, is that if police are to be replaced by civilian workers in magistrates' courts—I hope it is clear that it is not something of which we would approve—then those workers must be directly employed by and be responsible to a magistrates' court committee or to a local authority. A magistrates' court committee or a local authority is best placed to manage and train security officers in accordance with the requirements of magistrates' courts' security. Private security firms with a low-paid, ever-changing and poorly trained staff are not in a position to maintain the existing security standards of magistrates' courts let alone implement the higher standards which are, in our view, demanded. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that the Committee will not agree to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The amendment would prevent a magistrates' court committee or a local authority from contracting out the provision of court security officers to a private security firm should it wish to do so. If the court decided that it needed court security officers, it would, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, have to provide them itself. The Committee may be aware that, following the inception of the Crown Prosecution Service, police presence at magistrates' courts has been much reduced. That would commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, because it has enabled police to get out on the street, a matter about which he has been deeply concerned at Question Time on the past two or three days.
Last year we issued a Home Office Circular 8/90, which doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will also have read. Just in case he has not, I will tell him that it suggested that the police should be present where there is judged to be a real risk of harm to court staff. Therefore there is a provision for police there. The circular continued that the magistrates' courts' committees should themselves be responsible for routine low-level security. This includes such matters as checking baggage and controlling the movement of people within the court building.
In the wake of this division of responsibilities, some committees have chosen to employ court security officers either directly or under contract. I understand that security duties are being carried out by private sector staff at the Essex court house, at Newham and at York. There may well be others. As far as I know, the system is working well.
In Clause 60 and the following clauses, we have tried to build on the existing arrangements. Magistrates' courts' committees will be able to choose, as at present, between employing their own security officers directly and contracting out the service. Removing the option of contracting out would reduce choice. It would be harder for the committee to achieve what it might consider to be value for money in the provision of security staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the fact that the private security firm may provide badly paid, ill-trained and unsuitable security officers in its eagerness to gain the contract, to reduce costs and thereby to make a quick profit. Indeed, he referred to one or two people who had unsavoury records. One can always find people with unsavoury records in the most erudite and excellent places. There will always be occasions when mistakes are made.
It is well understood that court security officers will have to be up to the job. The required standard and the services to be provided would have to be clearly specified in the contract. Magistrates' courts' committees are well aware that cheapness is not the same as effectiveness. Court security officers will be properly monitored because they will be supervised and managed by the clerk to the justices under the aegis of the magistrates' courts' committee. All these safeguards will operate within the clear statutory framework laid down in Clauses 60 to 63.

185
This path has been trodden by some magistrates' courts. It gives the courts an option and the encouragement to do so. It would be a great pity to remove that option.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: On the substance of the matter I agree with the noble Earl. Magistrates' courts' committees should have the power to decide this matter. However, one problem troubles me. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I have raised it in the House on one or two previous occasions. It is not a question of one or two people who may have unsavoury records. A report by the Association of Chief Police Officers indicated that we are not talking about one or two people; we are talking about substantial numbers of people in the private, security industry who have criminal records. The ACPO report went further. It said that some of the people involved in the management of these firms have criminal records.
I am not saying that as a result of that I am opposed to allowing the magistrates' courts' committees to make a choice in the matter. I believe that they should do so. The central question is: what are the vetting procedures to be? Are the employees of private security firms or other people who may be involved—people directly employed by magistrates' courts' committees—to be vetted? If they are, who will pay for it? This is an important matter. The noble Earl will be aware that there is increasing concern in the police service about the number of people on whom it is having to carry out checks for previous criminal convictions. I should be grateful if he could help me in this matter.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raises a pertinent point. I know the report of the Association of Chief Police Officers to which he refers. It is very disturbing. We have always taken the view that the private security industry ought to conduct itself and regulate itself. There are those who say that the industry should be regulated by statute. At present we believe that it is right that the security industry ought to control its own organisation.
We are presently examining a range of options for regulating the industry. These include both statutory control and improving the arrangements for self-regulation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not yet made up his mind. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks who is to vet all these people. He will know the problem that arises over people who are anxious to have vetted taxi-drivers and people who deal with old people, young people, and children. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and is extremely expensive. I cannot give the noble Lord the kind of crisp, neat answer that he would like. It is up to the magistrates' courts' committees before they enter into a contract to satisfy themselves that the people to whom they are giving the contract are reasonable, reputable and as reliable as they can be.
Lord Richard: I am sorry that the noble Earl has not treated this amendment with the seriousness with
186
which it was put forward. It is a perfectly serious point. Home Office circulars are not exactly my constant companions; but I shall take note.
Earl Ferrers: In order to meet that point, I thought that I had better explain to the noble Lord exactly what was in the circular. I was not being frivolous.
Lord Richard: I am obliged that the noble Earl is helping me so much. Perhaps he will help me a little more and accept one of my amendments. With great respect, there are some fundamental points here.
In the absence of any kind of licensing system for private security firms, prima facie it is wrong to use them to provide security officers in what is an extremely sensitive establishment; namely, a court. While I accept that it is for the magistrates to decide—option is left with the magistrates—unless and until we can be satisfied as to the operation of private security firms I do not think that it is a sensible option. The magistrates' courts' committees are bound to look at costs. If a private firm comes along and produces what on the face of it may seem to be an attractive security package at a lower cost than the court could provide itself there would be a tendency and a temptation to go for the cheaper option. Before I conclude, I cannot help making this observation. I do not think that any of the security operatives and guards at the Palace of Westminster belong to a private security firm. The Palace authorities responsible have been very careful to ensure that staff are employed directly by the Palace. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I am sorry that the noble Earl cannot accept it. I shall take the opinion of the Committee.
5.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 95CF) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mais, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar, C.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Galpern, L.

Parry, L.

Gladwyns, L.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Richard, L.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

187

Turner of Camden, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Underhill, L.

Whaddon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Astor, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bessborough, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Blyth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boardman, L.

Knights, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Long, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vauxi, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Caldecote, V

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevansi, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Palmer, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Elles, B.

Selborne, E.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowdeni, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Vinson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Waddington, L.

Harvington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Haslam, L.

Wise, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Powers and duties of court security officers]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95CG:
Page 41, line 33, leave out from ("authority" ") to end of line 2 on page 42 and insert (", in relation to any court-house, means—

(a) a justice of the peace, chief clerk or justices' clerk who is exercising any functions in the court-house; and

(b) any officer or staff employed to assist such a clerk and authorised by him for the purpose.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment is essentially a technical one. Clause 61(5) already defines a "person in authority" under whose instructions a court security officer may act as a justice of the peace, a justices' clerk or an authorised justices' clerk's assistant who acts for the area in which the courthouse concerned is situated. However, there are occasions when justices and justices' clerks, perfectly properly, must carry out their functions in a courthouse which is located outside the petty sessions area for which they were appointed. The amendment will ensure that, where the courthouse happens to be located outside the area for which they were appointed, they can still act as a "person in authority" in giving instructions to court security officers. Thus a proper line of responsibility will remain in place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 95CH:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
("The Crown Prisoner Custody Service
.—(1) Arrangements for the escorting of prisoners of the Crown shall be the responsibility of the Crown Prisoner Custody Service within the Home Office;
(2) The recruitment, training and conditions of service of Crown Prison Custody Officers shall be the responsibility of the Crown Prisoner Custody Service;
(3) Such arrangements include and provide for the functions and responsibilities outlined in sections 64 to 67 above;
(4) The Crown Prisoner Custody Service shall be a permanent part of H.M. Prison Service;
(5) The power to make rules under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause has three purposes: to give the escort service a more coherent shape; to make its performance more efficient; and, finally, to establish a separate service with the aim of ending the disruption to prison life and settled regimes which for too long has been the main feature of the existing arrangements. It aims to achieve those purposes by doing a number of things.
First, the main thrust of the new clause is to create a separate Crown prison custody service within the Home Office. It would be part of the Crown prison system. The new custody service would be responsible for recruitment and training and for laying down conditions of service for the new Crown prison custody officers.
I shall consider the background of this matter. The creation of a separate escort service is strongly recommended in the Woolf report. It had been considered sympathetically in 1979 by the May Committee, but on that occasion no firm conclusion was reached. In the Woolf report however the recommendation is emphatic:
"We think that the balance on the merits of having a separate service has changed since the May Committee reported. We propose the setting up of such a service".
In England and Wales at the moment prison officers escort prisoners to magistrates' courts except in London where that is the responsibility of the police. Prison officers are responsible for the escorting of prisoners to Crown Courts without exception. They

189
have performed those duties over the years efficiently and with dedication and professionalism. In Crown Courts the officers also perform dock duties.
The advantages of a separate escort service are, first, that it would avoid the constant disruption to prison life and regimes which arise from the current system. Secondly, a separate service would mean a considerable improvement in the managerial performance in prisons, with the saving in costs and in frustration that that would mean. Thirdly, it would enable the escort service itself to benefit from more regular planning and cost-effective management. As I say, the main thrust of the amendment is to establish a separate service as recommended in the Woolf report. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Court escort work is a considerable drain on the resources of the prison service. When it is all added up it comes to the equivalent of about 1,000 officers. A lot of police time is also taken up—the equivalent of something like 1,400 officers, making a total of about 2,400. Ensuring that prisoners are delivered to court on time is, rightly, a high priority for prison governors, but it is one which is sometimes unpredictable and which makes it more difficult for them to plan their use of manpower within the prison to best effect from the point of view of ensuring that the internal regime is a constructive one.
The amendment tries to get around that problem by proposing that court escort work should become a separate function in the prison service. That was one of the options we considered during the development of our proposals. However we came to the conclusion that we should have the power to contract out the work.
There is no doubt that the contracting out of all sorts of central and local government services over the past 12 years has led to tremendous improvements in the economy and efficiency with which the services have been provided, from which taxpayers have benefited. The detailed studies which we have carried out over the last three years have clearly demonstrated that there would be comparable benefits from contracting out the court escort work. The Committee may recall that a major element of those studies was an independent consultancy study by the management consultants Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. It reported that there were a number of private sector organisations which had the necessary expertise and financial backing to carry out that work and that there was a reasonable prospect of improvements in cost-effectiveness which would make the exercise worth while.
Let us look at an example of the way in which we might expect contractors to be able to provide a more cost-effective service. A major part of the operation consists of working out routeings between police stations, prisons and courts and managing a vehicle fleet effectively to ensure that the prisoners are delivered on time to where they have to be. That is a complex exercise but one which contractors with existing transport and distribution operations are well equipped to carry out in a way which makes the best use of vehicle usage and therefore eliminates unnecessary operating costs. Experience shows that
190
operating in a competitive environment keeps managers on their toes and ensures that the service is provided in the most cost-effective way.
Of course there must be safeguards. The prisoner custody officers engaged in the work will be approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 73 and Schedule 9. The contract will lay down detailed standards which have to be met, and, as explained in the discussion document Courts Escorts, Custody and Security, there will for each contract be a liaison group of prison, police and court representatives to ensure that the required standard of service is delivered. There will be a government appointed monitor under Clause 65 who will keep matters under review and investigate any complaints from prisoners about how they have been treated. There will also be a panel of lay observers who will have a monitoring function similar to that of prison boards of visitors or lay visitors to police stations. The contracts will be let by the Home Secretary, and Ministers will remain accountable to Parliament for the way prisoners are treated and the quality of service which is given to the courts.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is concerned that the escorting of prisoners may fall to fly-by-night operators with badly trained and unvetted staff, but there is no question of contracts being issued to such operators. There will be proper vetting and training to ensure that the rigorous standards to be specified in the contracts will be met. In my view, only the larger and well-established firms will have the capacity to undertake such work. I am confident that the policy of contracting this work out is the right one, and I invite your Lordships to accept it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With respect to the Minister, he has not dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in relation to subsection (4). What is the objection? Everyone who knows anything about the matter will agree that escorting must be done by someone other than the trained professional prison officer who has jobs to do in the prison and who at the moment is not doing them. He is profiting from long periods of escort work and court attendance for which he is paid and during which he enjoys himself doing nothing. That is obviously a grave error. Someone else should do the escort work.
The Minister has not faced up to the issue of why there should not be a Crown prison custody service as part of the prison service. One would have a group of professional people within the service, which would avoid irritation and trouble between the prison officers and the new service because they would all form part of the one service. In due course, no doubt, members of the custody service could be promoted into the prison officer service. We should then have one service dealing with the same people. We should not have the problem of having a professional service on one side and what it would regard as an amateur service on the other dealing with the same people. I should have thought that was a recipe for trouble.

191
The Prison Officers' Association will never go along with the idea of having private people to deal with what may be extremely difficult prisoners. They are people with whom prison officers are familiar and with whom their long experience and expertise has taught them how to deal. There is also a grave possibility of corruption with an amateur service of private security officers. If a van is ambushed and prisoners are released, it is difficult to establish that it did not happen with the co-operation of the person driving the van. It can easily occur and it is extremely difficult to prove that it happened. It is not likely to happen with a professional but very likely to happen with an amateur service.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl will be relieved to know that on this occasion, unhappily, I find myself in disagreement with my noble friend. The Government are wholly right with this proposal. If enacted, the inevitable consequence—for understandable reasons the noble Earl has not yet put the point—is that it will involve members of the same organisation, the Prison Officers' Association. As the Committee is aware, industrial relations in the prisons are the worst of any sector of activity in the country. That is not wholly the result of the ill-disposed national executive of the POA or a series of its wicked branches. We must recognise that one reason why police cells have been filled, as they have been, is because of industrial action of this character.
The amendment would have the effect of maintaining the monopoly bargaining position of the POA which would be a great pity. We must examine means of trying to establish an infinitely more sensible arrangement in terms of our prisoners. We must recognise that as a result of serious misconduct, many prisoners have been put in conditions which are intolerable. Some were described in the report of Lord Justice Woolf to which we shall come in a moment. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government are right on the matter. They have the responsibility of ensuring that there are proper vetting procedures for these people.
When my noble friend refers to corruption, if the Committee will forgive me saying so, it is not wholly unknown in the public sector for corruption to exist. I do not believe that there is any greater risk with private contractors if the Home Office takes its responsibilities seriously, as I hope it will, and ensures that there are proper standards of training and proper vetting procedures. I can see no reason why anyone should be able to argue that private contractors would be any more amateur than the people who would be employed if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, were passed. It seems to me that the standards would be remarkably similar.
Earl Ferrers: Needless to say, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his speech. He made it clear that he is in favour of what the Government propose. He answered a number of points put by his noble friend Lord Hutchinson far more eloquently than I could. He referred to an amateur service but I do not see that as being so. Quite the reverse. This is
192
a professional service operated by professionals skilled in the work who will become more skilled provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, that they have proper standards, proper training and proper vetting. I entirely agree.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the purpose of the proposal is to keep the activity separate from the Prison Officers' Association and the police forces, both of which are involved. The whole idea is to allow the prison officers to do the work which they ought to carry out and the police the work which they ought to carry out and for this service to be run by others. For those reasons I hope that the Committee will come to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reached, quite rightly, that it is correct for this service to be contracted out.
Lord Richard: For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government have almost a spasm reaction at the idea of creating anything public. If there is to be a prison escort service or a prison custody service, it seems eminently sensible that it should be organised within the Home Office rather than by someone outside. The Home Office is responsible for the prisoners at either end: when they leave the prison and when they reach the court. I do not see why it should not be responsible for the period in between.
Recruitment, training and conditions of service will be better safeguarded within the Home Office. The idea that because something is new it must be contracted out rather than carried on by a government department—the logical place for it—is not an attitude that I understand. There is a long Marshalled List and in all the circumstances I do not wish to divide the Committee. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Arrangements for the provision of prisoner escorts]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 95CJ and 95CK:
Page 43, line 2, leave out ("as respects any area").
Page 43, line 12, after ("performed") insert ("in such cases as may be determined by or under the arrangements").
The noble Earl said: The intention is that the prisoner escort arrangements which are provided under Clause 64 should operate on an area by area basis. It may be that there will be one contract, for example, covering the London area, another for the West Midlands, another for East Anglia and so on. The prisoner custody arrangements for each area would serve all the courts in that area. It may be that a prisoner will need to be brought to a court in one area from a prison in another area. These amendments make it clear that escort arrangements for a given area can include taking prisoners to and from places in another area. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 [Monitoring etc. of prisoner escort arrangements]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95CL:

193
Page 43, line 25, leave out ("made as respects any area").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Powers and duties of prisoner custody officers acting in pursuance of arrangements]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 44, line 22, at end insert:
("and the Secretary of State may make rules with respect to the performance by prisoner custody officers of their duty under paragraph (d) above.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment responds to an undertaking given by my right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold when the clause was considered in another place. Clause 66(3) (d) places prisoner custody officers under a duty to attend to the wellbeing of prisoners who are under escort. The Opposition in another place sought to expand this duty so as to create an explicit obligation to protect prisoners from public scrutiny and insult and to provide adequate light, ventilation and standards of physical comfort in the vans used to transport them.
This would be consistent with a similar duty on prison officers under the prison rules at present. We agree that the duty to attend to the wellbeing of prisoners under escort should include these points. The amendment provides my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with the power to make rules specifically concerned with the way in which prisoner custody officers discharge this duty.
We intend to make rules which will ensure that prisoner custody officers are under no less an obligation than prison officers under the prison rules with regard to the escort of prisoners. The amendment is phrased in general terms for the simple reason that there may be matters other than those affecting the welfare of prisoners which need to be taken into account. I commend the amendment to the Committee; I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Limit on powers of detention of prisoner custody officers
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person is in the custody of a prisoner custody officer whose duty it is to take him to a prison, remand centre or young offender institution in which his detention is authorised by law, the person may not instead be lawfully detained in a police station or on court premises for a period exceeding four days.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that subsection (1) above shall not have effect in an area specified in the order for a period not exceeding six months.
(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would place a four-day maximum limit on the length of time during which a remanded or sentenced prisoner can be held in a police or court cell. This was a recommendation of Lord Justice Woolf in his report which stated:
"Police cells should not be used as an expedient to prevent over-crowding. There should be a limit placed at the first
194
opportunity upon the time a prisoner, whether on remand or under sentence, can be kept in police cells on behalf of the Prison Service. The maximum period might be four days".
This is probably the first opportunity that we have had of putting a limit on the length of time for which a prisoner can be kept in a police cell. I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the Committee. The proposal is modified by allowing the Home Secretary, in an emergency, to obtain approval from Parliament to disapply—to coin a horrible word—the provision in a specified geographical area and for a period not exceeding six months. Over the past decade the holding in police and court cells of prisoners who have been sentenced or remanded to penal establishments has been a cause of' continuing concern to the police, the prison and probation services, the magistracy, justices' clerks and to the legal profession as a whole.
On Friday 12th April no fewer than 503 prisoners were held in such cells. The majority of those concerned are remand prisoners who have not yet been found guilty of an offence by the courts. This is an expensive practice. Lord Justice Woolf pointed out that for the six months ending 31st August 1990 the estimated cost of holding prisoners in police cells was more than £25 million. The human cost is even more important. Such prisoners are held in cells designed to hold people for only a few hours. The facilities for exercise, washing, bathing and visits are frequently entirely inadequate. Although the police make impressive efforts to make conditions tolerable in difficult circumstances—I pay tribute to them for that—it is quite wrong that they should be asked to act as prison officers, holding prisoners in premises which are quite unsuitable for the purpose.
The Woolf Committee described conditions in police cells in Manchester as follows:
"The Inquiry visited the police cells at Manchester (the Central Detention Centre). While police officers appeared to be doing their best to make the prisoners' conditions tolerable, the conditions were in fact wholly unacceptable. The night before the Inquiry's visit, 101 prisoners had been held in 73 police cells. The cells had no natural light, they were small; they had an objectionable smell, they were overheated and without sanitation. The amount of exercise which the prisoners could have each day was limited to 20 minutes. The exercise area was a cage of modest size on a flat roof patrolled from above by a doghandler. The prisoners spent the major part of the day locked in their cells. They were not allowed radios. When the Inquiry visited, some remand prisoners had been in the cells for over two weeks".
The cells below Camberwell court in London have been described by Mr. Cavadino, the clerk to the parliamentary all-party Penal Affairs Group. He stated:
"The conditions in the cells underneath Camberwell Court are by far the worst in which I have ever seen prisoners held in this country. Two prisoners are held in a cell which seemed to me little more than half the size of a Victorian-built prison cell. One sleeps on a mattress placed on a bench along one wall while the other sleeps on a mattress on the floor. They are kept in these tiny cells for over 23 hours out of every 24, being allowed out in groups for half an hour's association in a room along the corridor if police manpower allows. There is no daylight anywhere on this floor, and all the light is artificial".
A Mrs. Stanley had occasion to visit the magistrates' court at Camberwell Green when she discovered that her son had been moved there from

195
Wormwood Scrubs. She wrote a letter which was published in the Independent on 23rd March 1987 which stated:
"With no fresh air or daylight—and no provision for any exercise at all—the cell was about six feet by six feet and furnished with a bunk somewhat shorter than he is. Also, because it was not a proper prison, he only had the clothes he stood up in; no uniforms were available. I could only speak to him through a grille, which was mid-chest height, for 15 minutes, with an officer standing beside me. The stench of the cell wafted out through the grille … He didn't know where he was or the time of day—as far as he was concerned he was in a box with a five inch by four inch slit in it".
While doing one's best to make allowances for past history, overcrowding and old buildings, one must conclude that this situation really will not do. I believe that one way of making sure that these conditions do not survive for much longer is to do what Lord Justice Woolf urged and put a strict time limit—four days is more than sufficient in our opinion—upon how long a prisoner can be held in a police cell. We should never forget that the vast majority of people who are kept in these conditions are remand prisoners. By definition they have not been convicted of an offence and they have not yet even been tried for an offence. In some cases they have only recently been charged. This position is a blot upon our civilisation. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We are discussing a truly shameful situation which has persisted for nearly 11 years. Until the period when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was Home Secretary, there was uncertainty as to whether the police had any lawful reason to detain Home Office remand prisoners. However, the law was then changed. I believe it was changed as the result of an industrial relations dispute. For a whole variety of reasons, such as overcrowding and industrial relations disputes, hundreds of people have been detained in these degrading circumstances. The conditions in which they are detained have been described not only by people connected with penal reform organisations but also by many chief officers of police who have told me of the deep resentment they feel that they are obliged to hold prisoners in such conditions.
Quite apart from the degrading conditions that pertain at present, the cost of holding people in those conditions is truly remarkable. Let us look for a moment at the position in the Metropolitan police district. The cost of holding a remand prisoner for a single night is well over £300; in other words, it is 50 per cent. more than the cost of a double room at the Ritz Hotel. How can we use such phrases as "value for money" in the context of such a situation? The position is quite extraordinary.
I am well aware that the Minister is likely to tell the Committee that the Government will commission a White Paper or a Green Paper, or some form of paper, on the report of Lord Justice Woolf. We are discussing one of his recommendations. But how can we allow the situation to continue? Are we really prepared to wait another year or two years or more before returning to this issue? We cannot allow prisoners to continue to be held in such conditions. In the overwhelming majority of cases these prisoners have
196
not been convicted of a criminal offence. They are experiencing conditions which are infinitely worse than those of convicted prisoners. I hope the Committee will not accede to any suggestion that the amendment should be withdrawn while we wait for the Government's response to the report of Lord Justice Woolf. This matter is urgent and it is now time for the Committee to insist that this disgraceful situation should no longer be perpetuated.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish briefly to support the amendment. We have heard two powerful speeches. This is a modest amendment. If it were accepted, it would allow the order of the Bill to be disapplied—I believe that is the correct word—in cases of emergency. The amendment provides a simple solution to the dreadful problem of sending people to police cells.
There are two categories of Woolf recommendations. There are those which clearly will require time for consideration on the Government's part. One such case was the subject of an earlier amendment of mine. The Woolf recommendation for a central committee and local committees will require time for consideration on the Government's part, and time to produce proposals in a White Paper.
On that ground I was prepared to withdraw my amendment. However, the proposition we are discussing could easily be accepted. It does not require thought on the Government's part. I should have thought they would jump at this proposal as they surely cannot wish to have this large number of people on their hands. By any standards, whether financial standards or standards of humanity, the Government should not allow such people to remain in police or court cells for more than one day. This amendment provides for a maximum of four days. That seems to me to be the limits of generosity. I strongly support the amendment and hope that the Minister will agree to it.
Lord Knights: I too have considerable sympathy with the comments which have been made. If my memory does not fail me, the practice of lodging prisoners in police cells came about in late 1980 when there was a period of some three months of industrial dispute within the prison service. During that period there were rarely fewer than 3,000, and on many occasions 4,000, prisoners held in police cells. It was with considerable reluctance that chief officers of police agreed to take on that task at that time, particularly in the light of the demands it would obviously make on their manpower.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has already indicated, I was one of the chief officers of police who was considerably concerned as to whether we had any legal authority to keep prisoners in that sort of way. Once the original reservations were overcome, as they were on that occasion, it became easier to accept them later on whenever the call was made. The practice has continued to some extent ever since, if not entirely, not necessarily as a result of industrial disputes in the prison service as a whole but often because of local difficulties in a particular prison in terms of accommodation. Occasionally it has led to

197
the police having to look after a specific prisoner whom prison officers are not prepared to accept into the prison for their own particular reasons.
That practice should be stopped as quickly as possible. Police cells are not suitable for long-term detention of prisoners. It is impossible to arrange for visits by relatives, for solicitors to interview their clients or for medical officers to treat their patient. The exercise of the prisoner is almost impossible. It amounts to walking up and down a passage for perhaps 10 minutes a day. Arrangements for bathing often do not exist. Meals often have to be brought in from outside. Police officers are in no way trained to deal with some of the difficult prisoners such as those who are mentally disabled.
As Members of the Committee will know, accused persons can be remanded to police cells by a magistrates' court for a maximum of three days. Unless the Government can give some undertaking that that practice will cease by a reasonable date, I believe a statutory limit should be placed on the length of tine during which prisoners can be subjected to what are often intolerable conditions of confinement. If nothing else, such a provision would force the prison department to look for alternative remedies. It would concentrate minds in a way which does not exist at the present time and create a situation in which longer periods of detention could not be introduced without first having to be justified by Parliament.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support the amendment if for no other reason than to show that the Liberal Democrat train is now back on the rails. There was a slight moment when part of it went off on a by-line.
Earl Ferrers: Which part was that?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I shall not go into that.
We have investigated this year after year, and I say to the noble Earl that there is something called political will. It seems inconceivable that a Home Secretary faced with this problem is unable to bring it to an end. It is a scandal. There are many scandals, such as juveniles being left in prison, juveniles in cells and slopping out. This is another scandal which political will could remove tomorrow. When Mr. Brittan was Home Secretary I remember that he gave an undertaking that this would be stopped, and it was stopped. Forty-eight hours later, back came the remand. prisoners who in law are innocent, as has been emphasised.
Lawyers do not know where their clients are. Families do not know where their children or other members of the family are. The defendants themselves very often do not know where they are. They are put into a black maria and deposited somewhere. That is an unbelievable situation, and it requires only political will to deal with it. Perhaps the noble Earl will say why there is no supply of political will in the Home Office.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I was not in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was making his speech but I should like to ask one question. Why is this done? The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that it needed political will, but there must be some reason why this happens. I should be grateful to know why it happens.
Lord Richard: If the noble Baroness is asking me, all I can do is deflect the question back across the Dispatch Box. I do not know why it is done. It is for the noble Earl to tell us why and to justify the practice. I cannot think of any good reason for it.
Earl Ferrers: That is always a good way of answering a question, to pass it over to somebody else to answer, particularly when it is a difficult one. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Richard. In fact, not being a chameleon I do not have eyes in the back of my head, so in fact I had assumed the question of my noble friend was being addressed to me. She has a habit of putting awkward questions to me and I assumed that this was a continuation of that.
I am bound to say that nothing concentrates your Lordships in a more united way than prisoners in police cells. It is rather like iron filings round a magnet; all of your Lordships gang up together and put the unfortunate Minister of the day in the dock. (Did the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say anything? It was sotto voce and I did not hear it.) I do not like remand prisoners in police cells or any prisoners in police cells. We all entirely agree that that is not the right place for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, made a very powerful intervention. He said that when he served in the police force he had hated the practice and most of his colleagues also disliked it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said we should not wait for Woolf but should put the amendment in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that the amendment could easily be agreed to. If it were as simple as that we would all quite happily sit down and agree to it, but I am bound to point out that there are difficulties.
No one, least of all the Government, would argue that keeping prisoners in police cells is right. Of course it is not, not only for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave, that it is an extremely expensive way of providing accommodation, which in most cases is unsuitable for the purpose, but also that it means that the police, who should be out on the streets protecting the public—a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned—are in fact stuck in police stations and lock-ups acting as gaolers for people who should be in prison. That cannot be right. In an ideal world we would not have prisoners in police cells, but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, momentarily lost the charming manner which he uses when he deals with children, and he became quite worked up. He pointed his finger at me and asked why there was no political will in the Government in order to put that right. There is a political will in the Government to put

199
it right. That is why we have spent over £1,000 million on trying to produce more prison places in the past decade. But we do not live in an ideal world and when things go wrong, as they sometimes do, the only available option available is to keep prisoners in police cells. The Strangeways disturbance led to the loss of a large number of prison places which could not instantly be replaced. Regrettably, it sometimes happens that prisoners are locked out of prison because of industrial disputes. When my noble friend Lady Faithfull asks why that is done, those are the reasons.
When such things happen, the prisoners must be accommodated somewhere. That inevitably means in police cells. The amendment would restrict that stay to only four days—but what happens then? It would be unlawful, as well as highly irresponsible, for the police or prison authorities just to let loose prisoners for whom no prison place can be found straightaway when the courts had determined that the prisoner needed to be kept in custody. Of course they could not do that.
At present there are just under 500 prisoners in police cells who should and would normally be held in prison service establishments. Of those, about 400 are the direct result of the loss of over 1,600 places at Manchester Prison last year. The rest result, either directly or indirectly, from a series of industrial disputes in the South and North East. Every effort is made by prison service management to keep the number of people in police cells to a minimum. I am glad to say that the numbers have already been reduced from a high of over 1,100 last September and over 800 at the beginning of April to some 500 now.
When one listens to the pertinent and powerful speeches by noble Lords, one would think sometimes that the Prison Department of the Home Office was not concerned about the matter and did not mind whether prisoners were kept in police cells. Of course the department is concerned. It makes every effort to ensure that it does not happen. Over the next two years, 10 new local prisons and remand centres will open as part of a major building programme initiated by the Government—part of the will to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred with such power. That is what is being done. However, in spite of that, no one can guarantee that at times of emergency such as we have seen over the past year it may not be necessary, and at very short notice, to resort to the use of police cells.
It may well be that some kind of statutory time limit such as Lord Justice Woolf recommended or as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, proposes would help to concentrate everyone's minds on avoiding the use of police cells. We shall consider that matter in regard to Lord Justice Woolf's proposals, but it is not quite as easy as saying, "Let's abolish the practice". Under the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I am not sure what would happen at the end of the four-day period for holding a prisoner in police cells if no prison place had been found. What would happen to the prisoner? His
200
continued detention by the police would be unlawful, but it would also be unlawful to release him. We would put the police in an intolerable position.
Noble Lords might say, "Well, that is up to the prison service. It should jolly well find a place for prisoners in order to relieve the police of that difficulty". However, in an emergency caused frequently by disturbances or industrial action outside people's control, that simply might not be possible. The amendment provides a safety valve in the ability of the Secretary of State to lay an order under subsection (2) to suspend the effects of the new clause in an area for up to six months. No such order could have effect unless it was approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. However, that is a pretty cumbersome procedure, particularly if it is to be at a period of operational emergency which gives rise to the need to use it. I am not sure what would happen if an emergency arose during a Recess.
This is a matter of great concern to the Government. We are doing our best. None of us wants to see prisoners in police cells, but the noble Lord's amendment would not help and would make the problem more difficult.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I find that a deeply disappointing reply. Nothing is more certain than that, if we allow the Bill to go through unamended—it is a matter of debate whether this amendment is the precise way to deal with the problem—we shall have a similar debate in 12 months' time, two years' time, three years' time and four years' time. Whoever represents the Home Office in this House will make a speech remarkably similar to that just delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
I do not doubt that Ministers would prefer not to have this state of affairs. Of course they do not want it. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said, when the matter was first raised with the police—I speak with direct knowledge of the matter—the reason given was to deal with a difficult, limited problem of industrial relations.
When I was a Minister in the Home Office dealing with that question and it looked as though there would be an industrial relations problem of considerable severity, we had no power to put people into police cells. We had a meeting with the Ministry of Defence to tell its officials that they would have to open up camps on Salisbury Plain in order to deal with the situation. That seems to me to be an infinitely better way of dealing with the matter. However, without wishing to point the accusing finger at the Ministry of Defence, I must tell the Committee that the enthusiasm for becoming involved in that project was extremely limited. There was some suggestion that its officials did not want to come to the meeting. It took us a great deal of time to persuade them to do so.
The conditions in police cells, as described by Lord Justice Woolf, are wholly unacceptable in a civilised society. If we do not insist on an amendment of this character, we shall, as I indicated, have further debates on the matter. There are 500 prisoners in police cells at the moment. When there is another dispute of some kind, the figure will go up to 800, 900 or 1,000. At one time, relatively recently, it went up to

201
2,000, with a special unit at Scotland Yard having to make arrangements for sending prisoners to all parts of England and Wales, and every police force in England and Wales, with the exception of Dyfed-Powys in Wales, was holding Home Office prisoners.
If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, were to say—I am not trying to put words in his mouth or to trap him—that he would look at the matter again and that the Government would prefer a negative procedure, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I would not be difficult about that. The matter could be dealt with in many ways. The clause could be accepted and the Government could say that they will implement the proposal as soon as the 10 new prisons are open. If the Committee does not insist on an amendment of this character, those intolerable conditions will continue.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We must insist on the amendment, but I should like to make one small comment. For 15 to 20 years now I have urged a solution with which most people are too nervous to agree; namely, that we should adopt the one in, one out system. In other words, you cannot send a man to prison if there is no room for him without letting somebody out by Executive release. It is the easiest possible thing to do. It makes no difference to a man with a six-month sentence if he comes out one day early. I know that certain Members will not agree with that; I can see one who clearly does not. I put forward the idea as something to be considered.
Lord Richard: One in, one out is not part of our amendment. I do not wish to jettison the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but we have chosen to fight the issue on fairly narrow ground.
I too was disappointed with what the noble Earl said. He says, "What about an emergency?". The emergency has lasted 11 years. I find it difficult to work out precisely why, apart from seven days during those 11 years—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It was 48 hours.
Lord Richard:—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that it was 48 hours—when Sir Leon Brittan was Home Secretary, no prisoners were held in police cells. If that is true it is an extraordinary emergency that seems to have gone on for such a great length of time. I understand why the noble Earl does not want to admit it—one knows about the blandishments that come from the Box and so on—but the truth of the matter is that it is convenient. It is convenient to have a system in which one can pop people into custody in police cells, even if it is only for a limited period of time. If that system did not exist and if the convenience were not available—it will not be available if our amendment is passed—I am perfectly certain that alternative arrangements would be made.
It is extraordinary that the Minister justifies the continuation of this practice at a time when the prison population is falling. Indeed the Government take great credit for building and having built new prisons. I go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and say that, if the Minister wants a negative procedure, then, very well, he shall have it.
202
But on the substance of the amendment I believe that there is no alternative but to take the opinion of the Committee.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord takes the opinion of the Committee—he is perfectly entitled to do so if he wishes—perhaps I may say a few words.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, as usual made a very powerful speech. He said that this practice had been going on for ages and that if we did not press this matter now we should all be back here in two or three years' time. He said that when he was a Minister he had no power. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rather pooh-poohed what the Government have done. In fact during the period when the noble Lord was a distinguished Minister there was a freeze on all prison building. The noble Lord wishes to say something. I know that it is discomfiting to him—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, that is totally untrue.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord says that it is untrue. We shall not go into whether or not it is true.
Noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Earl Ferrers: Well, perhaps we had better go into whether it is true or not. According to my records it is true that during that period there was a freeze on all new prison buildings. Be that as it may, we have spent this sum of £1,000 million. We are building and intend to build new prisons. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, says that that is not good enough. Let me ask him one question. If noble Lords in Committee accept the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris, what happens after prisoners have been in police custody for four days in an emergency? What happens to them? Where do they go?
Lord Richard: With great respect that is a non-question. If the time limit is four days I cannot believe that any policeman or anyone from the Home Office will be so silly as to wait until the 24th hour of the fourth day before they try to make alternative arrangements. The answer is that, if they are faced with a deadline and know that after a certain period of time on a certain day the axe will fall and they will no longer be legally entitled to keep the accused in a police cell, the arrangements will have been made long before.
In any case, I put it to the Minister that at the end of the four days there may be a number of alternatives, even if those concerned are so supine as to have done nothing in the four-day period. They can take the accused before a court or allow him bail. All sorts of possibilities occur to me. I put those two in front of the Minister now. However the most important question is this. Is he telling us that they will do absolutely nothing during the four-day period? I find that very hard to believe.
Finally, the noble Earl says that there was a freeze on prison building when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was at the Home Office. I say to the noble Earl only that there were not prisoners in police cells when the

203
noble Lord was at the Home Office. I believe that this is an issue on which we should test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may just pop up after the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I know that we want to get on with the debate but I want to say just a few words. I shall take the noble Earl's apology in advance. The statement that he made to the effect that there was a total freeze on prison building is untrue. I think he knows me well enough to know that if I make that statement it is probably accurate. I can assure him that the briefing that he received from officials cannot include such a statement because before officials put submissions to Ministers they check the accuracy of the statement.
Even at this stage will the noble Earl agree to look again at this matter? I accept that the Government may find that the present language of the amendment is not acceptable to them. However, given the fact that we have indicated that we are perfectly prepared for the Government to reconsider the language of the amendment and take into account what Lord Justice Woolf said, as well as the fact that within a measurable period, as indicated by the noble Earl, there will be these new prison places, can there be a clause of this kind in the Bill which the Government would agree to bring into effect when the new prisons are opened? That seems to me a very reasonable suggestion, I hope that the noble Earl will accept it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, invites me to consider the matter. I am as concerned as he is and of course I shall consider what the Committee has said. But what I cannot do—I really mean it—is to give, by saying that I will consider the matter, an indication to the noble Lord that I shall be able to meet his point of view.
I know that he finds it hard to believe but we are at one upon this matter. We do not like to have prisoners in police cells. We do not put them in there for fun. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, seems to consider that we put them in police cells when in fact they could quite easily be put into prisons. The noble Lord did not say it but that is the implication of his words. He said that if we accept this amendment we shall be able to get the prisoners out of the police cells. Where will they go? The noble Lord says that they will go into the prisons. If that is so, the inference is that if we put them in police cells they are put there when it is in fact unnecessary.
I cannot give the guarantee that I can bring anything back on Report but of course I shall consider the points that have been made.
Lord Richard: I am sorry but I do not think that we are any further forward than the last time that I spoke on this matter. I think it right that we should take the opinion of the Committee.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.96) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Knights, L.

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Palmer, L.

Falkland, V.

Parry, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Raglan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kennets, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Acton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Long, V.

Allenbys of Megiddo, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

Macleod of Borvesa, B.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Haslam, L.

Waddington, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
7.15 p m.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Contracting out of certain remand prisons]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 96AZA is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 96ZA through pre-emption.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 96AZA:
Page 45, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to deal with the position that has arisen as a result of an amendment to the Bill by the Government at a very late stage. The issue relates to privatisation of prisons—not prison escort services or magistrates' court clerks or security officers in magistrates' courts. Originally the clause was confined to remand prisons. However, by an amendment which is now subsection (3) of Clause 68—which I am bound to say is remarkable in its almost Proustian complexity—the Government give themselves the power to privatise any prison, either remand or non-remand, by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The amendment is somewhat breathtaking, first, in its scope, and, secondly, in the way in which that has been achieved.
We are totally opposed to the proposals. We are opposed to the proposals to privatise remand prisons. We are even more opposed to the provision that gives the Government the power to privatise Wormwood Scrubs, Wandsworth, Parkhurst or any of the major prisons for adults.
The case against privatisation was put very eloquently in another place in July 1987:
"I do not think that there is a case. I do not believe that the House would accept that there is a case for auctioning or privatising the prisons or handing over the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than government servants".
Those words were used by Mr. Hurd, the current Foreign Secretary, when he was Home Secretary. I know not what dramatic change has taken place between July 1987 and today to alter that approach, which on the whole I can accept. I do not know what dramatic change has taken place to alter the approach as to w tether prisons should be run by the state or some private organisation.
I am conscious of the time and although one could continue at length, I believe that what Mr. Hurd said encapsulates the argument. It is quite simply wrong in principle, in our view, that prisons should be run by anyone other than government servants. After all, we as a society put people in prison. We deprive them of their liberty. It is right that the organisation of how they are deprived of liberty and where they go when they are deprived of it should be in public hands. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may clarify a point before I comment. Is the noble Lord referring to prisons or remand prisons?
Lord Richard: I am referring to prisons. Subsection (3) gives the Government the right by statutory instrument to privatise Wormwood Scrubs. As a piece
206
of legal drafting it is extraordinarily complex. However, if the provision remains in Clause 68 the Government, by resolution of each House of Parliament, could privatise Wormwood Scrubs, Wandsworth, or other prisons.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That is a quite extraordinary proposition. When Mr. Hurd indicated that he was considering having one or two private sector remand establishments, I took the view then, as I take now, that that was a sensible proposal. However, between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill in the House of Commons this extraordinary amendment was passed.
The noble Baroness asked a reasonable question. This extraordinary proposition is described in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, by an affirmative resolution procedure in the House of Commons—with a debate of an hour and a half—every prison in England and Wales can be turned into a private sector establishment.
Perhaps I may ask a few questions. First, what about the compensation arrangements for the staff who presumably will be fired? I speak with knowledge in saying that there will be little enthusiasm to offer terms of employment to those who already work in the prisons. The language in which the proposal is put to Parliament is in the following terms—and I am sure that if the Minister put away his brief for one moment he would be able to explain to the Committee precisely what it means. Clause 68(3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall have effect as if there were omitted from subsection (1) above either—

(a) paragraph (a) and the word 'and' immediately following that paragraph; or

(b) paragraph (b) and the said word 'and'; or

(c) the words from 'which', in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b)".

That is the clear language in which the Government have put the proposal before us. If acted upon it could lead to every prison in England and Wales being transferred to private ownership. No country in the world hands over all its prisons to private contractors. One has only to consider the full implications of the proposal to realise what utter nonsense it is.
One may ask, "If it it nonsense, why have the Government come forward with the proposal?". It may be in passing some ideological enthusiasm, but I suspect that there is a different reason. It is a way of putting pressure on the Prison Officers' Association. If that is the idea, as one with some direct knowledge of that admirable organisation, perhaps I may tell the Minister that if the Government believe that it will work they will have an unpleasant surprise. If the proposal were ever seriously put forward by any government there would be appalling consequences to industrial relations throughout the whole prison estate. For those reasons, I am wholly in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he knew not—using the quaint language of lawyers—what had induced the Government to put this clause into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, speculated upon one reason and

207
said that he expects dire results to follow. My speculation is equally as near the bone. It is that the people who will run the private prisons have suggested to the Government in strong terms that it will not be worth their while to run one or two remand prisons and want a big slice of the cake before it is profitable. That has been a powerful argument to which the Government have acceded, perhaps mixed with that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
For either reason the provision is highly undesirable. After some persuading I agreed that it would be possible to carry out an experiment with a private prison but in respect of a remand prison only. Normally the Government are cautious in breaking new ground. They put a toe into the water and test the temperature before going out to bathe. However, in respect of this important new ground the Government are attempting to swim before discovering the temperature. It is probable that they will invite trouble by doing so. I regret that the proposal has been put forward and I hope that the subsection will be deleted from the Bill. I am not very hopeful, but I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said.
Baroness Faithfull: I am afraid that some Members on these Benches do not understand the clause. It is headed "Remand prisons" and has the side heading "Contracting out of certain remand prisons". If the provision includes prisons overall I am unable to agree to it. However, I believe that it would be a good idea to have remand prisons in the private sector because remand prisoners have not been found guilty.
I have a cousin in America who is a federal judge. During the summer I spend time there and mingle with members of the legal profession whose company, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I enjoy. I have visited some remand centres in America. The effect on the men of good, well run remand centres is surprising. Many return immediately from remand into the community. Some Members of the Committee saw a film with an American commentary and were most impressed by it. I hope that it will be possible to have remand centres in the private sector.
Lord Richard: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the effect of the amendment on Clause 68(1). Clause 68(3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section"—
and that applies to the whole of Clause 68—
"shall have the effect as if there were omitted from subsection (1) above either—
(a) paragraph (a) and the word 'and' immediately following that paragraph".
Clause 68(1) states:
"The Secretary of State may enter into a contract with another person for the running by him of any prison which"—
and one then takes out paragraph (a) and the word "and" so that the subsection continues:
"is for the confinement of remand prisoners".
That is the first alternative. The second alternative is to take out paragraph (b) so that the subsection reads:
"The Secretary of State may enter into a contract with another person for the running by him of any prison which … is established after the commencement of this section".
208
There again the provision is not confined to remand prisoners. The third alternative is to omit:
"the words from 'which', in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b)".
The subsection will then read:
"The Secretary of State may enter into a contract with another person for the running by him of any prison".
The rest of the subsection is then deleted. The provision is not confined to remand prisons.
Baroness Faithfull: At this time of night my IQ is low. I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the provision to me. Perhaps Members of the Committee can be excused for not understanding it because the clause is headed "Remand prisons". The situation is muddling and confusing and I am most confused.
I strongly support the case for remand centres. In debating Amendment No. 96 we spoke of men in police cells. At present we cannot build new centres because we do not have the money, but if we are to get men out of police cells we must have remand centres in the private sector. I strongly support that proposal. If that is a success, one does not know what might happen to the prisons. I understand from the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that this is a most muddled clause.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Is the noble Baroness making a distinction of principle between the private sector being allowed to run institutions for people who are in law innocent and have not been proved guilty of anything and institutions for convicted persons?
Baroness Faithfull: At present I am referring to the private sector running remand centres for people who have not been tried and who are at that point in time not guilty.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I shall not detain the Committee long on this point but I must add to the voices which say that this is wrong in principle. That a private citizen not acting as a servant of the Crown should have control over the liberty over another seems to me to be out of order. Also this is not the way to legislate. However, I shall not elaborate on that point.
I mention only the dual control system laid out in Clause 68 between the director and the controller. In any normal circumstances the Chamber would wish to scrutinise very carefully indeed how that is to be done. However, the resolution procedure does not allow that. In any privatisation the central point is that there should be a legitimate profit to be made. I have never understood how in the case of prisoners a legitimate profit can be made.
There are two ways in which that could be achieved. One is by giving a fixed sum of money on which the director is to run the prison and keeping any savings within that figure—what used to be known as the farming system. That would create an incentive to keep the prisoners in the cheapest conditions possible. Prisoners are not a free market. In the literal sense of the word, they are a captive market.
Baroness Faithfull: Is the noble Earl talking about prisoners or remand prisoners: prisoners are those who have been found guilty and remand prisoners those who have not yet been found guilty?
Earl Russell: I understand that this clause is capable of applying to both. It seems to me also that the arguments which I am putting forward are also capable of applying to both. I cannot see that a legitimate profit can be made in either case. A system of relying on a fixed contract sum creates an incentive to skinflint.
This has been done before. It used to be done by charging prisoners. A few moments ago in the Library I was looking at the examination in another place of the Warden of the Fleet in 1621. He used duress to obtain money from prisoners. He used to charge them 2s. 4d. per week to live 10 in a cell. If he did not obtain the payment, he fetched them out of their beds at midnight and put them in the dungeon without any clothes. I shall not continue with the cruelties committed by the Warden of the Fleet, but they were considerable.
I believe that the Government are underrating the power of the profit motive. No doubt they will tell us that there is regulation. However, it seems unwise to give people an incentive to do something and then set up a regulatory system to ensure that they do not do it. I cannot see either in the case of remand or convicted prisoners how a lawful profit can be made from this except by the infliction of unnecessary hardship on prisoners. I am astonished that the clause is in the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: In the United States the remand prisoners in privately run prisons are much better off than prisoners in state prisons. I know that the noble Earl has great principles, but when I think of the state of our prisons in this country I believe that realism must enter into life. It is unrealistic that remand prisoners—those who have not yet been convicted of a crime—should be kept in cells in prison. I understand the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I believe that prisoners will be better off under the proposed system than they are at present.
Earl Russell: There may be cases where the system works properly, and I listened to what the noble Baroness said about the United States. However, the case I quoted about the Warden of the Fleet is far from unique. I know of a great many cases in which profit motives have led to gross abuses in the management of prisons. The number I know about is so great that I believe it is likely to happen again.
Earl Ferrers: That may well be so, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will realise that one of the features of our debate has always been the criticism of prison conditions and how they should be better. The noble Earl's experience may be that in some privatised prisons conditions are worse. However, as a general principle, if a success is made of privatisation that is not necessarily at the expense of the person who is being looked after.
The noble Earl said that this would be possible only by inflicting unnecessary hardship on the prisoners. If
210
any form of privatisation were to come about, the way in which the prison would operate—whether it be for remand or convicted prisoners—would be under a very tight contract. That tight contract would ensure that prisoners were properly looked after. Contractors would receive payment from the Home Office for looking after the prisoners for a fee set out in the contract after competitive tendering. If the contractors operated efficiently and could budget properly, they would make a fair profit. That profit does not have to be made at the expense of the prisoners.
When this clause was discussed in Committee in another place the view was then put forward that we should go further than the Bill originally allowed and permit a much greater degree of private sector involvement in the prison system from the word go. It was argued that there should be an enabling power not limited to the new remand centres so that we could take advantage of opportunities which may arise in the future to employ the private sector in other parts of the prison system.
We did not believe that it would be advisable to extend the contracting out initiative to prisons holding sentenced prisoners before we had gained experience of contracting out for prisons in the remand sector. Hence the reason that my noble friend Lady Faithfull is confused. Originally this part of the Bill referred to remand centres and an addition was made in another place. My noble friend finds confusing the notes in the margin. However, they are not part of the parliamentary drafting, although it is up to the parliamentary draftsmen to correct them. They do not form a substantive part of the Bill.
Subsection (3) enables us to take a step-by-step approach to contracting out in the prison system. The remand sector is a distinct part of that system and, as my noble friend recognises, some of the considerations relating to remand prisoners are different from those relating to convicted prisoners. That is one reason why, when we were developing proposals for a trial of contracting out, we concentrated on the remand sector. That is still right. Contracting out should, at least at the start, be confined to the remand sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he finds the wording of the clause difficult, as did my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I agree with them. I too find it difficult. I put a proverbial wet towel around my head and considered it for quarter of an hour just in case a Member of the Committee such as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that it is so difficult that it could not be understood. I shall explain the matter in simple terms. The complicated wording of Clause 68(3)(a) enables the contracting out of all existing remand prisons. Subsection (3)(b) refers to all new establishments, whether they are for remand or sentenced prisoners. Subsection (3)(c) allows the contracting out of all existing and new establishments, whether they are for remand or sentenced prisoners.
Clause 68(3) would enable the contracting-out power to be extended to allow the contracting out of established prisons for convicted prisoners but only—and this is important—if my right honourable friend the Home Secretary came back specifically for

211
parliamentary approval under an order subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That is the right way to proceed.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich, made a great meal of the matter. They said that every prison would contract out, from Wormwood Scrubs to Pentonville. In theory that is a possibility. However, in the beginning it is right to sound a cautionary note. At the moment only one prison, the new Wolds Remand Centre in Humberside, is a candidate for competitive tendering. If a suitable tender is received that prison may be contracted out. No new remand centres are being built or planned. Therefore, in regard to contracted-out remand centres, that will be the only one for the foreseeable future. At present there are no plans to contract out prisons for convicted prisoners or for existing establishments. If we decided to go down that road we should first wish to see how well the contracting out at Wolds had gone, and whether there were any lessons to be learned from that. There would also be a need for full and proper consultation about any proposal to invoke the power conferred by Clause 68(3).
We must remember that interested parties have been asked to comment on the basis that only remand prisons would be affected. It would be wrong to deny them the chance to comment further if there were to be any substantial change in the scope of the exercise. If any question were to arise on the contracting out of existing establishments we should need to give careful and sensitive consideration to the position of the existing staff; a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others made a fundamental point regarding the fact that the state takes away the liberty of the subject and only servants of the state should be employed to run prisons. The decision whether or not to deprive somebody of his liberty is a matter for the state through the courts. But there is no reason why the task of caring for those prisoners should be carried out only by servants of the state. Contractors would be employed and would work on behalf of and under the control of the Secretary of State.
I hope that from what I have said Members of the Committee will not expect the direction of the contracting-out initiative to change overnight as a result of Clause 68(3). However, it gives the Government the ability, which would be helpful not least in the light of the proposals recommended by Lord Justice Woolf, to look at the future of the prison system. If the benefits of contracting out are demonstrated by the experience of the Wolds Remand Centre—as I hope they will be—it would be a pity not to be in a position to extend those benefits to other parts of the prison system subject to parliamentary approval. That is what subsection (3) seeks to do and I suggest it is appropriate to keep it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl tells us that it is wrong to suggest that Wormwood Scrubs, Brixton and so forth are to be privatised in some way; yet this clause gives the Secretary of State the power to
212
do just that. That is the first consideration. It is not as though we are experiencing some nightmare vision. It is the Government's clause which gives the Secretary of State the power to do precisely that.
The noble Earl says that we shall conduct an experiment. As I indicated, I am not against the experiment; I thought it was rather a good idea. The noble Earl says that it would be a pity if, supposing the experiment were successful, the Government found that they could not extend similar arrangements to a whole swathe of other prisons. Yet a few moments ago we were asking the noble Earl to agree to a provision in regard to police cells, which would not have to be activated for two or three years, on a problem which he acknowledged was a matter of grave concern to him and to his ministerial colleagues. That gives an extraordinarily interesting indication of the priorities of the noble Earl and some of his colleagues.
The provision is one of the most remarkable I have seen in any piece of legislation, conferring powers on Ministers that I do not believe would be replicated in any other democracy in Western Europe. It is wholly objectionable in principle and we shall vote against it.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Earl responds, I should like to say something on the general principle of using affirmative orders for this purpose. As the Minister knows, this House does not vote against affirmative orders; nor has it the power to amend such orders. The Minister says that the provision can be given full parliamentary scrutiny after experiments have been carried out, but in practice that is not the case.
The convention in your Lordships' House—and it is only a convention—is that we do not, for good and sufficient reasons in relation to another place, vote against affirmative orders. If the Government persist in bringing forward legislation of this severity and importance on affirmative resolution, they will find that this Chamber will start to vote against affirmative orders.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may respond briefly to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is not unreasonable in what he says. However, perhaps I may remind him that there have been occasions when that happened in the past or when the threat of it has arisen. I have had experience of that but, if I may say so, that may have been before the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, became a distinguished Member of this House. On the Stanstead Order an order was made in both Houses of Parliament and the public outcry was such that the likelihood was that it would be voted against in this Chamber. The Government withdrew the order on account of that fact. Although a vote was not taken, the pressure was there.
Lord Richard: I am grateful to the noble Earl for confirming the point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was concerned. There is no doubt that subsection (3) gives the Government the right to privatise any prison—Wormwood Scrubs, Parkhurst or Holloway. Whichever prison one chooses the Government will have the power to do it; all they must do is put a resolution through the House.

213
The noble Baroness says that she wishes to preserve the right to privatise remand prisons. If subsection (3) is taken out of Clause 68, the power to privatise remand prisons is contained in subsection (1). If subsection (3) is removed the Government will still have the power—indeed that was the original purpose of the clause before this extraordinary addition was made by means of subsection (3)—under subsection (1) to,
"enter into a contract with another person for the running by him of any prison which (a) is established after the commencement of this section".
That is the first point, that it must be established after the commencement of the section. It continues,
"and [not or] is for the confinement of remand prisoners".
Therefore that power exists independent of subsection (3).
They Minister says that all the Government are concerned with is to have an experiment in relation to one remand prison; that they will look at it and come back, and there may perhaps be one or two other remand prisons that could be included. They already have the power under subsection (1) to do that. They do not need the power that they have taken to themselves in subsection (3).
Subsection (3) opens the door to such an extent that I marvel at the fact that it is in the same clause and indeed, in the same Bill. It would be totally wrong to give the Government, when they come here and ask for the right to enter into an experiment in relation to one remand prison, on an extraordinarily convoluted amendment moved at Report stage in another place, the power to move to the privatisation of the major penal establishments in England and Wales. There is a major difference in character between a remand establishment and a full penal establishment. If they want:o move into the privatisation of full penal establishments, then they should return to this Chamber to ask for that to be done and not ask to do it in this extraordinary way by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. I understand that by convention this Chamber would not throw it out. In all the circumstances it is right to take the opinion of the Committee.
7.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.96AZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Galpern, L.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Attlee, E.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Craigavon, V.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dorman of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

214

Ogmore, L.

Seear, B.

Palmer, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Serota, B.

Parry, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rea, L.

Underhill, L.

Richard, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Russell, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Waddington, L.

Haslam, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Earl Ferrers: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we break at this moment. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before nine o'clock.

Motor Vehicle (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill
7.58 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The provisions of the Bill are entirely aimed at a subject which I confidently predict will be close to the hearts of all your Lordships; namely, to further improve the safety of child passengers in motor vehicles. Children are especially vulnerable in car

215
crashes. According to road accident statistics, there are over 1,000 deaths and serious injuries to children in cars each year and about 10 times as many slight injuries.
Much has already been done. The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988, has, since its implementation in September 1989, required children under 14 to be restrained in the rear seats of cars. The 1988 Act describes the types of child restraint appropriate for different children: it has led to almost a doubling of the number of children restrained in rear seats. This, it is estimated, has prevented about 200 deaths and serious injuries in the first year. That is a significant achievement, but we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent. There are still far too many deaths and injuries occurring to child passengers each year.
Deaths and injuries to children in cars remain a major element of all child casualties on our roads. That is particularly true for children under four years old who should always be restrained by the appropriate type of restraint for their weight. Such restraints have been shown to save about three-quarters of deaths and nearly as many serious injuries compared with unrestrained children in similar accidents. Seat belts alone are far from ideal for such young children, because they are designed for adults.
The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to control the sale and hire of safety equipment for children so that only that approved to British or international safety standards can be sold or hired out as being for protecting children in accidents. It will also mean that retailers will have to ensure that all the appropriate information which the standards specify is provided with the restraint at the point of sale. This includes the weight of children and in certain cases the vehicle models for which the restraint is suitable, clear instructions for installing the restraint in the vehicle and the child in the restraint and specific warnings about the dangers of misuse.
It is vital that parents are given the best possible guidance in this respect. Child restraints and associated safety equipment incorrectly installed can in many cases mean that it would be quite ineffective in the event of an accident. More needs to be done by vehicle manufacturers, child restraint manufacturers and standards makers to develop restraints which are less prone to misuse. If this Bill is successful it will encourage those manufacturers who comply with the latest standards and increase the incentive on them further to improve those standards. It will also encourage the correct use of the most appropriate restraint for the child.
The types of equipment which would be designed by the regulations made under the Bill would be those which in some way, directly or indirectly, are intended to restrain a child in the event of an accident. Present legislation only controls the sale of those types of child restraint which are considered to be vehicle parts and are in themselves complete restraints directly attached to the vehicle. Equipment such as booster cushions and carry cots which comply with the standards do
216
not fall into this category. While the use of such equipment could be regulated such action would mean that all ordinary cushions and carry cots would be banned from vehicles. This would be unacceptable and could not be justified on safety grounds.
I turn briefly to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 is the main provision. This allows regulations to be made prescribing types of equipment that are recommended as being conducive to children's safety. It provides that equipment cannot be sold as conducive to safety unless it conforms to the type prescribed in the regulations. Clause 1 also enables regulations to be made requiring appropriate information to be made available and prohibiting inappropriate information. The remaining clauses are supplementary. Clause 2 provides for certain defences against offences under the Bill. Clause 3 provides for penalties and Clause 4 provides for the Short Title.
The Bill has attracted widespread support and, to my knowledge, no opposition from any quarter. This gives noble Lords some idea of its worthiness. It will prove a useful contribution to the aim of further reducing child injuries on the road and there can be no better reason for any piece of legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Strathcarron.)
8.7 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I find myself in a very difficult position. I agree basically with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. However, I have read the Bill through four or five times and I regret to say that at the end of it I am no wiser. The Explanatory Memorandum states that it is an offence for such equipment to be,
"sold as being so conducive in relation to a class of child or motor vehicle".
I am sorry, but I do not understand what is meant by "a class of child", I read the Bill through again, thinking that somewhere along the line the term would be explained. In asking around, the nearest I could get is that it refers back to a Bill in 1988.
We have a Prime Minister who wants a classless society and here we are, talking about a class of child. I have said that I am in favour of any Bill on motoring which will protect and defend the lives of young children. I have worn a seat belt since before it became mandatory. I honestly do not understand this Bill.
In winding up perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, can explain to me what is a class of child and what is a class of vehicle. He referred to the weight of a child. A child is a child and should be protected and should be restrained. I cannot see that the class of vehicle matters. If one has a child in a vehicle that child should be protected from itself, from its weight and from other road users. I wish I could be more positive. I have two children who are now grown up. I can only repeat that I do not understand this Bill. I understand what it is aiming for, but I am afraid that the Bill as it stands is nonsensical. I am very sorry about that. I wish the Bill well, but basically I do not know what it is talking about. I wish I did.
8.9 p.m
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, I was in a similar position to that of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Having heard his explanation I think I am considerably clearer than I was about what the Bill means. 1 t is brought home to me by the fact that I have four grandchildren. Once again the House is debating a transport matter. I notice that the cameras have gone off and the lights are going down because I am speaking; but that is a short intervention.
I have four grandchildren. I have struggled with some of these pieces of equipment that their parents are capable of handling perfectly well. However, I am beginning to see what the noble Earl is getting at. There is a variety of types of equipment into which children can be put to restrain them from being hurt in accidents. Some face forward and some face backwards. It is important that equipment is related to the weight and size of the child. Obviously, a five-year-old child should not be placed in a restraint which is intended for a baby, and vice versa. That would render the equipment quite useless. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, is seeking to ensure that equipment which is sold is appropriate for the job that it is supposed to do—I understand that that is the purpose of the Bill—I certainly support that aim.
I also understand that what is appropriate for one type of motor car may not be appropriate for another. When such equipment is sold, it is important that the instructions should clearly state the type of motor car for which it is appropriate. Although I expect that the noble Lord cannot put this provision in the Bill, I believe that there is a need for better signing on such equipment.
I have four grandchildren aged between nine months and five years. If one only uses such equipment from time to time, it is often difficult to fit it into a motor car and ensure that the safety straps are in the correct position. Indeed, if the straps are in the wrong position, it could lead to the child being injured in an accident. I believe that there should be some means of advising manufacturers on how to put signs on equipment indicating how it should be used and in what circumstances. Perhaps the Government will take that point on board.
I heard the noble Lord say that booster cushions and carry-cots were not covered by this legislation. I trust that I heard him correctly. It seems to me that some booster cushions are sold for that purpose and therefore they should be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Further, I dare say that some carry-cots may be designed in such a way as to fit into restraints on the rear seats of cars. Again, if they are sold for that purpose, surely they should come within the scope of the Bill.
Having said all that, I should add that I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord said. I thought that his final sentence stating that there could be no better reason for legislation than trying to ensure child safety was as wise a phrase as I have heard in this House for a long time. On that basis, I certainly support the Bill in principle.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to offer my full support for the Bill. In so doing perhaps I may pay tribute to Mr. Michael Jopling in another place and to the sponsors of the Bill, not least because Mr. Jopling, as a former Chief Whip, had a great deal of experience in being the executioner of a great many Private Members' Bills, as he himself conceded. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, on the comprehensive way in which he introduced the Bill and on the clarity which he attached to his remarks. He is absolutely right to say that enhancing the safety of children travelling in cars is of critical importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, drew our attention to certain statistics. I should like to add some figures to those which he adduced. Of the 10,000 or more children who were either slightly or seriously injured or killed during the course of last year, no fewer than 4,864 were injured in cars which had no seat belts fitted to them, or, if they had fitted seat belts, they were not worn. That is a serious state of affairs and one which demonstrates overwhelmingly the need for this Bill.
It is important that enabling provisions should be added to the Road Traffic Act 1988 to permit regulations to be made by the Secretary of State to prescribe recommended types of equipment and to ensure that the equipment meets certain prescribed safety standards. That is not only part of the continuing process of enhancing safety standards; it would also enable us to adjust to new requirements as they become necessary. I believe that this Bill would certainly play its part in that respect.
There is certainly no room for complacency. I do not believe that we should rest content with this Bill. The Government need to address themselves to such improvements as safer steering wheels and safer car fronts. They should also consider measures to reduce hazards to pedestrians on impact and ensure side-impact protection and leg protection on motorcycles. Indeed, one could continue listing the measures which are still necessary.
However, this Bill is a significant step. It owes its position to quite remarkable changes in attitude which have taken place recently. Indeed, it is not so very long ago that many people were resolved to oppose the concept of wearing seat belts on libertarian grounds. I never saw very much merit in that argument. However, I believe that those who fought for the change have been totally vindicated. We also had the introduction of legislation for rear seat belts and restraints for children.
Public attitudes have changed because of an awareness of the terrifying accident statistics. I believe that it would be appropriate at this stage to pay one or two tributes to those who have stimulated that awareness. First, there is the Volvo company which has led the way in providing, often on a voluntary basis, safety changes way ahead of the rest of the market. Secondly, the Lex company has produced annual public surveys which have also played their part. There was also the European road safety year some years ago, with which I was associated.

219
But, as we amass more knowledge and more information to mitigate accident risks, it would seem that this is a task which will never be completed. Some people say that the prime target should be the way in which vehicles are driven. However, I do not think that dealing with that and dealing with safety equipment are mutually exclusive tasks.
Among those who have become more aware of the risks are children themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to their grandchildren, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to my three year-old son. I can remember occasions when I attempted to drive him somewhere in my car—he actually wanted to drive himself—when he was only two years old. As soon as I got into the car and he noticed that the red warning light was flashing to indicate that I had not put my seat belt on, he would point it out to me.
Among other matters the Bill also addresses three important concerns. It ensures that the equipment meets prescribed standards at the point of sale or higher and that proper information is given to the purchaser at that time on how the equipment should be fitted. I believe that that is absolutely critical. It also ensures that the equipment (of which there is such a wide variety) should be appropriate to children as regards size and age. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was most upset about the reference to a "class of child" or class of motor vehicle. In fact, all that has happened is that the draftsman has followed the provisions in the Road Traffic Act, especially those in Section 15. Although the term is not very elegant, it is used simply to describe the children who would be covered by the regulations which would be made by the Secretary of State. It is as simple as that. There is nothing about a classless society. I must tell the noble Earl that he is on a non-runner on that issue, although he might have my support in other respects.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. First, he was kind enough to credit me with having grandchildren. Unfortunately, I do not have any.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry. I apologise to the noble Earl.
Earl Attlee: Secondly, I said that I had read the Bill and did not understand it. I accept the fact that a little baby is of a different weight and requires different handling than a larger child. I said from the start that I agree that we need some sort of provision. However, this is the wrong way to go about it. As I said, I do not understand the Bill. If the noble Lord understands it, that is wonderful; but I do not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Earl has made much of some inelegant drafting in the original Act. I believe that we must follow that drafting so as to be consistent in this Bill. As I said, all it does is to refer to the classification of children as coming within specific regulations for which provision is made.
It is also important that a defence should be available, as it is, when an infringement is due to an act or the default of another person when that person
220
has been given a written warranty; for example, a retailer who can prove that he was supplied with incorrect information but had no reason to believe that it was incorrect would be provided with a proper defence. That is as it should be.
I have one or two questions of which I have given the noble Lord notice. Does the Bill apply to the provision of after sales service in relation to the equipment? If not, should it not be included? Secondly, as the original Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, may I assume that the amending Bill will be similarly limited? If that is right, and as the Bill's Short Title would appear to enable us to correct that anomaly, should we not address ourselves to that point? Thirdly, my understanding is that the Government have not extended the scope of the 1988 Act to the wearing of rear seat belts in minibuses. I wonder whether that is correct. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. If I am correct in that assumption, what logical reason is there for that anomaly to continue, at least so far as new minibuses are concerned? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Bill—whether he approves of it or not—could be amended in that regard. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, whether he would in principle agree to an amendment to that effect.
As I said, I believe that the Bill is needed. The noble Lord has made out a clear case for it to go on to the statute book. In making a few suggestions I am not in the least critical of the principles underlying the Bill, but as with all Bills it is capable of being improved.
8.22 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be helpful if I briefly give the Government's view of the Bill. I am sure that the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for his explanation of what the Bill does. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will expect me to answer his questions put to me as Minister on what is a Private Member's Bill.
The Government fully support the Bill. It will play a valuable part in improving road safety and the safety of children in particular. It will mean that child restraints and other types of safety equipment meant to protect children in the event of an accident can be sold only if they are approved to well-recognised and widely accepted safety standards.
The Bill will also ensure that information on the correct installation and use of child safety equipment will be provided at the point of sale. That will make it easier for parents to ascertain what restraint is best for the size and weight of their children and whether or not it is more suitable for some cars than others.
The increased use of seat belts over recent years has played a major part in the reduction of car passenger casualties, but children still remain especially vulnerable. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, over 10,000 child passengers are killed and injured each year. In the case of children under five, deaths and injuries inside cars represent as many as half the deaths and injuries for that age group in all types of road accidents. One of the best things that

221
parents and others in charge of children can do to minimise the risk of injury is to ensure that children are using approved child restraints or safety equipment for which full instructions on installation and use have been provided. The Bill will prove invaluable in that respect and at the same time play a part in wider efforts to achieve our target of a one-third reduction in road casualties by 2000. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for responding on the whole favourably to the Bill. I should like to answer one or two points. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that the class of child referred to some form of social standing. It refers merely to the weight and size of a child, because children come in all shapes k and sizes. It is essential that the child fits the seat. The provision is as simple as that. There is nothing more sinister involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned cushions. It is obviously better to have a full child restraint. A cushion combined with an adult seat belt, which fills up the gap, may not be ideal, but it would be wrong to stop people using a cushion until they can obtain a proper child restraint.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about after sales service. It would be illegal to repair a seat belt to a lower standard than the original. If there were a complaint, the seat belt would be taken back to the agent who would almost certainly return it to the manufacturer who would probably provide a new restraint or see that the one that has been repaired is up to the full standard required.
The Bill does not refer to Northern Ireland. That would require separate legislation. The whole question of seat belts in buses is being considered. It is not compulsory to have seat belts in any form of bus at present. I believe that seat belts should be fitted in buses. Europe is discussing a standard at present, and the question of child restraints will be of the utmost importance. We hope to see that taken into account at the same time.
I believe in the Bill wholeheartedly. It will be to the benefit of all children. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill
8.27 p.m
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill which was initiated by Mr. Michael Mates in another place. It is, I believe, an uncontroversial measure. Indeed, given its origins, it would not be before your Lordships today if it were at all controversial.
It may be helpful if I sketch in some background to the Bill. The auditor of a local authority is required by
222
Section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to consider whether he should make a report on any matter which comes to his attention while carrying out the audit in order that it may be considered by the body concerned or brought before the attention of the public. Such reports are known as auditors' public interest reports. The auditor must also consider whether such reports should be prepared and sent to a body immediately—an auditor's immediate report—or at the conclusion of the audit.
Under the existing law, the principal problem with the arrangements for making such reports public knowledge is that the 1982 Act requires only that an immediate report be taken into account "as soon as practicable". That effectively means that the contents of a report may not be publicly available until some months after its issue and even then it is published only in the sense that it comprises part of the papers for a council meeting. The fact that a report has been produced may not be widely known.
The Widdicombe Report made certain proposals for improving publicity and the Government's response was included in a White Paper in 1988. The Bill builds on those proposals and is designed with four principal objectives: first, to entitle the public to see an auditor's immediate public interest report, to copy it and be supplied with a copy at reasonable cost from the moment it is received; secondly, to require the body concerned to advertise the report; thirdly, to provide for sanctions comparable to those for the current provisions of the 1982 Act; and, fourthly, to give the auditor fall back powers to ensure that the report is made known.
I should not wish your Lordships to think that the Bill is aimed at stopping a widespread abuse. Most bodies ensure that auditors' immediate public interest reports are made available to the public with all proper speed, but there are a few cases where it seems that bodies deliberately delay publication. The Bill will put an end to such delays and ensure that information intended to be made public does indeed enter the public domain promptly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mancroft.)
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may give the apologies of my noble friend Lord McIntosh for his absence and I hope the House will accept them.
On this side of the House we give the Bill our full support. An auditor's report of special public interest may or may not deal with issues of fraud or of financial incompetence but it is self-evident that these issues of major public concern should be brought to the attention of the public. Therefore, in the interests of the efficient management of local government, on the one hand, and the public's right to know, on the other, we believe the Bill to be entirely virtuous and give it our full support.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is a short Bill. Its purposes have been clearly and ably explained by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. At this stage, suffice it for me to say that the Government support the Bill in principle. We are committed to making local government more accountable and the Bill is a limited measure in that desirable direction.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her kind contribution on behalf of the Opposition. She is correct, the Bill covers issues of public concern and it is right that the issues should be made public. I also thank my noble friend Lord Astor for his kind words about the Bill and for the Government's support. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 to 9 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 68.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I now call Amendment No. 96ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 96ZA:
Page 45, line 24, at end insert:
("(3A) An order under subsection (3) (b) or (c) above shall provide that section 71 below shall have effect as if subsection (5) were omitted.").
The noble Earl said: It appears that, temporarily, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I have changed names. This is a consequential amendment to amendments made in another place to this clause. I am quite content to explain it to the Committee. However, on the understanding that this is a consequential amendment, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 68, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We have already discussed this matter. I do not propose to speak further on it.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 96A:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause:
(". In relation to contracted out prisons, Rule 51 of the Prison Rules 1964 shall not have effect.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a recommendation in the report of Lord Justice Woolf. As the Committee will recall, Lord Justice Woolf stated in his report that boards of visitors should not become involved in disciplinary matters. The Prior
224
Committee also made that recommendation, although the Government did not accept it. Now Lord Justice Woolf has made the recommendation again. We shall be interested to hear the noble Earl's comments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Rule 51 of the current prison rules allows a prison governor to refer a disciplinary charge to the board of visitors if he considers that the disciplinary offence requires a punishment greater than the governor himself has the power to award. Under Rule 51 boards of visitors have the power to make disciplinary awards which include forfeiture of remission of up to 120 days in the case of adults and stoppage of earnings or cellular confinement for a period of up to 56 days. Rule 51 would not in any event apply in quite its present form to a contracted out prison as in such a prison the governor's disciplinary role would be fulfilled (under Clause 69 of the Bill) by the controller, who would be a civil servant. He would most likely be a person on a prison governor's grade appointed by the Home Secretary. But our intention is that privately operated prisons would follow the same system as ordinary ones, save that the controller would take the governor's place in the disciplinary system.
The dual role of the board of visitors as independent monitors of the system on the one hand and as part of the prison disciplinary arrangements on the other hand was criticised by the Woolf inquiry, which recommended that the role of the board of visitors in adjudications should cease. It recommended that matters which were too serious to be dealt with by the governor using his existing powers should henceforth be made the subject of criminal proceedings in the magistrates' courts. The amendment seeks to give effect to this recommendation in respect of privately operated prisons—though as the present prison Rule 51 would not in any case apply to such a prison, the new clause would technically have no effect.
This matter will of course be one of those to be covered in the forthcoming White Paper on the Woolf proposals. A detailed consultation document has already been issued discussing the various options for change in the light of the Woolf recommendation. This has been sent to a wide range of interested parties. It takes account not just of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Woolf but of those put forward by the earlier review of prison disciplinary procedures conducted by Mr. Peter Prior.
One very important point which we have to consider in relation to Lord Justice Woolf's recommendation is whether all disciplinary offences committed by prisoners which are too serious to be dealt with within governors' disciplinary powers would be suitable to be prosecuted in the ordinary courts. Involving the courts more regularly is likely to involve some delay and a degree of formality which may not be strictly necessary. There would also be considerable extra expense because of the need to escort prisoners and because of the involvement of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and courts in dealing with cases which are currently dealt with inside prisons. The courts might also have difficulty in

225
recognising and reflecting in the punishment the particular significance of certain offences in the prison context, and the range of punishments available to the courts in respect of a serving prisoner would of course be more limited than in relation to an ordinary member of the public.
These are not necessarily decisive objections to what Lard Justice Woolf has proposed, and indeed as the consultation document indicates, the Government have not formed any view at this stage on which of the possible options, including that set out by Lord Justice Woolf, would be the most suitable. It is appropriate to consider the issues very carefully and to consult interested parties about the options before making decisions. For that reason I find it difficult to accept the amendment.
The amendment also happens to be silent on the question of appeals from governors' disciplinary awards, which was an important part of the new arrangements proposed by Lord Justice Woolf. He proposed the creation of a complaints adjudicator who would both deal with prisoners' grievances and act as the final tribunal of appeal in the internal disciplinary system. While the first of those two functions is covered in the proposed new clause after Clause 75, the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment have not made any proposals as regards appeals from disciplinary hearings.
Lord Richard: I am glad to have heard the noble Earl say that he did not regard the points he was making as decisive. He will know that such procedures are in fact in use at present in Scotland.
One of the interesting recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf was that the present disciplinary system should be replaced by procedures which were more open, fair and inexpensive, and which already operate satisfactorily in Scotland. Can the noble Earl give us an assurance that the Scottish experience will be taken into account in looking at the proposals with regard to whether they should be implanted South of the Border?
Earl Ferrers: We shall obviously take into account the experiences in Scotland. That is clearly important.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would it be possible to have regional peripatetic adjudicators who visit inside the establishment, instead of prisoners being taken out? If prisoners are taken out it costs more money and is time-consuming, and they have toy, have escorts.
Secondly, is there any chance of changing the name of board visitors? There is some confusion with prison visitors. People outside the establishments do not really know the difference, although there is a very great difference. I should like to pay tribute to many members of the board of visitors who spend a lot of time doing voluntary, unpaid work within prisons and young offenders' institutions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We were more interested in finding out the noble Earl's response to the amendment than in attempting to insist upon it. As he will realise, the board of visitors at a contracted out prison, a prison which is in the private sector, will be rather different from one which exists in the public
226
sector. They will have different responsibilities according to the character of the establishment. I do not wish to reopen the discussion we have just had, but that fact is self-evident.
It is important to get the disciplinary question right. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could give us an indication of when the Government's response to Lord Justice Woolf's report will be published. Are we talking about a time before the Summer Recess or some time after that? Perhaps the noble Earl could help us on that point.
Lord Hylton: First, I should like to apologise to the Committee for not having been here at the start of the discussion on this amendment. I should like to follow up what my noble friend Lady Masham said about an adjudicating person or body coming into the prison. Why can we not have a magistrate or magistrates' court coming into the prison and dealing with prisoners who are on charges? That is the sort of thing that magistrates would be rather good at.
I should like to make it clear that I am in favour of separating the two functions now carried out by visitors, not only within contracted out prisons but in other prisons also.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly take account of what both the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said about peripatetic adjudicators. When the noble Baroness first mentioned this, I thought she meant adjudicators who go round from prison to prison. In so far as she was asking whether the adjudicator would go to prison—I think this was the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—I am sure that the adjudicator would go to the prison, and it would not work the other way round.
I shall also bear in mind the noble Baroness's remarks about the name of the visitors. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall change the name but we shall certainly look into the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked when the Government's response to Lord Justice Woolf's report would be made, and he asked whether it would be published. It will be published later this year. I cannot give a commitment that it will be published before the Summer Recess, but we are working hard on it and the response will be made as soon as possible. There are many very difficult issues to consider.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am obliged to the noble Earl for having dealt with that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 72 [Intervention by the Secretary of State]:
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to raise some matters in relation to this clause. As the noble Earl will recall, I dealt with the matter on Second Reading and I should now like to ask one or two questions.

227
Three officers have different roles in relation to a contracted-out prison. First, there is the director. In a public sector establishment, he would be called the governor; but now, in a private sector establishment, he will be called the director. Secondly, there is the controller, a Home Office official appointed by the Secretary of State who has a number of powers set out in the statute. Thirdly, there is a governor who arrives suddenly if there is a breakdown of order in the establishment or if it is perceived likely that there will be a breakdown of order.
Clause 72(1) states:
"This section applies where, in the case of a contracted out prison, it appears to the Secretary of State that the director has lost, or is likely to lose, effective control of the prison or any part of it".
I have no difficulty with the first element of that clause; namely, that if there is a serious riot, it may be clear that the director has lost control. However, what
do the words,
"or is likely to lose, effective control"
mean?
As all of us who have had any dealings with prisons know perfectly well, rumours sweep through prisons with a high degree of regularity. Rumours swept through Strangeways Prison before the riot last year. However, if every time such rumours sweep through a prison, it is thought that the director is about to lose control of the prison and a Home Office official, who will be a member of the governor grades, suddenly arrives to take charge of the prison, the director will not have a particularly happy time. The governor—a Home Office official who is in effect a crisis manager—will deal with staff, none of them prison officers but all employees of a private company. I am not clear how he will handle the situation. I should be grateful for any assistance the noble Earl can give. A number of fundamental issues seem to arise.
Secondly, if there is a riot in a prison and major disturbances take place—there have been outbreaks of violence of that kind in a number of remand establishments; for instance, last year at Pucklechurch—it does not seem sensible for a Home Office official arriving from a substantial distance to try to take charge of the chaos. The most sensible step is for the director to ask for assistance from the local chief officer of police. I do not for the life of me understand why that is not seen as the most sensible action to take. By the time an official specially appointed by the Home Secretary arrives, possibly after many hours have elapsed, the disturbance could easily have got wholly out of hand. I reiterate that it is a matter for the police. It is not a matter for a member of the governor grades who arrives at the establishment after a substantial period of time might have elapsed.
There are a number of other matters which arise under this clause. There is something which I find difficult wholly to understand. If the governor, as he is described—in other words, the crisis manager—arrives, is it thought that he will arrive with teams of prison officers from other establishments. Are the private sector employees to be given the kind of
228
training that prison officers receive in dealing with riots? Will that be part of the contract between the Secretary of State and the company concerned?
I am sure that the noble Earl will realise that these are important issues involving the management of these establishments. After the very serious disturbances at Strangeways last year, and at all the other establishments where there was a breakdown of control, it seems to me necessary for him to explain in some detail what the Government have in mind to deal with this situation.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is quite right to draw attention to this matter. To repeat the phrase used earlier, this is breaking new ground. He is quite right to question what the Government have in mind.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to take direct control by the appointment of a governor—as the noble Lord correctly said—of a contracted-out prison if and for so long as the private sector director loses control of it and action is necessary in the interests of public safety. It is based on the principle that the Secretary of State must ultimately remain accountable for the way in which prisoners are treated and for the safety of the public at a contracted-out prison in the same way as he does at other prisons.
The provision is intended for use where, for example, there is a serious prisoner disturbance or even the threat of a mass escape. On his own initiative the Secretary of State would have the power to decide that preventive measures should be taken rather than simply leaving it to the private sector contractor to call for help if he felt that he needed it. There is no reason to think that a contracted-out prison will be any more prone to crises than any other prison. We should expect its management to operate in a way which avoided the risk of disturbances.
The noble Lord said that if a Home Office official suddenly appears he may have a difficult time. That may be so. The noble Lord may also have had in mind that a governor suddenly appearing in a contracted-out prison which is in a state of unease could contribute to that unease because the inmates might realise that something had happened. That is always a possibility. But that possibility should not override the Secretary of State's necessity to take action on a prison, whether it is a contracted-out prison or state prison, if he thinks that there will be trouble. If things do go wrong, the protection of the public, the staff and the prisoners is of the first importance. The Home Secretary is and must remain ultimately responsible for that. He needs to be able to intervene if there is a disturbance or other serious emergency. In an ordinary prison crisis management falls to the governor. In a sense he is the Home Secretary's representative and will act in consultation with the Prison Department headquarters. The governor does not act in isolation.
In the same way we should not expect the contractor and his staff to try to cope in an emergency without the outside support and guidance of the Home Office any more than we would expect that of an ordinary governor. All that the clause does is to

229
provide the means whereby the Home Secretary can ensure that disturbances or other emergencies at a contracted-out prison are handled in a way which minimises the risk to public safety and enables him to discharge his responsibility for public safety.
The noble Lord queried the wording of Clause 72(1) (a). Both paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 72(1) must be met before the Secretary of State can intervene. The phrase:
"likely to lose effective control".
is fairly plain language and the courts will give it its ordinary meaning. We must also read Clause 72(1) (b), because in intervention will not be justified unless it is necessary in the sense that is described there. Mere rumours would not justify intervention.
In an emergency, the Home Secretary would, if it seemed necessary, have power to appoint a governor. The Bill refers to a governor to make it clear that a single person will assume operational command, and that the normal divisions of responsibility between the director and controller will cease, for the duration of the emergency. Appointing someone to act as governor also means that the persons concerned will slot automatically into the normal command and control system for handling a serious incident, and would have the necessary authority to call for assistance from the police or other parts of the prison system. But it does not mean that some complete stranger will turn up to take over the establishment, or that other prison governors will be expected to come along and bail out the private sector if they get into trouble. Most probably the person who was normally the controller of the establishment would step up to be its governor while the emergency lasted. The controller would of course be fully familiar with the establishment. When the emergency was over, the governor would step down and the director and controller would resume their normal functions.
I realise that the explanation I have given has been fairly lengthy. I hope that it will fill some of the gaps in the noble Lord's knowledge.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall not press the noble Earl a great deal more today on this point. I shall be grateful if he will write to me on the matter before Report stage.
I raise one major problem associated with this issue; I am not involved in nitpicking. First, I refer to the management of an institution where disturbances could get out of hand and where, as one saw in Strangeways, a number of people, both members of staff and inmates, could be very seriously hurt. The problem about the Government's approach is this. In an ordinary prison department establishment the governor knows the strengths and weaknesses of his staff. However, a governor from outside, having been appointed by the Secretary of State to take charge of the situation either because violence has broken out or because it is perceived that violence may come to pass, will not know the strengths and weaknesses of the employees who are not employees of the prison department but of the private contractor. That seems to me a matter of some concern.
Secondly—I should like the noble Earl's letter to deal with this issue—is the director entitled to call in
230
or ask for assistance from the local chief officer of police before the arrival of a Home Office official who will become the governor of the establishment?
Has the whole matter been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers? A number of issues were involved in the Strangeways affair. They have given rise to quite considerable concern on the part of some senior police officers as to when they should properly intervene. That seems a matter of even greater importance if one talks of a private sector establishment which is not run directly by the prison department of the Home Office.
I repeat that I am not involved in being thoroughly tiresome. However, it seems to me that, given the fact that we have had epidemics of violence in the past 10 years in both ordinary prisons and remand establishments, it is extremely important to get the matter right. One fundamental question is this: will the private sector employees of the contracted out establishment be given training in how to deal with a disturbance in the way that regular members of the prison service are given training?
Perhaps I may refer to another question. There was a sad case a few months ago involving Harmondsworth Detention Centre, which, as the noble Earl will recall, is run by a private sector establishment and which deals with people who have become involved in disputes relating to the immigration acts. The answer given by the Minister did not deal directly with the issue but obviously arose from reports in the press. However, it was clear that the employees of the private sector company had not been given adequate training in suicide prevention.
There has been a series of episodes in prisons and in remand establishments in which people have killed themselves. Prisoners are particularly vulnerable in remand establishments because they are awaiting appearance in court. It is important to know how much training people working in such centres will be required to undertake when working for a private sector company.
I have dealt with the matters at some length because the issues involved are serious. I shall be happy if the noble Earl writes to me before the Report stage in respect of those issues.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I too wish to emphasise the importance of training. Last summer I watched a demonstration of restraint given by prison officers. It was obvious that if that was not carried out correctly people could be seriously hurt. Not all prison officers opt for training in restraint. It is a specialised technique and must be carried out in the correct way. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord Hylton: I have visited Harmondsworth Detention Centre and have an interest in asylum seekers, who, unfortunately, are sometimes detained there. Will the noble Earl be kind enough to send me a copy of his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris?
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving me the opportunity to answer in

231
writing many of the detailed points that he has raised. I shall also send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The issues are important and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was right to point out that during disturbances people can be hurt.
He said that the controller or governor of a normal prison knows the strengths and weaknesses of his staff. He also said that if a governor were brought into the prison from outside he would not have that knowledge. However, towards the end of my original reply to the noble Lord I said that it was anticipated that the governor of the prison would be the person who had been the controller. That may not happen in every case but such is the intention. In those circumstances he would know the strengths and weaknesses of his staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lady Masham were anxious about training. That is an important issue and the training of private prison staff will cover riot and suicide prevention. I shall take the opportunity kindly afforded to me by the noble Lord of looking at the matter in more detail and shall write to him.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:
("Certificates of accreditation
The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing procedures for issuing certificates of accreditation to contracted out prisons, which conform to specified standards including standards with respect to—

(i) space per person, air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space, window space and time per day spent in cells,

(ii) bathing facilities and frequency of opportunities for bathing,

(iii) sanitary facilities and inmates' access to sanitation,

(iv) supply of clothing,

(v) provision of meals,

(vi) medical care,

(vii) inmates' access to work, training, education, association, exercise and physical education,

(viii) facilities for visits and inmates' contact with families,

(ix) inmates' access to lawyers,

(x) provision of information concerning bail and legal aid,

(xi) inmates' access to advice and assistance from probation officers and social workers, and

(xii) facilities for religious observance.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment would establish a procedure for laying down a range of specified minimum standards which privately-managed prisons would have to satisfy in order to receive certificates of accreditation.
At the Report stage in another place on 25th February Mrs. Rumbold said that contracts issued to private managers would require them to meet high standards which would be rigorously enforceable covering all the matters set out in this amendment. She also said:
"the parts of the contract which deal with the matters under discussion will be made public. Confidentiality will apply only to those parts of any contract which, for sensible, commercial reasons are too sensitive from a security point of view".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/91; col. 724.]
Since then, Lord Justice Woolf's report on the prison disturbances in April 1990 has been published. One of the 12 principal recommendations of his report is the establishment of a national system of accredited standards with which, in time, each prison establishment will be required to comply. An amendment proposing accredited standards for the prison system as a whole was ruled by the Table to be outside the scope of the Bill. However, the debate on this amendment, which the Committee will appreciate is confined to contracted out prisons—at least in form —will enable Members of the Committee to ask the Government for their reaction to Lord Justice Woolf's proposals on this point.
If a national system of accredited standards for prisons is to be established would it not be sensible for such a system to apply also to privately managed prisons? There is unanimous support among organisations working in the penal system for a code of minimum standards for the prison system as a whole. Support for such a code has been affirmed by two House of Commons Select Committees, on home affairs and education, by the Parliamentary all-party Penal Affairs Group, the Prison Governors' Association, the Prison Officers' Association, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the National Association of Probation Officers, the TUC, the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League, the Annual Conference of Boards of Visitors, the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, NACRO and the Penal Affairs Consortium.
In those circumstances, and against that background, I hope that if the noble Earl cannot accept the amendment in total he will at least smile favourably upon the intention behind it and, indeed, perhaps tell us that the Government agree that a code of standards should be introduced, that it should be official, enforceable and should apply to all existing prisons.
It will not be possible overnight to bring all prisons up to those standards. That is not an argument against a code of standards but is an argument for a planned programme of improvements working towards an agreed set of standards over a specified period of years. As I said, I hope that the Government will be in a position to give us some favourable indications on this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Richard, whether or not a prisoner's Member of Parliament should be included in that list of provisions because I see no mention of it.
Lord Richard: As the noble Baroness asked me a question, perhaps I may be permitted to reply. I do not believe that such a provision needs to be included. As far as I know Members of Parliament have access to their constituents. Therefore, there is no need for a provision which deals with that in detail.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may pre-empt what the noble Earl will say and ask him not to say it! Whenever this question has been raised the answer has been: "What is the point of having

233
minimum standards when you know that you cannot achieve them?" I hope the noble Earl will not say that today.
Minimum standards create a target to which every institution can set its aim. The whole point of a set of minimum standards is that it is possible to measure up to them and have dates by which each institution can reach the achievement on minimum standards. Once they are achieved it is possible to move on to the situation which obtains in most European countries. Having achieved minimum standards, they then become enforceable in the courts. It becomes a stage-by-stage operation.
As we all know, there are now European minimum standards. It is rather shaming that we are the one country which seems quite incapable either of having minimum standards of our own or acceding to the minimum standards which obtain throughout Europe. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain to the Committee what possible objection there can be in having a set of minimum standards as a target.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: There has been a tremendous improvement recently in the provision of lavatories in the establishment to which I am attached. Lavatories are being put into every cell or room. That has created a major upheaval but it is a hopeful sign. I wonder whether such an improvement is taking place in establishments throughout the country.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may raise a point as this is the last amendment to a part of the Bill which is subject to a cross-note which reads, "Remand prisons" covering Clauses 68 to 72. When Lord Justice Woolf reported, he said that if the private sector were to be involved in the remand system—he was therefore considering that the Government would confine the private sector to remand systems—it was accepted by the Government that contracts would have to set clear and enforceable standards. There is no reason why the standard required of the private sector for remand establishments should be any different from those required of the prison service.
We are concerned with the prisons in Clause 68 as extended by Clauses 3 and 4, which were inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, as the noble Earl will remember, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was misled by the side-note, which reads:
"Contracting out of certain remand prisons".
She believed that this part of the Bill, particularly Clause 68, was concerned only with remand prisons. After a great deal of help from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who spelt it out to the noble Baroness, it became clear that Clause 68 was concerned with all prisons in the country and not just remand prisons.
I must say that I was misled by the side-note, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I agree that I should perhaps have read the text more carefully. However, I was misled not merely by the side-note which reads,
"Contracting out of certain remand prisons",
but also by the cross-note which reads, "Remand prisons". The cross-note governs not just Clause 68,
234
but also Clauses 69, 70, 71 and 72. According to the cross-note, all those clauses refer only to remand prisons.
I do not believe that anyone noticed the cross-note; we were all, so to speak, guided by it. The noble Earl, when replying, spoke of the side-note but in a rather dismissive way. He said that it was not part of the Bill—which is true—and that it was a matter for parliamentary counsel. No doubt that will be corrected in the next print of the Bill. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl says that it will be put right and if at the same time he apologises to the noble Baroness for causing her to consider that not only Clause 68 but also the remaining clauses referred solely to remand prisons.
The cross-note is more a part of the Bill than the side-note. It has some import and judicial notice can be taken of it. Even the side-note can be taken notice of judicially as an ultimate resort. However, the cross-note is much more a part of the Bill and can he said to have misled not merely the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, but also some of the rest of us who are not quite as sharp as the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He managed to point out to us—otherwise we may well have missed it—that Clause 68 had been extended to include any prison in the United Kingdom. I hope that the cross note as well as the side note will be fully amended. It will be as well to have a statement from the noble Earl that that will be so.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: As regards the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I explained earlier that although the side headings are important from the point of view of guiding the person reading the Bill to the appropriate clauses, they do not form part of the substance of the Bill proper. I take his criticisms on board. I realise the confusion that was given to both him and to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I shall certainly see what can be done about that. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me whether I could smile—
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Will the noble Earl include the cross note in that undertaking as well as the side note? The cross note is much more important than the side note.
Earl Ferrers: I am getting a little confused as to what the noble Lord refers to as the cross note as opposed to the side note.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The cross note appears at the head of page 45, above Clause 68, and consists of the words "Remand prisons" in italics. That governs not just Clause 68, but Clauses 68 to 72 inclusive. All those clauses are governed by that cross note. It is that, combined with the side note, which causes the confusion.
Lord Hylton: Egged on by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, I have now been reading the text of Clause 68 rather carefully. I notice that subsection (1) (b) at line 7, reads:
"or persons committed to custody on their conviction".

235
That means people who have been convicted by the court but who have not been sentenced. That extends the matter very much wider than simply to remand prisoners.
Earl Ferrers: For some curious reason we seem to have bumped back to Clause 68, whereas we were dealing with Clause 72.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: All these clauses are covered by the cross note "Remand prisons", so it is not curious at all.
Earl Ferrers: I merely thought that it was curious, but I stand corrected if it is not. I do not think that we want to labour the point other than to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for pointing out the anomaly not only of the cross note but also of the side note. I shall have both the cross note and the side note looked at in order to avoid the confusion which seems to have arisen.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked if I would smile favourably on this amendment. I do my best to smile favourably, which is a very different thing to grinning about it. I shall do my best to smile favourably. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said in the engaging way that he has that he hoped that I would not say whatever it was that he did not want me to say, as though I were going to say it when I was not. It is always helpful to know what the noble Lord does not want me to say. I shall try to meet him over that.
The Woolf Report recommended that there should be a national system of accredited standards set by the Home Secretary. Not all establishments would be able to meet the required standard at first, but those which did would receive certificates to that effect. If all the standards were met they would achieve accredited status. As standards at the other establishments improved, they too would receive certificates, and eventually accredited status, when Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons confirmed that they had reached the standard. There are obvious attractions in setting out more explicitly what prison establishments should be expected to deliver, but the matter is far from straightforward. The Government will be giving their response to the general question of accredited standards in their forthcoming White Paper on the Woolf Report. We are today concerned only with the setting of standards for contracted out prisons.
If we were to adopt Lord Justice Woolf's recommendation for a national system of accredited standards, I am sure that it would apply to any contracted out system in the same way as to an ordinary system. Indeed, if experience in the USA is anything to go by—there they already have both private prisons and a system of accreditation of prisons—I am sure that the contractors would be most anxious for the establishment to gain the necessary accreditation. But with a privately operated prison the Home Secretary will not be dependent on any system of accreditation to ensure that the required standard of service is provided. He can and will set this out very clearly in the contract, and the contract will give him the means to ensure that the required standard of
236
service is actually delivered. I can assure the Committee that the specification for the building and the operating contract for a privately operated prison will cover all the matters referred to in the amendment. I can also assure the Committee that the standards set in the contract on these matters will be made publicly known.
Lord Richard: I wish to press the noble Earl a little further. It is difficult for us to deal with what is, in effect, a blanket answer in which he says, "Yes, I think your amendment is in the right direction. It will all be in the contract". Will it be possible for us to see the tender documents for these contracts? If we see the tender documents we shall then be able to judge whether the standards in the contract are right. If all we do is see the contract at the end of the day, it will be very difficult for us to do anything about it or even raise the issue because by then it will have been signed.
The noble Earl is obviously in a helpful mood at the moment. I hope it lasts. Can he let us have sight of what the Government think the standards in the tender documents should be? We would then be in a position to judge.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Following on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, can a copy be placed in the Library? I am sure the noble Earl realises that one of the better arguments for a private sector remand establishment was always that the standards would be considerably superior to those that existed in the public sector. That attracted many of us to the whole concept. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, makes an extremely sensible suggestion. I do not think that any question of commercial confidentiality can arise. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, given the fact that we are moving in an altogether new direction, that we should have the opportunity of scrutinising tender documents. The most sensible way for this matter to be handled is for the documents to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he thought that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is extremely sensible. I concur with that. What the noble Lord asks is entirely reasonable. No commercial confidentiality is involved. It is perfectly reasonable that the Committee should wish to see it. I hope that the information on this matter will be available before we come to Report stage. If that is so I shall see that it is placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Richard: In those circumstances, and in view of the noble Earl's generosity and kindness and everything he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of Complaints Adjudicator for contracted out prisons
.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a person to be Complaints Adjudicator for contracted out Prisons.
(2) It shall he the duty of the Complaints Adjudicator to investigate or arrange for the investigation of complaints made by or on behalf of inmates of contracted out prisons concerning their treatment.
(3)The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the categories of complaint which may be made to the Complaints Adjudicator and the arrangements for making complaints to him.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge who is not with us at the moment. We want 10 find out from the noble Earl the Government's response to this issue which has been identified by the inquiry presided over by Lord Justice Woolf. We should like to know what the noble Earl has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The question of grievance and disciplinary procedures in prisons is an exceedingly important and complex one. That is demonstrated by the analysis of the issues in Lord Justice Woolfs report, which occupies no fewer than 18 pages of the document. The report recommended the appointment of a complaints adjudicator who would be responsible both for investigating complaints and for acting as the final tribunal of appeal in the disciplinary procedures. The proposed new clause, however, refers only to a complaints adviser to investigate complaints from prisoners.
As the Committee will be aware, a new complaints and grievance procedure was introduced on 25th September last year following a major review. The new procedures aim to make the system more accessible to prisoners, to enable everyday complaints to be speedily resolved and to preserve access to the governor, the board of visitors and the prison service area manager. They also require that reasons should be given and replies provided within certain time limits. I believe these new procedures have generally been welcomed, though it is still an internal procedure without the independent element which Lord Justice Woolf believed was necessary.
We recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of introducing an independent element into the complaints and grievance procedures. But this needs to be carefully thought through, not least because of the resource implications, which could well be greater than the Woolf Report estimates. Further work is now in hand so that a considered decision can be reached, and this of course will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on the Woolf Report.
In subsection (2) the new clause refers to,
"the investigation of complaints made by or on behalf of inmates of contracted out prisons concerning their treatment".
Of course prisoners in a contracted out prison would have access to the machinery for investigating prisoners' complaints on no less favourable terms than prisoners in other establishments. In some respects their position will indeed be better, because each contracted out prison will have a controller, appointed by the Secretary of State, who will be independent of the contractors running the prison. Under Clause
238
69(4) of the Bill it will be the duty of the controller to keep the running of the prison under review and to investigate allegations made against prisoner custody officers working at the prison. When prison rules are made to govern the operation of contracted out prisons, we intend to provide a right of access to the controller for prisoners.
I hope that with this explanation of what the Government are doing about complaint and grievance procedures both in prisons generally and in relation to contracted out prisons the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I certainly do not intend to press the amendment because, as I indicated, we were mainly interested to hear what the Government had to say. The noble Lord rightly said that there are significant resource implications. Of course there are resource implications and that is no doubt why the recommendations contained in the Prior Report were not implemented.
The noble Lord also pointed out the fact that Lord Justice Woolf devoted a substantial amount of space to this issue in his report. He thereby made it clear that he regarded it as an issue of high significance in relation to some of the problems that arose at Strangeways and elsewhere. However, as I said, I do not intend to press the matter this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 49, line 5, at end insert:
("(3) Sections 64, 65(1) and (2) (a), 66 and 73 to 75 above, subsection (I) above and Schedule 9 to this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference in section 64(1), 65(1), 66 or 75 above to prisoners included a reference to persons kept in secure accommodation by virtue of a security requirement imposed under section 23(4) of the 1969 Act (remands and committals to local authority accommodation); and

(b) any reference in section 64(1) (c) to (e) above to a prison included a reference to such accommodation.").

The noble Lord said: The Committee will recall that earlier we discussed the government amendments to give effect to new arrangements for the remanding of juveniles to local authority accommodation. They will end the need for young people under 17 to be remanded into prison service custody.
The amendment is intended to provide some additional flexibility over the escorting to court and back of juveniles who are remanded with security requirements under the new arrangements. It would enable use to be made of the prisoner escort arrangements provided by the Secretary of State under Clause 64 for that purpose.
The amendment does not mean that the prisoner custody arrangements would have to be used whenever a remanded juvenile was taken back to the court. It would be up to the local authority charged with looking after the juvenile—the designated authority—to decide how best to take the juvenile

239
back to court when the time came. The amendment gives it the option of using the escort arrangements provided by the Secretary of State if it wishes to do so.
It seems to us sensible that if transport, with the proper degree of security, is available under the Secretary of State's arrangements a local authority should be able to make use of it for juveniles who have been remanded to its accommodation. The normal safeguards, in particular inspection by the prisoner escort monitor and the lay observers under Clause 65(1), would of course apply to the transportation of juveniles under these arrangements.
I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment provides a useful degree of flexibility and will therefore accept its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I welcome the amendment, which is highly desirable. I do not want to plunge the Committee into a series of anecdotes, but one is from time to time told disturbing stories of young people who leave the social worker on the steps of the building in which the juvenile court hearing is taking place and that is the last that is seen of them. It seems to me therefore that it is a good idea to have an arrangement whereby the escort service resources can be used. That being so, I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Cash limits for magistrates' courts]:
[Amendment No. 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 99ZA:
Page 52, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert:
("(a) for paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (I) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(a) to appoint such number of probation officers—
240

(i) as may be determined by them without objection by the responsible authority; or

(ii) where objection is made, as may be agreed between them and that authority,

to be a sufficient number of such officers for their probation area, subject, in the case of such classes or descriptions of officers as may be prescribed, to the approval of the appointment by the Secretary of State;";").
The noble Earl said: There has been concern that a probation committee should be free to decide how many probation officers its area needs and that if local authorities are involved in that decision it would cause unworkable tensions between the two parties. We have listened carefully to the representations made to us on this issue. While we are still of the opinion that local authorities must be able to object to expenditure on probation officers proposed by the committee and to seek a determination from the Secretary of State on this significant part of the committee's budget, the amendment would make it clear that it is not necessary for the probation committee and its paying authorities to reach agreement on the number of probation officers as a matter of routine. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have one question. The Minister referred to the representations that the Government had received. Perhaps we may be told who they came from. Did they come from the local authorities, the probation service or who else?
Earl Ferrers: We have had a number of representations from different sources. I do not have the information with me, but I shall write to the noble Lord and see that he is informed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 99ZB:
Page 52, line 26, leave out ("of") and insert ("for").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Information for financial and other purposes]:
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 53, line 1, at beginning insert:
("(1) Persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice shall not discriminate against any persons on the ground f race or sex or any other ground.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment to Clause 79 standing in my name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Hutchinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. This is the third occasion on which I have risen to speak on the subject. I do not intend to rehearse my previous speeches in any detail; I merely remind the Committee of the main reasons why I believe that the amendment is necessary.
A strong suspicion has built up among ethnic minority groups over a long time that they are unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. To a great extent this is borne out by the findings of a number of research studies and also by Home Office statistics on the ethnic breakdown of the prison population first compiled in 1985.
A number of studies show that members of minority groups are treated differently from white people at various stages of the criminal process on a like-with-like basis. Home Office statistics on the prison population show that members of ethnic minorities entering prison have on average fewer previous convictions than white prisoners and that before conviction they are less likely to receive bail than comparable white defendants.
I wish to emphasise once again that there is no suggestion of anything deliberately discriminatory in the way the courts deal with ethnic minorities. The Government have recognised the deep concern felt by minority groups and have provided for publication of information in Clause 79(1) (b) for,
"the purpose of facilitating the avoidance … of discrimination".
I do not believe that that goes far enough. The concept advanced in subsection (1) (b) takes for granted that discrimination in the administration of criminal justice should be avoided. The information is being published to prevent that. Why should the Government not state clearly and openly the principle that no one engaged in the administration of criminal justice should discriminate? If, on the other hand, there is no acceptance that discrimination is taking place, even Clause 79(1) (b) should not be necessary. It seems to me that it is accepted that discrimination may be taking place but not t hat someone is responsible for it happening, however unwittingly.
One is also curious to know what action will be taken if the information published discloses discrimination. Let us hope that the Home Secretary will continue to consider it expedient to keep publishing such information as no mandatory duty is laid upon him beyond considering publication.
The amendment puts the emphasis clearly on the need to avoid discrimination, not only through the publication of information but also by clearly laying a duty on all concerned not to discriminate. When I
242
moved an amendment to Clause 3, a number of noble Lords felt that it was not the right place for such an amendment. My noble friend Lord Elton said:
"I see an apparent discrimination at many points in the criminal justice system, and not simply in the sentencing process".—[Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 1041.]
My noble friend Lord Renton stated:
"If there is a need for such an amendment, surely it should apply right across the board".—[Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 1045.]
I believe that this amendment meets those criticisms. It is a declaratory amendment which applies to the entire Bill.
Once again, I cannot emphasise enough the widespread concern which is felt among ethnic minorities. I believe that the amendment will serve as a strong message to them as well as to all those who administer the criminal justice system. It will also give substance to the words in the Government's White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, namely that,
"the rule of law will be maintained only if those charged with criminal offences are treated fairly and justly in the courts. There must be no discrimination because of a defendant's race, nationality, standing in the community or any other reason".
My noble friend Lord Elton was not able to stay for this debate. However, he kindly left me a note and invited me to quote from it. He believes that the discrepancy in sentencing between ethnic minority offenders and others may not have come about through discrimination itself but rather through the response of minority groups to perceived discrimination in the system. He further believes that this in turn leads to a vicious circle which can only be broken by a meaningful gesture by the Government. He hopes that if the Government will not agree to enact this revised and improved amendment, they will at least find another means of convincing our minority communities of the justice of the system—and that means demonstrating it.
To sum up, there are a number of reasons why there would be advantages in a statutory provision of the kind contained in the amendment. By drawing attention to the issues through a statement in primary legislation, the Government would be making a statement about the importance they attach to the principle of non-discrimination. Further, the Bill as it stands lays down in statute a detailed set of principles for sentencing covering the use of custodial and community penalties. These cover so many other sentencing principles that it would be strange if the crucial principle of non-discrimination were left out. Finally, such a statement in legislation would reinforce the efforts of many organisations and individuals within the criminal justice system to ensure that the system is fair and is seen to be fair.
Over the past few years the Department of the Lord Chancellor, the Home Office, the courts, the legal profession and the police and probation services have undertaken a series of initiatives to recruit more members of ethnic minorities; to adopt codes of practice designed to promote racial equality; to provide race relations training for their members; and to monitor their activities to ensure that they do not involve discrimination. However, much more needs to

243
be done in all these areas. Often those members of agencies in the criminal justice system who are working to promote such policies find themselves facing indifference or even hostility from colleagues. A statement in primary legislation on the importance of efforts to combat racial discrimination would be a valuable way of making it clear that such efforts have strong official backing. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I rise to support the amendment. Unfortunately I was unable to be present on the first day of the Committee stage although I added my name to the original amendment. I read with great interest of the amount of support that the noble Baroness received from all sides of the Committee and from people who hold entirely different views on a great many other subjects. I was greatly encouraged by that support.
The amendment which the noble Baroness has tabled tonight and to which I and other noble Lords have added our names covers the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system rather than purely sentencing. That was one of the arguments used against the original amendment. The amendment tonight also covers all forms of discrimination, not just racial discrimination. The Government have argued previously that the move against racial discrimination is implicit in the clause. The noble Baroness read out the relevant part of the clause. Nevertheless for the Government, rightly, to get the credit for their stand against discrimination, the clause must be made more explicit. As it stands at the moment it is rather oblique and is like a sentence with one part missing.
Discrimination affects two groups of people: those who are at the receiving end of discrimination and those who perceive themselves to be the objects of discrimination. The perception of being discriminated against is just as important as the act of discrimination. That was stated on the first day of the Committee stage. If this amendment is accepted they will find a clear unequivocal statement rather than leaving it to the somewhat oblique statement in subsection (1)(b) of Clause 79. It is equally important, if not more important, for those who are administering justice.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is not in his place. I read what he said about prejudice and about getting into the private consciousness of people. With respect, I think he is wrong. We have to accept that we all have prejudices; it is important to recognise them. I have been a JP for many years; previously I was a lecturer and prison visitor of Holloway Prison. That is a good school in which to learn what one's own prejudices are and to take action in order not to express them.
Unless people recognise their own prejudices there will be great difficulty. If this is brought to their mind in the Bill and it is known to be the intention of the Government, that will help to create an awareness. I readily agree that one does not immediately see specific results, but it does create an awareness.
244
Although we talk about ethnic groups and minorities we must be frank that what we are talking about, particularly when it comes to the courts and the administration of justice, are the black people. We are talking about colour and about people's prejudice against colour on the one hand, which we have to accept still exists, and on the other hand about what is perceived by the people who feel they are at the receiving end.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there are a disproportionate number of black people in prison. I have sat on the bench with colleagues who have a prejudice against black people. However, the great advantage of having three magistrates in magistrates' courts as they are comprised at present is that prejudices are balanced out. That is extremely important.
I know from my own experience that it is often more difficult for black people to get bail. When I am on the bench I often have to fight, not just the police and others, but my own colleagues, in order to give black people what I feel is an equal right with white people.
I readily accept that the amendment is not totally precise and specific. That is impossible in this area. Nevertheless it reflects something which is very important. It enables the Government to exhibit their sensitivity in this area. The amendment can help people to have more confidence in the criminal justice system and give a nudge to those who might be abusing it, sometimes without realising it. If the Government accept it, they can be rightly proud.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I shall not apologise for taking up a little more time on the very important amendment which has been so well moved by the noble Baroness. She has persisted, and I believe she has got it absolutely right this time. I support it as a member of NACRO's race issues advisory committee. I have been a member since 1983. The committee has concerned itself with the question of black people in the whole criminal process throughout that time.
I am glad to see the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his place for this amendment because I suspect that he would want to see the amendment incorporated in what I previously referred to as his Bill. I am sure that he will agree with me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with whom I have had certain dealings as a member of the committee and who has been overwhelmingly supportive of the work that we have done, will want to see something along the lines of the amendment in the Bill. I am therefore encouraged about it tonight.
The distinguished chairman of our committee said in our first report in 1986:
"I have to admit to feelings of some dismay at our findings. We expected to find discrimination and disadvantages in operation. What we did not expect to find was such a vast lack of knowledge and resistance to change".
In our second report in 1989 our then second chairman was greatly encouraged by the work of the committee. He said that the lack of knowledge had now been dispelled and the will to change was clearly evident in almost every agency in the criminal process. However, he added:

245
"But no one is more aware than members of the committee of how much further there is to go".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, to whom the noble Baroness referred, used these words when the matter was raised before:
"If a particular and identifiable section of society believes that there is a system of justice which is just for other people but not for them, whether or not that belief is well-founded, the effects on our society as a whole will be very damaging because those people will see the judicial system not as a means of maintaining law and order, but as a means of keeping them down".
I was much moved by those words because they expressed exactly what we had found in our committee. As the noble Baroness indicated, one is up against unconscious discrimination in the whole process—discrimination which is apparent and perceived by those discriminated against but not by those u ho are responsible for it.
The amendment can do untold good. The committee has no doubt whatever about that. All the members, who have now been working for nine years in that area, hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Lastly, recruitment is a crucial factor in improving matters. If the prison service, the legal profession, the probation service, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the magistrates' courts committees have criteria governing eligibility and promotion which are more difficult for black people to achieve than for whites, their rules are discriminatory. All those professions have such rules, so that institutional racism is to be found quite unconsciously in most of those agencies, all of which are taking remarkable steps to get rid of it.
In his Brixton report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred to:
"The sense of a concealed discrimination in relation to job opportunities and housing felt by young blacks".
When one finds that 25 per cent. of all women remanded in this country are black and 30 per cent. of black people remanded receive no custodial sentence when they come to trial, one realises that something in the system is clearly wrong. If the Bill included this principle, it would encourage many of those who at present hesitate to join the different agencies in the criminal justice system. It would give strong backing to all those dedicated persons who are working to promote policies of non-discrimination and who meet such indifference and sometimes hostility in their work. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may briefly say a few words on this amendment to which my name is attached. I am most impressed by the latest draft produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, because it seems to take into account all the criticisms of her previous drafts at an earlier stage. The fact is that both the earlier amendment about the elimination of racial discrimination in sentencing and the amendment which was of a much wider character—I believe Amendment No. 100—were attractive. I thought that perhaps both might go in, but in the course of the argument I realised that both were defective. The noble Baroness has produced the perfect synthesis of those two amendments plus taking
246
into account the criticisms which were made. I can think of no better purpose of parliamentary discussion than to distil an amendment of this sort which I very much hope has the agreement of everyone in the Chamber.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were most helpful. Equally, the criticisms of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Beloff, have been taken into account. I cannot see that anyone could possibly have any objection to this form of words which goes right across the board. Discrimination on the grounds of race or sex or on any other ground is inadmissible.
I think it right to say that much of the discrimination is unconscious and that the lack of knowledge and will to change may both be unconscious. I do not think that it is only the ethnic minorities who find that there is perceived discrimination. There are various people like myself who do not come from an ethnic minority and who perceive discrimination. I have no doubt that it is unconscious, but when one finds members of the Bar casually talking about the alternative Bar or the ghetto, one realises that something is deeply wrong. It may be lack of knowledge or lack of will to change, but it sinks in that discrimination is there. It must be eradicated.
I believe that this amendment would help very greatly that distinguished judge Sir Henry Brooke (the son of a former Home Secretary) who on behalf of the Judicial Studies Board is now undertaking some kind of study of discrimination in the judicial process; and not merely the judicial process but across the whole criminal justice system. It will assist him, and strengthen his arm tremendously, to have this clause put into the Bill. I know that there is great energy on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Ministers of Health, as well as others concerned with the criminal justice system, in endeavouring to eradicate discrimination within their spheres of influence. They have been most persuasive and I am sure that their agents have worked very hard; but their agents in the Bar and the Law Society, among circuit administrators, clerks and so on, in both the higher and lower judiciary, as well as the probation service and the police, will all have their hands strengthened by the addition of this clause to the Bill. For that reason I wholly support the amendment.
In conclusion, I shall make only one small point. I think that the side note will now be insufficient. It refers solely to information for financial and other purposes. Those who seek this subsection of the clause will find it difficult to discover under "Information for financial and other purposes". If the side note can incorporate the import of the amendment it would be an improvement.
It is very nice to speak to an amendment which one believes has the support of all sides of the Committee.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the slur on the Bar which he made in reference to use of the term "ghetto". Our committee has found that the Bar has done more in this area under the very distinguished

247
judge whom the noble Lord mentioned than any other single organisation. The word "ghetto" was used in relation to sets of chambers which consist entirely of black barristers and referred to as a matter that must be discussed and on the whole disapproved of. It was in no way used as a slur, as the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I do not suggest that it is a slur but a habit of thought that seems to be unconscious among members of the Bar which they do not understand is offensive to racial minorities. It is not a slur but a matter of fact that "ghetto" chambers are talked about; as, alas, are chambers referred to as the "alternative Bar". I should have thought that that phrase was pejorative; I put it no higher than that. It is not a slur, but pejorative. That is a record of fact. It may be that nowadays people do not talk so much in that manner. There may have been an improvement over the past few years. But such speech is a habit of mind that people might consider abandoning.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Lord—not for the first time—has entirely the wrong end of the stick.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to say a few words about the last part of the amendment, "or any other ground". There has been a problem of discrimination against prisoners who are HIV positive or have AIDS. It is because of such problems that the amendment needs to be flexible, as it is. Prisoners come before the courts and into prison with many problems and disabilities. They should be helped, not shunned and segregated.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I rose a little earlier in order to come between such amiable Members of this Chamber as my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Fortunately the noble Baroness beat me to it.
I wish to make only a few observations on the amendment. I have no doubt that there are plenty of precedents; I have not checked them today. However, I seem to recall that when I held the same job as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when dealing with sex discrimination legislation, a declaratory provision was recommended by Lord Gardiner. There was a great deal of argument as to whether the amendment should be accepted. After an immense amount of argument it was rather grudgingly agreed that it could be written into the statute. I have a slight suspicion that the noble Earl will have similar arguments addressed to him.
I believe that the provision is a wholly sensible idea. Like everyone else, I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has brought the issue back to the Committee. Perhaps I may make some comments on the matter in relation to the prison service. Much excellent work in this area is being carried out by the prison department. Many devoted members of the service put in a huge amount of work in order to improve the situation in our prisons. Nevertheless it is only right to acknowledge that there have been a number of substantial problems. Some noble Lords will recall the circumstances of the Alexander case. We
248
may remember the debate in which the noble Earl participated about events at Wandsworth Prison; and the very strange badges worn by a minority of members of the staff to which the Chief Inspector of Prisons drew public attention.
I remember a disturbing matter which came to my attention when I was chairman of the Parole Board. I saw, as did a number of my colleagues, dossiers which included phrases such as "typical of his race", "devious and unreliable" and so forth. I emphasise the fact that that occurred in only a minority of cases. Nevertheless, there were sufficient examples to prompt me to see the then Director General of the Prison Service. He was deeply worried about the matter and circulated an instruction to the prisons.
I repeat that I am not trying to point an accusatory finger towards many members of the prison service; the number of cases involved was small. However, there were, as I have said, a sufficient number to worry us all and it demonstrates the need for constant examination of this issue in all parts of the criminal justice system. For all those reasons a declaratory decision of this kind is highly desirable and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Hylton: I support this important amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. We know that real discrimination exists in many spheres of life and we wish to eliminate it from the criminal justice system. For instance, we know that real discrimination exists against women, ethnic minorities and racial groups. While some is real some is imagined and does not actually exist. However, both types contribute to the alienation of those groups which believe that they are at the receiving end.
It has long been accepted that in court cases involving a person who speaks no English or has only a limited knowledge an interpreter is of the first importance. I suggest that in addition we need in many different situations cross-cultural interpreters who can tease out the nuances and misunderstandings that all too readily occur. I hope that, if accepted, the amendment will have a major bearing on the training of many categories of people—for instance, police officers, court officials and prison officers. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness Flather: The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the phrase "any other ground". I presented the amendment to include the phrase "any other improper ground" which appears in Clause 79(1) (b). For some inexplicable reason the original draft of the amendment does not appear in the Marshalled List. It should read:
"on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground".
That provision appears in the Bill and would make the issue more precise.
Earl Ferrers: We have had a useful and interesting debate, as we had in earlier proceedings upon the Bill. I repeat that in the criminal justice system there can be no room whatever for racial, sex or any other unfair discrimination—indeed, any other unfair improper discrimination as my noble friend would have it. It is clearly important that we all do what we can to ensure that no such discrimination occurs. The amendment

249
moved so comprehensively by my noble friend seeks to help to ensure that by imposing a new statutory duty en those who work in the administration of criminal justice not to discriminate on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground.
I quite understand the reasons why my noble friend and Members of the Committee believe that to be important. But the amendment would simply re-state on the face of the Bill what is already a matter of law. Those who work in the criminal justice agencies are already under a duty to treat people fairly, and that clearly includes avoiding discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. Indeed, if the criminal justice system does not operate in a fair way, the whole purpose of its existence is unfair and unreasonable.
As regards sentencers, that duty is reflected in the judicial oath which requires sentencers to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Clearly, racial discrimination would be incompatible with the terms of that oath. Other people in the criminal justice system, particularly those who work in the prison, police and probation services, are similarly bound in their codes of conduct and discipline not to discriminate.
It has been argued that the inclusion in the Bill of a statement of the kind proposed would emphasise the importance of the need to avoid discrimination. My noble friend asked why the Government will not state the principle that people should not discriminate. She understandably wants matters made clearer. But generally when provisions are written into statute it is to bring about a change—to confer new rights or obligations or to forbid some activity which was previously permitted. This amendment does not however seem to imply any change. It merely re-states an existing obligation. Those working in the criminal justice agencies are already, as I have explained, under a duty not to discriminate, so no extra duty seems to be placed on them by the amendment. What must they do differently to comply with this new duty that is not already required of them by the existing duty, and how would the new duty be enforced?
As the Committee is aware, this issue has been discussed on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It is an issue to which the Government have given a great deal of thought and consideration. It is not easy to see what might best be done to help ensure the objective that we all share of a criminal justice agency that is both fair and seen to be fair by all sections of the community. It seems to us, however, that the provision already in Clause 79 of the Bill that places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish regular information is the most helpful and constructive way forward.
The provision not only draws attention to and emphasises the need to avoid discrimination; it also ensures that those working in the criminal justice agencies will receive regular information which will help them to judge how this need is being served and to identify any corrective measures that might be required and it will help keep these issues regularly in the forefront of people's minds by the annual publication of information.
250
The noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Hylton, were quite right when they both said that whether or not there is discrimination, it is perceived by those affected that there is, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that that was not intended. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that that may be done unconsciously. I can understand those anxieties. To use an old cliché, it is very important that not only should justice be done but it should be seen to be done. People must have confidence in the system. I agree that it is not enough to say that there is no reason why people should not have confidence in the system and we must do all that we can to achieve that.
The problem is that this is a statement of a desire, and Acts of Parliament are not there for making statements of desire but for making legal obligations. There is a further danger; that is, that a person—and he may be of an ethnic minority—sentenced to imprisonment may complain that he was so sentenced not because of his offence but because of the colour of his skin, and he can appeal against that sentence. Equally, it may work in reverse. A number of white people may attack a number of black people and be sentenced to prison for creating an affray. The white people may say that they were sent to prison not because of the affray that they created but because the attack was against black people. One finds that element occurring. One can appeal. But it is difficult to argue against it and say that a person was sentenced correctly for what he had done and not because of discrimination.
I have listened carefully to what has been said today and have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. We all want to see the sentiments of my noble friend put into practice. But I am bound to say that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. I should like to consider between now and Report stage whether there is any way in which we can introduce a government amendment which goes further than the existing drafting of Clause 79—one which might go some way towards meeting the anxieties expressed as well as meeting the difficulties which I foresee in inserting statements of desire into a Bill which should contain legal references and implications. I should be grateful if my noble friend would allow me to consider the matter between now and Report stage.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do I want to express my sadness at the Minister's reply. When all is said and done, all the amendment is asking is that we put on the statute book a statement that,
"Persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice shall not discriminate against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other ground".
I should have thought that that went well with Clause 79, which says,
"The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of…(b) facilitating the avoidance by such persons of discrimination against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground".
It is saying that it is wrong or illegal to discriminate and that we should monitor the position to ensure that

251
that does not happen. I should have thought the two matters went well together. I cannot understand why the Government find difficulty in accepting the amendment.
It is all very well to say that, because one takes an oath to administer justice without ill-favour, affection or one has also taken an oath not to discriminate; but that is not spelt out. The amendment would spell it out in the Bill. I cannot understand why, if the Government are willing to combat discrimination in the judicial system, they are not willing to include a provision to that effect on the statute book.
The Minister asked to be allowed to think about the matter further. I ask him to take into consideration what I have said. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand my reasons. I tried to explain them clearly. The noble Lord says that the amendment would make it a legal requirement not to discriminate. That is a very good sentiment, but what happens if people do discriminate? That is not referred to in the amendment. Obviously sanctions would need to be included.
The noble Lord says that the position must be monitored. Provisions were included in another place for the very monitoring which he requires. However, I have given an undertaking to look at the situation. I want to see whether we can meet the requirements and desires of Members of the Committee in a way that can be suitably expressed in legal documents.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I welcome the fact that the Government intend to look at this matter between now and Report stage. That is fine. I cannot recall the precise circumstances of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendment of Lord Gardiner. As I indicated a few moments ago, to the best of my recollection this same argument took place. His amendment to the Bill was ultimately accepted. It dealt with sex discrimination in regard to public appointments. It was a declaratory provision in exactly the same way as is this amendment. No doubt the noble Earl and his advisers will look at that precedent. I suspect that there are many others.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: When the noble Earl considers this provision will he bear in mind the judicial oath and the law? When this matter was first investigated judges and magistrates referred to their judicial oath and to the law. They said that there was no discrimination. After a long period both the judiciary and the magistracy now accept that, in spite of the judicial oath and the law, there is discrimination. Both organisations have been, and are doing, a great deal to eradicate it. That shows that more must be done. I hope that the noble Earl will bear that in mind.
Baroness Flather: I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I shall await with interest what comes forward at the next stage. I do not want to labour any of the points that I have already covered, but I shall pick up one point which is of
252
concern to me. If this amendment does not confer any extra rights it will not affect the position of those who are found to be discriminating or who are perceived to be discriminating. If the defendants think that they have been discriminated against their rights will be the same as they are now. Presumably those are either right of appeal or a judicial review. I assume that that position will not change whether or not this amendment is inserted into the Bill. It will concentrate wonderfully well the minds of all those people who are involved in administering the system at whatever level they may be. I can see no harm in that whatever. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [General interpretation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert:
("(2) For the purposes of any provision of this Act which requires the determination of the age of a person by the court or the Secretary of State, his age shall be deemed to be that which it appears to the court or the Secretary of State to be after considering any available evidence.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. Both these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 101A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 86, line 35, leave out ("given by section 1(8)") and insert ("of Part I").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale)>: I call Amendment No. 102ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Richard: I have no idea how this amendment came to be put down in my name. I have no knowledge of it. I disown it completely and I do not move it.
[Amendment No.102ZA not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.102A:
Page 88, line 5, leave out ("17") and insert ("16").
The noble Earl said: I might say the same about this amendment. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 102B, 104A, 104B, 104T and 105A. This set of amendments makes further minor and consequential changes to existing legislation which arise from the Bill's provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 102B I have to point out that 18A should be 19A and 18B should be 19B.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 102B:
Page 88, line 46, at end insert:
("Bail Act 1976 (c.63)
18A. In section 4(3) of the Bail Act 1976 (general right to bail of accused persons and others), for the words "section 6 or section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (breach of requirement of probation or community service order)' there shall be substituted the words "Part II of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (breach of requirement of probation, community service, combination or curfew order)".
18B.—(1) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act (restrictions on the imposition of bail conditions) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after the words "(4) to (7)" there shall be inserted the words "(except subsection (6) (d))" and the words from "or, in the case" to the end shall cease to have effect.
(3) After sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(1A) No condition shall be imposed under section 3(6) (d) of this Act unless it appears to be necessary to do so for the purpose of enabling inquiries or a report to be made."
(4) In sub-paragraph (2) for the words "Sub-paragraph (1) above also applies", there shall be substituted the words "Sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) above also apply".
(5) In sub-paragraph (3), for the words "subparagraph (1)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraph (1A)"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 89, line 10, at end insert:
("20A. In section 20(2) (b) of the 1980 Act (procedure where summary trial appears more suitable), for the words from "on obtaining information" to the end there shall be substituted the words "is of such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section".").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104. They were both spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 89, line 11, leave out ("the 1980") and insert ("that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 90, line 7, leave out ("section 1A(1)") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 1A").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104B:
Page 40, line 11, at end insert:
("(2) In subsection (4) of that section, for the words "section 15(11) below" there shall be substituted the words "section 51(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104BA:
Page 90, line 26, at end insert:
("Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c.23)
29A. In section 22(11) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (time limits in relation to preliminary stages of criminal proceedings), after the definition of "appropriate court" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'custody' includes local authority accommodation to which a person is remanded or
254
committed by virtue of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and references to a person being committed to custody shall be construed accordingly;".").
The noble Earl said: We discussed Amendment No. 104BA with Amendment No. 94B and the other amendments on juvenile remands. Perhaps I may draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. In Amendment No. 104BA, in the first line after the heading the reference should be to the Prosecution of Offences Act and not Prosecution of Offenders Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104C:
Page 92, line 9, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule IA to that Act").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 104D to 104H, 104HA and 104J to 104R. I nearly said, knave, king, queen and ace; but I decided not to do so.
This set of amendments completes the transitional arrangements for the Bill's provisions which are set out in Schedule 11. They are mainly concerned with the young offender provisions in Clauses 47 to 57 of the Bill and the new juvenile remand provisions. The other amendments make minor changes to the provisions already in Schedule 11 to the Bill—for example, those concerning the new early release arrangements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 104D to 104R:
Page 92, line 9, at end insert:
("3A. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to this Act shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the commencement of that paragraph as it applies to offenders convicted after that commencement.").
Page 92, line 19, at end insert:
("Increase of certain penalties
5A. Neither of subsections (3) and (4) of section 23 of this Act shall apply in relation to offences committed before the commencement of that subsection.").
Page 92, line 40, leave out ("more than twelve months and less than four years") and insert ("—

(a) more than twelve months; and

(b) less than four years or, as the case may require, such other period as may for the time being be referred to in section 27(5) of this Act,").

Page 92, line 45, after second ("sentence") insert ("or six months, whichever is the longer").
Page 93, line 46, at end insert:
("Responsibilities of parent or guardian
10A. None of sections 47 to 49 of this Act shall apply in relation to offences committed before the commencement of that section; and the repeals of subsections (7) (c), (7B) and (7C) of section 7 of the 1969 Act shall not apply in relation to offences committed before the commencement of those repeals.").
Page 93, line 46, at end insert:
("Remands and committals of children and young persons
10B.—(1) In this paragraph—
"section 23" means section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) (1) of this Act;
"the modifications" means the modifications of section 23 set out in section (Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation) of this Act;
"remand or committal" means a remand of a child or young person charged with or convicted of one or more offences, or a committal of a child or young person for trial or sentence.
(2) Section 23 as it has effect with the modifications shall not apply in relation to any remand or committal which is in force immediately before the commencement of sections (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) and (Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation) of this Act.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) below, section 23 as it has effect without the modifications shall not apply in relation to any remand or committal which is in force immediately before the day appointed under section (Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation) (1) of this Act.
(4) Any person who, in pursuance of any such remand or committal, is held in a remand centre or prison shall be brought before the court which remanded or committed him before the end of the period of 8 days beginning with the day so appointed.
(5) Where any person is brought before a court under sub-paragraph (4) above, section 23 as it has effect without the modifications shall apply as if the court were just remanding or committing him as mentioned in subsection (1) (a) of that section.
10C.—(1) Subsection (2) (a) of section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) of this Act shall not apply in any case where proceedings for the offence in question have begun before the commencement of that section.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below, subsection (2) (b) and (c) of that section shall not apply in relation to any committal under section 37 of the 1980 Act which is in force immediately before that commencement.
(3) Any person less than 17 years old who, in pursuance of any such committal, is held in a remand centre or prison shall be brought before the court which committed him before the end of the period of 8 days beginning with that commencement.
(4) Where any person is brought before a court under sub-paragraph (3) above, section 37 of the 1980 Act shall apply as if the court were just committing him under that section.").
Page 94, line 2, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,").
Page 94, line 4, at end insert:
("(2) Subsections (2), (3) and (5) of that section shall not apply in any case where proceedings for the offence in question have begun before that commencement and the offender is aged 17 at the date of his conviction.
(3) For the purposes of the provisions substituted by subsection (3) (c) of that section, any sentence of detention in a young offender institution which, at that commencement, is being served by an offender aged 17 shall be disregarded.").
Page 94, line 10, at end insert:
("Supervision orders
12A.—(1) In relation to pre-existing failures to comply with the requirements of supervision orders, section 15 of the 1969 Act as substituted by Schedule 6 to this Act shall apply as if—

(a) in subsection (3) (a), for "£1,000" there were substituted "£100";

(b) in subsection (5) (b), for "£5,000" there were substituted "£2000"; and

256

(c) in subsection (5) (c), for "£5,000" there were substituted the words "£2,000 in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18 years and £400 in the case of a person who has not attained that age".

(2) In this paragraph "pre-existing" means occurring before the commencement of section 52 of this Act and that Schedule.").
Page 94, line 12, leave out ("Section 53(4) of this Act") and insert ("Subsection (2) of section 53 of this Act shall not apply in relation to attendance centre orders made before the commencement of that section.
(1A) Subsection (4) of that section").
Page 94, line 15, leave out ("the commencement of section 53(4) of this Act") and insert ("that commencement").
Page 94, line 16, at end insert:
("Provisions for treating persons aged 17 as young persons
13A.—(1) Paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 6 of Schedule 7 shall not apply in any case where proceedings for the offence in question have begun before the commencement of that Schedule.
(2) Paragraph 5 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to any sentence imposed on any person who was convicted before that commencement and was aged 17 at the date of his conviction.").
Page 94, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert ("references in any other provision of this Act, or in any enactment amended by this Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts").
Page 94, line 25, at end insert:
("Supplemental
15. For the purposes of this Schedule proceedings for an offence shall be regarded as having begun as follows—

(a) in the case of an offence triable only summarily, when a plea is entered;

(b) in the case of an offence triable only on indictment, when the magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence as examining magistrates;

(c) in the case of an offence triable either way, when the magistrates' court determines to proceed with the summary trial of the offence or, as the case may be, to proceed to inquire into the offence as examining justices.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Repeals]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 104S:
Page 95, line 15, at end insert:

("1965 c.71.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965

In section 1 in subsection (1), the words from ("and") to the end of the subsection; subsection (2); in subsection (4), the words from ("in each of the said sections 70") to the end of the subsection; in subsection (5), the words from ("but in lieu thereof") to the end of the subsection.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is consequential upon the vote which was taken recently on the so-called "Nathan" amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that this amendment goes with the other amendments which were all part of the murder and life imprisonment amendments which were previously debated. My noble friend Lord Waddington gave an undertaking that these matters

257
would be considered. The substance of the amendment now before the Committee will also form part of that consideration.
Lord Richard: I believe that that is right. However, I understood that, as a matter of form and procedure, the amendment needs to be moved so that I can now, presumably, withdraw it to allow it to be considered by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I hope that I am correct in that assumption.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am a little uncertain on the matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can assist us. As I understand it, two amendments were carried against the Government and one was not proceeded with—namely, the one which related to the tribunal. I am not clear as to the relevance of this amendment to the other three issues. If it relates to the first two issues, it is consequential on the Committee having taken its decision. Perhaps someone will be able to clarify the position.
Lord Richard: As I understand it, it is consequential upon the first two decisions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In that case, I believe that the Committee is obliged to accept this amendment. It is not a matter for the Government's reflection; it arises directly from the decision taken by the Committee on a vote.
Lord Richard: I think that that is probably right. If one looks at the amendment it will be seen that it repeals the words in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 which state that the penalty for murder shall be life imprisonment. It is a textual but consequential amendment upon the two votes which the Committee took last week. However, I do not know whether that means that I move it—I have already done so—and then leave it; that I move it and then withdraw it; or, that I move and the noble Earl then says, "Yes, it is consequential so we can leave it where it is". Perhaps the noble Earl can assist in the matter.
Earl Ferrers: My understanding was that this was a matter which would fall to be considered by my noble friend with the undertaking that he gave on the other amendments. I understand that this amendment is consequential on the first of those amendments and that the noble Lord is entitled to move it. In which case, we shall accept it. I congratulate the noble Lord on his achievement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should tell the Committee that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 104T on the Marshalled List and that it should read "line 36" and not "line 35".
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104T:
Page 96, line 36, at end insert:

("1976 c. 63

The Bail Act 1976.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 8(1), the words from "or, in the case" to the end.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 96, line 54, column 3, at end insert:
("In Schedule 3, paragraph 5.").
The noble Earl said: We spoke to this with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105ZA:
Page 97, line 18, at end insert:

("1983 c. 20

The Mental Health Act 1983

In section 50(3), the words from "and that period" to the end.").

The noble Earl said: The amendment removes a reference to "remission" from the Mental Health Act 1983. It is consequential on the provisions in Part II for reform of the early release arrangements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 97, line 23, column 3, at end insert ("Section 131(2).").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105AA:
Page 97, column 3, leave out lines 50 to 52 and insert:

("from "and after the words" to the end. In section 5, subsections (2) (b) and (8).").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 105B to 105ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105E:
Page 54, line 29, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106A. The amendments merely extend to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands the increases in the standard scale of fines and the statutory maxima provided for in Clause 15(1) and (2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 54, line 31, leave out ("and 21") and insert (", 21 and 23(3) and (4)").
The noble Earl said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 106ZA:
Page 54, line 31, leave out ("and 21") and insert (", 21, (Sentence for murder) and (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment)").
The noble Lord said: I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to move the amendment on his behalf as his judicial duties prevent him attending tonight. The effect of the amendment, although somewhat elliptical, would be to abolish the mandatory life sentence on a conviction for murder in Scotland and to bring the law in Scotland into line with that of England. I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to obtain the

259
Government's reaction to the position. I believe that I am right in saying that the view of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is that it would be strange, to put it mildly, if the sentences for murder differed depending on which side of the border the offence took place. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend the Leader of the House made clear in the short debate that we had last Thursday on Amendment No. 76A, and the amendments related to it, that the Government will need to consider the consequences of the votes on the earlier Amendments Nos. 69A and 69ZA and to respond in some way. In doing so, we shall need to ensure that the position in Scotland remains the same as in England and Wales. The substance of this amendment will also be considered.
Lord Richard: In view of what the noble Earl said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 54, line 34, at end insert:
("(5A) An Order in Council under section 81(11) of the 1982 Act may direct that both or either of—

(a) section 37 of that Act as amended by section 15(1) above; and

(b) section 32 of the 1980 Act as amended by section 15(2) above,

260
shall extend, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, to the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. However, as it is the last amendment, I wish to take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords on the other side of the Committee, as well as those behind me and on other Benches, for their patience in dealing with amendments on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: I reciprocate the sentiments which the noble Earl has just expressed. I can do that for the Front Bench, but it is difficult to do so for those behind me since there are none. I do so in their absence. This has been an intricate and difficult Bill but progress has been considerably helped by, I cannot say the concessions made by the noble Earl, but by his attitude towards the amendments put forward by the Opposition.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I second that. In the famous words of any Lord Justice in the Court of Appeal, I have nothing to add.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  AIDS AND WORK: EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT LEAFLET
  AIDS AND WORK: EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT LEAFLET
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  SALE OF CLOSED SCHOOLS: PROCEEDS ARRANGEMENTS
  SALE OF CLOSED SCHOOLS: PROCEEDS ARRANGEMENTS
  EDUCATION ACT 1981: IMPLEMENTATION
  EDUCATION ACT 1981: IMPLEMENTATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION: FUTURE ROGRAMME
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION: FUTURE ROGRAMME
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LOCAL AUTHORITY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LOCAL AUTHORITY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
  DRINK DRIVING CHARGES: EXPEDITING PROCEDURES
  DRINK DRIVING CHARGES: EXPEDITING PROCEDURES
  CONIFER PLANTING IN THE INDUSTRIAL PENNINES: GRANT-AID DECISION
  CONIFER PLANTING IN THE INDUSTRIAL PENNINES: GRANT-AID DECISION