Sitting of 4 February 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensioners' Earnings Rule
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are now benefiting from the abolition of the earnings rule.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): About 300,000.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change in the earnings rule, which was long sought by pensioners and the organisations representing them, has proved extremely popular? Does he accept that many pensioners have talents and skills, built up over many years, that are a great advantage to employers? Is not it regrettable that some employers still tend to refuse to consider applications from people over the age of 40 or 45? In considering further improvements to legislation, will he bear in mind the ability of older people to contribute in many different ways during the latter part of their working lives?
    Mr. Newton: Subject to my being able to remember every part of the question, I think that the answer is yes to each proposition. I feel strongly that we tend to talk of
    2
    people over retirement age as though, in some sense, they are a burden, whereas many are a huge asset to our community. I am glad to say that there are signs that, under the pressure of demographic trends, more employers are beginning to recognise that.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that the abolition of the earnings rule is no compensation for married-couple pensioners, who have lost more than £20 a week, or for single pensioners, who have lost £13 a week, as a result of pensions no longer being increased in line with earnings? An answer that I have received from the Government shows that up to 67 per cent. of pensioners have a total annual income of less than £5,000 and that many have much less.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who persistently asks similar questions, equally persistently ignores the fact that as a result of a range of trends, including the growth of occupational pensions and income from savings, pensioners' average net incomes—I emphasise "average"—have risen much faster under this Government and I would acknowledge—I have done so explicitly and implicitly on numerous occasions—that many pensioners have not benefited from those trends. It is right to direct additional resources to them, as we did in October 1989 with a major increase in income support premiums for older and more disabled pensioners. We shall take a further step in that direction in April with the real increase in the basic pensioner premium.
    Mrs. Roe: Although the abolition of the earnings rule has been greatly welcomed by pensioners, a number of my middle-aged constituents seek guidance on the Government's view on the equalisation of the state-pension age. Is my right hon. Friend able to comment on this highly complex issue?
    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend says, this is a complex and wide-ranging issue. I do not think that I can add to what the Government said in response to a House of Lords Select Committee last year.
    Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State had better get used to persistent questions on the level of pensions from Labour

    3
    Members. He realises, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that single pensioners are now losing £14 a week and married couples £23 a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where the proceeds are—the £23 billion that has accumulated since 1979—of the great pensions robbery?
    Mr. Newton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. We look forward to his incisive questioning in the forthcoming months. He need look only at the extensive publications of statistics and finance that were issued on Friday, on which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) commented, to know that there has been a large increase in social security benefits, in a variety of directions, including, not least, for long-term sick and disabled people.

    Maintenance Awards
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has that under the current system levels of maintenance awards vary significantly around the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Newton: A special assessment survey conducted last year, some of whose findings are shown in tables 13 and 16 of volume 2 of the White Paper "Children Come First", showed clear variations, for example, between different kinds of court. Analysis of DSS statistics also shows considerable regional variation in the amount paid under court orders, ranging from an average of just over £13 a week in north-west England to over £20 a week in Scotland.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present system is slow, inconsistent and variable? Is he aware that only about one third of mothers living alone with their children receive any regular payments and that those payments are often considerably less than the fathers could afford? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that something must be done?
    Mr. Newton: Yes. Clearly the present system is unsatisfactory. There is wide variation and, as my hon. Friend said, the system can be slow and sometimes difficult to use. We have set out our proposals for reform, which in general have been widely welcomed. Obviously our proposals contain many points, on which people have commented.

    Departmental Relocation
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made in relocating work from London to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): The development of the Department's information technology systems has already enabled us to transfer 1,400 jobs to three social security centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Ashton-in-Makerfield which will handle the backroom work of 21 local offices. In addition, a further 650 jobs from the benefit agency headquarters will be transferred to Leeds from May 1992.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. There can be little doubt that the cities that
    4
    benefit from the relocation—Nottingham and Derby are two in my immediate area—find it welcome and recognise the economic benefits flowing from it. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what ongoing relocation will occur in his Department and across the board in Whitehall? What are my hon. Friend's thoughts as to the position in London as a place for the remaining core activity once the main thrust is completed?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend will know that, by 1992, about 80 per cent. of the work force of the Department of Social Security will be located outside London. This is very much a frontline operation in terms of the delivery of service. Many of the remaining core services in London will be handled by branch offices, the number of which will be increased. The objective is to enhance the quality of service and information available to those who seek our benefits.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not object in principle to the relocation, but I seek three assurances from the Minister. First, will he assure me that paperwork and applications originating in London will not be delayed by being transferred out of London and brought back again? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that the London offices will not suffer any further neglect of their structure? Many are in bad condition and need substantial improvements such as redecoration and refurbishment. Lastly, and in particular, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Thames south and Thames north offices which look after the homeless and those in hostels will not suffer a reduction in service and that the people at the bottom end of the social scale will have at least as good a service as they have now, if not better?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad to know that some part of government is popular. Our experience in the three social security centres leads us to believe that, for example, the error rates in terms of income support will drop from 20 to 7 per cent. and that the turnaround will drop from nine to six days—in other words, service will improve.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about other London offices. One of the objectives of the benefits agency which I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is to consider carefully the quality of delivery of our service, wherever it is located. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall draw that point and his observations on the other London offices to the attention of the agency's chief executive.

    Efficiency Scrutiny
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has made any estimate of the savings to the taxpayer as a result of efficiency scrutinies since 1978–79.
    Mr. Jack: Since 1979, 26 such scrutinies looking at both the Department's performance and quality of service delivery have been concluded. These have secured savings of over £145 million. In addition to the formal scrutiny programme, we are constantly looking for other efficiency savings and in 1989–90, these totalled some £60 million, £30 million of which was from purchasing and supply initiatives.
    Mrs. Currie: Am I right in thinking that the efficiency scrutiny that has been tackling fraud has enjoyed spectacular success, with savings of about £300 million a year? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, instead of going to those who are not entitled to it, the money is now going to those who are entitled to it, especially benefiting those in greatest need?
    Mr. Jack: With her characteristic skill and ministerial experience, my hon. Friend has put her finger on the point of the scrutiny process, certainly as regards fraud. She is right to say that if we were not posting back savings of £326 million for the next financial year, we would not have been able to paint such a comprehensive picture in our recent publication on public expenditure. Our objective is to ensure that the right people receive the right help from the benefit scheme.
    I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent suggestion about ways in which her own local office might improve its delivery of social security benefits. She will shortly receive in the post news of improvements in her local office.
    Mr. Frank Field: Opposition Members welcome any improvement in efficiency and we are also pleased with any crackdown on abuse. In looking at the savings that can be made, however, should not the Government spend more time on a major factor—the national insurance fund? How does the Minister justify the £6 billion lost to the taxpayer through the Government's bribe to people leaving the state scheme to enter the private sector?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's use of the word "bribe" is uncharitable. He has considerable knowledge of the social security system and he should realise that our analysis of the burden on the diminished work force in 2030 required the Government to take early action on the question of the state earnings-related retirement system. He is right that we must always pay attention to savings made as a result of scrutiny, but in that case, the action that we took was as a result of careful analysis of future trends.

    Disability Working Allowance
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the introduction of the new disability working allowance.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Once the new benefit is established we expect about 50,000 people to be receiving disability working allowance at any one time.
    Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the new disability working allowance will promote the employment of disabled people and will encourage employers to employ them where, hitherto, they have been somewhat remiss in fulfilling the quotas assigned to them?
    Mr. Scott: I believe that the new allowance will play a significant part. I can reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said—that demographic trends will be important in encouraging employers to look beyond the disability that first confronts them to the abilities that often lie behind.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied that employers will ensure that disabled people are offered equality of opportunity and wages in jobs? Surely, one of the most ridiculous aspects of current legislation is that disabled people are offered very low-paid jobs with little incentive for further training. Will he assure us that there will be no repercussions for those who receive housing benefit if they take up the disability working allowance?
    Mr. Scott: I wish to encourage to the greatest possible extent absolute equality of employment opportunity for people with disabilities. I urge employers and other agencies to ensure that that is possible. I suspect that there will always remain a group of people with disabilities who will be at a disadvantage one way or another. The benefit is being introduced so that the earnings that they have, which may be lower than those of able-bodied people in certain circumstances, can be topped up so that they can enjoy a proper job at a proper level of income.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that spending in real terms has risen by 100 per cent. since 1978–79 and that that is a remarkable achievement by the Government?
    Mr. Scott: I reckon that it must be 100 per cent. by now as it was 98 per cent. several months ago. That shows the Government's commitment to the interests of the long-term sick and disabled.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: If the DWA is so good, why are the national organisations that speak for disabled people so united in their strong criticism of proposals for the allowance which, as the Minister knows, they see as family credits without the families? How can the Minister justify marginal tax rates as high as 94 per cent. for disabled recipients when any such imposition would be described as confiscation by non-disabled people? Will he also confirm that the allowance will ultimately be a cost saving to the Government?
    Mr. Scott: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so grudging about a radical and innovatory effort to ensure that those people with disabilities who want to work and are able to work can get into work. Many of them may come into work for the first time with earnings topped up by DWA. They will eventually be able to improve their position so that they work to the fullest extent possible. Although organisations for the disabled might like the benefit to be more generous than it is at the moment, the majority of the people to whom I have talked welcome its concept warmly.

    Poland and Czechoslovakia
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help has been given to Poland and Czechoslovakia to assist them with the setting up of social security systems.
    Mr. Jack: Both Poland and Czechoslovakia are working to restructure their social security systems to be based on a contributory principle and in response to requests for help in that endeavour our officials have visited both countries. In addition, three senior officials from Czechoslovakia recently spent time visiting several of our offices.
    Dr. Clark: When discussing social security systems with representatives from Poland and Czechoslovakia, has my hon. Friend brought to their attention the so-called workfare system in the United States? Does he agree that workfare would avoid the Czechs and the Poles inheriting the extremes of our social security system and perhaps help them avoid having a litter-strewn country like ours by allowing more people to work for the benefit that they are receiving?
    Mr. Jack: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, but I should make it clear that we have been asked to assist Poland, Czechoslovakia and other eastern European countries in terms of methodologies and systems required to reconstruct and develop a social security system. In many eastern European countries, the concept of unemployment was officially unknown but they are now having to deal with that problem. It is not for us to determine what their policy should be, but to help them to deliver an efficient form of benefit where they believe that that is required.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister made it clear that computerisation in this area in the United Kingdom has not been too successful, that there are many errors and that those countries in eastern Europe should be aware of that when they decide what technology they want to purchase? While I recognise that those problems can be resolved, will the Minister assure us that those countries will not be misled into buying equipment the software for which breaks down, as it has done in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jack: I admire the hon. Gentleman's attempt to juxtapose problems with our social security system with those in eastern Europe. However, the hon. Gentleman may be somewhat behind the times in terms of the development of our information technology. In my constituency, the centre for the information technology services agency, which I visited recently, has palpably demonstrated the great improvements in the subsequent development of the local office system in this country. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier reply, he would have learnt that in social security centres in places like Ashton-in-Makerfield, we are already seeing dramatic drops in error rates when dealing with benefit. I am sure that those lessons will not be lost on those eastern European countries that are seeking our help enthusiastically in the area of information technology.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to solve problems resulting from the increase of refusals of social fund grants and loans.
    Mr. Scott: In the first nine months of this year, 38 per cent. of decisions on applications to the social fund resulted in a refusal. That is the same as the overall rate for last year.
    Mr. Wray: I cannot agree with the Minister's figures. The Observer has clearly reported that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in grant refusals and a 50 per cent. increase in loan refusals. Does the Minister agree that that is a shocking state of affairs with regard to the social fund? It has been used and abused for the most vulnerable people in society. There is £3,500 million in the contingency fund.
    8
    Surely the Government are aware that one in four children in Scotland live in households that depend on income support. Will the Minister persuade the Government to give him more resources? Since 1988, because of social fund refusals they have made a saving of £2·5 million.
    Mr. Scott: My experience of the social fund is that it has responded flexibly and fairly to those who need extra help beyond that of the normal provisions of the income support system. The hon. Gentleman's own constituency has the highest social fund allocation per capita—about two and a half times the average for Britain as a whole.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: While I accept that a grant-based system meant runaway costs that no Government could continue, what should I say to an old man in my constituency, with savings of less than £200, who applied to the social fund for a bed and was told to use those savings?
    Mr. Scott: Those are matters for social fund officers in the first instance. My hon. Friend will know that there is provision first for an immediate review and then for an appeal to social fund inspectors if people are dissatisfied with individual decisions. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, in 1989–90, 35,000 people who applied for loans from the social fund were awarded grants instead.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, under the notorious social fund, 3 million of the poorest pensioners are freezing in the coldest snap for four years? Does he accept that the Government's severe weather payments system is riddled with unfairness because the criteria are far too restrictive, because hundreds of thousands of those on the lowest incomes are excluded, and because it is paid retrospectively so that pensioners dare not spend the money when they really need to? Is not it a shame that the Government can suddenly find £1·5 billion to spend on the Gulf and yet, at the same time, can spend only peanuts to stop old people freezing, in some cases to death?
    Mr. Scott: I am not quite sure what to read into the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's comments about what the Labour Front Bench's reaction would be, if it were under the hon. Gentleman's influence, to the crisis that confronts us in the Gulf. I do not accept the description of the social fund as notorious. About 3·3 million grants and loans have been paid out to the most needy people in our society as a result of its operation.
    We introduced the cold weather payments system some years ago and we have since developed it in several ways. We have, of course, had some mild winters recently, which may have reduced overall expenditure on cold weather payments, but I am confident that we shall be able to respond to the needs of people on income support who have children in the family or who have pensioners or disabled people within the household. They will be helped by the scheme.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: While I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the social fund, is not it a fact that, as grants tend to be replaced by loans and as the same beneficiaries tend to make applications year after year, over a period the cumulative interest which many will find impossible to pay will create a situation to which we shall need to turn our attention?
    Mr. Scott: With respect to my hon. Friend, if further loans are made to somebody they are not expected to repay the second loan until the first has been completed. Of course, there is no question of interest being charged on any of the loans—they are all interest-free.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to make any changes to child benefit.
    Mr. Newton: I have already announced that, from April, an extra £1 a week will go to the eldest eligible child.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister agree that a Government who can subsidise chemical plant construction in Iraq to the tune of several hundred million pounds during the 1980s have no need to cheat children of £2·30 per week by freezing child benefit as they have since 1987?
    Mr. Newton: What the Government have done—there has been no mystery about it—is to examine the pat tern of support for families with children. In recent years, until this year when I announced an increase in child benefit, we decided that the right priority was to give extra money to the least well-off families with children. Those are families on income support and in receipt of family credit—in other words, low-income families in work. About £400 million of additional resources in real terms has gone to those less well-off groups in recent years. I make no apology for that.
    Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that child benefit makes a valuable contribution to all families with children? Does he further agree that those who suggest returning to a tax allowance should look back at the history of this benefit, which was an allowance and was then converted? Does he agree that we should retain the value of child benefit, that it should be indexed and that it should continue to be paid to the mother, or the woman in the family?
    Mr. Newton: No doubt there will continue to be a lively debate about precisely what the balance should be—not least in terms of my previous supplementary answer—between different forms of giving support to families. I made it clear in my uprating statement, and I am glad to make it clear again to my hon. Friend today, that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support.
    Mr. Meacher: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the Government abolished child benefit—which clearly they are considering—Nye would be the only European Community country with no universal child benefit? Will he confirm that, after four years of Tory freeze, child benefit per child is only half that which is currently paid in France? Will he at least have the grace to acknowledge that, unlike means-tested family credit and child tax allowances, child benefit has the combined advantages of 100 per cent. take-up, of being cheap to administer and of involving no poverty trap? Will he confirm that only child benefit achieves that?
    Mr. Newton: I can only think that the hon. Gentleman has been present in the House on at least four or five occasions in the past few months without listening to what I have said. I repeated this afternoon and if the hon.
    10
    Gentleman did not hear it 30 seconds ago, I state again that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support.

    Income Support
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals for modifications to the income support system to enhance flexibility and support levels.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have no proposals to do so at present. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) undertook a full review of the social security system in 1986 and introduced comprehensive reforms which took effect in April 1988. Two of our major aims for income support were to improve flexibility and to enable us to direct resources more accurately than under supplementary benefit. Since then the structure of income support has allowed us to focus extra help on families, disabled people, carers and the elderly. All this has been in addition to the normal annual upratings of benefit levels.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the increased targeting emphasis and the result that it has produced, and as extra cases of hardship may come through Members' surgeries, citizens advice bureaux and other agencies in the coming months if the recession temporarily produces further problems, will my hon. Friend ensure that any referrals from Members of Parliament and others are treated with extra special care to help the most needy and hard-pressed in the community?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is an essential part of our policy that help should be targeted where it is most needed. Any representations will be carefully considered. Our offices are always seeking means to improve the efficiency and speed with which they deal with such applications.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister observed that part of the flexibility which the Government have introduced in the overall support given to the children of war widows has resulted in a real-value cut in the payment to them of one third? That is from 12·3 per cent. of average earnings in 1979 to a mere 7 per cent. today. Does the hon. Lady realise that those war widows, as well as many other people on invalidity support and pensions, will also be denied the value of the £1 increase in child benefit which will be enjoyed by other people? Is that what the Government call flexibility?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has misread the position. That is surprising as he had an Adjournment debate on the subject which was answered in detail by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should realise not only that the reasons for the discrepancies that he has identified are historical but that the difference would be about 21p. He should not exaggerate the case before the House.

    Residential Care Homes
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received concerning the level of income support available to people in residential care homes.
    Miss Widdecombe: We have received many representations from individuals and bodies.
    Mr. Sims: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the time and trouble that she devoted to speaking and answering questions at the lobby organised last week by the National Care Homes Association. At the meeting I am sure that she realised the strength of concern among residents and care home owners about the gap between income support and the charges that have to be imposed by home owners. Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the Age Concern critique of the Price Waterhouse survey? Will she study it carefully and consider making a more detailed survey of the true costs of running care homes, so that income support can be fixed at a realistic level?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend, who should be congratulated on the way in which he chaired the lobby last week, will be aware that we have already made substantial improvements to income support for the elderly in nursing homes, as we have for those in residential care. He will be aware that those in nursing homes received a considerable increase of £45 a week. Of course, we shall continue to keep the matter under review, although he will also be aware that after 1993 the position will change for new residents. I shall study the documents from Age Concern, as I shall consider all representations made to us, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government regard it as extremely important that we have the levels right and that we fix them at a reasonable rate.
    Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say to the hon. Lady—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No.
    Mr. Flynn: I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment—
    Mr. Speaker: That means that others may not ask supplementary questions.
    Mr. Flynn rose—
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, I am afraid that that is the end of the question. Sir Rhodes Boyson—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. It was not the hon. Gentleman's question, so I withdraw that. I call Mr. Madden.
    Mr. Madden: How many elderly people does the Minister think will go to bed tonight in residential homes fearful that they may be evicted because neither they nor their relatives have the money to pay the required fees? Does she really describe the income support limit, which will go up to £160 in April—just £5 a week above the current level—as a substantial increase? Why will not she come clean and be honest with all those people running homes, working in them and living in them that there is just not enough money? When is it going to be increased?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman would do well to study the Price Waterhouse report in some detail. We based our uprating on the findings of that report, which was a comprehensive survey. The answer to the first part of his question about how many old people will go to bed worried tonight is none.

    Fraud
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the cost-effectiveness of staff deployed on fraud work in his Department.
    Mr. Jack: The cost-effectiveness of fraud investigation work is measured in terms of staff costs set against the amount of benefit saved. In the year ended 31 March 1990, the most recent for which figures are available, staff costs were an estimated £44 million. In the same period investigators achieved benefit savings of £309 million. In other words, £7 was saved for every £1 spent.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I thank the Minister for that reply. It shows that the money is well spent because the more money that we spend on genuine unemployed people, the less is spent on the non-genuine. Have the Government any plans to bring back a work test for the so-called able-bodied unemployed, as in 1601 and 1834, so that those who claim benefit and say that they are unemployed can be tested to ensure that that is the case, especially in our big cities?
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend has an enviable record in this area. I have noted his contribution to policy development, as outlined in the debate on 28 February 1984 in the House. As a result, my right hon. Friend will know that stringent rules are already in operation which require people who seek unemployment benefit to demonstrate that they are actively seeking employment. The Government have already come under some criticism for the way in which that test was to be applied, but it appears to be working because about 50,000 claimants who have already been advised of the requirements of the test have proceeded to look for work and can continue to claim their benefit.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps the Minister would also like access to the cat-o'-nine-tails, which I am sure would be equally effective.
    The Department's reorganisation of benefit offices is resulting in the loss either of civil servants at the top of the scale—whose useful experience was gained at great expense—or of those lower down, who are unable to retain their jobs. What use is that, pray?
    Mr. Jack: I thought that we were whipped enough as it was, without a reference to the cat-o'-nine-tails. In terms of the resources employed to detect fraud, which I believe is the point underlying the hon. Lady's question, the Government have doubled the number of investigating officers since taking office, from 1,724 to 3,179.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Sentences (Appeals)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the number of appeals he has made about the leniency of sentences.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Twenty-five cases referred by me have been heard by the Court of Appeal. In 21 of them, a substantially heavier sentence was

    13
    substituted. Additionally, I have referred two cases in Northern Ireland and in each a substantially heavier sentence was substituted.
    Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a success rate of more than 80 per cent., which demonstrates the need for the powers that he exercises. I congratulate him, too, on creating a tariff structure of which judges will take account in future sentencing policies.
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening words, but the Court of Appeal creates the structure--through the valuable guidelines that it publishes on cases that I have referred under the power that Parliament conferred two years ago.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General agree that the peculiarity of our sentencing compared with that of other countries is not its over-leniency but that many more of our offenders spend much longer in prison than is the case in other western European countries? As to the problem of disparity, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman study with renewed interest the possibility of establishing a sentencing council?
    The Attorney-General: The latter point is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One can make a number of international comparisons, but it is important to remember that sentencing is an art, not a science—and a very difficult one at that. It calls for sense and sensitivity, learning and not a little courage. Although the new power is valuable, it is reassuring that in only a tiny proportion of cases—about one in every 1,000—does the Court of Appeal feel it necessary to advise a junior court that its sentence was unduly lenient.
    Mr. Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement is much welcomed. Does he intend to take powers to stop the current practice whereby courts are allowed to impose penalty points for driving offences concurrently, when topping up would usually result in a ban? Recently in my constituency, a man with eight penalty points on his licence was given an additional three points, but they were imposed concurrently—and that after he had killed someone in a road accident.
    The Attorney-General: I shall not comment on an individual case. Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary. The Executive cannot interfere, but the legislature can. Whether it should do so is initially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that, although he has been careful with the sentences referred to the Court of Appeal, in the light of the letters that many right hon. and hon. Members receive from the public asking why a certain sentence was not the subject of an appeal, it might be helpful to have more publicity about the guidelines used by his office in determining which cases will or will not go to the Court of Appeal?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We recently exchanged correspondence about a painful and distressing case in his constituency. The guidelines are published in the law reports. I believe that I am right in saying that each time an appeal results in an extended sentence, the result is
    14
    published in the law reports. I must, of course, adhere to the guidelines, because there would be no point in my referring a case that fell fair and square within the ambit. One must also remember that the statute refers not to a lenient sentence but to an unduly lenient sentence.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of cases prosecuted by the Crown prosecution service in 1990.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the 12 months to the end of September 1990, the Crown prosecution service completed 1,729,282 cases, of which 140,326 were in the Crown court.
    Mr. Hind: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. and learned Friend now satisfied that the Crown prosecution service has settled into its task? It has attracted a great deal of criticism from various parts of the country, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is now doing a fine job, prosecuting and dealing expeditiously with many cases?
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the Crown prosecution service. It is settling in well. It conducts a great many cases with skill and confidence which is recognised by courts and the public throughout the country.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Solicitor-General compare the resources given to the Crown prosecution service with those given to the legal aid service and say why he thinks that it is right that the rate of remuneration for those prosecuting criminal cases should go up more quickly than the rate for those defending them?
    The Solicitor-General: I am not sure that that is by any means always, if ever, the case—the rates should be broadly in balance. The amount of money spent on legal aid has been going up very fast this year.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what legal advice he has sought recently from academic international lawyers on legal issues affecting developments in the Gulf.
    The Attorney-General: I give advice on my own responsibility. The question whether I have sought the views of others is normally confidential.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a member of the War Cabinet, what advice has the Attorney-General received on the percentage of bombing of military targets in Kuwait, which is significantly less than the pounding of Iraq? What advice has he received about which United Nations resolution justify the bombing for 18 days of Iraq? Has he received any advice on whether certain animal species, such as the dugong, the sea cow and the green turtle, have a right to exist, not to be annihilated by human Front Bench folly?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman knows that any advice that I give and any advice I receive as a Law Officer is, for good reasons, confidential. Throughout this affair, Britain has committed itself to acting strictly in accordance with international law. In that context, the

    15
    principles of international law require that account be taken of two factors when planning attacks on military objectives. First, civilian losses, whether of life or property, should be avoided or minimised as far as practicable. Secondly, we should not cause civilian losses that are disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will know, because it has been frequently stated by the Prime Minister and others, that British military commanders have been instructed to comply with those principles.
    On the wider question with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks, regrettable though environmental damage is, the responsibility for it lies with President Saddam.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we wish that the conflict had never been started, but that, as it has been started, it must be finished? Does he further agree that the United Nations resolution on which the war is fought is one of humanity—finishing the war as soon as possible? If we continue with the attitude shown by some—luckily a minority—in the House, all tyrants will always prosper and justice will never be done.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend recalls accurately that the Security Council's operative resolution, No. 678, calls on member states to take such measures as are necessary to implement resolution 660, which calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait of the Iraqi forces, and to restore international peace and security in the area. That is what this country, together with its allies, are about.

    City Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss City fraud; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I expect to meet the director again shortly to discuss matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Skinner: At those meetings with the director, does the Attorney-General raise with him the question of the £600 million fiddle at Harrods? Do they discuss the ways and means of how to resolve the matter, or do they say, "Well, we will give it a nod and a wink and reckon it has not happened", because some of the participants were too close to the Tory Government? If they do not deal with that, what will the Attorney-General do about the recent report on Blue Arrow which suggests that action should be taken against the executive and non-executive directors of that firm? What action will he take—or do the Government want to concentrate on the working-class people who might be caught with a bit of social security fraud at £15 a week? Are those the double standards in which the Attorney-General believes?
    The Attorney-General: It may not make much difference to the hon. Gentleman, but when I consult the director I consult her, not him.
    As for Blue Arrow, among the cases in which preparatory hearings are already in progress is that of County NatWest, which embraces the other matter. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps give credit to the fact that,
    16
    since its inception, the Serious Fraud Office has prosecuted 43 cases and 95 defendants, of whom 60 have been convicted.
    Mr. Skinner: Are they all in open prisons? The Kuwaiti royal family—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Attorney-General: We all know that the hon. Gentleman is tortured by self-doubt, but I am afraid that I must continue to intrude on his soliloquy.
    Mr. Skinner: They will not understand that outside.
    The Attorney-General: "To Beast or not to Beast" is the hon. Gentleman's question; my question is the one that he originally asked, and I am answering it.
    Decisions about whether to prosecute are made on the basis of the code for Crown prosecutors, which has been scrutinised by Parliament and which takes no account whatever of the partisan considerations that the hon. Gentleman has at the very heart and core of his being.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Namibia
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments have there been in aid to Namibia since independence.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): On Namibia's independence last March, we announced £10 million of aid for commitment over three years. We have agreed with their Government that education should be the first priority. A number of initiatives are already under way. We are also helping with police training, public-sector reform and the resettlement of returnees, and we are exploring the possibilities for assistance in other sectors, including agriculture and health.
    Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she, however, recognise the importance to Namibia of development of its fishing industry, which provides employment prospects and also increases public revenue? Will she consider giving aid for the development of that industry, and confirm that she recognises the associated problem of Walvis bay and what it means to Namibia?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have just returned from Namibia. While I was there, I was able briefly to discuss the whole question of fisheries. The hon. Gentleman may remember that, just before independence, Dr. John Beddington of Imperial college, London undertook a study and made some preliminary recommendations on fisheries management. We want to explore the scope for further support in that regard; we have offered the Namibian Government further assistance, but they have yet to respond.
    As for Walvis bay, we voted on Security Council resolution 432, advocating its integration into Namibia. We continue to believe that the issue can best be dealt with by means of low-key bilateral negotiation, but we have offered to help and have put in the right words in the right places.
    Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that our development aid has been very well spent in Namibia, helping to fashion the possibility of

    17
    success from a near-disaster? Does she feel that there are any lessons to be learnt that will be helpful in the development of the new South Africa, where aid and assistance will also be needed to help the people emerge from another near-disaster into success?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He knows that we began English language teaching for Namibians long before independence. In South Africa we have been providing teacher training for English language and other subjects through the Molteno project for about four and a half years. By giving English language and other educational training, we are laying the foundations, but we must build on that through projects such as public sector reform, which we are carrying out in Namibia. We must also ensure that each programme is tailored to needs. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be looking at the projects in South Africa which now amount to about £10 million of aid to black South Africans.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position in Cambodia.
    Mrs. Chalker: We are providing humanitarian assistance to Combodians by supporting the activities of British non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies inside Cambodia and in the camps along the Thai border. We are ready to consider with other donors how Cambodia's reconstruction and development needs can be met in the context of a comprehensive political settlement.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of today's reports about renewed fighting between the Cambodian Government and the Khmer Rouge, and the comments in the current Jane's Defence Review on the strength of the Khmer Rouge, may I ask the Minister once again to state in the clearest possible terms for the public record that this country has never given assistance to train the military of any description fighting against the Phnom Penh Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not know how many times I have said this before, but I shall say it again. We have never given and will never give support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge. I much regret it if fighting has again broken out because, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have repeatedly called on all parties to stop fighting and reach a comprehensive settlement. The formal ceasefire and an end to outside arms supplies are integral parts of the draft comprehensive settlement document. The Cambodians have already shown that a ceasefire isolated from a settlement just will not work. Therefore, it has to be ceasefire and settlement under the terms negotiated by the permanent five.
    Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend use her considerable talent to try to persuade her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to enable the Phnom Penh regime to understand the details of the United Nations plan? There are difficulties in the military and in the supervision concept. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend were able to make contact through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Phnom Penh
    18
    regime so that it could have a much clearer understanding of the value of the United Nations plan and the fact that it is a real hope for Cambodia.
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall be very pleased to talk to my noble Friend who takes the political responsibility for that, but, of course, we are both in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I hope that the co-chairman of the Paris conference, who visited Hanoi last weekend and put pressure on the Vietnamese to accept the draft settlement document, will persuade Hun Sen to do likewise. I know that they had a long conference, but so far we have not had reports of its outcome. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend when I have anything to tell him about that weekend conference.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that many of us believe that to be effective there is no point in simply calling on both sides to have a ceasefire, but that we must, in view of the terribly poor condition of Cambodia, reopen direct bilateral aid to Phnom Penh, because failing to do so gives an economic weapon to the Khmer Rouge?
    Mrs. Chalker: Unless there is a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, we shall not be able to carry out in practical terms what the hon. Gentleman asks for. As he knows, we already give humanitarian aid. We also give aid through UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme, but until there is a ceasefire and fighting stops, there is no way in which we can be more active and more helpful to the Cambodian people, however much we might wish to be so.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Month after month the Minister comes here and talks about the humanitarian aid that we provide —very little through NGOs. Does not she realise that it is a fleabite compared with the amount of assistance that Cambodia, devastated by war and economic isolation over the past few years, needs? Does not she realise that one in five children dies from waterborne diseases? The water reconstruction project in Phnom Penh has come to a halt because the Soviets have withdrawn their aid. Does not the Minister know about the $49 million in the United Nations Development Programme account that is ready to be spent in Cambodia? Surely it is not beyond the wit even of the present Government and of the Minister to do something about this dreadful situation.
    Mrs. Chalker: Sometimes I wonder whether the hon. Lady lives in the real world. I should be happy to see the United Nations money spent—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will listen for a moment she will get an answer. The Government are fully ready to consider requests from the United Nations agencies, from the NGOs and from Voluntary Service Overseas in respect of 1991. We are prepared to help, but in the absence of a ceasefire—while hostilities continue—it is not practicable to undertake what the hon. Lady asks for.

    Aid Programmes
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what weight is being given to sound economic management as a criterion for aid programmes to any country.
    Mrs. Chalker: Sound economic management is a very significant factor in assessing whether our aid can be used effectively in any country.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the contents of the International Monetary Fund report on the Soviet Union which indicates that, with the failure of perestroika and the failure of the Soviets to introduce proper market mechanisms, giving aid to the Soviet Union is almost like throwing money into the Volga? Does she realise that this report has principles in common with our aid programme elsewhere in the world, including Africa? Is it being studied carefully?
    Mrs. Chalker: I believe I am right in saying that Jean-Michel Camdessus, the president of the IMF, has set up a committee to consider the report's conclusions and recommendations. Our assessment is that it is a very valuable report.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, I recommend that he looks at the World bank's special programme for Africa proposals for the second phase. These show how, when due allowance is made for the statistics, the countries that follow a strong economic reform programme perform rather better than those which do not bother to do so. It is a lesson for all concerned that sound economic recovery programmes do bring success, even though slowly.

    Baltic States
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to changes in technical aid to the Soviet Union in light of events in the Baltic states.
    Mrs. Chalker: With our partners, we are watching developments in the Soviet Union closely. We have suspended EC technical assistance, although emergency and food aid may continue where we can guarantee delivery direct to those in need. There is no Governmentto-Government aid to the Soviet Union.
    Mrs. Ewing: Although I welcome the Minister's response on the ending of technical aid to the Soviet Union, may I ask her to assure the House that the British Government will be in no way complacent in ensuring that pressure on the Soviet Union is maintained with a view to securing a peaceful resolution to events in the Baltic states? As there have been 20 deaths in the Baltic states in just three weeks, she must agree that there is no room for complacency. Can she assure us that no deal whatever will be done and that a blind eye will not be turned for the purpose of securing continued Soviet Union assistance in the Gulf?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said during previous Overseas Development questions, we deeply deplore the actions of the Soviet troops in Vilnius and Riga and their tragic consequences, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The behaviour of those troops is totally unacceptable and we have made our concern very well known to the Soviet authorities. The hon. Lady may like to know that the Foreign Secretary summoned the Soviet chargé on 21 January to underline our concern, and in every forum in which we have encountered the Soviets we have made those concerns known. However, it may still be necessary for us, where possible, to help people directly through humanitarian aid.

BREL (Redundancies)
3.33 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement of 1,200 redundancies in British Rail Engineering Ltd. in Crewe, Derby and York."
The matter is specific, because BREL announced these 1,200 redundancies on Friday morning of last week. It is important because, at the time when practically every part of British Rail, including its freight and passenger services, desperately need investment in new rolling stock, we are dissipating a skilled work force that is capable of competing with anyone in the world.
It is a matter for urgent consideration, because there is no conceivable justification for a firm that, fewer than two years ago, took over the taxpayers' assets at considerable benefit to itself and announced a profit of £22·4 million, now imposing this unacceptable level of unemployment. If the House of Commons does not concern itself with the unemployment of a large number of skilled engineers, it will not be fulfilling its proper task, which is to make sure that, in a difficult time, our manufacturing industry can compete.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement of 1,200 redundancies in British Rail Engineering Ltd. in Crewe, Derby and York."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Lady has said, but she knows that the decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I hope that she will have other opportunities to raise the matter, but it does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

Posters (Belfast)
3.36 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help, in view of the outrage that is felt in Northern Ireland, especially by the families of the Ulstermen who are serving in the Gulf conflict, about the threat issued by the governor of the Maze prison, Mr. Bill O'Loughlin, and the executive chairman of the Ulster Bus depot in Belfast that all workers who put up a solidarity poster, as issued in The Sun, will lose their jobs. Have you had a request, Mr. Speaker, from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or any of his Ministers about making a statement on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had any request for a statement to be made on this matter, but I am certain that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by Ministers on the Front Bench, and will be taken into account.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Another aspect of this matter directly concerns Parliament. You will remember that Parliament passed the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) 1989 which established the Fair Employment Commission. I am sure that Parliament never intended that the commission should abuse its powers by supporting this utterly squalid campaign against Her Majesty's forces in the Gulf. Would it not be appropriate for a Minister to come to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the anti-British, anti-forces attitude of this creature of the Government?
Mr. Speaker: As I told the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), this is a serious matter and I am sure that what has been said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench. However, I am afraid that it is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED
  WAR PENSIONS (DISREGARD)
  Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Bernie Grant and Mr. John Battle, presented a Bill to provide that income from war pensions shall be disregarded for the purpose of assessing entitlement to any benefit payable out of the Social Security Fund or the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill. 73.]

  STATUTUORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

  Ordered,
  That the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Family Policy
3.38 pm
Mr. David Martin: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the fundamental importance of the wellbeing of the family as the basis for a stable, responsible and free society, believes that Government policies should be concentrated not on supplanting the role of families but in continuing to support and increase their confidence and competence by extending choice in employment, education, health, housing, pensions and personal social services, while pursuing sound economic policies which raise living standards, encourage savings and provide reliable and effective public services.
Anyone winning one of these highly prized opportunities to present a motion of one's very own is sometimes congratulated on having the good fortune to win the ballot, but I do not want congratulations. Like anyone else, I had only to find my way to the No Lobby and manage to sign my name. It is on winning that the real difficulty begins, for it is necessary to choose a subject. Why not choose something simple such as nuclear physics or local government finance, for example? As I thrive on a challenge, I decided to choose to debate issues concerning the family. Hence my motion.
I know that, from the beginning, I shall get into trouble for choosing to debate such a subject. Aspects of family policy intrude into almost every Department of Government. On the Benches in front and around me I see right hon. and hon. Members who are steeped in detailed knowledge of any issue that I might raise. There are riders of hobby horses and authors of books or pamphlets. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is in his place to add what wisdom he can to the debate.
I shall start the trouble by defining what I mean by family. I have selected the third definition in the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary". That definition of family is:
"The group consisting of parents and their children, whether living alone or not; in a wider sense, all those who are nearly connected by blood and affinity."
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who will contribute to the debate and who I am pleased to see on the Government Front Bench, wrote something in The House Magazine a week or two ago that put the matter more colloquially. She wrote:
"if you ask people whether they have a family, they believe you mean children, when family of course includes parents, grandparents, aunts and cousins."
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We must not consider children alone in this debate.
There is a vital public interest in the success of the family. It is where earliest education takes place, where the individual experiences a sense of security and of purpose, and where responsible attitudes should be based from an early age. If parents, who are the first to reap what they sow in this respect, do not or cannot cope inside the home, why should we expect schoolteachers, police officers or others to do so outside the home? In addition, a country in which strong, lasting family values are considered normal, is much more likely to have citizens who contribute to the community and understand the benefits of freedom and obligation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary put that in a wider setting when he was a distinguished Home Secretary. He said:
24
"Freedom can flourish in a community only where shared values, common loyalities and mutual obligations provide a framework of order and self-discipline, otherwise liberty can quickly degenerate into narrow self-interest and licence."
Sometimes family influences are not always for the best for every child. The poet Philip Larkin put his line of thought succinctly. As this is a family occasion, I have had to bowdlerise one word of his famous or rather infamous lines. He wrote:
"They mess you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you up with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were messed up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself."
Despite those lines of some pessimism, for most people the importance of the success of the family is linked inextricably with the success of marriage in providing stability. A commitment to the binding nature of marriage should at the same time mean acceptance of a mutual obligation to care for the children of the marriage. That is if we insist on not taking Philip Larkin's advice in the last lines of the poem from which I quoted.
This is where our divorce laws and arrangements for marriage guidance and conciliation are so significant. I do not want to moralise. Indeed, I recoil from moralising: I believe that that is for bishops, both the official ones and the honorary ones who sit on the Benches in this place. I am not a philosopher either. I agree with Henry Adams definition that philosophy is
"unintelligible answers to insoluble problems."
I strongly believe, however, that for the sake of the children of a marriage, it is usually by far the best course to try to keep the marriage together. Apart from purely private considerations, there is a significant public interest in doing so. There is the expense of broken marriages, which is often thrown on to the state, and the desperate disruption and unhappiness that are so often caused to the lives of children, with the variety of anti-social consequences that that frequently has for society.
The Government can specifically help in the crucial area of marriage and divorce law. They have done so already: the Children Act 1989 is very much to their credit, with its emphasis on the child's welfare, its obligation on parents, local authorities, social services and other agencies to help, its fostering of a fair understanding and approach to custody and access wrangles, and its crucial recognition of the role of grandparents.
But there is more to do. It is now possible to divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown after only one year of marriage. The Law Commission's recent report, entitled "The Ground for Divorce", which was debated in the other place last Thursday, proposes that, in effect, no divorce should be granted until at least two years after the marriage, including a one-year enforced wait for possible consideration and reflection, with the priority being to save the marriage—and if that is not feasible, at least to consider and agree essential questions on the upbringing of children, maintenance and property before the marriage may be dissolved.
There is much sense in so changing the law. Of course, at times help must be available through counselling,

25
reconciliation or conciliation services, which brings me to a hobby horse of mine— Relate, which was formerly the Marriage Guidance Council. It provides excellent services in trying to keep marriages intact. Hon. Members will be well aware of its work.
I know my Portsmouth branch well and, given what it has at its disposal, it is good at what it does. It is no different, I suspect, from any other branch in the country. It has a waiting list of several months, principally because of a lack of trained counsellors. The Government cm help by increasing grant aid, particularly to meet the expense of recruiting and training such counsellors. That makes sense not only in human but in financial terms, as the cost of broken marriages to public expenditure through legal aid and medical and social services, is monumental. Grants should not be increased to such an extent that incentives to voluntary aid and fund raising are stifled. I give credit to the Government for current provision, but more would be welcome and would be most efficiently spent, certainly in Portsmouth.
If a marriage cannot be saved, organisations such as the Hampshire family conciliation service stand by to help in an atmosphere of least bitterness, settling the essential questions of children, maintenance and property—a settlement when it is hoped will endure in co-operation between the parties after the marriage is dissolved. That service, like so many similar ones, is looking in particular to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to make a strong case for increased Government support to supplement substantial voluntary effort.
I now want to seize the nettle of employment issues, where the cry, "Women and children first," takes on an added meaning. In considering these matters, I want to say something about education and the interaction of taxes and benefits.
Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend mentioned the role of grandparents. Does he agree that they have a role to play, particularly where, for some reason, the parents are inadequate or the marriage is breaking down? Grandparents often have much love and interest for young children. They have a role which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has tried to enshrine in legislation, but I appreciate the difficulties involved. Should not grandparents, who may not have much income and who may fall on difficult times in their 70s and 80s, be able to call on the younger members of their family for support, rather than the taxpayer all the time?
Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend makes his points lucidly and eloquently. I wholly agree with what he says and with the sentiments behind it. I am glad that he added those thoughts to the debate.
The interaction of taxes and benefits has a bearing on employment, particularly the employment of women. This is an area where ideas are difficult to put into practice. I have already said that I am not a philosopher. I have so far avoided quoting Burke, which is very difficult in such debates. His modern counterparts who have helped my thinking on these matters in preparing for the debate are David Willetts, the director of studies at the Centre for Policy Studies and, after the next election, my neighbour in Havant; my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), pamphleteer extraordinaire, who has written
26
some sound sense on the subject; and Ludger Eiling of the Konred Adenauer Foundation. I am grateful to them for their contributions.
As hon. Members understand, married couples without children have the least difficulty in making ends meet. They have the most unhampered choice as to whether one or both should work in paid employment. The real tests begin when the first child arrives. If only one parent is left alone to cope, those tests naturally multiply. In approaching the issue of mothers who are either in paid employment outside the home or are staying at home—I shall not say "not working", because looking after the home and children is certainly work, as hon. Members would agree —the Government's role should be strict neutrality. They should see how people live and then encourage, or at least not inhibit—if one can get politicians not to poke their noses in—the patterns that those people have chosen for themselves.
There should be no endless debate about whether mothers should or should not go out to work. The important factor is choice. When all is said and done—this is a little-known fact—most mothers of young children do not go out to work and most of those who do are part-time. Only when children are 10 or over does full-time work outside the home become most popular. These days, sensible employers recognise that women's work patterns reflect their role as mothers over a number of years—leaving work, coming back, retraining, leaving work and so on. Employers cannot ignore such a valuable source of labour, and the best certainly do not.
For years it has been accepted that families with children, whether or not one or both parents are working outside the home, require extra support. Parents make a variety of child care arrangements which, I am well aware, is a highly controversial matter. This is where the extended family—grandparents and others—plays a particularly valuable part.
In the formation of policy, it is important to recognise that two thirds of children of full-time working mothers and almost 90 per cent. of children of part-time working mothers are cared for by a grandparent, a husband or other relation. As a tried and tested method of financing child support or child care services, child benefit beats child care vouchers or child care tax allowances or a return to child tax allowances.
The only fair and evenhanded help is that which is available to all mothers with young children, regardless of whether those mothers work. In the early years, when a reduction to one wage or no wage provides the biggest strain, I should like an increased child benefit to concentrate on children under five.
Mr. David Alton: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Not only should child benefit be increased but the 12 per cent. reduction from which child benefit suffered between 1979 and 1989 should be reinstated. If it is not, the neutrality for which the hon. Gentleman argued is not possible. In other words, taxation would be a punitive measure against marriage and family life.
Mr. Martin: I was speaking about what I should like to see as future policies. I welcome the fact that the recent measures of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security gave more to the eldest child in a family. My suggestion about increasing support for under-fives is

27
a logical progression along that road and I should like to encourage that move. I want not to go over the past but to look positively to the future to obtain the best possible method.
Nurseries and creches provided by employers at the workplace or elsewhere—people often do not realise that they are supplied elsewhere—are now encouraged through the tax system and not taxed as a perk. That is only one way. Independent nurseries, child minders, specialist day care centres, family clubs and playgroups are other ways, and more are needed.
Further help for mothers who buy such child care, whether or not they go out to work, could also come from a simple change in VAT regulations. If nurseries became zero-rated rather than exempt nursery providers could reclaim VAT on many costs and therefore charge cheaper and more competitive prices. That would not favour a particular form of child care, because at present, playgroups, home helps and child minder services—believe it or not—do not suffer from that particular VAT problem. It would merely remove the bias against nurseries.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. However, I should like to add one comment. Does my hon. Friend agree that, historically, the whole system of education for the under-fives has not been handled well? Are not such affairs handled much better on the continent? Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to move towards full provision of education for the under-fives?
Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely my line of thinking. I agree that, for older children, we need to improve opportunities for nursery education. I have stated some of my ideas on how to improve education for children up to the age of five. There are many ideas from the continent, such as those of Ludger Eiling of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. We should investigate what is done abroad and seek better practice here.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cash-strapped Labour local authorities have pursued such policies, against the odds, for years? They have often been rate-capped because they have insisted on making nursery education provision available. The national statistics, drawn up by those who are interested in nursery education, show that Labour local authorities are at the top of the league in terms of nursery provision in the United Kingdom, although they are pressed by central Government to cut their moneys. Are not Conservative Members inconsistent to argue a purist position on nursery education while voting to cut local authority budgets, thus preventing them from providing the very services for which the hon. Gentleman argues?
Mr. Martin: I shall discuss shortly the contribution that Labour may or may not be able to make. The other day, I visited a school in my area which has excellent nursery provision, some for the morning and some for the afternoon. I shall not go into the details of local government finance, but if Labour authorities have been rate-capped, it is because they have often done much that is not helpful in this respect. If, instead, they spent money
28
on real provision—as opposed to what is happening in Lambeth at the moment—we should get some sense. There is a distinction between the Government's views and those of the Opposition on this issue.
We need to improve opportunities for nursery education for older children. That is especially vital for lone-parent families. At present the social security system —principally through income support—while providing more financial help than ever before frankly does not encourage a parent who is able and willing to work to do so. For working families, the family credit arrangements have proved successful. The lone parent, however, is most likely to become most dependent on the state. Good nursery education means that that parent can exercise more real choice as to whether to earn a living. The result is that both parent and child, as well as the state, are better off, and family values are more likely to flourish in a happier home.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. Friend accept that there must be some change in nursery education practice if it is to become an alternative form of child care for the under-fives which helps mothers to go back to work? Many local authorities provide nursery education only in morning or afternoon sessions for different children at each session. If there is full-day provision, that will start at about 9 am and finish at 3 pm or 3.30 pm. That is no good for a lone parent who wants to work full-time instead of part-time.
Mr. Martin: I recognise the shortcomings in the provision of nursery education, and that is why I have raised the matter today. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Secretary of State for Education and Science, she used to promote those ideas. They should be re-established in future Conservative party policy. The Government would then be able to adopt my ideas.
Housing is fundamental for families, because housing, in the sense of a satisfactory roof over a family's head, is important to a family's well-being. Providing adequate and affordable housing for all remains a seemingly intractable problem despite the intentions, actions and numerous Government initatives over several decades, including the expenditure of thousands and millions of pounds.
It would be ludicrous for the Opposition to criticise us for indifferernce or for not trying with respect to housing matters. None of us wants inadequately housed people trooping into our surgeries week after week. Discounting natural feelings of humanity, only a fool would wish hardship on his constituents—and Ministers have constituencies as well.
Since the war, the landmark features have been increasing home ownership, the continued steep decline of private rented homes, the dominance of local authority housing for rent and, in recent years, the rise of housing associations. I must make it clear at the outset that the state has a role in housing. Of course social housing is necessary. However, I have a persistent feeling that many of the problems have been made worse, not better, by the paraphernalia of both local and central Government which, have over the years, continually stifled or ignored the best methods of supply. I have never been able to understand why it should be acceptable that the supply of food and clothing and a host of other human needs and

29
wants can be left to free enterprise, although, of course, reasonably regulated by general rules of contract, consumer protection arid safety, while the problem meeting the housing needs of those who cannot or do not wish to buy cannot be resolved in that way.
Housing needs have been firmly hedged about with draconian rent legislation and controls which have acted as a powerful disincentive to supply, while fiscal initiatives such as mortgage interest relief have distorted ownership and the capital cost of homes. I will be controversial and state that, in the next Budget, the higher rates of mortgage interest relief should go and we should see the beginning of the end of that relief. I am pleased that it has been withering on the vine at £30,000. However, we will have to bite the bullet in future and get rid of it altogether to allow that money to lower taxation bills all round and do some of the things that we should do in the sphere of housing.
Mr. Alton: While I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, does he accept that there are 850,000 young people in bedsit accommodation and 30,000 homeless in the country at the moment? How would the housing approach that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined help those people?
Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the existing housing position. I am looking to a better approach in future. The market has not met the needs of the people to whom the hon. Member for Liverpool Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) refers. They are fed and clothed, but they are not housed or sheltered. Why do we not use the same market methods for those people as we use in respect of food and clothing?
With regard to rental accommodation, there is an ever-increasing reliance on local authorities, and more recently on housing association provision. That will never satisfactorily meet the demand. The result of such reliance, which we have seen over many years and which is clear from the number of people in bedsits, is rationing and queues. By embracing such half-measures in rented housing, we are like the hopeful wooers of Penelope, who made love to the waiting women because they could not reach the main objective.
In this country, we must often queue to get out of a supermarket rather than to get into it. Clothing is supplied in such abundance and with such cut-throat competitiveness that it spills out on to the streets alongside food market stalls in every part of the land, and it is available to the poorest at the best possible price.
We cannot look for solutions from Opposition Members. They created many of the problems because of a lack of confidence in ever re-creating the market. The Labour party's latest document, entitled "Looking to the Future", in particular, a section entitled "Good homes for all", is a hotch-potch of Conservative policies that they can no longer avoid adopting, such as the right to buy. It is a summary of their old and failed methods of spending more public money, particularly through letting council spending rip and killing off what remains of the private sector.
Miss Joan Lestor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree that the sale of council houses that has been forced on local authorities, plus the denial of the right of those authorities to build houses, have contributed to the large number of youngsters in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the large number of homeless
30
families? Many people cannot afford to take out a mortgage, particularly at present interest rates, yet the local authority, because it has been forced to sell many of its council houses, has nothing to offer them.
Mr. Martin: The hon. Lady should read her own party document "Looking to the Future", where she will see that the right to buy is supported.
I should like to apply precisely the same solutions that have sorted out other vital aspects for ordinary people, both rich and poor. We must face up to that if we are to sort out the problems. Of course I welcome the energy of my hon. Friend—soon to be right hon, I hope—the Minister for Housing and Planning. No one understands or sympathises more than he, but, until we apply to the provision of homes the solutions that supply other staple human needs so efficiently, we shall not comprehensively tackle homelessness. We shall see people, families in particular, in bedsits for ever, without the proper accommodation that we should provide.
Rent legislation should not apply to future lettings—forget past lettings. To many, that sounds as politically impossible as the privatisation of public utilities or effective legislation to tackle abuses of union power. The latter, incidentally, has emancipated many families not only from being caught up in the turmoil and bitterness of frequent strikes but from the lights suddenly going out, the heating going off, the trains suddenly stopping, the dead lying unburied, and the hospitals not accepting those who are ill. All those nightmares culminated in the infamous Labour winter of despair of 1978–79, which led to many years of Conservative Government.
I note the excellent work that is done by our housing associations to help single people as well as families. People in Portsmouth are no exception. The concept of a mix of public and private money and expertise is sound and is standing the test of time. I welcome the recent initiative by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in urging upon housing associations an enabling role to bring privately owned property, estimated at a staggering 600,000 empty properties—that shows the lack of confidence that has been built up over many years of hammering the supply of rented properties—into the rented market by offering managed short-term leasing for the owner with guaranteed vacant possession at the end of the lease.
That is the way in which local authorities must act. I have been pressing it on my own local authority and other local authorities for as long as I can remember. To create confidence, we must find the homes, tell the owners that they may have their homes back at the end of a particular period, and they will let to people on the housing list in the meantime. That will make houses available, because people will have confidence that they will get their homes back.
We owe it to our constituents and to families all over the country to get to grips with remaining housing problems. The more boldly we act in this sphere—it is the agenda for the 1990s—the greater will be their reward.
The theme that runs through all the matters that I have raised is the principle that Government policy must complement, not replace, family and individual responsibility. It must encourage, not displace, the host of voluntary and charitable organisations to which so many citizens contribute. Of course, without the right economic policies, all the compassion in the world cannot be

31
translated into sufficient effective help. The good Samaritan had to meet the innkeeper's bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said in his inimitable style not long ago.
All the objectives that I have set out in my motion will be most effectively tackled by policies that encourage the creation of wealth in a strong, market-based economy, rather than the collectivist obsessions of past Labour Governments or any future one. We know from experience that such Governments, however well intentioned—I give every credit to the intentions of Labour Governments—contract the habit usually after one or two years of living beyond their means, and then beyond ours.
According to its latest document "Looking to the Future", the new model Labour party's policies, with their massive spending commitments, differ only in degree from the policies that led to the party's defeat in the 1987 general election, let alone those in the fiasco of that longest suicide note in history, as it was described by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), upon which the Labour party fought the 1983 general election. When I consider those policies and the policies in the new document, I wonder how many Opposition Members are truly reconstructed in the party's apparently new red rose image and how many, desperate for another Labour Government, are keeping quiet and swallowing any revisionism necessary.
When I was reading—I was determined to do so, even if it killed me—"Looking to the Future", to which I have referred many times, I considered what its authors were up to. I was helped by recollection of an old recipe from a Saxon medicine book:
"If sheep be ailing, take a little new ale and pour it into the mouth of each sheep, and manage to make them swallow it, quickish; that will prove of benefit to them."
I thought that that was exactly what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet were probably up to with their Back Benchers.
But the problem is that the document did not say how long the medicine's beneficial effects would last. It is certainly difficult to contemplate the electorate trusting the future to a party which has opposed most measures of the past decade. Those measures sought to strengthen family independence rather than state provision, provide choice rather than uniformity, overhaul benefits, establish the right to buy, reform education and the health service and build savings, rather than attack them. Under Labour, power would once again be taken from the home and the parents and would be given to the state, including to a patronising and bureaucratic Ministry for Women.
The Conservative party recognises what is required and has the necessary courage to achieve it. In my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we have a winner. Opposition Members know it, and we know it. He has a Government around him of Ministers who are also winners. We must, and I am sure we will, continue to develop policies best designed to nurture and help families along the lines of my motion.
4.12 pm
Mr. David Alton: Having told us that he did not intend to be a surrogate bishop this afternoon, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) decided to give us the reinterpretation that we
32
have heard before of one of the most famous gospel stories. He told us that the real moral of the story of the good Samaritan was that we had to have some money in our pockets in the first place. Of course, the true moral of the story is that one must show unconditional love, care and respect for the person who has fallen on the other side of the road and is vulnerable, weak and in need of help. Herein lies the chasm which divides some Members.
We all welcome this debate on families. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South placed great emphasis on choice. For me that is a modern heresy. The idea that it is one's right to do whatever one wants at anyone else's expense is expressed again and again. We hear little about responsibility. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to provide more accommodation for people who wish to exercise the right to buy or, indeed, to allow the right to buy in the private sector, where many properties have lain empty for many years on end.
When I was chairman of the housing committee in Liverpool in 1978, we introduced policies to give people the chance to buy empty properties in the public sector and I was generally in favour of that proposal in the Government's legislation, but that alone is not enough. For the past decade I have been a trustee of the charity Crisis, which is the largest charity dealing with homelessness in this country. It was previously known as Crisis at Christmas. During that decade all hon. Members have been shamed as the numbers of homeless people have increased inexorably—we have all seen the people in cardboard city or the pictures of the homeless on our television sets. Anyone who walks around any major metropolis will see homeless people, many of them young, sleeping rough on the streets at night. That is where the parable of the good Samaritan is applicable. Surely it is not merely about the money to buy one's own home. In addition—it is not mutally exclusive—we need a willingness to reach out to the person whom no one else will care for or speak for.
The debate is timely because each party, in its own way, has been building a family policy and honing the issues before a general election. Although the received political wisdom is that elections are won or lost on economic issues, increasingly—the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South was right about this—public apprehension about the disintegration of social cohesion in Britain has forced each party to set out its stall on family policy.
Curiously, in contrast with much of the emphasis placed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, all the parties seem to come to the same conclusion—that family life will somehow be strengthened by making divorce even easier. The motion states that the family should be
"the basis for a stable, responsible … society".
That is not possible if marriage is no longer to be regarded as a lifelong commitment. The statistics show that marriage is increasingly regarded as temporary and that children become the casualties. Marriage breakdown is 600 per cent. higher than it was in 1961 and involves more than 150,000 couples each year. One in three marriages now ends in divorce and we are fast approaching the American norm where 50 per cent. of all marriages break up. In this country, 3 million people will experience a broken marriage during this decade and 150,000 children under 16 are caught up in divorce every year. One in five British children can expect to experience their parents' divorce before they reach the age of 16.

33
In its document, "Family Change and Future Policy" the Family Policies Study Centre predicts that, by the year 2000, only one out of every two children will grow up in what it describes as a conventional family. The number of single parents abandoned and left to shoulder all the responsibility for rearing a child has risen inexorably, with one in 10 children in single parent families in 1979, compared with one in four now.
Not everyone decides to marry or to live in a family, but at some time in most people's lives the family provides love, companionship and security. When family life breaks down the community should do all in its power to protect and care for the casualties. I am well aware, as is probably every other hon. Member, of the bitter sequels to family breakdown—the bitterness and recriminations which have far-reaching and catastrophic effects on estranged partners and children alike. Rarely does a week go by without constituents consulting me about maintenance payments which have not been honoured, access arrangements which have broken down and legal battles which sometimes go on for years.
A few weeks ago I met a woman who told me how her husband had walked out on her when she was four months pregnant. He has never bothered to show the slightest interest in his six-months-old daughter, although he wants access to his 12-year-old son, who does not want to see his father. She contested his attempt to divorce, but was told by a court official in the Liverpool Crown court that her attempts to fight for her marriage represented attitudes from "the dark ages". Subsequently, she was rebuked by a judge who told her that her feelings did not "enter into it".
I took up that case with the Lord Chancellor's Office and was told it was a matter entirely for the local courts. Surely that is an example of how far the pendulum has swung away from the safeguarding of marriage and the family as our most basic community.
Many argue that families are irrelevant in modern society and that marriage should not be regarded as a permanent institution. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research—the Labour party's source of new ideas —argues that two years is too long for couples to wait for a fault-free divorce. The institute also argues for more publicly funded child care rather than tax relief, to help parents who prefer to stay at home. The same view is held by many Conservative Members and within my own party. Instead of making it earlier to divorce, policy should concentrate on strengthening family life and on making it easier for families to stay together.
Ms. Jo Richardson: Although there are no statistics, a large number of women are trapped in their homes with violent partners and cannot leave because they have nowhere else to go. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on women who are forced to live in a violent situation of that kind?
Mr. Alton: I will comment later on violence—and on pornography, which I believe helps to fuel it. I accept that the cases that the hon. Lady mentions are among the most painful of all. They should not be considered from a judgmental point of view. Instead, we must do all that we can to help the single parent to cease being an isolated element in society and to be a fully integrated part of the community, enjoying all the support that we can give. It is not a question of simply apportioning blame when acknowledging that families sometimes break up.
34
Even in cases where families want to stay together, often courts and court officials tend to shift the emphasis in the direction of favouring divorce which accounts for the massive increase in marriage breakdowns. People too often view the institution of marriage as a temporary commitment into which they can enter on a trial and error basis.
The Government can help the pendulum to swing back in the other direction in a number of ways. I should like every Government Department to produce an assessment of the effects of its policies on family life. If such an indicator and impact statement were built into every Government policy, that would be one way of entrenching the family. Also, taxation should not penalise marriage but ought to recognise the work of the spouse who undertakes the rearing of the children. Tax legislation ought to take into account the real costs of family life—particularly of caring for children. The state should encourage and enable family life, but—and in this I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South—it should never attempt to substitute for it.
In the case of the elderly, for example, Government policy could take account of changing demographic patterns. The hon. Gentleman mentioned grandparents. One in four of the population of the city that I represent are over retirement age. The fastest-growing group are the over-80s. Families ought to be given improvement grants for the purpose of providing granny flats, so that aged relatives can be accommodated in the family home, if they wish.
In many areas—including my own—planners have been the culprits in destroying the community and family life. Aged people are left in isolated tenements while their former home and the community are ripped apart, with their former residents being shanghaied to places miles away, often to be left in the most dehumanising conditions. Young families are often separated from their grandparents who, in former times, might have been able to give support and help.
The child should, from the moment of its conception, be at the centre of a family-based policy. Its life and its integrity must be protected. Once a child is born, it should, wherever possible, be provided for by both parents. When a parent walks out on his or her child, there should be an automatic attachment of earnings, so that the child can be properly cared for and supported. Children deserve a world that can offer them the best chance for development. Their good is the responsibility of parents and of the wider community.
A glimpse of the statistics shows how much we are failing our country's children. Last year, 184,000 unborn children had their lives ended in the womb and only four out of five pregnancies now go full term. Child abuse continues after birth. Barely a day passes without a new report about attacks on children. Child protection registers were established in 1974, but it was not until 1989 that the information they contained was first published. It revealed that 40,700 children were registered and that 41 per cent. were the cause of grave concern, as being at significant risk of abuse. Also, 4·8 per cent. of those children had been subjected to emotional ill-treatment or rejection; 14 per cent. had been sexually abused, 23 per cent. physically injured, and 12 per cent. persistently neglected, while 3 per cent. fell into a mixture of those categories. Such violence often stems from the spurious libertarian argument about choice that says, "It is my right

35
to do whatever I want—even to take another person's life —because it is my right to choose." That is a form of modern heresy.
The free distribution of pornography is also defended on the grounds of choice. Pornography degrades families and homes throughout a country where it is so easily accessible. No hon. Member could be unaware of the effects and linkage that exist between the free availability of pornography, and violence against women and children. Despite the recent reports submitted to the Home Office claiming that there is no link, I am convinced that such links exist.
Our lack of concern for the young and the environment in which they are reared is reflected in many ways, for example in the number of runaways. The Children's Society estimates that last year 98,000 children ran away from their homes, but we do not even keep a national computerised register. I hope that the Minister will touch on that issue when she replies. The society estimates that 150,000 young people aged 16 to 19 are homeless each year —often lured away into a life of drugs and prostitution on the streets of London. It is estimated that 100,000 young people take drugs. In addition, alcohol abuse and gambling by young people in amusement arcades deeply corrode family life.
Poverty is another corrosive influence and I was sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South did not say more about the issue. In 1989, the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted 20 examples of the underside of life in Britain. More than 15 million people in the mid-1980s were defined as living in poverty or on its margins, with more than 2 million children living in families with poverty. While tax allowances have increased, the value of child benefits has fallen since 1979. The value of tax allowance has gone up by 22 per cent. for married men and 19 per cent. for single people, but the value of child benefit has gone down by 12 per cent.
Babies with fathers in unskilled jobs run twice the risk of still birth and death under one year old of that faced by babies of professional fathers. Although two families in every three own their own home, homelessness is on the increase and has doubled in the past decade, with 30,000 homeless families sleeping in hostels. In 1989, a total of 70,480 households were in mortgage arrears for six months or more. If poverty, drugs, pornography, homelessness, abortion and divorce are corrosive of family life, so too is consumerism.
Last week in answer to questions that I tabled in the House, the Economic Secretary confirmed that, this year, 3 per cent. of all households—560,000—have serious debts. At the end of the third quarter of 1990, consumer debt stood at £49·6 billion. When broken down into categories, consumer debt is divided up as follows: bank credit cards, which have multiplied massively in the past decade, account for £7·6 billion; retail accounts amount to £2·3 billion; bank loans on personal accounts account for £17 billion; finance houses and other specialist credit granters, which are often loan sharks, account for £20 billion. That places massive pressure on families and we should not underestimate the effect on them. Where is our nation of savers? We have become a nation that is in pawn and in debt, with many families being hit by debts that they cannot meet. Some 560,000 households are in serious debt.
36
Last year, 23,000 households had their gas supplies cut off and 73,000 households had their electricity supplies cut off, 13,780 homes were repossessed and there were 70,000 households in mortgage arrears of six months or more.
A genuine family policy would have the child and related considerations at the heart of its approach. It must be balanced when addressing all forms of pressure, economic and social.
The family can be a school of more abundant humanity. It can be the community's basic building block. It is uniquely suited to teach and to transmit cultural, ethical, social, spiritual and religious values. The House should therefore do everything possible to protect it and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South for giving us the chance to debate such a crucially important question.
4.29 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on winning the ballot. This subject touches many of us, and I agree with much of what he said.
The family is perhaps the most enduring institution known to mankind. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) observed, it is a basic building block for society itself. Without the family, society would be impossibly atomised, and relationships transient and unsatisfactory.
Like almost all institutions, the family has undergone rapid change over the past 25 years. The statistics for illegitimacy, divorce, cohabitation and abortion certainly bear witness to the pace of that change. It is almost conventional wisdom nowadays to speak of the family as if it were an anachronism: it seems to be fashionable to talk of a tidal wave of divorce and cohabitation sweeping away what left-wing intellectuals derisively call the traditional family.
Media pundits often claim that the family is really an institution of the past, and that the 21st century will see its demise. I believe, however, that the resilience of the family structure is probably greatly underestimated. During the second world war, for instance, many families were broken up as service men and women were lost in battle and civilians were killed, but the family remained as strong as ever in the 1950s. Ask school children whether they want to marry and have children, and the overwhelming majority will say yes. Most people spend most of their lives in a household headed by a married couple, most people believe adultery to be very wrong, and the great majority believe that children are best reared by both their natural parents.
It is not so much that traditional values have collapsed, for they patently have not. Most people continue to aspire to a basically traditional lifestyle involving marriage and the raising of children within that union. The problem is that we are increasingly finding it hard to live up to that ideal—in large part because we have far higher expectations of the degree of happiness that marriage will secure, and, conversely, because we are far less tolerant of unhappiness and disappointment.
What is indisputably clear is that marriage remains overwhelmingly popular, because individuals find that it works. For all the well-chronicled problems and

37
unhappiness that can exist within human relationships, we would do well to remember that most people find the greatest happiness and fulfilment within marriage.
I believe that there is a great deal of agreement across the political spectrum about the importance of the family; yet there is no consensus about how policy-makers should try to support the family. An area of particular disagreement is the role of the mother. One of the most worrying developments that I have witnessed in the past decade or so is the devaluation of the status of women who choose to stay at home to bring up their children. Increasingly, it seems that an individual's identity is determined by his or her job, rather than by the role that he or she plays in society.
The housewife's role, rather than being scorned as unfulfilled or untested, should be recognised for the important position that it is. What more valuable job could one do than to mould a future generation? I spent 15 years as an unpaid housewife and mother raising three children before, in middle age, taking up a new career in politics. I become irritated when I hear politicians and business men telling women why, for a thousand and one reasons, from demography to self-fulfilment, they should go out to work.
Mr. Ian McCartney: I am closely following the hon. Lady's argument and I understand her points. Does she agree that over the last decade many women in the United Kingdom have been forced to work because of changing family and financial circumstances? They usually have to take low-paid unskilled work, so it is not a matter of career prospects. They would much rather work in a fulfilled atmosphere at home, but necessity drives them to the market place where they have to find work in order to make ends meet. We need to enhance the role of women in society. Necessity should not interfere in the family by forcing women to work.
Mrs. Roe: Not all women return to work because of financial necessity. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill drew our attention to the high divorce rate. Many women feel that they have to return to work early because they fear that in middle age they may well find themselves divorced and with no career structure to which to return. Many young women are returning to the workplace in order to create a base for themselves in the unhappy event of divorce. I assure the House that the woman who stays at home looking after her family works just as hard running her home as she would running a business outside.
It is not the Government's role to encourage or discourage women from taking paid employment. Today married women certainly have far greater freedom of choice than ever before about whether to have a career outside the home. Opportunities through education, which their mothers or grandmothers never had, are now available to them. The Government should not campaign to get mothers into the workplace. Mothers should decide for themselves about whether to do that.
I would not wish to see British women subjected to the social and cultural tyranny which, for example, exists in Sweden where women who choose to stay at home to bring up children are derided as inadequate failures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South has said, choice is the key factor. Whether and how much a mother works outside the home is an intensely personal decision for wives and, of course, for their husbands.
38
Increasingly, women are deciding to work outside the home. In 1931, only 10 per cent. of married women were employed, while in 1987 the figure had risen to 60 per cent. It should be noted that most of that increase was due to the increase in part-time work. I suspect that it is despite the direction of Government or zealous feminists that women are managing to combine work with having a family.
By 1987, more than half of married couples with children consisted of two working partners. As the age of the youngest child rises, the number of mothers who choose to re-enter the work force rises as well. Among families in which the youngest child is under two years of age, 70 per cent. of mothers do not work outside the home. Among families in which the youngest child is over 10 years, the figure falls to 26 per cent.
We have begun to see a substantial rise in job sharing, part-time work, at-home work and flexitime, as a result of which working mothers can choose the hours that they work. Certainly, demographic and social changes have made it easier for women to enter the work force. As fewer and fewer teenagers are available, more and more companies will seek out mothers to fill vital positions. Firms that want to recruit and train mothers will increasingly have to offer attractive child care facilities and opportunities for part-time work. I see no reason why women should not be able to combine work and family.
I have no time for grandiose state-sponsored schemes to get women back to work—schemes operating through taxation or through the benefits system. Such schemes would only redistribute income from the poor to the affluent. By and large, two-earner households are wealthier than single-earner households where the mother stays at home to look after the children. What good could possibly be done by a regressive redistribution of income from the needy to the affluent? We must be careful to ensure that Government intervention does not distort. No Government should try to deny mothers the option to stay at home, yet that would be the effect of offering tax hand-outs or benefits to people who put their children into nurseries or creches. Encouraging one form of behaviour discourages or penalises another.
Today, couples have much higher expectations of marriage. One of the prime factors motivating women to work is the extra income, as well as the self-esteem, that it can bring. People want more for themselves and more for their children: a stable home, a car and holidays. Surely there is nothing wrong in looking for a better quality of life. That, quite simply, is a natural human impulse. Between 1979 and 1985, real household income rose by 8.8 per cent. overall. All family groups saw increases in real income, and couples with children saw their real income rise by 9 per cent.
But with higher expectations come also greater opportunities to fail. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has outlined, divorce is now much more prevalent. In 1951 2·6 marriages in 1,000 ended in divorce; by 1987, the rate had risen to 12·7 per 1,000. However, while the divorce rate doubled during the 1970s, it appears that it remained fairly level throughout the 1980s.
Over the last few decades we have seen many changes in the structure of the family. Some trends, such as the rise in illegitimacy, are very worrying, while others, such as the rise in living standards that most families have enjoyed, are very encouraging. What is clear is that the family will continue to endure and adapt. I suggest that, at least in part, the chance of it doing so successfully will depend on

39
the Government ensuring that the woman who chooses to stay at home is not disadvantaged or pressurised in any way. As a housewife, she should not be made to feel that she is at the bottom of the career ladder. She should be provided with opportunities to retrain or to learn new skills if or when she wishes to resume paid employment as her children grow older.
4.44 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on having chosen this subject for debate. I think that I am right in saying that the previous time we debated anything connected with children and the family was the occasion on which I chose the subject for a motion. My only reason for mentioning that—and it may turn out to be the only point of agreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself—is that only when individual Members take the initiative does the House take seriously, or bother to discuss, the subject. Yet a large proportion of the population is involved, and whatever action is taken will determine to a very large extent the sort of adults that children will become.
The hon. Gentleman, despite the best will in the world, is rather ill-informed about what is actually happening to children and to family life in this country. It is very easy to say, as he said, that people ought to look forward rather than backward, that these are policies for the future. Some of the problems facing many children today have been mentioned, and I shall talk about others later. Those problems have arisen because of the policies that the Government have enacted during the past 11 years.
I asked a question about housing, and the hon. Gentleman replied that the Labour party believes in the right to buy. That is not the point that I was making. We have never said that people should not have the right to buy; what we have said—this is the point that I was making—is that if local authorities, irrespective of the housing situation in their areas, are told that they must allow people to buy their council houses and, at the same time, are deprived of the ability to replace those houses, a housing problem will arise. Obviously, there will always be people who cannot afford to buy houses. Why are so many local authorities, such as the one in my area, under enormous pressure to rehouse families? Why do we not have accommodation for them? The reason is that the best houses have been sold, and Government policy dictates that we cannot replace those that have been lost. That is why we are in this vicious circle. It is also why the number of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the number of children who have run away have increased, and why a host of other calamities have arisen. Thus there is a direct connection with Government policy.
In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Indeed, his remarks made me think that he had probably read some of the policy documents that I, in my capacity as Labour party spokesperson on children, have written. I agree entirely that, before introducing legislation, any Government ought to look at the effects it will have on children. That is very rarely done. Indeed, in this respect, the last Labour Government were guilty. Had such effects been taken into account, we should not have built high-rise flats in the
40
1950s. We should not have expected kids to thrive and flourish in such homes, and we should not have expected women not to be bored and miserable and to become dependent on Valium because there was no escape for them.
No, we do not relate our policies to the needs of children. I could talk about this in the context of transport and a host of other things, but I do not have time to do so. I repeat that when we are passing legislation it is important that we consider its effects on children—its effects now, in 10 years' time and in 20 years' time.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, by way of giving evidence that the Conservative Government have done a great deal for children, highlighted the Children Act 1989. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered that Act. The hon. Gentleman—indeed, the whole House—will know that one of the reasons for our having achieved legislation in the shape of the Children Act arose from the Cleveland report's appalling disclosures of child abuse, which came as a shock to many hon. Members. Indeed, there are very few people who were not appalled by those disclosures. The Government were right to wait for the publication of that report before introducing legislation. In that way they were able to provide greater protection for children. I was happy to support the legislation.
However, there is no money to implement the provisions of the Act. We have heard about the large number of children on at-risk registers who are not attached to any social worker. In the light of what we know about child abuse in this country, that is absolutely disgraceful. Indeed, it is unbelievable and inexcusable. The purpose of the Children Act was to protect children, yet in London and all other large cities there are increasing numbers of children on at-risk registers. That is not because people are treating their children worse; it is because we are beginning to find out how badly people have always treated their children. Of course, it is a minority who abuse children, but people are disclosing abuse, children are coming forward and social workers are trained to recognise the signs. This is all useful and desirable, but we need the money to implement the legislation.
The local authority in my area has said that employing the extra staff needed to do that job would cost £400,000 or £500,000 a year. That local authority, like all others, has to consider its poll tax bill. It is ridulous that, in order to ensure that we are not poll tax capped, we have to cut services that are needed to avoid damage to children and to the fabric of society. I urge Conservative Members in particular, who put themselves forward as members of the party of the family, to look at what the Government have done to families. They should not say, "I am not concerned about the past, let us look to the future", because we are picking up the pieces of the past for the minority—sadly an increasing one—of our children who face appalling problems.
The Government frequently hide their inactivity behind a mask of ignorance. The figures about the number of children who go missing have rightly been read out. There are about 98,000 on the books of the Children's Society, but the Government say that they do not collect those figures nationally. I have asked about the number of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but the Government do not have figures on that. I have been referred to some other agency. I have asked about the

41
number of children who play truant and about the number who work illegally—some for pocket money, but some because their parents are unemployed and they have to be a contributory factor in breadwinning for the family—and the Government do not have the figures.
When the Government enact their policy, they should know about all these problems and about why they exist. No party can claim to be the party of the family when it knows so little about children and family life. We know that 2 million or more children are living in poverty and of the increase in the number of reported cases of child abuse and of violence within families. I do not know whether the incidence of such crimes has gone up, but I know that there are many more reported cases. We should be devising policies and making it easier for women and children who experience violence to be offered the means of escape.
This is where I part company with those who hold up their hands in horror over the divorce rate. One has to take into account why people get divorced. People do not opt for divorce lightly, but many have taken advantage of easier divorce laws to get out of a situation that they can stand no longer. They know that they can escape from such situations. One should not say that divorce is wrong, or should be discouraged, or that people should stay together for the sake of the children. Ask the adults whose parents stayed together in an atmosphere of violence and misery for the sake of the children that they then were, and see what they say.
Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that, in many cases, it is more harmful to the children if parents stay together rather than seeking divorce? Divorce is not an easy option.
Miss Lestor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our society lacks the proper structure to deal with divorces, with children of divorces once separation has taken place, and with the changing pattern of family life in which both parents remarry and have children in the new relationships. Few organisations help children and other families to relate to that and to organise their lives. I do not believe that the family has collapsed or is disappearing. It has fundamentally changed and will continue to change. We have to devise structures and ways to help people, particularly children, to cope with those changes, and to take away the guilt associated with the break-up of marriage.
Within our definition of families, we should have more than the narrow concept of mother and father and Janet and John in a two or three-bedroomed house with a dog. A family is what the children perceive it to be. It can be a one-parent family with all the love and care of a two-parent family. It can be a grandmother who cares for the children because things have gone wrong. We do children who are not in the accepted pattern of family life but are in offshoots of it a disservice to present to them the ideal of the family to which many hon. Members feel we should aspire. Many children never can and never will have such a family life, but they should not be deprived of family support or of what is available to families.
Mr. Alton: I agree with some of what the hon. Lady is saying and I do not elevate the idea of the nuclear family to an ideal because things can go badly wrong. However, does she accept that, all other things being equal, the best interests of the child are served where there can be two
42
parents in a stable relationship that does not change? When a child loses one or other of its parents, for whatever reason, it may suffer enormous emotional trauma.
Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on many points. He is saying that if a family is loving, that is the best thing for the child. That is true, if people are prepared to work at it and if their irritations, antagonisms and personalities are such that they can work at it. However, that is not the case for a growing minority of our children. My plea is only that we take these people with us when we present our ideas about what is desirable and preferable in family life.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said that women who stay at home to look after their children are made to feel guilty. I do not agree with that. It is up to people to make a choice. The trouble is that many women do not have that choice. Many are forced to go out to work, for a wide variety of reasons. One of the worst suggestions that the Government made, which seems to have got lost somewhere, is that if a woman refuses to name the father of her child, for whatever reason, she should be penalised by the loss of 20 per cent. of her income support. There may be good reasons why a woman makes such a refusal, but, even if the Government feel that they must take punitive measures, why must they take it out on the kids? That is what they are doing. They are saying, "Right, we are not giving you much anyway, but if you won't tell us who the scoundrel who fathered your child is, we shall take 20 per cent. from your income support and push you deeper into poverty."
Women's rights are tied up with their right to work, or not to work, as they choose. It is up to people to decide how they run their lives. The terrible dilemma for many one-parent families is that the cost of child care is so great that women in such a situation would have to earn between £50 and £70 a week more than most women to pay for the child care that enables them to work. Furthermore, by working they lose many of the benefits that they would otherwise have. If we believe in freedom for people to please themselves, and for women in such a situation to please themselves, the Government should look closely at child care arrangements, which represent one of the biggest barriers to work for many single women. If they want to stay at home looking after their children, it should be made easier for them to do so. Sometimes, social security offices do not make it easy for mothers to stay at home to look after their children when that is what they would like to do.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said, child care is a complex issue. Nursery education has always been free—the problem is that there has never been much of it. If one is lucky enough to live in the area of a local authority that offers nursery' ethication—most likely Labour—one can send one's child there. Mostly, it would be part-time provision. Apart from that facility, there is a variety of other child care, most of which is expensive and some of which is for only a few hours a day, which does not help the working mother. It can be a workplace nursery. For the good of family life and of children, mothers and fathers, whatever child care policies are developed, we should be talking about child care facilities for all children, not just for those of working mothers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will say more about this later. Whatever the cost of child care facilities, if they are available only for working

43
mothers, whenever a Government decide that such women are not needed in the work force any longer, they will stop them.
In whatever form it comes, child care is an essential part of bringing up children. After they are two or three, because of their essential curiosity, most children want more than can be provided in the best of homes. At that age, they learn more than at any other time in their lives and as most of us cannot provide enough stimulus in our homes, we look to outside agencies. My plea is, as it always has been, that such a facility should be available for all our children. If we are to have priorities and to move step by step, we must ensure that poverty does not deny children access to such facilities while we allow those with money access to better facilities.
An example has been provided by Warwickshire county council, which has recently decided to close its nursery schools—as they come under the Department of Education and Science, children can attend them free of charge—and then to let them out on a commercial basis. That means that the poorer people in the area for which the county council is responsible will not be able to afford the nursery education that was available to their children free of charge, and there is much poverty within the area. If we push private provision too far, many children will be unable to participate in pre-school activity because it will be far too expensive for their parents.
Many of the Government policies and many of the attitudes that have been developed have contributed to a denial of access to nursery education for many children. I believe that this will contribute to a breakdown in family life, which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South claims that the Government have enhanced. The freezing of child benefit, the removal of income support for 16 to 20-year-olds, the introduction of poll tax, the shortage of housing and a host of other things have all been contributory factors in breaking down family life. Life has been made harder for families.
I was appalled to receive a letter from a woman who had taken on her murdered sister's two children. She had taken them into her home alongside her own two children. No money is involved. The children are not in the care of the local authority. As she is hard up—the family is not rich—she applied to the Department of Social Security for the extra £1 for that group of siblings as well as for her own. She argued, "I have taken on another family and there are two first-born children." The Department said, "You cannot have the money. You can have it only for one, because you are a unit. You can apply only in respect of the older child in the situation in which you find yourself." I could not believe it. Equally, I could not believe the letter I received from the Department. I was confident when I wrote that it would accept that a mistake had been made. After all, what is £1?
That sort of application of a rigid rule undermines what we understand by family life. It undermines also what the woman is doing in bringing up the children of her murdered sister.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South talked about what he would like to see in future. We would not need to have so many dreams, hopes and ideas about and for the future if the past 11 years had not been so bad for our children. Things have become worse for a minority of our
44
children. For a growing minority of our children, things continue to become worse. Until the Government grasp that nettle and understand what family poverty is, what child abuse is and how some families depend on child benefit and the uprating of it, we shall face year in and year out the problems that we are discussing. At the same time, more of our children and more families will suffer.
5.3 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: There have been some wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions to an intersting debate. I do not propose to add to the wide-ranging nature of it. Instead, I shall concentrate on one narrow issue about which I feel strongly, and on which I know that I am right, and that is the remarriage of widows.
I shall spell out the background. As people become healthier and live longer, and as their old age is healthier, it is possible for more and more people to contemplate remarriage later in their lives. My mother remarried at 74, and the last five years of her life were as happy as any other part of it. I shall concentrate on widows because the longevity of women is greater than that of men, and pension schemes are normally based on male contributions rather than those made by females. Increasingly, widows are in receipt of pensions because of the contributions that their first husbands made at their places of work. Those pensions will cease, however, if the widows remarry. Some of these pensions are quite generous.
I represent a considerable number of service men and their families including many service widows who are living on naval pensions. If one of those widows wants to remarry, she has to face the agonising choice of remarrying and forfeiting the pension—it would fall on remarriage —or remaining alone when it might be her inclination, and that of the man she has met, to remarry. It is an agonising choice and it should not have to be faced by anyone.
In many instances the widow will decide that she wishes to remarry. Her second husband—I am talking mainly of elderly people—will probably be already retired. If that is the position, the women will have no pension rights associated with her second husband. It will be a post-service marriage. If she should be widowed again, for a second time, she will be left without the first pension that she received by virtue of her first husband's service. She will have no pension by virtue of her second husband's service because it was a post-service marriage. People should not be placed in that position.
I have spent years trying to explain to Ministers that there is a real problem. Unfortunately, I am getting nowhere. I have been told consistently that if a woman decides to remarry it is only right that she should cast her lot in with her second husband and look to him for a pension arrangement. As I have said, that is impossible if the second husband has already retired and it is a post-service marriage.
I shall deal specifically with examples that concern the Ministry of Defence because many of my constituents are service personnel, but my argument can be applied generally throughout the public and private sectors. I greatly welcome the introduction by the Ministry of Defence of a discretionary right. The widow who marries a second time can ask for her pension from her first husband to be reinstated. The rule is that if she is significantly worse off as a result of the second marriage and losing the first pension, the Ministry, in its wisdom,

45
will contemplate and grant a pension that goes back to the one that was paid to the widow by virtue of her first husband's service.
I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a widow who is contemplating remarriage who does not know whether she will have her first pension restored as of right. Discretionary restoration is not good enough. No sensible woman with a significant pension that enables her to live in some comfort in retirement will cast that pension aside with only the hope that the pension fund trustees will restore her first husband's pension if she should be left a widow for a second time.
A most respectable elderly couple who are known to me—I hasten to say that they are not constituents of mine—went away for a weekend and returned to tell their friends that they had married in their absence. They told me privately that they had done nothing of the sort. If they had remarried, the woman would have lost her first pension and would, perhaps, have been left without a pension on second widowhood. As I have said, this is a serious problem.
Unlike many of the other submissions that are made to the Treasury and rejected by it, I am delighted that what I am suggesting would not cost anything. I know that there are a significant number of widows who would like to remarry but who cannot do so. As a result, their pension from their first husband continues. If we were to introduce a rule that had the effect that if a widow remarried and was left a widow for a second time her pension from the first marriage would be restored automatically, more widows would enter second marriages. Socially that would be desirable. It is my own family experience that it would make for a great deal of happiness in the community, and it would not cost anything. We would be suspending the first pension only during the second marriage. If a widow were not left a widow for a second time, nothing would happen. If she were to find herself in that position, the first pension would be restored.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an important point that applies to a significant number of people. Perhaps we should ask the Ministry of Defence how many letters from Members of Parliament it has answered. Two leading members of my association are in this position. I suspect that the Ministry of Defence may have been dealing with this in an atomistic way. Perhaps we should combine.
Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. David Martin: Join the club.
Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend asks me to join. Perhaps we should table a joint parliamentary question.
I am not picking out the Ministry of Defence as a bad employer, but my experience is based on it and on service personnel. I am considering public and private sector pension schemes generally.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider this issue carefully; it is of great importance to a few people. The change that I have suggested would be the best one. Others say that changes should be made to the pension arrangements of the second husband and that his pension scheme should bear the burden of the post-service marriage. For technical reasons, I do not think that that is as good as the right to restoration of the first pension. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that small point.
5.10 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on securing this debate. Since coming to the House nearly four years ago, he and I have tried to maintain as reasonable a working relationship as possible, bearing in mind our views on politics. I give a genuine welcome to the debate and to the issues that he has raised.
The debate is a bit of a pot-pourri on the issues of the family. I am the youngest grandfather in the House; I have two grandchildren. I believe in marriage as an institution, as I have now tried it twice. There is no such thing as an easy divorce. We must try, not only in legal but emotional terms, to provide resources to enable families to remain together or, if that is not possible, to disengage in such a way that it damages neither the partners nor, more important, the children. That disengagement is more traumatic for children than the final outcome of a divorce and separation, and that trauma can remain with the children for many years and affect many aspects of their lives.
We should discuss this matter not in a pious way but by recognising that every statistic is a human being in a complex relationship. Our constituents come to see us about the housing, economic and social consequences of the breakdown of marriage.
An on-going problem for women is violence in the home, which leads them to seek refuge in order to protect themselves and their children. When women cannot find refuge, they remain in marriage and in those violent circumstances. Insufficient resources are made available for local authorities to provide refuges for women who are suffering from violence. In many parts of the United Kingdom this evening, women will suffer, not for the first time, from the violence of a partner but will be unable to take themselves to a place of refuge either because none exists or because the police are unwilling to take action.
The problems that we are discussing are complex, and we shall be unable to resolve them by 7 pm. If we are committed to the concept of the family, its role must be maintained and developed. For the majority of people, there must be genuine choice in employment, training, health care, housing, personal social services and pensions. Access to those services must be consistent with the needs of the family either as a group or individually. I want to concentrate not on the generality of family policies but on the suffering of families because of a breakdown in personal relationships, which affects the behaviour of children.
By the time that this House adjourns on Friday afternoon, two mothers in Britain will have lost a child because of solvent abuse. Solvent abuse knows no social barriers. It can affect a family who are well off, on middle income, on benefit or who have no social problems. It is a growing problem. Resolve is a national charity that works with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health and the Home Office to establish the nature of solvent abuse and to introduce measures to protect individuals. Between June and December 1990, there were 725 reports of solvent abuse. There were 230 reported deaths of young people because of solvent abuse, and a further 215 were involved in criminal activities because of it.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has campaigned long and vigorously on the issue of solvent

47
abuse, which has led to changes in the law and to growing recognition by the Home Office of the need for special measures to take care of those involved in solvent abuse. Despite those changes in the law, an escalating number of children are becoming involved for a short or a longer period. It can make someone a chronic abuser or a social abuser. Social abusers are mainly those who come under peer pressure at school not to "chicken out". A child may abuse solvents only once, but such is the toxicity of the materials used that one sniff is sufficient to kill. I am aware of two cases of the so-called chicken syndrome, whereby a friend was saying, "Come on, try it; it gives you a bit of a high, but there are no problems, we have done it before" —and those children are now dead.
Society must see what it can do to identify children who are at risk, why they become involved and what we can do about it. The House has rightly turned its back on criminalising those who are involved in solvent abuse, and has looked to social changes to try to tackle the problem. Forty-six per cent. of children who die from solvent abuse are found at home. Children under 17 are most at risk, and single parents in particular need support.
Many of those who died were under the influence of other people—older children or their peers. It is important that the House should make a commitment to give resources and to work with Resolve in the voluntary sector and with local education departments to develop special projects to bring to the attention of children at school the damage that can result from solvent abuse and to enable teachers to identify children at risk.
We must deal at local level with those who sell solvents. Often, shopkeepers sell solvents because they are ignorant of the use to which they will be put. Following legislation, it is now a criminal offence to sell solvents to children but, tragically, a small hard core of retailers are prepared to sell solvents to schoolchildren knowing that they will not be used for the stated purpose. That is not just my view; it is shown in surveys conducted earlier this year by Resolve and local authorities in Cheshire and Newcastle. Industry and the Government should give additional financial resources to assist Resolve to run training schemes at local level for retailing employees who sell these dangerous solvents.
School practices should be changed. There is no need to use Tippex when water-based solutions do the job just as adequately and pose no danger to schoolchildren. Resources are not always needed—all it takes is a common-sense approach by the Government and retailers to remove from shop shelves those solvents which are readily available to schoolchildren and which, if sniffed, may kill them. Any Government who are concerned about the family, particularly children, can take that reasonable approach on board.
Amusement arcades are another source of child exploitation. Since 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) has twice tried to change the law to regulate the amusement arcade industry. The Minister may reply by saying that the Home Office is satisfied with self-regulation. My experience as a Member of Parliament who has been involved with groups of children addicted to amusement arcade gambling is that self-regulation does not work. Few amusement arcade owners do anything practical to prevent children under 16
48
from using their premises. Indeed, were it not for the under-16s using those arcades, the clientele would be significantly reduced.
I know of cases of young people who became involved in car thefts organised by adults who had hung about amusement arcades, first giving the young people money to feed their habit and then using them to steal, while the adult criminals got away with the booty.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke eloquently about problems in inner-city areas. He will know of the large-scale inquiry into prostitution rackets involving female and young male teenagers who are recruited from amusement arcades because they are vulnerable and because their gambling can be exploited.
Mr. Alton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the acute problems in the centre of Liverpool. Is he aware that one in five of those who visit the amusement arcades are estimated to be under nine?
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is right. That happens in my area as well. When local authorities have attempted, through their planning and other regulations, to prevent such premises from opening, their decisions have been overturned on appeal by the Department of the Environment, and the Home Office has been unwilling to replace self-regulation with a regulatory system.
Why should the industry be worried about the loss of self-regulation? Arcade owners who do not allow children on their premises have nothing to fear from legislation. Only those who exploit young children and those who allow their premises to be used by criminals who exploit children have something to fear.
Every day, tens of thousands of young people are involved with amusement arcades. Some take part in criminal activities; some steal from their parents; some leave school at lunchtime to go to an amusement arcade and use the money that they have been given for food to feed their gambling habits. Many of the problems that relate to children being out of school can be traced back to local amusement arcades.
If we are serious about dealing with this social problem, Government assistance is needed, as well as involvement by parents and local authorities. If we do not tackle that problem, a small percentage of the young generation will be involved in a gambling tradition which is exploited by criminals and others involved in prostitution. I am sure that the House would not like that to continue without doing something about it.
5.26 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on his success in the ballot and I thank him for enabling us to debate this important issue. We live in an age when practice may have changed but, sadly, all too often attitudes have not. The prevailing attitude among many people is that a wife should stay at home, looking after the children, or locked to the kitchen sink preparing her husband's tea or evening meal. I do not in any way downgrade those mothers and wives who wish to stay at home. It is a noble profession to look after the house and bring up children and it should on no account be criticised.
We live in a different era when many women prefer to go out to work or have to go to work from financial

49
necessity. There are two sides to the coin. Everyone should have the right to choose to stay at home and should not be criticised for doing so or be considered dull, miserable or old-fashioned for following that course. Equally, everyone should have the right to choose to go out to work, earn a living and receive the stimuli of a working profession and career.
It is utterly wrong to think that, as soon as one has a child, one must give up the career that one enjoyed in order to stay at home. The trouble is that, all too often, people look down their noses at working mothers and think that they are worse mothers for going out to work or they think that the children are deprived of love and affection and the security of a home.
I speak from a little personal experience. In the light of some of the suggestions that I shall make, perhaps I should declare an interest. My wife is a working wife and we have a young daughter who is just over three. From the day my daughter was born, I knew that my wife would continue her career as soon as that was feasible and that that would entail someone else looking after our daughter during the day. Perhaps foolishly, but for the first 12 months after my wife returned to work, I was embarrassed when the inevitable question came: "What do you do with your daughter during the day?" I fell into the old trap. I thought that people would think that we were less good parents because one of us did not stay at home to look after that child. I used to hum and ha but finally, with many justifications and explanations, I would confess that our daughter went to a creche during the day. I explained how wonderful it was for her, how she enjoyed the company of other children, how she was learning to share more and get on with other children at an earlier age than she would otherwise have done.
After about 12 months I thought about the way in which I had behaved and realised that there was no reason why I should attempt to justify what we were doing or feel embarrassed about it. There was nothing wrong with it. Certain children enjoy the company of other children all day. They enjoy the stimuli that they get from each other, the constant attention given by the people looking after them, and the love that they receive—provided that they return in the late-afternoon or early evening and at the weekend to a secure and loving family home.
I make no apology for my view that everyone who wishes to take that decision should be able to do so. Sadly, some people have that decision forced upon them for economic reasons, and we must consider the awful cost of child care for people who wish to return to work. The problem affects not only those families on low incomes or single-parent families, although it is obviously greater for them. In many parts of the country it is virtually impossible to break out of the poverty trap. It is a vicious circle which traps them at home when they would dearly like to have the choice of working. Their weekly income is simply not sufficient to enable them to afford a child minder or place their child in a creche and still provide a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families. Facilities range from child minding, which is a relatively inexpensive option—although I choose my words carefully—to the kind of creche in which I place my daughter. That costs £500 a month which, over a year, is more than it costs to send children and young people to many of our public schools.
Child care can be an expensive business and it is out of far too many people's range. There is a range of options
50
for the care of one's children—creches, child minders and nannies who live in—but they all cost money. The Government must consider carefully the question of tax relief on the money that is paid out, which is earned income in all cases. The tax man twice gets his share of the cake: he taxes the money earned by the parent and does not give tax relief on the fees paid out of that taxed income. For many single parents, tax relief could make the difference between staying at home, trapped on income support and other benefits, and going out to work to gain experience and build the foundations of a career that will lead to an improved standard of living.
There is a problem with child minders. A few councils adopt rules that I find quite incomprehensible. My own county council—Essex—is one of them. According to that council's rules, one child minder may look after only three children. Clearly, child minding cannot be made into a business with 12 or 18 children being looked after by one person, because that is not sensible, but nor is it sensible to apply a rigid rule. When I dealt with a constituency case 18 months ago, I could not understand the county council's resistance and lack of flexibility. A lady who had been a registered child minder for 19 years was looking after three children. Then, one of the mothers found a place for her child for half a day each week in the local nursery run by the education authority. She was expecting another baby and wanted that new-born child to be looked after by the child minder whom she had used for many years. With the older child being looked after only on a part-time basis, the child minder would, in effect, have been looking after three and a half children a week. She was not allowed to do that. The rules said that she could look after only three children. There was no argument, no compromise and no flexibility. That seemed to me to be pointless bureaucracy. It is a pity that local authorities are not more flexible.
Playgroups and nursery schools are not the answer when it comes to helping women back to work. They do a magnificent job in their different ways but they usually provide facilities on a part-time basis—a morning or an afternoon session. Even if one is lucky enough to have placed one's child in a nursery on a full-day basis, the hours may not be compatible with one's own working hours if one wants to work full time. In those circumstances, one is stuck. Nursery schools are not an easy option unless one works part time.
Young mothers should take the opportunity to form their own playgroups of creches tailor-made to the needs of their friends and neighbours. Some mothers who would not want to go to work in an office love looking after children and, for reasonable remuneration, they could enable their friends and neighbours to go out to work.
I urge the Minister to use all her influence to press the case with the Treasury, which, for many reasons—some of them perfectly understandable—has been resistant to the idea of providing tax relief. We made a step forward in the Budget introduced by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, last March, in which the £8,500 earnings rule in respect of taxation for workplace nurseries was abolished. In Chelmsford, and, I am sure throughout the country, more workplace nurseries have been developed. Smaller companies that could not embark on such projects on their own have joined forces to set up workplace nurseries. That has been a bonus and it has worked.
The Treasury should reconsider. It should not be blinkered. It should not close its eyes but should

51
re-examine the need to help more people back to work. It should stop condemning people who desperately want to go back to work—or to go to work—but cannot because they are stuck in the poverty trap.
It is all a question of attitude. Three years ago, I tabled an early-day motion calling for creche facilities in this place. I think that I was the first hon. Member to do that. We have a work force of thousands and I see no reason why we should not have a creche. Government Departments are now developing workplace creches. At the time, some of my hon. Friends thought that I was bananas. They thought that mine was an extraordinary view for a Tory to take and that there must be something wrong with me. I was new to this place and they probably thought, "He does not know his way around." Their attitude was that Tories did not behave in that way. I ask, "Why not?" Why should not those employed in the Palace of Westminster—not only hon. Members but the back-up staff of thousands, many of whom have young children —enjoy the same benefits and help as those employed elsewhere?
Ms. Richardson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman supported the idea of a creche in the Houses of Parliament which is something for which we have been working for a very long time. I hope to goodness that we will have a creche one day. What about the need for creche facilities for the staff in this place who work split shifts? Catering staff come in, prepare lunches and have a couple of hours off in the afternoon. They then have to return to prepare dinners. They need support and help. Care for children within the confines of the Palace of Westminster would be very useful for those people.
Mr. Burns: That is an extremely valid point. I hope that we can address that problem if right hon. and hon. Members could persuade the powers that be—
Ms. Richardson: The Leader of the House.
Mr. Burns: Yes indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that creche facilities are a reasonable proposition. They are not a gimmick or something that we have to fight over for years to come. However, I accept that my view might be unfashionable among many of my colleagues.
Maintenance and divorce are clearly pressing problems facing many women. Even now husbands or partners can walk out of the family home and totally abandon any financial responsibility for their children. The mother must then turn to the state for support. Far too often, the level of income support that the state provides is well below that which the errant husband or father could afford to raise the children involved. We may find it incomprehensible that fathers or partners can behave in that way, but that is a major fact of life and it happens far too often.
I welcome the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be presenting to the House to change maintenance payments and to make those errant husbands and fathers financially responsible for their children. That legislation is long overdue. Frankly, it should have been introduced years ago and it would have avoided so much of the suffering and misery that have been inflicted on mothers.
52
I hope that the law will be changed so that if an errant husband or partner goes abroad he will not be able to evade his financial responsibilities because the Department of Social Security will be able to track him down wherever he goes in the world. That would be a step forward. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), has been active and extremely helpful in that regard.
Why on earth should women have to suffer the hardship, misery and upset of raising their children on their own, which in itself can be extremely difficult, and in addition be burdened with financial worries and problems because of the selfishness of their former partners? I am pleased that that problem will be considered and hopefully, in the majority of such cases, there will be a genuine improvement and benefit for mothers who are treated in that way.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering proposals about the future of our divorce laws. Family life is the essence of society. However, there must be a balance. There is the too-easy divorce whereby one partner, after a row or an argument, can simply throw up his or her hands and say, "Right, that's it. I can't stand you any longer, I'm going." That is too easy. On the other hand, it would be wrong to have the law too tight so that two warring factions are imprisoned in a home from which they cannot break out. There is nothing more debilitating or miserable for a child than to have to live in a family home with two parents for ever at each other's throats.
Mr. McCartney: We must consider reconciliation in family courts and the need to make things as easy as possible once it has been decided that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. In this country we tend to enter legalistic situations in which the only people who benefit from a marriage breakdown are the solicitors acting for either party.
We must rely on our perception of what is best for the children. Very often the last thing of concern to legislators is the children. We tend to create legislation under which it is even more difficult to end marriages.
I hope that we will not argue, as has been argued in another place, that divorce is far too easy and that it should be tightened up. I have found that in a general sense the legalistic activities involved in divorce are as damaging as the break-up itself. We should have family courts that can ease the position for children and the parents.
Mr. Burns: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We do not want to relax the divorce laws so that a partner can simply walk out of the home and so end the marriage. There should be more attempts at genuine conciliation. However, once it has been established that the marriage, for whatever reason, has irrevocably broken down, it is only right that the marriage should be ended as swiftly and painlessly as possible for the children and the partners involved so that they can then get on with rebuilding their lives and repair the damage and emotional scars.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South for allowing us this debate during which we have been able to raise many issues about which we all feel deeply.
5.48 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I whisper to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that nothing makes life for a young Member of Parliament so perilously difficult with his colleagues as producing a few practical and sensible ideas about how the Palace of Westminster could work more easily. I speak with fellow feeling, because I once found myself in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for having suggested a better use for accommodation. I will leave it at that, but I felt for the hon. Member for Chelmsford in that respect.
In some ways, this debate is rather like Emperor Nero and the burning of Rome. Although in normal circumstances I would have agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who said that we can discuss such important matters only by private initiative, it is incredible that the House cannot have time this week to discuss the Gulf, while we can debate this subject and mining subsidence tonight. I will leave it at that, because such matters would be more properly raised in an application under Standing Order No. 20. However, I believe that it is legitimate to refer to Gulf families. I ask that factual question straight away in the hope that the Home Office can provide some answer.
At Dumbarton Denny Hall on Friday night, and frequently since, I have been asked, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, whether it is true that nearly or more than 40 per cent. of the service men in the Gulf are Scots. The figure that is given is 13,500-plus, but there has been much comment on it. I simply ask whether someone in the Official Box or from the Ministry of Defence can answer that factual question. At the public meeting that was arranged by the Dumbarton Labour party and attended by many people of no party at all, I could not answer that factual question.
Hon. Members have received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in which he says:
"Dear Colleagues"—
I imagine that it is to every Member of Parliament—
"As you may know, many Gulf Support Groups have been set up throughout the UK by the mothers, families and friends of personnel serving in the Gulf, and by others who wish to help. These groups aim to provide comfort and support to our personnel over and above the welfare services available from the Armed Forces. They are writing supportive letters to our troops and sending gifts from their local communities.
I believe these activities are worthwhile and should be encouraged. If there is a group in your constituency I am sure they would welcome your interest and support."
So it goes on.
My childhood memory of my mother is that, for six years, she was involved in the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association. I do not in any way run down the work that SSAFA does, but I offer my controversial opinion that such letters are not the way in which to help families in the Gulf. They should be told the brutal truth that any land battle on top of an oilfield would mean such misery that it would resemble not the events of 1939 but those of 1915 and 1916—the Somme and Passchendaele. Before anybody dismisses me, I do not know whether anybody present has actually been tank crew. I have. Although not in anger, because it was on ranges, I have helped to fire tank guns. Everybody had better be very clear what the prospect is. It is absolutely appalling for those families. It is no service at all to say
54
that anodyne support is needed. What is needed is a change of policy, a ceasefire and a facing up to the reality of the mire of the middle east.
I do not want to abuse the debate by speaking further about the actualities of general strategies in the Gulf, but certain questions are highly pertinent to the debate. The first question arises from Harry Powers of Galashiels, who received a good deal of publicity during the Christmas recess. Mr. Harry Powers is a state registered nurse working at the Dingleton psychiatric hospital near Melrose. He approached me in circumstances in which, as a 44-year-old man, he has received no money from the Ministry of Defence for more than 10 years.
There is the argument that, somehow, reservists were getting money and therefore had an obligation to the state to go to a war in the middle east, supposedly under the umbrella of the United Nations—what a fiasco that has become. Nevertheless, the question arose about the rights of reservists. Under precisely what legislation are the Government asking people who are medical reservists or who have some other particular skills to be recalled to units? There is doubt. The 1907 legislation—the original Haldane Act—makes it clear that the Territorial Army and, by implication, the reserve forces do not have any obligations other than to join up in the United Kingdom itself for the defence of the United Kingdom. Nothing —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it very difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to the subject of the motion, which is family policy.
Mr. Dalyell: When family men are called out of jobs in civilian life to serve in the forces, it causes enormous family disruption. Under what Act are the Government doing that? Is it the 1907, 1953 or 1980 legislation?
Mr. McCartney: I do not wish to refer to a specific case, but we are dealing with children in the Gulf and concern for them. Will my hon. Friend consider that currently, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Gulf states, there are a considerable number of children who have been illegally abducted from the United Kingdom and now find themselves in a war zone? Will my hon. Friend consider what we can do in the short term and in the long term when hostilities end to get those children out of the war zone and back to the United Kingdom where they belong?
Perhaps we should consider bipartisan initiatives. Those children are the original hostages. They are not only unable to return home but are in a war zone. Their mothers in Britain are in the agonising position of not only not having their children with them but of knowing that their children are locked up in horrendous conditions in Kuwait and in surrounding areas.
Mr. Dalyell: Those matters are for proper discussion and study. In family terms, they are exceedingly important. I have a very difficult constituency case—I am sure that all hon. Members have—of a Scots girl who is happily married to a young man in the Yemen and who has problems with issues relating to nationality, proximity to war and so on. I am only too conscious of the relevance of what my hon. Friend says.
There is a second moral issue. Do families have an obligation to send their menfolk to war when that war could be nuclear? I refer to 1945 and 1946. I recall that Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel of the OKW, the German

55
high command, was executed at Nuremberg on the ground that he had not resisted orders that were crimes against humanity. If service men, on reserve or otherwise, argue that they are to be asked to perform crimes against humanity—that is a highly topical matter when, this very morning, Defence Secretary Cheney did not rule out nuclear weapons, as did Vice-President Dan Quayle, as did General Colin Powell—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not abuse the procedures of the House. He is now doing so. He must refer to family policy.
Mr. Dalyell: I should have thought that being yanked out of one's job to go to war was a matter of considerable concern to the families involved. Of course, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the Home Office, in the hope that it will answer my question, I refer to 28 June 1978, when the United Kingdom gave a legally significant assurance to non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the non-proliferation treaty of 1968:
"Britain undertakes not to use nuclear weapons against such States except in the case of an attack on the UK, its dependent territories, its armed forces, or its allies by such a State in association with a nuclear-weapon State."
On 17 November 1978 the Americans accepted a similar undertaking. Do the Government respect those undertakings? Have they set out any code of conduct under which men may be extracted from their families to go to a war which all too probably will turn out to be nuclear?
My third question is about the position of Muslim communities in Britain. In a written question today, I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
"what advice he is giving to those who have booked pilgrimages to Mecca or Medina."
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), replied:
"Our advice to visitors to Saudi Arabia is that it is better to avoid travel, unless they have strong reasons to go there. The cities of Mecca and Medina are a good distance away from the area of hostilities but air services to Saudi Arabia are restricted. It is for individuals to decide whether to proceed"
The lifetime pilgrimage of many families in Britain to holy places is often arranged, for financial and other reasons, some years in advance. It is a matter of central importance to the family. Are we saying that they should not go?
What is the policy on Ramadan? These are matters of considerable importance to a great many families, not only in Britain but throughout the Muslim world. The war is already much longer by modern standards than other wars, such as Yom Kippur and the six-day war, and looks as if it will go on and on. Now that we are into day 18, what is the policy of Muslim families in Britain in this exceedingly delicate situation?
I promised to limit my speech in terms of time. The matters that I have raised are important questions to which the Government should address themselves in these terrible circumstances. The blunt truth is that, in all this, the loss of face of politicians is as nothing to the loss of human life and the catastrophe for the environment.
We are on the issue of rights and, before I finish, I wish to mention the rights of the animal world. I am not ashamed to raise the matter. There is a moral question to consider. Do human beings have the right by their own
56
folly to pursue brutal wars in which entire species may become extinct from the face of the planet? I refer not only to dugongs, sea cows, hawksbill turtles and green turtles. Many other species will face extinction if the war is allowed to continue. Therefore, I shall use any parliamentary opportunity, as will some of my hon. Friends, to suggest that we should accept the proposal of the Magreb countries and Iran and have a ceasefire in the folly being pursued in our name and that of the United Nations.
6.3 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: It was 1942, three years into the second world war, when the Beveridge report on social conditions in Britain came out. I doubt whether the type of speech that we have just heard was made in the parliamentary debate on that report.
If I may be permitted to respond to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for just one, or perhaps two, sentences, the Iranian leader said that he saw no suggestion whatever of movement from the Iraqi leaders. Also, the Gulf support groups deserve recognition. They are doing honourable work.
I do not wish to take away from any hon. Member the opportunity to put forward his or her view as often as possible on subjects of interest, but I take family policy seriously. I first introduced a debate on it 13 years ago and did so a second time in 1982. I felt that it was an intrusion in the general feeling in the Chamber today for the hon. Gentleman to use the opportunity to raise again issues which he has other opportunities to raise.
Mr. Dalyell: No, we have not. That is part of the trouble.
Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman please not interrupt my speech? I did not interrupt his.
There are 11 million children under the age of 16 in Britain. They and their parents could make good use of a debate on family policy which lasts only for three and a half hours. Among those children are some whom I would call the children of the state. I shall return to them on a different day. They are children in care, children in penal institutions and children whose life chances have been blighted, not because they have experienced failure but because they and their parents have never experienced success. They are the groups who deserve more attention. One cannot dwell on them in this debate except to say that the marvellous work of, among other organisations, the Children's Society, with its central London project, shows that 40 per cent. of children under the age of 16 who are at risk of being drawn into child prostitution are formally under a care order. They are children of the state; they are under the care of local authorities. The system is failing them. It is a double failure. The first failure is that the children have to be taken away from their families in the first place. The second is that they run away from the caring institutions of the local authority. We should pay more attention to the children of the state. They are a sign of how our emergency services are needed and how they sometimes fail.
I prefer to deal now with the way in which the family perspective and life cycle is brought in to social and economic policy. I could not have improved on the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). The word "well-being" is a good way

57
of bringing together welfare and material well-being without implying that either the definition of welfare or simply more material goods is necessarily the answer.
All the way through, from Rowntree in 1901, to the Beveridge report in 1942 and the work of Margaret Wynn, who in 1970 wrote the first book "Family Policy" in Britain, we have had to recognise that no caring services work unless they build on the aspirations and reflect the interests of ordinary people in Britain.
Ferdinand Mount, to whom I wish success as editor of The Times Literary Supplement which competes with Auberon Waugh's Literary Review, wrote a book in 1982–83 entitled "The Subversive Family". It showed that every major institution, whether Church or state, -ism or -wasm, which began by seeking to destroy the influence of the family had to recognise that the family had more continuity of power and ambition than ideology could compete with. Eventually the ideology, whether Christianity or Marxism, had to adopt the family rather than seek to supplant it.
There is no driving force on this earth as powerful as the ambitions and aspirations of the urban working class. I could go a stage further. Perhaps I will obtain the assent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. By considering the family perspective and whether the family's life cycle comes into social and economic policy, we can unite Muslim and Christian, urban and rural, north and south, and rich and poor. In no other way is there any continuity of interest between generations with which people can identify, whatever their ethnic or other background.
The family brings together people who are Catholic and non-Catholic in Northern Ireland. It brings together people of all backgrounds in our inner cities. It rightly shows that, although we may not all have children, and celibacy is not an inherited condition, we have all been brought up by parents or parent substitutes. Caring for children and our elderly parents is something which we all have in common. The state can never be a substitute; strength comes from building on the confidence and competence of ordinary people in Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchlcy (Mrs. Thatcher) said in the best speech at the UNICEF debate in New York on 30 September last year:
"for children the family is the most important factor in their lives".
The same applies to many elderly people, especially the frail elderly, whose children look after them in their turn. It is part of the inter-generation contract. She continued:
"The dominant influence on a child's health is the family…The dominant influence on a child's behaviour is the family…The dominant influence on the success of a child's education is the interest taken by the family in the work of the teacher and the school.
The most important thing that we can do as parents…
after looking after the material needs of our children, is to give our children our time, our affection and our wise counsel."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South rightly identified, there are a series of issues where family policy can become part of our politics. We know that, as politicians, we fail at times. If I wanted to be partisan I would point out that it was a Labour Chancellor in 1968 who said:
"Next year I hope to introduce full selectivity for family allowances and to do it in such a way that people who are not in real need of them do not draw them at all."
It is exactly the same point of view as that put forward by Mr. David Willetts—who may come to the House; then we could have a debate on equal terms. The problem with
58
having a debate with him outside the House and me inside is that he gets the publicity and no one pays much attention to me.
Succeeding generations of Conservative politicians need to realise that a universal child cash allowance is the means of recognising that taxable capacity is reduced when people have dependent children and their needs are increased. Child benefit is not a poverty measure—it never was and it never will be. Income support is a poverty measure.
Child benefit is a taxation/benefit issue, and the sooner that we can find a way to think of tax, net of child benefit, in the hands of the Inland Revenue, with the Department of Social Security used as the paying agency, with the Chancellor being the only person concerned with the level of child cash allowance—as I now refer to child benefit —the sooner we will return to common sense.
A working couple with a mortgage of £30,000, with two personal tax allowances and the additional married man's allowance, who are paying higher rate tax, receive the equivalent of 12 child benefits, without Jilly Cooper, David Willetts or anyone else complaining about the waste of tax expenditure. I hope that we shall hear slightly less about how a switch to child tax allowances is better—it is worse.
Anyone who listened to Radio 4's finance programme this morning would have heard someone asking, "Should I pay off my mortgage as I have some money?" The answer was, "No. You would be a fool to do so." Mortgage interest relief on a £30,000 mortgage is equivalent to three child benefits and continues until we retire, or even when we are pensioners. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) nods in agreement.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I was nodding in agreement because I am in agreement. Benefit paid to the mother, especially to those with children under five, is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) said—of great importance, and is at the heart of Conservative philosophy. It must not be lost in too many clever taxation techniques. Support for mothers with young children is important and support for the family is important because it creates allegiance within society, and that is at the heart of Conservatism.
Mr. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. Money is not the only issue. As he says, allegiance and loyalty are also important.
I have the booklet from a series of Thames Television called "City Priest Voices from the City". Thames rightly gave a voice to many Church leaders in inner cities—not merely Anglicans but priests from many free and Pentecostal churches. The common ambition of people, whether their background is Afro—Caribbean, Asian or poor white, is the same. They have the same sense of solidarity. To use one priest's words:
"The ground is level at the foot of the Cross."
That reminds us about caring for other people and sharing their burdens. In this rich, western country we can afford to arrange matters so that people with the burden of a particular handicap can be helped. The most obvious handicaps are physical and mental, but we must also remember that at any one time three quarters of our children are looked after by one fifth of the households. If we do not introduce a life cycle approach, we shall not get very far.

59
In a book called, "Family Matters, Perspectives on the Family and Social Policy" published on behalf of the Royal Society of Medicine, in a chapter which I contributed, I examined the issues of: families and economic well-being—money and the chances of employment; and families and human needs—health, housing, child care and handicapping conditions.
When Michael Rutter produced his book, "15,000 Hours" which studied the results of 11, matched, south-east London comprehensive schools, he showed that the most able children at the worst school produced poorer results than the least able children at the best school, even though the staff:pupil ratio was the same, they had the same number of pound notes per child and they were in the same education authority. The authority's only concern was to keep secret the names of the schools that were doing especially badly or especially well, so that parents should not know what was happening to their children. That is an example of how the mood has changed. I would not want to stigmatise schools, but if we did not let parents know about such research results, we could not be said to have freedom of information.
This may be considered a partisan point but, when we tried to focus on child immunisation a year ago—a serious area of child health—because 20 per cent. of our children were not getting the immunisation that they should have got, the Labour party wished to set a lower standard in the inner cities because of the difficulties there. Yet children in the inner cities have the greatest needs and, therefore, we should set the highest standards there. Professionals working there should set out to achieve results as good as those achieved in Esher.
In my chapter in the book "Family Matters", under the heading "Families: Challenges and Responsibilities", I examined the following:
"Preparation for Marriage and Family Life
Specific Supports for Families
Parents and Children
Family Violence
Substance Abuse
Ageing and Families"—
the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned substance abuse in a very good speech—and under the heading "Families and Major Institutions" I referred to:
"Government
Media
Community Institutions
Law".
An editorial in The Guardian on 24 December 1990—that shows how important it regards family policy; it printed the article the day before Christmas when no doubt all of us are studying the newspapers with extra special care while we are waiting for the midnight service—said:
"Here is a Thatcherist theme worth pursuing"—
referring to it being time to look after the family. Unless we can build that upon helping the family to look after themselves as well as being willing to step in when the family cannot cope, we are lost.
We need to do the things that bind us together. We need to set outcome targets so that we reduce the number of children in persistent trouble with the courts. At the moment one male in three has a serious criminal record by
60
the time he is 30. Too many children come into care. The emergency services, at great expense, must come in after a failure rather than give support before it.
My last argument, which I hope will gain support from hon. Members on both sides of the House as it follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), is that if we say that looking after children is as important as looking after cars, perhaps we could convert some of the massive tax expenditure on company cars and the massive commercial cost of providing car parking spaces at work to the provision of help for children, whether they are looked after at home, near the home or at work.
6.17 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said about Beveridge's reforms in 1942. I recall newspaper articles written at the time which described, in dramatic terms, the evil giants that had to be slain—he was talking about freedom from want, ignorance, fear and illness. The Labour Government in 1945 introduced the great reforms, based on Beveridge's plan. Such was the force of public opinion in Britain at the time which was in favour of those reforms that no one dared to attack that. Those reforms were introduced by a Labour Government with consent from the Conservative Opposition at the time.
The Labour Government introduced better pensions, the health service, universal education and decent housing at affordable rents. That brought families like mine out of the slums into decent housing. They achieved that by an immense programme of public sector building. The Conservatives' record of the past 11 years has slipped a great deal from the view that they held in 1942.
Labour wants to progress from Beveridge who—understandably, in the 1940s—wanted the father to be the bread-winner and the mother to remain always at home, to produce the conventional picture of mum, dad, two children and a dog. We maintain that women have a right to work and to receive proper payment for it, and that adequate child care facilities should be available to them, so that they can play a fuller role in society. The Government are tying themselves in knots, because half of them think that women should stay in the kitchen, and the other half agree that they should be able to work. The Government have failed to devise reasonable policies. As time is short, I will leave it at that.
6.20 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: We have all benefited from hearing the differing views of right hon. and hon. Members in this interesting debate. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on his choice of subject, and even on the blandness of his motion, although I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's reference, in respect of families, to the Government
"continuing to support and increase their confidence and competence by extending choice".
In fact, the Government do not have any policies for supporting the family. The reverse is true.
The words "family" and "family policies" have been bandied about for years. Many right hon. and hon. Members—although none of those present in the Chamber now—wail and wring their hands over the disappearance of what they think of as the ideal family, of

61
the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred. It is meant to comprise a working husband, dependent wife, and two or three children—all living securely and happily in a nice home. That is some people's vision of a happy family, but it has never been true to say that all families are like that.
In reality, in former days there were millions of poor families. Women often bore large numbers of children, who lacked sufficient food. Many kids had to go to work because even the pittance they could earn was a necessary part of the family income. There was no national health service, no welfare benefits, and no sense of responsibility on the part of Governments in those bygone days—which some look back on with a false sense of nostalgia.
Today, more women with children than ever before go to work, but more families also experience divorce. Greater numbers are also remarrying and starting new families. Families come in all shapes and sizes. Some are one-parent families, some contain a disabled person—no one has mentioned that—and in others it is the parents rather than the children who need to receive care. They are as entitled to that care as are children. The well-being of all types of families is fundamental to society's well-being, particularly at times of great change.
Families deliver love and care to children, and it is within families that children learn the ground rules of good citizenship. The way that parents manage that job is important to us all, because children are literally our future. That is why Labour places so much emphasis on the need for coherent policies that will nourish and strengthen family relationship as they really exist—and not as some people imagine they should be.
We all want children to grow up in a secure and loving environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned the problems that confront children today, yet, over the past 11 years, Britain has suffered the biggest increase in poverty levels of any European country—and its children have suffered most. In 1979, 12 per cent. of children lived below the poverty line, but that figure increased to a shameful 26 per cent.—more than double—by 1986, and today more than 2 million children live in families that are on or below the poverty line.
Low wages, changes to the benefits system, poor housing, and less child care mean that millions of parents —especially single parents—cannot keep their children off benefit and off the poverty line. They need new opportunities and to be able to care for their families.
Everyone needs a home, yet the Government have presided over a decade of increasing homelessness, and allow the scandal of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to continue. That form of housing in itself creates strain, and often results in families breaking up. It has also increased the number of children suffering illness and accidents, and the number of babies born prematurely or at low birth weights.
When a Labour Government come to power, one of their first policies will be to provide sufficient decent and affordable housing to meet the nation's needs. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred to the right to buy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, we are in favour of that right, but believe that alongside it should run the opportunity for local authorities to build good quality, affordable, rented property for those who cannot afford to buy.
62
Child benefit was introduced by the last Labour Government, and it remains the only benefit to be paid directly to the person who cares for the child—in the overwhelming number of cases, its mother. The Government's own social security statistics, published a few days ago, show that child benefit is currently worth less than at any time since 1977, and worth less to families with three or more children than at any time since Labour introduced the family allowance 46 years ago, in 1945.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Eleanor Rathbone, an independent Member of Parliament, took that legislation through Parliament before the 1945 election. The House debated that measure for three hours, and no one voted against it. It is not quite proper for the hon. Lady to claim the credit only for her party.
Ms. Richardson: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but it does not change the fact that the value of the family allowance has been greatly reduced.
The Government froze child benefit in 1987, and now propose to increase it from £7.25 to £8.25—but only for the first child. In 1977, during the life of the last Labour Government, the allowance was worth £6.24 at 1990 prices, and the present payment of £21.75 for three children is the lowest since 1945. That is disgraceful, and it is scandalous that the value of that benefit should drop so low.
The sharp increase in 1989 of nearly 8 per cent. in income support for lone mothers sent the Government scurrying away to find a means of compelling fleeing fathers to pay maintenance, to reduce dependence on income support. I support the principle, but we must ensure that women who cannot or will not reveal the identity of their former partner will not be disadvantaged. A future Labour Government will restore the full value of child benefit by uprating it in line with inflation for every child in the family. We believe that that is the way to do it.
The motion calls for extending choice in employment —"Hear, hear" to that. The Government, however, have never had a coherent employment policy. We need a talent-based, highly skilled work force, and we need to develop and train the various talents that people possess. Many of those talents are undervalued—they are certainly underpaid, particularly those of women who struggle to work for their families.
The Government proudly say that Britain has the largest number of working women in any European country. That is true, but the increase has come about because of the need for part-time work to fit in with family responsibilities. Part-time work can be excellent and valuable, but the majority of part-time women workers do not receive, pro rata, the pay of full-time workers. Most of them have no right to holiday and sick pay entitlement, which is a disgrace. Home workers, and temporary or casual workers, are treated even more badly, but the work they do is a valuable part of industry.
Last Friday, I received a letter from a constituent which pulls the whole thing together. It relates to a traditional family—a working husband, a dependent wife and three children. The husband is self-employed and the wife has no job outside the home. She had a job but lost it, because the firm for which she worked went bust. The husband owes £350 tax to the Inland Revenue, the couple cannot pay their poll tax and they are in arrears with the mortgage.

63
They are afraid that non-payment of the poll tax will put them in prison and the children into care. They fear that, if they cannot pay the mortgage, they may lose their home and the children may have to go into care.
My constituent is trying to find a job. The letter states:
"I'm not lazy and I'm not stupid but trying to find a job is very hard. I do work at home gluing folders and various other things. This is time consuming and very tiring. Most nights I'm up till 3 a.m. doing it enabling me to earn £40 a week."
She thought of killing herself, but decided that that would be selfish because of her husband and children, and I agree with her. I have not written to her—frankly, I do not know what to say.
The Government's attitude to training is appalling. There are no coherent policies, which means that not only those who want and need to work cannot increase their opportunities and choice, but the whole community loses the profit that training in our education system and beyond would bring. Our public subsidy of child care—about which much has been said—is the lowest in Europe. Our employment legislation is riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes. If we continue with such policies, we shall be Europe's dumping ground.
We must invest in training, child care, effective employment rights and decent pay if we are to ensure a decent standard for families. We must provide more opportunities at work, to work and to continue to work and earn, as well as ensuring better provision for family care. Child care is not a substitute for family care, although I believe that good quality child care helps in the development of children—as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said. Child care supports families and helps them to support themselves.
A Labour Government will engineer a package of child care, because we believe that parents should have options. I believe that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talked about tax relief on child care, which is one option that might be helpful. However, giving tax relief on child care or child care vouchers would not provide a single extra place, even in a workplace nursery. We need workplace nurseries, good quality, decently paid child minding, pre-school education, including pre-school play groups and nursery education, and out-of-school care to give parents options to choose the best for their children.
Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that, if there were tax relief for working mothers or potential working mothers, it would encourage the development of more creches to meet a need? Those people who previously could not entertain the idea of working because it was financially impossible could probably bridge that gap with tax relief and find it worth while to work. That would bring more demand for creches and other forms of child care, which would mushroom as a result.
Ms. Richardson: We shall have to see how it develops. The Government must co-ordinate with local authorities on all the available options. If the Government decide to give some tax relief, we shall be able to see how the system works.
I am also keen that the Government should ask local authorities to give them their action plans for child care, so that we can ensure that child care is available throughout the country and not on a patchwork basis. We need
64
partnerships with local authorities, employers, parents and voluntary agencies, but the Government need to co-ordinate those partnerships—and the Government are not doing so. That is a great shame, because it deprives so many parents of the option of going to work, leaving it all to the hit and miss of the workplace.
We have the most rigid maternity rights in the whole of Europe. We have no statutory paternity rights and no concept of parental leave, which would allow us to start to change the culture whereby it is always accepted that the woman looks after the children and the husband goes out to work, without sharing in the rewards and responsibilities of child care. We need all those developments, and we need the Government to introduce them.
I know that somebody, probably the Minister, will say that we cannot adopt the directive on maternity and allow the European standard on maternity provision because it would cost too much. However, my information is that it is estimated that only 1 per cent. of female workers in Europe are pregnant at any one time, so it would hardly be a costly exercise—[Laughter.] I obviously said something funny.
Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of the setting up of the first women's aid refuge. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to all those people who worked so hard to provide refuges throughout the country. From a survey that I have just conducted, I know that we have only 275 refuges for victims of domestic violence. We have been talking about divorce—some of those refuges are for people fleeing from violent partners. We do not have enough refuges, and we need six times as many places. More work needs to be done in collecting statistics on how many women are in difficulties. That is something that Government should and could be doing.
Only one quarter of all local authorities provide, or help to provide, refuges. That is a disgrace which should be corrected. It is just another example of the way in which the Government could help to provide secure funding for refuges to enable them to continue in the proper way.
Like others, I have had to range over a wide variety of options—policies that the Opposition believe should be introduced. As hon. Members know, Labour will have a Ministry for Women. We believe that policies need to be co-ordinated, and that the work of Government Departments in connection with women and the family should be no exception to that rule. There should also be a Minister for children to co-ordinate the work done by a number of Departments to deal with children's problems. Together, those two Ministries should ensure that all our policies bear in mind the fact that the family is the responsibility not only of itself but of everyone else, and that Government must play its part.
It is, I suppose, a pity—from his point of view—that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will not be here after the next election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—but I hope that, when we have a Labour Government who start to introduce a coherent set of policies, he will watch and applaud and will remember this evening, when he initiated the debate.
6.41 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) did not necessarily wish

65
to be congratulated on obtaining this slot, or on choosing this important subject for debate; nevertheless, I congratulate him on both. He has prompted an extremely interesting discussion, in which a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House have been able to make some valuable comments.
At the beginning of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned that he could have chosen nuclear physics or local government finance as his subject. It was his second choice that made me wonder whether I was not rather fortunate to be responding to a debate on family policy!
My hon. Friend gave us an interesting quotation from Philip Larkin about the make-up of a family. A number of other hon. Members have asked the same question: what is the family today? Philip Larkin was right in what he said about grandparents. I am a grandparent, and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is the youngest grandparent in the House—at any rate, I have no reason to suppose that he is not; he may also be the smallest, but we do not know about that. Perhaps he can help us in the context of what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said about the number of pregnant women in Europe at any given time.
I am very interested by the definition of "the family". Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed interesting views. The continuing debate about the proper role for women within the family hinges on the sad fact that there are currently far more marriage breakdowns than there have been in recent years. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton): it is nightmarish to realise that one in three marriages appear likely to result in a family breakdown.
All that gloom, however, should not mask the fact that the death of the family and the death of marriage are by no means on the horizon. It is true that we now see more divorces and more single parents; it is true that more female members of the family choose to go out to work —some because they wish to, and others because they feel that they must.
We must not exaggerate the changes, however. If the institution of marriage did not exist, I believe that we would busily set about inventing it, because it is the best and most satisfactory way in which to ensure that people
can raise young children against the background of love, warmth and affection described by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). He cited the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made to UNICEF, in which she said that time, affection and wise counsel were the most important factors to be devoted to the raising of children.
Mrs. Fyfe: Can I take it from the Minister's remarks that she, like me, disapproves of parents sending their children away to boarding school at the tender age of seven?
Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. Such matters are entirely up to individual families; it would be entirely wrong for me, as a Minister—a mere politician —to dictate what people should choose to do with their children. That would be ridiculous. I fear that the hon. Lady will not be happy with that response, but I am certain that it is the right one.
Most of the issues that we have considered relate to the question that I mentioned earlier: what is the family? Is it the nuclear family—man, woman and two or three
66
children—or the larger family, including grandparents, uncles, aunts and so forth? I strongly believe in that second concept. I share the sadness of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that some of the more bureaucratic processes in—especially—local government planning in past years should have led to the break-up of the extended family, and, in my view, great damage to the basis of our society.
It is perhaps comforting to reflect that we are now seeing a slight reversal of that inherent damage, in that more grandparents are caring for their grandchildren while mothers or fathers are at work. It is reassuring to believe that we have recognised the value of the extended family. I trust that not only individuals such as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and myself, but the wider world —including those who control such matters—will learn the lessons and perceive the truth about policies that have been set out so badly.
Mr. David Nicholson: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. Does she agree that, although in many instances this country can convey its ideas vigorously to its European neighbours, we may be able to learn from them in the case of the extended family?
Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that we shall take note of the benefits of the extended family, and the support that it provides—not only when marriages survive for a number of years, but when the partners ultimately find that they cannot make the marriage work, and must resort to as amicable a parting as possible without upsetting the arrangements for the secure raising of the children.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that the current review of family law encompasses not only an examination of the legal provisions, but the jurisdictional procedures and other arrangements for handling family business in the courts. I share his anxiety that we should not lessen the difficulties involved in achieving divorce, but should instead concentrate on maintaining the family and ensuring that, when divorces must take place for the benefit of both partners, the interest and welfare of the children are of primary concern.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South has a particular interest in Relate. I assure him that my right hon. Friends the Secretary, of State and the Minister of State are undertaking a review of the work carried out by Relate and other organisations which counsel couples who are going through difficulties. The Government are sympathetic to and support the work of Relate. However, we cannot undertake to increase funding while the review that I have mentioned is being carried out. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I have not had the opportunity to hear the whole debate, but I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's reassurance about Relate. I am aware of the work of that body in Wolverhampton and other areas. Relate has asked me whether, if the Government wish to assist it in its work of trying to ensure that there are no further breakdowns, they could give it greater support. My right hon. Friend's kind words are a great encouragement, and I thank her for them.
Mrs. Rumbold: I have also talked to Relate, and I agree that its work is of enormous value.

67
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is not able to be in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about a widow in his constituency who remarried and lost her pension. We will write to him and explain the rules about the issues that he raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke with great conviction about the importance of the role of the wife and mother in raising children. It is interesting to look at what British women actually do and compare it with the second-guessing about what they ought to do or might want that appears in newspaper articles. A high percentage of women choose not to work when their children are five and under. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said that a woman's work in raising small children is invaluable. Without that basic care for the very small child, we cannot hope to have the building blocks for a sound and well-ordered future society.
The mother is of the greatest assistance during the early years when the baby is growing and learning the basic rules, such as not touching something that does not belong to him, and learning to talk, communicate and mix with others. Sadly, some girls find it difficult to cope with that task. Organisations such as Home Start assist young women in the extremely important task of raising small children. I value that work, especially when it is given willingly by young people who understand that it may well be a personal and financial sacrifice. However, for the welfare and benefit of the young people that they are raising the sacrifice is well worth while.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised an equally important issue when he said that many young women have careers. Young women are raised and educated in the expectation that they may go to work, and it is perfectly reasonable and natural to suppose that many of them will look at marriage, child raising and careers as a whole—a totality. They do not necessarily separate one from the other. Some women say, "I prefer to take time off while my children are small." Others reasonably say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, "I think that it would be better if I continued with my career, and in order to do that I will make the right arrangements for child care". That brings me to the issue of child care.
I remind the House that the Government have looked carefully at child care and took steps towards improving it in last year's Budget. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is listening carefully to the debate, and no doubt he will read the Official Report and note the views of hon. Members about the way in which child care is tackled.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ensured that employers who provided workplace nurseries would have a tax benefit. That benefit extends further than many people appreciate. It is available to employers who participate in the management of nurseries at the workplace or anywhere else, as long as they are involved in the management of those schemes. It applies not only to
68
workplace nurseries—those that are on the premises or on premises financed by the employer—but to out-of-school care schemes, which are much more relevant to the requirements of the potential working mother.
Women often wish to go to work not when the children are babies, but when the youngest child reaches school age. At that point, the woman looks for some assistance, and the out-of-school care schemes are especially important for such women.
Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister is being more than polite and other Ministers really intend carefully to read the report of the debate, may I ask when I may expect an answer to my question about why Scots families with 10 per cent. of the population are apparently supplying 40 per cent. of service men in the Gulf?
Mrs. Rumbold: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a response. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I am not immediately able to answer. However, I shall ensure that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs takes note of the hon. Gentleman's valuable point.
Some of my hon. Friends spoke about child benefit. We have noted the various proposals and especially some of the views contained in recent booklets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, they have raised a great deal more interest outside than would have been the case if they had been raised in this forum. Over the years, we have had many debates on the issue. It is accepted that such a large and comprehensive social security system will give rise to much public discussion and a great deal of analysis. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already made clear—that child benefit is and will remain a strong element of our family support policies. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring some of my hon. Friends, whose interest in the matter is understandable.
I feel strongly about nursery education, but it is often suggested that somehow or other such education would provide a solution to the problems and difficulties confronting the working mother. It is no such thing. Nursery education should never be regarded in that light. In my view, it should be regarded solely as a great benefit for children between the ages of three and five, enabling them to learn better the social attributes and, perhaps, to start some of the other early learning processes. In no way should it be regarded as a mechanism to enable women to work. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who is no longer in his place, would agree, as he raised the point. Nursery education is there for the benefit of children. It is available, in one form or another —provided by the voluntary sector, as well as by the local authorities—to 86 per cent. of the children in this country.
I wish, finally, to deal with the whole area of housing —a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned and about which he feels very strongly.
It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business).

Orders of the Day

  Coal Mining Subsidence Bill
  [Relevant documents: Sixth Report of the Energy Committee of Session 1989–90 on Mining Subsidence ( House of Commons Paper No. 287) and the Sixth Special Report of the Committee of the same Session containing the Government's Observations on the Sixth Report ( House of Commons Paper No. 663).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Coal Mining Subsidence Bill represents the culmination of a process of practical reform over a number of years, aimed at improving the arrangements for dealing with subsidence damage caused by coal mining. Hon. Members will be aware that deep mining often lowers the surface land as the overlying geological strata subside into the void created by the removal of coal. This subsidence can result in damage to land and buildings located above such undermining. It has long been recognised as one of the inevitable adverse effects of mining deep coal.
  The present arrangements for dealing with coal mining subsidence damage—whether by repair or by the payment of compensation—have two distinct kinds of origin. On the one hand, there were the private agreements between the original landowners and coal mine operators. These might involve a variety of arrangements to deal with the effects of subsidence, as it suited the parties at the time. When the freehold of coal was later taken into public ownership, existing obligations to land owners were preserved. But, otherwise, the National Coal Board—now the British Coal Corporation—was required to make good any subsidence damage or to pay compensation. This is the origin of the provisions in the Coal Industry Act 1975 dealing with coal mining subsidence.
  On the other hand, because many landowners had sold the right to extract the underlying coal without any compensation for subsidence damage, considerable hardship was experienced by householders and others who had acquired or built properties on such land at a later date. The resulting sense of grievance led to the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, which extended the statutory rights of compensation or repair to owners of all land and buildings damaged by coal mining subsidence, regardless of any agreement entered into by the landowner who had originally sold or leased the coal.
  The position at present, therefore, is that an owner, occupier or tenant can seek remedy for subsidence damage either through the 1957 Act or through the 1975 Act. This results in confusion. We therefore want to consolidate the legislation into a single statute and, in so doing, take account of the good practice that has grown up in recent years.
  Because the existing legislation was judged, over time, to provide inadequate compensation, British Coal adopted in 1976 a voluntary code of practice, which provides for compensation for damaged chattels and for home loss payments where, as a result of subsidence damage, a person permanently loses his home. It also provides
  70
  payments to farmers where a farm is no longer profitable because of subsidence damage. Subsequently, the corporation has undertaken to contribute to the costs of professional advice needed to prepare a claim; to make payments on account of residual tilt or structural distortion to repaired buildings; and to make payments to occupiers who endure prolonged inconvenience and disturbance while their homes are being repaired.
  Nevertheless, in the early 1980s there were many who still regarded the operation of the subsidence repair and compensation arrangements as unsatisfactory. In 1983, therefore, the Government appointed a committee to review subsidence compensation, under the chairmanship of Lewis Waddilove. We are indebted to Mr. Waddilove and the other committee members for their work. The committee carried out a thorough examination of the position and made 65 recommendations in its report published in 1984. It concluded that the main thrust of the existing provisions, both statutory and voluntary, was right, although some significant gaps remained to be filled.
  Most of the recommendations were accepted by the Government in the White Paper of 1987. In 1988 the Government issued a consultative document on the content of new legislation, and much useful advice was received in response. The Select Committee on Energy published last summer a timely and perceptive analysis of current subsidence issues, of which we have taken full account. The Bill is the result. It will repeal the existing legislation and replace it with a comprehensive new statute, which incorporates British Coal's voluntary undertakings.
  I shall describe the contents of the Bill as briefly as I can. After the wide definition of subsidence damage in clause I, part II sets out the remedial action required in response to such damage. Clause 2 imposes an obligation on British Coal to take appropriate remedial action, whether by executing repairs, by paying for repairs, or by making payment in respect of any depreciation in the value of the damaged property.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it true that British Coal has no obligation to purchase property that has been damaged? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider an amendment to make the provision rather tighter?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Indeed, there is no existing obligation on British Coal to purchase all such properties, although it does so in cases of hardship. If my hon. Friend cares to table an amendment it will undoubtedly be considered in Committee.
  As with the existing subsidence legislation, the fundamental duty that I have outlined is placed on the British Coal Corporation as the owner of virtually all the coal and coal mines in Great Britain.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I appreciate that an onus is being placed on British Coal. If, in the not too distant future, British Coal should be privatised, would the obligations under this legislation still apply?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The obligations would be transferred to the new owners or operators.

  71
  Where, at present, the corporation issues licences for deep mining, it remains responsible for any resulting subsidence damage, although it can recover the cost of remedying such damage from its licensees.
  Clause 3 requires a prospective claimant to serve on the corporation a damage notice describing the damage that has occurred. He must do so within six years of the first time at which he ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. The clause makes clear what, under existing legislation, has been rather unclear and is consistent with the position as set out in my Department's guidance leaflet which was issued last year and accepted by British Coal. I believe that six years should be an ample period within which to allow the householder to make his claim.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister may think that six years is ample time for a person to notify the board, but cases of damage due to mining subsidence occur after six years. Will people be debarred from making claims in such cases?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The six years runs not from the conclusion of mining but from the time that the subsidence damage appeared in the property and the time at which the occupier should have been aware of it or might reasonably be expected to be aware of it. That covers the possibility of cracks being covered by panelling or something similar that prevents the householder from being aware of damage. The six years will run from when he might reasonably have been aware of the damage.
  Clause 6 requires the corporation to provide the claimant with a costed schedule setting out the works necessary to make good the subsidence damage, as far as is reasonably practicable, to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That means that the standard of workmanship of such remedial works shall be that which would meet the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Minister has missed out clauses 4 and 5. Will he give a modest explanation of clause 4?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I were to go through each of the 50-odd clauses, that would take up most of the time available for the debate. If the hon. Gentleman cares to raise specific points, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to respond to them in the winding-up speech.
  Clause 8 specifies the circumstances in which British Coal may elect to make a payment in lieu instead of executing remedial works. These include situations where the claimant wishes to carry out the work himself, or to use his own contractor, and where it is proposed to merge other works with the works arising from the subsidence damage. Such payments in lieu are not intended to result in cash compensation in place of repairs.
  Clauses 10 and 11 set down the particular circumstances in which British Coal may make a cash payment corresponding to the depreciation in value of the damaged property caused by subsidence. So far as housing is concerned, these circumstances are tightly defined because, in agreement with the Waddilove committee, we wish the primary duty placed on the corporation to be the repair of subsidence damage in order to minimise deterioration of the housing stock. Clause 11 does, however, require the
  72
  making of a supplementary depreciation payment in the case where a property has been repaired as far as is reasonably practicable, but where, nevertheless, there remains a depreciation in value as a result of the effects of subsidence. One example would be where a building remains somewhat tilted after repairs are completed.
  The other clauses in part II complete the arrangements for remedial action to properties damaged by subsidence. Let me mention in particular the new rules governing the operation of so-called "stop notices" served by British Coal in cases where further damage to the property is likely. The corporation will be obliged to review the need to continue a stop notice within a year of the notice being given and to settle claims if no further ground movement will affect the property in the next 18 months.
  Part III makes provision for additional remedies, over and above remedial action in respect of damage to land and buildings, and places on a statutory basis for the first time obligations voluntarily assumed by British Coal and recommendations made by the Waddilove committee.
  Mr. David Ashby: One of the problems that has been encountered is that British Coal, when providing alternative accommodation, often does so in the form of caravans in the grounds of the houses that have been damaged. It is hard for someone living in what can be described as four-star accommodation then to have to live in a caravan for four or five months. Could such a person insist that his alternative accommodation is up to a standard to which he is entitled?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: British Coal will be obliged to provide reasonable alternative accommodation, although I understand that sometimes householders prefer caravans next door to their homes.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Part of the problem with subsidence repairs is that British Coal provides alternative accommodation to a reasonable standard. However, as it cannot afford more of such reasonable accommodation, there are delays in subsidence repair. Should not more facilities be given to British Coal so that it can take over more properties as temporary housing?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is essentially a matter for British Coal. We are laying down in statute the obligations and it will be up to the coal operator to meet the requirements.
  The Bill makes provision for home loss payments to people who may lose their homes on account of exceptionally severe subsidence damage and for temporary alternative accommodation to be made available if that is necessary for repairs to be carried out.
  There is provision to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the corporation to compensate householders for inconvenience and disturbance which may be caused as a result of repairs being carried out while the householder stays in the house. That would enable British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements for compensation for exceptional inconvenience or disturbance to be placed on a statutory basis, with improvements should that seem desirable. If these and other voluntary arrangements by British Coal work well, regulations may not be necessary, but the reserve powers will exist.
  Part III also provides for different forms of compensation to farmers arising from subsidence damage

  73
  to their land, such as farm loss payments, crop loss payments, and payments to tenant farmers. It also provides for compensation in respect of moveable property or chattels damaged by subsidence and likewise as regards personal injury.
  Part IV deals with preventive works to existing buildings designed to reduce the impact of subsidence damage, with precautionary works to new buildings, and with measures to deal with damage to land drainage systems.
  Part V makes a variety of supplementary provisions, including a requirement on British Coal to reimburse any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a claimant in the successful preparation and prosecution of a claim. I would draw attention in particular to clause 41, which allows the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to prepare and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration. One long-standing difficulty associated with the present statutory arrangements has been the lack of informal and accessible means whereby disputes could be resolved speedily and inexpensively—that concern was expressed by the Waddilove committee. The Lands Tribunal will remain available to deal with disputes. However, the average value of a settled subsidence claim in respect of domestic property is under £3,000. It would not in general be justifiable to take disputes over sums of this order to the Lands Tribunal.
  Recognising that difficulty, British Coal has helpfully and commendably arranged for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to operate an arbitration scheme tailor made to deal with subsidence problems.
  Dr. Mike Woodcock: We have heard that British Coal is graciously bringing in an arbitration scheme, but there is a major defect to it. British Coal has to give the claimant permission to go to arbitration. How can an arbitration scheme be of any value when the person who is wrong in the dispute can prevent the person who wishes to challenge a decision from going to arbitration? The scheme is worthless unless claimants have the right to go to arbitration, rather than having to seek British Coal's permission to go to arbitration.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 41, which deals with the issue that he has raised. It would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to submit to him a scheme for his approval. An approved scheme would oblige British Coal to be bound by the arbitration and to offer arbitration in cases of the sort to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is our objective to allow all disputes that might arise under the Bill to be resolved by means of arbitration in so far as that is possible. In the event of a dispute, the onus of proof will remain with the corporation to show that any damage is not subsidence damage.
  Clause 43 would allow the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to establish a further scheme for the investigation of complaints of unfair treatment or maladministration in connection with the way in which the corporation carries out its duties under the Bill. Again, this is a reserve power that can be used if necessary.
  Clauses 44 to 46 require the corporation to provide information about future and past coal mining and subsidence damage to occupiers of property likely to be
  74
  affected, to prospective purchasers of such property and to local authorities in mining areas. British Coal is shortly to introduce a pilot scheme that will be aimed at notifying individual occupiers of future mining plans and that will become a general requirement once the Bill is enacted.
  Subsidence damage can be a traumatic experience for the property owner or occupier. The Bill sets out the obligations of the coal operator and the rights of the property owner. It is the result of long and careful consultation and brings together several Acts and codes of practice into one Bill. I commend the measure to the House.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Subsidence damage created by coal mining has been a cause of great distress to many households. Those of us who represent coal milling areas know only too well from our constituents what a costly, time consuming and sometimes agonising experience it can be to make a claim against British Coal for subsidence damage. That is why my colleagues and I have argued for years that it is vital to establish a system that is both fast and fair.
  Along with many others in the coalfield communities, we heaved a sigh of relief when at long last the Government found a space in their legislative schedule to introduce the Bill. Many of us cannot understand why it has taken so long to introduce such a measure.
  The Minister rightly said that the Waddilove committee was set up in 1983 to examine the repair and compensation system for coal mining subsidence damage. Thanks to the activity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who first introduced a private Member's Bill designed to deal with subsidence damage in 1979, the committee's report was submitted in 1984. It contained 65 recommendations involving changes to the system. It took three years for the Government to respond to the Waddilove report. It was only in 1988 that concrete proposals emerged from the Department of Energy. Thanks to the substantial pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government by many local authorities and other organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Coalfield Communities Campaign and, to a large extent, by the Labour party, both nationally and locally, as well as by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Bill has been introduced seven years after the Waddilove committee was established.
  We welcome the Bill. It is a long overdue measure—I see that the Secretary of State nods in agreement. Last year, as the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee on Energy reported on mining subsidence. It was aware that, despite British Coal's claim that it has implemented many of the recommendations contained in the Waddilove report, there remained considerable dissatisfaction with the repair and compensation system. We are pleased that some of the recommendations set out in the report and reinforced by the Select Committee's findings have been incorporated in the Bill. We welcome them in general terms but we may wish to improve the Bill's provisions at a later stage in our consideration of them.
  The method by which British Coal notifies property owners of undermining was criticised by both the Waddilove report and the Select Committee. That is because British Coal fails to communicate with the

  75
  majority of those who are concerned. That failure could lead to difficulties with later claims. The introduction of an obligation on British Coal to inform owners or occupants of the risk of subsidence will ensure that the majority of owners or occupiers will be made aware of the risk. Despite the reluctance of British Coal, the Bill will allow the use of contractors of a claimant's choice, in certain circumstances, to repair subsidence damage. We welcome that as a positive step forward in handling the problem of subsidence in coalfield areas.
  Another positive step is the inclusion in the Bill of a clause on the payment of fees incurred by a claimant. The reimbursement of expenses incurred by a claimant in the pursuance of his claim is a way in which the balance of power between claimants and British Coal can be more evenly matched. It is right also that there is clarification of British Coal's obligation to restore property. I am concerned, however, that as the Bill stands it is British Coal's responsibility to make good the damage so far as it is reasonably practicable to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That part of the Bill will not meet the problem satisfactorily. Many believe that it will allow British Coal to return property to them that is in a worse condition than it was before the damage occurred.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has referred to an issue that is of great concern to many in Wales who have suffered as a result of damage to their property caused by subsidence. Is he satisfied that the Bill deals adequately with permanent depreciation? Repairs may have been carried out in the past, or may be carried out now, but it may be found in future that the house is valued at a lower price than neighbouring houses when properties come on the market. I know of a house with damage that was sold for £18,000 whereas neighbouring houses are being sold for £30,000. It would seem that permanent depreciation is not covered adequately in the Bill.
  Mr. Barron: An attempt is being made in the Bill to cover that problem. We shall have to wait to see whether there is permanent damage. I am pleased that a Bill has been introduced to deal with current damage. As I have said, we shall all have to wait to see how successfully damage is repaired.
  I have said that the Opposition welcome the introduction of the Bill, but there are parts of it that are seriously deficient. Equally, there are significant omissions. Arbitration was rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). The Bill allows the Lands Tribunal to remain the authority to deal with certain disputes. However, in a review of procedures for settling disputes that was issued last year, the Government made this admission:
  "Representations indicate that claimants are reluctant to appeal to the Lands Tribunal for three main reasons: cost, time and formality."
  The review continues:
  "Given the formal nature of the proceedings (involving deposition of evidence and cross-examination) and the fact that British Coal will be legally represented, the claimant feels that he too must be legally represented, and is at risk of being required to bear British Coal's costs if he loses his case. Even if he wins, he cannot be certain of recovering all his own legal
  76
  and other professional costs since the Tribunal will award what it considers to be appropriate costs, which may be less than the costs actually incurred."
  An answer that I received from the Attorney-General last week stated that in 1990 only eight cases of mining subsidence were settled at lands tribunals. That bears out the Government's review.
  Moreover, the appeal procedure is lengthy. That is largely because of the time taken to prepare evidence that is in a suitable form for the proceedings. Given the Government's findings, we cannot understand why the Lands Tribunal remains the official appeal body for certain claims instead of a body of last resort.
  Arbitration must be easily accessible and the delay must be as short as possible. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State "may" require British Coal to draw up an arbitration scheme, but the Minister tried to suggest otherwise. We have not been given details of timescales for arbitration, on what can be referred to arbitration and on the effects of either party not agreeing to it. If British Coal states that subsidence has not occurred, are we saying that it will have a veto and that the claimant could end up in a lands tribunal? If that is so, the Minister has a few weeks to correct it, because it will not get rid of the problems of damage and compensation in coal mining areas. I hope that he will take that on board.
  We should be given the opportunity to examine the details of the arbitration proposals so that we can be assured that they will provide the best service to our constituents. Whatever arbitration system is finally established, our constituents will need access to free and independent legal and technical advice, because claimants have not had access to the same advice as British Coal.
  In its 1990 discussion paper on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy conceded that that was necessary and proposed the establishment of an independent subsidence advice centre. That proposal had the support of the Labour party and the Select Committee on Energy and it met the case put by the consortium of authorities liaising on subsidence and the needs of claimants.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is compounded by the fact that, because of the many pit closures of the 1980s, all too often plans are not available to enable representatives of people who have suffered from subsidence to prove their case? All too often, British Coal has used that to blind people with science and keep them ignorant. Those people cannot pursue their claim because no plans are available for them to prove it.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend may be right. The Bill will ensure that plans are made available to householders, but we shall have to wait and see how that operates.
  We very much regret the dropping of the proposal for independent advice centres. The Government implied in a letter to me last November that an improved arbitration system that is accessible and well publicised will preclude the need for an advice centre. Labour believes that both are necessary, otherwise the odds will always be stacked in favour of British Coal.
  The biggest problem with mining subsidence is the six-year rule. The way in which British Coal operates that rule is causing confusion on top of confusion. Sadly, the Bill will only add to that confusion. We know from evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Energy and from letters to Members that it is seen by the public as the

  77
  device that British Coal uses to avoid liability when properties have been damaged. Many examples of that were given to the Select Committee. It was told that the problem with the six-year rule is that it can be triggered by British Coal at any time, that when new owners resubmit claims they are sometimes regarded by British Coal as out of time and that it is becoming increasingly common in long-running cases for British Coal to close the file on the ground that six years have expired. If a claimant had not submitted a claim to a land tribunal within that period, British Coal could stop the claimant's case in mid-flight.
  British Coal states in its coal subsidence guidelines that it will accept claims within six years of damage occurring or when it would be "reasonable" for the claimant to have known that damage had occurred. That has been agreed with the Department and now the Government want Parliament to agree it.
  British Coal appears confused about the operation of the rule, which it says has been operating voluntarily for a long time. Senior members of its staff told the Select Committee on Energy last year that it had paid damages in areas where mining ceased many years ago and even in areas where it could not remember mining having taken place. At one stage, they told the Committee that mining
  "may have been in 1845 or something like that".
  If the damage is there to see, is obviously current damage and cannot be dissociated from mining, then that is an acceptable claim. But if that damage is there to be seen and has been there for many years, it will reject it as being out of time.
  In answer to a later question, British Coal stated that if there is an immediate indication that the damage did not happen last week, last month or even six years ago, that is still within the six-year limit. Senior representatives of British Coal seem to be more interested in entertaining members of the Select Committee when they come to give evidence than in giving a coherent interpretation of the rule. No wonder people outside have doubts about its implementation of the six-year rule.
  The Bill should offer compensation for mining subsidence rather than erect statutory obstacles for people to fall over or for British Coal to hide behind. If the six-year rule cannot be interpreted fairly nor be seen to be fair, it should be removed from the Bill, and we shall table an amendment to that effect at a later stage.
  Mr. Ashby: Surely the Bill is to be applauded because it puts British Coal in the same position under common law on nuisance or tort as the rest of the country. One cannot ask for more than that.
  Mr. Barron: That is the problem. The six-year rule has no geological basis. The hon. Gentleman, who I understand is a member of the legal profession, and perhaps still is although he is an hon. Member, points out that it is a question of common law. What powers are we giving British Coal under the six-year rule if it can answer questions rightly put by members of the Select Committee about compensation by talking about mining that may have occurred in 1845? That might sound quite extreme, but that was the answer of a senior member of its staff. The rule gives it licence to use that timetable against people who must prove subsidence damage.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Gentleman cited several cases. Does he agree that in old mining areas, such as the one that I represent, it can take
  78
  at least two or three years to establish whether mine shafts or old ventilation shafts are on the site? Much of the six years may be taken up resolving the precise location of workings.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The question of what happens with old workings is not dealt with in the Bill. I can foresee ground movement from coal mining being ruled out by British Coal using the weapon of the six-year rule.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To clear up any misunderstanding, may I point out that the date of the mining is irrelevant. The six years runs only from when the damage occurred or from when the householder might reasonably have noticed it.
  Mr. Barron: In those circumstances, why do we need a six-year rule? British Coal's arguments show that it is not clear about exactly how the six-year rule operates. It even said that it would have to send out information to areas to ensure that they operated in the same way. There is nothing coherent about British Coal's interpretation of that rule. If it is used against people who are going to arbitration or before lands tribunals, we will not have done anything to settle the matter once and for all.
  Mr. Illsley: I was a member of the Energy Select Committee which questioned British Coal on this subject. We heard different answers from two people—an area director and a member of British Coal based in London. It was put to them that there was considerable confusion about the six-year time limit. The Under-Secretary of State clearly stated that it is six years from the date when the claimant should have reasonably known that subsidence damage had occurred. The Select Committee was given evidence of claims that had been refused as recently as last year when British Coal alleged that, because of the length of time between the date of mining and the date of the claim, the damage could not possibly have been caused by mining subsidence. That should not have happened. In some cases, British Coal stated that, because the period was longer than six years, the claim should be refused. Much confusion has arisen.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend repeated exactly what was said last year to the Select Committee by the people who were executing the six-year rule.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: In the latter part of last year, a constituent who had purchased a house in Lowton in my constituency came to see me. Within months of the purchase, he had problems relating to subsidence. He submitted an application but was informed by British Coal that it was out of time as the previous owner had had some work done, but British Coal refused to give him information about that. I wrote requesting information so that an appropriate claim could be submitted. On 6 December, an area director told me:
  "British Coal consider the detail of claims to be privileged information …I am sorry I am unable to be more helpful.
  Yours faithfully".
  British Coal refused to provide information to allow my constituent to consider whether his application was out of time, what work was carried out, when it was carried out and what subsidence was involved. With that one simple sentence, my constituent's rights were rejected by British

  79
  Coal. All that happened after the date on which British Coal published a document in consultation with the Government which said that that situation could not arise.
  Mr. Barron: There will be opportunities later to obtain clarification on exactly what the six-year rule means and on exactly what can and cannot go to arbitration. I hope that we will be given answers to many of our questions by Report and Third Reading.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: Members of the Select Committee have contributed to the debate. On a point of clarification, I should like to read the Select Committee's conclusions on this issue. The report states:
  "We see no reason why mining subsidence damage should not be treated in a way analogous to other damage, and do not believe that the limitation period for subsidence damage claims should be any longer than for other sorts of claims. We therefore support the proposed clarification of the six-year rule".
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman may have gathered from my comments that I disagree with the Select Committee's findings on that issue. Its findings are not founded geologically. We shall see whether clause 3 is unamended by Third Reading. I suspect that in a few years' time, if the Bill is unamended, we shall be arguing once again about the need to clear up the issue of compensation for subsidence damage.
  For the Bill to provide a system of repair and compensation that is as fast and fair as possible, it will need substantial amendment. We hope that we can make those improvements during proceedings on the Bill and we look forward to giving our wholehearted support at a later stage. We shall not vote against the Bill, but we register our disappointment at the Bill's omissions and weaknesses. We hope that the Bill will be toughened up so that we can deal with compensation problems and with the terrible mess that has occurred throughout the country because the current legislation has failed many people and British Coal.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: The introduction of the Bill gives me a feeling of great personal satisfaction and will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and other people living in coal mining areas. To use a well-worn football cliché, we are over the moon.
  Many people, encouraged by the Opposition, doubted the Government's commitment to legislate. On behalf of my constituents, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for fulfilling that Government promise by bringing forward this complex Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who allocates time in the parliamentary timetable, must also share our appreciation. Both my right hon. Friends have been patient and understanding about my incessant demand for new legislation.
  I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department. It takes another PPS to know who really makes all the major descisions in a Government Department. I am sure that if my hon. Friend were not fulfilling his PPS's duty here today, he would be speaking
  80
  on behalf of his constituents who share with mine the trials and tribulations resulting from mining subsidence damage.
  The Bill will rectify the deficiencies of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975 which, to all intents and purposes, left British Coal the offender and the judge and jury in deciding what repairs or cash compensation a claimant should receive for damage to his property. It was tough luck if one was a tenant. However, that unacceptable face of a nationalised company will soon be in the past, and not before time. The proposed changes will bring peace of mind for those who live in Britain's coalfields and will ensure, for the first time, that buying a home there will be an investment and not a depreciating liability.
  North Nottinghamshire, including my constituency, is located on a raft of coal which has been mined for over 100 years, removing on average 17 million tonnes of coal a year, creating an unsupported void underground. In time, that situation causes trouble on the surface, and what trouble my constituents have had to face. As you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appeals for help and complaints against British coal have dwarfed all other constituency considerations.
  During the past eight years, I have highlighted here and in the media many of the 2,500 cases on file and I do not intend to bore the House with repetition. Suffice it to say that my constituents' experiences and those of other hon. Members have played an important part in the drafting of the new Bill.
  My constituents have asked me to express their thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy—my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)— for visiting 011erton and Boughton recently to see for himself the scourge of mining subsidence on property and people. Seeing is believing and his visit there will stand my hon. Friend in good stead as he pilots this important Bill on to the statute book.
  Supporting our campaign for change with professional expertise and holding discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and his officials were two important groups of people: COALS, the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, representing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire local authorities, and the united industry working party, comprising the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Building Societies Association, the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society and the British Property Federation. The fact that we have such allies fighting our cause must make British Coal feel like Saddam Hussein—except that nobody is out to get British Coal.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. The fact is that British Coal is a nationalised industry and does not need to be accountable to anybody. British Coal is judge and jury in its own cause. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the industry had been in the private sector we should not have had to put up with all this nonsense for so many years?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly.
  Mr. Allen McKay: As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) knows, when the industry was run by private enterprise nobody paid out a penny.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will remember that the last Labour Government introduced the Coal Industry Act 1975, which was supposed to put everything right. In fact, they made a mess of it and that is why we are having to tidy matters up.
  Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. British Coal is, indeed, a nationalised industry, but I was under the impression that nationalised industries were accountable to the Government. For three years, the Government have been reluctant to introduce legislation to make this nationalised industry accountable in a way that is acceptable to our constituents.
  Mr. Stewart: We are in trouble today because those who nationalised the concern could run neither a Government nor a private industry.
  Unlike Saddam Hussein, nobody is out to get British Coal. We want only to ensure that claimants receive fair and just treatment—not a penny more and not a penny less than is required to restore their property to its original condition, with compensation being paid for disturbance—and that the provisions apply equally to tenants of rented accommodation who, until now, have been treated as chattels. I am delighted that those matters have been addressed in the Bill, which will also improve standards of repair and set clearer time limits for making a claim. The limit will be six years from the time when a claimant could reasonably suspect damage and not, as British Coal would have us believe, six years from the time when the mining took place.
  Emphasis will be placed on repairs rather than cash compensation, so as to maintain the housing stock. Where cash is paid, the compensation schedule must become a public document and must be registered on property title deeds. The reimbursement in full of a claimant's reasonable expenses is another welcome step, although the complexity of the claims procedure demonstrates the need for an independent subsidence advice centre, arid that matter will need to be dealt with in Committee.
  It may surprise the House to learn that the first notification that my constituents have that mining is taking place in their area comes with visible signs of damage to their homes. British Coal has recently committed itself to introducing a pilot scheme for the notification of individual householders. That must become a permanent feature, and notice must be given at least one year before work commences.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that there will be a serious problem of blight on property in areas where notification has been given, because, even with the advanced technology now available to engineers, it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen to the strata that lie between a house and the mine beneath it? What will the Bill do to overcome the threat of blight?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the Bill will overcome the problem of mining subsidence damage, because it is a fact of life. If one takes the coal out, there will be damage. We merely seek to ensure that those whose property is blighted will get a fair deal.
  Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). Subsidence is a major problem in mining areas and it is an expensive one. Properties that may not themselves have been damaged by subsidence may, nevertheless, become unsaleable. Once it is known that mining is taking place in an area and once there is evidence of mining subsidence affecting certain properties, even properties that have not been damaged are blighted and can become unsaleable. There is nothing in the Bill to protect people from that.
  Mr. Stewart: I have been trying to address myself to the Bill and to highlight its deficiencies and the matters that we wish to discuss in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of the matters on which we shall have to concentrate to ensure that those whose properties suffer damage will get fair and reasonable treatment.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. If the Bill does what the Government and all of us hope that it will do, which is to provide an efficient and speedy remedy for those whose properties suffer from the effects of coal mining subsidence, the problem of blight, to which the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightfully refers, could be severely reduced. At least people will know that a swift and efficient procedure exists for solving the problems of subsidence.
  Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for answering the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—probably in greater detail than I could have done.
  Another criticism of British Coal that will have been addressed in Committee relates to the effect of stop notices, especially on family life. Such notices preclude repairs being carried out on damaged property until all mining in the area has been completed. That sounds reasonable to most people, but not to those who have to wait years for repairs to be carried out without a penny compensation being offered.
  British justice is recognised internationally as second to none but not in relation to disputed mining subsidence claims. The 1957 and 1975 Acts intended the Lands Tribunal to be the first arbiter, but, alas, experience has shown that to be slow, complex and—where professionals have acted on behalf of claimants—expensive beyond comprehension. Figures of £100,000 were not uncommon.
  The House will recall that during the debate introduced on 16 June 1989 by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), I told the House that two of my constituents, Mr. Goodman of Hucknall and Mr. Lancaster of Bilsthorpe, had referred their disputed claims to the Lands Tribunal and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to know the outcome. There is still no decision. The cases drag on and on, with British Coal's solicitors using every legal device in the book to delay and to confuse and intimidate my constituents.
  Above all else, the Bill must ensure that we have a new disputes procedure to provide a cheaper, quicker and less formal way of resolving disputes. A local adjudication system by appropriately qualified experts or a mining ombudsman would suffice. However, we cannot allow an arbitration scheme such as that introduced in January this year by British Coal. It appeared to meet our wishes, but the small print revealed that British Coal had a right to refuse referrals if it wished. Heads, British Coal wins; tails,

  83
  the claimant loses. When I submit a case to the local or national ombudsman, it is not at the discretion of the local authority or the Government. The Standing Committee that examines the Bill must ensure that a truly independent referral system for arbitration is established.
  Many of the Bill's 52 clauses are consolidation measures and require no comment. In order to allow other hon. Members to contribute to the debate, I have highlighted some of the issues that concern me and my constituents. However, when discussing this legislation, we must not forget—I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not refer to this—that a balance must be maintained between the needs of the coal industry, which is Nottinghamshire's largest employer, and the consequences of mining activity. If we do not maintain that balance, miners' jobs could be threatened.
  The Bill will clarify, revise and consolidate existing law. My constituents' hope for the future starts with supporting the Bill.
  8 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: I want to thank and congratulate sincerely all the organisations that have spent so much time considering the problem and injustices of coal mining subsidence damage in the coalfield areas. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which has worked stoutly towards finding a solution to that problem. I want also to thank members of the united industries working party which has tried to pull together the other organisations in an attempt to put pressure on the Government to find a solution. Above all, I pay tribute to the Consortium Of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—or COALS—which is at the forefront of the campaign to sort out the injustice of coal mining subsidence damage, particularly in the coalfield areas of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
  As hon. Members will know, COALS comprises 10 local authorities in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, They are the district councils of Amber Valley, Ashfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw, Chesterfield, Gedling, Newark and Sherwood, and Mansfield and also the county councils of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, both of which are deeply involved.
  I am extremely grateful to the executive committee of COALS which meets regularly and tries to organise and co-ordinate activity in an attempt to solve the problem. In particular tonight, I want to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Lewin, who was the co-ordinator of the COALS secretariat. Unfortunately, because of stress and ill health, he has had to announce his retirement. Some of that stress undoubtedly stemmed from the pressure on him throughout the campaign, which has lasted many years. All Opposition Members and some Conservative Members from that part of the country will wish Mr. Lewin well in his retirement and hope that his ill health will not last for too long.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I have no intention of opposing the Bill's passage to Standing Committee. I sincerely hope that it will be noted that I would like to serve on that Committee. However, along with other hopeful Members, I await the outcome of the democratic process of the normal channels in this place.
  84
  I want to put down some markers for the Government to consider. I welcome the Bill, but much of what it contains is inadequate or needs changing substantially before the Bill can reach the statute book. My worries about the Bill are shared by COALS, and it might help the House if I try to deal with those worries separately.
  My first concern is about arbitration. According to the explanatory memorandum, clause 41 sets out a method that allows the Secretary of State to direct British Coal
  "to make and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration."
  In other words, it is not a matter of "there shall be", but "there may be", and I suggest that it will apply only if British Coal agrees. That is unsatisfactory. In that respect, it is not what the proposal states but what it does not state that is worrying.
  Clause 41 does not specify the time that the Secretary of State will allow British Coal to draw up such a scheme. That is important when we recall the attitude of the new chairman of British Coal to privatisation of the coal industry.
  The Bill does not direct or compel the Secretary of State to give directions about the terms of the arbitration scheme. It simply says that he "may" direct. That leaves it open to interpretation or negotiation by British Coal. As hon. Members who represent coalfield areas will be aware, leaving matters to negotiations with British Coal or for British Coal to interpret has caused many of the problems that have led the Government to introduce this legislation.
  Clause 41 contains no specific reference to independent arbitration; nor does it state how such an arbitration body would be appointed or from where its members would come. That is left to the discretion of British Coal and the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind the history of British Coal on that matter, that is perhaps not a wise decision.
  Some of my colleagues have already referred to advice centres. Clause 41(2) provides that the Secretary of State "may" direct that a person may be appointed under the arbitration scheme to advise about it. That does not meet the criteria for advice centres as discussed previously in this place. Instead, it points to a role for the person concerned as that of a public relations officer for the arbitration scheme. That is not quite the same thing.
  Clause 41 also does not provide for a subsidence advisory officer or a real advice scheme. Nor does it provide for any funding for an advice scheme or pre-funding for professional advice for claimants. Therefore, clause 41 needs filling substantially before it reaches the statute book. A readily accessible, local, independent advice centre is required to assist claimants through the maze of claim rights and procedures.
  An effective independent service would also expedite the processing of claims and would minimise the number of cases that would have to be referred to complaints or arbitration processes. That would leave British Coal to do what it is supposed to do—to produce coal at a reasonable price. Its job is not to arbitrate or to be in the courts. Its job is certainly not to work against the coalfield communities to try to stop people rightfully getting repairs to their homes or property.
  I want now to consider blight. The Minister is aware that clauses 10 and 11 provide for depreciation payments in lieu in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 sets out the method of determining the basis of voluntary depreciation payments. The discretion or obligation to buy in is required, although that is not covered by the Bill. That

  85
  would enable owners to have their properties bought out at the market price or to receive a depreciation payment for the loss of value of their property when any damage occurred.
  I want now to consider deferment of repairs, or stop notices as they are more commonly known. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has already referred to them. The Minister is aware that clause 16 provides for the review of stop notices and for the provision of emergency and excepted works. That would greatly worsen the situation, as it would allow, even with review, a stop notice or time limit imposition to be extended indefinitely by British Coal, thereby allowing it to delay settlement of claims or to prevent interim payments from being paid to claimants. That proposal would make the position considerably worse than it is at the moment.
  We want strict time limits to protect property owners. That should be done together with the introduction of an obligatory buy-out mechanism on request if a stop notice and consequential blight has been current beyond 12 months. If a person has been left in such a situation in his own home for that time, it is reasonable that he should have every right to make such a request.
  The next matter is incidental costs, a topic on which the Bill is totally silent. In my opinion and in that of COALS, not only damage caused by subsidence but the incidental costs of the remedy should be reimbursed. For instance, in a coalfield area, if a road must be closed because of subsidence damage, as often happens in Nottinghamshire, the cost of providing an alternative route, signs, barriers and additional road safety requirements should be met by British Coal, not by the local authority.
  The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) knows that there are additional costs in respect of businesses. During repair work, a shop may conduct no business. It is not right for British Coal to be able to get around that and stop proper compensation being paid to that business. On occasions, businesses close because of such pressure.
  Clause 44 provides for notices to property owners in respect of proposed mining operations. It seems to limit the requirements of such notices to the judgment of British Coal—that is to say, land that British Coal feels might be affected. Experience in my constituency is that British Coal always states:
  "Because of new mining techniques, land won't be disturbed."
  How many times have hon. Members from coalfield areas heard that? That is a despicable attempt to impose on an area a system whereby people do not even need to be notified of what is happening in their area.
  The Bill should stipulate requirements based not on self-judgment criteria but on fact. Also, under clause 44, the working of licences granted to private operators before 1 May 1991 does not seem to be covered. The Minister might want also to examine that matter, in particular in the light of his party's intentions on coal privatisation.
  Clause 9 provides for obligatory payments in lieu to highway authorities and to local authorities that have a duty to carry out remedial works in connection with the maintenance of public services unless the Secretary of State disapproves. The Secretary of State's veto on that matter is unnecessary, as well as extremely undemocratic. The Bill is supposed to be about sorting out British Coal, not local authorities. If that criterion is followed, the Bill should read, "Local authorities should be paid in lieu for
  86
  any damage to their property or property over which they have default powers if local authorities request such a payment."
  The next issue is outstanding claims. Clause 51 and schedule 7 are outrageous and need to be amended. For instance, schedule 7 specifically excludes previous claims from the new procedures unless the claimant withdraws the claim and resubmits it. What about the 33,500 claims that were accepted by a previous Minister from the COALS area? The hon. Member for Sherwood was part of a delegation, when the then Minister accepted all the claims honestly and fairly. All claims had been submitted on time and were accepted by the relevant Minister of the Crown. If the proposed scheme is undertaken, it will jeopardise all those claims. The Minister should think about that matter. If many people withdraw their claims and then resubmit them, British Coal will seek to rule them out of time. The Minister must consider those issues tonight and in Committee.
  I now refer to the protection of future purchasers. The Bill is inadequate to protect the home owner from the problem of subsidence damage. For example, clause 46 states only:
  "The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the Corporation … to provide … information".
  Even with the involvement of the Law Society, information will be available only if British Coal agrees. Such a system is totally useless, and the clause needs to be much more specific. It must provide for a local public register that may be inspected by anyone seeking information, perhaps before purchasing a property. Hon. Members have heard of many constituents being denied the right to know what has happened in respect of coal mining subsidence damage.
  At the moment, the register is held by British Coal. If people wish to find out information about a property which they are interested in making their home, they must pay a small amount for it. For that, all they get are one or two sentences. If they want more information, they must pay a substantially larger sum, but that information is still not specific—just enough information to enable a building society to consider lending money on the property.
  People who are about to make the biggest investment of their lives have the right to know whether something has happened to the home and whether repairs must be carried out. It is just not good enough for hon. Members to consider introducing a law that would not give the vast majority of people such a right. As legislators, we should have every responsibility to protect our constituents.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I support the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, I gave evidence to the Waddilove committee. Most hon. Members have had constituency cases in which subsidence has occurred. People have spent money on repairs that have turned out to be only superficial, and a subsequent purchaser then finds that not only does he have subsidence but no money to repair it. It is essential to have some provision to ensure an entry on the deeds or a record in the Lands Tribunal, so that people will know whether damage has been incurred.
  Mr. Meale: Virtually all hon. Members have experienced exactly the same thing. I should like not something extravagant or unusual but something that will enable people to be informed about the largest investment

  87
  in their lives. I refer to information about past claims and any remedial works to the property that they seek to purchase.
  Such a register should be kept by the local authority, not by British Coal. The Bill should impose a time limit not upon home owners but upon British Coal to compile such a register and to maintain it. That is a basic right.
  The Minister will be aware that clause 3 makes a convuluted reference to the time limit for awarding damages, which is six years. Even an examination of the six subsections of clause 3 leaves many matters in doubt and open to misunderstanding—for example, whether it is reasonable to expect claimants to seek expert advice on facts which they have not observed themselves. In line with the COALS organisation, I contend that no time limit for restriction should apply.
  If the Minister doubts that we can afford such an approach, he should examine the finances already set aside for compensation for subsidence which have accumulated by way of an additional cost added to every tonne of coal produced from British coalfields since the 1950s. According to the latest estimates, even taking into account the moneys used for repair, the sum is well in excess of £300 million. If the Government and British Coal can shut pits by this method of coal economics, surely they can set money aside and consider legislation to introduce a system of proper repair for home owners in the coalfields areas.
  There are many things yet to be said on the proposals in the Bill. I sincerly trust and hope that in Committee we do not simply have a snow job but see a real attempt to sort out the terrible injustices which people in the coalfields have faced in their homes.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: There is a great wealth of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Bill. We all welcome it. Looking around the Chamber I see many faces that were here in 1983 when I came into the House. All those hon. Members have fought hard for the implementation of the Waddilove report and have been involved in various subsidence claims and the difficulties which arose from them.
  Subsidence damage is one of the greatest injustices that we have suffered, especially in the midlands, the north and Scotland. For years on end, the National Coal Board, as it then was, mined under houses and caused subsidence. Communities and small villages suffered as a result.
  Not many people realise that in mining areas there is a high proportion of owner occupation. In villages people's whose greatest investment was their home found that their very occupation, or that of their brothers or close relatives, was causing damage to their major asset. Those people were in a terrible dilemma. The major employer in the area was the Coal Board. Time and time again I have heard people say, "We cannot fight the Coal Board", or, "We do not want to fight the Coal Board." They said that it was not right because, after all, their husband or brother was employed by the Coal Board. So people suffered in silence.
  We must remember a parallel factor. One of the greatest industries in Britain was the coal industry. It was all-powerful.
  Mr. Barron: Yes.
  Mr. Ashby: I do not mean it in the sense that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) thinks. The Coal Board was a powerful body in midlands areas. It was the largest employer. It pervaded everything. It was a source of income and the National Union of Mineworkers was one of the great unions. Between them, the Coal Board and the NUM seemed to control the very lives of the people.
  The Coal Board had a gung-ho approach to its mining activities and the subsidence which was subsequently caused. So often it approached subsidence damage in a relaxed and easy manner, caring little for the victims. This Bill changes that. It gives people rights whereas before compensation was voluntary.
  The process which led to the Bill began some time ago. The matters which I have mentioned were only too obvious in 1983 when I first represented Leicestershire, North-West. In 1984 we had the Waddilove report and in 1987 the Government's response. The approach to subsidence of the National Coal Board, later British Coal, almost visibly changed. There was a softening of approach. The board thought more about the victims and tried to help more. Much of what Waddilove recommended has been implemented voluntarily by British Coal over the years. Of course, that is not enough.
  People have rights to compensation. We must consider what happened. People bought their houses and lived happily until suddently they found that someone had mined underneath, causing a nuisance. Their only resort was to voluntary help from British Coal in providing remedies. That was not good enough. People must have a right to compensation. When people buy property they have rights. They have the right not to have a nuisance on their property, or a tort—to mention the legal aspect. The Bill protects those rights.
  We can argue about many of the details of the Bill in Committee and I suspect that both Conservative and Opposition Members will give details of cases and we shall have a great deal of discussion. But it will be to one end because we are together in seeking to rectify a great injustice which stretches back over the ages.
  I am grateful that the Bill has been introduced because I and other hon. Members have approached successive Secretaries of State and begged them to make the Waddilove recommendations into a Bill. We were often told that there was not time or that the legislation could be combined with a Bill to privatise British Coal. I look forward to the day when British Coal is privatised, but it is no good seeking privatisation unless the foundation for it is in place. British Coal must know the rules and the laws within which it will have to work. It is absolutely essential that it should know exactly what its responsibilities will be in respect of subsidence.
  It would be wrong for any legislation on subsidence to be incorporated in any other Bill on British Coal. The subsidence legislation stands on its own, as I have argued for years. I was delighted that, within a week of coming to office, the present Secretary of State for Energy told me that he agreed that there should be a separate Bill to deal with subsidence. I am delighted that we have that Bill.
  I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who spoke about the need for the Bill and the balance between the Bill and jobs in British Coal. I do not seek that balance. People have rights. It is not a question of balance. It is not a question of jobs. It is

  89
  a question of rights and British Coal's duty to work to those rights. I do not seek any compromise or balance in respect of those rights. That would be wrong.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Perhaps I did not quite understand my hon. Friend. British Coal has to decide where to mine, and if the only place left to mine is under a town it will not mine there if the cost is too great and will close the colliery. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) remembers that happening to a colliery in his constituency.
  Mr. Ashby: I am grateful for that clarification. In that case the situation remains as I said. British Coal will mine, subject to the law, knowing full well what the results of mining will be, and that is as it should be.
  Mr. Meale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) raised. In the instance he mentioned, when a colliery was closed it was suggested that its closure had been influenced by my attitude to coal mining subsidence in my constituency. Subsequently, that was proved to be totally false because none of the 35 claims which I have made on behalf of people in the area of that mine has been settled by British Coal. The hon. Member for Sherwood knows that perfectly well. Sometimes that method is used by British Coal to try to blackmail certain Members of Parliament so that they will not raise these issues on behalf of their constituents.
  Mr. Ashby: Subsidence is one of the ongoing costs that British Coal has to meet. When it decides whether it can mine a certain area it has to take into account the fact that claims will be made against it and will estimate the amount and decide whether it is profitable to mine that area at that time. In 50 or 100 years time, when the price of coal has gone up, it might be profitable to do so. British Coal must mine profitably and that is decided by the time and ease of getting coal out of the ground and the ongoing costs of subsidence.
  As so many hon. Members wish to speak I shall not go into the details of the Bill. We shall have time to consider them in Committee. However I must mention one or two aspects of the Bill. When it is known that an area is to be mined a notice will be sent to every household, and I am pleased, as that is essential. However, I think that that notice should include advice to the householder to have an independent survey carried out with costs borne by British Coal. So many of the wrangles that take place over the degree of damage to a property are due to the fact that no one knows what state the property was in before mining started, and a survey would resolve many disputes. If British Coal began to mine in my area and there was a high probability that my property would be damaged, I should be entitled to a free survey, paid for by British Coal.
  The Bill provides that British Coal pays for the cost of the survey only if a claim is successful. However, everyone in an area where coal is to be mined should be entitled to a free survey, paid for by British Coal, as that would be cheaper in the long run and would resolve many disputes.
  Another important aspect of the Bill is the six-year limit and the burden of proof, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will consider that carefully because it is perfect as it is and should not be changed. I believe in justice and I believe that any change would result in injustice. The Bill follows common law, which is based upon years of experience that we cannot throw away. The
  90
  six-year period will come into operation only once damage becomes apparent or should reasonably have become apparent, which is virtually the same. I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will not consider the six-year period on its own because the Bill also reverses the burden of proof, placing it upon British Coal. In that respect the Bill does not follow the common law, which places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Therefore, if one's property is damaged, one will put in a notice and British Coal will have to prove that damage has not occurred because of its mining. That is the most just way to deal with subsidence and will work extremely well.
  Mr. Barron: Surely, if the six-year rule is changed or abolished, it does not mean that the burden of proof need change.
  Mr. Ashby: If one has justice, it must be justice for all. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is too summary. British Coal is entitled to some justice, as well as claimants against it—justice must have its scales evenly balanced.
  Six years is a reasonable time, especially when the burden of proof is taken into account. As a result, cases in which there was mining 20 or 40 years ago, or even at t he beginning of the century, and maps have been lost, would be on a different footing. The very fact that mining had taken place in an area coupled with the burden of proof would mean that British Coal would have to prove that subsidence had not occurred as a result of mining activities. That is a heavy burden for British Coal because it will have great difficulty in disproving it. I believe that that aspect of the Bill will help in all those difficult cases that hon. Members have experienced. That is the crux of the Bill.
  Mr. Meale: When the hon. Gentleman talks about fairness and justice—which are quite different—he implies that anyone can get justice because of the time limit. That is nonsense. Even with the proposals contained in the Bill, people can get justice only if they have enough money to pursue British Coal in the courts and they cannot do that when a time limit is imposed.
  Mr. Ashby: That is an unfair comment for a number of reasons. First, the Bill provides for an informed form of tribunal. Secondly, if we get together in Committee and table an amendment which grants the right of a free survey of property in mining areas it will make a big difference. Perhaps it is because I am a lawyer that I realise that the shift in the burden of proof is an overwhelming change. The fact that the burden of proof is now placed upon the mining company protects the poorest people in a way that they have never been protected before. That protection is not absolute but it cannot be lightly set aside.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked one matter and, bearing in mind his work, representing people in court, I am surprised by that. The Minister made it clear at the beginning of the debate that British Coal would decide whether anyone had a claim. After that, people would have to go to the Secretary of State. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that aspect and how will that affect winning?
  Mr. Ashby: Any action taken by the board will be subject to the law contained in the Bill, so the burden of proof will have to be shown. The board must direct itself

  91
  —and in doing so, it must ask itself whether it is unlikely, less likely, or improbable that the damage was caused by subsidence.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Mr. Ashby: I have already given way on a number of occasions, and it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to expect me to do so again. I had intended to speak only briefly, and I seem to have spoken for much longer than I planned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can make his point in his own speech.
  Other disputes have arisen out of the quality of work done in the past, which aspect the Bill also addresses. Often, British Coal employed shoddy workers to correct the effects of subsidence. In future, owners will be able to make their own choice, which should right what they view as an injustice. Presumably, owners will obtain three estimates from contractors of their own choice to satisfy British Coal.
  As to the provision of alternative housing, the Bill aims at rehousing those affected in comparable accommodation. There will be no question of expecting them to live in a caravan at the bottom of the garden, because they will be entitled to housing of a like quality—in the same way as they will be entitled to a standard of workmanship that will restore their property to its previous condition, or as near to it as possible.
  Owners will also be entitled to compensation for loss of value if, for example, the property develops a permanent tilt. The Bill will, and can, provide for such eventualities.
  There is still some work to do on the Bill, but it is an admirable and long-sought-after measure, and is excellent in the changes that it makes in respect of the burden of proof and the qualifying time limit. I know that it will be much welcomed in my constituency.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I and my party welcome the Bill, and so will many of my constituents, but we need to know how it will affect certain categories of owners, and we want to be clear that they will have access to tribunal procedures of a kind not guaranteed under British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements. We want to be certain also that the advantage provided by the shift in the burden of proof to which the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) referred will be enjoyed by claimants. As yet, that is far from clear.
  The recently introduced and, as yet, untried arbitration procedure does not meet desirable standards, not least because of restrictions on access. It also requires payment of a fairly hefty registration fee, before a claim can be pursued. The Minister must make it clear whether the Bill's enabling procedures under which he can approve a scheme will be used—and used quickly—to establish one to which all can have access without incurring unreasonable cost and a veto being placed on their access by British Coal.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have received a number of representations that focus on the use of the word "may" in the Bill. They will know from their dealings with legislation over the years that that is the normal formula. It would be the same if the Minister decided, here and now, to introduce the procedures from the day that the Act
  92
  came into force. However, the same formula can be used by Ministers to delay enacting new provisions. The House needs an indication of the Government's intention in that regard.
  I want to cite two cases from my constituency that illustrate the problems that can arise. They both concern properties in Swarland, near Alnwick, and illustrate how easily British Coal can get things wrong—and how unwilling it is to accept liability when it does. In both cases, the owners are pensioners—people who have reached an age at which they do not want to be worried by the prospect of substantial repairs to their property and having to encounter complicated compensation procedures.
  In the first case, the pensioner concerned, having decided to purchase a property in Swarland, paid for a National Coal Board survey to determine whether any mining had been undertaken nearby. The survey clearly states: "No recorded past mining." In fact, that was nonsense—as anyone who knew the area could testify. There had been extensive mining in the area in question, from Whittle colliery.
  Subsequent correspondence made it clear that the mining report was wrong. A letter I received from British Coal states:
  "British Coal did indeed issue a mining report on this property on 8 January 1987 stating that there was no recorded past mining. I have discussed this report with the Corporation's Group Surveyor, who issues mining reports, and it would appear that the mining report was in error. There have been coal workings to the north of the property … and to the south of the property … The property in fact sits in a pillar of coal between these two workings. The Group Surveyor informs me that all settlement from these workings would have ceased by late 1985."
  That letter goes on to deny any liability on British Coal's part for damage to the property concerned. The furthest that it went by way of making amends for that error was that the writer of the letter stated:
  "I can only apologise on behalf of British Coal for the error in the mining report, and, with hindsight, an apology in my letter of 17 November 1990 would have been courteous."
  That was the full extent of British Coal's apology for having misled a house purchaser by claiming that there had been no mining in the vicinity of the property in question. I have referred that case to the chairman of British Coal, and I hope that it can be pursued under the new arbitration procedures. However, it has yet to be made clear whether they will be adequate to deal with such cases.
  I found myself dealing simultaneously with another case, involving a property in the same road—Park road, Swarland—which had subsided 14 inches as a result of mining activity. The house owner was rather late in pursuing her case, because at the time that the damage became known her husband was dying. It is understandable that, while she had to endure that miserable and traumatic experience, she could not give her attention to the subsidence affecting her property.
  British Coal again denied liability for the damage, and sent that lady a plan in order to prove that her property could not be affected by subsidence. It showed, or purported to show, that her house stood on the pillar of coal between two mined areas. Not even that is conclusive proof of invulnerability, because there is extensive evidence of damage spreading at surface level on either side of mining activity, which takes the form of an angle of settlement that affects a significant adjacent area. In any

  93
  event, the plan submitted by British Coal turned out to be the plan of my other constituent's house—the house involved in the first case that I have described. British Coal had picked up the wrong plan, and sent it to one of my constituents to justify denying all liability. I should like to see that case proceed through the arbitration system.
  When the Minister winds up the debate, I should like him to state how soon the arbitration procedure will be set up and whether it will be able to deal with cases of damage that occurred, or were noticed, in 1985. I should like him to say whether the arbitration procedure will be able to consider the sort of incompetence that I have just outlined.
  Obviously, there are other matters that will be considered as the Bill proceeds. At some stage, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about what will happen if there is any substantial privatisation of British Coal. I assume that all private mining activity taking place under licence from British Coal will be dealt with, under the Bill, in exactly the same way as British Coal's own mining. The district about which I am talking is now being mined under licence from British Coal, as a licensed private mine. Should any further subsidence occur, I assume that it will be treated in the same way.
  The issue has caused great agitation and vexation for a long time, and it will continue to do so if the Bill's declared and publicised advantages are not properly available to those most affected and aggrieved. I have given the Minister two examples. It would be very bad if people who have suffered as my constituents have do not benefit from the Bill. They are the sort of people whose pressure, agitation and legitimate concern have formed the basis of the Bill.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Robert Hayward: Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall refer specifically to constituency cases that highlight the problems that we who represent constituencies with a history of coal mining regularly face. It is not generally remembered that Members of Parliament like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I represent former mining constituencies. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment also represents a district that has been partly mined. At various times, 95 per cent. of my constituency has been mined, and problems associated with coal mining subsidence are common.
  The two cases that I wish to raise, and by which I believe the Bill will be judged by myself and hon. Members with constituencies close to the eastern Avon district, are fairly typical. They stem from the fact that, unlike the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who have already spoken, they occurred in districts where coal mining ceased 20 or 30 years ago. In many of the cases, the mining records are not readily available. The first problem facing any constituent is the long-drawn-out process of trying to establish whether the subsidence or cracking has anything to do with a coal mine. The arguments go round and round, and backwards and forwards, between the local council, the water board and British Coal.
  The number of cases of subsidence that I, as a Member of Parliament, face has increased in the past year or so. I do not believe that is because people are becoming more money-oriented. People I meet in the street, who understand the problem much better than I do, say that the substantially dry summers in recent years have altered
  94
  the balance of the land. In addition, in my constituency —this may be true in the constituencies of many other hon. Members—there has been substantial infilling and development. The infilling causes problems that are supposed to be related to watercourses. When infilling takes place over former mine shafts, it alters the watercourses and the flow of the water table, so it impacts on other constituents' properties.
  I have constituents in Woodyleaze drive, Hanham, who, at the height of last summer, had lawns like bogs, on which Professor Bellamy would have been pleased to walk. In what was supposed to be the driest year for many a decade, we could stand on the lawn and sway from side to side. We took buckets full of water out of the trenches, which filled up immediately. After many months of study of that case, the latest information is that water is coming from two different sources, one of which is—it was disclosed last week—former coal mines. That information has been made available after a long period of research by all the experts in the district.
  The constituents have to deal with a Coal Board office that was previously in south Wales, but is now in Derbyshire. The office was moved to Derbyshire because of the decline in coal mining in south Wales. I think that the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may face the same problem. It adds to the complications and drawn-out process that constituents face.
  At present, the residents of one of the houses, Mr. and Mrs. Hann, are pursuing their case with great determination, but as yet none of the neighbours has filed a claim. However, it is likely that, when the Hanns' case is resolved, other neighbours may have cause to file claims. I should like the Minister to clarify whether that period will form part of the six years. Do the six years start from the time at which the Hanns started pursuing their case or when damage began to be apparent in the neighbours' houses, as it is likely to be? With respect to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), I accept that the burden of proof has changed, but it is important to make clear at what point the six years will start.
  The second case is located at the opposite end of my constituency, where residents of Stanley Park road have just started to face problems associated with subsidence. At present, the resident in 9 Stanley Park road believes that the subsidence is being caused by mining. The mine shafts appear to be on a vacant property where Nos. 3 and 5 would be. But there is substantial argument about whether a ventilation shaft, mine shaft or some other form of previous working is causing the subsidence. The resident at No. 7 has not yet identified any damage to his property that has been caused by the subsidence.
  If the resident at No. 7 were to suffer subsidence later, would the six-year period start from the date at which the resident at No. 9 identified the subsidence? It is believed that the property at No. 7 is moving slightly and causing difficulties with other properties. Or does the six-year period start from the date at which any damage becomes obvious at No.7? That is a particularly important aspect, because the cases may involve pensioners who may not be specifically interested in the problem to begin with, due to other family reasons or their own nature, and do not wish to register the problem at that stage.
  Would a developer of the site of Nos. 5 and 3 Stanley Park road, currently pursing an argument with British

  95
  Coal about whether there is subsidence caused by previous mine workings, have the right to claim compensation because of the extra work that he will have to do on a property which was not previously identified as standing on mine workings? As a result of the expert efforts of Mr. Cornwell and some of his colleagues, it has been established that workings had probably been there before; however, when the developer bought the site on which he wished to build flats, it was not evident from any map available to the Coal Board that such workings were present.
  Wherever coal workings have previously arisen, our constituents will face difficulties. I think that, in principle, the Bill is going in the right direction, but before I can support it my constituents and I would like certain points to be clarified.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) drew attention to the balance that has had to be struck between the needs of a mining community that faces various problems and the needs of an industry that generates jobs. I understood the point that he was making and the dilemmas that he described; they allow me, briefly at least, to present the Bill in the context of the south Wales mining industry.
  It is a gloomy, nostalgic reflection that this could be one of the last debates on a Bill about coal mining in which any Welsh Member can claim that he represents a coal-producing community. Astonishingly, the House now contains only four Welsh Members who fall into that category. At one time, the industry provided more than 200,000 jobs in the south Wales coal field, and produced more than 200,000 tonnes of coal; now we are down to 2,000 jobs and about 2,000 tonnes of deep-mined coal. Since 1985, the number of jobs has fallen from 27,000 to 2,000.
  Along with that has come a sea change in attitudes to jobs and industry. The Bill reminds us of the high price that has had to be paid for the vital requirements of the coal industry—the health of the mining communities, for instance. In my community, pits have closed and jobs have disappeared, but there is still a generation of pneumoconiotic miners. Safety has also helped to pay the price: I need say no more than that I represent the pit village of Aberfan. The environment, too, has suffered: generations of communities have put up with tip waste, noise, nuisance, dust and, indeed, subsidence to preserve jobs and allow them to be created so that the industry can survive.
  At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) described, quite effectively, the attitudes of the mining communities to British Coal. He said that they were relaxed, but I think that that is the wrong word: they were, rather, ambivalent about the dilemmas involved in relation to jobs and the development of industry, as against the impact that such development would have on them. There was a reason for that. For generations, communities such as the one that I am proud to represent put up with so much because they had what the Government may see as a rather cockeyed view of economics: they actually believed that the physical
  96
  economy was important. They felt that making things—producing things; extracting valuable physical assets—constituted a worthwhile, important contribution to the nation's wealth. Those attitudes are changing; they have, in any event, been changed by the closure of pits and the destruction of jobs.
  A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Edwardsville, Treharris, in my local community. The meeting was packed to overflowing: householders were standing out in the street. That meeting was about the serious subsidence problem in the area. After the meeting, some of us wondered how, in the 1990s, British Coal would ever obtain permission to sink a deep mine of any kind or conduct any form of extraction in such a village—or, indeed, any other village. That pit was sunk more than 100 years ago. Does any hon. Member on either side of the House believe that any such proposal would not provoke a massive residential reaction?
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West spoke about the shifting burden of proof and the rights in the Bill. One right remains unchallengeable, because British Coal now and in the future will have an absolute and total right to undermine pit communities, villages and homes, and that right will probably have to remain. It will be amazing if in the 1990s British Coal receives permission for works that will lead to the continuation of the undermining of communities and neighbourhoods.
  It is important to recall the nature and character of the industry which in my community is down to one pit. I spoke about the community of Edwardsville, Treharris, where subsidence has affected not only homes but the swimming pool and the local school. That is just a mile and half from our valley. One can imagine the feelings and worries of residents in that area. The problems will now be lessened because British Coal has suddenly decided to close the deep navigation pit in Treharris. However, after the pit is closed the problems will remain.
  As many hon. Members have said, subsidence does not go away when British Coal goes away and the pit closes. The communities that I have described and to which I belong are not yuppie communities. Basically, they consist of two generations of home owners. Many members of the older generation worked in the industry or have strong connections with it. Those people are proud of their homes and have transformed them through repair and improvement grants. Those terraced houses in which they live have been transformed into valuable and precious homes.
  The younger generation live in properties which form the first rung on the ladder of home ownership. By south-east standards their mortgages are small, but they are significant in relation to the small incomes and they are often linked to improvement loans. We must judge the value of the Bill in the light of the worries expressed at the meeting that I have mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West seemed to find the Bill dramatic, as if it were some fantastic shift in power from British Coal to the individual. I do not think that the balance has shifted in that way. If in the past it has been a David and Goliath battle, I take comfort from the fact that David always won. However, in many respects the battle is unequal. Up to a point I welcome the six-year rule as defined by the Minister. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron),

  97
  I wonder why we have to have a six-year limit anyway if the idea is that at any time damage emerges a home owner will be able to make a claim.
  The Bill does not address what happens when subsidence occurs. Some hon. Members have spoken about the problem of blight. I quarrel in one respect with the otherwise excellent report by the Select Committee on Energy and therefore quarrel with the Bill in one fundamental respect. The Select Committee backed the Waddilove committee view about blight by saying that mining was no different from any other form of development. There is a case for arguing that subsidence is different in character from the problems arising from other developments in that it raises particular difficulties about borrowing money to buy and about selling homes. Those problems arise as soon as word gets around and the matter becomes public. It is not simply about loss of view or noise which can occur with other forms of development. The problem is insidious and unnerving. It undermines—sorry about the pun—confidence in one's property. There is a very strong case for including in the Bill some additional provision to take care of blight.
  I hope that in Committee the Minister will take a positive view. Indeed, he may be forced to do so, as there are the makings—one sees the danger signs—of cross-party agreement on some aspects of the changes. Certainly, there is a need to examine the whole question of how claims will be dealt with when disputes arise. In saying so, I am referring not only to clause 41. I interrupted the Minister when he failed to describe clause 4. Let me tell hon. Members why. It appears that when British Coal responds to the initial notice of damage it will not have to seek agreement on the nature of works that have to be carried out. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me —or perhaps the matter can be dealt with in Committee. When there is a dispute, even the schedules of remedial action will have to go to the Lands Tribunal.
  It is 25 years since I was first elected to the House. During my first Parliament we passed the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That, too, was a matter of great concern. Disputes under that legislation had to go to the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal is no informal, gentle, inexpensive institution. We ought to look at the character and nature of the disputes that arise; otherwise the change in the balance to which the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West referred will not amount to a right that can easily be exercised by the individual home owner.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a very forceful point about the destruction of records. Surely, given the disputes that have arisen—case after case has been mentioned in the House—an obligation should forthwith be placed on British Coal not to destroy plans or records. British Coal ought to be obliged to deposit such plans and records, not only because of their historical interest and archival value to the coal industry, but because of their practical value in the resolution of any disputes or claims that might arise in cases of subsidence. It is essential that Ministers come to the Standing Committee in the most, positive possible frame of mind. In the case of the Broadcasting Act 1990, chunks of the legislation were written in Committee. I hope that Ministers will approach this Bill in the same way. Their approach must not be dampened or otherwise controlled by the hidden hand of British Coal. British Coal must not have any hidden veto.
  98
  As I said earlier, it is very sad that, in some ways, the responsibilities of British Coal, in respect of subsidence in my area, will become historic rather than current arid future. In that context, I want to convey a final message to that very powerful organisation. For generations, our communities have suffered from subsidence and large-scale tip waste. Now, through reclamation—and, it appears, pit closures—subsidence will become a historic problem. I hope that we shall not simply swap the historic problem of subsidence for a new form of desecration by British Coal. I hope that British Coal, having destroyed our jobs, will not return to gouge out our hillsides by way of open-casting. I may have to spend the rest of this Parliament trying to make this a better Bill; I hope that I shall not have to spend the next Parliament dealing with an "Open Cast Amelioration Bill". Economic forces beyond the control of my community have destroyed jobs and will eventually make subsidence a historic problem there. I hope that, at last, we can look forward to a green and pleasant society such as others seem to enjoy.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has a number of friends in my constituency. He spoke eloquently of the changes that have been taking place in his historic constituency, changes that have affected my constituency over a longer period, so that he is coming to terms with the circumstances with which we were forced to come to terms a little earlier. I wish only that I could add to those matters that we have in common the size of his majority, which I believe is 28,000 which exceeds that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are working on it in my constituency and I hope eventually to share such a majority.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of interesting points. He was right to draw attention to the difficulties of the extractive industries in the United Kingdom, particularly the coal industry, which will soon face many problems in winning coal. The effects of mining activity are felt long after it has taken place. The compensation that the Bill will provide is one of those costs. Some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out that it is no different from any other industry in this respect. For example, in the nuclear industry, decommissioning is a major financial burden. We have to accept that the cost of subsidence is like any other cost such as that for machinery, wages or interest on borrowing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made that point.
  The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will have to come to terms with this cost. While we welcome the Bill, I feel that we should flag it with the cautionary remark that if the Bill imposes even greater burdens on the coal industry, which will push up the price of coal, we must accept that consequence of the Bill, which I expect will be enacted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West also made the valid point that, in the past, mining subsidence was accepted because the people whose houses were affected invariably were employed in the coal industry or members of their family were employed in the industry. To a certain extent, it was a case of grin and bear

  99
  it, even where that was because people felt intimidated and thought that the employer might take it out on them if they sought remedies for the injustice.
  However, the situation is different today. The people with whom we are in touch in our constituencies and who are affected by mining subsidence are no longer connected with the coal industry. They are not employed in it and if any members of their family have any connections, it is usually the elderly relatives who used to be employed in it. That factor highlights the problem.
  While nearly all hon. Members present in the Chamber have direct experience of these problems, many others do not. I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) say that his constituency had a coal mining problem. I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were also not aware of that, even though you represent a nearby constituency. Many hon. Members do not understand what we are talking about.
  Mr. Jim Lester: One of the points about opening the channel tunnel and developing the railway to it something that will benefit our constituents in the midlands and the north—is that it has provoked in the south-east a great deal of understanding about environmental damage.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I wish only that some of our hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent were able to make that connection. They are not able to do so when they object to things taking place in the lovely lush green pastures of their constituencies, although they think that it is fine for the grotty old midlands to put up with yet more despoliation so that they can enjoy those green fields. It is time that they considered what their fair share of the burden is.
  It is hard for some people to appreciate the distress that mining subsidence causes. Not only does it devalue property—which, for most of us, constitutes the largest investment of our lifetime—but attempts to seek a remedy and justice are accompanied by incessant wrangling. There is even danger to life. I have experienced all these problems, and I have referred to them in the House on previous occasions. That being so, I shall not go into great detail this evening. I shall merely mention that properties in Church hill and Hednesford in my constituency have been racked by the problem for many years. Some hon. Members may remember the church that had to be pulled down. British Coal paid nearly £250,000 for the building of a new church. The bottom fell out of a working men's club, and British Coal paid for that to be replaced. Home owners, however, were told that there was no evidence of coal mining activity and that therefore the responsibility was not that of British Coal. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that British Coal, following my representations, has relented and now agrees to accept some degree of liability, although that has not yet been quantified.
  I hope that British Coal, in its apparent act of magnanimity and generosity in accepting liability, will not struggle and prevaricate. I hope that it will be decent and honourable. The Bill's provisions will not apply to my constituents because their claims are now being dealt with. I hope also that a pre-emptive strike was not made by
  100
  British Coal to sort out the problem under the old arrangements before the new arrangements come into effect.
  I welcome the Bill. As the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Minister with responsibilities for the coal industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), I pay my tribute to him for the part which he played during the time that I was his PPS at the Department of Energy to bring the Bill into the legislative programme. As some of my hon. Friends know, we PPSs are the important guys in these matters. I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was extremely interested in the matters that are taken up in the Bill and conscious of the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and by various constituents, who tried to bring matters to a successful conclusion. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought the Bill before the House.
  I am sure that the determination that has been shown by the Government over the past three or four years has cajoled British Coal into accepting some of the Waddilove recommendations, such as prior notification and the new arbitration scheme, which started life in the past month. If the Government had not said that it was their firm intention to bring the Bill before the House, I do not believe that British Coal would have taken any action. It was the threat, as it were, of legislative action that prompted it to take action.
  It is fair to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not mention that many of my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, have been battling hard. It is a cross-party matter that affects all our constituents whichever way they vote.
  The benefits of the Bill will be considerable and many of them have been alluded to already. There are five, however, that I wish to single out. First, unlike the 1975 legislation, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, this proposed legislation will impose the burden of proof upon British Coal to show that the damage done was not caused by mining subsidence. I am told by geologists in the United Kingdom that there is no such thing as natural movement in the earth's crust. We do not have a San Andreas fault in the United Kingdom. It is legitimate to presuppose that if subsidence has taken place, it is on account of extraction taking place under ground. We are not being unfair to British Coal in imposing the burden of proof upon it.
  Secondly, it is extremely good news that repairs will be made to claimants' reasonable satisfaction. Thirdly, the right of claimants to have repairs carried out by their own contractors will be warmly welcomed by constituents who are affected by subsidence. Fourthly, the right to recover expenses will be welcomed. Fifthly—this point has not been made—clause 9(3) provides for local authorities to receive full reimbursement for the work that they carry out for example, to the public highway. That will be of much interest to Cannock Chase district council, because its £30,000 bill for reinstating the road at Church hill is the subject of prevarication by British Coal, which wants to foot only 50 per cent. of the cost. I hope that it will show goodwill in anticipation of the enactment of the Bill.

  101
  Detailed points will be addressed in Committee. Hon. Members have referred to some of them, but I shall make two specific points. Clause 4 provides for British Coal to respond to a damage notice.
  "as soon as reasonably practicable".
  All hon. Members agree that the delays in claims for mining subsidence compensation are a major problem. British Coal should be required to respond to a damage notice within a specific time. I hope that that will be dealt with in Committee.
  Dr. Woodcock: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the Bill imposes specific time limits, not on British Coal but on claimants? As my hon. Friend said, the phrase "within a reasonable time" is mentioned several times, but a claimant has only 28 days in which to respond to a schedule served by British Coal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not seem to be reasonable?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point which will have to be considered in Committee. I hope that I can be allowed a wry smile about the concept of reasonableness. I introduced a Bill to change the law on obscenity, which introduced the concept of reasonableness. I was told that it could not pass into law because the test of reasonableness was not precise enough. I am interested to see that the Bill is littered with references to reasonableness. I have always found that a difficult concept to apply to British Coal.
  Hon. Members mentioned information on previous subsidence claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider that point, because prospective purchasers of a property should be aware of its subsidence history. Such a proposal could be bad news for owners of such property who have their houses properly and completely restored, only to find that people do not want to buy them simply because of that subsidence history.
  Arbitration has been mentioned. I note that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to allow British Coal's voluntary arrangements to operate. The whole House will agree that the jury is out on those arrangements. We shall want to see substantial progress and that the voluntary system is working, otherwise we shall want other measures.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who unfortunately cannot be present because he is chairing a committee, is concerned about coal mining subsidence and the obligation to repurchase. I have told British Coal that it would save itself hassle if it agreed to repurchase property, do it up and sell it to a prospective purchaser, without any liability attaching thereto and in the full knowledge that the property has been subject to subsidence damage but has been repaired. It occasionally repurchases properties, and I am aware of one instance where it did so. However, that is very much the exception rather than the rule. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may like to consider whether the arbitrators can suggest obligatory repurchase.
  The Bill is an excellent start to remedy an injustice which affects many constituencies. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing such a welcome measure. The history of the issue is testimony to the stubborn foot-dragging of the nationalised British Coal over many years. Bit by bit, no doubt encouraged by the prospect of the Bill, British Coal has had wrung out of it a series of voluntary improvements. Some of the remedies will be
  102
  enshrined in law by the Bill, but in many respects, particularly on the issue of arbitration, our constituents will remain at the mercy of British Coal's good faith. Speed and fairness are of the essence. Our constituents must be left in no doubt that, if British Coal fails to display that good will, a statutory scheme will be enacted.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Like many hon. Members over the years, I have spoken about the problems of people suffering from mining subsidence. I welcome the Bill and, as a member of the Energy Select Committee, the fact that it arises out of that Committee's report. The Bill is long overdue. I do not intend to cover ground which has been covered already, but I believe that there are some points that should be considered in Committee. If ever there were a Bill that is a Committee Bill, it is this one.
  It is right that I should declare an interest—my home is getting a hammering because of mining subsidence. I am worried about the historic costs. Following the Select Committee's recommendations, the Bill states that charges should be levied at individual pits. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), there is one pit left in my constituency—in 1985, there were eight. Which pit will bear the costs of the seven that have closed? If we stick rigidly to the Bill's provisions, where will the money come from to pay for subsidence damage caused by the closed pits?
  It could be argued in a tight mining community such as mine, with eight pits, that some of the subsidence was caused by the one pit still operating. The costs imposed on that pit might be so excessive that it could become unprofitable, and we would lose the pit. There must be strict records and strict administration to find out whether all the subsidence results from the one pit that now operates.
  Blight is a major problem and the cost of full compensation for it would be colossal. It is no good running away from that fact, but that does not make matters any easier for those living in the areas. I am sure that many other hon. Members who represent mining areas will know of estates where some houses have subsidence problems and others display no visible signs of damage. The moment subsidence is identified, however, the value of all the properties goes downhill; in some cases, they become unmarketable. Redundant miners often have to move to another part of the country to get a job and even if their property has not been damaged it can be an impossible task to sell it. British Coal is sympathetic and sometimes tries to help in some cases, but not always.
  We must also consider the problem of tilt. In one avenue in my constituency, British Coal has purchased three or four houses suffering from subsidence damage but has decided not to buy a couple of properties that have been left with tilt. British Coal has put the properties that it has purchased on the market, with advertisements in the local press and in the local estate agents' offices saying that it is offering the houses for £10,0000, £12,000 or £13,000 because they have been damaged by subsidence.
  Two unfortunate constituents of mine who live in one of the other houses, which is suffering from shocking tilt, were initially offered £2,500—later upped to £3,500—in compensation. In other words, although British Coal admits that the value of the houses that it has purchased

  103
  is only £10,000 to £12,000, it is offering my constituents only about £3,000 in respect of properties that would have fetched £40,000 had they not been damaged. I hope that the Bill will protect those people.
  Clause 11 says:
  "the Corporation shall make in respect of the dwelling-house a payment equal to the amount of the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage."
  I have no general complaints about the administration of the subsidence department in my area. The people who work there do their level best to meet their obligations. Nevertheless, the examples that I have given show that great problems remain for the victims of mining subsidence.
  I welcome the establishment of advice centres. When, on a number of occasions, I visited Nottingham with members of the Select Committee on Energy, I found out that there is a real need for advice. I should like the advice centres to be staffed by professional advisers. Many people in Nottingham received no advice, or advice from agents who were far from honest; I understand that some of the agents have faced criminal charges. Professional advisers would not have been able to act in that way. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that question in Committee.
  Let me make a proposal which I believe would go some way towards solving the problems of blight and of excessive damage to some properties. It has always amazed me that British Coal—and, before it, the National Coal Board—could not get down to the problem at the planning stage and say to local authorities, "There may well be subsidence damage in this area."
  It should be part of planning consents that houses in some areas should have been built on rafts, at a cost of about £2,000. That would have saved British Coal a great deal of money in having to purchase property, demolish houses or repair them. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the local authority planning departments and British Coal could have worked together to provide new properties with rafts. That would have eliminated many of the problems that have arisen.
  Mr. Jim Lester: We invented the Clasp building system in Nottinghamshire to build schools, hospitals and public buildings on rafts that allow movement because our area suffers from subsidence. That system has been valuable in this country and also in areas that suffer from earthquakes.
  Mr. Lofthouse: There must be consultation with the planning authorities and I hope that British Coal will get round to that. I am sure that such consultation would be beneficial in those mining areas.
  We all recognise that the major problem is going to diminish because the number of pits mining coal is going to decline. If Mr. Baker, the chairman of National Power, carries out his threat to import 50 per cent. of the fuel to generate electricity for National Power, there will be another rapid rundown of the mining industry. If British Coal can take precautionary measures before building houses, that would be a step in the right direction.
  The Select Committee on Energy can be well pleased with the main aspects of the Bill because it contains much that the Select Committee recommended. Hon. Members have grumbled in the past, as I have, that we put a lot of work into Select Committees, but no one seems to take any
  104
  notice. However, we cannot say that on this occasion, because the work of the Select Committee on Energy is evident in the Bill.
  I hope that the Standing Committee will be able to improve the Bill. I hope that that will benefit the country, and especially Nottingham and Mansfield, where there is a major problem with subsidence. I know from my visits to Mansfield of the colossal amount of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has done on this problem over the past few years and he should be congratulated on that work. I hope that the Committee will be able to approve many amendments to improve the Bill, which is only a step in the right direction.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: May I first declare an indirect interest in the subject through my association with Alliance International which looks after British Coal affairs. However, my primary and overriding interest lies with my constituents. Although I no longer have any active pits in my constituency, I can assure hon. Members that the impact of subsidence continues and I am delighted that it seems that we are about to resolve the problem with the Bill.
  The Bill has been long in gestation, but now that we are debating it I am glad that it has been largely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the product of fairly objective discussions that have taken place over many years with many different groups. It has been backed across the party divide. The mild chastisement of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) was an understatement, because the hon. Gentleman gave a most ungenerous welcome to a Bill for which we have all waited for a long time.
  I am sure that British Coal does not agree with everything in the Bill. However, we should be fair and, to its credit, British Coal produced the householders arbitration scheme in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Notwithstanding the scheme that it produced, British Coal welcomes the Bill as a blueprint for a system that it and hon. Members will find will work in practice and not just be words on the statute book.
  One criticism might be that much is implied in the Bill that some would wish be made more explicit. No doubt hon. Members will probe that point in Committee.
  On an initial reading of the Bill and of the background papers, the Bill appears to represent a balanced approach between the interests of householders, service interests, and the legitimate interests of mining operators. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) dismissed a sense of balance in these matters. Although, naturally, all of us are much more concerned with the impact of subsidence on the individual householder—the little man facing big brother, British Coal—there must be a balance and justice on both sides.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: The hon. Gentleman talks about the imbalance between big brother, British Coal and the householder, but he ignores one major factor —the insurance companies. For many years, insurance companies have been taking a large amount of money in premiums off everyone who buys a house, yet they refuse to pay out for subsidence, or they insert a small clause that limits them to perhaps 10 per cent. of the cost. The Bill

  105
  does not refer to insurance companies having any responsibility. Surely the third factor should be involved. Insurance companies have made a great profit without paying anything out.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He was not present to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's intervention is out of context and away from the main point. I am perfectly happy for that matter to be discussed in Committee. Like many other hon. Members, I have come across that aspect.
  Another criticism might be the uncertainty in establishing the full extent of repairs that are needed and the extent to which British Coal would be expected to pay. That is not an unreasonable concern for any householder, but I do not believe that the Bill is anything more than a sensible recognition of British Coal's duty to take action —clause 2—prepare a schedule of work—clause 6—and, to put it simply, get on with it—clause 7—to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. The agreed schedule arising from the notice and its acceptance will cover only damage that it is reasonably practicable to repair.
  Nevertheless, the kinds of remedial action listed in clause 2(2) can in some instances be cumulative. It is surely implicit that British Coal could take one or more of the options listed in clause 2(2). For example, it is not uncommon for British Coal to repair damage other than, say, the residual tilt to a property, to which my hon. Friend the Minister and one or two other hon. Members referred, and then make a depreciation payment for the residual tilt that cannot be repaired. Therefore, the mining operator would meet its obligation under clause 2(2)(c).
  Clause 11(3) provides the claimant with protection where remedial works have been executed, but where there is clear depreciation in the value of the property and where the making good of the damage simply is not possible—hence a depreciation payment. I can imagine lawyers' eyes lighting up at that—it is bread and meat to them—but I cannot imagine any other way of resolving that problem. Like the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I have properties in my constituency that have been repaired but are clearly not 100 per cent. right—there is a tilt to them. Any buyer looking at such a house would consider that fact. There is no doubt that the value of such houses has diminished because they are on a slight tilt.
  Mr. Jim Lester: Just a slight tilt?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has an example of a 5 in tilt, which is a big tilt. I have not had cases of that much tilt, but take his point.
  There have been arguments and misunderstandings tonight about the six-year rule. Provided that it does not disqualify a claimant from claiming for subsequent damage following completion of an agreed schedule of work, the six-year rule seems fair. It is tied not to the date on which the damage occurred but to the first date on which the person entitled to claim became aware of the damage. That concept has already been established in housing legislation. I am not sure which housing Bill made it clear, but claims do not have to go back to when the person bought the house; the clock begins to run when the
  106
  person who bought the house from the local council discovered the defect or, in this case, the subsidence damage.
  If the parties agree that it would be sensible to allow some time to pass, perhaps to establish the full extent of the damage, that could be allowed. I am not an engineer and perhaps people want the matter to be settled and finalised, but at least the full extent of the damage could be established. I have visited houses where a modicum of repair had been carried out by the coal board, but two years later a crack has appeared in the bathroom. That is plastered over, but a year later a crack appears in the kitchen. I hope that a mechanism can be created which will allow a sensible time to establish whether the contractor, British Coal, or whoever is carrying out the repair, has done the full work necessary. I hope that that principle will not be undermined by the six-year rule.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman refers to temporary repairs. It all depends on how severe the subsidence is. It would be inadequate to ask people to live in poor conditions without remedial work being done.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I have no reason to doubt the hon. Gentleman. I merely wish to illustrate that when someone sees a crack and correctly notifies British Coal instantly, which then mends only the crack, major problems may not be identified because in a sense they were tackled too quickly.
  Again, I seek guidance. If a schedule is agreed and fulfilled and further subsidence occurs, will the claimant be deemed to be making a fresh claim that should stand on its own merit, regardless of any earlier repairs? That arises time and time again in Wollaton in Nottingham. The pit there closed in 1966. That is a long time ago and the answer comes back from British Coal that mining ended in 1966 so it cannot be the cause of the subsidence. People who had repairs done in the 1970s and early 1980s were told that the damage could not have been caused by mining subsidence because mining stopped in 1966. That again raises a question about whether the repairs were fully carried out in the first place, perhaps in the early 1980s.
  As has been said, British Coal has already established an arbitration scheme for claims in respect of domestic properties. It is intended to apply to cases where no complex issues of fact or law arise. I am afraid that my legal friends on both the Conservative and Opposition Benches will always be involved when more complex matters arise, which involve evidence, hearings and so on. The long-established Lands Tribunal is well able to deal with such cases, so no new organisation is needed. While the arbitration scheme should meet the needs of most claimants, I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that we do not end up with an unduly bureaucratic system.
  I have one word of caution. It arises from one of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, about a person who accepts money to do his own repairs or employs his own contractor.
  I remember problems with housing repairs and improvements grants, when local authorities paid money to residents to pay a contractor and somewhat shoddy work was done by unapproved builders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe says, if someone agrees a schedule of work with British Coal—under the

  107
  provisions in the Bill—says that he wants to do the work himself and takes the money to do it, in the interests of equity British Coal cannot then be asked to accept responsibility if the work turns out to be unsatisfactory in the future. There could be arguments about whether cracks that reappear are due to fresh subsidence or bad workmanship. By all means let that provision remain in the Bill, but I urge caution on anyone who wants to take that risk.
  The Bill is fairly technical, even though it is short. Perhaps it will be a lawyers' paradise, as such Bills often are, but, at long last, it provides some certainty for our householders. They have suffered fear and worry for many years: fear of how far damage to their homes might go: fear that they could not afford repairs if they found that they were not covered by the coal board; and, worst of all, fear that they would never be able to sell the property and move on. I know of a number of pensioner couples who would dearly love to sell their homes and buy something smaller. They feel as if they are locked in a house with cracks, which they know they will not be able to sell for its full value.
  The Bill is not everything that we might wish for, but there was no reason for the ungenerous—even mealy-mouthed—acceptance which the hon. Member for Rother Valley gave it.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the Bill in much the same way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) welcomed it. The measure is long overdue and there is much within the Bill that we like, but there is also much that we would like to be clarified and perhaps improved, and I do not think that my hon. Friend's welcome to the Bill was mealy-mouthed.
  I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament representing a coalfield area, who receives numerous complaints about subsidence, and as a member of the Select Committee on Energy, which considered mining subsidence in considerable detail last year and produced a detailed report. Many of our recommendations have been taken on board by the Government. The fact remains that too much of the Bill gives British Coal the last word or the final decision, and Opposition Members would like an improvement to those aspects of the Bill.
  I have received serious complaints from constituents and I shall refer to some of them instead of the mechanics of the Bill. I hope that some of these issues will be tackled, clarified and thrashed out in Committee. Tonight, we have learnt that considerable confusion surrounds the time limits which have been imposed in the past. These limits are clearly set out in the Bill, but there have been occasions when British Coal has used quite a different time limit from that which existed under the law. Liability has been denied in certain cases because of the time that elapsed between mining activities and the date of the claim. The Bill specifies a time limit of six years from the time when a claimant should have reasonable knowledge of damage. Under previous legislation, two months were allowed to submit a claim.
  108
  Reference was made to the evidence taken by the Energy Select Committee in Mansfield. On that occasion, two members of the coal board giving evidence the same day clearly did not understand—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Chapman.]
  Question again proposed,That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Illsley: I was making the point that even British Coal's own representatives did not appear to understand the time limits, believing that the relevant period was that which elapsed between the ending of mining activities and the claim. British Coal can always use the defence that damage was not caused by mining subsidence, because the workings of a particular colliery would have settled some time before, and that some other factor must be to blame.
  The Waddilove committee recommended that there should be no time limit, arguing that every case should be considered on its merits, and that if mining subsidence was to blame, then the claim should be met. The time limit applies only from the time that the damage occurred, not from the date of mining.
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said that the Bill's time limits are exactly right, but each claim should surely be considered in its own right. When a person notices damage, he will usually notify British Coal immediately. It will appraise the damage in relation to the area, and consult its plans and records, in determining whether the damage is a consequence of mining. British Coal may go back well beyond six years. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West knows from his own professional activities, the time limit only relates to an individual prevaricating about issuing a notice after damage has become apparent. It is designed to deter an individual from staring at a crack in his wall for six years before submitting a claim.
  Even if British Coal can prove that damage has not been caused by subsidence, it might have to check back on workings over the past century. The appropriateness of a six-year time limit will no doubt be explored in Committee, together with Waddilove's recommendations that none should exist.
  Delay is also of major concern. I refer not to delayed claims, but to delay on the part of British Coal in undertaking repairs, with house owners having to wait years in some cases before work is completed. I refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). If British Coal believes that there is a risk of further damage, it will issue a stop notice to prevent any repairs being made—unless of an emergency nature—until such time as it is clear that no additional damage will arise. That can lead to houses and even whole estates being left for years before British Coal effects any repairs. I know of one claimant who was re-housed in transit accommodation, pending repairs to his own property, three years ago.
  The alternative accommodation offered by British Coal is usually of a high standard and quite acceptable. I have experienced no problems or complaints about the standard of transit accommodation, simply about the length of time that people have to be re-housed away from their homes waiting for repairs to be carried out. The lack of transit accommodation to a suitable standard often

  109
  causes problems because there are insufficient transit houses to accommodate people while repairs are carried out.
  Mr. Ashby: The Bill states that a person can have repairs done himself, and therefore push British Coal aside.
  Mr. Illsley: It is a welcome aspect of the Bill that claimants can now choose between waiting for British Coal or employing contractors of their own. I hope that that will go some way towards alleviating the delays experienced by my constituents. One street in my constituency has been totally demolished—about six or seven bungalows have been taken down and completely rebuilt. The delays in completing the work were considerable. In the heavily-mined constituencies of most hon. Members present, many claims are pending from people whose properties have suffered significant damage. There is a conflict between the ideas proposed by Waddilove. He believed that the emphasis should be placed on repairs rather than awarding a claimant money to carry out repairs or hire a contractor, which might lead to some claimants looking at the damage, deciding they can live with it and spending the money on something else. We should all want to avoid that because we want to maintain the housing stock and ensure that the compensation system for mining subsidence is genuine, repairs are carried out and there is no malpractice.
  With respect to standards of repair, my constituents have sent me photographs time and again of the evidence of subsidence and I have been asked to visit properties to look at the standard of repairs carried out by British Coal or contractors employed by it. In many cases it is quite appalling. In the old days, British Coal had estates departments, with qualified workmen responsible for maintaining British Coal's housing stock and carrying out subsidence repairs. Their standards were quite high, but some of the standards of repair that I have seen in the past couple of years are not entirely adequate. The standard laid down in the Bill is
  "to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant."
  I hope that that provision will ease those problems.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned repeat claims. Having allowed for the appropriate stop notices and time limits, a claimant often submits a repeat claim for damage to that which has already been repaired. British Coal says that the damage is often due to the movement of the new plasterwork or the settling-in of new window frames. It is obvious that, in the absence of any other subsidence or factor, the damage must have been caused by mining subsidence not settling down properly or the same place being affected again.
  With regard to the determination of claims, as many other hon. Members have said, the problem lies with British Coal, which is judge and jury in all matters.
  British Coal has all the information relating to mining in the district, which is obviously one of the reasons why the onus of proof has been put on British Coal. In most cases it has the plans, although in some cases it has no records of where mining has occurred. As it usually has all the details, it is in a better position than the claimant to determine a claim. The final decision rests with British Coal and it is difficult for a claimant faced with British Coal to dispute its plans, information or what its mining surveyor says.
  110
  British Coal is also the final arbiter when it comes to the level of damage. It has set standards relating to tilt, a problem that several hon. Members have mentioned: it can be as much as 5 ins. When a case is on the borderline, it can mean the difference between a compensation payment, the floors of the building being jacked and the property being knocked down and completely rebuilt. In properties in my constituency, claimants have rolled a billiard ball from one corner to another, and seen the tilts and twists. It is a bit like walking into the fun house in Blackpool, where the staircase goes sideways.
  Few cases go to the Lands Tribunal. The Select Committee found that, in 1987–88, 33 claims were taken to the tribunal, 31 were withdrawn and two were settled by British Coal beforehand. That is a weakness in the Bill which many hon. Members have pointed out. British Coal may present an arbitration scheme—over and above its current scheme, that is—but we have not been told how good such a scheme would be. Many hon. Members have already pointed out that the existing scheme is not good enough, because British Coal's permission is required before a claimant can take advantage of it. Another disadvantage is the imposition of a £50 charge before a case can go to arbitration.
  Mr. Barron: Plus VAT.
  Mr. Illsley: That may not sound much when repairs costing thousands of pounds are needed to a property, but it presents rather an obstacle to those in receipt of low incomes and benefits.
  I welcome the appointment of an adjudicator. The Select Committee report recommended the appointment of some kind of ombudsman, and I hope that the adjudicator will help to resolve some of the difficulties—although I still feel that an entirely independent adjudication system would ultimately be preferable. No doubt amendments to that effect can be debated in Committee.
  I agree entirely with the idea of an advice centre, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). If nothing else, it would get subsidence claims out of Members' surgeries. A national centre, or centres in various localities, could provide far more expertise than my hon. Friends or me.
  On finding subsidence damage, many of my constituents go first to an estate agent or mining subsidence agent. Such people, however, simply act as a postbox between the claimant and British Coal, picking up the fee at the end of the day. Claimants come to me asking, "Will you please help me with my mining subsidence claim? The agent has told me that he can do nothing", or "The agent is dragging his feet." Usually, after an intervention by letter, things get moving again; the agent generally does not know what to do, or simply does not want to do it. If more is involved than sending a letter to British Coal and waiting for a cheque, they do not want to know.
  Mr. Meale: Many agents use hon. Members, or attempt to use them, simply to extend that postbox system, so that they can charge clients extra fees. Labour Members have received hundreds of letters from agents about their constituents, all of whom have been charged small amounts at some stage.
  Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of mining agents. We on the Select

  111
  Committee were surprised when we visited his constituency to see such a proliferation of mining subsidence agents. In my constituency, where coal mining has been carried on for hundreds of years, I cannot think of one such agent. It is usually surveyors or estate agents who provide a service for mining subsidence. I have considerable doubts about the involvement of agents and would prefer to see a simple, uncomplicated, free arbitration service backed by an advice centre from which people could get free and fair advice.
  I support the call for British Coal to keep a register. The Select Committee touched on that when we said that we thought that a register going back about 15 years and providing details of claims relating to properties should be brought into operation. British Coal has considerable records, and it would be its task to computerise them, bring them up to date and centralise them. There should be a register at some point to help claimants to avoid the problems of blight, and to show purchasers exactly how many claims have been made against a property. Searches by British Coal solicitors should remain compulsory, and more should be done to ensure that purchasers have enough information about property to enable them to be advised about exactly what dangers lie ahead.
  I welcome the Bill's proposals about notification. Far too little notice is given to people in mining areas about when mining is to take place. Such information is always difficult to find and is always subject to change by British Coal. The notification provision would help in relation to time limits, and it would also help British Coal which could say that people had been notified about mining in their area at a precise time and should therefore have been on their guard for damage which occurred after that. It would alert residents of the possibility of damage, and that would be a big advantage.
  Some hon. Members talked about blight. The blight in some areas would be alleviated if people had confidence in the fairness of a compensation system and a simple arbitration scheme. Much of the blight on properties in mining areas could be removed by such schemes.
  I am conscious of the effect of subsidence on collieries. Some collieries in my constituency were closed because of subsidence and some have been calculated as too expensive to run because of the projected cost of damage to buildings above the mine workings. Subsidence is a heavy cost on the industry at a time when it is facing many difficulties. I agree with the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Leicestershire, North-West that a balance must be struck. If all subsidence claims went ahead and the cost of them became excessive, it would be a greater threat to the future of the industry than the threats from imported coal and other forms of power generation.
  Mining subsidence causes great stress and heartache. As many hon. Members have said, a person's property is probably the biggest investment he will ever make. I give the Bill a guarded welcome and look forward to the proceedings in Committee.
  10.18 pm
  Dr. Mike Woodcock: I warmly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. The Government can take some credit for seeking to remove some of the worst injustices arising from the damage
  112
  caused by subsidence. However, they can take a little less credit for the time that they have taken. As we all know, Waddilove reported as long ago as 1984. The Government took three years to respond, a further year to issue a consultation paper, and another three years to introduce the Bill. In 1986–87 the Energy Select Committee said that it was not satisfied with the system and asked why it had taken three years, following Waddilove, to devise a more equitable system of determining subsidence damage. A further four years have elapsed. Yes, the Government are to be warmly congratulated, but this action is not before time.
  I mention the delay because I seek not to be critical of the Government, but to stress the importance of getting it right this time. So many people have waited for so long that it would be tragic if we got it wrong again and if we did not ensure that the Bill contained all the right provisions. I pay tribute to the people who have campaigned long and hard to have the Bill brought to fruition. I mention particularly, but not exclusively, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who was particularly helpful while he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The united industry working party has joined many other organisations that are concerned about remedying subsidence damage. Without its efforts, we should probably not be debating the Bill tonight.
  Let me declare an interest—in fact, several interests. I advise the Chamber of Coal Traders; I live in an area and in a house affected by subsidence damage; I have business premises that are affected by subsidence damage; my home is surrounded by farmland that is affected by subsidence damage. But, more important than all that, I know hundreds of people whose homes have been damaged. These people, without exception, regard the present law as inadequate. They think that British Coal is operating unreasonably and unfairly, and they are of the opinion that new legislation is long overdue. Similarly, every solicitor, every professional adviser and every accountant to whom I have spoken regards the present position as being unfair.
  Thus the Bill is to be warmly welcomed in principle. It is a large and complicated piece of legislation. I do not intend to deal at this stage with matters of detail, which can best be addressed in Committee. However, I want to mention a few points that the Bill addresses adequately, and a few of those with which it does not deal adequately. Let me deal first with those matters in respect of which the Bill does a good job. The Government are to be congratulated on the definition of the standard of repair. The Bill resolves the differences between the Acts of 1957 and 1975. British Coal will be obliged to carry out repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That is satisfactory. Some commentators have argued that British Coal is not required to carry out repairs to the standard that applied before the damage occurred. I understand that argument, but I believe that, in practice, the courts will find little distinction between the two standards.
  The second area in which the Bill does a good job concerns clarification of the time limit for notifying damage. Under the 1957 Act the requirement is two months. Clearly, such a short period is ridiculous—especially when viewed against British Coal's record in the discharge of its responsibilities. The six-year rule that was

  113
  unilaterally imposed by British Coal under the 1975 Act was very often applied incorrectly. Many hon. Members have related their experience of British Coal's interpretation of the six years as starting on the date of the beginning of mining, rather than on the date on which damage occurred. That rule had no basis, either legally or morally. Clause 3 makes provision for claimants to serve a damage notice within six years of the first time they ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. That is much clearer and much fairer.
  The third area in which the Bill does a good job concerns the obligation imposed on British Coal to meet claimants' expenses that have been reasonably incurred. That is a good provision, which is wider than the voluntary code that British Coal applies now under which it pays only for professional advice in many cases, and often for only part of that professional advice. I note that there is no definition of "reasonable", and that could cause a problem. It is wrong that anyone who undertakes a successful claim against British Coal should be left out of pocket. Those are the best provisions of the Bill. They are excellent and do a good job.
  Unfortunately, the Bill has many shortcomings, about which I hope that Ministers will think, and which I hope that the Committee will address. The first is the arbitration provisions covered by clause 41. Waddilove recommeded as early as 1984 that there should be an arbitration scheme. It was obviously necessary. I am sure that we can understand the reluctance of the man in the street to go to law against a mighty state industry using the taxpayers' money to fight its legal battles. For several years, British Coal claimed to have a voluntary system of independent adjudication, a system which it replaced in January this year, and that that voluntary scheme was one of the reasons why legislation on arbitration was not necessary. In reality, that scheme meant almost nothing. It was rarely used because British Coal stood in the way of its use.
  Since 1 January, a new voluntary arbitration scheme, which at first glance appears to be fair and reasonable, has been in place. It is conducted by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, British Coal pays most of the costs, with claimants paying a £50 registration fee if it is proved wrong, and the findings are binding on both parties. One may think that that is excellent because, for the first time, claimants have the right to cheap, fair adjudication in disputes with British Coal. However, we must not be fooled. If one reads the small print, one sees that the scheme can be used only if both the claimant and British Coal agree. What nonsense that is. What use is a right of arbitration if the party that is in the wrong can refuse access to the arbitration process even if the claimant wants to use it?
  Arbitration is a common feature of many commercial contracts. For example, if parties cannot agree on a rent review, each has the right of arbitration. That fact is a spur to each party to act reasonably, not to make excessive demands and to seek agreement. If one party i o any commercial contract can act unreasonably and then deny the other party access to arbitration, an arbitration scheme is made worthless. It is like saying that anybody anywhere can agree to arbitration. Of course he can, but that is not a right to arbitration. A right exists only if both parties can go to arbitration even if the other party objects.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case about the arbitration scheme which we were told was
  114
  introduced on 1 January. He asked earlier whether carrying out repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the person whose property had been damaged was the right sort of test. "Reasonable" crops up again in relation to the six-year rule. One has to show that it is reasonable to expect a person to know that the damage had occurred six years before. A dispute on that point can be denied referral to arbitration if British Coal denies that it falls within the six-year rule.
  Dr. Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman has still not grasped the point, which has been made several times, that, under the Bill, a claim can be made up to six years after the damage occurred, not six years after mining. If we were to rely on the provisions of the arbitration scheme, British Coal could refuse anyone the right to go to arbitration, no matter whether the case arose in fewer than six years, six years or more than six years. Whatever it is, British Coal has to agree. If it wished, British Coal could say, "If we feel that we are right and that we have a cast iron case, we shall let you go to arbitration. If we think that you are right and that we are wrong, we shall refuse you arbitration and you will not be able to go before the arbitrators." That is crazy.
  The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to direct that British Coal sets up a proper scheme, and in that respect the Bill is deficient. It should require the Secretary of State to require British Coal to submit such a scheme. We all know what will happen in the absence of a requirement. We have a voluntary new arbitration scheme, and it is likely that the Bill will be enacted. If we are not careful, the Secretary of State will say, "Let us see whether the arbitration scheme works. Now is not the time to legislate." If that happens, we shall have another three or four years of British Coal refusing arbitration while the Secretary of State makes up his mind whether to introduce a scheme. The arbitration should be put on a statutory footing now. Claimants should have a right to go to arbitration irrespective of British Coal's wishes.
  Secondly, the Bill's provisions to provide compensation for inconvenience and disturbance are deficient. Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to require such a scheme. It should go further and require imposition. British Coal has demonstrated time and again its ability to persuade the Department of Energy to adopt a course that is not in the interests of the victims of subsidence damage. The House should not leave a further loophole. Instead of giving the Secretary of State the right to ask for a scheme, it should require a scheme to be introduced.
  The third defect is the three-year limit on instituting legal proceedings from when British Coal was first in breach of its duty to repair. On the face of it, that seems reasonable, but what is the position of all the claimants who, during the past seven years since the Waddilove committee reported, have had their claims rejected under the old arbitrary rules? Those claimants would not be turned down if the Bill were an Act. Are we saying that such claimants will be disbarred under clause 42, which imposes a three-year rule? If so, that is not justice.
  It is right that the Bill should impose a three-year limit on new claims, but it should allow all claimants who were rejected under the arbitrary approach to institute proceedings under the terms set out in the Bill or to make a new claim under the Bill irrespective of the six-year rule for notifying damage. If the Government do not accept that, thousands of people will be denied justice. There are

  115
  thousands of householders who had claims rejected by British Coal's interpretation of its self-imposed six-year rule.
  The fourth defect is to be found in clause 43, which deals with the investigation of complaints. The clause allows the Secretary of State to set up a scheme but I believe that it should impose one. We have watchdogs for all sorts of things in public life and in industry. We even have a watchdog for coal consumers, the Domestic Coal Consumers Council. Yet we have nothing for the victims of subsidence. Experience dictates that there should be such a scheme.
  I shall detain the House for not much longer. I have mentioned some of the Bill's principal defects but there are others, including the discretion that British Coal has and retains in determining the method of meeting a claim. No similar discretion is allowed to claimants. There is no requirement to notify all owners of property rather than occupiers. A time limit is imposed on claimants but not on British Coal. British Coal may take months to prepare schedules of damage in the absence of a specific time limit. On receiving such a schedule, the claimant has only 28 days to consider it and reject it. He may be on holiday or he may have other matters to attend to. He may be in need of professional advice but he has only 28 days. Why are time limits imposed on a man who has no professional advice and expertise, whereas no time limits are imposed on British Coal, which has professional advice and expertise and is staffed to deal with matters in a timely manner?
  All those matters should be dealt with by the Bill. Basically, it is a good Bill and it should be welcomed. It has the right intentions, but I fear that it is still weighted in favour of British Coal and against the man in the street. The Government should take the opportunity to table suitable amendments and so ensure that justice is no longer denied to the thousands of claimants who, because of lack of money, expertise, will or courage, have had full justice denied to them for so long. Yes, the Government are to be congratulated on at last introducing the Bill, but they have some way to go yet. They must not lose the opportunity to accept sensible amendments in Committee and to ensure, once and for all, that the problem of subsidence damage is eradicated.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I view the Bill from my experience as an ex-industrial relations officer for the National Coal Board, as a local councillor for 20 years and as a Member of Parliament whose constituency has been blighted by mining subsidence for some considerable time.
  Anyone who has not seen a complete village subject to the severest mining subsidence has not seen mining subsidence. In that village, 142 prefabricated houses, 36 stone-built houses and virtually two streets were demolished. It has taken 20 years for the village to come on stream again, but come on stream it has. Its scars have disappeared and the gaps between buildings are now gardens.
  The Bill, like every mining Bill, provides no compensation for the stress and strain that those people suffered in those 20 years. There is no compensation for
  116
  people whose houses were severely damaged and who, as a result, had nervous breakdowns and sometimes ended up in an institution. That happened to two of my constituents. Although one could not put one's hand on one's heart and say that the cause was subsidence, there is no doubt that it contributed.
  When I asked British Coal why no payments are made for stress and strain, it said that stress and strain cannot be measured. The same used to be said of compensation for diseases, but the Department of Health now measures degrees of disability. I see no reason why stress and strain because of subsidence should not be calculated on the same basis.
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire North-West (Mr. Ashby) is a lawyer, and I accept his interpretation of the six-year rule, but what matters is not his but the board's interpretation. It has interpreted its six-year rule in many ways. I understand it as the period not from when coal has begun to be taken out but when it has ceased to be taken out, after which the board accepts no liability.
  That is why I think that there is a great need for an arbitration scheme that allows either of the parties to decide whether to go for arbitration. Like the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock), I know what will happen: the board will agree to arbitration for cases that it knows it can win, but not for cases that it is likely to lose. If a claimant's bid for arbitration is refused, he can go either to the Secretary of State or the Lands Tribunal. Nobody will apply to the Lands Tribunal because of the sheer cost and the length of time that an application takes.
  The way in which arbitration works in industrial relations is at the back of British Coal's mind—if both parties agree to take their dispute to arbitration, the case goes to arbitration, but if one party decides not to do so, it does not. British Coal is probably considering the possibility of creating precedents.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said that he would like to remove the clause allowing a person to pick his own builder or to do the job himself. I should like that clause strengthened. I am involved in a case in which British Coal decided that its workmen were too busy to do some work, which meant that a long period would pass before remedial work could be done. British Coal asked the person concerned to get three quotations from three builders on the schedule of repairs which had been agreed. He did so, but because they did not agree with what British Coal thought should be the cost, the quotations were rejected.
  I asked the man to get three more quotations, to find out whether the first three were similar, and he did. Lo and behold, they were in line with the three previous quotations. British Coal will not accept the quotations because it says that the cost is £1,000 higher than it would be if it did the work.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I returned to the Chamber just as the hon. Gentleman commented on my speech. I shall check Hansard. I did not say that I wanted that clause taken out of the Bill; I was merely asking would-be claimants to exercise a little caution if they wished to choose their own contractor, for the good reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) illustrated. We can leave the clause in the Bill, but householders should be careful if they use their own contractor.
  Mr. McKay: Indeed. If householders use their own contractor, or do the job themselves, all obligations on British Coal cease. If anything happens after that, British Coal can say, "It was your builder, not ours. Your builder must correct the problem." There can be no retrospective claim on British Coal.
  I shall give some cases which could be put right if the arbitration provisions were remedied. The whole of a farmer's land suffered from mining subsidence which was so severe that he had to sell his herd of cows because his milking and cow sheds fell in. Unfortunately, that coincided with the introduction of milk quotas. He had no cows, so he did not get a milk quota. He now has a marvellous milk parlour and cow sheds,: but no cows. There is no compensation to cover such a knock-on effect.
  I am involved in another case in which British Coal said, "That was not our fault. The subsidence must have been caused by shrinkage." However, it has pulled down and rebuilt four houses nearby and repaired the adjoining property and other property. There is the spectacle of an 8 ft wall, half of it new—constructed by British Coal—and the other half broken because British Coal will not accept liability for it. It says that the property is too old and that the problems are not caused by mining subsidence. My argument is that it may be old property, but there was a knock-on effect from subsidence. That person is caught. If mining subsidence is not to blame, the damage will be the subject of an insurance claim. The insurance company says that mining subsidence is to blame, so my constituent cannot win. The case will probably end up in court somewhere.
  Let me return to the question of the board doing the repairs. The board's workmen were advised against
  118
  jacking up a huge bungalow. The person who lived in that bungalow had spent his savings on building it because his wife was an invalid. He built it with that in mind. The board decided to jack the building up rather than doing what it was doing next door, which was to pull down and rebuild. As a result, the bungalow now has six steps even though the couple built it to provide ground-level accommodation for the wife. There is no compensation for that; there is nothing that the couple can do about it. The Bill should take such matters into consideration.
  The board always seeks to include its favourite clause —the full and final settlement clause. How can one have full and final settlement when the earth continues to move? In the village of Elsecar, for example, the earth is still moving after 20 years. Yet I guarantee that if anyone now submits a claim, British Coal will go back to the full and final settlement clause.
  Those are some of the matters that the Bill should put right. I welcome the Bill because it is a step in the right direction. The Committee must bear in mind the fact that the Bill could represent our last opportunity to deal with the matter. If the industry continues in its present direction it certainly will be. With the shrinkage of the industry, it could be our last chance to put things right.
  Neither the Committee nor the House should rush things. We should get the details right. There seems to me to be a large degree of consensus and I think that the Committee will be a happy one. The agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House should be translated into fact so that the Bill will be better when it emerges from Committee.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said that this was very much a Committee Bill. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, it will certainly require extensive amendment in Committee and on Report. The Minister described the Bill as a consolidation Bill. To the extent that it is a consolidation Bill, it consolidates legislation which is not acceptable and which needs to be extended. We must ensure that it is a stepping stone to help us to deal with the problems of coal mining subsidence rather than being another stumbling block in our way, and it is in danger of becoming a stumbling block unless some of the ideas expressed in the debate today are taken on board in Committee.
  Many hon. Members have referred to clause 41, which I approach from a slightly different angle. It deals with arbitration procedures and says that
  "The Secretary of State may give directions to the Corporation"
  to introduce the scheme. Hon. Members have emphasised the word "may" and I shall not go further into that argument. There may also be a problem as to whether the corporation is the appropriate body to produce the scheme and proposals, given the problems that exist within its existing arbitration scheme.
  The corporation claimed to establish its scheme from 1 January this year. On 21 December 1990 it put out a press release to say that the scheme, under the auspices of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, would be coming into operation. In fact, the corporation had been operating a scheme before that date. A constituent of mine, Mr. Briggs, had his case dealt with in a report produced in November 1990, although the scheme was supposed only to be starting on 1 January 1991. Problems with Mr. Briggs's case highlight the difficulties with the proposed arbitration scheme as a scheme that could be developed in future or one that might be acceptable for three or four years before something more substantial is introduced in its place.
  Mr. Briggs lives in Franklin drive, Staveley, in Chesterfield. That is the address that suffers the coal mining subsidence problem. However, he lived elsewhere for two and a half years after the board moved him out. The board must believe that Mr. Briggs has caused it many difficulties and problems because he was terribly dissatisfied with the work that the board was carrying out.
  The case went to arbitration only after a great deal of work had been carried out and the arbitration system functioned only in the board's interests. The scheme was that operated by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and it is the one that was supposed to begin from the start of this year. There are some slight differences in its terms, but it is almost an early draft of the scheme that was introduced in a tidied up form at the beginning of the year.
  The arbitrator was Mr. M. D. Joyce of M. D. Joyce Associates, a firm of consultant geo-technical engineers. Whether they were the most appropriate people to conduct the arbitration is open to question as they do not seem to have had great expertise in bricks and mortar or the problems associated with the house as distinct from the geo-technical skills that Mr. Joyce undoubtedly possessed.
  120
  I received a letter from Mr. Briggs on 30 October in which he wrote:
  "it seems to me that the arbitration 'cooked-up' between the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators does not permit a person of limited means to enter into Arbitration … This method of Arbitration rests, in the first instance, on documentary submissions by both parties and for most this would entail a complainant engaging professional assistance … In my case it has cost something approaching £900, so far."
  Although it is stated in the board's arbitration scheme that costs are covered, that relates to the costs of employing the arbitrator and the work that the arbitrator carries out. The scheme does not cover the costs involved in preparing the claimant's submission.
  In Mr. Briggs's case, the matters that had been in dispute for some time cost a considerable amount. Mr. Briggs claimed for 49 items totalling £5,407. In the end, he received £1,471 and he had to meet £900 costs in connection with the claim. Therefore, he received about 10 per cent. of the initial claim. That was said to be in full and final settlement of his claim. However, Mr. Briggs had sought a determination of the costs if the claim had been settled by payment rather than by work that the board was to carry out. Of 49 items, 28 were found in favour of the board and were the more costly items, and they averaged £141 each. One item was agreed—that is, that one third would be paid to Mr. Briggs—and 20 were found in his favour, and they averaged £73. I shall quote section 4.22 of the report to illustrate something about its nature. It concerns a claim for carpet fitting. The report states:
  "The fitting of the carpet is poor but it has not been proved that it ever fitted properly."
  The onus of proof being in the hands of the claimant rather than being left with the board has presented a great problem. The report goes on to state:
  "Present gaps cannot be attributed to subsidence since the walls were not rebuilt in new positions."
  That is an astonishing claim—one must have walls that have been rebuilt, rather than walls that have been repaired, and ground that had been disturbed for other reasons for there to be a genuine gap in the carpeting. The report goes on to state:
  "Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent and make no award to the claimant. There is, however, one vent plate still to be fitted, but this will be done at negligible cost."
  Whatever that minor cost is, it is to be met by Mr. Briggs. Throughout the report similar provisions were challenged by Mr. Briggs. However, in the end he agreed, because of the pressures that the board began to put on him to make use of the arbitration system.
  That arbitration system is now fully in place—Mr. Briggs has been used as a guinea pig—and the system is in danger of either being accepted under clause 41 or held up by clause 41. It is operating, and we are asked to see how it begins to pan out in the long run. I hope that the Committee will be careful about that matter. A host of similar measures are contained within the legislation. At the moment they are something we know not what. We may have a decent piece of legislation in the offing and it might be able to be bashed into shape in Committee, but it would be terrible if, in Committee, the Government got out the Whips, pushed the legislation, and claimed that they have produced something that answers the criticisms that have been made. We would then have a cosmetic provision that would not be much different from that which exists in law at the moment. The whole matter is yet to be played for.

  121
  I hope that the Minister has listened to the arguments and will say that this measure is merely an agenda for further legislation and that that legislation will be properly and fully considered.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall not attempt to repeat the points that my hon. Friends have made, because the hour is late and they have touched on many points in the Bill that are worthy of consideration in Committee. However, I shall mention one or two points that have not been mentioned. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for the work that he has done on this matter since he came to the House in 1987 and his dedication in pushing for this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and other hon. Members who sat on the Energy Select Committee and visited Mansfield, which is on the edge of my constituency, did a first-class job.
  There is something about the Bill which has not been mentioned and which is rather peculiar. It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, for instance, despite promises that it would be. Now the Bill has suddenly been brought before the House. It makes one wonder whether the previous Prime Minister was against such a measure in view of her vendetta against the miners following the strike. Perhaps a change of Prime Minister has allowed the measure to be introduced. What is the reason for its suddenly being introduced? One reason is certain. At the bottom of page iv the Bill says:
  "The Bill is not expected to have any significant effects on central government expenditure."
  In other words, the Bill will not cost the Government a penny. Why the Bill could not have been introduced earlier if everyone knew that it would not cost the Government a penny, and why it has been introduced now, when the Government are in dire financial circumstances, has not been explained. But it is obvious to my way of thinking. If the Tory Government are re-elected at the next general election, one of the first things that they will do is sell off the coal mining industry.
  Privatisation of the coal mining industry would be severely set back if potential buyers faced vast unknown expenditure on compensation for coal mining subsidence. People will be eager to buy the coal mining industry, not because of the coal under the ground, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) worked out is worth about 3p per tonne to a potential buyer, but for the vast acreage of land which British Coal owns. Many thousands, if not millions, of acres and many square miles of land owned by British Coal have planning permission for industrial development, all in ripe areas, where there is plenty of surplus labour. It will be a bonanza for any potential buyer unless there is a subsidence problem.
  When pits have shut in my area—in Worksop near Mansfield—we have tried to bring in potential developers to build new factories. The one thing that terrifies potential developers is the word "subsidence". They run a mile, even if they are told that the building can be put on a raft, it will be a light pre-fabricated factory and only girls using sewing machines will be in the factory so there will be no weight on the area. As soon as they hear the word "subsidence" potential developers are off. That will be a great deterrent to anyone wanting to buy the land owned by the coal industry.
  122
  If the Conservatives win the next election they will build the two new ports at Killingholme and suck in imported coal from South Africa, Bolivia and Colombia which will finish off the British coal industry.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose—
  Mr. Ashton: I give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who has just come in.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was here at the beginning of the debate, which is more than he was. He is overplaying the card of subsidence deterring developers coming into former mining areas. I do not know whether my constiutuency is unique. I do not think that it is. On the site of the Wilford pit there is now an industrial site which employs at least five to 10 times as many people as ever went down the pit. That is a massive industrial development. The Wollaton pit to which I referred in my speech has a 600-property housing estate on it. The hon. Gentleman is overplaying that card.
  Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman thinks that every pit is the same. I apologise for coming in late, but I had urgent constituency business to attend to. Some of us go to our constituencies and have things planned three weeks in advance. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who represents a little piece of Nottingham, I represent 300 square miles and the 50 parish councils need a great deal of attention. I shall not respond to his remarks about Wilford or other such pits, because he represents a city area.
  The reason why the Government have introduced the Bill and why it will not cost them anything is pretty apparent. They have made this move in case they win the next general election. I do not believe that they will but if they do and they want to privatise the pits, arrangements will be in place to compensate potential buyers. Who will pay British Coal? Has the measure been costed? Of course, it has not. I have not seen any estimate of the costs that British Coal will have to bear. I am willing to give way to the Minister or anyone who can say how many millions it is estimated that it will cost.
  We all feel sorry for our poor constituents. Some of them have had a terrible time because of planning blight, which has prevented them from selling their houses. They come to my surgeries and ask me to take the matter up, but they beg me not to mention subsidence because they know that if it gets out that a certain street is affected they will not be able to sell their houses.
  How many people face that problem, and how much will it cost? As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield knows, our district council carried out a survey and sent out a questionnaire with the electoral registration form, asking, "Has your house got subsidence? Have you ever made a claim?"
  Mr. Haynes: They did that in Ashfield.
  Mr. Ashton: Yes, the questionnaire was sent out in Ashfield and in Bolsover. It was sent to 37,000 houses. How much will compensation cost? A massive amount: if it were £1,000 per house, it would be £37 million. How many pits will that shut down? Will British Coal have to bear the whole cost? Those questions have not been fully considered, nor has the overall strategy and the economic consequences for British Coal.

  123
  Another factor, about which I questioned the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, is that when my constituents buy their houses—whether from British Coal or from anyone else—and they get a mortgage from the Halifax, the Alliance and Leicester or some other building society, they are told that they have to insure the property. On top of £200 a month for a mortgage, they have to pay £30 for insurance. God knows why they pay insurance, because when they claim from the insurance company, it does not want to know. Insurance companies say that they are not covered for subsidence and landslip and tell them, the home owners, to read the small print as there is an exclusion clause. Insurance companies do not charge any less for insuring houses in a coal mining area, but they refuse to pay out. Even if it is proved that the pit does not run anywhere near the house—I know of such cases in Worksop—the insurance companies still say that the damage must have been caused by landslip and it is a well-known fact that they do not pay for that.
  What have the Government done to get to grips with the insurance companies? Why is there nothing in the Bill to ensure that they are challenged before £37 million compensation is loaded on to the coal board which might shut some more pits? But the insurance companies will get away scot free. No one says a word to them. No one says that they have any responsibilities or that they should be taken to the insurance ombudsman. No one says that my constitutents should not have to pay as much insurance because the coal board will pay out.
  Those major elements are missing from the Bill. There has been a conspiracy of silence between the Government and the insurance companies. Why is the Bill being brought in now? What will it cost? How many pits will shut down because of it? What damage will it do and what will be the economic consequences for British Coal? British Coal are not angels, but they are certainly not villains, as they have been portrayed.
  I hope that in Committee we will get some of the answers to my questions. I hope that we will not pass a Bill without knowing what it will cost a nationalised industry, how many houses are involved and without any surveys. There have been no estimates of the costs involved. Someone has to pay and, because coal is a nationalised industry, Conservative Members do not give a damn. If British Coal has to pay millions of pounds in compensation it will shut more pits, and we must realise that before we start down this road.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who has poured cold water on the argument about mining subsidence and the way that it seriously affects the coal mining industry.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who is here for this debate, is a nice young chap. He is learning fast about the coal mining industry. He will certainly learn fast in Committee. I can assure him that I will be one of the Opposition Members in Committee, arguing in favour of many of the provisions in the Bill, but also arguing—along with my colleagues—for certain amendments to the Bill, with a view to further improvements. That is not altogether satisfactory.
  124
  This issue came to light just before I first entered the House, and it has been argued about right up to the present day. We are led to believe that, at long last, the Government have got off their backside and are prepared to do something. I welcomed the Waddilove report. That committee did a first class job, and clearly stated that claimants were not getting a fair deal. The Government eventually took that report on board and accepted it. The then Secretary of State for Energy stood at the Dispatch Box and said so.
  Even though the Waddilove report said wonderful things to the people in my constituency and those in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), we have been kicked from pillar to post. For years we have been asked at our surgeries, "What are you going to do about this problem?" People queue up to discuss their claims.
  Only this morning I received a letter from a constituent whose claim had been rejected by the Coal Board, and that individual wants to know what action I will take. I informed him that we were to debate a Bill on the Floor of the House this evening that I hoped would sort out his problem. One issue that will confront the Under-Secretary in Committee is the situation in respect of people whose claims have been rejected in the past. There are many of them in my constituency, as there are in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
  When Ian MacGregor's appointment as chairman of British Coal was announced, the then Secretary of State was the Member of Parliament for a Croydon constituency. What did he know about mining and subsidence? We warned him not to appoint MacGregor, because we knew what would happen. He caused a flipping strike right through the industry. He also got his consultants and advisers to examine the cost of mining subsidence. When the Government saw the figure, they said, "We'd better shove this over to the Energy Select Committee, to find out the real global picture."
  Those of us who represent mining constituencies knew the real problem—not that Secretary of State from Croydon. Mr. Speaker is the Member of Parliament for a Croydon seat, and I also want to give him a warning—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker plans to retire at some stage.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: So does the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Haynes: That is correct. I am retiring too, but this evening I am representing my constituents, because they have been given a raw deal. We are looking to the young Minister to give them a fair deal.
  I think that we might win in Committee. There is obviously agreement across the Floor of the House that something must be done. At long last, the Government are prepared to do something. When we get Upstairs, we shall see how much.
  I have advised Mr. Speaker that, when he retires, he should come to live in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire. It is gorgeous. Mind you, Mr. Speaker passes by my constituency from time to time. In fact, he has accepted an invitation to visit the Royal British Legion in my constituency in June. He returns to that beautiful county. He often visits and stays the weekend with some friends. He travels the Nottinghamshire roads in his limousine with Robert, his driver. Being on those roads is like being at Blackpool on a switchback going up and

  125
  down—it is caused by mining subsidence. He has experienced mining subsidence on the Nottingharnshire roads. Until the problems and negotiations are sorted out, it will cost the county council a fortune to put things right on the roads.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw that a great deal of cost is involved, but there is also much suffering on the part of our constituents. An elderly lady of 82, who lived in a bungalow, came to my surgery. She and her husband, who had died, had spent all their lives saving so that they might own their own bungalow. They did not want to live in a local authority bungalow, although they were plentiful then, before the Tories came to power. She came to my surgery, told me that her bungalow had subsidence and asked me to help. I said, "Let me know about it, ducky." She explained the problem in detail.
  The board said that it would not settle the claim because it was going to mine another, lower, seam under the bungalow. By the time the seam came through, eight years had gone by and the board rejected her claim. Similar incidents will occur with a six-year limit. We must clarify the six-year period in Committee.
  When I became the Member of Parliament for As hfield, having worked in that wonderful pit at Clipstone, just outside Mansfield, for 35 years, the National Coal Board in Nottinghamshire offered a fairer deal. The time limit for working things out with the Coal Board was not six years, but 12. But what happened? MacGregor was appointed chairman of the board, and he stopped that allowance straight away. There was fairness in Nottinghamshire, but that man from America—fancy appointing an American to run an industry in this country when we had people, including one in the House of Lords, who would have done a marvellous job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"] He was the former Member for Barnsley—now I have named him.
  Mr. Ashton: Bernard Taylor?
  Mr. Haynes: No, my hon. Friend has got it wrong there.
  Those are the sorts of problems that we have in our constituences and that we want sorted out. I am sure that the Minister has listened to every contribution that has been made this afternoon, even from Conservative Members, who said that their constituents were not getting a fair deal. He has had his ear bashed today, and he will get it walloped in Committee if he does not take the right course. I have given the Minister fair warning. I have covered the issue of the board disqualifying a claim because it has been made after a certain period.
  I have been to see some of the work done by the contractors that the Coal Board is supposed to have on a list. Local authorities could do the work, but the board appoint contractors—some of them are cowboys. We talk about residents having to be in a caravan in the front garden while their house is being repaired, but more often than not the contractor pushes off to do another job and leaves the residents in a caravan well into the winter. That is ridiculous and we want to get away from all that. I hope that the Bill will achieve that.
  Hon. Members have talked about the board buying properties because they are so severely damaged. The board has paid the complainant compensation, he or she has been satisfied with the amount and accepted it—agents have been used, some of whom have made themselves
  126
  millionaires. They have made a fortune—riding around in Rolls-Royces. I hope that we are going to get rid of that. The board, however, has been using the properties that it has bought as transit properties, which people can move into while their own properties are being done up. It should be encouraged to do much more than that, so that people do not suffer in the interim. We must look after the people whom we represent.
  I am sorry that I have to mention the next point—individuals being refused by the board. The Minister said earlier that, if the board rejected the claim, the claimant had the right to go to the tribunal; but through the Secretary of State. What if the result is a heap of claims awaiting the OK from the Secretary of State? I am sure that you have experienced that yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have put questions to Ministers—including Secretaries of State—and have sometimes waited months for a reply. What if that happens with claimants whose cases have had to be referred to the Secretary of State?
  The Secretary of State has not been in the job for long; he is an accountant, or something like that. He does not know anything about mining; he hasn't a flipping clue. He should come and talk to people like my colleagues and me, who know what mining and mining subsidence are about. We must speed up the process of referrals to the Secretary of State. Then we shall be getting somewhere—helping those poor people living out in our constituencies who have been suffering for so many years. What has been happening is scandalous.
  I shall sit down in a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You need not look at your watch; there are four clocks here, and I can see them all. Do not worry about it. This debate is open-ended, by the way: you know what that means, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After all, you are experienced in this regard. You serve in a mining area, and there were many pits in your constituency in years gone by. You know what it is all about. You knew all about it when you were Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, and spoke from that Dispatch Box. You knew what the workers had to go through in mining and other heavy industries. I thought that you had a problem with Doncaster racecourse at one time, but I understand that the hot weather caused that problem rather than mining subsidence. Well, we have overcome that problem, have we not?
  In the 15 years in which I worked for Nottinghamshire county council—and even before—it had a system called Clasp. I think that the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) will know about that, because they know how local authorities work. The council built many schools and elderly people's homes that were able to take the movement of land, especially when it was due to mining subsidence. It built the properties throughout the county —right out in the mining areas. They could stand the movement, which was a good thing: we sent salesmen to foreign parts, and they were flogging them like nobody's business. The same kind of progress and advancement could be used in the mining areas. Nottinghamshire county council—Labour-controlled, of course—has given everyone a lead.
  I hope that the Bill will not be long in Committee—I am sure that the Minister will agree—and that the right things will be in it, in the interests of the people whom we serve.
  Here comes the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) —and he has only just walked in!
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me now that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has subsided into his seat. apologise to the House for not being present for the bulk of the debate. I had to attend to some pressing constituency matters. I shall be extremely brief and take up a small fraction of the time taken by the hon. Member for Ashfield.
  It is important to place on record the fact that the Bill has the widest possible cross-party support of hon. Members in mining constituencies from one end of the country to the other. Families can have few more distressing experiences than to have the quality of their home and home life destroyed by subsidence. Many of the technical problems of the past have led to long and distressing delays and great difficulties in achieving fairness.
  On behalf of my hon. Friends from Yorkshire, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a Bill which will address serious practical problems. The onus of proof is now firmly on British Coal and people will be able to bring in outside contractors if they are unhappy about delays caused by British Coal. Plainly, it is important for the Bill's details to be right, and that will be determined in Committee. I again congratulate the Government on an important measure which will improve the quality of life of many people.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) explained why he could not be present for the whole of the debate and he congratulated the Government. His congratulations are a trifle premature. It would have been more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to express gratitude to the Government for presenting the House with an opportunity to put right a matter that has caused problems for a long time.
  As the Minister knows, we do not intend to divide the House, but that does not mean that we do not have deep reservations about some aspects of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has announced his retirement, but the energy and vigour with which he spoke show that he will not go out with a whimper. There are some bangs left, and no doubt we shall hear a few in Committee if the Minister does not pay heed not merely to the suggestions of my hon. Friends, but to some of the pointed criticisms of Conservative Members. We have taken careful note of those criticisms and we trust that Conservative Members will join us in Committee to see to it that the improvements that their constituents and ours want to see are embodied in the Bill.
  I want to be brief, but I need a little time to refer to some of the issues that have been raised. While we welcome the opportunity provided by the Bill, some hon. Members pointed to the rather protracted period that has elapsed since the subject was first raised. Some hon. Members were deeply concerned about the matter before I entered the House in 1970. Concern has been growing for years and it is a pity that such a Bill was not presented to the House three or four years ago.
  I am especially grateful to the Select Committee for building on the recommendations in the Waddilove report to the point where the Government could no longer ignore the issue. I shall not go into great detail because close
  128
  scrutiny is a matter for the Committee. Before the Minister makes his winding-up speech, perhaps he would look at paragraph 12 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report. It says:
  "cases where claims have been rejected on grounds of time limits could be referred to the new voluntary arbitration procedure."
  That needs to be set against the six-year proposal and the Minister may feel disposed to comment on that in his winding-up speech. If not, we shall certainly feel it necessary—as I hope Conservative Members will—to pursue the matter in Committee.
  The Minister referred to the principle embodied in the slogan "The polluter pays". That is a slogan which both parties have voiced for a long time, but it seems to me that it has been accepted uncritically by Conservative Members. For that reason I want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who referred to subsidence and pollution from ancient mining operations. Not only are maps and plans of such antiquity unavailable; we do not even know who owned the mines. It may be argued that subsidence from collieries and, indeed, coalfields that had closed, or were approaching closure, before the passage of the nationalisation legislation of 1947 ought not to be a burden on the British coal industry as it makes enormous efforts to survive and succeed. It is all very well to make the polluter pay, but absolute reliance on that principle can have dangers. A polluter who has been dead for several hundred years cannot be made to pay.
  There is another aspect of Government policy to which we should turn. If the polluter lacks the means to pay—if he becomes bankrupt, if his business folds, as so many businesses are folding now—who will compensate the community? Who will make up for the pollution? Excessive reliance on a slogan, without any detailed consideration, can be dangerous. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that matter before the Committee stage starts.
  Very little has been said about the proposals to provide compensation for fa;mers. I am amazed that two Conservative Members from Nottinghamshire devoted their attention to their constituents rather than to their agricultural interests. They may feel that the Bill will assist them to retain their seats. However, if, in Committee, they do not support amendments to which they appear to have been giving credence, we shall ensure that they are more dependent on the farms. If they fail to support us in Committee, that factor will loom increasingly large.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) gave a detailed analysis of the Bill. Several hon. Members have paid very full tribute to him for the considerable amount of work that he has done. He referred to COALS, the local authority organisation which has done a great deal of work. I invite Conservative Members who may serve on the Standing Committee to look very carefully indeed at the balanced and informative material that that organisation has provided. I hope that it will help to determine some votes on the amendments that are necessary.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and several of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), referred to the almost inevitable weaknesses of the unrefined arbitration system that looks likely to emerge. I suggest that the Minister pays particular attention to the

  129
  case of Mr. Briggs from Staveley. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield made the point that society and the industrial base are changing. He feels that people may now be more prepared to speak up against the interests of the large coal industry in order to defend their rights as individuals. There may be some truth in that.
  The most important reference to current developments came from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). In effect—these are not his exact words—he said, "If we can't have the money, we in the coalfields are not going to have the muck." The problems in south Wales and in areas like mine in south Yorkshire have been sufficiently oppressive to convince us that we must press for environmental decency. Environmental decency means not compelling people to suffer the unfairness—sometimes protracted unfairness—and hardship caused by subsidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), in referring, quite properly, to the work of the Select Committee on Energy, said that the evidence given to it showed that compensation for subsidence was about 1·5 per cent. of British Coal's total costs. We are not talking about vast sums that would cripple that industry. My hon. Friend also made it clear that we are not criticising the officials of British Coal who have to administer the costs.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Subsidence payments went in three stages. The first was the learning stage, the second was when the then National Coal Board was extremely generous, so much so that some buildings were improved, and the third was when purse strings were tightened. That stage coincided with the decision to move the levy on coal into a global sum and for each pit to pay for local damage. That was a terrible mistake.
  Mr. Hardy: It was a mistake and it was dangerous, given some of the people at the top of British Coal, to make each colliery pay such costs. That sometimes assisted them to close a colliery rather earlier than it should have been closed. We should make it clear that the people carrying out these responsible tasks in British Coal are not being singled out for criticism. To illustrate the point, I can quote a constituency case of mine, particularly as the individual involved did not support my party. One of my constituents savagely criticised British Coal for not being kind and helpful in dealing with his demands for substantial compensation for subsidence. The reply of the British Coal officer concerned took the rather unusual form of sending a copy of my constituent's letter complaining about the damage that subsidence had done to his house and demanding money from British Coal together with the estate agent's blurb, which said that his house was a wonderful mansion in perfect condition. In those circumstances, I did not feel disposed to criticise the staff of British Coal in my area.
  The area that I represent has had coal mining under it for up to 340 years, and has suffered mightily. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke about the effect of subsidence on a dairy farmer in his constituency, but I recall that, as a result of subsidence in my constituency, he once had to rescue a cow —rather an amusing story.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I was a retained fireman when a shallow seam subsided. That was when I saw three cows underground.
  Mr. Hardy: That was due to a decision made by the National Coal Board as it then was, when I served on the local authority. It told the council that it was essential that it mined the Melton field from Wath main colliery and that, although it was a shallow seam, the quality of the coal was desperately needed in the national interest. The board assured us that it would do its best to ensure that there was adequate compensation. The local authority agreed that mining should begin. Within days, houses had begun to collapse, and within a short time the council had to rehouse what were significant numbers of people for a relatively small authority. We received a letter from a lady who complained about the foul language being used by workers whom she could hear from her dining room while they were working underground extracting coal. We were naturally able to assure her that no miners at Wath main colliery indulged in strong language, but that helped us to put a case to British Coal for adequate compensation for our community.
  However, that community was hurt. As some of my hon. Friends have said, distress and trauma—the Minister used the word trauma—are caused when people have to leave their homes for months or when housewives who are proud of their homes find them in semi-dereliction, as a result of which they have to move into less satisfactory or smaller accommodation, without even knowing when they can return to the home that they have cared for for many years.
  As some hon. Members have suggested, if such problems occurred in some of the more salubrious parts of the country, the Bill might have come before us a little sooner. We have, of course, shared the anxiety that has been expressed about the channel tunnel, and especially by those in Kent. We hope that those who have voiced their concern about matters that affect the more salubrious areas of the south-east will not object if the Minister decides to accept some of the sensible amendments to the Bill that have been recommended by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I could pay tribute to several hon. Members who have spoken and to whom I have not referred. I apologise to those I have not mentioned. I feel, however, that the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) should not escape attention. We suspect that the Government feel that it is necessary to legislate on subsidence in coal mining areas to facilitate the privatisation of the mining industry. They feel that there are areas where loot can be garnered.
  There are Conservative Members who know a great deal about the mining industry and they might join us in urging caution before there is any hasty removal of the industry' from public control. If we do not have a substantial and significant body such as British Coal that is charged with properly fulfilling its responsibilities in matters of the sort that we are discussing, those responsibilities may not be fulfilled. The problems to which we have pointed have made it necessary for the Minister carefully to consider how the Bill, which my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome in principle, can be made welcome in the coal pits.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
  We have debated the Bill for nearly five hours and I am grateful to hon. Members for the general support that it has received. Naturally, some aspects of it have attracted criticism. I believe that in part some of the criticisms rest on a misunderstanding of certain clauses, and perhaps are coloured by problems in dealing with events in the past.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), in his opening remarks, dwelt on the so-called six-year rule. I agree that this has suffered from various interpretations over the years. The 1957 legislation provided for only a two-months time limit and the 1975 legislation included no specific time limit. I agree with the Select Committee on Energy that at some stage British Coal should be able to close its books on a claim. We wish, however, to achieve a balance by giving householders a considerable time in which to lodge claims. I repeat and emphasise that the date of the original mining is not relevant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) mentioned the difficulties that have been experienced in old coalfields. I know that the Kingswood miners were famous in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Radstock coalfield covered my constituency, although the last pit there, New Rock, shut in 1968. I have some experience, however, of the difficulties caused by old coal mines. I am aware that the mining techniques of those days can delay subsidence for a considerable period. That is why the six-year period runs not from the date of mining, not even from the date of damage to a house, but from the date when the claimant becomes aware of the damage. The Bill places the onus on British Coal to prove that damage was not caused by subsidence, which removes the ambiguities that have clouded dealings between claimants, hon. Members and the coal board.
  Several hon. Members referred to the arbitration scheme. British Coal's voluntary scheme has been in operation for only a month. It is designed to offer quick, informal and expensive—
  Mr. Rowlands: Inexpensive.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I apologise. I meant quick, informal and inexpensive settlement of disputes. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned difficult constituency cases that were almost tailor-made for settlement under such an arbitration scheme. We shall review the operation of the scheme later in the year, at which time changes and extensions to it may be appropriate.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who has made a notable contribution to the subject. He expressed concern that British Coal could refuse arbitration. I draw his attention to clause 40(4)(a), which specifies that under a scheme approved by the Secretary of State British Coal will not only be bound by arbitration but will have to offer it. We shall discuss that further in Committee, but the fact that that regulation can be made will be a clear incentive for British Coal to operate its voluntary scheme reasonably and constructively.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend referred to clause 41(4)(a), which says:
  "While it is in force, a scheme approved under subsection (2) above—
  132
  (a) shall have effect, in relation to any dispute to which it relates, as a binding offer of arbitration".
  Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the scheme that began last month will be approved under the Bill or that another scheme will be put in its place if that scheme does not work out?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I should correct the clause number: it is clause 41(4)(a). It may or may not be the scheme approved. If it needs to be extended and modified, it will be, but it is sensible to start off with a voluntary scheme and to see whether it is, in principle, a satisfactory way of resolving disputes and whether it will evolve into a scheme that is satisfactory to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, to the House.
  Stop notices were mentioned. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) was concerned that British Coal can delay claims against it almost indefinitely. He would agree that, in principle, provision for stop notices is sensible. There is no point in repairing a house if it is to suffer almost immediate further damage from prospective mining. Under the Bill, stop notices must be reviewed every 12 months and lifted as soon as damage is not likely to occur in the next 18 months.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked who would pay when pits closed. That is an obligation on British Coal as a whole, but it is right, where possible, to stick to the principle that individual pits are responsible for subsidence that their activities cause. That is why I am against a general levy which would disguise that fact. There should be a clear incentive on individual pits and, indeed, on individual pit faces to reduce damage caused by subsidence.
  Mr. Lofthouse: In 1985, there were eight pits in my constituency; today there is only one. There will be arguments in constituencies such as mine about which pit caused subsidence—a working pit or a pit which has closed. If the costs of closed pits are imposed on a working pit, it could become unprofitable and liable to closure.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was going to come to the general burden on the industry.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will know that in British Coal's most recently published accounts there is a provision of £243 million to cover subsidence damage. British Coal has anticipated most of the measures in the Bill and made provision accordingly. It could well be that that sum will be adequate to cover the financial obligations in the Bill. The Bill is needed whether or not the coal industry is in the public or the private sector.
  We do not wish needlessly to burden British Coal with huge financial obligations regardless of cost. That could increase the price of coal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said. We must be alive to the danger that we could cripple the industry. However, we want to specify the fair obligations on British Coal and clearly set out the corresponding rights of householders.
  All hon. Members have welcomed the emphasis in the Bill on repair rather than compensation. Some of the difficulties mentioned may have arisen out of comparatively generous compensation payments which were taken by some people and not used to repair their homes, which

  133
  were sold to new purchasers who then found that the claim had been settled and that there was no way of getting money from British Coal to undertake the repairs.
  The Bill is the culmination of much consultation with interested parties. It recognises that deep mining causes subsidence. We want a means of dealing with the undoubted pain and stress that subsidence can cause to individual householders, those in business, farmers and property owners. We will do that by carrying forward existing codes of practice, the best from the two main Acts of Parliament and the pre-notification requirements, and by insisting on timely repairs, the payment of reasonable expenses, the creation of a fair disputes procedure and many other items mentioned in the Bill.
  This is a welcome Bill. It is a good Bill and, no doubt, in Committee we will make it even better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    FOOD PROTECTION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 20), dated 10th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 1 th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (England) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 6), dated 10th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 1 th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (Wales) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 5), dated 10th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee B that it have power to amend the Northern Irerland (Emergency Provisions) Bill so as to make, in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, provision for and in connection with the exercise of investigation powers by persons other than constables.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  River Cart (Flooding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I very much regret the necessity for this debate, and my regret is in no way related to the hour. I regret the fact that many of my constituents in the Langside and Battlefield districts of Glasgow are placed in a state of fear each time heavy and sustained rainfall occurs; in a caring society, that should surely not be allowed to happen. The second reason for my regret is the negative response that I have received to my letters on the subject, from both the Minister who is to reply and from the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).
  On 6 October, the latest serious flooding of the White Cart river occurred in the district to which I referred. Three days later, having visited the areas and having spoken to families who had been forced to leave their homes, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland. On 22 October, I received a reply from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West declining my request that he should visit the affected areas to see for himself the effect of the damage.
  On 9 December, I wrote to the Minister who has responsibility for local government asking to meet him to discuss the matter along with the elected representatives on Glasgow district and Strathclyde regional council. Five weeks and several promptings later, I finally received a response in which the Minister declined to attend such a meeting. I therefore had no alternative but to seek this Adjournment debate to put my case to the Minister.
  White Cart water rises to the south-west of the city of Glasgow between Eaglesham and East Kilbride. It flows through much of the south side of the city. After some 22 miles, it joins the Black Cart near Glasgow airport and then flows into the River Clyde at Renfrew.
  There is a long history of flooding in much of the area through which the White Cart flows—most notably in Cathcart, Langside and Shawlands. Records dating back to 1908 suggest serious flooding in those districts on at least 16 occasions. That represents a frequency of once every five years.
  During the early hours of 1 January 1984, flooding from the White Cart water caused extensive inundation, resulting in widespread disruption and affecting almost 500 homes and business premises in the Battlefield and Langside area. Water levels rose with exceptional speed —in some areas at more than I m per hour. Unfortunately, only 12 days later, on 13 January 1984, an almost identical flood occurred in the same area, with similar results.
  That month was clearly exceptional but floods of a similar or greater magnitude had occurred in August 1920, January 1932, October 1959 and September 1962. Even though the average period between the most serious instances of flooding is around 10 years, there are many instances of floods which were less serious but which none the less forced residents to evacuate their homes. Overall, the interval between successive flooding of all categories has ranged from 12 days to 17 years. That illustrates a further problem—the sheer unpredictability of such events.

  135
  The last serious flooding occurred on the night of 5 October 1990. More than 200 families in my constituency had to abandon their homes as precautions that included moving furniture upstairs and placing sandbags against doors and windows proved quite inadequate to stem the flood waters. Some homes were flooded to a depth of 2 ft, and it is estimated that resultant insurance claims will exceed £2 million.
  It is not difficult to imagine the despair felt by families in such circumstances. Their fear and anxiety at times of heavy or prolonged rainfall are distressing enough even when the river remains contained. Think how much worse it must be when the high water flows over retaining walls, flooding gardens, streets and houses. Property is damaged, often beyond repair. Families are forced to flee their homes, leaving possessions behind. It is usually many weeks after the water has receded before a return is possible and even then it is far from a return to normality.
  Last month I witnessed events. On the evening of 1 January, a matter of weeks after the October floods, residents in Melbrae crescent and Woodfed street, which are regularly the areas worst affected by flooding in my constituency, were visited by police and warned that the White Cart was rising to dangerous levels. They were issued with sandbags. Fortunately, that was a false alarm and the water subsided two or three inches below the limits of the retaining walls. However, it was a close-run thing and yet another distressing occasion for residents. When I visited several of those residents the following day, they showed what I thought was remarkable self-restraint in the circumstances. I was struck by the fact that none of them had carpets in their homes. The explanation was simple: their floorboards had not dried out following the October flooding.
  I have several distressing letters from constituents about the flooding, and I want to refer to one from Mrs. Margaret Morran of 450 Tantallon road. She lives in a sheltered complex for the elderly and she wrote to me about the night in October when the floods came, stating:
  "I was terrified as I watched the waters rising at the back of the house where the Cart flows and the front—in Tantallon Road … the residents … cannot take any more, people afraid of the future, afraid for themselves, afraid for their homes, afraid of the next downpour of rain, afraid to go to bed when they hear it—like myself!
  What do we do, and the many people here who are over eighty years of age, when we hear a warning signal? Where do we go from a one-roomed house situated on the ground floor? Something must be done immediately."
  She is absolutely right. Those people and many others are in a quite intolerable situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
  The problem is becoming even more acute as the years pass. It will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that Glasgow has by far the highest rainfall in Scotland. However, as I said, it is getting worse. Between 1950 and 1980, Glasgow's average rainfall was 950 mm. In 1985 it was over 1,100 mm and last year it was more than 1,200 mm. Last year Glasgow also had its wettest three months since records began, with measurable rain for 70 consecutive days, culminating in the dreadful events of 5 and 6 October to which I referred a few moments ago.
  What can be done about it? The Minister and his colleagues have written to me saying that responsibility lies with Strathclyde regional council and, strictly speaking,
  136
  that is the case. The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 gave discretionary powers to local authorities to carry out flood prevention schemes to protect non-agricultural land. Eight years ago, the duty to warn of flooding—although, interestingly, not to prevent it—was passed to river boards in Scotland. The Clyde river purification board has just announced its decision to spend £96,000 on a computerised early warning system for the Cart. That is fine so far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough. It addresses the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.
  The responsibility may rest technically with Strathclyde regional council, but how realistic is it to expect the authority to deal with the problem of the White Cart in the foreseeable future? For the Scottish Office to answer pleas for assistance with, "Go tell it to Strathclyde region," is disingenuous at best. The regional council's sewerage department had a project expenditure for 1990–91 of £26·5 million and the projected figure for 1991–92 is £30·1 million. The increase will be entirely eaten up by existing projects.
  Nor can the region be accused of ignoring the problem of the White Cart. With regard to one of the Cart's feeders, the Broch burn, which has been a constant source of floods for a long time in the Pollok area, the Strathclyde regional council has committed £2·7 million this year for a flood relief scheme. It is also spending money on the Pollok relief sewer. At the same time, to expect the regional council to allocate in excess of £10 million for a scheme for the White Cart is not just unreasonable; it seriously underestimates the scale of the problem.
  In 1987, the region commissioned a report from a firm of consulting engineers in Glasgow called Babtie, Shaw and Morton. It was asked to report on the flooding of the Cart and to recommend a solution. It produced a plan that involved the introduction of a flood storage scheme, the creation of flood plains and the construction of walls and embankments up to 2·5 m high. The estimated cost was in excess of £6 million, with another £2 million-plus needed to cover consequential effects downriver. That report was never acted upon, because the regional council faced greater priorities, largely as a result of the enhanced standards that it is required to meet in terms of water and sewerage.
  It must be stressed that flood prevention is a discretionary, not statutory, requirement of the regional council. At present, Strathclyde regional council is involved in pruning £20 million from its current budget to meet Government-induced expenditure cuts and shortfalls in poll tax revenue. That involves cutting into budgets relating to its statutory duties, including education and social work, and it forms part of what will be a massive £60 million cut over the next two years.
  The councillors are in an impossible situation—they are damned by the public if they do, and damned by the Secretary of State if they do not. When the region, the largest local authority in Britain, is unable to meet its statutory requirements, how can the Minister tell me that it should be prioritising discretionary duties? It simply has nothing to spare. Any attempt to point the finger at the regional council is buck-passing by the Government.
  In my exchange of letters with Scottish Office Ministers, I have been advised that
  "exchequer grants of up to 30 per cent. would be available to the regional council for flood prevention schemes."

  137
  That is well known, but, if a suitable scheme cost even a modest £10 million—that is in 1987 figures, so it will clearly be more than that—it would leave the regional council needing to raise £7 million itself, and it simply cannot do it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West offered advice in an even more tongue-in-cheek fashion, when he wrote to me in October:
  "Authorities have flexibility to anticipate future capital allocations by up to 10 per cent. and are generally free to transfer funds between programmes to meet their assessment of overall priorities. In addition, capital allocations can be enhanced by generating capital receipts through the disposal of surplus assets, and capital expenditure can be financed from current revenue without being recorded against the capital allocations."
  In other words: "Sell off the family silver, but don't look to us to help you." That will not wash with my constituents. There may even be EC funding available, but the bottom line is clearly that, unless the Government and the Scottish Office make special funding available, nothing will change in the foreseeable future.
  I am well aware that other parts of Scotland are afflicted with flood-related problems, and my arguments this evening are in no sense to be taken as detracting from their needs. However, I was sent here to fight for the people of Glasgow, Central, and the pressing need now is for the Scottish Office to join that fight. As the House knows, countless millions were made available for the Thames flood barriers. Will the Scottish Office fight its corner for Glasgow as vigorously as the Government were prepared to fight for London? If not, why not?
  Hundreds of constituents are living in houses that they cannot sell and are surrounded by furniture and possessions that they cannot insure. In desperation, following last October's floods a packed meeting of residents in Langside hall decided to form the White Cart Flooding Association. They have already set up a fighting fund, distributed petitions and written to the Scottish Office and to Strathclyde regional council. They deserve the right to live their lives free from anxiety, and only special funding from the Scottish Office will bring them peace of mind. In his letter to me, dated 16 January, the Minister said that he had "every sympathy" with those who had suffered distress and damage to property. They do not want sympathy; they want action, and I mean to see that they get it.
  12.7 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on having secured this Adjournment debate on behalf of his constituents, and I am glad to respond to it.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the severity of the effects of the flooding that occurred on Saturday 6 October. There is no dispute about the severity of what happened. As he said, many properties, businesses and roads in the Cathcart, Battlefield, Langside and Shawlands areas of Glasgow were inundated with floodwater from the White Cart water. The hon. Gentleman said that, in certain parts of the flooded area, residents had to be evacuated—indeed, elderly residents had to be evacuated from their houses by boat. Hon. Members will agree that that must have been a disturbing experience. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have every sympathy for all those who were affected by the flooding.
  138
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services for the assistance which they provided on that occasion. The police issued the warning to which the hon. Gentleman referred and assisted with the evacuation of properties. The fire brigade also assisted people. The local authorities mobilised squads of workmen with lorries and sandbags to reduce the effects of the water. Three reception centres were set up and the housing office was open for temporary accommodation. In the event, however, I understand that few people remained in the reception areas overnight.
  The response to the emergency is unlikely to have been made any easier by the fact that the flood reached its peak at about midday on the Saturday. Undoubtedly, that is a factor which the emergency services will have considered when assessing whether any improvements could be made to their procedures.
  I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that officials in my Department have discussed what happened with officials in Strathclyde regional council and officials from the Scottish Office have visited the area to see the position for themselves.
  As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the beginning of October was a particularly wet period in Scotland. Although, within 20 km both north and south of Glasgow, the rainfall was barely noteworthy on 5 and 6 October, in the White Cart water catchment area, rainfall of more than 2 in was recorded between the evening of 5 October and early afternoon on 6 October. That rainfall, falling on an already saturated catchment area, resulted in a rapid run-off, generating a flood in the river, which passed through Cathcart during the morning and afternoon of 6 October. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the severity of the flood. I confirm that, at its peak, the flood was the third highest recorded, both upstream of the affected area at the Overlee gauging station established in 1981, and downstream at the Hawkhead gauging station, where records are available from 1964.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a long history of flooding in the areas. It is not a new problem. He said that records dating back to 1908 show that serious flooding has occurred on at least 16 occasions. My notes say 17, but we can broadly agree that there is a considerable history of serious flooding. In addition, observations suggest that minor flooding in the built-up areas occurs at least once every two years on average.
  The interval between floods is extremely variable. To give the House one example, in January 1984, two major floods occurred within 12 days, whereas no serious flooding is recorded during the long period between 1932 and 1959—over a quarter of a century. That illustrates the unpredictability of such events.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on his case for flood prevention measures to improve protection against future flooding in the area. I am sure that the House has every sympathy with the sentiments that he expressed on behalf of his worried constituents. I assure him that the Scottish Office is aware of the desire for action. However, I must emphasise—this is not a technical but a real point —that the body with statutory powers for flood prevention—as he said, discretionary powers—is not the Scottish Office but Strathclyde regional council.
  The council has wide powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to take such measures as it sees fit to prevent or mitigate flooding of nonagricultural land in its area. To record the powers in detail,

  139
  the council may maintain or improve any watercourse in its area. In particular, section 4 of the Act provides that, apart from maintenance and management operations, flood prevention schemes made by the council must be approved by the Secretary of State.
  It is at that point that the Secretary of State formally enters the decision-making process. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, will recognise that progress is therefore dependent in the first instance upon decisions made by the council. I give the hon. Member an assurance that any scheme for flood prevention on the White Cart water put forward by Strathclyde will receive serious consideration, but first, in the light of all the circumstances, the council has to decide what a flood prevention scheme would entail and whether it wishes to proceed with such a scheme. That is a right and proper procedure for it to undertake, and no one can criticise it for proceeding in that way. I do not criticise the council, as I think that the hon. Gentleman alleged I was going to.
  The council was fully aware of the problems of flooding from the White Cart. Indeed, as the hon. Member told the House, it commissioned a firm of consulting engineers to study and report on possible flood alleviation measures, following the serious flooding in January 1984. That report contained a number of recommendations. For example, it recommended the construction of flood walls and embankments between Cathcart and Pollokshaws. The proposal was to build the works to a level which would provide protection against a flood with a theoretical return period of not less than 50 years. As the hon. Member told the House, at that time, the cost was estimated at £6 million, which at today's prices would exceed £10 million.
  At that time, a similar investigation was carried out by the consultants in respect of the Brock burn and Levern water. I should perhaps declare a personal interest in Levern water, as it passes in front of my house, although rather further upstream. The report identified flood prevention measures that would provide protection against the one in 100-year flood, which were estimated to cost about £1·25 million.
  I understand that Strathclyde regional council is currently preparing detailed proposals for a flood prevention scheme on the Brock burn and Levern water and has made provision in its financial plan for expenditure of £2·7 million over the period 1992–94. Those proposals will no doubt be widely welcomed by the local community.
  The hon. Member mentioned resources. As he will know, flood prevention comes within the Scottish water and sewerage capital expenditure programmes. Provision for that programme has been substantially increased in recent years. For example, in the 1989 public expenditure survey, the programme was set at more than £500 million for the three-year period 1990–91 to 1992–93. The hon. Member will also know that, as part of the 1990 survey, the Government recently announced another substantial increase in resources. For 1991–92, the investment level for the water and sewerage programme has been set at £167 million, rising to £238 million in 1993–94. The three-year programme now totals more than £620 million. The figure
  140
  of £238 million for 1993–94 is two-thirds higher than the provision for the current year, and more than double the level for 1988–89.
  That increased provision takes account of the needs identified by regional councils in their financial plans. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the provision already announced to Strathclyde broadly meets the programme that the council has submitted. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, if Strathclyde regional council were to decide to promote a flood prevention scheme for the White Cart water and to make provision in its financial plan, it would receive serious consideration. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that if such a proposal were to come forward, at that stage, of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and a delegation from his constituency, if he thought that that would be helpful. However, we do not have a scheme before us, and it is for the council to decide whether or not it wants to promote one. Priorities and the timing of projects are matters for the council to decide.
  As to the provision for Strathclyde, that has risen from £45 million in 1989–90 to a provisional allocation of £71 million for 1991–92—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the final 1992–93 allocation will be at least the provisional figure.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), pointing out that authorities have flexibility in determining available resources, which is a point of some importance. Authorities can, in the light of their own priorities, make a limited switch of resources between various blocks of expenditure—and they can also fund capital projects from current revenue without that counting against their capital allocations.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that special funding should be made available to Strathclyde for the specific purpose of a flood prevention scheme on the White Cart. As he knows, capital allocations are not granted for specific schemes, because it is for councils to determine their own priorities according to local needs. Any departure from that approach would limit the discretion presently available to local authorities.
  That general approach has been consistently supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—which, rightly, wants to defend that discretion and has not wanted to go down the road of earmarked funds for particular capital projects, as that would undermine the discretion that they can apply.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, under flood prevention legislation, Exchequer grants are already available to regional councils. In the case of Strathclyde, the grant would be 30 per cent. of the eligible costs of an improved scheme.
  I dwelt at some length on the powers and flexibility that regional councils have in commissioning flood protection works. However, I readily acknowledge that, even if Strathclyde decided to go ahead now with a White Cart scheme, there would be a lengthy planning and construction period, and residents would continue to feel apprehensive every time there was heavy rain and the river started to rise.
  Of immediate benefit will be an advance warning system, which would allow appropriate action to be taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decision by Clyde river purification board, in response to strong representations made by him and by councillors, including Councillor

  141
  James Shields, to implement a flood warning system for the White Cart water. Work on the instrumentation of that complex catchment and development of a mathematical model is proceeding. Final commissioning of the system will take about a year.
  Meanwhile, the availability of improved information about rainfall and catchment response from the new instrumentation should allow for much better advance warning of possible flooding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a positive measure and one which will be welcomed by his constituents. I congratulate
  142
  him on taking this opportunity to put his constituents' concerns before the House. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that if, after taking account of all its priorities, Strathclyde regional council decides to bring forward a flood prevention scheme for the White Cart water, I shall be happy to discuss it personally with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, if he wishes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek through the United Nations an estimate of the deaths and injuries caused to Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza by Israeli forces; and if he will seek an investigation into the extent to which these acts were in breach of the fourth Geneva convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We gather information on casualties in the occupied territories from a variety of sources, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the United Nations agency responsible for the care of Palestinian refugees. Our figures are 870 deaths and many thousands of injuries since the beginning of the intifada. We regularly take up with the Israelis incidents in which we believe that their security forces have acted in breach of the fourth Geneva convention.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist relatives of the United Kingdom citizens working in Saudi Arabia to keep in touch with their family and answer queries on their whereabouts and well-being.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that families are able to communicate freely by telephone and that the Post Office is doing everything that it can to provide a regular postal service.

  United Kingdom Civilians, Dhahran
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to discuss with the management of Aramco at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, health and safety factors relating to civilian employment of United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 29 January the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia discussed with the President of Aramco the general situation of British nationals under contract to the company. The ambassador was assured that Aramco would not penalise those who sought to leave because of the Gulf crisis and that accrued benefits would not be forfeited.

  Neither the British Government nor Aramco are advising those employed in or near Dhahran to leave. All British nationals in the area have been issued with respirators.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made concerning abuses of human rights by the Guatemalan national police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We and our European partners have often made clear to the Guatemalan authorities our deep concern about human rights abuses, including the plight of street children. We have repeated this concern to the new Government of President Serrano.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with King Hussein of Jordan concerning his proposal for a cease fire in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have been in close contact with the Jordanians about the Gulf crisis. We understand that the Jordanian proposal for a ceasefire is no longer being pursued.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been received, or promised, from other Governments towards the costs of the deployment of British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received pledges of assistance, both financial and in kind, from a number of countries. It would be difficult to quantify these, or to list every offer. But notable among them are contributions from Germany and Japan; and host nation support facilities from Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments have been(a) made and (b) promised by (i) Kuwait and (ii) other Gulf states in respect of the cost of the war in the Gulf; and to which countries or organisations such payments have been made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of all pledges, but major among them are those by Kuwait—․16 billion—and Saudi Arabia—․13·5 billion—to the United States. Most Gulf states are providing practical support to forces involved in the hostilities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the ambassador or charge d'affaires of Iraq concerning the level of civilian casualties suffered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have frequently made clear to the Iraqi ambassador our abhorrence of the appalling treatment of Kuwaiti civilians by the Iraqis in breach of the Geneva conventions following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We have also protested to him about deliberate Iraqi attacks on civilian targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia. By contrast, allied service men have taken considerable risks to minimise Iraqi civilian casualties in the current hostilities.

  Turkey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's interpretation of the legal
  3
  status of Turkey's relations with northern Cyprus, and what action he is taking to ensure Turkey complies with United Nation resolutions on this matter.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to United Nation Security Council resolution 541 of 18 November 1983 which calls upon all states not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Government are well aware of our position in full support of that resolution, and of all the Security Council resolutions on Cyprus.

  Pilgrimages
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is giving to those who have booked pilgrimages to Mecca or Medina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our advice to visitors to Saudi Arabia is that it is better to avoid travel, unless they have strong reasons to go there. The cities of Mecca and Medina are a good distance away from the area of hostilities but air services to Saudi Arabia are restricted. It is for individuals to decide whether to proceed.

PRIME MINISTER

  The Gulf (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all EEC countries, setting out his estimate of(a) their expenditure in direct contributions to their own participation in the Gulf conflict by the end of January, (b) their contribution to the United Kingdom and (c) the value of their contribution to the United Kingdom as a percentage of the United Kingdom's direct expenditure as described above.

  The Prime Minister
  Our EC partners are showing, both by their military and economic contributions, that they share solidarity with us in pursuing the liberation of Kuwait. But I cannot quantify this in the way requested, particularly since the position is changing all the time.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chymosin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the new source for the enzyme Chymosin, as approved by the Food Advisory Committee, to be in commercial production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for the manufacturing company, Gist Brocades.

  Sugar (Pensioners)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to provide a low price sugar concession for British pensioners.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no such plans.

  Milk
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on employment in the milk processing industry of further reductions in the common agricultural policy.
  4
  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has not yet published any formal proposals for changes in CAP support. The likely effect on employment in the milk processing industry will be one of the factors to be considered when such proposals are forthcoming.

  Badgers
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any information about the illegal gassing of badgers in Cumbria in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

TRANSPORT

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to introduce a new maximum speed limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am currently considering whether the current maximum speed limits should be changed.

  Freight Trains
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will raise at the European Community Transport Council proposals for the adoption of standard low bogies for through freight trains travelling on the United Kingdom and continental rail network after 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the request of the Transport Council, the European Commission has recently set up a high-level working group to identify the measures required for the creation of a combined transport network and the conditions under which such a network can operate effectively. The United Kingdom will participate fully in the working group.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss with his French counterpart the Berne-gauge/British Rail gauge compatibility problem for through freight transport after channel tunnel completion.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the spring.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the introduction of low bogies on the Berne gauge trains running through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The choice of the rolling stock for channel tunnel freight services is primarily a commercial matter for British Rail and its railway partners. British Rail plans to use low-platform wagon technology to carry most types of swapbodies and containers within the British loading gauge.

  Bus Priority Measures
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of bus priority measures.

  Mr. Freeman
  We believe that bus priority measures have an important role in promoting bus use. It is for local authorities to consider what measures might be appropriate in their area.

  Driver Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when was the last time he met the data protection registrar to discuss the disclosure of personal information from the DVLA to third parties; whether the data protection registrar was invited to make a submission to the road traffic law review committee; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to inform drivers that items of their personal information will be transferred to the new police national computer; and whether he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he will place the report of the Road Traffic Law Review Committee, that includes the discussions and recommendations that relate to the disclosure of information from the DVLA to the new police national computer, in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  The DVLA and the Department in general regularly consult the Office of the Data Protection Registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  DVLA registrations under the Data Protection Act 1984 indicate that details from both the vehicle and driver registers are given to the police. Therefore, as the planned changes for providing the police with additional information from the DVLA driver register do not require consultation with the Data Protection Registrar he was not invited to make a submission to the road traffic law review committee.

  It would not be appropriate to undertake the substantial cost of informing individual drivers about the change in practice which is in line with the registration.

  A copy of the road traffic law review report is in the Library. The relevant reference is paragraph 3.43.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current state of staffing levels and workload of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  There has been a significant improvement in recruitment in the past year. The Crown prosecution service has 1,717 lawyers in post against an increased total requirement of 2,053, an increase over 12 months of 137 lawyers in post. There are 3,637 administrative staff and law clerks in post, against a total requirement of 3,688.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Circuit Judges

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  County Court Registrars

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  In 1991 to date one woman circuit judge and one woman district judge (formerly known as county court registrar) have been appointed.

  The proportion of women in the profession with the necessary qualifications for appointment is low at present. As it increases, the Lord Chancellor will be able to appoint more women to judicial office.
  6
  Workload expressed in terms of the total number of cases prosecuted increased during the first nine months of 1990 by 3·2 per cent.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the shortage of staff in the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service now has 1,717 lawyers in post against an increased total requirement of 2,053, an increase over 12 months of 137 lawyers in post, and an increase since October 1986 of 504 lawyers in post. The current upturn in recruitment is being assisted by the success of the training scheme for pupil barristers and trainee solicitors, the introduction from 1 June 1990 of the single combined prosecutor grade, and a current doubling of the number of recruitment boards.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with current levels of recruiting of professional staff to the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of lawyers in post at the end of January 1991 was 1,717·5. This figure represents an increase of 137·5 over the preceding 12 months, an average net gain of 11·5 per month. I welcome this significant increase, and recent trends indicate to me that it will continue.

  Racist Publications
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement concerning the prosecution of people who disseminate anti-semitic and other racist material.

  The Attorney-General
  Such people may commit offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, or under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. I recently consented to a prosecution under the 1986 Act and I expect to make decisions under that Act in other cases in the near future.

  Women Justices
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General how many women were appointed as judges, stipendiary magistrates and registrars respectively in each of the years 1985 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:

  Chester Crown Court
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the rebuilding and refurbishment of Chester crown court.

  The Attorney-General
  The initial phase of the project to adapt disused rooms as office accommodation was
  7
  completed in June 1989. Construction work to provide a separate entrance for local authority staff is due for completion in spring this year. Work is also in progress to provide a third courtroom, new ancillary rooms and to complete repairs and other improvements to the building. This latter phase of the project is expected to be completed in autumn 1992.

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the case of Mrs. Maguire and her family to come before the appeal court; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The question of listing is a judicial one and not for comment by Ministers. The DPP understands that the court will list the case for a preliminary hearing once the parties have finalised their written submissions.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxes
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the tax yield for 1989–90 and 1990–91 of(a) vehicle excise duty, (b) fuel duty, (c) new car tax, (d) value added tax on new vehicles and (e) value added tax on petrol and derv sales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following is the available information:

  1989–90(outturn)

  1990–91(forecast)

  Vehicle excise duty

  2·9

  3·0

  Hydrocarbon oil excise duty

  8·7

  9·6

  Car tax

  1·5

  1·4

  Value added tax on new cars

  2·7

  n.a.

  Value added tax on petrol

  1·2

  n.a.

  Value added tax on derv

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.—not available.

  Inflation
  Mr. Simons Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual rate of inflation between February 1974 and May 1979; and what has been the equivalent figure during the present Parliament.

  Mr. Maples
  Between February 1974 and May 1979 the average annual rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 15·4 per cent. per annum. This compares with 7·7 per cent. for the period May 1979 to December 1990.

  Kuwaiti Investment Funds
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of Kuwaiti investment office funds held in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  The information requested is not available.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the effects of his interest rate policy on employment.
  8
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: Interest rates are maintained at a level to bear down on inflation and keep sterling within its ERM bands. The defeat of inflation is essential for economic prosperity and sustained high employment.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers and Pupils (Norfolk)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the number of teachers employed by Norfolk county council in 1961, 1970, 1980 and 1990, or the latest date available, in actual and full-time equivalent terms, and the number of children being educated by Norfolk county council for each of the above years, and the teacher:pupil ratio in each case.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested for maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Norfolk is as follows. Comparable data for 1961 and 1970 are not readily available.

  1980

  1990

  Pupils Full-time Equivalent (thousands)

  116·1

  99·6

  Teachers

  Actual Number (thousands)

  6·3

  6·4

  Full-time Equivalent (thousands)

  6·0

  5·8

  Overall Pupil/Teacher Ratio

  19·4

  17·1

  School Staff
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the number of(a) teaching, (b) classroom support, (c) other school-based and (d) non-school-based staff employed by each local education authority; and what proportion (d) represents of the total staff of each local education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information showing the number of teachers employed by each LEA in the nursery, primary and secondary schools sector is given in DES statistical bulletin 5/90 which is available in the Library.

  Tables provided by LACSAB showing the numbers of teaching and non-teaching staff (full-time and part-time) employed by each LEA (including special and further education) have been placed in the library.

  No information is available separately on the numbers of classroom support, other school-based or non-schoolbased staff.

  CERN
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the United Kingdom's contribution to CERN in each of the last five years available in(a) cash terms and (b) constant terms.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Cash(£ million)

  1990–91 prices (£ million)

  1986–87

  44·8

  58·2

  1987–88

  56·0

  69·0

  1988–89

  54·1

  62·2

  9

  Financial Year

  Cash(£ million)

  1990–91 prices (£ million)

  1989–90

  48·5

  52·4

  11990–91

  53·1

  53·1

  1 Estimate.

  Fine Arts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will commission an inquiry into the contribution made to design and innovation in commerce and industry by British graduates in fine art; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to increase the number of fine art undergraduate places in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend does not set target figures for fine art undergraduate provision but, within the substantial aggregate resources available, looks to the higher education institutions and their funding councils to respond appropriately to demand in this and other subject areas.

  Non-university higher education in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the number of mature students studying in higher education in the European Economic Community states the United States of America and Japan; and what percentage they represent within the indicated student population as a whole.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in tabular form the

  Percentages

  Academic year beginning

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  Older mature participation index

  Men

  0·269

  0·264

  0·274

  0·275

  0·331

  0·356

  Women

  0·250

  0·279

  0·291

  0·317

  0·371

  0·400

  Younger mature entry index

  Men

  10·8

  11·7

  11·6

  11·5

  12·4

  13·6

  Women

  4·6

  5·0

  4·6

  4·9

  5·6

  6·3

  1 Provisional.

  The indices are not calculated with reference to socio-economic groups.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total number of mandatory awards made to mature students in higher education in each year from 1980 to the latest available date.
  10
  number of mature initial entrants to full-time undergraduate degree courses in higher education for each year from 1980 to the latest available date for (a) universities, (b) public sector institutions and (c) all higher education; and if he will list those figures as a percentage of the total number of students in each year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mature home first year full-time undergraduates in higher education 1980–81 to 1988–89 in Great Britain

  Universities

  Polytechnics and colleges

  Total higher education

  1980

  7,594

  9,574

  17,168

  1981

  7,007

  11,125

  18,132

  1982

  6,224

  11,016

  17,240

  1983

  6,120

  10,583

  16,703

  1984

  6,515

  10,170

  16,685

  1985

  6,767

  11,837

  18,604

  1986

  7,390

  12,577

  19,967

  1987

  7,835

  14,699

  22,534

  1988

  9,116

  16,887

  26,003

  Mature home full-time 1st degree entrants as a percentage of home full-time 1st degree entrants in Great Britain

  Universities

  Polytechnics and colleges

  Total higher education

  1980

  9·9

  21·5

  14·2

  1981

  9·6

  20·8

  14·3

  1982

  8·8

  19·2

  13·5

  1983

  8·9

  18·6

  13·3

  1984

  9·3

  17·9

  13·2

  1985

  9·7

  20·3

  14·5

  1986

  10·6

  21·1

  15·4

  1987

  10·9

  23·5

  16·8

  1988

  12·1

  25·5

  18·4

  Source: DES Statistical Bulletin—Mature Students in Higher Education.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the older mature participation index and the younger mature participation index for higher education for each year since 1984; and if he will show these figures(a) for men and women and (b) for each socio-economic group, as defined by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information available is as follows:

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The data are not available in he form requested. The numbers of awards made to students with independent status in England and Wales from 1980–81 to 1988–89 were:

  Full Value Awards

  1980–81

  46,919

  1981–82

  49,810

  1982–83

  51,526

  11

  Mandatory Awards

  1983–84

  41,070

  1984–85

  41,318

  1985–86

  42,978

  1986–87

  46,732

  1987–88

  53,066

  1988–89

  60,310

  The figures are for the academic year. Full value awards include both mandatory awards and full value discretionary awards.

  The status of a student is either independent or dependent. To be treated as an independent student the student must be an orphan or satisfy one or more of the following in the year before the course starts: have reached the age of 25; have been self-supporting for three years or more; have been married for three years or more. All other students are treated as dependent.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in tabular form the number of applications made by mature students aged(a) 21 to 25 years and (b) over 25 years for entry to courses in higher education in each year since 1987; how many were accepted; and what percentage this represented in each of these years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the number of mature students applying and accepted for higher education in 1988–89 through the two central admission agencies is as follows:

  Mature Students 1988–89

  Applications (a)

  Acceptances/admissions (b)

  (b)/(a) percentage

  UCCA applicants/acceptances1

  Age 21–25 years home domicile

  11,139

  4,739

  42·5

  Age over 25 years home domicile

  11,946

  5,373

  45·0

  PCAS applicants/admissions2

  Age 21–25 years home domicile

  15,313

  5,462

  35·7

  Age over 25 years home domicile

  12,410

  5,429

  43·7

  Sources:

  UCCA—Statistical Supplement to 1988–89 Annual Report.

  PCAS—Statistical Supplement to 1988–89 Annual Report.

  1 Candidates applying for admission to United Kingdom Universities (excluding the Open University and the University of Buckingham) through UCCA for full-time undergraduate first degree or first diploma courses.

  2 Applicants are those who seek admission to a full-time or sandwich first degree or Diploma of Higher Education or Higher National diploma course in a polytechnic/college through PCAS.

  Nuclear Research
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the historic costs to the United Kingdom of participation in CERN in 1987–88 and the projected costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what percentage of these costs were due to forward currency buying.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:12

  Financial year

  United Kingdom payment to CERN £ million

  Forward buying element Percentage

  1987–88

  56·0

  6·6

  11991–92

  57·8

  2·4

  11992–93

  59·3

  2·2

  1 Estimated.

  Note: The premium payments for forward buying of currency each year vary according to a number of factors including the prevailing and forecast interest and exchange rates.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of cross-curricular themes within the provisions of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  Evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools indicates that schools are making good progress in implementing the national curriculum and that it is already having a favourable effect on standards. It is up to individual schools how they deliver the national curriculum subjects and whether certain aspects are linked across subject boundaries in a cross-curricular way. To help schools with this task, however, the National Curriculum Council has recently issued a series of booklets to schools on the effective delivery of cross-curricular themes.

  Portage Projects
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what response he has made to the report on portage projects published by Her Majesty's inspectorate in January 1990;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that families which have benefited from the portage service funded under education suppport grants are enabled to have a continuity of support when the grant period ends.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Secretary of State welcomed this HMI report on how a sample of 13 portage schemes worked in practice. The Department has reviewed the effectiveness of the £8·1 million of central Government expenditure on portage in the light of the report, and has concluded that this pump-priming initiative to help establish such a local service was a worthwhile investment.

  Portage is a locally administered service. Central ESG support is limited to pump-priming purposes. LEAs are, however, free to continue funding portage schemes, and to develop others from within their own resources if they so wish. What if any continued provision is made is for each LEA to decide.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what representations he has received from the energy intensive users' group regarding prospective bulk electricity prices for the next financial year;
  13
  (2) when he expects to respond to the representations he has received from the energy-intensive users' group regarding prospective increases in the cost of bulk electricity supplied to heavy industry.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) on 30 January 1991 at columns 507 and 508.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date estimate of the level of the nuclear levy over each of the next five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The amount of the levy depends on a variety of factors including the terms of the nuclear contracts. The amount actually collected each year may fluctuate up or down depending upon estimates made of future electricity revenues. However, I am confident that the levy rate will follow a downward trend over the next eight years.

  Fallow Blocks
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in 1989 and 1990 in reducing the number of fallow blocks on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There has been very good progress. At the beginning of 1989, there were 125 blocks in the fallow category. Of these 104 were in the mature areas of the North Sea, and 21 in the higher risk and more difficult frontier areas north and west of the Shetlands. At the end of 1990, the overall total of such blocks remaining fallow was 41. The number in the mature area had been reduced to 29: a fall of nearly three quarters. In the frontier area, there has been a slower rate of progress, but here also we have seen significant new activity. The operators still holding fallow blocks have told me they expect to make further substantial progress during 1991. I welcome this assurance of their continuing commitment.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is for each year since 1985 the bilateral aid granted to Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures of amounts spent are:

  £

  1985

  116,000

  1986

  86,000

  1987

  nil

  1988

  180,000

  1989

  61,000

  A figure for 1990 is not yet available. These exclude amounts going, via the joint funding scheme, through British NGOs.

  USSR (Food Aid)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on food aid to the USSR.
  14
  Mrs. Chalker
  With our partners we are watching developments in the Soviet Union closely. We have suspended European Community technical assistance although emergency and food aid may continue where we can guarantee delivery direct to those in need. There is no Government-to-Government aid to the Soviet Union.

  Aid Allocation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what major changes have taken place and are planned in the allocation of moneys from the aid budget.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The aid programme is managed flexibly to enable us to respond to the changing needs of developing countries. Its allocation will continue to reflect the priorities we have established.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase aid to sub-Saharan countries in Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our bilateral aid to sub-Saharan African countries increased from £267 million in 1986 to £496 million in 1989. We intend to maintain a substantial programme in those countries where aid can be used effectively.

  Gulf Crisis
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will now increase their aid budget to nearer the United Nations recommended level to reflect the increased needs created by the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has any plans to review overseas aid contributions in the light of the Gulf crisis.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Future plans for expenditure on overseas aid were published at the time of the autumn statement. Our priorities are kept under review to ensure they respond to the changing needs of developing countries.

  Gaza Strip
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he will make to assist the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in ensuring adequate nutrition and medical facilities in the Gaza strip during the present middle east crisis.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain has traditionally been and remains a major contributor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's work. In 1990 we provided £5·5 million and hope to increase our support in 1991. This, together with other donors' contributions, will help the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to carry out its traditional roles of providing for education, health, relief and other needs of Palestinian refugees in the occupied territories.

  Rain Forests (Logging)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on commercial logging in tropical rain forests in the light of the International Tropical Timber Organisation council meeting in Japan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The International Tropical Timber Organisation's remit is to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber and to encourage the development of national policies aimed at sustainable utilisation and conservation of tropical forests and their genetic resources. At the last meeting of the International Tropical Timber Organisation in Japan in November 1990, the council reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable forest development. The council confirmed the International Tropical Timber Organisation's target of the year 2000 for all trade in tropical timber to come from sustainable sources and the principles embodied in the International Tropical Timber Organisation guidelines for best management practice of natural tropical forests including logging. To help promote the guidelines more widely, the International Tropical Timber Organisation agreed to host a world conference of senior foresters in July 1991.

  At the next council meeting in Quito in May there will be a round table discussion on incentives for tropical timber producing countries to adopt sustainable forest management policies. This will be informed by a study commissioned by the International Tropical Timber Organisation from the Oxford forestry institute and financed by my Department.

  Least-developed Countries
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to increase the amount of aid granted to the 42 least-developed countries to 0·15 per cent. of gross national product.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the programme of action adopted by the second United Nations conference on the least-developed countries held in Paris on 3 to 14 September 1990 no target applicable to all donors was established. The United Kingdom, along with several other donors, undertook to make our best efforts to reach the previously agreed United Nations target of 0·15 per cent. of gross national product. However, 70 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries, some of the largest of which are not on the United Nations list of least-developed countries.

  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, as a percentage of gross national product, the total amount of aid granted by Her Majesty's Government to the 42 least-developed countries in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Net official development assistance to countries classified by the United Nations as least developed in the year in question, as a percentage of gross national product was as follows:

  Year

  Percentage of gross national product

  1980

  0·09

  1981

  0·12

  1982

  0·11

  16

  Year

  Percentage of gross national product

  1983

  0·10

  1984

  0·09

  1985

  0·11

  1986

  0·08

  1987

  0·08

  1988

  0·10

  1989

  0·10

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those bilateral aid projects involving Overseas Development Administration of more than £20 million which it is currently estimated will exceed the original Overseas Development Administration contribution by 15 per cent. or more.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The only current project of this kind is the Cairo wastewater project in Egypt. The original Overseas Development Administration commitment of £52·4 million has been increased to £64·4 million because the scope of the project has been enlarged since it was first approved.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of total United Kingdom aid to Ethiopia since 1986 was used for agricultural or water conservation projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the current financial year over 40 per cent. of our long-term development assistance to Ethiopia will be used in agricultural and water projects. This represents about 7 per cent. of our estimated total aid, including humanitarian assistance, to Ethiopia during the same period. A figure for the whole of the period since 1986 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the level of per capita aid to Ethiopia to £1.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: We allocate our aid between countries taking account of a large number of factors including need, the prospect of it being used effectively and the nature of our relations with the country concerned. It would not be sensible to target per capita aid levels in the way suggested.

  Aid Programme (Evaluation)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was paid in each of the last two years to outside evaluators of the United Kingdom's aid programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Payment to external evaluators by the evaluation department amounted to £277,930 in 1989 and £216,169 in 1990.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with other aid donors in agreeing economic and social indicators against which the progress of aid projects could be judged.
  17
  Mrs. Chalker
  There is broad agreement among donors about the economic and social indicators which reflect quality of life in developing countries and those which might appropriately be used to judge the success of particular projects. However, there has been less progress in agreeing the use of specific quantitative economic and social performance measures that might be used as part of the aid co-ordination process between a recipient government and donors collectively.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West on 21 January,Official Report, column 39, he will name those outside evaluators used to study the effectiveness of particular aspects of the United Kingdom's aid programme in the last two years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: The following evaluators were used by our evaluation department in 1989 and 1990:

  Mr. T. Anderson

  Dr. S. Ladbury

  Mr. G. Armstrong

  Mr. C. Lane

  Mr. S. Aicester

  Mr. R. Lattimer

  Mr. A. Airey

  Mr. R. Limbrey

  Dr. R. Bailey

  Mr. G. McGilvary

  Mr. A. Barnett

  Mr. P. McLean

  Mr. B. Barrett

  Mr. R. Moberley

  Mr. R. Beales

  Mr. G. Munday

  Ms. D. Bryceson

  Mr. N. Mutter

  Mr. E. Burr

  Prof. E. Naylor

  Ms. C. Cassals

  Mr. A. Palfreman

  Mr. M. Chand

  Mr. J. Pickford

  Mr. G. Clarke

  Mr. D. Potten

  Mr. J. Cusworth

  Mr. J. Quelch-Wools

  Mr. T. Duncan

  Dr. J. Redhead

  Mr. J. Eaton

  Mr. J. Roberts

  Mr. M. Felton

  Mr. M. Segall

  Mr. M. Flint

  Mr. D. Shields

  Ms. L. Gardiner

  Mr. I. Smout

  Mr. F. Greig

  Mr. D. Stied(

  Mr. J. Groves

  Dr. R. Stirrat

  Dr. P. Hall

  Dr. P. Street

  Mr. P. Hardcastle

  Ms. N. Thandon

  Mr. P. Harding

  Dr. A. Taylor

  Mr. D. Harkin

  Mr. R. Thompson

  Mr. P. Harris

  Mr. A. Tomowski

  Dr. M. Harrison

  Mr. A. Wall

  Prof. C. Hassal

  Mr. D. Watson

  Mr. A. Holt

  Mr. A. Wearing

  Mr. P. Howgate

  Mr. E. Weatherhead

  Mr. J. Howe

  Mr. R. Wedderburn

  Ms. J. Johnson

  Dr. C. Weir

  Dr. D. Jones

  Mr. R. Wilson

  Ms. S. Jones

  Mr. J. Winpenny

  Mr. P. Kennard

  Mr. S. Zadek

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criticism he has received over the past three years from outside evaluators used to study the overall effectiveness of the United Kingdom aid programme; and what was the action taken.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: The findings of around 50 evaluation studies completed over the last three years are too numerous and detailed to list.

  Evaluation reports, or the synthesis studies based on them, are considered by the ODA projects and evaluation committee. They are summarised in evaluation abstracts EVSUMS and circulated to all operational staff so that the lessons learned can be applied to future aid activities. Consideration is also given to whether ODA procedures should be changed in the light of the findings in order to
  18
  improve aid effectiveness. The catalogue of evaluation studies and the collection of EVSUMS are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures he is taking to attract more women into the Overseas Development Administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am anxious to provide the fullest possible opportunities for women to work in the ODA. Our equal opportunity policy is designed to ensure, among other things, that any barriers to women's career development are eliminated. We have for example provided flexible working arrangements, established holiday play schemes for employees' children and reduced seniority requirements for promotion. The number of women working in ODA permanent posts has increased by 13 per cent. since 1986. We also want to attract more women to overseas contract posts and are now implementing the recommendation of a study specially commissioned for that purpose.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give at constant prices(a) the total level of United Kingdom aid in each of the last four decades and (b) the contribution per head of the United Kingdom population in the same period.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: Calculations of gross public expenditure on aid in each of the last four decades at constant prices are as follows:

  Decade

  Total aid in decade 19891 prices (£ million)

  Population (million)

  Aid per head of United Kingdom population per decade (£)

  1950–59

  7,433

  50·856

  146

  1960–69

  15,559

  54·171

  287

  1970–79

  16,172

  56·231

  288

  1980–89

  16,707

  56·539

  295

  Sources: Annual Abstract of Statistics (Treasury, CSO); British Aid Statistics.

  1 1950–65 are in 1989–90 prices; 1966–89 in 1989 prices; figures from 1972 include aid administration costs.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries, including developed nations, are receiving food aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: Under the food aid convention, the United Kingdom has an obligation to provide 110,700 tonnes of food aid to the developing countries each year. The principal beneficiaries are currently Ethiopia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Mozambique and Pakistan.

  The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC food aid budget, which benefits a wide range of developing countries. There is a separate provision of 350 million ecu for food aid for eastern Europe, from which the Soviet Union, Bulgaria and Romania are expected to benefit.

  Malawi
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Lilongwe-Salima road in Malawi has cost to date; and what he estimates the final cost to be.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: The estimated total cost of the project is £15,104,000. Our contribution under the British aid programme for Malawi will be £15,042,000, of which £6,751,561 has so far been spent.

  Procurement, Advisory and Monitoring Unit
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what savings he expects from the Overseas Development Administrations procurement, advisory and monitoring unit for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: The 'new savings' target to be set for 1991–92 will meet the requirements specified by the central unit on purchasing and published in the 1990 progress report to the Prime Minister on Government purchasing.

  Joint Funding
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of ODA bilateral aid, broken down by region and by purpose, was provided through non-governmental organisations through the joint funding scheme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: In 1989–90, the last complete financial year, the figures were:

  Sum spent under the joint funding scheme £ million

  As a percentage of bilateral aid programme

  Total joint funding scheme

  16·47

  1·78

  By continent

  Africa

  8·28

  2·03

  Americas

  2·73

  5·05

  Asia

  4·91

  1·96

  Oceania

  0·17

  4·19

  Unallocable by country

  0·38

  0·20

  By sector heading

  Agriculture

  1·57

  1

  Aids

  0·11

  1

  Appropriate technology

  0·15

  1

  Children

  0·16

  1

  Disabled

  0·73

  1

  Education

  2·02

  1

  Environment

  0·54

  1

  Fisheries

  0·03

  1

  Forestry

  1·06

  1

  Health

  3·56

  1

  Housing

  0·17

  1

  Income generation

  0·50

  1

  Population

  0·79

  1

  Social development

  2·53

  1

  Water

  1·88

  1

  Women

  0·63

  1

  Youth

  0·04

  1

  1 This information could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Service Personnel (Hospital Treatment)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions have been made in hospitals in Wales for the priority admission and treatment of any Welsh service personnel who may be wounded in the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Appropriate plans have been made for the NHS in Wales to play its part in the treatment of Gulf war casualties. The central priority is to transfer the wounded from their point of arrival in the United Kingdom to appropriate hospitals as quickly and effectively as possible.

  Cardiac Treatment
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to provide the specialist cardiac resources at the university hospital of Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In addition to the facilities which already exist, our Department is currently funding enhanced cardiac catheter laboratories and improved intensive care and coronary care facilities.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the names of all the NHS specialist cardiologists in Wales, together with the hospitals at which they are based.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally. There is no general hospital in Wales which is without a consultant physician who will have had higher training in all aspects of general medicine including cardiology. Cardiology training has developed over time with changing technologies and therapies and general physicians with a practising interest can be expected to have a range of training backgrounds and experience consistent with their professional clinical practice.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which hospitals in Wales he is currently considering for the establishment of the satellite cardiac centre; and when he expects the centre to be operational.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 30 November 1990, at column 511.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of funding for(a) the specialist paediatric cardiology and (b) the paediatric cardiac surgery, following the opening of the paediatric cardiac unit at the university hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The paediatric cardiac unit at the University Hospital of Wales has been planned to provide about 100 paediatric cardiac operations yearly and appropriate cardiological services consistent with the recommendations of the cardiology committee of the Royal College of Physicians. It will be funded accordingly as demand develops and subject to review.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the paediatric cardiac unit, including the infant surgery component, will be operational at the university hospital of Wales, Cardiff.
  21
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The paediatric cardiac unit at the University Hospital of Wales is expected to come into operation in mid 1991 to provide a paediatric cardiac surgery service and a cardiological service for children of all ages. Neonatal and infant cardiac surgery is a supra regional service currently provided at a limited number of centres, the nearest of which is Bristol. Following the advice of the cardiology committee of the Royal College of Physicians provision of neonatal and infant cardiac surgery at the University Hospital of Wales is to be reviewed when the unit has been in operation a sufficient time for an assessment to be made.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it remains his policy to increase the specialist cardiac and cardiological resources in Wales to meet a target of at least 1,200 adult heart operations.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It remains our target to increase provision for adult cardiac survey and cardiology for south Wales to about 1,200 operations per annum as recommended by the cardiology committee of the Royal College of Physicians.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional information or studies he requires before announcing his verdict on South Glamorgan health authority's proposed hospital closures.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Secretary of State now has sufficient information for him to consider carefully the proposal's made by South Glamorgan health authority. This information is currently being assessed and the considerations applying to all the proposals will be referred to in the decision letters, which it is hoped to issue before too long.

  Waste
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds are available to assist district authorities in Wales to purchase and install recycling and incineration equipment, as an alternative method to landfill, for the disposal of household and commercial waste.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Districts are able to fund such expenditure from their capital resources. In addition funding may be available from the Department of Energy's renewable energy programme. The formula based arrangements for the distribution of local authority capital resources in Wales have the support of the local authority associations and was introduced in order that authorities should be able to determine individually, how the resources made available are spent.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many district waste authorities in Wales operate waste recycling plants; and if he will list them, together with the type and capacity of plant in operation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not maintained centrally. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 each waste collection and regulation authority will be required to publicise plans showing its arrangements for the recycling of waste.

  National Health Service Reform
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if health authorities in Wales have been issued with guidelines outlining the requirements for the drafting of detailed business plans for the implementation of the National Health Service reforms with particular regard to approval in principle submission for major capital projects.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Guidance outlining the issues to be addressed in the preparation of business plans was issued generally to district health authorities on 25 January 1991. This confirmed advice previously given to those individual health authorities currently progressing approval in principle submissions for major capital projects.

  Hospital, Ynys-y-plwm
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he will give to the Mid Glamorgan health authority his decision on the approval in principle submission relating to the application by that authority to build a new district general hospital at Ynys-y-plwm, Llanstrisant, for Taff Ely and Rhondda;

  (2) what is his policy with respect to announcing a decision on the approval in principle submission by Mid Glamorgan health authority for construction of a district general hospital at Ynys-y-plwm, Llanstrisant, before a business case has been presented to the Welsh Office by the authority detailing the implications of the National Health Service reforms on the district general hospital proposals;

  (3) if he will issue without delay to the Mid Glamorgan health authority formal approval for the district general hospital project at Ynys-y-plwm, Llantrisant.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No decision will be taken until the approval in principle submission and accompanying business plan have been fully considered, and at present we are unable to indicate when this might be since a business plan completed in the format requested by the Department has yet to be received from the authority.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the public consultation process relating to the district general hospital project at Ynys-y-Plwm, Llantrisant, has ended; by what date appeals to him were required to be submitted; and when he expects to announce his decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Consultation on the restructuring of health services in Taff-Ely and Rhondda in the light of the proposed district general hospital at Ynys-y-Plwm has ended. Appeals to the Secretary of State had to be submitted by 4 November 1990. A decision on the proposals will be announced as soon as possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will provide the detailed calculation of the transitional relief level for poll tax payers for the Bettws community of Newport;

  (2) if he will provide the detailed calculation of the transitional relief level for poll tax payers for the Wentloog community of Newport.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The transitional relief scheme which is in operation during 1990–91 is calculated as follows. Column numbers refer to the following tables.
  23
  Under the scheme an amount of transitional relief is paid to all personal community chargepayers within a community area if the forecast charge (column 5), based on present expenditure patterns, is over a certain threshold amount above the notional average domestic rate bill per adult (column 4) for that community (calculated as the product of the average district domestic rate poundage in 1989–90 (column 3) and the domestic rateable value of the community on 1 April 1989 (column I) divided by the total number of community charge payers (column 2) in that community area). The transitional relief paid to each personal community chargepayer (column 7) is equal to the amount that the forecast community charge exceeds the threshold level.

  1990–1991 Relief: Newport

  Local Authority and Community Council

  (1) Domestic rateable value (£)

  (2) Relevant population1 number

  (3) Domestic poundage (P)

  (4) Notional ave. Domestic rates per adult (£)

  (5) Forecast community charge (£)

  (6) Difference between C.C. and rates (£)

  (7) Amount above £18 threshold (£)

  Newport

  Bettws

  494,827

  6,531

  257·43

  195

  175

  -20

  -38

  Wentloog

  36,667

  605

  257·43

  156

  175

  19

  1

  1991–1992 Relief: Newport

  Local Authority and Community Council

  (1) Domestic rateable value (£)

  (2) Relevant population1 number

  (3) Domestic poundage (P)

  (4) Notional ave. Domestic rates per adult (£)

  (5) 1990–91 community charge (£)

  (6) Difference between C.C. and rates (£)

  (7) Amount above £37 threshold (£)

  Newport

  Bettws

  494,827

  6,531

  257·43

  195

  239

  44

  7

  Wentloog

  36,667

  605

  257·43

  156

  239

  83

  46

  1 As specified in Appendix 2 of the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the principles on which he has based eligibility and levels of transitional relief for communities in Wales in respect of the poll tax in 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  All communities in Wales are eligible for the community charge reduction scheme, as they were for transitional relief. Under the scheme an amount will be deducted from the community charge bill for all personal community chargepayers within a qualifying community area. Communities qualify for reductions if the actual community charge set by the charging authority for 1990–91 exceeds the specified threshold set at £37 above the national average domestic rate bill per adult for that community, calculated as the product of the average district domestic rate poundage in the 1989–90 and the domestic rateable value of the community on 1 April 1989 divided by the total number of community chargepayers in that area. The community charge reduction in each case is equal to the amount that the actual community charge for 1990–91 exceeds £37.

  This revised scheme provides relief to around 67 per cent. of chargepayers in Wales in 1991–92 compared with around 35 per cent. of chargepayers in 1990–91.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take as a result of the Sports Council's report in respect of happenings during the Commonwealth Games in Auckland and the response by the Wales Commonwealth Games Council; and if he will make a statement.
  24
  The threshold for 1990–91 was set at £18 above the average domestic rate bill per adult; £20 million will be paid out to personal chargepayers on this basis over the whole of Wales.

  The scheme which will be in operation during 1991–92 differs in three respects. Firstly, the forecast community charge in the above calculation is replaced by the actual 1990–91 community charge. Secondly, the threshold has been increased to £37. Finally, the amount paid out to personal chargepayers over the whole of Wales under the scheme in 1991–92 will be £62 million, £42 million more than the relief in 1990–91.

  The data for the communities requested are shown in the following tables.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  These are matters for the Sports Council for Wales, in discussion with the Commonwealth Games Council, and I do not propose to intervene.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wiltshire TEC
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Wiltshire training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Jackson
  Wiltshire training and enterprise council is currently drawing up its corporate and business plans with a view to becoming operational in the spring.

  Skill Centre, Gabalfa
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had with the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC regarding(a) the future of the skill centre at Western avenue, Gabalfa, (b) the disposal of his leasehold interest in it and (c) the provision and fitting out of replacement training facilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have had no consultations with the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC on the issue raised.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Patents
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the United Kingdom pharmaceutical sector on the likely effects of the proposed reform of patents, as set out by the report of the European Parliament's committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received many representations from the pharmaceutical industry about the Commission's proposal for a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products but none has referred to the particular changes addressed by the recommendation of the European Parliament's committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection. The European Parliament did not adopt the committee's recommendation in its opinion on the proposal.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give his Department's assessment of the optimum period it is believed should apply to patents and to supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceuticals in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  The optimum overall period of protection for pharmaceuticals by patent and the supplementary protection certificate currently proposed by the EC Commission should be such as to encourage research and development whilst not having unduly adverse consequences, because of the monopoly, on consumers, the national health service and the generic pharmaceutical industry. We hope to be in a position to announce a view on the details of the Commission's proposals shortly.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish the list of potential purchasers after privatisation of the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it would not be appropriate to publish the names of the potential purchasers who responded to the prequalification questionnaire. The names of short-listed bidders will be made public when they have been selected and invited to submit definitive bids.

  Anti-dumping Duties
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what products investigated by the EC under its anti-dumping regulations are subject to price maintenance agreements, import quotas, or any other action falling short of anti-dumping duties as a result of the anti-dumping investigation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17 January 1991 Official Report, columns 593–94. I have placed in the Library of the House a list of all remedies in force on 31 December 1990. This shows not only duties but undertakings given by exporters. Most of these relate to minimum price levels, but the undertakings in respect of urea relate to volumes exported to the Community.

  Imports
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what products are subject to either EC or national quotas, excluding those relating to the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17 January 1991,Official Report, columns 593–94. All products requiring an individual import licence are listed in the open general import licence of 4 December 1987, as amended which is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have placed in the Library of the House of Commons notice to importers 2293 which gives the provisional 1991 quota arrangements for goods from the state trading area. In addition to those listed there are restraints on a range of iron and steel goods which originate in the Soviet Union. There are also quotas on the import of bananas originating in the dollar area. Notices to importers are published in Thursday editions of Lloyd's List International.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the position of clearing banks as potential buyers for the business of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government have been willing to consider proposals from any bona fide potential investor, including any clearing bank, before reaching decisions on a shortlist of bidders for competitive tendering purposes.

  Theft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: Details of equipment stolen from the Department during the last three financial years are set out in the tables.

  Financial year 1987–88

  £

  Intelligent modem

  416·00

  Camera and lens

  374·00

  Camera

  500·00

  Video recorder

  120·00

  Casette deck

  120·00

  Colour television

  120·00

  Video recorder

  120·00

  Pocket calculator

  1.53

  Video recorder

  677·00

  TV colour monitor

  155·00

  Transmitter-receiver

  1,265·00

  Video recorder

  411·00

  Video recorder

  400·00

  Video recorder

  430·00

  Radio

  110·00

  Video recorder

  610·00

  Colour TV

  120·00

  Colour TV

  120·00

  Colour TV

  120·00

  Colour TV

  1 20·00

  Colour TV

  120·00

  Video recorder

  120·00

  Microwave oven

  120·00

  27

  £

  Camera

  250·00

  Camera

  145·00

  M200

  210·00

  MC7

  90·00

  Six tapes

  11·25

  Pocket calculator

  4·50

  1 Residual value.

  Financial year 1988–89

  £

  Computer

  525·00

  Computer equipment

  158·00

  Camera

  25·00

  Video camera

  684·00

  Five cases of lost equipment

  142·00

  Car swaging kit

  25·00

  Answering machine

  80·00

  Calculator

  53 ·00

  Nineteen missing items

  6,145·50

  Computer

  450·00

  Fluke multimeter

  120·00

  Calculator

  21·00

  Calculator

  5·00

  Equipment

  500·00

  TV

  170·00

  Machine—Phillips 0285

  44·00

  TV and video

  375·00

  Word processor and feeder

  1,875·00

  1 Residual value

  Financial year 1989–90

  £

  Gas Meter

  300·00

  Shears

  12·00

  Calculator

  6·00

  Camera

  100·00

  Video Recorder

  520·00

  Photographic Slide Printer

  45·00

  Portable Video Recorder

  588·00

  Video Camera

  567·00

  Colour TV Monitor

  264·00

  Socket set

  139·00

  Camera

  323·00

  Calculator

  61·00

  Answering Machine

  244·00

  TV

  703·00

  Microcomputer

  408·00

  TV Monitor

  172·00

  Dual AMS Disc Drive

  310·00

  Dual Disc Drive

  344·00

  Colour Monitor

  201·00

  Special Monitor

  312·00

  Microcomputer

  402·00

  VHS Recorder

  195·00

  Calculator

  71·00

  Calculator

  84·00

  Camera

  452·00

  Lens

  324·00

  Micro Computer

  624·00

  Digital Multimeter

  68·00

  Computer

  401·00

  Camera and Holder

  234·00

  Electric Drill

  131·00

  Staple Gun

  13·00

  Cordless Cleaner

  10·00

  Sub Surface Buoy

  400·00

  Electric Motor

  75·00

  Rechargeable Cleaner

  121·00

  Computer

  150·00

  Computer Monitor

  112·50

  Computer

  112·50

  Mast Unit

  375·00

  Mast Unit

  375·00

  Calculator

  25·00

  Printer

  401·73

  28

  £

  Computer

  1112·50

  Printer FX 100

  175·00

  Colour Monitor

  112·50

  Computer

  200·00

  Dual Disc Drive

  200·00

  Microvitec 1441

  200·00

  Monitor

  200·00

  Video Recorder

  144·00

  Computer

  901·00

  Answering Machine

  80·00

  2 Video Recorders

  293·74

  Answering Machine

  80·00

  Pinwriter Printer

  112·00

  Computer

  897·00

  Radio

  408·02

  1 Residual value·

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Iraqi Citizens
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the internment of Iraqi citizens living in Britain.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No power permitting internment of Iraqis civilians is in force in United Kingdom law. If such a power were proposed, Parliament would be able to consider and decide the matter.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents in the United Kingdom, of Palestinian and Arabic origin have been detained under security regulations arising out of the conflict in the Gulf, as at Monday 28 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  By 28 January a total of 101 Iraqis and 10 other nationals had been detained under the Immigration Act powers following notification of a decision to make deportation orders against them on the grounds that their presence was not conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. At 28 January 42 Iraqis and eight others remained in detention under the Immigration Act and 35 Iraqis were held in military custody as prisoners of war.

  Magistrates
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward further proposals to increase the financial loss allowance for magistrates.

  Mr. John Patten
  The financial loss allowance for magistrates was last increased in April 1990, in line with the increase for local authority councillors. We shall consider whether a further increase is possible with effect from this April to reflect changes in levels of earnings.

  Passports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British passports were processed in(a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987, (e) 1988, (f) 1989 and (g) for each month of 1990.
  29
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of British passport services in 1979 and each of the years from 1985 to 1989 was:

  Millions

  1979

  1·79

  1985

  2·02

  1986

  2·50

  1987

  2·43

  1988

  2·83

  1989

  2·77

  The total number of British passport services for each month of 1990 was:

  Number

  January

  265,000

  February

  360,000

  March

  414,000

  April

  364,000

  May

  395,000

  June

  329,000

  July

  308,000

  August

  280,000

  September

  168,000

  October

  146,000

  November

  184,000

  December

  100,000

  TOTAL

  3,310,000

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports were received in 1990 at British passport offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of passport applications received in 1990 was 3·37 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of waiting time for a British passport application completion for each month in 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time, in working days, for the processing of a properly completed non-urgent British passport application for each month in 1990 is shown in the table.

  Working days

  January

  7·94

  February

  10·40

  March

  11·68

  April

  9·67

  May

  11·83

  June

  11·54

  July

  7·71

  August

  3·00

  September

  2·75

  October

  2·83

  November

  3·50

  December

  4·33

  The average for the whole of 1990 was 7·27 working days. Urgent applications were processed more quickly, in accordance with travellers' needs.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of British passports after 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  British nationals, as defined in accordance with EC law, will continue to be able to 30
  exercise their rights of free movement between European Community countries after 1992 on production of their passports.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff work at each of the major passport offices in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The complement of permanent staff employed at each regional passport office as at 31 December 1990 is shown in the table:

  Number

  London

  202·5

  Liverpool

  269·5

  Peterborough

  2125

  Newport

  2120

  Glasgow

  202·0

  Belfast

  78·0

  In addition, up to 320 temporary staff may be employed at these offices at periods of peak demand.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British visitor's passports were issued in each month of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of British visitor's passports issued between January and November 1990. The figures for December 1990 are not yet available.

  Number

  January

  81,560

  February

  97,721

  March

  123,232

  April

  192,963

  May

  202,764

  June

  243,450

  July

  387,657

  August

  270,894

  September

  200,620

  October

  139,284

  November

  66,780

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much new funding will be given to British passport offices in 1991–92 to improve services.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Proposed gross provision for the passport department, within the overall provision for Home Office vote 3, is £51·9 million for 1991–92 as compared to £41 million under the supply estimates for 1990–91, an increase of £10·9 million. The increased provision is to enable the department to deal with anticipated increases in demand from the public for passport services and to introduce improved working practices, including modifications to offices. There is also provision for improvements related to agency status, including new accounting systems, enhanced training, devolved personnel management and improved communications.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the longest period a person has been held in a police cell in 1990 and 1989;

  (2) how many people were held in police cells across Britain, by police authority, for the latest date when figures are available.
  31
  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 1 February a total of 604 prisoners were held in police cells in the following police areas:

  Number

  Metropolitan

  6

  Cheshire

  23

  Derbyshire

  10

  Greater Manchester

  252

  Humberside

  57

  Kent

  11

  Lancashire

  85

  Merseyside

  52

  Northumbria

  12

  South Yorkshire

  29

  West Midlands

  24

  West Yorkshire

  43

  Information about the length of time which individual prisoners have spent in police cells is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Seat Belts
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have arisen from child safety restraints not being used in cars since the Act came into force.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information collected centrally does not separately distinguish between the various seat belt offences. Between 1983 and the end of 1989 there were 81,475 proceedings at magistrates courts in England and Wales for seat belt offences under the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 and the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children) Regulations 1982 and later legislation. Since 1 October 1986, the police have also been able to issue fixed penalty notices for seat belts offences, and by the end of 1989 about 280,000 notices for seat belts offences had been issued.

  Television Licences
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to phase-out black and white television licences; and what consideration has been given to arrangements to cushion the impact for those on low incomes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are not for the present planning to take a decision on the recent suggestion by the consultants Price Waterhouse that the differential between the colour and black and white television licence fees should be phased out. When we come to do so we will consider the effects on those who currently buy black and white licences.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to bring forward legislation on war crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have made clear their commitment to the reintroduction of the War Crimes Bill this Session.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers(a) joined and (b) left the prison service in each of the years 1983 to 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The numbers who have joined and left the prison officer grades—main grade, senior officer and principal officer—are as follows:

  (a) Joined

  (b) Left1

  1983

  1,189

  599

  1984–85

  1,235

  652

  1985–86

  997

  771

  1986–87

  934

  614

  1987–88

  1,664

  644

  1988–89

  2,372

  794

  1989–90

  1,555

  936

  1 Mainly retirements but the figures include those leaving the service for other reasons as well as those who left the officer grades on promotion to the governor grades.

  The prison service has been recruiting an unprecedented number of new prison officers since the introduction of fresh start in 1987. There are now over 20 per cent. more prison officers in post than in April 1987. The service has no difficulty in attracting sufficient numbers of suitable recruits and remains on course to meet all the targets set when fresh start was introduced.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the case of Mr. AA (Ref.: A413117/2(S)) was referred to Greater Manchester police for inquiry; and what was the cause of delays in processing this case up to this point.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The reasons for the delay were explained to the hon. Member in a letter of 16 October 1989 from my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State and in my letter of 3 January 1991. The case was not referred to the police by Home Office officials.

  Slot Machines
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the extension of licensing arrangements to cover amusement-only slot machines installed in shops and eating places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. Such machines do not come under the Gaming Act 1968 since they do not constitute gambling. The results of the Home Office research study "Amusement Machines Dependency and Delinquency", published in July 1988, provided no grounds to justify extending legislative controls to amusement-only slot machines and we have received no reliable new evidence since to contradict this finding.

  Capital Offences
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of persons who have been found guilty of offences which were deemed capital offences prior to the abolition of the death penalty in 1965, for each year since 1975; and if he will show against such figures the percentage change year on year.
  33
  Mr. John Patten
  No such figures are available in the absence of a specific court decision. Under the Homicide Act 1957 only the court, with full details of the case, could determine whether any particular offence was capital and since 1965 no such determination has been made.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the views expressed by the chief constables of Thames Valley and Manchester in relation to possible consequences arising out of implementation of clause 25 of the Criminal Justice Bill.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am informed that the chief constables of Thames Valley and Greater Manchester have not made comments to the Home Office on clause 25 of the Criminal Justice Bill.

  Detainees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently detained on grounds of national security within the terms of the Immigration Act 1971; where they are held; and what right of appeal they have exercised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fifty-two are currently detained under the Immigration Act 1971 following service of notice of intention to make a deportation order for reasons of national security. They are detained in HM prisons and 31 are in Pentonville, 12 are in Wormwood Scrubs, eight in Full Sutton and one in Holloway. All 52 have forwarded representations, which are under consideration, and 51 have currently applied to appear before the advisory panel provided for in paragraph 157 of the "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules"—HC 251.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated cost, in total, of moving Iraqi and Palestinian detainees from Yorkshire to Pentonville prison on 31 January for appeal hearings, and their subsequent return.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Police and prison services escorting costs from Full Sutton to Pentonville prisons on 31 January, including vehicle hire, are estimated at approximately £7,300. Return journey costs cannot yet be estimated.

  Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any restrictions on Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi's travel rights within the United Kingdom.

  Population1 of Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 September 1990: by type of prisoner, sex and ethnic origin

  Type of prisoner and sex

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  Total number of persons in establishments

  Males

  Untried

  5,632

  923

  192

  176

  251

  7,174

  Convicted unsentenced

  1,532

  158

  36

  33

  49

  1,808

  Sentenced

  27,915

  3,485

  973

  616

  702

  33,691

  Non-criminal

  92

  66

  19

  13

  15

  205

  All prisoners

  35,171

  4,632

  1,220

  838

  1,017

  42,878

  34
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are unable to trace any record of a Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi without further identifying particulars.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any changes to the Charity Commission cash limit and running cost limit for 1990–91.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any changes to the 1990–91 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 1 February at columns 659–60.

  Nigerian Offenders
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Home Department how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales who emanated from Nigeria are currently serving a sentence or are being held on remand; and what percentage of each group was involved in drug offences.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 25 January 1991]: On 30 June 1990, the latest date for which information is readily available, an estimated 430 male and 100 female sentenced prisoners were known to be citizens of Nigeria; however, the recording of nationality is not always reliable. About 80 per cent. of the males and 60 per cent. of the females were known to have been sentenced for drugs offences.

  Information about offence and nationality is not recorded centrally for the remand population.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic composition of(a) the remand and (b) the sentenced prison population, for males and females in England and Wales for the latest date available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 25 January 1991]: The readily available information is given in the table. The information is published annually in "Prison statistics, England and Wales", Table 1.11 of the 1989 issue, Cm. 1221, copies of which are available in the Library.
  35

  Type of prisoner and sex

  While

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  Total number of persons in establishments

  Females

  Untried

  208

  53

  7

  21

  17

  306

  Convicted unsentenced

  73

  8

  2

  4

  2

  89

  Sentenced

  777

  303

  26

  40

  51

  1,197

  Non-criminal

  5

  3

  —

  1

  —

  9

  All prisoners

  1,063

  367

  35

  66

  70

  1,601

  1 Provisional. The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons under the age of(a) 25 years, (b) 21 years and (c) 18 years have died as a result of lighter fuel sniffing, on an annual basis, nationally and regionally.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most complete data on this topic are those collected by the national study of deaths associated with abuse of volatile substances carried out by the St. George's hospital medical school and the data shown are from that study. 1989 data are provisional.

  Deaths associated with the abuse of volatile substances Ligher fuel deaths by age and standard region

  Standard region

  Under 25

  Of which under 21

  Of which under 18

  1983–89

  North

  24

  24

  20

  North-West

  26

  23

  16

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  23

  21

  East Midlands

  15

  14

  14

  West Midlands

  20

  17

  14

  East Anglia

  3

  3

  1

  South East

  54

  49

  38

  South West

  7

  7

  5

  England

  174

  160

  129

  Wales

  9

  7

  5

  Scotland

  37

  32

  25

  Northern Ireland

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  222

  201

  161

  1983

  North

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  3

  2

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  3

  3

  3

  South West

  1

  1

  0

  England

  10

  8

  7

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  7

  6

  4

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  17

  14

  11

  1984

  North

  6

  6

  6

  North West

  2

  2

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  2

  1

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  1

  0

  0

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  7

  7

  4

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  England

  18

  17

  13

  Wales

  4

  4

  4

  36

  Standard region

  Under 25

  Of which under 21

  Of which under 18

  Scotland

  3

  3

  1

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  26

  25

  19

  1985

  North

  1

  1

  0

  North West

  4

  4

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5

  5

  5

  East Midlands

  2

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  2

  2

  2

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  5

  4

  3

  South West

  1

  1

  1

  England

  20

  18

  15

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  7

  7

  7

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  27

  25

  22

  1986

  North

  3

  3

  2

  North West

  4

  4

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  2

  1

  East Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  5

  5

  5

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  8

  8

  7

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  England

  23

  23

  17

  Wales

  1

  1

  0

  Scotland

  5

  4

  4

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  29

  28

  21

  1987

  North

  2

  2

  2

  North West

  4

  4

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  4

  4

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  2

  2

  0

  East Anglia

  1

  1

  0

  South East

  11

  10

  7

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  England

  24

  23

  15

  Wales

  2

  0

  0

  Scotland

  7

  6

  5

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  33

  29

  20

  1988

  North

  6

  6

  6

  North West

  5

  4

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6

  5

  5

  East Midlands

  4

  4

  4

  West Midlands

  5

  4

  4

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  37

  Standard region

  Under 25

  Of which under 21

  Of which under 18

  South East

  14

  12

  9

  South West

  1

  1

  1

  England

  41

  36

  33

  Wales

  2

  2

  1

  Scotland

  8

  6

  4

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  52

  45

  39

  1989

  North

  6

  6

  4

  North West

  4

  3

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  4

  4

  East Midlands

  7

  7

  7

  West Midlands

  5

  4

  3

  East Anglia

  2

  2

  1

  South East

  6

  5

  5

  South West

  4

  4

  3

  England

  38

  35

  29

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  38

  35

  29

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Policy
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to publish new planning policy guidance notes to replace the existing PPG3 "Land for Housing."

  Sir George Young
  Yes. A draft revised planning policy guidance note on housing, PPG 3, was issued for consultation by my Department in the autumn of 1989. This attracted several hundred responses which raised a number of important and complex issues requiring careful consideration. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to publish the revised guidance in final form shortly.

  Housing, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amounts allocated to the London borough of Newham's housing investment programme in each year from 1979 to 1991 inclusive, indicating the change as a percentage each year in real terms.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is as follows. Since 1981–82 authorities have been able to augment the borrowing power of their HIP allocations by using the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts. For 1990–91 and 1991–92, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation does not convey borrowing approval directly.

  Housing investment programme allocations for London borough of Newham (£ thousands)

  Cash

  Real terms1

  Percentage change2

  1978–79

  18,875

  50,558

  —

  1979–80

  25,887

  59,428

  + 18

  1980–81

  25,756

  49,967

  -16

  1981–82

  15,482

  27,391

  -45

  38

  Cash

  Real terms1

  Percentage change2

  1982–83

  22,162

  36,608

  + 34

  1983–84

  20,361

  32,147

  -12

  1984–85

  23,310

  35,024

  +9

  1985–86

  21,574

  30,741

  -12

  1986–87

  23,179

  31,937

  +4

  1987–88

  20,719

  27,073

  -15

  1988–89

  23,745

  28,916

  +7

  1989–90

  20,915

  23,943

  -17

  1990–91

  26,094

  27,660

  3+ 16

  1991–92

  23,333

  23,333

  4-16

  1 Expressed in 1991–92 prices.

  2 Percentage change over previous year in real terms.

  3 Provisional.

  4 Initial allocation only.

  Reservoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975; and if he proposes to introduce any additional measures.

  Mr. Baldry
  The provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975 have been implemented in England, Wales and Scotland in stages with effect from 8 November 1983 to 1 April 1986. No additional measures are currently proposed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the capacity of each dam yin England which falls within the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975; and if he will give, in each case, the name of the undertaker.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dams in each county in England fall within the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975.

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of dams by local government authority falling within the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975 is shown in the table. The information was obtained from reports as at 1 April 1989 made to the Secretary of State by local authorities, as enforcement authorities under the Act.

  Shire Councils

  Number

  Avon

  18

  Bedfordshire

  12

  Berkshire

  15

  Buckinghamshire

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  Cheshire

  33

  Cleveland

  23

  Cornwall

  13

  Cumbria

  46

  Derbyshire

  71

  Devon

  33

  Dorset

  6

  Durham

  20

  East Sussex

  26

  Essex

  37

  Gloucestershire

  22

  Hampshire

  35

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  46

  Hertfordshire

  21

  Humberside

  13

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  18

  Lancashire

  113

  39

  Shire Councils

  Number

  Leicestershire

  19

  Lincolnshire

  19

  Norfolk

  17

  Northamptonshire

  25

  Northumberland

  35

  Oxfordshire

  13

  Shropshire

  32

  Somerset

  17

  Staffordshire

  49

  Suffolk

  15

  Surrey

  54

  Warwickshire

  28

  West Sussex

  23

  Wiltshire

  11

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Total

  1,104

  Metropolitan district councils

  Number

  Barnsley

  16

  Birmingham

  19

  Bolton

  13

  Bradford

  26

  Bury

  13

  Calderdale

  29

  Coventry

  1

  Doncaster

  2

  Dudley

  6

  Gateshead

  0

  Kirklees

  27

  Knowsley

  2

  Leeds

  10

  Liverpool

  3

  Manchester

  5

  Newcastle

  1

  North Tyneside

  0

  Oldham

  18

  Rochdale

  25

  Rotherham

  11

  St. Helens

  10

  Salford

  2

  Sandwell

  3

  Sefton

  0

  Sheffield

  22

  Solihull

  4

  South Tyneside

  0

  Stockport

  3

  Sunderland

  0

  Tameside

  18

  Trafford

  1

  Wakefield

  9

  Walsall

  3

  Wigan

  3

  Wirral

  1

  Wolverhampton

  0

  TOTAL

  307

  In addition, there were 59 dams within the Greater London area.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what remedial works have been carried out to dams in England under the terms of the Reservoirs Act 1975; and what was the expenditure involved in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been made under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975; what were the alleged offences; and in how many cases such prosecutions were successful.
  40
  Mr. Baldry
  One prosecution under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975, in 1989, has been reported by the enforcement authorities. The alleged offences were non-compliance with notices requiring works to a reservoir following an inspection and failure to appoint a supervising engineer. The prosecution was successful. The reports due on 1 April this year will disclose any further prosecutions that have taken place since 1989.

  Nursery Places, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions he makes about the need for the provision of nursery places in Lambeth in the proposed revenue support grant settlement.

  Mr. Key
  Allowance is made for nursery provision within the standard spending assessment for social services for children. The assessment for Lambeth is calculated in the same way as for other authorities, on the basis of the formula set out in paragraph 3.19 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) debated and approved by the House on 29 January.

  Underused Land
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 largest local authority owners of underused land in England.

  Mr. Yeo
  Complete up-to-date information is not available.

  Gasworks (Benzene)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of former gaswork and gasometer sites that are known to be contaminated with benzene.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department keeps no such records centrally. In 1988 the Department published a report entitled "Problems arising from the Redevelopment of Gasworks and Similar Sites" in which it was estimated that the total number of sites in the United Kingdom formerly used for coal-gas production could be about 3,000. Benzene is a possible by-product of the processes sometimes associated with former gasworks sites.

  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 local authorities will be placed under a duty to keep registers of potentially contaminated sites including former gasworks sites.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are undertaking to encourage the sale of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government increased the duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol in last year's Budget—the third successive budget increase. Regulations came into force last October which require all new cars to be capable of running on unleaded petrol. From the end of 1992, all new cars will be required to have catalytic convertors, which necessitate the use of unleaded petrol.

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now plans to open the public inquiry into the proposed development of Thamesmead town centre.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inquiry will open on 30 April.

  Public Inquiries, East London
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the inspector on the public inquiries into the east London river crossing and the London city airport.

  Mr. Yeo
  As soon as both inspectors have completed their reports.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment following the submission of new evidence to his Department, if he will review the case for designating the Truscon RD27 houses in Storrington avenue, Liverpool under the housing defects legislation.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The additional material received by my Department does not contain any new evidence which would alter the original decision.

  Cliffe Marshes, Kent
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in the proposals by the Port of London Authority to dump dredgings on Cliffe marshes, Kent.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has today called in for his own determination the proposals by the Port of London Authority for the formation of silt lagoons and associated works on land at Cliffe marshes, Rochester, Kent.

  Gloucester Grove Estate
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he will decide on the Estate Action programme bid from the London borough of Southwark in respect of the Gloucester Grove estate; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the London borough of Southwark concerning the Estate Action programme on the Gloucester Grove estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department is currently considering bids submitted by local authorities for Estate Action support during 1991–92. This involves a detailed assessment of the relative merits of a large number of proposed schemes. Officials have discussed with council officers the London borough of Southwark's bid for a scheme at Gloucester Grove and these discussions will be taken into account in arriving at a decision on the council's application. An announcement about those schemes to be worked up as firm Estate Action proposals will be made shortly.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)42
  in the Official Report of 29 January 1987, columns 388–402, on EC directives and sub-directives relating to environmental improvement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The list of measures concerned with environmental protection which have been adopted by the European Community since August 1967, has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Contracts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in issuing section 13 notices under the Local Government Act 1988, he takes into consideration whether councillors have ignored council officers' advice in the awarding of a contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  When my right hon. Friend considers whether to issue a notice under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 on the ground that it appears to him that an authority has acted in contravention of section 7(7) of that Act, he takes into consideration all matters which are relevant to the question of whether the authority has acted in a manner having the effect, or likely or intended to have the effect, of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. He considers the actual, intended or likely effect of the authority's decision to carry out work through its direct services organisation.

  Councillors may choose, as they think fit, whether to follow their officers' advice and, provided their decision does not appear to my right hon. Friend to contravene the requirements of the Act, he sees no relevance in the fact that they have chosen not to follow officers' advice.

  Gulf Oil Slick
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had from the OECD in relation to the Gulf oil slick.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: The communique issued by the Environment Ministers of the OECD countries on 31 January included the following:
  "In their statement on the environmental situation in the Gulf, Ministers condemned Iraq's recourse to the destruction of the environment as a weapon and pledged to strengthen the capacity of the international community to prevent and confront environmental disasters, taking particular account of the situation of developing countries. This would encompass, in co-operation with UNEP, the IMO and other relevant international organisations, the strengthening of international principles and agreements, and the reinforcing of technological and institutional response capacities as well as the possible establishment of liability verification and claims settlement procedures. In particular, Ministers stressed the urgency of an early and full implementation of the IMO Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-operation with relevant United Nations and other bodies, to develop a regularly updated register of information on technological and institutional response capacities."

  I warmly welcome this statement. The pledge strengthen the future response capacity of the international community is in line with the initiative I put forward in the House on 28 January at column 656.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what predictions he has had from computer models at the Meteorological Office and the Proudman oceanographic laboratory about the likely behaviour of the oil slick in the Gulf.
  43
  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991: One of the studies commissioned from the Natural Environment Research Council aims to develop a model with the Meterological Office which can predict the movement of a Gulf oil slick. Work so far has demonstrated the viability of the concepts involved and the project is continuing.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Natural Environment Research Council contribution to containing the Gulf oil slick.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: The Natural Environment Research Council is compiling urgent short-term reports to model and assess the biological effects of the pollution of the Gulf caused by the actions of Saddam Hussein. The first phase is now complete and is being made available to the Gulf states leading the response to the pollution. My Department is assembling a register of the United Kingdom marine scientific expertise potentially available for further studies of the problem in the longer term.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contact he has had with the International Maritime Organisation in relation to Gulf oil pollution.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: I understand that the International Maritime Organisation—IMO—has been approached by the Saudi Government to help co-ordinate the offers of assistance with pollution response equipment and expertise which it has received. The IMO has been informed of the United Kingdom response to requests from the Gulf states so far and the marine pollution control unit of Department of Transport is maintaining close contact with them.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his contacts with the United Nations Environment Programme for improving environmental communications in relation to the Gulf oil slick.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: Senior officials in my Department have been in touch throughout the week with the United Nations Environment Programme and its executive director, Dr. Tolba. The UNEP has asked the United Kingdom for help in its efforts to improve communications and technical co-ordination over the pollution in the Gulf caused by the action of Saddam Hussein and I shall be responding sympathetically as soon as it is clear just what form of assistance is required. The UNEP is calling a meeting next week in Geneva with relevant UN agencies, including the International Maritime Organisation, and the oil industry to identify gaps in knowledge and to identify a practical programme of international co-operation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what time, on what date he first contacted the British Oil Spill Control Association about containment of the Gulf oil slick.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: The Government's liaison with the British Oil Spill Control Association is principally through the marine pollution control unit in the Department of my right hon. Friend the
  44
  Secretary of State for Transport. The unit has been in close contact with the association ever since becoming aware of the spill on 25 January. My Department has been kept fully informed throughout.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study has been made since August 1990 of the problems of dealing with oil slicks in war zones.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: Techniques and equipment for dealing with oil spills are the same whether or not the spill is in a war zone. It is for military authorities concerned to resolve any military aspects as necessary if the spill is in a war zone.

  Gulf Ecosystem
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) of 28 January,Official Report, columns 656–57, what information is available to his Department about the ecosystem of the Gulf.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: Detailed information on the Gulf ecosystem is available from a number of sources and my Department has now received a specially commissioned assessment of the likely biological effects of the Gulf oil spill by the Natural Environment Research Council which we are passing on to the Gulf states. We have also seen a report from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia's National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development. The Nature Conservancy Council and several non-governmental organisations have also provided us with useful material.

  Sokerol
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) of 28 January,Official Report, column 666, what action he is taking about Sokerol.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has been in contact about Sokerol both with my Department and with the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit, which is the Government's centre of expertise on oil pollution control at sea. Arrangements exist to make the Governments of the Gulf states, who bear prime responsibility for dealing with the pollution inflicted on the Gulf by Saddam Hussein, aware of potentially useful materials and technology available from the United Kingdom on which they may wish to call.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of revenue expenditure in the forthcoming financial year at which the capping of expenditure would be considered in respect of(a) Essex county council and (b) Southend borough council.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 February 1991]: On the basis of our intended criteria for charge capping in 1991–92—which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on 31 October—Essex county council and Southend borough council would be able to increase their budgets to the level of their 1991–92 standard spending assessments–£902·978 million and £17·885 million respectively—before those increases would be considered excessive.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the allocated expenditure for local authority capital expenditure on education in England in each year since 1979, in real terms.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: Capital allocations for education at 1990–91 prices were as follows:

  £ million

  1981–82

  592·1

  1982–83

  526·9

  1983–84

  438·9

  1984–85

  426·8

  1985–86

  423·4

  1986–87

  386·7

  1987–88

  377·6

  1988–89

  444·3

  1989–90

  388·1

  Under the new capital finance system, introduced on 1 April 1990, there is no precise equivalent to capital allocations. Annual capital guidelines, which are a measure of the government's assessment of the need for local authorities to finance capital expenditure on a particular service, were £457·9 million for education for 1990–91. Local authorities are not bound to spend at that level but the extent to which they can finance this expenditure from borrowing is regulated by the issue of credit approvals. Information for earlier years is not readily available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Lobby (Statues)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements for the statues of Disraeli and Asquith situated in the Members' Lobby to change places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no plans to do so.

  Norman Shaw Buildings (Access)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for the improvement of disabled access in the Norman Shaw North and Norman Shaw South buildings.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 31 January, at column 576. If he has any specific suggestions for improvements I will of course ensure they are included together with the studies currently being carried out.

HEALTH

  Operation Waiting Lists
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce waiting lists for operations; and how long is the average delay for non-life endangered surgical operations in north Devon.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 31 March 1990, the latest date for which information on hospital waiting lists is held centrally, the median waiting time for patients who have been treated in the surgical specialties, excluding emergencies, in north Devon was 2·8 weeks.

  It is the time patients wait for treatment which is important, not total numbers on the lists. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 January, we are continuing the special waiting list fund in 1991–92 with a further £35 million to help health authorities reduce the number of patients who wait excessively. This brings to £154 million the Government's investment in the fund over five years. South Western region has received £6·8 million from the waiting list fund over the period 1987 to 1991. The attack on waiting times is a key priority for the NHS in 1991–92 and the NHS management executive is agreeing tough targets with all 14 regional health authorities for substantial reductions in the number of patients who wait over a year for treatment.

HEALTH

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the centres established by the Trent regional health authority as part of the treatment centres initiative(a) its name, location and specialty, (b) its commencement date, (c) the budget allocated to that centre for (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91 and (iii) 1991–92, (d) the number of patients treated at that centre since it started work and (e) the average number of cases treated at such centres nationally.

  Mr. Dorell
  If the hon. Member would like to write to me and let me know what he has in mind by the phrase "treatment centres initiatives" I will reply to him direct.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates to be the annual cost of administering community health councils.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The expenses of community health councils are met by and are reported with the total expenditure of the health authorities with which they are associated.

  The summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1989–90 show such expenses as £8·6 million.

  Clinical Regrading
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health following the clinical regrading exercise how many appeals against grading were(a) lodged with the Northern regional health authority, (b) heard to date, (c) successful and (d) have yet to be heard; what is the average length of time for an appeal to be heard; and what advice and resources are being applied to deal with the backlog.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 31 December 1990, 194 nurse clinical grading regional appeals had been referred to Northern regional health authority for hearing under the procedures established by the General Whitley Council. I understand that of 49 regional appeals heard so far, 10 have been decided in favour of the appellant. There is no estimate of how long it will take for any particular regional appeal to be heard. The regional health authority will make every effort to operate the appeals process as quickly as possible.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the level of salmonella infection in turtles and terrapins and the extent to which such infection is transmitted to humans; and if he has any proposals for relevant research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 31 January at column 617.

  No information is held centrally on the level of salmonella infection in turtles and terrapins. The public health laboratory service's (PHLS) communicable disease surveillance centre, with a number of PHLS laboratories, the Medical Research Council and the London School of
  48
  Hygiene and Tropical Medicine will be conducting a pilot study this year on the incidence of infectious intestinal disease in the human population. This study will include an inquiry into possible risk factors, including contact with animals.

  Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will announce the Government's decisions on the recommendations in the Peat Marwick McLintock review of the United Kingdom Central Council and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government consulted widely on the Peat Marwick McLintock recommendations and also on proposals drawn up by the four United Kingdom Health Departments to reflect the education and training implications for the health care sector of the White Paper "Working for Patients". We have now come to a view on the main features of the statutory framework for the regulation of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions. Future arrangements for organisation and finance of nursing, midwifery and health visiting education have also been decided which reflect the way in which these services are delivered in the four United Kingdom countries. These are set out in detail in written statements which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I are issuing today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  In England, I have decided that regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, should in future have the main responsibility for funding pre-registration nursing and midwifery training, rather than sharing that responsibility with the English national board as at present. The resources to be allocated to such training will need to be specified by regional health authorities in a clearly defined and protected budget. Post-registration nurse and midwifery training designed to produce specific professional skills will also, for the time being at least, be funded from a separate and protected regional budget.

  With regard to the statutory framework for the regulation of the professions, the Government accept the Peat Marwick McLintock proposals that the United Kingdom central council, rather than the national boards, should be the statutory body to which the professions elect members, and that the whole of the professional conduct function should be centralised at the council. In the light however of the decisions which have been taken on the organisation and finance of professional education, the case made by Peat Marwick McLintock for direct management of colleges of nursing and midwifery in England, Scotland and Wales by their respective national boards largely disappears. We have accordingly decided not to accept the recommendations in this regard. But there will be a continuing role for bodies in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom to accredit institutions and validate courses and to ensure that the council's standards of professional education are met in each country.

  The changes proposed will require legislation, the timing of which will depend on the other pressures on the Government's legislative programme.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote the development of child care for the under-fives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Seven in eight or 86 per cent. of three and four-year-olds attend some form of day care or nursery education for part or more of the week which provides a good basis on which to expand services.

  The Department has a major programme of activity designed to encourage the development of good quality childcare services across the country.

  The current programme includes:
  implementation of the Children Act 1989 which will introduce a new more effective registration system and a duty for local social services departments and local education authorities to review every three years and publish a report on the day care services in their area;
  new guidance now in preparation on quality and standards of childcare services and education services for pre-school children, the new registration system and review duty;
  training materials project being funded to help local authority registration staff carry out their regulatory function efficiently, and to encourage local authorities to see themselves as facilitators helping providers run good quality services;
  support to the childcare voluntary sector including eleven national organisations in receipt of core grants totalling over £1·2 million in the current financial year and a small grants scheme involving seven national bodies allocating capital sums to local groups now running for the fourth year;
  new centrally-funded under fives initiative to test certain policy ideas on, for example, services for homeless families and lone parents;
  research projects into childminding and playgroups;
  the interdepartmental consultative group on provision for under fives on which DSS, DES, DOE, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Scottish and Welsh Offices are represented together with representatives from the local authority associations, the voluntary sector, the private childcare sector and employer interests. The Group meets under my chairmanship to discuss matters of concern.

  The policy which has evolved and developed over the years enables us to build on the strengths of our pattern of childcare services with its invaluable contribution from the voluntary sector and now from the increasingly interested private providers and employers.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions his Department has issued to district health authorities about the use of the word "authority" in their official titles.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the parliamentary constituencies in Wales in order according to the number of self-employed persons in each as revealed by the latest census; and if he will give the figure for each of those constituencies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  50

  Number of self-employed by Parliamentary Constituency

  Number

  Aberavon

  1,343

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,443

  Swansea East

  1,539

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  1,569

  Islwyn

  1,590

  Cynon Valley

  1,595

  Ogmore

  1,644

  Torfaen

  1,722

  Rhondda

  1,816

  Neath

  1,868

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  1,976

  Newport East

  2,004

  Caerphilly

  2,141

  Newport West

  2,166

  Cardiff West

  2,220

  Bridgend

  2,253

  Swansea West

  2,374

  Cardiff North

  2,408

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,423

  Pontypridd

  2,446

  Cardiff Central

  2,525

  Llanelli

  2,647

  Wrexham

  3,027

  Gower

  3,078

  Meirionnydd Nant Conway

  3,367

  Delyn

  3,444

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,577

  Conwy

  3,620

  Ynys Mon

  3,693

  Caernarfon

  3,800

  Clwyd North West

  4,129

  Monmouth

  4,483

  Clwyd South West

  4,808

  Montgomery

  5,309

  Pembroke

  6,054

  Brecon and Radnor

  6,261

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  7,771

  Carmarthen

  8,131

  Coventry Health Services
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are specifically responsible for dealing with complaints by patients and families in the Coventry family health services authority and by the Coventry health authority;

  (2) how many people are employed by the Coventry family health services authority and by the Coventry health authority;

  (3) what is the latest available figure and for the years 1979 to 1988 for the back-log of complaints at the Coventry family health services authority and the Coventry health authority; and how many complaints had not been investigated for (a) over a year and (b) over two years;

  (4) what is the average time taken to deal with a complaint to the Coventry family health services authority and the Coventry health authority; and what is the national average.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the authorities for details.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest figure and for each year from 1980 for the number of people undergoing treatment for drug abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Circumcision
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to health authorities as to whether circumcision operations can be undertaken without charge by the national health service on the basis of parental choice rather than medical necessity.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for local decision but in general only those operations which are deemed to be clinically necessary are performed without charge by the national health service.

  Total NHS (England) spending and HCHS spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  £ billion

  GDP(A)

  Total HCHS gross expenditure

  Total NHS gross expenditure as a percentage of GDP expenditure

  Total HCHS gross expenditure

  Total HCHS gross expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1974–75

  89·400

  3·426

  3·8

  2·596

  2·9

  1975–76

  111·200

  4·511

  4·1

  3·409

  3·1

  1976–77

  130·100

  5·149

  4·0

  3·874

  3·0

  1977–78

  151·400

  5·689

  3·8

  4·251

  2·8

  1978–79

  173·800

  6·525

  3·8

  4·888

  2·8

  1979–80

  208·600

  7·755

  3·7

  5·800

  2·8

  1980–81

  237·800

  10·103

  4·2

  7·653

  3·2

  1981–82

  260·900

  11·329

  4·3

  8–506

  3·3

  1982–83

  285·700

  12·353

  4·3

  9·140

  3·2

  1983–84

  309·800

  13·113

  4·2

  9·607

  3·1

  1984–85

  331·900

  14·102

  4·2

  10·203

  3·1

  1985–86

  363·100

  14·923

  4·1

  11·112

  3·1

  1986–87

  390·800

  16·060

  4·1

  11·954

  3·1

  1987–88

  432·900

  17·659

  4·1

  13·146

  3·0

  1988–89

  482·900

  19·606

  4·1

  14·546

  3·0

  1989–90

  523·000

  21·139

  4·0

  15·744

  3·0

  1990–91

  558·000

  23·718

  4·3

  17·750

  3·2

  1991–92

  604·000

  26·428

  4·3

  19·916

  3·3

  HCHS figures from 1985–86 onwards are not comparable with those for the earlier years as they have been adjusted to reflect the new definition of HCHS expenditure to be used in the forthcoming departmental report. i.e. they include family health services administration, disablement services authority and family health services cash-limited spending.

  Portage Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities joint fund portage schemes; and what is his policy towards such joint funding.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. Decisions on joint funding are for health authorities to take at a level.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish details of the originating debt to be issued to each of the first wave of NHS trusts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The size of each NHS trust's originating capital debt and the proportions of interest bearing debt and public dividend capital within the total will be set later on this year following a determination of each trust's opening net asset values.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total NHS spending and (b) HCHS spending as a proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product in each year from 1974–75 to the present time.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives NHS and HCHS expenditure for the years from 1974–75 as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds, per region, have been made vacant to enable the services to use them for Gulf casualties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There should be no need for health authorities to empty beds until significant ground operations begin.

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the charging by health authorities or national health service trusts of local authority social services departments for the attendance of hospital doctors at case conferences concerning children or young persons at risk.
  53
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Such charges in respect of hospital doctors should not be necessary, and the needs of the child should always be paramount.

  Hospital Services, Carlisle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the failure of East Cumbria health authority to discuss major reductions in hospital services in Carlisle with the East Cumbrian community health council.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 January 1991] I understand that the Northern regional health authority is looking into this matter.

  Nurses (Prescribing Rights)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health if he will introduce legislation to permit limited prescribing rights for nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to the reply 23 January 1991, c. 220]: The Government support the general principle of nurse prescribing endorsed by the advisory group on nurse prescribing but there is more work to do before the final proposals can be agreed and legislation introduced.

  The report of the advisory group was published and issued for comment in December 1989, and the consultation period ended on 30 April 1990. In total 330 responses were received from the four United Kingdom countries. These included replies from health authorities, family health services authorities, medical, pharmaceutical and nursing organisations, individual nurses, trade unions and pharmaceutical companies. Commentators generally welcomed the report and supported its recommendations.

  The report and comments identified various issues which require further work, in particular the economic implications, education and training needs, the development of a formulary, administrative arrangements and legal implications. Clearly, implementation depends upon sorting out these issues. The Department intends shortly to announce details of the independent cost benefit analysis of the advisory group's proposals which we are commissioning. Work is also being carried forward in all the other areas.

  An interim report from the cost benefit analysis should be available in the spring of 1992. Depending upon the nature of the results, we would hope to introduce legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why there has been a delay in issuing claim forms for hill livestock compensatory allowance; when farmers may expect these application forms to be released; and what steps he is taking to arrange for early payment of hill livestock compensatory allowance.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 25 January 1991, Vol. 184, col.331.

  Schoolchildren (Part-time Employment)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether he will initiate a survey to establish how many children of compulsory school age are failing to achieve their full educational potential as a consequence of excessive part-time employment;

  (2) what restrictions are placed on employers who provide part-time jobs for post-primary pupils who are still required to attend school on a full-time basis.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The restrictions imposed on employers of children of compulsory school age are contained in byelaws regulating the employment of children, made by each education and library board, under the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. The byelaws stipulate the occupations in which children may be employed, the age below which children are not to be employed, the number of daily or weekly hours for which they may be employed, the times of day at which they may be employed, the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest, the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them and any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment.

  I am not aware of any need for a survey.

  Health Targets
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish his health targets for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Current health targets for Northern Ireland are contained in "Health and Personal Social Services—A Regional Strategy for Northern Ireland 1987–1992", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Planning
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those planning consents made in the year ended 31 March 1990, which include environmental conditions.

  Mr. Needham
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he proposes to make any changes to the planning system in order to improve the safeguarding of areas of environmental or ecological importance.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment Committee, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, expressed concern about planning controls and environmental safeguards. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Forster Green Junction
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether tenders have been invited for the Forster Green junction improvement scheme in Castlereagh borough; when he expects work to commence on site; and what is the contract period for this scheme.
  55
  Mr. Needham
  Tenders have not yet been received for the Forster Green junction improvement scheme which is expected to commence during the 1991–92 financial year. The date is dependent on a number of factors including the acquisition of the necessary land. The contract period will be approximately one year.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consider establishing an independent environmental protection agency with policing powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended the establishment of such a body. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish an annual report on the environment, including an analysis of wildlife habitat loss.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended the publication of an annual report on the environment. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Savings
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people retiring today receive income from savings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, in 1987, 82 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received income from savings.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance his Department is giving in establishing social security systems in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Jack
  As I mentioned earlier, officials have been working closely with the Polish and Czechoslovak Governments. Assistance has also been provided to Hungary.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of low-income working families facing deduction rates of 100 per cent. or more(a) prior to 1988 social security reforms and (b) currently.

  Mr. Newton
  The social security reforms in 1988, together with subsequent changes including the major 56
  restructuring of national insurance in October 1989, have to all intents and purposes ended the situation in which the combined effect of tax and contribution deductions and benefit withdrawal could leave a family worse off as a result of increased earnings. Prior to the reforms, it is estimated that some 70,000 families were in this position.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people his Department expects to benefit from proposals outlined in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people will benefit from the measures announced in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that some 850,000 disabled people and their carers will benefit from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cmd. 917).

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of mothers in receipt of child benefit earn less than the average wage.

  Mr. Newton
  Our latest information is that of the 15 per cent. of mothers getting child benefit who are in full-time work, 63 per cent. were earning below average female full-time earnings.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many petitions containing how many signatures his Department has received or been notified of on the subject of child benefit since November 1986.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the percentage change in real terms in the value of the state retirement pension since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the average real value of the state retirement pension in the year ending April 1990 was 5 per cent. higher than in the year to November 1979, although its value decreased by 3 per cent., if one merely compares its worth on the dates in 1979 and 1990 when it was uprated. My hon. Friend will, of course, agree with me that what really matters to pensioners is their total income which, as a result of the Government's successful economic strategy, increased by 31 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987.

  Hospices
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the current ruling that hospices must make a compulsory charge to patients before patients can claim benefit to pay for a contribution to the running of the hospice.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income support is a personal benefit intended to meet a claimant's day-to-day living costs. It
  57
  would be inappropriate to pay the higher rates of income support intended to meet the fees for nursing homes in cases where no fees are charged. People in hospices who do not have to pay a charge can claim the normal rates of income support, from which they may make a contribution to the hospice if they wish.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the earnings disregard in invalid care allowance has risen over the last two years.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the earnings disregard in invalid care allowance has risen over the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  The earnings limit for invalid care allowance was raised from £12 to £20 a week in April 1990. In his statement on 24 October 1990 about the uprating of social security benefits my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our intention to increase the limit by a further 50 per cent. to £30 a week from April this year.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many taxpayers with a marginal tax rate of 25p would be affected were the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions to be removed.

  Mr. Jack
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed it is currently estimated that about 3·3 million people would pay more contributions, of whom about 2·2 million would have a marginal tax rate of 25p. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed it is estimated that about another 0·6 million people would pay more contributions of whom about 0·3 million would have marginal tax rate of 25p.

  Pensioners' Earnings Rule
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are estimated to be benefiting from the abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller).

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable figure in real terms in 1978–79.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household(a) currently and (b) in 1978–79, in real terms.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we estimate that the average real value of pensioners' assets doubled between 1979 and 1987.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average current family credit award.

  Mr. Jack
  The average amount of family credit in payment is over £30 a week. Nearly a third of families get £40 a week or more, over half of whom get £50 a week or more.

  Pensioner Support
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional support he is proposing to give to pensioners.

  Mr. Newton
  The national insurance pension will go up in April by £5·10 a week for a single person and £8·15 for a couple. In addition, following the £200 million special increase in income support premiums for less-well-off older and disabled pensioners which took place in October 1989, the basic pensioner premium is being increased an April by more than a normal uprating, to give real extra help totalling some £80 million to another 400,000 pensioners aged 60 to 74 directly through income support, and well over £1·5 million through housing benefit and community charge benefit. Less-well-off pensioners are also the principal group of beneficiaries who will be helped by the April increase of well over £200 million in income support limits for those in residential care or nursing homes.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to repeal the benefit regulation guaranteeing single payments to people in need because of serious risk to their health and with no other source of help.

  Mr. Scott
  A social security appeal tribunal has awarded a single payment under the terms of the (former) Supplementary Benefit (Urgent Cases) Regulations 1980. The adjudication officer has applied for leave to appeal to the social security commissioner against the decision. Any further action will depend on the outcome of the application for leave to appeal and, if appropriate, the appeal itself.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what decision has been reached on the means of achieving equal state pension age; and whether the principle for its achievement will be a flexible retirement decade centred on a common age of 65 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 18 of the Government's response to the 10th report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1988–89, on "Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Pensions and Other Benefits"—Cm. 1038.

  SERPS
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his answers of 12 December 1990,Official Report, columns 427–28 and 14 January, Official

  59
  Report, columns 394–95, on the value of the state earnings related pension scheme, he will now give the figures from 1990 to 2029 on the same basis but at April 1990 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table. It is important to note that calculations of this nature can provide only a hypothetical view of the distant future based, as they are, on unchanged assumptions about economic variables and policies.

  Year

  UEL(£s per week)

  Average Earnings (£s per week)

  Half Average Earnings (£s per week)

  1990

  48·65

  31·85

  12·70

  1991

  53·20

  34·95

  13·90

  1992

  57·55

  38·10

  15·15

  1993

  62·15

  41·50

  16·65

  1994

  66·70

  44·90

  18·00

  1995

  71·35

  48·40

  19·45

  1996

  76·25

  52·25

  21·15

  1997

  81·10

  56·00

  22·75

  1998

  86·00

  59·90

  24·45

  1999

  86·55

  60·75

  24·80

  2000

  86·45

  61·15

  25·10

  2001

  86·15

  61·35

  25·25

  2002

  85·80

  61·55

  25·40

  2003

  85·45

  61·70

  25·55

  2004

  85·05

  61·85

  25·70

  2005

  84·65

  61·95

  25·85

  2006

  84·10

  61·95

  25·90

  2007

  83·55

  61·95

  26·00

  2008

  82·95

  61·90

  26·05

  2009

  82·35

  61·80

  26·10

  2010

  82·85

  62·65

  26·50

  2011

  83·35

  63·50

  26·95

  2012

  83·90

  64·35

  27·45

  2013

  84·40

  65·15

  27·85

  2014

  84·95

  66·00

  28·35

  2015

  85·55

  66·80

  28·80

  2016

  86·20

  67·70

  29·35

  2017

  86·80

  68·50

  29·85

  2018

  87·40

  69·30

  30·30

  2019

  88·05

  70·15

  30·85

  2020

  88·65

  70·95

  31·35

  2021

  89·35

  71·80

  31·90

  2022

  90·00

  72·60

  32·45

  2023

  90·70

  73·40

  33·00

  2024

  91·35

  74·25

  33·55

  2025

  92·05

  75·05

  34·10

  2026

  92·80

  75·90

  34·70

  2027

  93·50

  76·70

  35·30

  2028

  93·05

  77·05

  35·70

  2029

  92·65

  77·30

  36·05

  Weekly amounts of Additional pension payable on retirement on 6 April in the stated year with earnings equal to the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL), average earnings and half average earnings; at April 1990 prices.

  From 1990 onwards 5 per cent. prices and 6·5 per cent. earnings growth is assumed.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his estimate of the loss to the national insurance fund through individuals contracting out of

  Castlegate

  David Lane

  Shakespeare Street

  Station street

  Grade 7

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  2·0

  SEO

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  7·0

  6

  7·0

  6·0

  Local Officer 1

  30·0

  29

  33·0

  32·5

  Local Officer 2

  66·0

  61

  64·5

  66·0

  Administrative Assistant

  13·5

  21

  12·5

  19·5

  Typing Manager

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  Typist

  4·0

  2

  3·0

  3·0

  60
  state earnings-related pension scheme for each year since the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986; and what has been the actual loss for each of these years.

  Mr. Jack
  It was not possible to make an advance estimate of the income likely to be forgone to the national insurance fund as a result of individuals choosing personal pensions as a means of contracting out of SERPS. The table shows the actual amounts of contracted-out rebates and incentives paid in respect of such optants for 1988–89 and 1989–90. The table also shows the amounts used by the Government Actuary as working assumptions for the purposes of his reports on the national insurance fund in respect of those years.

  Personal pensions standard rebates and incentives Government Actuary's working assumptions

  £ million

  Assumptions for reports made during

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Actual amounts paid in the year

  1988–89

  260

  n/a

  289

  1989–90

  690

  2,582

  2,434

  The national insurance fund has a substantial balance of past surpluses and this is set to remain above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next intends to visit the offices of the independent living fund; and when he last did so.

  Mr. Scott
  I have no immediate plans to visit the offices of the independent living fund, although I am in regular contact with the trustees. I last visited it on 2 December 1988.

  Benefit Forms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further steps are under consideration to simplify forms used to claim benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has a continuing programme of review, impartial testing and monitoring of new and existing forms to make them easy to use, simplified and fit for their purpose.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are employed and at what level in each of his Department's Nottingham offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 31 January 1991 the number of staff, including part-time staff, employed in the Department's Nottingham local offices was as follows:
  61

  Castlegate

  David Lane

  Shakespeare Street

  Station street

  Support Grade 1

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  Support Grade 2

  4·0

  3

  5·0

  4·0

  Total1

  126·5

  123

  127·0

  134·0

  1 In addition 20 casual staff are employed.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals in receipt of benefit are repaying from that benefit an amount relating to a loan from the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 December 1990, 354,357 people were repaying social fund loans from a social security benefit.

  Plain English Society
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the director of the Plain English Society to discuss DSS forms.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend has not done so. However, experts in the Department's document design unit meet members of the society from time to time and the Department has been the recipient of the society's plain english awards on a number of occasions.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what refurbishment plans are being considered, what is the nature of the work envisaged and when was the last time such work was done, for his Department's offices in the Nottingham area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Four offices are involved. All have recently been supplied with new desks and chairs as part of their introduction of computer systems. In addition to the routine rolling programme of maintenance, decoration and replacement of furniture, carpets and fittings, the following special initiatives have been undertaken.

  Nottingham, Castle Gate
  A fast-flow reception system has been introduced together with refurbishment of customer seating.

  Nottingham, David Lane
  Caller areas were upgraded two years ago with the installation of new seating and flooring. All caller facilities previously located on two floors are now on the ground floor to provide an enhanced service and easy access for disabled customers.

  Nottingham, Shakespeare Street
  A fast-flow reception system has been introduced together with new seating.

  Nottingham, Station Street
  Caller areas have been restyled and an advice desk incorporated. The provision of a toilet for disabled staff is planned.

  Benefits
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to vary the level of income support, community charge benefit or housing benefit for people under 25 years of age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so although, of course, all benefits are kept under continual review.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total cost of increasing overall child support, child benefit and child dependency increase,62
  to 1979 levels for (a) war widows, (b) national insurance widows, (c) people on invalidity benefits and (d) pensioners.

  Mr. Jack
  The costs of increasing overall child support, child benefit and child dependency increase for these beneficiaries are shown in the table. Except for war widows, where there is minimal eligibility for such benefits, these figures are net of corresponding savings on income-related benefits.

  £ million

  (a) War Widows

  Children's allowance

  1·0

  Child Benefit

  0·2

  Total

  1·2

  (b) National Insurance Widows

  Child dependency increase

  9·7

  Child Benefit

  2·4

  Total

  12·1

  (c) People on invalidity benefits

  Child dependency increase

  25·8

  Child Benefit

  5·2

  Total

  31·0

  (d) Retirement pensioners

  Child dependency increase

  4·1

  Child Benefit

  0·7

  Total

  4·8

  Food Purchase
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money is allocated for food purchase in benefit payments(a) per adult and (b) per child aged (i) 16 to 17 years, (ii) 11 to 15 years, (iii) six to 10 years, (iv) three to five years and (v) nought to two years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income-related benefit levels are not set on this basis.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce regulations to allow mature students attending college on not more than two weekdays each week to qualify for unemployment benefit for the duration of their course.

  Mr. Jack
  The present position is that a mature student attending college part-time may be entitled to unemployment benefit for days on which he is available for work. He must be able to show that any restrictions he places on the days or hours he is prepared to work are not inconsistent with having a reasonable prospect of obtaining employment. He must also take reasonable steps to seek work.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the figures for(a) the numbers of claimants who successfully qualified for a cold weather payment in Scotland for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, (b) the numbers of successful claimants in each weather station area, as defined in the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments Regulations, and the number of times each weather station area was triggered for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 and (c) the estimated numbers of potentially eligible claimants, as defined in the said regulations for each weather station area triggered in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  (a) The total number of cold weather payments and the estimated number of successful claimants in Scotland for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 are in the table:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Number of payments

  502

  148,212

  Number of payments

  502

  224,726

  (b) (c) The number of potentially eligible claimants is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of payments and periods of cold weather (triggers), for each weather station area in Scotland where a period of cold weather was actually recorded in 1988–89 and 1989–90 are in the table.

  Weather station

  Payments

  Claimants

  Triggers

  1988–89

  Eskdalemuir

  502

  502

  1

  1989–90

  Glasgow Airport

  46,971

  223,485

  2

  Dumfries

  526

  526

  1

  Fort William

  150

  150

  1

  Kinloss

  536

  536

  1

  Lerwick

  29

  29

  1

  1 This figure includes payments made in April/May 1990 in respect of the winter of 1989–90.

  2 The number of claimants is different to the actual number of payments and can only be estimated, because a claimant can receive a payment each time his local weather station triggers. In Glasgow some claimants received two payments.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases involving casualties of the Bari harbour mustard gas disaster in 1943 have been investigated by his Department with a view to the possible payment of war pensions; how many pensions have been made payable; and what the criteria have been for such payments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Of the 693 casualties known to have arisen from the Bari harbour incident, 161 were killed or declared missing. Information on how many war widows' pensions resulted is not available.

  A special exercise in 1986–87 to trace the remainder showed that 185 claims for war pension had been made, of which 106 were successful.

  As with all claims for war pension, awards are made where disablement or death is due to service in the armed
  64
  forces or, for those who served in the merchant navy or were members of the naval auxilary, where disablement or death is directly attributable to a war injury or a war risk injury.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued to employers about payment of statutory sick pay to employees with less than two years' service.

  Mr. Scott
  Entitlement to statutory sick pay (SSP) is not dependent on an employee having worked for an employer for two years. Sufficient information to enable employers to administer the SSP scheme is contained in the "Quick Guide to SSP" and more detailed information is in the employer's manual to SSP. A copy of each was issued to all known employers in February 1989 for use from April 1989, and a revised edition of the quick guide was issued in February 1990.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Steel
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the Arthur D. Little inquiry into the future of the Scottish steel industry up to and including the publication of the interim report on 24 January.

  Mr. Lang
  It would not be appropriate for me to disclose the value of the Scottish Development Agency's contract with Arthur D. Little, since such information is commercially confidential. The contract was awarded on the basis of competitive tendering.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position of Scottish hospitals and trust status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is increasing recognition of the potential benefits of NHS trust status. Currently, my Department has received five expressions of interest and other units are considering their position.

  National Testing
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed, and next proposes to discuss, with Scottish local government representatives the implementation of national testing in primary schools at levels four and seven.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials of the Scottish Office Education Department are in regular and frequent contact with education authority personnel about testing and other matters.

  General Practices
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what method is used to classify general practices in terms of social structure and deprivation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The basis for designating an area serviced by a general practitioner as deprived is the Jarman
  65
  index of under-privileged areas. The index, which uses 1981 census data at postcode sector level, consists of eight factors: levels of unemployment, elderly living alone, overcrowding, children under five, unskilled workers, single-parent households, ethnic minorities and population movement.

  Scrabster Harbour
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce a decision on the application for financial assistance to enable the proposed development to Scrabster harbour.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The economic justification for this project is being assessed. A decision will be announced as soon as that appraisal has been completed.

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what number of students attended the centrally-funded education institutions in 1978–79 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1978–79, 16,660 full-time and 3,000 part-time students attended institutions which were centrally funded by the Scottish Office Education Department at that time. Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Education (Capital Provision)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital provision for the centrally-funded education institutions in every year since1978–79, at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table:

  £ million

  1978–79

  15·2

  1979–80

  11·1

  1980–81

  13·2

  1981–82

  13·0

  1982–83

  11·7

  1983–84

  12·1

  1984–85

  11·9

  1985–86

  13·2

  1986–87

  23·2

  1987–88

  21·6

  1988–89

  16·7

  1989–90

  19·9

  1990–91

  19·0

  Education (Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the contributions of central Government and local government to expenditure on local government education in every year since 1978–79 at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to provide information in the form requested. The bulk of central Government support for local authority expenditure through aggregate external finance is not hypothecated to individual services.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of the assisted places scheme for the current financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimated cost of the scheme in the current financial year is £7·49 million.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the means-tested limits of the assisted places scheme and the distribution of pupils in terms of the levels of financial support received.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of the current parental income scale and the distribution of pupils according to relevant income are set out in the table.

  Part of relevant income to which the specified Percentage applies (1989–90) income tax year)

  parental contribution towards school fee (Percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,034 but does not exceed £8,735

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,735 but does not exceed £9,449

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,449 but does not exceed £10,865

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,865 but does not exceed £13,043

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £13,043 but does not exceed £15,885

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £15,885

  33

  Number of pupils in school year 1989–901

  Relevant income

  Under £8,000

  £12,000

  £15,000

  Over £15,000

  2,839

  1,262

  728

  480

  369

  1 Provisional.

  Peebles Hydro
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the purpose of the Training Agency event at Peebles Hydro on 28 January; and what was its cost to public funds.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Training Agency in Central and Fife invited representatives of its training providers from the central area to a short conference to explore the Forth Valley enterprise business plan and the crucial role for providers within that plan. The total cost of the conference was approximately £1,620. Set against the alternative of individual briefings and negotiations with each provider this was judged to represent value for public money.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Injuries)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been invalided out because of injuries in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of service personnel invalided out because of injuries in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available is as follows:
  67

  Number

  1980

  168

  1981

  144

  1982

  123

  1983

  166

  1984

  231

  1985

  343

  1986

  295

  1987

  201

  1988

  249

  1989

  276

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the rate of pensions and the method of awarding them to wounded members of the armed forces who are invalided out.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Members of the armed forces who are invalided as the result of wounds or other causes which are attributable to service are eligible for lump sums, pensions and allowances in accordance with the provisions of the armed forces pension scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence and of the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security.

  Lump sums and rates of pension awarded under the armed forces pension scheme are related to the assessed degree of disability, the rank held, and the rates of pay in force at the time of invaliding. They are tax-free. Pensions in issues are index-linked from the date of the award by reference to movements in the retail prices index.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to publicise the services of War Pensioners Welfare staff to service men and relatives of service men currently on active service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Arrangements exist within the armed forces to help serving personnel, or their families, where there is a need for welfare assistance or guidance. In the event that casualties arise as the result of active service, those responsible for service welfare will provide any initial help needed and will put personnel or their families in touch with other organisations as appropriate to the circumstances. The War Pensioners Welfare Service, which is administered by the Department of Social Security, is among those organisations.

  In these circumstances I do not believe it necessary or appropriate to particularly publicise the services of the War Pensions Welfare Service.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the staffing levels of War Pensioners Welfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The staffing levels of the War Pensioners Welfare Service were examined last year in the course of a management inspection of the service. The inspection team's report recommended no changes in the number of chief welfare officers and welfare officers, but recommended some reductions in the number of support staff and the withdrawal of the homecraft service. The recommendations are being considered, but no decisions have yet been taken. The central advisory committee on war pensioners is being consulted about them and has agreed that a joint
  68
  working party on which war pensioners' interests will be represented, should be set up to review the aims and future of the homecraft service. Any effects of the Gulf conflict on the work of the service will be fully taken into account and we shall certainly not agree to anything that would harm the interests of war widows and war pensioners.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the implications of the loss, damage or destruction of nuclear weapons in the middle east during the course of present hostilities; and what consideration has been given to the implication of potential widespread radioactive contamination;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the protection of nuclear weapons based in Turkey, within 200 miles of the Iraqi border, and to the removal of nuclear weapons on ships and submarines in the area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been Her Majesty's Government's longstanding practice neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons in any particular location at any particular time. The highest priority is attached to safeguarding our weapons wherever they may be and they are designed with a view to minimising the consequences of damage. Our operations in the middle east are being conducted with full regard to the implications of any potential radioactive contamination.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear weapons and reactors are currently situated in the middle east; and what consideration has been given to designating the area as a nuclear-free zone.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been Her Majesty's Government's longstanding practice neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons in any particular location at any particular time. Nor do we give details of the whereabouts of our nuclear submarines. The United Kingdom supports nuclear weapon-free zones wherever they could make a contribution to security.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the number of curies of radiation released by the bombing of Iraq's nuclear installations.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the destruction of two Iraqi nuclear reactors on 23 January; and what assessment he makes of the effects of the destruction in the medium and long-term in military and other terms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 29 January, column 504. We have no evidence of any release of radioactivity from Iraq's nuclear installations.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the number of oil wells, oil rigs and other oil installations in Kuwait that are on fire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We assess that up to 31 January 1991 the following oil installations in Kuwait are, or had recently been, on fire:
  69

  (a) Between three and eleven oil wells.

  (b) Up to four crude oil gathering centres.

  (c) Crude oil storage tanks in the Wafrah oilfield.

  (d) Crude oil storage tanks and manifolds at two refineries.

  (e) The Mina al Ahmadi Sea Island Terminal together with a related single buoy mooring.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature of Iraq's nuclear reactors, their capacity, their type of fuel and their moderating material; and what damage has been inflicted on them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iraq has two research reactors at Tuwaitha nuclear research centre near Baghdad:A Soviet-supplied IRT-5000, pool type reactor with a maximum design power of 5000 kw(th), using 80 per cent. enriched uranium fuel in a moderator of light water.
  A French supplied ISIS (Tammuz-2), pool type reactor with a maximum design power of 500 kw(th), using 93 per cent. enriched uranium fuel in a moderator of light water. The buildings housing both reactors have been damaged.

  Damage to the reactors themselves, if any, cannot yet be assessed. We have no evidence of any release of radioactivity.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to sending HMS Britannia to the Gulf to serve as a medical support ship.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Careful consideration was given to deploying HMY Britannia to the Gulf to provide maritime medical support, but after a full assessment of the requirement, it was decided that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus would be better suited for the task.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he receives reports from the Red Cross about deaths and injuries in Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received no such reports.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received concerning captured British pilots taken prisoner in Iraq and the medical treatment given to them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that Iraq has not yet provided any information to the International Committee of the Red Cross on allied personnel being held and their location, nor permitted the ICRC to satisfy itself that they are being held in accordance with Iraq's obligations under the Geneva convention.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information he has received concerning the damage to Christian churches, mosques and schools in Iraq at the latest date;

  (2) what is the latest information he has received of deaths and injuries in Iraq involving civilians; and how many of those injured or killed were children.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The targets being attacked by coalition forces are sites which could pose a threat to allied forces or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. These attacks have been carefully planned, with the aim of keeping civilian casualties as low as possible, and they also take account of the locations of sites of religious and cultural importance. Iraq claimed at the United Nations 70
  on 24 January that over 300 civilians had been killed and over 400 injured. They have also claimed extensive damage to non-military sites. We are unable to verify Iraq's claims.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist among the allied powers engaged in the Gulf for reviewing war aims.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aims of the coalition forces are those laid down by the United Nations Security Council.

  Departmental Offices (Hospitals)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence offices in which hospitals his Department has opened an office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No Ministry of Defence offices have been opened in national health service hospitals. However, military administrative officers (civilian hospitals) have been appointed to liaise between Army districts and civilian hospitals treating military casualties, should the need arise.

  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the rules applicable to Iraqi prisoners of war held following capture by the international coalition forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Iraqi prisoners of war will be treated strictly in accordance with the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, signed in Geneva on 12 August 1949. A copy is available in the Library. Under the convention, Iraq is required to observe the same obligations towards allied prisoners of war.

  HMS Challenger
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where HMS Challenger is at present; on what date she was formally decommissioned; and what progress has been made in the arrangements for her sale.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  HMS Challenger is currently berthed in Portsmouth. She was formally decommissioned on 30 November 1990. Tenders have been invited for her purchase, and responses to this invitation are currently being considered.

  Conscription
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to seek information on young men who might be available for military service as conscripts or volunteers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have sought volunteers from the reserves for service during the current emergency, but we have no plans to reintroduce conscription nor to call for other volunteers beyond those required for normal recruitment to the armed forces.

  The Gulf (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 30 November,Official Report, column 550, when discussions with foreign Governments regarding the provision of financial assistance for the deployment of British forces to the Gulf began.
  71
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since August 1990, discussions have been held with a number of foreign Governments who have provided assistance for the deployment of British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the amount of financial assistance that has been provided to date by foreign countries for the deployment and operation of British forces in the Gulf.
  72
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Germany has provided a contribution of 800 million deutschmarks in cash towards the cost of operations in the Gulf, in addition to a package of assistance valued at some 60 million deutschmarks. Assistance has also been provided by a significant number of other countries. We hope to be in a position to put a figure on the total value shortly.

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

Fraud: Investigative Resources
Earl Alexander of Tunis Earl Alexander of Tunis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are adequate resources, in terms of both manpower and funds, to combat fraud.
Lord Reay: My Lords, within the record levels of financial support and manpower available to the police service since 1979, the police give such priority to combating fraud as chief officers decide is required. The Serious Fraud Office ensures that attention is given to the most serious cases. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Paymaster General also have statutory responsibility for fraud cases. We have no evidence to suggest that the investigation and prosecution of fraud is hampered by lack of resources.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is he aware of a report in the Daily Telegraph last week which stated that annually fraud amounts to £4,000 million or four times the cost of theft, burglary and robbery? Does my noble friend not consider it essential for the future of the financial services industry that the City of London should enjoy greater confidence worldwide?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is difficult to collect firm evidence but notifiable offences of fraud and forgery in England and Wales between October 1989 and October 1990 show an increase of 6 per cent. over the previous year. I agree that it is extremely important for the reputation of the City of London, and hence for the economic health of this country, that London is perceived to be a place where fraud is actively and vigorously pursued.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sure the City will welcome the assurance of the Minister that adequate resources will be made available to the serious fraud squad. However, is the Minister aware that it is more than four years since the Serious Fraud Office commenced its investigations into the Guinness affair? As a result of those investigations, individuals involved in the affair have been charged but have not yet been tried. Does this not suggest that there is undue delay in pursuing alleged fraud occurrences?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not believe I should comment on cases that are sub judice. On the question of delay, it takes time to investigate cases and it is more or less axiomatic that the cases which are dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office are time consuming and difficult to investigate.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, if the Government are so keen to deal with fraud, will the Minister think again about the reply he gave to a
872
Question I asked last week and consider introducing a charities Bill at an early date, given that the main purpose of such a Bill would be to deal with fraud in quite an important area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as the noble Lord admits, that matter was the subject of another Question which we dealt with last week.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1988–89 the number of recorded offences of fraud and forgery in the Metropolitan Police area increased by 8 per cent. while the number of people arrested in connection with such offences fell by 6 per cent? Will the Minister explain that trend?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am aware that the City of London police reported that attempted fraud increased last year. However, they also reported that the amount of money which fraudsters obtained fell while the amount that was recovered rose sharply. Therefore the news is not all bad: the report suggests that some impact may be being made.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fundamental thrust of the Question is whether there are funds and manpower available to deal with a situation which is bringing grave discredit on the City of London? Are the funds and manpower available, or will they be made available?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government are most strongly committed to combating fraud. As I said in my original Answer, we have no evidence to suggest that resources are lacking for that purpose.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many cases of securities fraud have been reported to prosecuting authorities by the Securities Association and other bodies? How many prosecutions have the prosecuting authorities initiated? And what has been the result?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the House will appreciate that that is a broad question which covers the work of several different departments. I do not have the precise figures that the noble Lord asks for. I shall look into the matter and report back to him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that the fraud squad is employing an adequate number of trained professional accountants to assist in this vital matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no reason to suppose that it is not.

Oil Pollution in the Gulf
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken to help reduce the damage to wildlife and the environment caused by the Iraqi release of oil into the Gulf.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the release of oil into the Gulf constitutes

873
environmental terrorism by Iraq. That said, the Gulf states have substantial oil pollution clean-up skills and resources. However, the Government have responded promptly to requests for assistance. Experts on pollution control have been sent; the RSPCA is advising on the protection of birds; 90 tonnes of equipment from industry stocks held at the Oil Spill Service Centre at Southampton has been sent; and we are actively helping to co-ordinate the international response through United Nations bodies, the European Community and other bodies.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Can she clarify whether Iraq has released more oil from new sources in the past week? Is she aware that the Saudi Arabian official concerned, Mr. al Gain, is well acquainted with international co-operation and is known to some of us because he is the vice-chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Pollution of the Sea. Does she agree that that should be helpful?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a further release of oil into the Gulf from the Mina al-Bakr loading terminal. It is the third oil slick in recent weeks. I am aware of Mr. al Gain's record. We must congratulate ACOPS on the work it has done. It was one of the first bodies concerned with marine pollution. I am also aware of my noble friend's connection with the organisation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the RSPCA had offered its expertise. Is any other non-governmental organisation sending help? If so, will the Government be prepared to help them out with finance if necessary and to give them every facility?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific. We are in touch with many voluntary organisations. As expertise is requested we are facilitating the provision of that assistance and its urgent dispatch to the Gulf.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether oil is still flowing from that third source and whether there are other suspected sources of oil which might be turned on by the Iraqis?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot say what the Iraqis will get up to next and whether they will put yet more oil into the Gulf. All the evidence suggests that the third slick is very large indeed. It threatens the shallow and vulnerable areas of the northern Gulf and is therefore a substantial threat.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the second part of her question my noble friend Lady Nicol asked whether adequate financial resources would be given to non-governmental organisations taking part in any clean up operation. She did not receive an answer. Will the Minister be good enough to indicate that government financial support will be forthcoming since she was good enough to say that the work of the non-governmental organisations was welcome?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the presumption in favour of meeting the costs lies with the Gulf states. So far the cost of sending people out to the Gulf has not been at issue. The Government are doing nothing to inhibit the sending of appropriate expertise to provide assistance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what view do the Government take as to why the Iraqis are pumping the oil into the Gulf? Does the noble Baroness agree that until we have a reasonable assumption about the reasons it is difficult to know how many more tonnes of oil will be poured into the Gulf, for what purpose and what we should do about it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, better minds than mine—and perhaps than of the Government—have spent considerable time and energy trying to read the mind of Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi army. We cannot predict what he may do next.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government would not stand in the way of the non-governmental organisations. Will she answer the question as to whether the Government will give them financial help?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have met the requests for assistance that have been made so far. We presume in favour of the Gulf states meeting the costs. So far the Government have done nothing to inhibit the appropriate assistance being sent to the Gulf. If requests are made for funds they will be considered.

Mineral Extraction Rights: IDOs
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extinguish mineral extraction rights held under interim development orders.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are aware of the concern about interim development orders. As was said during the second day of the Committee stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill on 29th January, powers already exist to revoke or modify old minerals permissions. Those powers are under review, but in the light of the concern about permissions granted under interim development orders the Government are considering whether some action should be taken in advance of the findings of the review. We expect to report our conclusions during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, to a degree that is an encouraging Answer. But does the Minister acknowledge that there was an error in the Town and Country Planning Act, which failed to compel local authorities to register interim development orders, with the result that farmers who bought farms find their farms being taken away and people who have nurtured homes have lost those homes because of mineral rights in their area? Are the Government prepared to say that

875
this is now a matter of grave urgency and that no single person should suffer any longer than is necessary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I indicated that we are gravely concerned about the issue. We have set in train a thorough review. We also believe that there is some urgency about bringing forward an interim proposal. We propose to do so before the end of the passage of the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we were very grateful for what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said about these orders last week? When I moved amendments on that occasion I asked whether it would be appropriate to make the EC directive on environmental assessment applicable to the review of IDO permissions. Will that be considered?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot either prejudge the outcome of the review or judge what the review will take into account. All I can say is that there will be an opportunity when the interim proposal is brought before the House to consider those proposals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister be gracious enough to consider getting in touch with the Royal Geographical Society, whose magazine explained the situation in great detail? It is not by any means a magazine which exaggerates but a great geographical magazine. I am sure that the secretary general of the Royal Geographical Society would be prepared to help her department.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am confident that those carrying out this review will make sure that they consult the appropriate sources for information.

Baltic Republics: Withdrawal of Russian Forces
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are continuing to press the USSR to withdraw its armed forces from the three Baltic republics.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, yes.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his laconic answer. I should also like to thank the Government for the actions that they have taken. Together with those of other governments they have been helpful. Does the Minister agree that there is still a need to press for self-determination and for the withdrawal of Soviet forces, which are often ill disciplined and lend themselves to acts of provocation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall continue to press this matter. We welcome the fact that the Soviet Government are sending delegations to the three Baltic capitals. As I have said on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House, we very much hope that negotiation will be the way forward.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that this problem will be on the agenda of the current foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels? Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have any specific proposal to put to that meeting? Can he also say whether President Gorbachev has set up a commission to seek to negotiate with the leaders of the three Baltic states? If so, does he agree that that too is an encouraging step forward? Is it possible that either Her Majesty's Government or a representative acting on behalf of the Community might seek to hold a meeting with President Gorbachev to make clear the view of the Community about the violence which has taken place in the two Baltic states?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the question of the Baltic republics is on the agenda of today's foreign affairs council. As a result of that and the action that the Community has already taken, I am sure that messages will be passed to the appropriate bodies and to Moscow. We continue to keep in touch on a regular basis. I agree with the noble Lord that the fact that there will be delegations to the three Baltic states will mean, we hope, further progress toward a peaceful solution of this problem.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that recent signals intercepts have suggested that Russian military forces up to 2,000 in strength are still being employed in aid of Iraq and in recent operational intercepts in tank battles Russian commanders were taking a very active part? Could the pressure extend to that activity as well as to the desperately bad and poor activity in the Baltic republics?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a slightly different Question, but I note my noble friend's point.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are the Government aware of exactly what the consultations that are taking placing between the Soviet Government and the three republics cover? Is independence on the agenda or is it merely a question of the position they will occupy within the Soviet empire?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as the British Government are concerned, the legal position with regard to the three Baltic states is well known to your Lordships following earlier Questions. It is for the parties concerned—the three Baltic states and Moscow—to sort out exactly what will be the future.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is there a difference in the Government's attitude to each of the three Baltic states or do they take an identical view concerning each one?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was referring to the legal position.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill will be

877
adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) Order 1991 will be taken.

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a consolidation measure. It consolidates the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and other enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland. It is pure consolidation and it is intended to make no change in the existing law. If your Lordships approve, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which will consider it and make its report to the House in due course.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: 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.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Development Plans]:
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 79, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 164 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 167, 176, 177 and 192. The Bill rightly requires that all local authorities should produce local plans and that those local plans should be statutory and shaped with proper consultation, on the one hand, and, on the other, with a presumption in their favour that such plans would make planning more predictable. As the Committee will recall, that is one of the main themes of this Bill.
These amendments bring together two aspects of that issue. Amendments Nos. 164 and 167 refer to the power of the Secretary of State to determine what may or may not be considered by a structure plan. The amendments from this side of the Chamber would allow greater flexibility to the county councils and the metropolitan authorities in the content and considerations that would inform their structure plans and would therefore reduce the amount of central direction from the Secretary of State. We suggest that
878
that is a theme consistent with the fact that structure plans need no longer be submitted to the Secretary of State.
In our view the second cluster of amendments, Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 192, is even more important. Amendment No. 176 requires that an inquiry into a structure plan must —not as the present wording of the Bill says "may"—be held in public. Amendment No. 177 would permit rather than, as the Bill does at present, forbid people to be heard at a public inquiry. Amendment No. 192 seeks to ensure that documentation concerning mineral workings should be publicly available for scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 192 together require that consideration of local and structure plans should be held in public, not behind closed doors, and that under certain circumstances third parties should have the right to be heard.
We believe that this amendment is so transparently virtuous that the Government will accept it. As the Bill stands, if these amendments are not accepted a district council, for example, let alone voluntary organisations or third parties, would not have the right to debate in public the issues which inform the structure plan. That would mean that the press, charge payers and the like would be excluded from a discussion of the very plans that are meant to determine the planning framework. If planning is to be informed and seen to be fair, it cannot be right that local authorities, the press, charge payers and third parties should not be able to debate those issues in public; otherwise planning will not carry consent. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not our intention here to restrict the scope of structure plans unnecessarily. We want structure plans to address the whole range of strategic land use planning issues, as is clearly shown in the list of topics that we published in Planning Policy Guidance, note 15, last May. Any use of the power provided by these new clauses would be based on that list. Of course, we can foresee instances where a county may have to deal with special circumstances and the provisions will allow the Secretary of State to make specific exceptions in such cases.
Under the current provisions of the 1990 Act, the Secretary of State is able to direct individual authorities to take particular matters into account in preparing their structure plan proposals. The provisions of Schedule 3 at this point provide greater flexibility, allowing the Secretary of State also to prescribe additional matters that authorities generally must take into account. He might wish, for example, to draw the attention of authorities to the impact of global warming and its effect on sea level. The provisions of new Section 31(5)(d) are similar to the current ones for local plans in the 1990 Act.
These are both important provisions which should be retained. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 176 is designed to place a duty on county planning authorities to hold an examination in public (EIP) into their draft structure plans. The Bill as it stands reflects the present position; that an EIP

879
may be held but is not obligatory. I assure the noble Baroness that there is no intention that a debate should take place behind closed doors.
We accept that generally an EIP will be desirable where significant alterations are being made to a structure plan and there is substantial public interest or controversy. We also recognise that the Bill's proposals for self-adoption of structure plans by counties will generally make it all the more important that draft plans are examined in public by an independent panel before being adopted. Therefore, the public will be reassured that different points of view have been considered on the key issues before final decisions are taken.
However, we have reservations about making an EIP obligatory in all cases. There will be instances where one simply is not necessary, even in the new circumstances of self-adoption. We have had cases recently where alterations to structure plans have been uncontroversial and have not justified an EIP. We want to leave that possibility open.
Nevertheless, I understand the concern that the decision of the county on the need for an EIP could be less disinterested and impartial than that of the Secretary of State under the present arrangements. For that reason we have included in the Bill a power to enable the Secretary of State to direct that an EIP shall be held in a particular case to consider a particular issue. That appears in subsection (2) of new Section 35B. It should, I believe, be sufficient. But I should like to take the point away and look at it again in the light of today's discussion. It may be that a slightly different approach would meet the anxieties being expressed while still retaining the flexibility that we wish to see in the system.
Amendment No. 177 is, I take it, intended to confer on objectors to a structure plan a right to be heard at the EIP. Again, the Bill as it stands reflects the present position; that all written objections are considered but that appearance at the EIP is by invitation. I believe that the proposed change would be undesirable. The EIP is designed as a mechanism for examining key strategic planning issues on a selective basis. It is not the occasion for considering objections to detailed land use proposals on a map which may affect the interests of particular individuals. In that sense, there is a clear distinction between the function of the EIP and that of the public inquiry into a local plan or unitary development plan where objectors do have the right to be heard and will continue to have that right.
It is, of course, important that issues of substantial controversy are examined at the EIP and that a full range of views is heard on the particular topics selected for examination. But they should be views which are representative of the various interests concerned rather than the individual views of all objectors. As we state in our code of practice:
"the basic criterion will be the significance of the contribution which, from their knowledge or the views they have expressed, organisations and individuals can be expected to make to the discussion of the matters to be examined".
As I said, the Secretary of State will have a reserve power to ensure that this happens: he can direct that particular issues are considered at the EIP. Moreover, the Secretary of State will appoint the panel which
880
conducts the EIP. That panel will have a right to invite participants to the EIP independent of, in particular, any decisions taken by the planning authority. It will, therefore, be open to the chairman of the EIP panel to ensure that participants represent the full range of views and interests which need to be taken into account. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by that explanation.
I should add that there is an important practical reason for not granting a general right to be heard at the EIP. One of our aims is to streamline the system and reduce delays in plan preparation and adoption. On the whole, the actual conduct of EIPs has not been the cause of delay; most EIPs are over within a week or two. This is precisely because they examine broad strategic issues and invite participants on a selective basis. If we were to confer a right to be heard at the EIP we should transform EIPs into something much closer to the local plan inquiry. In other words, EIPs could be expected to take many times longer than they do now and reporting arrangements would inevitably be much more time-consuming and elaborate. That would be completely counter to our desire—which I am sure the Opposition shares—to streamline the system and reduce delay.
In the light of that explanation and of my undertaking to give further consideration to the point raised by Amendment No. 176, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 192. It introduces additional wording into new Section 37(2) of the 1990 Act, stipulating that a local minerals plan shall be made available for inspection in accordance with regulations. The general provisions in the new Section 39(2), relating to the deposit of local plans for public inspection, will apply to all types of local plans including minerals plans. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that extremely full and helpful reply and for the recognition that we share a common concern that the planning process should be streamlined while being properly accessible to public opinion. We shall be trying to balance those two desires throughout the debate and often decisions will be matters of discretion and judgment. As regards Amendments Nos. 164 and 167, I am not entirely reassured by the Minister's comments about the residual powers of the Secretary of State. We may wish to return to that matter on Report.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's response to Amendment No. 176. If she were able to take on board the spirit of that amendment and return at a later stage, that would be appreciated by the public. Amendment No. 177 relates to provisions in the Bill forbidding people to be heard at a public inquiry. I ask the Minister to reconsider the phrasing of the provision. Forbidding people to be heard permits no discretion in the system. I understand that the Minister would welcome some discretion while not opening the door to unlimited rights of appeal which would turn the issue into a local planning inquiry. Our

881
needs would be met if the Minister came back on Report with a revised wording of the provision permitting discretion where appropriate.
I must accept the Minister's reading of Amendment No. 192. I am satisfied with her assurances. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 164.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 79, line 28, leave out ("such other matters as may be prescribed or") and insert ("—

(a) such diagrams, illustrations or other descriptive or explanatory matter in respect of the general policies as may be prescribed; and

(b) such other matters").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 79, line 37, leave out ("them to take into account").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 79, line 37, at end insert:
("(5A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5) above the authority shall have regard to any planning policy guidance given by the Secretary of State for the purpose of encouraging the development and application of renewable sources of energy.").
The noble Lord said: I must first declare an interest. I have a planning application for a wind farm before my local borough council. The effect of the amendment would be to alter Section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealing with the content of structure plans. There would then be specific references to planning policy guidelines from the Secretary of State for the purpose of encouraging the development of renewable sources of energy.
This amendment suggests that renewable energy projects should, like minerals, be a county matter and subject to the county structure plan. The problem which faces both planners and those attempting to meet the Government's objective of setting up alternative sources of energy, in particular wind farms, is that neither have any idea of where such projects should be sited from an environmental or indeed visual point of view or what criteria should be taken into account—for example, employment, wealth creation and farm diversification.
It is revealing that so far every wind farm, with one possible exception, has been refused planning permission and is to appeal. I am told that the average cost of obtaining planning permission for a wind farm is between £50,000 and £60,000. Surely that alone is a reason for the Secretary of State to give some guidelines.
As an example, I cite the Cemaes wind farm in Powys. Although that was supported by the planning authority, it was objected to by the Countryside Commission and the CPRW. As a result, there is to be a public inquiry involving the following publicly funded organisations: Powys County Council, the Department of the Environment, the Department of
882
Energy, Montgomery District Council, Snowdon National Park, the Welsh Office, the CPRW and the promoters of the scheme.
I accept that the Government may not wish to put such an amendment as this on the face of the Bill. However, a policy statement in the guidelines to planning authorities would surely reduce some of the enormous waste of time and money.
Dyfed County Council has recently commissioned a report by the Open University on the pros and cons of renewable energy for the guidance of its planning committee. Gwynedd Council has recently issued an internal memorandum on the subject. With this amendment I ask that the Department of the Environment should consult with the Department of Energy to discover what is needed in the way of renewable resources. Guidelines should then be issued to county councils for inclusion in their structure plans. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was going to express disinterest, in the correct sense of the word, in the noble Lord's planning application. However, I am advised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that there is nowhere better than Anglesey for a wind farm because it has the strongest winds in Britain. Without wishing in any way to intervene in the negotiations, I believe that on Anglesey, where some years ago there were 100 windmills, wind farms should generally be supported.
However, there are other reasons for supporting the noble Lord's amendment. First, it is an unfortunate side effect of the Electricity Act 1990 that, with the writing-off of investment in other forms of energy, the relative advantages of renewable sources of energy like wind energy have become fewer and the incentive for investment has decreased. That was a most unfortunate effect of the privatisation of the electricity industry.
Secondly, the Government's own White Paper on the environment last year pointed out that wind energy on land has the potential to supply up to 10 per cent. of current electricity needs. It went on to say that there are planning constraints because technically favourable sites are often in areas of natural beauty or importance to wildlife.
We cannot resolve that sort of conflict. However, we can anticipate the possibility of it. One way of achieving that would be to provide that the consideration of renewable sources of energy should be part of the plans. In that way, the matter could be debated in public before any particular application is put forward. The kind of complication to which the noble Lord referred in Powys could be, if not avoided, then truncated. To that extent it seems to me that there is a special case for putting renewable sources of energy on the face of the Bill.
Baroness David: We had an extremely interesting session of the all-party conservation committee last week or the week before when the prime matter for consideration was renewable sources of energy, particularly wind. One point which emerged was that there are no planning guidelines, which, as the noble

883
Lord, Lord Stanley, said, seems very important. The Government should direct their attention to that, and I hope that this amendment will do just that.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I recognise that the amendment is designed to aid the cause of renewable energy. However, when drawing up a structure plan a local authority will be required by new Section 31(5) to have regard to the current national policies, which will include planning policy guidance given by the Secretary of State. I know that the noble Lord was concerned that a local authority should mean a county council.
The Government are addressing the need for planning policy guidance on the specific issue of renewable energy resources. Officials in my department are working on that with Department of Energy officials and will produce guidance. As I have explained, local planning authorities will have to take such advice into account. Accordingly, I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is redundant. I hope that he will be satisfied by my answer and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am very pleased to hear that answer, as I believe will be the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite and representatives of the county councils to whom I have spoken. They would like some form of guidance. I am very pleased that it should be widened to county level rather than merely be a district matter. I should like to impress upon my noble friend that this guidance should be published quickly because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, one snag is that there is a capital problem due to privatisation. The sooner the guidelines are issued, the less money will be wasted on useless public inquiries involving a lot of people. Meanwhile, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 80, line 23, leave out ("proposal which affects the general policies in the structure plan") and insert ("of their proposals").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 80, line 34, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: The declared purpose of Clause 22 and Schedule 3 is to streamline the development plan system. Under the substituted Section 31(5) of the principal Act, which is to be found on page 79 of the Bill, a local authority must have regard to regional or strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State and also to national policies.
However, conformity with such guidance and such policies is not an express requirement of that part of the proposed new section. However, it is important that a county plan or alterations to it should not be adopted until specifically approved by the Secretary of State. Otherwise, there seems to be a risk of a county plan being adopted although it departs in some way from national guidance and although it may not meet the needs of the county. In turn, that could result in a failure to ensure that district plans meet such needs.
As the Bill is drafted in the new proposed Section 32(7), proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structured plan shall not become operative unless adopted by the authority or approved by the Secretary of State. This amendment seeks to change the word "or" and substitute the word "and" because I believe it is important that the Secretary of State should ensure that county plans provide a sound basis for district plans. In moving the amendment, I readily accept that, as a matter of drafting, other amendments may be necessary to perfect what the amendment seeks to achieve. Subject to that, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confess that I am totally puzzled by the amendment. Section 35A refers to the power of the Secretary of State to call in plans if he thinks it appropriate. If the amendment is carried presumably the Secretary of State will have to call in all plans. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's purpose.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right in his deduction. There are two main reasons for our proposal that in future counties should be free to adopt their own structure plans. First, we want to encourage opportunities for local choice in planning matters. We want communities at county and district level to take their own decisions about the form and location of new development. Secondly, we are concerned to speed up the planning process; to provide procedures which will make it easier for local authorities to keep their plans up-to-date.
At present it takes on average almost two-and-a-half years for the Secretary of State to deal with a structure plan from the time it is submitted to him to the time it is finally approved. Delays of that order can make it difficult to keep plans up to date. While some of the same procedural steps will still have to be gone through, there is little doubt that if counties are allowed to adopt their own plans they may be able to reduce the time-scales significantly.
Concerns regarding self-adoption are that counties may be tempted to ignore national and regional policies and pull up the drawbridge and that structure plans not approved by the Secretary of State will not have sufficient weight and authority to ensure consistency at the level of district local plans. I do not believe that those concerns are well founded. They ignore other aspects of our reform package which need to be taken together with the proposals for self-adoption.
First, we intend to develop a much clearer planning framework at the regional level which will provide the context for county structure plans. Regional planning guidance is already in place in the metropolitan areas and in the South East. We shall shortly be issuing guidance for East Anglia and developing the same approach in other regions.
Secondly, the legislation will provide that in preparing the structure plans authorities must have regard to current national policies and regional planning guidance. We shall have the means to ensure that that happens. The Secretary of State will have

885
reserve powers enabling him to object to a draft plan, to direct that it is modified or, in the last analysis, to call it in and approve it himself.
Thirdly, in Schedule 3 we are providing that local plans must be in general conformity with the structure plans. Again there will be mechanisms to ensure that that happens. The county will issue a statement of conformity when a local plan is put on deposit. If it is pointed out that the local plan does not conform to the structure plan that will count as an objection to the local plan to be considered at the local planning inquiry. Again, the Secretary of State will have very full reserve powers which he will be ready to use if necessary.
The delays associated with structure plan approval have dogged the planning system for 20 years. We are making a proposal for reform which, while giving counties the right to self adopt, embodies safeguards to ensure that wider considerations are not ignored. The amendment would strike at the heart of our reform package and cling to the unsatisfactory status quo. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I listened with great attention and respect to everything said by my noble friend. Her response does not seem to make total sense in view of what we know regarding the reserve powers of the Secretary of State to deal with the matter. We hear words upon words which do not go to the substance of the amendment. It is not a matter on which the Committee should divide; however, I see no reasoned objection to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment asks that the Secretary of State approve all proposals for the alteration or replacement of county structure plans; in other words, it takes us even further back than the present situation. Every single modification or replacement of a structure plan would be subject to detailed scrutiny by the Secretary of State. We are saying that where a structure plan flies in the face of all the procedures laid down, the Secretary of State has reserve powers to call in a proposal and that it is a question of balance regarding flexibility in allowing local authorities to determine their own plans within the context of regional guidance. The amendment would mean that every single plan would have to be called in and be subject to detailed scrutiny by the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is so, but in the context of judicial review being the only controlling power, it is important.
Lord Meston: I am sorry if I bewildered the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This is a probing amendment. It may be that the amendment goes too far for his liking. It may be also that as a matter of drafting it is in the wrong part of the Bill. Subject to that, I reiterate that it is a probing amendment which seeks to discover how the provision is intended to work in practice. The object of a streamlined system designed to produce continuity is that the policy
886
guidelines filter the whole way through the system. It was not my purpose to propose anything which would create undue delay.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, calling-in is a last resort. The amendment is designed to suggest that the input of the Secretary of State might come at an earlier stage, particularly as the wording of the Bill for the new section of the principal Act only requires the local authority to have regard to national guidelines. It is a detailed matter which needs to be considered further. I do not propose to take any additional time of the Committee today. I may wish to come back to it at a later stage; meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171.
Page 80, leave out lines 37 to 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 81, line 23, after ("by") insert ("or determined in accordance with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 81, line 49, leave out from ("them") to end of line 3 on page 82.
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 174 and 175:
Page 82, line 13, leave out ("consider modifying") and insert ("modify").
Page 83, line 3, at end insert:
("(5A) For the purpose of taking into account any objection or matter, the Secretary of State may, but need not, consult with any local planning authority or other person.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 83, line 38, at end insert:
("Duties to notify authorities responsible for local plans.

35C.—(1) An authority responsible for a structure plan shall, where any proposals of theirs for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan are adopted or approved—

(a) notify any authority responsible for a local plan in their area that the proposals have been adopted or approved; and

(b) supply that authority with a statement that the local plan is or, as the case may be, is not in general conformity with the altered or new structure plan.

(2) A statement that a local plan is not in general conformity with a structure plan shall specify the respects in which it is not in such conformity.

(3) An authority responsible for a structure plan shall, where any proposals of theirs for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan are withdrawn, notify any authority responsible for a local plan in their area that the proposals have been withdrawn.

(4) Nothing in this section requires an authority to notify or supply a statement to themselves.

(5) For the purposes of this section an authority shall be regarded as responsible—

887

(a) for a structure plan, if they are entitled to prepare proposals for its alteration or replacement; and

(b) for a local plan, if they are under a duty to prepare a local plan or are entitled to prepare proposals for its alteration or replacement.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 179
Page 83, line 43, leave out ("consist of") and insert ("contain").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 83, line 47, at end insert ("and for the provision of relevant transport, recreational and social infrastructure in advance of developments or changes of use of land").
The noble Lord said: There are two ways in which infrastructure for development can be provided. One is through the provision of adequate land—that is the zoning issue—and the second is the issue of investment. Provision for land use is already an accepted part of local plans. I have no criticism of the drafting of the Bill or indeed preceding legislation in that regard. When a local plan provides for development to be permitted it is relatively common, although perhaps not universal, for adequate consideration to be given, for example, to road access or recreation space.
But there is not only the issue of whether the land will become available for the infrastructure but also whether there will be sufficient investment. That is a problem which has concerned the National Association of Local Councils which is advising me on this amendment. It has pointed out that it is quite common for plans, which are not drawn up by villages but by the wider councils, to permit development in a village but not to make adequate provision for the infrastructure. Such facilities as public transport, water and sewerage facilities, pavements, street lighting and, more importantly, the provision for education and social services, should all be preconditions of the possibility envisaged in a local plan which says that there should be development. When development is proposed, especially in rural areas, the question to be asked is: what are the preconditions that will make the development acceptable? Development should not be permitted unless it is clear that at the same time or in advance the necessary infrastructure will become available.
It is not enough for the local plan to be silent on the matter. If it is silent there will be unnecessary dissension when a specific proposal for development comes before the local planning authority. There will be unnecessary disagreement between the people of the village and those in the district council area. It would be much better for the possibility of the infrastructure and the question of what infrastructure
888
is necessary to be foreseen in the local plan rather than to leave it as a matter for debate when a specific proposal comes forward.
I hope that the Government will think that this is a useful extension to the provisions which already exist in local plans for the consideration of land use for infrastructure. We hope that the Government will agree that the inclusion of an amendment on these lines will go a considerable way to calming some of the fears which local people, particularly in rural areas, very often have about developments in their localities. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Subsection (2) of new Section 36 defines a local plan as consisting of a written statement of the authority's detailed policies for the development and use of land in the area, and goes on to say that this should be taken to include the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. We believe that this broad definition is sufficient to allow the authority to include detailed infrastructure policies wherever they are needed. However, we do not believe that they would be needed in every plan. That is a matter for the local planning authority to decide on, after public participation and in the light of objections to its deposited plan. It would not be appropriate to include an additional, mandatory requirement in the primary legislation, as envisaged by the noble Lord in this admendment. However, the need for and relevance of such policies is a matter that the Secretary of State may wish to take up in his guidance to local authorities on the content of their local plans. I hope that the views of the noble Lord will be met in that way. I therefore hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey; I fear that the noble Baroness has not fully understood the amendment. When she says that it would be undesirable for every single local plan to contain a mandatory statement on the,
"provision of relevant transport, recreational and social infrastructure"
I agree with her. However that is not what the amendment says. It says that it would be,
"in advance of developments or changes of use of land".
If there were to be no developments or changes in the use of land, I agree that there would be no need for such a statement.
I am equally unconvinced by what she said about paragraph 36(2). As the noble Baroness said, it includes the phrase,
"(including the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic)".
But that is only a small part of the kind of infrastructure to which I referred. I was quite specific in saying that it is not enough to consider the land use implications of the infrastructure. The investment implications must also be considered. On the whole I find the Minister's reply to this perhaps imperfect amendment quite unsatisfactory. It may be a matter to which I shall return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 184 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 185.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 84, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert:
("(4) A local plan shall not contain—

(a) any policies in respect of the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste, unless it is a plan for a National Park;

(b) any policies in respect of the depositing of refuse or waste materials other than mineral waste, unless it is a plan for a National Park or for an area where such depositing is not a county matter for the purposes of Schedule 1.").

The noble Viscount said: The local plan provisions set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill require local planning authorities to draw up detailed development plans for their area covering the types of land use and development for which they have development control responsibility. The one exception to this is waste disposal development in the English counties. Amendments Nos. 184 and 200 fill this gap by requiring the appropriate development control authorities to draw up waste local plans. This responsibility will rest with the county planning authorities in England because they, not the districts, are responsible for deciding planning applications relating to waste. In Wales development control responsibility for waste disposal lies with district councils and they will be required to include their waste planning policies in their general local plans. The amendment also makes special provision for the national parks which will be able to choose between preparing a separate waste local plan or including their waste planning policies in their general park-wide plan. Both counties and national parks will be able to combine their waste local plans with their minerals plan if they wish to do so.
The new plans will set out authorities' detailed land use policies for the disposal and treatment of waste within the broad strategic framework provided by the structure plan. They will ensure that planning authorities consider the land use implications of their waste policies from a strategic point of view rather than deciding applications in isolation. This will help authorities in deciding planning applications for new waste disposal facilities and as a consequence reduce the number going to appeal. Where applications do go to appeal or are called in by the Secretary of State, then the plans will provide better guidelines for the inspector.
I am sure that this will be of great benefit to the waste disposal industry, both because the planning process will be speeded up, and, perhaps more importantly, because they will have guidelines on the types and location of waste facilities that are likely to be acceptable in planning terms. The new plans do not, however, replace the plans which waste authorities are required to draw up under the Control of Pollution Act 1974—a requirement which has very recently been strengthened in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The two plans will be complementary.
The development plans will address the land use implications of authorities' waste policies. In
890
particular, they will consider the need for sites and facilities in particular areas; the types of locations that are likely to be appropriate (and of course those that would not be suitable) as well as the planning criteria that would be expected to apply to such developments, and the geological, hydrological and other considerations that will need to be taken into account. The two plans will clearly need to be consistent, and subsection (5) of the new clause will enable the Secretary of State to require authorities to take into account their environmental protection plans in drawing up their local plans. This is important because it will ensure that authorities are not able to shy away from making adequate land use provision for the waste disposal facilities they are likely to need and which they have enunciated in their environmental protection plan.
We have consulted interested parties on these proposals, and I am glad to say that there was an almost universal welcome for them, both from the relevant planning authorities and from the waste disposal industry. A number of detailed comments have been made on the way in which the new arrangements should operate. These will be important for the formulation of guidance on plan preparation, but they do not pose any difficulties for the main proposition. Waste disposal facilities, whether they be landfill sites, incinerators or civic amenity sites and the like, are never popular, but we cannot avoid making adequate provision for them. I hope that this new clause will discourage authorities from taking a NIMBY attitude, and to plan strategically for their waste disposal. I urge noble Lords to support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am encouraged to learn that the Government have consulted interesting parties on these amendments. I rather suspect that they consulted some boring parties as well, but that is their problem not ours. We are not opposed to the elimination of duplication in this matter and we welcome these amendments. If the Government are so keen on avoiding duplication I am bound to ask why they were so resistant to the amendment moved by my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lady David about coastal areas. In that case it was not simply a matter of duplication, it was much worse. There were some aspects of coastal area conservation which were not covered adequately by any authorities. I hope they will see their rethinking on this matter as an opportunity for them also to rethink on the earlier matters we discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 84, line 6, leave out from ("contain") to end of line 12 and insert ("—

(a) a map illustrating each of the detailed policies; and

(b) such diagrams, illustrations or other descriptive or explanatory matter in respect of the policies as may be prescribed,

and may contain such descriptive or explanatory matter as the authority think appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 187 to 191:
Page 84, line 22, leave out ("which") and insert ("as the").

891
Page 84, line 24, leave out ("them to take into account").
Page 84, line 38, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local").
Page 84, line 39, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local").
Page 84, line 39, leave out ("consist of") and insert ("contain").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 193 to 197:
Page 84, line 43, at end insert ("within such period (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct").
Page 84, line 44, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local").
Page 84, line 50, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local").
Page 84, line 52, leave out ("which") and insert ("as").
Page 84, line 53, leave out ("them to take into account").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 198 and 199:
Page 85, line 2, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local").
Page 85, line 5, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 85, line 8, at end insert:
("Waste policies.
37A.—(1) In this section—
"waste policies" means detailed policies in respect of development which involves the depositing of refuse or waste materials other than mineral waste; and
"waste local plan" means a plan containing waste policies.
(2) A local planning authority other than an excluded authority shall, within such period (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct—

(a) prepare a waste local plan for their area; or

(b) include their waste policies in their minerals local plan.

(3) A local planning authority are an excluded authority for the purposes of subsection (2) if they are an authority—

(a) for a National Park;

(b) for an area where waste policies are not a county matter for the purposes of Schedule 1.

(4) A local planning authority for a National Park shall within such period (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct—

(a) prepare a waste local plan for their area; or

(b) include their waste policies in—

(i) their minerals local plan; or

(ii) their local plan.

(5) In formulating their waste policies, the authority shall have regard to such information and other considerations as the Secretary of State may prescribe or, in a particular case, direct.
(6) Subsections (3), (5), (9) and (10) of section 36 apply with respect to waste local plans as they apply with respect to local plans.
(7) The following provisions of this Chapter apply with respect to waste local plans as they apply with respect to local plans, but as if references to a local planning authority were references to the authority who arc entitled to prepare a waste local plan.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 85, line 15, leave out ("notified under section 32(7) that a structure plan has been altered or replaced") and insert ("supplied with a statement under section 35C that the local plan is not in general conformity with the structure plan").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 85, line 24, at end insert:
("(5) Subject to the following provisions of this Chapter and section 287, proposals for the alteration or replacement of a local plan shall become operative on the date on which they are adopted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 85, line 38, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("section 46(1)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 204, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 207, 210, 214 and 215. These amendments are all concerned with the relationship between structure and local plans and revise the provisions already in Schedule 3 relating to a local plan's conformity or non-comformity with the structure plan. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, she referred to Amendment No. 205. That is not part of this group.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise to the Committee. I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 206, 207, 210, 214 and 215. With that explanation, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 85, line 43, at end insert:
("(aa) send a copy of the relevant documents not later than the date at which they are made available for inspection to the council of any parish or community which or part of which is within the area to which the local plan relates").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 205, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 209. Amendment No. 205 provides that the council shall send a copy of the relevant documents to a parish or community which is within the area to which the local plan relates at the same time as or earlier than the date on which it is made available for inspection. Amendment No. 209 provides that details of any amendments shall be made available to the parish or community council.
We recognise that the parish and community councils are statutorily entitled to be consulted on local plans or revisions of local plans. We recognise that in the vast majority of cases district councils behave well in the preparation of their local plans and give local councils adequate notice. It has been brought to our attention by a number of parish and community councils that sometimes the observation of the right to be involved is more in the letter than in

893
the spirit. What is really required, we are told, is that the parish councils should get copies as of right of the plan at an early enough stage to do something about it and to consult their local people. Unless they do that they will not fulfil their obligations under their own constitution to make informed comments about planning applications in their area.
These amendments would give parish councils a necessary status in the preparation of local plans. They do that by giving them a right to their own copy of the draft and not simply the right to inspect a draft, which is what formally happens now. It gives them a statutory right of objection at the formulation of the new plan rather than at a later stage. In most cases district councils will behave well and will be doing this already. However, to deal with the minority of cases where there is not that degree of co-operation, it seems to the National Association of Local Councils that it would be desirable to put this extra provision—not a very onerous provision—on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says. One of the problems of all planning is to see that people know what is happening and what is the effect of the plan. That is very important. In many cases it does not come out very easily because there are no normal places where people meet and hear the gossip about what is being done. I do not know how this will work out but I think the principle behind it is desirable if planning is to be accepted and effective.
Viscount Astor: These amendments—perhaps I should say "interesting" amendments—would require the planning authorities to send a copy of their deposited plan proposals to parish or community councils in their area and would specify that councils may make objections in acordance with regulations.
Provision will be made in regulations for parish and community councils, along with other public authorities in the area, to be consulted on the local plan proposals before they are put on deposit. It will then be open to those bodies to object or make representations when the deposited proposals are advertised. New Section 39 simply clarifies that the Secretary of State may make an objection. There is no need for similar clarification or special provision in the legislation at this point in the case of parish or community councils. They, like any other body, may object to local plan proposals. I believe therefore that the amendments are unnecessary and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the assurance that the regulations will include sufficient instruction to the local planning authority to ensure that the rights of parish and community councils are protected. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 206 and 207:
894
Page 85, line 50, leave out ("of conformity or non conformity supplied under section 46") and insert ("supplied under section 46(2)").
Page 86, leave out lines 1 to 7.
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 204. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 86, line 13, after ("by") insert ("or determined in accordance with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 86, leave out lines 22 to 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 86, line 35, leave out first ("for").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 212 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 87, line 2, at end insert:
("(2) In subsection (4) of that section for "consider modifying" there is substituted "modify".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 214 and 215:
Page 87, line 17, leave out from ("46") to end of line 48 and insert ("to 48 (conformity between local plan and structure plan) there is substituted—
"Conformity between plans.
46.—(1) An authority responsible for a local plan shall not make copies available as mentioned in section 39(2) unless—

(a) they have served on the authority responsible for the structure plan in their area a copy of the plan or the proposals; and

(b) such period as may be prescribed has elapsed since they served the copy of the plan or proposals.

(2) Where a local planning authority have been served with a copy as mentioned in subsection (1) they shall, before the end of any period prescribed for the purposes of that subsection, supply the authority responsible for the local plan with—

(a) a statement that the plan or the proposals are in general conformity with the structure plan; or

(b) a statement that the plan or the proposals are not in such conformity.

(3) A statement that a plan or proposals are not in such conformity shall specify the respects in which the plan or proposals are not in such conformity.
(4) Any such statement shall be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as an objection made in accordance with the regulations.
(5) Nothing in this section requires an authority to serve a copy on or supply a statement to themselves.
(6) Where—

(a) a local planning authority propose to make, alter or replace a local plan;

(b) copies of proposals for the alteration or replacement of the structure plan for their area have been made available for inspection under section 33(2); and

895

(c) the authority mentioned in paragraph (a) include in any relevant copy of the plan or proposals a statement that they are making the permitted assumption,

the permitted assumption shall, subject to subsection (9), be made for all purposes (including in particular any question as to conformity between plans).
(7) In this section "the permitted assumption" means thy: assumption that—

(a) the proposals mentioned in subsection (6) (b); or

(b) if any proposed modifications to those proposals are published in accordance with regulations made under section 53, the proposals as so modified,

have been adopted.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (6) (c) a copy is a relevant copy of a plan or proposals if it is—

(a) served under subsection (1) (a); or

(b) made available or sent under section 39(2).

(9) The permitted assumption shall not be made at any time after the authority mentioned in subsection (6) (a) know that the proposals mentioned in subsection (6) (b) have been withdrawn.
(10) The provisions of a local plan prevail for all purposes over any conflicting provisions in the relevant structure plan unless the local plan is one—

(a) stated under section 35C not to be in general conformity with the structure plan; and

(b) neither altered nor replaced after the statement was supplied.

(11) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to cases where provisions in a local plan conflict with provisions in—

(a) a minerals local plan; or

(b) a waste local plan.

(12) Subsection (5) of section 35C applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that."").
Page 88, line 1, leave out paragraph 23.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 88, line 18, leave out ("county") and insert ("local").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment Nos. 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222 and 223:
Page 88, line 19, leave out ("under section 32(8)") and insert ("and supply a statement under section 35C").
Page 88, line 27, leave out ("a") and insert ("the provisions of the relevant").
Page 88, line 37, leave out ("be").
Page 88, line 39, at end insert:
("(2) The Secretary of State may direct that proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan or a local plan shall not be prepared in relation to the area of an urban development corporation.").
Page 89, leave out lines 27 to 29.
Page 90, line 4, leave out ("paragraph 2 is omitted") and insert ("for paragraph 2, there is substituted—
"2. The functions of a local planning authority—

(a) under sections 30 to 35B, 37A(2) and 50(1), (4), (5) and (7) shall be exercisable by the county planning authority and not by the district planning authority;

(b) under section 36, 38, 39, 42 to 44 and 50(6), (7A) and (8) shall be exercisable by the district planning authority and not by the county planning authority;

and references to a local planning authority in those sections shall be construed accordingly."").
896
Page 90, line 6, leave out from ("paragraph") to end of line 8 and insert ("6(a) for "Part II" there is substituted "sections 30 to 35C, 46(2) and 50(1), (4), (5) and (7)"").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments were spoken to previously in connection with other amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Simplified planning zones]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I ask Members of the Committee not to permit Clause 23 to stand part of the Bill. If one looks at this clause in conjunction with Amendment No. 176, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, it seems to suggest that there is a worrying subtext to the Bill; namely, that the best and sometimes the only way in the eyes of the Government to streamline planning is to reduce public consultation. We on this side of the Committee argue that the best way to streamline planning, along with the Carnwath proposals which we willingly accept, is to provide additional staff on the one hand and to reduce frivolous appeals and twin-tracking on the other.
The provisions of Clause 23 restrict public consultation on the making of simplified planning zones. I believe that it is widely agreed that such planning zones, SPZs, have not worked. The Government believe—wrongly in my view—that SPZs have not worked because the consultation process is at fault. The argument is that if you cut out consultation, SPZs will be widely adopted. Hence the introduction of this clause.
We argue that not only is consultation essential to planning by consent, which is a theme we have argued in connection with various other related amendments, but also that SPZs fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the planning process. SPZs basically offer zoning; that is, the granting of advanced planning permission for certain types of specified development. Therefore, a developer would not have to submit a planning application or pay a fee. Behind it is the belief that planning development is not occurring in run-down or derelict areas because of the rigidity or cumbersome and negative nature of the planning process—cumbersomeness, of course, includes public consultation. The Government believe that if they make planning easier then development will occur.
We on this side of the Committee do not necessarily object to zoning. I had experience of the process when working in the United States. However, the proposal to abolish or reduce consultation suggests a misunderstanding of why SPZS have so far not worked. At present there are just two of them in England in Corby and Derby, there is one in Scotland and one proposed for Wales. Ten more are being considered and two local authorities—namely, Walsall and Enfield—have considered SPZs and, as I understand it, have rejected them.
The question therefore is whether the Government are right to believe that the reason SPZs have not been more widely adopted is the failure of the consultation process. It may help if we were to look at what has been happening in regard to the two SPZs which were

897
rejected and also at the one at Derby which is regarded as successful. I suggest that in all three cases, contrary to the Minister's view, the issue of consultation is irrelevant.
In Walsall the SPZ was initiated by the developer, but I understand that he found that the planning process was faster. The local authority found that, as his application involved metal salvage, in the public interest they needed to retain environmental controls offered by the planning process but reduced by SPZs. One of the reasons why zoning in the United States involves very extensive public inquiry is precisely to retain such environmental controls.
The second SPZ which was considered by a local authority but rejected was in Enfield. There the local authority proposed the SPZ on former industrial, Gas Board land. However, one of the land owners objected, preferring the security of the existing planning process. In other words, in both cases the parties preferred the existing planning system as being simpler, quicker and offering better safeguards for all of the interests involved. In both cases a jointly prepared planning brief was preferred to an SPZ.
The third example to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee is that of Derby. The SPZ which was introduced there appears to be widely successful: it zoned 21 acres for small freehold units. However, as I understand it, Derby council suspects that it was the city grant—that is, the financial bait and carrot—rather than the SPZ framework which made the venture such a success. The council believes that an OPP, an outline planning permission, may have had the same effect with rather less work being involved.
As I said, we on this side of the Committee have no objection to zoning as such, although we suspect that OPPs within the framework of the local plan can have the same advantages. However, we believe that SPZs are failing because they carry no financial attractiveness which would make them analagous to enterprise zones. I suggest that most developers are more concerned with the level playing field as regards other developers than they are with the reduction of planning consultation which the clause suggests.
Any clause which suggests that SPZs would be more attractive and more widely adopted by local authorities simply by reducing public consultation is, I suggest, a serious misjudgment. The Walsall experience and the examples of other areas where local authorities have rejected SPZs show that it is precisely the environmental issues of design, covering, landscaping and car parking that should not be eroded from public debate. If Members of the Committee accept this clause, such considerations will be eroded. It is the more dubious developers that may seek SPZs and it is precisely such developments which need to be brought within proper planning consultation procedures. As the National Housing and Town Planning Council has said, it is the possibility of public inquiry that keeps planning standards high. SPZs would undermine that process. I hope that the Committee will not accept Clause 23.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is very negative about SPZs; indeed, she has concentrated on the negative aspects involved. Clause 23 brings into effect Schedule 4 to the Bill which contains measures for streamlining simplified planning zone procedures. These measures stem from proposals set out in our White Paper on The Future of Development Plans and from the recommendations of a research report commissioned by the department last February to look at the efficiency of SPZ procedures in practice. That report was published on 22nd January.
Simplified planning zones are designed to quicken the pace of development of areas where it is most needed. They remove uncertainty for prospective developers by granting planning permission for the types of development specified in the scheme, thus enabling development to go ahead without the need for a separate planning application, or a related planning fee. The success of schemes in Derby and Corby has proved how useful SPZs can be in promoting development and encouraging valuable new business and employment opportunities. I understand that Derby is planning a second SPZ.
Despite such success, some local authorities and developers have hesitated from proceeding with SPZ proposals because of what they perceive as cumbersome and time-consuming procedures. Speed and simplicity is the essence of SPZs. Our streamlining proposals seek to improve the balance between that and the need for adequate public participation.
The key provisions are to make public participation before deposit optional, and to remove the mandatory requirement for the local planning authority to hold a public local inquiry into objections. The first of them will bring SPZ procedures into line with the improvements which we have put forward elsewhere in the Bill in respect of local plans and unitary development plans. It will allow the local authority flexibility to decide what initial consultations are appropriate to each scheme before placing it on deposit for formal objection.
The second key provision, which allows the local authority discretion on whether or not to hold a local inquiry, may be causing some Members of the Committee some concern; indeed, it certainly appears to be worrying the noble Baroness. I understand the concern. However, I can reassure the Committee that the provision is not designed to limit in any way the requirement for duly made objections to be fully considered. Of course, there has never been a right for third party objectors to planning applications to be heard at a public inquiry, unless the application has been called in by the Secretary of State.
SPZ schemes are in many respects analogous to planning applications and I believe it is appropriate that they should be treated in a similar way. Indeed, experience has shown that for many schemes there are likely to be only a handful of objections and these could be dealt with quite adequately on the basis of written representations. In such cases a public local inquiry would only be a waste of time and effort. Local

899
authorities will of course need some guidance on these matters and we intend to issue advice on when it would normally be appropriate to hold an inquiry (for example, where the scheme represents a substantial departure from the development plan; raises strategic planning issues; where there is substantial controversy; or where it involves a substantial area of land in the authority's ownership). In addition, the Secretary of State will have power to direct that an inquiry is held in a particular case if he considers that a planning authority is being unreasonable in declining to hold one.
These simplified and more flexible procedures were widely welcomed when we announced them in August in a consultation paper, particularly the proposals for changing the requirement for public participation at the pre-deposit stage and the more detailed improvements to adoption procedures. I hope that Clause 23 will be allowed to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have to say that I have some difficulty in accepting the Minister's reading of the success and relevance of SPZs. They have not been successful and the reason is, in my understanding, that developers prefer the planning process by negotiation that currently exists rather than any particular reluctance by local authorities to go down that line. I repeat that the Derby evidence suggests that it is not so much the SPZ streamlined patterning which is attractive to developers as the financial inducements which were offered. Wherever local authorities have offered financial inducements, whether through enterprise zones or through rent and rate rebatements on their own sites, this has had much the same effect.
Nor, I would suggest to your Lordships, is it the case that under SPZs individual developments will be treated in the same way as developments under individual planning applications. The point about SPZs is that the ground is cleared in advance, which may indeed be desirable, and this means, therefore, that individual developments do not come within the process of public consultation. Many of those individual developments will be entirely appropriate, uncontroversial and problem free, but there is a lot of suspicion on the part of local authorities that SPZs will attract precisely those developments that are doubtful and dubious.
They may be socially necessary but they are nonetheless what we would call nonconforming usages: they may be salvage or waste disposal or may involve metal spraying, for example, and the like. Therefore they are precisely the sorts of usages that should come within the planning process so that individual conditions may be attached to them. By passing this clause we would allow marginal and dubious activities to go ahead against the public interest without the protection of individual controls. I hope that the Minister will think again on this. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 69.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor, V.

Luke, L.

Atholl, D.

Lurgan, L.

Attlee, E.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Lytton, E.

Bauer, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Manton, L.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Blyth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Braye, B.

Milverton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orkney, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cockfield, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Coleraine, L.

Palmer, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Polwarth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pym, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Eccles, of Moulton, B.

Reay, L.

Effingham, E.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Errol of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Gainsborough, E.

Strathspey, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball, L.

Wolfson, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young, B.

Knollys, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

901

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Grimond, L.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayter, L.

Soper, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

Kearton, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Simplified Planning Zones]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 90, line 32, after ("prescribed") insert ("or as the Secretary of State may, in a particular case, direct").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 225, 226, 227, 229A and 272. Amendments Nos. 224 to 227 introduce some minor consequential changes to Schedule 4 which simplify and improve procedures for the preparation, adoption and alteration of SPZs in England and Wales.
The purposes of Amendments Nos. 229A and 272 are to introduce a new clause and schedule making provision for SPZs in Scotland in equivalent terms to those for England and Wales in Clause 23 and Schedule 4. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I realise that the Minister is helping the Committee by moving rapidly through the business, but although we have taken a decision on the principle that we are not opposed to Schedule 4 or Clause 23, we should not let significant amendments to Schedule 4 go through without question. I refer in particular to Amendment No. 226. It is difficult to interpret the amendments because they are amendments to a principal Act and we have to look back not just to the Bill but to the principal Act.
My understanding of Amendment No. 226 is that it strengthens the Secretary of State's existing power to direct local planning authorities which are thought to be out of line in producing their SPZs. We do not need to go into the principle of SPZs all over again, but surely the only acceptable justification for SPZs is that they are produced by agreement between the local planning authority and potential developers. If the Secretary of State is to have strengthened powers to direct local authorities—in other words, in effect to
902
have the possibility of overruling local authorities and imposing SPZs, where there will be reduced rights of public consultation on planning applications—that surely is a further step in a dangerous direction, and one that should be opposed.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 226 introduces a new sub-paragraph to paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 which modifies the provisions of paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 7 to the 1990 Act for the adoption of SPZ proposals. Paragraph 9(3) of that schedule empowers the Secretary of State to direct an authority:
"to consider modifying the proposals",
to such an extent as may be specified in the direction before adopting them. Amendment No. 226 clarifies that position by deleting the word "consider". That is in line with similar amendments proposed in relation to the adoption of UDPs and local plans.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has been helpful in clarifying the amendment, but what it says more clearly now is that the Secretary of State can direct a local planning authority to modify its proposals for SPZs. In other words, he is taking away that last vestige of responsibility of the local planning authority in the designation of SPZs. I am bound to say that I find that unacceptable. If it had been spelt out clearly at the beginning, I believe that other Members of the Committee would also have found it unacceptable. As we have taken a decision on a vote on the principle of Schedule 4, it is probably not appropriate to divide the Committee, but that was an unsatisfactory answer to an unsatisfactory amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 225, 226 and 227:
Page 92, line 8, leave out ("For paragraph 9(1)") and insert (" (1) In paragraph 9 for sub-paragraph (1)").
Page 92, line 14, at end insert:
("(2) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph for "consider modifying" there is substituted "modify".").
Page 92, line 29, leave out ("13(2)(e)") and insert ("13(2)—
(a) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(bb) make provision with respect to the circumstances in which representations with respect to the matters to be included in such a scheme or proposals for its alteration are to be treated, for the purposes of this Schedule, as being objections made in accordance with regulations;" and
(b) in paragraph (e)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Power to remove or obliterate placards and posters]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 51, line 32, at end insert:
("(6) Any person duly authorised in writing by the planning authority may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of exercising a power conferred by this section if—

(a) the land is unoccupied; and

(b) it would be impossible to exercise the power without entering the land.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 228 is necessary because of the deletion of Clause 36 where an equivalent provision was originally located. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 229:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances
(". Schedule (listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances: Scotland) to this Act, which makes amendments to the 1972 Act in respect of listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances, shall have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 229A:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
Simplified planning zones
(".Schedule (Simplified planning zones -Scotland) to this Act which—

(a) modifies the procedure for making simplified planning zones, and

(b) makes minor and consequential amendments to Schedule 6A to the 1972 Act,

shall have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Orders as to costs where right to be heard exercised]:
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 230 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 231.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 30, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert:
("; and
(c) the development the subject of the decision is a minor development.
(2) Such an order shall specify that the costs incurred by the party teat requested a local inquiry or hearing shall exclude those costs relating to the preparation for and conduct of the inquiry which would not have been incurred had the case been resolved by written representations if—

(a) a local inquiry or a hearing is held at the request of either the person concerned or the local planning authority; and

(b) the other principal party has expressed in writing a desire for the case to be decided by written representations rather than a local inquiry or hearing; and

(c) an order is made under subsection (1) in favour of the party that requested a local inquiry or hearing." ").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 230 and 233. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, might feel it appropriate if we were to deal with Amendment No. 231 at the same time ince his amendment could not be moved if Amendment No. 230 was carried. All the amendments relate to the same subject, as does the Motion in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who intend to oppose the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill. Although there will inevitably be a second debate on that matter, it may well be that it could be curtailed if we were to deal in one debate with the principle of Clause 24 as well as the amendments. Clause 24 relates
904
to costs where someone who has the right to insist upon a public inquiry does so and, in the words of Clause 24, does so "unreasonably".
We have had the benefit of a press release and a lengthy consultation document from the Department of the Environment published on 11th January. I am sure that all Members of the Committee have read every word of that press release and consultation document with devout attention. It is clearly a difficult matter. On the one hand, there is the problem that public inquiries are time-consuming and expensive and detract from the ability of the planning process to achieve justice quickly. On the other hand, there are the rights of those who wish, and need, to participate in planning inquiries and who should not feel inhibited from demanding a public inquiry.
Some people for whom I have a lot of respect feel that the principle of ordering costs against those who insist unreasonably on a planning inquiry is wrong. I refer in particular to Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, whose views on most matters I respect profoundly. I understand that a number of professional organisations also take that view, and I suppose that that is the view behind the proposal that Clause 24 should not stand part of the Bill.
I have to say from the outset that our approach is to seek to amend Clause 24 rather than to take it out of the Bill. We shall seek to propose and to argue for our amendments, but whether or not the clause is amended I do not think we shall be following into the Division Lobby those who wish to take out Clause 24 as a whole. I shall deal with the individual amendments and try to avoid casting more gloom on the already complex subject of orders as to costs.
Amendments Nos. 230 and 233 seek to limit the scope of Clause 24 to cases of minor development. Amendment No. 230 specifies the conditions under which a decision about a minor development shall be taken at a local inquiry and the way in which costs shall be provided for. Amendment No. 233 adopts as a definition of "minor development" the same terms as those used by the Chief Planning Inspector to distinguish categories of minor developments and major developments in his annual report. I am not aware that there has ever been any difficulty about that distinction. I suggest that it is useful to try to ensure that in imposing the conditions of Clause 24 they should be restricted to those developments which are necessary. I stress that it is not our intention in moving Amendments Nos. 230 and 233 to rescind the clause as a whole. Some people have formed that view, but these are not intended to be wrecking amendments.
We are looking for the achievement of a rule that a party which insists on an inquiry can claim only for the costs that would have been incurred if the matter had been dealt with by written representations. It will be seen by looking at the annual report of the Chief Planning Inspector that it is relatively rare for decisions to be issued by the Secretary of State contrary to the inspector's recommendations and that 90 per cent. of appeals are in the minor category and 10 per cent. only in the major category. So

905
Amendments Nos. 230 and 233 are relatively modest and I hope will find approval with the Government and with the Committee.
Amendment No. 232 is perhaps even more modest. It deals with the specific case of an appeal or grounds of refusal being withdrawn late in the planning appeal process but before the actual inquiry takes place. At present, subsection (3) of Clause 24 deals with withdrawal of an appeal by a prospective developer and refers to the case of a local inquiry being cancelled. Subsection (4) deals with the withdrawal of grounds of refusal and does not refer to whether the inquiry was cancelled.
It could be that Clause 24 means that "the person concerned" includes a local planning authority. We have the curious fact that the word "person" in legislation does not mean what it means in real life. Just as the Secretary of State is always called "he", so even a local planning authority or a company can be called "the person". This seems as remote from everyday speech as some of the alternatives which I have proposed to the way in which we address the Secretary of State.
Lord Renton: It might interest the noble Lord and other noble Lords to know that in law a person is not necessarily human.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has expressed much more concisely and vividly what I was trying to say in my roundabout way. The point behind Amendment No. 232 is still valid. In this amendment we are trying to allow the reimbursement of abortive expenditure incurred either by the local planning authority or by the developers when the other side, at a late stage but before the opening of the inquiry, causes the cancellation of an inquiry or hearing. As we understand it, the present situation is that costs can be reimbursed only if the inquiry has been opened. We are seeking to secure that they can be reimbursed if the process of the public inquiry is aborted before it actually opens. This seems to be a relatively non-controversial matter and I very much hope that it will find favour with the Government even if our other amendments do not.
Amendment No. 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would seek to replace the word "unreasonable" by "vexatious". I am very fond of the word "vexatious", which rolls round the tongue beautifully, but I am impressed by the detail into which the Government have gone in describing the definitions that there could be of unreasonable behaviour. I was forcibly struck by the fact that the first example they gave of unreasonable behaviour was that of multiple applications or duplicate applications, with which we have dealt in earlier consideration of the Bill, where a new application is the same or substantially the same as the previous one. Here it is being said that there could be costs against an applicant who insists on a public inquiry for an application which is the same or substantially the same as a previous one. That is the clearest and most dramatic example, but in the Department of the Environment's consultation paper there are other
906
examples of unreasonable applications and unreasonable insistence on a public inquiry. This makes me feel that on balance it is better to seek to amend Clause 24 in the way we have proposed rather than to take it out as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 231. In doing so, I have to say that I very much dislike the whole clause, and considerably more than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, disliked it. I should prefer to follow the advice given to a young guardsman: "If it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't, paint it". I should prefer to paint out the whole clause.
The threat of costs is bound to deter some applicants from exercising their right to be heard. Such a right should be available to all because applicants should have the opportunity to cross-examine local planning officers on how they have applied planning policy. That is not possible in the case of written representations. Certain applicants find it easier to present their case in person rather than in writing, in particular those who are unfamiliar with the planning system, which is highly complex, or who cannot afford professional representation. Many people, particularly the small and relatively inarticulate applicant, do not express themselves well on paper.
The choice of how to appeal has a significant influence on the chances of success. I believe the department's figures show that an appeal is statistically more likely to succeed if the applicant opts for an informal hearing. His chances are even further improved if he appeals by way of a public inquiry. The Government's consultation paper states that it may be unreasonable for applicants in "minor" applications to exercise their right to be heard. However, that statement ignores the definition of "minor". For a council house dweller a small garden shed is no more minor than, say, a new orangery for a Member of the Committee. It is difficult to define "minor". I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is puzzled. I shall explain what I mean to him afterwards. Seriously, it is difficult to define what different people mean by the term "minor". All things in life are relative.
As I have said, I dislike the clause intensely. However, if the Government insist on retaining it, I suggest that they accept my Amendment No. 231, which would allow costs to be awarded only if the applicant had acted vexatiously. I do not intend to define "unreasonable". I believe the noble Lord the Chief Whip could better define that word. However, there is a precedent for the use of "vexatiously" in Section 5 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I have only one comment to make about this whole matter, including the contents of Clause 24 which is that the costs will be awarded at the discretion of the Secretary of State or the inspector holding the inquiry. They do not follow the event.

907
Therefore in cases of hardship a discretion can be exercisx1 not to award costs at all. One should bear that in mind.
Perhaps another factor to bear in mind is that until about 30 years ago the only judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals in whose jurisdiction costs could be awarded at all were the ordinary courts of law from the House of Lords' Judicial Committee right down to the magistrates' courts. There was a wide power to award costs throughout those courts. But the extension of costs to tribunals of one kind and another is something which has gained momentum over recent years, and rightly so in my opinion. Otherwise people would not have the opportunity of taking advantage of the rights which Parliament has given in Acts of Parliament.
This question of the award of costs works both ways as a rule. However, there is one instance in this clause where it will not work both ways and it goes against the individual. That is the point which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley quite rightly has in mind and to which he has drawn the attention of the Committee. We should realise that the provision is discretionary and that that is in the interests of justice in a broader sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am always interested in what the noble Lord says about the development of the law and legal practice. He has already told us that a person need not be human. Is he now telling us that a Secretary of State need not be human?
Lord Renton: No, I am saying nothing of the kind.
Lord Ross of Newport: I was rather reassured by the Government's paper on this matter which I believe was issued about two or three weeks ago. I remember conducting a planning appeal for a client whose next door neighbour was a deputy clerk of the county council concerned with the appeal. Halfway through the proceedings he walked through the door and demanded to give evidence. He also demanded costs. That frightened me to death. We had a perfectly valid planning appeal but just because the deputy clerk lived next door to the applicant and was a legal luminary, he put the idea into the mind of the inspector that the case should be found against us and that costs should be awarded against us. That factor worried me intensely, although, fortunately, costs were not awarded against us.
I like the term "vexatious". I have also sat on agricultural tribunals. At one hearing a landlord was trying to impose an enormous rental increase on a tenant. The landlord was totally out of court and the whole thing fell apart at the arbitration stage. That landlord should have had costs awarded against him as he was vexatious. The term covers that situation precisely. I feel strongly that we should write the word into the Bill. I do not believe the Government have any evil intent in mind as regards this matter. I believe there is a case for costs, as I have said in earlier debates on the Bill. However, this is a tricky area where things can easily go wrong.
Lord Norrie: I wish to support Amendments Nos. 230 and 232. I support Amendment No. 230 because
908
it does not intimidate developers wanting to exercise their right to be heard. I also support Amendment No. 232 because it is a thoroughly reasonable measure to prevent worthless appeals. It will prevent developers wasting the time and money of local authorities and—this is just as important—of bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council or even parish councils. There is a slender chance that it may also apply to late withdrawals by local authorities. At present amenity and conservation bodies can spend hours raising precious fighting funds, and can waste thousands of pounds on expert advice, and then lose it all if an appeal is withdrawn before the public inquiry opens. That cannot be right.
Lord Coleraine: I was interested to hear the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of his Amendment No. 230. If I understood him correctly, he said that the small man who is perhaps appealing against the refusal of permission to erect one house should be subject to the cost regime, but that the large developer developing a large estate will be treated on a different basis. Those remarks surprise me coming from the Benches opposite. It is particularly important that a small man should feel that he has been fairly treated when he makes an appeal. From my limited experience of planning appeals I feel that the value of a hearing lies in the fact that an inspector should go out of his way to understand what the appellant is saying and should make it quite clear that he understands. If that is done, the appellant, even if he loses his case, will come away with a strong sense of having been treated fairly. However, he will not feel he has been treated fairly if he has to proceed by the written representations procedure. We must start off with a strong predilection in favour of the oral hearing for the small applicant.
Amendment No. 230 suggests separating unnecessary costs, which would not have been incurred if the written representations procedure had been followed, from those which would have been incurred in any event if the written representations procedure had been followed. The matter of costs is a most difficult part of the planning procedure, as one is sent to the courts to settle costs after everything else is over. Costs take a long time to be settled. The advice I have received from the Law Society is that it would be difficult to separate costs in the way that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do. I hope, on reflection, he will consider there was some merit in suggesting that the whole clause should be taken away.
My noble friend's amendment suggests that "vexatious" should replace "unreasonable". I believe that "vexatious" has no real meaning in this context. Appeals may be conducted vexatiously as well as unreasonably. In such cases there are already powers to award costs. However, I very much doubt whether there is any meaning in suggesting that the decision to go to oral hearing rather than making written representation is one that is taken vexatiously. If there is any meaning in it I very much doubt whether it would ever apply. I hope that my noble friend will be even more persuaded that the clause should be taken out of the Bill altogether.

909
The Law Society considers the right of appeal by way of a hearing to be of fundamental importance to anyone involved in the planning process. I do not argue that appeals should be conducted vexatiously, unreasonably or improperly. The existing cost regime already covers that aspect. However, I submit that the right of the applicant to a hearing before an inspector should not be fettered in any way by the possibility that his choice of method of obtaining his hearing may of itself result in his being ordered to pay the planning authority's costs. That could occur irrespective of the merits of the appeal or whether the appeal has been conducted reasonably.
Behind the proposed change in procedure is a desire to cut down the number of planning hearings and inquiries. The department makes that clear both by its words and by its deeds. It does so by its words because the consultation paper speaks of bringing greater discipline to appeal proceedings and of instilling a greater awareness of the resource implications of holding a public inquiry or public hearing. Those are described in the consultation paper as the main purposes of Clause 24.
It is clear from its deeds that that is what the department intends because I am advised that it is not necessary to introduce Clause 24 in order to bring about change. The possibility of costs being awarded on that ground already exists in statute. I am advised that all that is necessary is to delete paragraph 24 of departmental Circular 2/87 which deals with costs in relation to planning appeals. The paragraph provides that costs will not now be awarded simply because one of the parties to an appeal has asked for a hearing.
The effect of Clause 24 is insidious because it throws particular emphasis on the aspect of costs. It is bound to have the effect of frightening potential appellants and deterring them from appealing by way of oral hearing.
In the interests of natural justice, as paragraph 11 of the consultation paper puts it, the department is to introduce an early warning system. The department will send early warning letters to make clear to each applicant who asks for an oral hearing that he runs the risk of an award of costs. It is right that appellants should be aware that they run the risk of an award of costs, but that they should be specifically warned of that risk in a letter which can only be termed a "frightener" is hardly conducive to the broader interests of natural justice. It is invidious that Clause 24 is itself against the interests of natural justice because it reduces the rights of appellants to pursue their right to an appeal.
There are other objections which can be made to the proposal. First, there is often no way of knowing until the appeal has been decided whether or not it was reasonable for there to have been an oral hearing. Secondly, a successful applicant will run the risk of an order for costs if it is found that he could have been as successful if he had relied on written representation. That is neither fair nor reasonable.
910
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will consider that the clause needs further consideration than is provided by his amendments.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Coleraine on this issue. Although no one wishes more than I do to see the planning process speeded up, I believe that it would be very wrong to take away the rights of those who do not have resources. As my noble friend so rightly said, the effect would be to frighten away those who ought to have as much opportunity as anyone else to make their views known. Therefore I hope that on this issue the Government will consider very seriously the points raised by my noble friend and look at the matter again.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I have given notice that I intend to oppose the Motion that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to that point now rather than later bearing in mind what has been said and the ground that has been covered.
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is not my intention on this clause to stir him from his seat. He will be able to sit quietly and listen without the threat of my dividing the Committee. That is not my intention. I am interested only in hearing the Government's reasoned response or persuading them that there is no reasoned response that they can give.
There is no doubt in my mind that Clause 24 as currently drafted represents a threat in the sense that the test of reasonableness or unreasonableness is highly subjective and may not be apparent until an appeal has been dealt with. That is an impossible position in which to place an appellant. He needs to have some idea of where he will stand.
As already mentioned, the right to explain oneself to the best of one's ability and to make the best case is an integral part of natural justice. The facility to examine and cross-examine the parties to an appeal is a very significant factor in adducing relevant information.
The DoE's own Circular 2/87 states that,
"costs will not be awarded simply because one of the parties to an appeal has asked for an oral hearing. The exercise of that right will not be regarded as unreasonable conduct even if the appeal could have been adequately dealt with by written representation".
Obviously something has happened to change the Government's view. Clause 24 represents a very significant departure from that statement. The passage of time since the publication of the circular is not sufficient for those circumstances to have been totally altered.
It is not for me to say whether the question of grossly unreasonable behaviour—or vexatious behaviour, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—is an appropriate alternative. However, it is my understanding that there is already provision for costs to be awarded against an unreasonable appellant. Those powers are rarely used, possibly because of the difficulty of interpretation. It would be more

911
appropriate to adapt the existing powers rather than to introduce another provision such as that provided by Clause 24 of the Bill, which will be a clear disincentive to an appellant.
Many appellants are ordinary people. They may be householders; they may be responsible for small businesses. In broader national terms or in terms of major developments their affairs may not be considered particularly important. However, to the appellants themselves they are of crucial importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pointed out. The clause acts as a significant deterrent to the perfectly legitimate pursuit of their aims and objectives.
It cannot have escaped the attention of the Committee—I am sure many Members have greater knowledge of this than I —that the chances of winning an appeal at an oral hearing are considerably greater statistically than when written representations are relied on. This is probably due to several contradictory factors. But I think that when people elect to have a formal hearing they do not do so frivolously because, if nothing else, they have to bear their own costs. Unless there is an award of costs in their favour they will be saddled with their own costs. Those costs can be very significant in terms of the professional fees and everything else which may be involved. In case the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should pick me up on this, I can safely say that I do not have to declare an interest because I do not get involved directly with planning appeals, although I advise people professionally on planning matters.
I consider there are areas in which Clause 24 is fatally flawed, because it militates against the principles of natural justice and fair dealing, and this Chamber has always been known for protecting those principles. Because of its deterrent nature I believe that the Committee cannot accept that this clause shall stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made the point that there appears to be no provision for the automatic exoneration from costs of the successful appellant. An individual may elect to go to appeal and to have the matter dealt with by formal hearing because he has received an adverse decision from the local planning authority and feels that the only way of getting at the reasons behind the decision is by means of a formal hearing so that the planning officer and others can be examined on the nature of the planning authority's policy. If he is successful in his appeal, how can one square the decision that in planning terms his case was justified with the possibility that costs may ultimately be awarded against him? That is simply not acceptable. I must press the Minister strongly on this point. If believe Clause 24 is not a proper provision. There are provisions elsewhere in legislation which should be used, not the present Bill.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh (Nos. 230, 232 and 233) would make substantive changes to the new Section 322A. First, by adding a new paragraph (c) in Section 322A(1), Amendment No. 230 would restrict the exercise of the Secretary of State's power to award costs it those cases involving what is termed "minor
912
development" as that expression is used in the Chief Planning Inspector's report. Secondly, it would remove the discretion currently in Clause 24 to award costs where the party's request to be heard was regarded as unreasonable. This power would be replaced by provisions which would restrict the amount of costs which could be awarded to a party who asked to be heard when the other party would have preferred the written representations procedure. The amount of costs would be limited by excluding the preparation and inquiry costs of the inquiry which the party would have incurred by being heard instead of using the written representations procedure.
Amendment No. 232 would provide (by subsection (3)) a power to award costs where a local inquiry was cancelled by the appellant after notification had been given of its scheduled starting date. This would be complemented by a power (in subsection (4)) to require the local planning authority which withdrew a ground of refusal of planning permission after notification has been given of the opening date of the inquiry to pay the other appeal party's preparation costs as regards contesting that ground of refusal.
We recognise that these amendments are based on recommendations in the National Housing and Town Planning Council's recently published report entitled Costs Awards at Planning Appeals. We have studied the report and considered the amendments very carefully.
We appreciate that the purpose of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the proposed subsection (2) is to limit an award of costs in inquiry cases where the party against whom costs are awarded did not wish an inquiry to be held. At first sight, this may appear acceptable, but it begs the question which Clause 24 seeks to address—namely, whether the request to be heard was reasonable. We also think that the proposed restriction of this new power to cases involving only minor development is undesirable on the grounds of policy. While we accept that major development often involves complex issues which should be examined at an inquiry, it may sometimes turn on straightforward planning grounds, or it may even have been the subject of a previous local inquiry.
In those circumstances, we think that the exercise of the proposed new power when a principal appeal party requests to be heard should not depend on the scale of the development. Since other parties in a major inquiry may have had to incur very substantial expenditure as a result of one party's unreasonable insistence on being heard, we feel that this part of the amendment cannot be justified on policy grounds. Indeed, the power might be especially apt in a major inquiry. I therefore hope that the noble Lord may agree not to pursue this part of the amendment and the associated definition of "minor development" in the proposed subsection (4).
The second part of Amendment No. 230 would leave out subsection (2) of the new Section 322A(2) so that the Secretary of State would not be enabled to award costs in cases where he considered, at the conclusion of the proceedings, that a party's request to be heard was unreasonable. In its place, Amendment No. 230 would effectively impose a statutory

913
limitation on the quantum (or amount) of awardable costs in specified circumstances. The amendment no longer provides for an award of costs to be made simply for unreasonably requesting to be heard as Clause 24 proposes. Because the amendment would completely alter the purpose of the clause, we cannot accept it.
Amendment No. 232 would insert new subsections (3) and (4) into new Section 322A. These would provide for an award of preparation and inquiry costs in the event of an inquiry's cancellation, or abortive work caused by late withdrawal of an appeal or grounds of refusal. We understand the reason for these amendments. It is right that appeal parties who are found to have caused others to incur unnecessary expense in preparing for cancelled inquiries (as a result of late withdrawal of the appeal), or inquiries curtailed in scope (because of late revision of evidence), should have to pay those abortive costs. But we should like an opportunity to consider more thoroughly the drafting and substance of subsections (3) and (4). For instance, they take no account of inquiries necessarily cancelled without any specific request or action by the person concerned because the planning authority has withdrawn an enforcement notice, or an advertisement discontinuance notice, which leaves no appeal issues to be determined. If these problems can be satisfactorily resolved we may be able to table an amendment acceptable to the noble Lord at a later stage of the Bill. On this understanding, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley (No. 231), would effectively restrict the scope for awarding costs in accordance with the new Section 322A to those cases where a party's insistence on being heard was considered vexatious rather than unreasonable. A narrower test of unreasonableness in this context goes wider, as can be seen from the current policy guidance in my department's Circular 2/87. To narrow the scope of new Section 322A in this way runs counter to the Government's aim in introducing these provisions, which is to instil a greater sense of discipline in planning proceedings by extending the criteria of reasonableness to requests to be heard.
Much has been said about the "What's in a word?" syndrome, as I would like to call it, in relation to "unreasonable", "vexatious" or whatever. I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who described how difficult it was to find an appropriate definition in these circumstances. I understand that before DoE Circular 2/87 was issued the relevant policy statement (in Ministry of Housing and Local Government Circular 73/65) referred to circumstances where a party behaves unreasonably, vexatiously or frivolously. In 1987 the view was taken, in revising the policy guidance in the earlier circular, that vexatious or frivolous conduct might also be unreasonable. Consequently, the term unreasonable was regarded as sufficient in this context. We are very reluctant to revert to the previous criterion, which has now been effectively superseded.
The basis on which we propose to exercise this new power has been set out in a DoE and Welsh Office
914
consultation paper issued on 11th January 1991. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about that consultation paper. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library of the House.
Examples of unreasonable insistence on the right to be heard are given in that paper. These examples will help to make clear why we do not consider it appropriate to restrict the circumstances in which the power may be exercised only to those cases which could be defined as "vexatious" rather than to the wider range of cases which are considered "unreasonable".
I understand the reservations that have been expressed about Clause 24. First it is said that many appellants who legitimately want an inquiry into their appeal will be deterred by the threat of costs from asking for one. We accept that the majority of people who ask for an inquiry are justified in their request. We are not concerned in this clause with the reasonably minded majority. If this clause is enacted, we would make it absolutely clear in publicly stated policy guidance that the provisions are not a deterrent and will not be used as such. We have already given a clear indication in my department's consultation paper issued on 11th January of how the proposed new discretionary power would be exercised. We shall consider the comments from the wide range of organisations that are now being consulted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My noble friend has lost me completely. If she says that in the consultation paper they will make it quite clear that this clause is not there as a deterrent, what is the point of having the clause?
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The point of having the clause is that in rare cases behaviour is unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous. It is a long stop to make sure that those cases are addressed. I emphasise our concern not to put any inexperienced or unrepresented appellants at a disadvantage when an inquiry or hearing is plainly justified for their appeal, not least in enforcement appeals.
The concerns expressed by all Members of the Committee in the course of the debate reflect similar concerns expressed by the Council on Tribunals, the Local Government and Planning Bar Association and the Law Society. We recognise that these are serious concerns which cannot simply be brushed aside. Therefore they must be addressed. To put it very simply, they consider that someone who believes that his case cannot be properly expressed without an inquiry or hearing must never be deterred from asking to be heard by any threat of a costs award. They have argued their case against the clause eloquently and sympathetically.
I should like to take the opportunity between now and Report stage of the Bill to consider most carefully in consultation with my ministerial colleagues all that has been said during the debate on this clause. I should also like to look again at the written submissions which the Council on Tribunals and the organisations representing the legal professions have made to me

915
and my ministerial colleagues. I undertake to come back at Report stage with a fully considered reply about the Government's intentions for this clause.
In the light of that promised consideration between now and Report stage, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed and that the Committee will allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have had a most constructive and thoughtful debate on this clause and these amendments. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who pointed out the flaws in the thinking as well as the drafting in my Amendments Nos. 230 and 232. Certainly I should not have wished—the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, recognised this—to discriminate against small applicants for the sake of doing so. I was concerned to reduce the number of occasions on which a quite unnecessary inquiry is undertaken—unnecessary because the subject matter itself is so straightforward.
Paragraph 9 of the consultation paper of January this year makes that clear. Apart from the duplicate applications, the examples that it gives include those where there is a relatively minor material change of use, where there is no appeal on legal grounds or planning policy, where there is little third party interest and where the appellant is professionally represented. Under those circumstances I think that I was probably ill advised to go in for the concept of a minor application as opposed to the more useful definitions which the department put forward in its consultation paper. On these Benches we all have our own orangeries, so we shall certainly not agree that an orangery is a minor application; no more would I agree that my wife's hat in her garden shed on her allotment is a major application. That points to the difficulty that lies in making a distinction of that kind.
I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 230 and 233 without any qualms and certainly I do not propose to come back to them in that form. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said about Amendment No. 232, which received a friendly reception from her. I accept that there could be drafting implications and I should be pleased to discuss them with her before the next stage of the Bill. I believe that we could come forward with a form of words which would meet our requirements and those of the Government and which could make a significant improvement to the Bill. However, I revert to the conclusion to which I came at the beginning; namely, that on balance Clause 24 certainly deserves further consideration, but not further consideration by being taken out of the Bill at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("unreasonable") and insert ("vexatious").
The noble Lord said: I should just like to add that I am advised that the word "vexatious" in this context is used to mean that someone is abusing the procedures of the tribunal regardless of the merits of his case. I hope that that clears the point certainly for
916
my noble friend on the Front Bench, if not for me. As it does not clear the matter for me, I should prefer to remove the clause.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley for the precision with which he has enlightened us about the meaning of the word "vexatious". However, I should point out—it is relevant in the context of this clause—that "vexatious" has a very much narrower effect than "unreasonable". The Minister wants it to have a narrower effect, but I think that we should be conscious of that fact.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Of course I am conscious of that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Lytton: I have already spoken to this matter. There is nothing further for me to add other than to thank the Minister for the sympathetic way in which she usually answers the questions that have been raised. My concern remains. There is not very much that can be done with Clause 24 to rectify it. The basic injustice will remain. Clearly it would be churlish of me not to accept her offer to reconsider this matter and come back with further proposals later in the Bill. I look forward to seeing them when she has been able to produce them.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 234:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("General environmental duties
.—Before section 326 of the principal Act there is inserted—
"General environmental duties.
325A.—(1) It shall be the duty of a local planning authority in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act—

(a) so to exercise its powers in relations to such proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest;

(b) to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest; and

(c) to take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings, sites or objects.

(2) In this section "building" includes a structure." ").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, with the permission of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 235 to which my name is added. Both the amendments have the same purpose: namely, to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and planning authorities to further conservation and amenity. In both cases that includes historic buildings, archaeological sites and so on. In the case of Amendment No. 235, in addition we should place a duty to further the conservation of energy and natural resources.
The general statutory duty of furthering conservation and amenity would bring local authorities into line with other bodies on which such a duty is laid; for instance, the Forestry Commission in the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, the National Rivers Authority in the Water Act 1989, British Coal and private opencast companies in the Electricity Act 1989 and agricultural departments in the Agriculture Act 1986. There are other examples, but I shall not give them.
Under Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, local authorities are required to:
"have regard to the desirability of conserving the … countryside".
But that is a weak and ineffective provision. It needs strengthening to meet the greater pressures that exist in 1990.
In our debate on Amendment No. 104 we drew attention to the damage that has been caused to important conservation sites by activities which had planning permission. I shall not repeat the evidence. Many local authorities accept their responsibilities and ensure that sensitive sites are protected. However, many do not, and therefore it is time to impose a mandatory duty to ensure a basic standard of care in line with that already placed on other land use agencies.
The wording of Amendment No. 235 is stronger than that in Amendment No. 234. It requires local authorities to include conditions to mitigate the effects of any authorised processes. That might be a useful requirement. The energy conservation requirement in Amendment No. 235 is consistent with the stand that the Government took in their White Paper. Paragraph 634 states:
"The Government has already asked local authorities to have particular regard to the conservation of energy as an issue in development plans".
The amendment would place that duty firmly where it belongs.
The Government may not be happy with the wording of either amendment. However, in view of the sympathetic response that I received to Amendment No. 150, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I shall speak to Amendment No. 235. It is unfortunate that this crucial amendment is being dealt with so late in the Committee stage of the Bill. The environment should provide a context within which the whole planning system is conducted. The amendment places a duty on local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to take into account the impact of structure, local plans and planning applications on the countryside, wildlife, amenity and heritage, and to ensure that those interests are furthered and not damaged. As the Committee has heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, similar duties apply in at least five other Acts concerning the countryside, agriculture, coal, water and electricity.
918
The amendment also places a duty on local planning authorities to plan for the conservation of energy and natural resources, such as minerals or water, and to ensure that any grant of planning permission has conditions to minimise the use of energy and other resources. If the planning Bill is to be shaped to meet the new environmental challenges of the 1990s, we must have placed on the face of the Bill a duty to conserve natural resources. This amendment would provide a visible response to widespread public anxiety for the environment. Although planning is one of our key environmental policies the word "environment" does not appear in the legislation.
The amendment would set limits on the nature and scale of change at the level beyond which irretrievable natural resources would be damaged. These limits would be translated into development plan policies and decisions on planning applications and appeals. In essence, the amendment places a duty of stewardship on the local authorities and the Secretary of State. That duty lies at the heart of the recent environment White Paper. I hope that we can see it placed at the centre of the planning system which, after all, is one of the most important ways of implementing environmental policy.
Decisions made by the planning system have a major influence on the amount of energy that we use or the volume of minerals that we consume. Choices about the scale and location of new housing, employment and roads will influence the amount of driving that we shall do, the amount of energy that we shall use to heat our homes and offices, and the types of industries that will be established. Therefore, the way in which we plan new development has a strong bearing on the way in which we use natural resources.
The amendment would place an environmental duty on the authorities in making such important choices. However, it would not put the environment above economic and other anxieties. I wish to assure the Committee about that issue. Planning decisions are already made within an economic framework and the amendment would merely put the environment on a par with economic and other anxieties. At present the Government offer virtually no advice on the way in which local planning authorities should help in the conservation of energy and other resources. I hope that Amendment No. 235 will rectify that situation.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I support Amendments Nos. 234 and 235 but I must quibble about them. We have debated amendments of this nature on a number of occasions. On each occasion I argued that it was inadequate to use the words:
"archaeological, architectural or historical interest",
as in subsection (b) of new clause 325A proposed in the amendment. I have argued that we should insert the word "engineering" after the word "architectural". Certain artefacts are principally of engineering interest rather than of architectural or historical interest. They are, nonetheless, important and worthy of preservation.
It was as a result of such previous debates that "building" became defined to include the structure. I

919
am pleased that the locution has survived in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 234. However, it is too obscure a locution for simple engineers to follow. They would better understand the situation if the word "engineering" appeared in addition to "architectural" on the fact of the Bill.
I wish to give two brief examples. The first is the iron bridge at Ironbridge. It is a structure and is clearly included in subsection (2) of the amendment. It is of historic interest. Some people might argue that it is of architectural interest—I would not—but most certainly it is of engineering interest for reasons which are not historic nor architectural. Members of the Committee will recall that the iron bridge is a semi-circular arch made of cast iron. Incidentally, it is an unsuitable form for the bridge and it is surprising that it has lasted for so long. The reason is that it has been propped horizontally at the base with reinforced concrete. The point of engineering interest about the bridge is that, structurally, it is a timber-design bridge made of cast iron. Its designer designed a timber bridge and then used cast iron to build it. Therefore, the interest in the bridge is engineering rather than historic or architectural.
I wish to mention two other artefacts also at Ironbridge. There are two beam engines which are, in a sense, historic —if that word means merely that they are old. They are certainly old. I do not believe that there is anything particularly historic about them. The interest in those beam engines is not that they are old but that they are beam engines. They are of engineering rather than historical interest.
I shall not pursue the matter further. I hope that the Government can accept these two amendments in some form. Perhaps they should be cannibalised together. I also hope that the word "engineering" will be slipped in adjacent to the word "architectural". If so, I promise that I shall not raise this matter again.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: It may be of interest to the noble Lord that English Heritage covers industrial archaeology. Indeed it recently gave evidence in a planning inquiry which involved the iron bridge. The appeal as regards the building of a new bridge was dismissed by the Secretary of State. I assure the noble Lord that where archaeology is written in, we believe that that includes industrial archaeology.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am grateful to the noble Lord but I am not satisfied with that. I want the inclusion of the word "engineering" because the interest is an engineering interest and not to do with industrial archaeology, worthy though that is.
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will forgive me if I do not follow him on his rather specialised point on this very important pair of amendments.
To my mind, Amendment No. 235 is the most important amendment tabled to this Bill. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in whose name the other amendment stands, I prefer Amendment No. 235 because Amendment No. 234
920
merely places a duty upon the local planning authorities whereas Amendment No. 235 also places a duty upon the Secretary of State.
It so happens that there are eight precedents in overlapping branches of the law intended to protect the environment in one way or another in which the Secretary of State or another Minister has had that duty imposed upon him. Therefore, if we wish to follow the precedents, we should accept Amendment No. 235 because that places a duty upon the Secretary of State.
After all, the Secretary of State is publicly committed to protecting the environment. As we are dealing with his duties in relation to planning law, surely it is right that we should make it clear that it is the intention of Parliament that, like the local authorities in performing their functions, the Secretary of State should further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of those various other matters mentioned.
I hope it will not be thought that I am too prejudiced in favour of those precedents when I say that when, in another place, I had the honour of being Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power as long ago as 1957, I introduced the provision which became the first of those precedents. That was in the Electricity Act 1957.
I do not believe that there is very much more for me to say. However, I believe that my noble friend Lord Norrie—who would have moved the amendment in the first place had it not been grouped with Amendment No. 234—the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will agree with me that the drafting of the amendment is capable of improvement because it contains a small degree of repetition which should always be avoided. In view of the great importance of ensuring that the application of our planning law protects the environment to the maximum extent possible, I hope that on this occasion there will be a sympathetic response from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Ross of Newport: As regards the iron bridge, I found out recently that Abraham Darby was an ancestor of mine. Therefore I hope that extra protection and publicity for which the noble Lord calls will be given.
I am pleased to support Amendment No. 235. It is comprehensive in its application. I cannot believe that it does not attract the Government because it is totally in accord with their current thinking as outlined in the recent White Paper. Therefore I hope that they will accept the amendment or its principle.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 234 and 235 would require local planning authorities to take account of a specific range of environmental factors before reaching their decisions on planning matters. I hope to persuade the Committee that these amendments are unnecessary. Authorities are already required to take into account all the issues mentioned in the amendments.
Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires local planning authorities, in

921
dealing with planning applications, to have regard to the material provisions of the development plan. That will include policies on environmental matters and all other material considerations. Each of the subjects mentioned in the amendments is likely to constitute a material consideration in many planning applications. They will therefore be taken into account as appropriate under the general planning law.
A number of existing provisions already cover the topics in the amendment. Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 requires authorities to,
"have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
My department's Circular No. 27 of 1987 explains that this term embraces the conservation of flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features, all of which are mentioned by the amendment.
There are also already statutory provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 protecting buildings of special architectural or historic interest, conservation areas and ancient monuments. These are backed up by detailed guidance in the department's Circular No. 8 of 1987 and in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 16 which explain how the powers should be used and draw attention to the relevant policy considerations.
Members of the Committee will be aware that we have just agreed to accept amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, which would introduce a reference to natural beauty and amenity into the general description in the Act of the scope of development plans. I believe that is an appropriate insertion. But to go further, as in these new clauses, would run the risk of distorting a process which must already take all material planning considerations into account.
The relative weight to be given to the factors mentioned in the amendments will be a matter for judgment in each case. Planning guidance issued by my department helps local planning authorities to give proper weight to environmental considerations. The environment White Paper This Common Inheritance affirmed the importance which the Government attach to environmental issues. We are now giving substance to that commitment by preparing several new planning policy guidance notes.
I sympathise with the intentions behind Amendments Nos. 234 and 235. However, I believe that they could both confuse and detract from the arrangements that already exist in the planning system for protecting the environment. County planning officers have pointed out that, although those environmental objectives are important for any planning authority, they are not the only objectives. Any such general duty may need to be balanced by a duty to do with the need for development in appropriate cases.
However, between now and Report stage I shall be happy to discuss these issues in a constructive spirit with my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Norrie and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross. At this stage I hope that the amendments will be
922
withdrawn. It will not be easy to arrive at a satisfactory form of words and I remain to be convinced that such a duty would serve a useful purpose. However, in view of the promise which I have given constructively to use the time between now and Report, I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, or my noble friend Lord Norrie reply, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify one point. When inviting our attention to the various other statutory provisions she mentioned in passing the general development order. A general development order is not primary legislation. It is made under the powers already given by Section 70 of the 1990 Act. It can be varied from time to time. Admittedly, when it is varied it has to be laid before Parliament and my recollection is that it requires an affirmative resolution.
Of the various provisions mentioned by my noble friend that is the only one which applies specifically to all planning matters. The other provisions apply to some planning matters and not to others. Even the provisions of the countryside Act, although they are important and cover a lot of the ground, cannot be said to apply to all planning decisions. Therefore, in the Minister's further thoughts on the matter perhaps she will bear in mind that it is important to have this provision stated in primary legislation and not to have to rely merely on a general development order.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is right. I named primary and secondary legislation and guidance notes in the course of addressing the amendment. However, I shall incorporate consideration of those matters in the time between now and Report stage so that we can properly convince all noble Lords that the Bill, when it reaches the statute book, gives proper environmental consideration at all appropriate stages.
Baroness Nicol: Naturally I am a little disappointed that the noble Baroness did not see the need, as we do, to include the amendment in the Bill as it stands. When moving the amendment I drew attention to the existence of the present requirements to have regard to the desirability for conservation; that is not the same as the requirement expressed in Amendments Nos. 234 or 235. They ask that powers should be exercised so as to further conservation. That is a very much stronger provision.
However, perhaps I should explain that the existence of Amendment No. 234 was by accident in that my noble friend and myself were working in parallel on the same objectives. When we found that both amendments had been tabled we thought it would widen the debate to leave them, and so we did.
Perhaps I may also tell my noble friend Lord Howie that I sympathise with him. Although I felt reasonably satisfied with the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I would not wish to see structures such as the ones I love on the Fens—the old pumping stations which are a joy to watch and which can only be called

923
engineering—disappear. I would wish to see them protected, and I am sure that there is a wide range of other things which come under that heading.
As usual, the noble Baroness gave a full reply, and in some cases was quite encouraging. I should like to consider her remarks. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, wishes to move Amendment No. 235, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 234.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 235:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("General environmental duty
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local planning authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to so exercise their powers as to:—

(a) further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of special interest and the protection of sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest;

(b) further the conservation and efficient use of energy and natural resources; and

(c) ensure, so far as possible, that any authorisation includes such conditions as are required to mitigate any adverse effect which the processes may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, structures or objects and to minimise the use of primary energy sources and natural resources.").

The noble Lord said: I thank the Minister for her invitation to discuss the matter with her, which I look forward to doing. I shall not now move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 235A:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of ministerial statements
—.The Secretary of State may by regulation state which types of ministerial statement are material considerations in planning decisions.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 235A is of limited intention and application. It is designed to persuade the Government to make clearer what are the material considerations to be taken into account in making planning decisions. It is fairly well established that planning law does not consist simply of legislation. It consists also of regulations, planning policy guidelines, all sorts of written communications from the Department of the Environment in the form of departmental circulars and statements in Parliament. We have become resigned to the idea that planning law is so complex that it cannot be encompassed entirely in legislation. Some practitioners even take the somewhat cynical view that government policy is that which can be obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
However, there are occasions when we go a little too far. Such an occasion was brought to my attention by the National Housing and Town Planning Council. In 1985 in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court Mr. Justice Macpherson referred to a speech made by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of
924
Roding —I am sorry that he is not in his place on this occasion —at a dinner of the county planning officers' society on 14th March 1985. He embroidered, not merely politically, but in his capacity as Secretary of State, on some of the content of legislation and development plans.
The judge thought it appropriate to take into consideration that after-dinner speech by the Secretary of State, although in the end he did not reach the conclusion which I suspect the Secretary of State wished him to. The application, which was for office development, had been turned down by the local authority; on appeal the inspector had recommended refusal and that refusal was upheld by the Queen's Bench Division.
We would like to be sure that there is no addition to the long list of matters which have to he taken into account and cannot be ignored if a local planning authority is to behave properly. We want to ensure that it is not an addition to say that consideration should be given to all the ministerial speeches made after dinner at the county planning officers' society or any other organisation, whether affiliated to the Conservative Party or not. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am not rising to the bait. Since 1948 local planning authorities, when determining planning applications, have been required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material and to any other material considerations. This formula may seem rather vague and elusive. However, the courts have established that relevant government policy, which is published in a circular or planning policy guidance note, comprises a "material consideration" for planning decisions.
However, other expressions of policy by Ministers are also capable of being material considerations. I believe this should remain the case. The noble Lord's amendment envisages that the Secretary of State would define in advance by regulation which types of ministerial statement could be taken into account in planning decisions. The Government consider that such an approach would be both unduly restrictive and impractical, given the variety of forms which ministerial statements can take. If the regulations were drafted in broad terms there would be no discernible advantage over the present position.
The Government are continuously reviewing and refining aspects of planning policy to reflect changing circumstances and demands. Ideally, new planning policy guidance should be available from HMSO immediately as a circular or PPG but in practice that is not always possible. I hope noble Lords will agree that new policy advice should not be delayed pending an approved vehicle for its dissemination. It is in everyone's interest that it should be announced as soon as it has been formulated. My department will strive to incorporate new policy in a circular or PPG as soon as practicable. Although I entirely understand the noble Lord's wish to make the rules for determining planning applications as clear as possible, I suggest that this amendment amounts to an

925
unnecessarily bureaucratic approach which could delay the promulgation of new policy. I hope that he will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clearly not an amendment to be pressed. I am not sure that I very much like what I have just heard. It sounds to me as though Secretaries of State have complete freedom to make policy on the hoof. They can speak to anyone they like and make a new policy decision. Then the department will endeavour, as soon as possible afterwards, to embody that new policy in a planning policy guideline or circular.
Where does that leave Parliament? I believe that we have some rights in this matter and that there should be at least some lip service to the idea that Parliament is involved in making policy. Ministers, in seeking to give expression to policy, are responsible to Parliament. I am sorry that there was no reference to that in the Minister's reply. Clearly it is not a matter on which I would wish to divide the Committee. I believe that I have uncovered something which does not please me too much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Planning compensation repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 30, line 34, at end insert:
("(4A) Subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to any compensation under Part V of the principal Act unless a claim for the compensation has been made in accordance with section 127 of that Act before the repeal of that section comes into force.
(4B) Any amount recoverable under section 133 of that Act which has not been paid, including any interest on any such amount, shall cease to be recoverable and any mortgage, covenant or other obligation by which the payment of any such amount, or interest on it, is secured is discharged.").
The noble and learned Lord said: These are all minor technical amendments consequential on the planning and compensation repeals set out in Clause 25 as they apply to England and Wales and Clause 42 which applies to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For the sake of good order it would be desirable for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to say to which amendments he is now speaking. There are some Bills when I require Ministers, in moving amendments that have already been spoken to, to indicate when they were spoken to. I have not done that this time because on the whole the groupings are not too complicated. However, when we start off it should be on record which amendments are being spoken to in this way.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If we must insist on the matter being dealt with in that way, I am moving Amendment No. 236 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 273, 379, 380 and 383.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 237:
926
Page 30, line 35, leave out ("the principal") and insert ("that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Planning compensation repeals: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 93, line 6, at end insert:
("Gas Act 1965 (c. 36.)
1A. In Schedule 3 to the Gas Act 1965, paragraph 3 is omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 93, leave out lines 7 to 22.
The noble Earl said: I have to make a slight apology as regards this amendment. It relates to a number of matters that will be debated in much more detail later on. In principle the amendment relates to the assumptions as to what the use of the property should be and therefore its value, for the purposes of Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Members of the Committee will be aware that this provision relates to losses in value which arise from the use of public works. It is not their construction but their subsequent use.
There is one fundamental problem with this provision. It relates only to loss as against its existing use value and not against the loss in the open market value. This amendment sets out to remedy that deficiency. It will be more appropriate if I touch on this principle in much more detail later during the debate on matters of compensation. I now wish to speak to Amendment No. 341 which is grouped with Amendment No. 239.
At the risk of confusing the Committee, I can most easily explain this matter by saying that this amendment seeks to redress two separate injustices. The first relates to the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 where no land is taken. The Committee may be aware that under the interpretation which is generally known as the McCarthy rules (Metropolitan Board of Works v. McCarthy 1874), there is provision for compensation to be claimed by a claimant which is not attributable to land being acquired. It refers to the situation where no land is acquired. There is also a provision that under those rules the loss must be attributable and arising out of the land or an interest directly in it.
This amendment seeks to alter this provision. It is now established in compensation law through other provisions that where a claimant (if he can establish a claim), suffers a loss his loss is by and large his actual loss and not just the loss which arises from that incurred in the value of the land. A typical example would be where a business operation is being carried out and the works which affect the claimant affect not only the value of his land in terms of its rental value or ultimate capital value, but also his business.
The situation was brought into sharp focus recently in a case known to me personally. I was personally

927
involved in trying to advise the claimant. Substantial road building and redevelopment operations were taking place under statutory provision. There was no compensation for the very substantial losses that this claimant suffered. I have to skate over a great deal of detail which is probably relevant as an explanation. It is a highly complicated area of the law.
As regards the case to which I have referred, the McCarthy rules were considered by the House of Lords in 1973 in Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd v. Birkenhead Corporation. It was held that under the provisions of an earlier Act of 1845, the claimants were not entitled to compensation for the loss of profits.
This amendment goes to the heart of something about which I feel very strongly; namely, that the occupation of land, the running of a business or, for that matter, being a householder in occupation of a dwellinghouse, is not simply a selective amalgamation of various bits of that occupation. It has been recognised in principle concerning residential property that it is a question of the property on the one hand and any disturbance which causes a quantifiable loss on the other. However, in the case of a business the profitability, particularly in the present economic climate, can be balanced on a knife edge. It does not take very much to tip the balance of probability heavily against the business occupier. That might include someone who is quite legitimately operating a business from his own home, and that sort of situation.
This amendment seeks to reverse the decision in the Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd. case. In doing so it is intended to put the claimant in the same position as he would have been were it not for the particular work that has been carried on. This does not introduce a new category of claimant. It means that someone who is able to claim under the provisions of the McCarthy rules will be exactly the person who can claim under this additional provision. That is what the first part of Amendment No. 341 seeks to achieve.
The second part of it allows for compensation to be paid for depreciation of the market value of the interest and not just for the existing use value. I referred earlier, in connection with Amendment No. 239, to Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and to the claim that would arise from the physical factors arising out of the use of the works. At the moment there are some significant problems. The market value may be represented by something which is not represented by existing use value. It may have a hope value. It may have some value as regards the longer term purposes of that particular claimant. There is no reason why a claimant should not be compensated for those losses. The second part of the amendment seeks to overcome that limitation of the Land Compensation Act.
A corollary to this is intended to extend compensation to any claimant with a legal interest in the land and not just that of an owner occupier. For instance, as I understand it, the moment where there is a landlord/tenant situation neither occupier nor landlord would be in a position to substantiate a claim which an owner occupier would be entitled to make
928
and on which he would be entitled to receive compensation. Such an injustice cannot be allowed to continue.
I hope I have not confused the Committee too severely in covering fairly briefly something which is extremely complex and a minefield of inter-reacting pieces of different legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors was very grateful to the Government for the notice they took of the blue book which the institution published a year or two back. It called for a simplifying and strengthening of the compensation code. I accept that in the Bill the Government have taken a good deal of it on board. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is more capable than I, has just explained one of the areas where we think the Government have still not gone far enough. He outlined a case which was heard by your Lordships' House in its judicial role in 1973 and on which a declaration was made in 1974. I refer to Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd. v. Birkenhead Corporation which arose because of the reconstruction of the Mersey Tunnel. Several such cases may be arising at the present time because of the major motorway construction schemes going on in this country. I suspect that there will be other cases. In that case the House of Lords disallowed a claim for loss of profits made because of the resulting loss of business. The garage was actually cut off from direct access to the motor car showrooms. Therefore the proprietors of the garage could recover compensation for the loss of business only in so far as it might have depreciated the value of the land. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that that seems unjust. It is surely only right that the claimant should be allowed compensation for disturbance and any other matter not directly based on the valuation of the land. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 239 would remove from the Bill an amendment to Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 which Amendment No. 341 seeks to repeal. As I shall explain, we do not agree with subsections (1) and (3) of Amendment No. 341, which would have the effect of compensating claimants not only for depreciation in the value of their land but also for disturbance or losses which have no direct connection with that value. I refer to the kind of situation where a highway authority builds a much needed bypass around a town, the result of which is to divert traffic away from a petrol filling station and thereby reduce its trade.
Compensation for injurious affection already takes into account loss of business in so far as it affects the amount of depreciation in the value of the land; this is of course akin to normal land valuation procedure when land is sold on the open market and trade prospects are taken into account. I do not think the law could reasonably go further than that. While some people may be adversely affected by public development in this way, there will be others who gain from the benefits which such development can bring.

929
In the bypass example, the improved quality of life created by the bypass might well have a positively beneficial effect on trade for many shops and services.
Subsection (2) of Amendment No. 341 would provide for all tenants, not merely those who own leases with at least three years left to run, to claim compensation for injurious affection relating to the use of public works. In our view this would not be a sensible proposition. The injurious affection provisions are designed to compensate those who own a marketable interest in their property: it would not in our view be practical to bring in those whose tenancy is short-lived and the value of whose interest is likely to give rise to only very small claims for compensation. However, where traffic noise is generated from new or altered roads, such tenants may be eligible for sound insulation, in lieu of compensation.
Finally, I refer to subsection (4) of Amendment No. 341 and with it the paving amendment, Amendment No 239, which I understand the noble Earl intends to withdraw. The effect here would be to remove from the statute book the long-established rule that compensation for injurious affection takes account only of the existing use value of the affected land and disregards any development potential.
This is not an easy issue. On one hand, it can be argued that since the purpose of the injurious affection provisions is to compensate for a fall in the value of land caused by public development, the assessment of value ought properly to take account of any development potential attaching to the property. On the other hand, it is not at all clear that there would in practice be any significant development potential in the great majority of injurious affection cases. Certainly we are not aware of any particular complaints or hardship arising from this aspect of the compensation code.
Given this and the fact that to introduce the concept of development potential into the injurious affection provisions could create an additional layer of legal complexity, we take the view on balance that there is no case for change. While I have some sympathy for the objectives of the amendments, it seems to me that the law already goes just about as far as is reasonable and practicable in compensating those who are adversely affected by public developments.
I hope therefore that when we come to it Amendment No. 341 will not be pressed.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the noble Baroness for that extremely lucid reply. It is not my intention to press the amendments. I tabled them to find out what the Government's response would be. However, I am not at all satisfied by her response.
The question of losses being limited only to the value of land seems to limit artificially the scope on which compensation should properly be payable and in favour of an acquiring authority. That does not square very easily with my concept of natural justice and fair dealings in terms of the balance between the acquiring authority and claimants. There is a fundamental principle enshrined in compensation law
930
that the claimant should be put in the same position, in so far as money or money's worth can make it, as he would have been but for the works which have affected his business. That is generally applied in situations where land is taken.
I have been seeking to encourage the Government to extend that principle further. I know that that has resource implications, and I am strongly of the view that that is the reason for the Minister's response rather than the points which she actually made. In my view the Government are, and should be, in a position to go a great deal further in the matter.
I should like to see an even playing field where claimants are not expected, as happens now, to subsidise the activities of public authorities. I believe that that is what is taking place at present. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, I feel very strongly about the matter and propose to return to it at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 240 to 247:
Page 93, line 31, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(b)").
Page 93, line 33, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(b)").
Page 94, line 9, leave out second ("and").
Page 94, line 43, at end insert:
("16A. In section 198(4) (a) (tree preservation orders) "80, 81" is omitted.
16B. In section 220(3) (a) (advertisement regulations) "80, 81" is omitted.
16C. In section 284(3) (validity of orders, etc.) paragraph (c) is omitted.").
Page 95, line 8, at end insert:
("(3) This paragraph does not affect the operation of Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 in relation to any private interest or Duchy interest (as defined in section 293 of the principal Act).").
Page 95, line 13, at end insert:
("(2) Any amount recoverable under that section, by reason of a notice registered under section 132(1), which has not been paid shall cease to be recoverable.").
Page 95, line 28, at end insert:
("26A. In section 328(1) (settled land, etc.) for "112, 133 or 327" there is substituted "or 112".").
Page 95, line 38, at end insert:
("28A. In Schedule 16 (provisions referred to in sections 314 to 319)—
(a) in Part I for the entry relating to sections 114 and 115 there is substituted—
"Section 115",
(b) in Parts III and VI, the entries relating to Schedule 12 are omitted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Repeal of certain compensation provisions of the 1972 Act]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 248 and 249:
Page 51, line 35, after ("is") insert ("(with the exception of section 145 (determination of claims))").
Page 51, line 44, at end insert:

931
("(6) Schedule (planning compensation repeals -Scotland: minor and consequential amendments) to this Act shall have effect.
(7) Subsection (1) of this section shall have effect in relation to any compensation under Part VII of this Act unless a claim for the compensation has been made in accordance with section 143 of the 1972 Act before the repeal of that section comes into force.
(8) Any amount recoverable under section 148 of the 1972 Act which has not been paid, including any interest on any such amount, shall cease to be recoverable and any security by which the payment of any such amount, or interest on it, is secured is discharged.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 250:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Power for Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England to bring legal proceedings
. Where the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England considers it expedient to do so, in relation to works which appear to it to contravene section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, it may prosecute or may appear in legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in its own name.").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I raised a number of key points of concern to English Heritage and gave notice that I intended to introduce amendments in Committee. I also said that I hoped the Government would look sympathetically on these amendments and that Members of the Committee would support them. I have reason to believe that my hopes may be realised this afternoon. Amendments Nos. 250 and 251 are not fundamental, but they would certainly help English Heritage to do a better job, which I am sure is the Committee's wish.
Amendment No. 250 relates to the power of English Heritage to bring legal proceedings. As Members of the Committee will be aware, "English Heritage" is the popular title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England set up by the National Heritage Act 1983. One of English Heritage's principal duties laid down by Parliament is to secure the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments. I submit that that fact alone should justify giving power to English Heritage to bring legal proceedings in its own name. When English Heritage was first established in 1984 as an independent body, we assumed that the right to initiate legal proceedings was implicit in the nature of the duties imposed upon it. However, after taking legal advice, we discovered that we were wrong in that assumption. The amendment proposed would provide such powers.
The weapons available to English Heritage to defend the built heritage are varied and many; but the absence of this particular weapon from our armoury has proved to be a serious deficiency. The amendment proposed would give English Heritage a power to seek injunctions and a general power to prosecute where it appears that unauthorised and damaging works have been, or are being, carried out to a listed building.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that such powers are already conferred on local authorities. For its part, English Heritage would seek to exercise the power either jointly in collaboration with a local authority or by itself, as may be necessary on rare occasions, in default of action by a local authority. I hope that neither the scope nor the wording of the amendment as tabled will need adjustment. In the end, I trust that Members on all sides of the Committee would like to be certain that it provides exactly the additional power required by English Heritage to fulfil the duties placed upon it by Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support Amendment No. 250, which was ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I also speak as a commissioner of English Heritage, as well as a member of a local authority. I strongly support the point made by the noble Lord that when English Heritage was established it was designed to be an agency of last resort in terms of protecting and conserving historic buildings and areas and ancient monuments. It is precisely because it is an agency of last resort that it needs reserve powers to initiate legal proceedings when unauthorised works are proposed, or have been started, on listed buildings. Normally local authorities would and should take on such a responsibility. However, in some cases they cannot or will not do so. I suggest that, in such a situation, it is entirely right that English Heritage should have those reserve powers. I very much hope, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that this is indeed an amendment which is pushing at an open door.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I trust that the hope expressed by my noble friend that this amendment would be accepted will be fulfilled. English Heritage was given a very important task. If we want to preserve the things which we know ought to be preserved, it is outstandingly important that English Heritage should have the ultimate power to ensure that any reasonable desires have the backing of law, if necessary. Now that we are aware of the situation, I do not believe that we would for a moment want to put English Heritage into a position weaker than that of the local authorities when carrying out such a task.
Baroness Blatch: I understand my noble friend's concern about the fact that, at present, there is no explicit power for English Heritage to seek prosecutions for infringement of listed building control, although it has been established as our statutory adviser on matters relating to the preservation of listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments and has a statutory duty to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings so far as practicable. I should like to take this opportunity to say how much my department values the work of English Heritage carried out under the very able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Montagu.
It is admittedly somewhat anomalous that English Heritage should not have that power in question when it would be open to a local amenity society, say, or a private individual, to take such action. I can see that

933
there may be cases where the absence of such powers could inhibit the preservation of a building—a point made by the noble Baroness. For breaches of legislation relating to ancient monuments, however, English Heritage is able to prosecute and indeed has done so successfully on a number of occasions.
To a certain extent, the Bill already deals with the situation so far as concerns injunctions. The new provision in Schedule 2(7) which specifically empowers local planning authorities to seek injunctions against breaches of listed building control is also applied to English Heritage in London by virtue of paragraph 17. That reflects its specific functions in respect of listed buildings in London, which it inherited from the Greater London Council. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Montagu would, however, go beyond that.
The department did, in fact, go out to consultation in 1989 on a proposal that English Heritage should be empowered to prosecute and seek injunctions for breaches of listed building consent. The greater majority of respondents were in favour of this, although some local authority interests thought that it would be useful for the local planning authority to be consulted first before English Heritage acted. In the light of that, we are sympathetic to the proposal in principle. We would, however, like to look carefully at the drafting to ensure that it covers appropriately the types of case which we have in mind. My noble friend has already indicated that, on reflection, he considers the scope of the amendment as tabled is not quite as extensive as he would wish. If he is content to withdraw it now, I can assure him that we are prepared to bring forward at a later stage an amendment of our own which will achieve the same objective.
Amendment No. 251 would enable English Heritage to seek information about ownership or other interests in land to enable it to pursue public prosecutions, or other legal proceedings. Local planning authorities, and the Secretary of State, already have powers under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to seek information about ownership in land to enable them to serve any notices or documents which they are empowered to serve under the legislation. The same provision applies to notices under the listed building legislation by virtue of Section 89 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. These provisions do not, however, apply to English Heritage even though it has powers of enforcement in London.
My noble friend Lord Montagu indicated in his speech at Second Reading that he was concerned to ensure that English Heritage was given the Section 89 powers for its work in London, so that if it wished to take action under its statutory powers it had a means of obtaining the necessary information about the ownership of the building. We are sympathetic to this; it seems quite reasonable that where English Heritage has been given statutory powers it should also be given the tools to use them adequately.
934
The present amendment, as drafted, is somewhat different in scope from this, however, because it would empower English Heritage to require information for the purposes of prosecutions or other legal proceedings. We should like an opportunity to consider the drafting and the precise circumstances in which this power should apply and to bring forward an amendment of our own at a later stage.
With that explanation and, I hope, encouragement, I trust that my noble friend will not wish to press his amendments.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I must apologise to my noble friend. I have not actually spoken to Amendment No. 251 as I had assumed the amendments were going to be taken separately. However, I thank my noble friend very much for what she has said. Perhaps I might just say that we feel that Amendment No. 251 is important. We are merely trying to extend a power which is at present available only to the Secretary of State and local planning authorities. To identify the name and address of an owner and to take action over a listed building are extremely important. This important power is missing, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out that there may be some flaws in the amendment. I am also grateful for the fact that we shall be able to have further consultation in order that a government amendment may be brought forward at Report stage. That is something I should certainly welcome. In view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 250.
Baroness Blatch: Just before my noble friend sits down, I hope he will forgive my presumption. I assumed that both amendments were being spoken to. I had taken as my guide his Second Reading speech.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 252:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Crown development
. For Part XIII of the principal Act (application of Act to Crown land) there is substituted—
"Crown Development.
293. This Act shall bind the Crown except as provided by a development order." ")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is one in a long and quite honourable line of legislative proposals, some from government and some from other sources, which have sought to restrict the immunity of the Crown from various types of legislation. We had some very good examples of the reduction or removal of Crown immunity in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It seems to us that this Bill provides a good opportunity for further removal of Crown immunity, which is now quite outdated.
This has of course nothing to do with the Crown: we are talking about the Government here. The present situation is based on a quite false antithesis between the interest of the Government as expressed

935
through the Crown and the interests of the public as expressed through the rest of legislation. I recognise that there are some cases where the Crown should not be bound by normal planning law, as, for example, there are obvious cases of national security which are thought to be excluded from legislation. However, the way in which this amendment has been drafted—in other words, to include the Crown except as provided by development order—makes it perfectly possible for the Government to draft a development order which provides, for cases of national security or other cases as they may think necessary.
The general principle that the Crown should be included in legislation of this kind, particularly when the legislation is rightly put forward as an advance in the coherence and "workability" of planning law, is a sound principle and one which ought to be adopted unless there are very good and specific reasons to the contrary. It is unfortunately the case that the Crown development, at least since the time of Nash and certainly in London, which I know best has often been of poor quality both in aesthetic terms and in terms of planning, thinking and even aptness for its purpose.
I must weigh my words carefully when speaking in the presence of those who have to work in the three most horrible buildings within sight of Westminster—the three towers of Marsham Street. I rather think they are going to have to move out shortly. Not only are the buildings hideous from the outside but they do not work very well and their roofs do not work very well. After far too short a period the buildings are to be at least partially evacuated so that something can be done to put them right. But the correct thing to do would be to pull them down altogether.
However, leaving that extreme example on one side, it is still the case that the Crown/Government use or misuse the exemption from large parts of normal planning law to do things which would not be accepted by any proper planning authority, which would not achieve public support if exposed to public scrutiny and which ought therefore, with as much force as possible, to be exposed to public scrutiny and to the disciplines of the planning law which is the subject of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While the noble Lord is indeed correct in saying that in recent years there has been an erosion or alteration in the position of the Crown in relation to a number of statutory provisions, I am sure he will appreciate that in this area what he is proposing is a change with far-reaching implications. It is a change which, before being introduced, should have the widest possible consultation.
He is correct in many respects in saying that the Crown is in an anomalous position in regard to the planning system, but that is not altogether surprising. As was said earlier, there are particular arrangements under Clause 17 of the Bill for local authorities and any development by them. There are special arrangements for statutory undertakers as well. So there are special arrangements in the planning system for bodies with particular duties to perform and particular services to provide. The position of the Crown should be viewed in that context.
936
As the noble Lord has clearly spelled out, the Crown is not wholly excluded from the statutory framework either north or south of the Border. The amendment is of course restricted to the 1990 Act, and what I have to say therefore refers specifically to England and Wales, although I should make it clear that for the planning framework in Scotland the position is similar.
Under Section 299 of the 1990 Act the Crown may, for example, apply for planning permission on disposal of its land. This Bill also provides in Clause 12 for the Crown to be able to enter into planning obligations in England and Wales. Department of the Environment Circular 18/84 sets out the special procedure for obtaining planning clearance for development by Crown bodies. That would seem to me to provide adequate safeguards while preserving the necessary rights and privileges of the Crown.
Crown bodies send the local planning authorities a notice of their proposed development. The proposal is then considered in a similar way to a planning application in relation, for example, to notice and publicity, except that the local planning authority does not grant or refuse permission in the ordinary way but rather signifies whether or not it finds the development proposal acceptable. If it objects to the proposal and its objections remain unresolved, the Secretary of State decides whether planning clearance shall be given. He may take his decision after receiving written representations or after holding a meeting between the parties, or he may hold a non-statutory public inquiry. So in many ways there is a parallel with an ordinary planning application for planning permission.
I should say that few complaints are received about these arrangements. They are generally considered to work well and as at present advised we see no need to change them. I shall not follow the noble Lord in his aesthetic appreciation of the buildings in Marsham Street. I hope that with that explanation he will not be minded to insist upon his amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is a clear conflict of view between the mover of the amendment and my noble and learned friend. The amendment seems to be unnecessary in view of the reply that we have just received. Before we accept the amendment we should have some evidence as to where matters have gone wrong in the past. My noble friend said that the local planning authority was in a position to stop the matter. Unless we have evidence that the indications given by the Crown authorities have pushed against the local authority's general view, we should not consider a change.
I am a great believer—the noble Lord who moved the amendment is not in the same category as I am—that if something is proved to be working as well as this law has over the years, why change it unless he can bring evidence to show that the procedure has done some damage in the past or has been unfair?
The Earl of Kinnoull: My noble friend makes a good point. I remember a case some years ago, although I suspect that it was before 1984 and the circular that my noble and learned friend quoted. The Ministry of

937
Defence sought to build a block of offices in an open field in the green belt just outside Beaconsfield. It caused tremendous local concern. So far as I know the proposal did not go before any planning authority. It is still an eyesore.
My noble and learned friend talked about a non-statutory public hearing. What is the difference between a non-statutory and a statutory public hearing? Does a non-statutory public hearing reduce the rights of those who wish to appear? Have there been many public hearings in such cases within the past five years?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I cannot give the number of such inquiries, but they are held. Non-statutory inquiries are those without a statutory basis. They mirror what my noble friend would experience if he attended a planning inquiry that followed an application for planning permission in the ordinary way. If he were to wander into an inquiry not knowing whether it was statutory or non-statutory, the procedures and the way matters were being considered would to all intents and purposes be identical.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That little exchange gives me great encouragement. It is nice that after some years of the ascendancy of the radical Right, now happily in full retreat, we on these Benches are the ones accused of being conservative. When we were faced with attacks on the powers, rights and responsibilities of local authorities, we were accused of supporting the status quo. We were the ones who were saying, in words that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, did not quite use, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We now propose a change—we are not the conservatives—the tide of opinion is fortunately changing and we are returning to constructive rather than destructive change.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly says, the amendment is part of a trend which has continued for a considerable period of time and which will not go away. He challenges me to produce evidence of objectionable developments by the Crown and of discontent. I do not have the same resources as the Government; I cannot issue consultation papers and obtain similar replies, as they can. I shall return with the suitable evidence at another stage. I shall withdraw the amendment on that basis.
I am convinced that the trend towards the involvement of Crown property (government property) in the normal legislative process is one which will proceed. It is not enough to say that the Crown may apply for planning permission when it seeks to dispose of land. It is only "may" apply; not that it shall do so. It is not enough to say that the Crown may now be involved in planning agreements. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, when that was proposed during earlier proceedings of the Committee, we welcomed that change. We need to go further than that now. We need to involve the Crown more seriously in the planning process. We shall return with suitable evidence which I hope will convince the
938
Committee that the change is a worthwhile one which is now well overdue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 252A not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Planning in England and Wales: minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 96, line 27, at end insert:
("Agricultural Land (Removal of Surface Soil) Act 1953 (c. 10.)
Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70.)
. In Part III of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, in the definition of "protected informant", for "172(3)" there is substituted "171A".").
The noble Viscount said: I should like to speak also to Amendment Nos. 254 to 260, 262, and 265 to 269. Schedule 6 is concerned with minor and consequential amendments to the planning Acts in England and Wales. These are all minor, technical amendments to improve the practical operation of various provisions elsewhere in the Bill or to remedy errors and deficiencies in the Bill as published. I need not detain the Committee with detailed descriptions of every amendment, but I am happy to try to answer any points arising from them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 254 to 259:
Page 97, line 5, at end insert:
("4A. In section 56(3) after "87(4)" there is inserted "89".").
Page 97, line 10, at end insert:
("7A. In section 74(2) "section 71 of this Act and" is omitted.").
Page 97, line 39, leave out from ("whether") to ("lawful") in line 43 and insert ("on the date on which the appeal was made, any existing use of the land was lawful, any operations which had been carried out in, on, over or under the land were lawful or any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted was").
Page 98, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
("(1A) The provisions of sections 191 to 194 mentioned in subsection (1B) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (1) (c) as they apply for the purposes of section 191, but as if—

(a) any reference to an application for a certificate were a reference to the appeal and any reference to the date of such an application were a reference to the date on which the appeal is made; and

(b) references to the local planning authority were references to the Secretary of State.

(1B) Those provisions are: sections 191(5) to (7), 193(4) (so far as it relates to the form of the certificate), (6) and (7) and 194".").
Page 98, leave out line 41 and insert:
("(c) in subsection (8) for "172(6)" there is substituted "172".").
Page 99, line 3, after ("(c)") insert ("to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 259A:
Page 99, line 28, at end insert:
("21A. In section 215 at the end of subsection (2) there is added "end may require the doing (while the notice remains in force) at such times or intervals, or within such periods, of any such thing as may be so specified."").
The noble Lord said: This is a small matter but I believe that it is worthwhile because it would save local authorities some extra bureaucracy. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill we discussed the extension of litter controls to private land (Hansard col. 1646; 27th June 1990). In response to a point that I made the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said that the powers were available under the Town and Country Planning Act (col. 1648). That is true, but it is a one-off power.
Section 215 of the Act allows an authority to serve a notice requiring a land owner to clear his land of refuse or whatever else may be covering it. However, once that notice has been served, if the land becomes covered with litter again, a new notice must be served. The amendment would allow the authority to specify, for example, that the land should be cleared monthly or bi-monthly, thus saving it time and trouble in continually have to serve notices to remedy that type of problem.
I am thinking of an area of property or land which is constantly being covered with litter or rubbish. One notice would therefore serve to ensure that the land was cleared on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. The local authority would not have to return each time the ground became covered with litter. I came down from Shrewsbury this morning by train. I do not know when the control of environment and litter clauses will have any effect on the general public, but they are not having any effect yet. There are areas which will become covered with litter after having been cleared until we get the message over. The amendment is a sensible one, and I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, it particularly concerned about litter. Indeed, we have had some interesting debates on the subject during the passage of this Bill and the Environmental Protection Bill through this House. It was then that my noble friend Lord Reay pointed out that a provision existed in the town and country planning legislation that would enable authorities to deal with the problem of litter on private land, including farmland, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. However, I regret that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Section 215 is not specifically for litter but refers to the proper maintenance of land as a whole. Any littering would have to be exceptionally severe to warrant a Section 215 notice. It would more usually be used in cases of dumping or abandoned vehicles. A few fertiliser bags are unlikely to be sufficient to be considered detrimental to the amenities of an area.
940
As the noble Lord will be aware, there are provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for tackling the problem of litter on private land. Power for local authorities to designate litter control areas will cover those areas of private land most likely to be littered and which will have the biggest visual impact on the public. Such areas might include supermarket car parks, shopping centres and motorway service stations but would not include land to which the public are not permitted access.
Furthermore, to issue a notice with a continuous liability —for example, to clear away any litter on land every two weeks or once a month—would be an invitation for unscrupulous individuals to dump litter or refuse on the land in the knowledge that the unfortunate landowner would be under a statutory obligation to remove it. One must take a balanced view about whether it is reasonable to place what might be an onerous continuing liability on a private individual. In these circumstances we take the view that it would be unreasonable.
In most instances a time limited notice would be sufficient to ensure that the land is restored to a proper condition, and it is unlikely that it would return to the previously poor condition within a short space of time. The noble Lord may argue that landowners may wait until the period of notice is up and just leave the land to return to its previous condition but unless he is suggesting that under his amendment a notice imposing a regular requirement would not have a finite life, the unprincipled landowner may do that in any case.
Much as I share the noble Lord's desire to see our country free of the menace of litter, I cannot accept this amendment. Therefore, I must ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Swinfen: I understand my noble friend to say that local authorities already have power to make people remove litter from their land. This power does not always appear to be used. Can he say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that local authorities use such powers? Some parts of this attractive island of ours are in a terrible mess.
Viscount Astor: Under the Environmental Protection Act local authorities have an obligation to designate such areas and tackle the problem of litter.
Lord Ross of Newport: Obviously there are arguments against the amendment, which I accept, but the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is very pertinent. Are we waiting for an order for some of these powers to be implemented or does the Act apply now? I do not have that knowledge, but if the Act is operating now, the noble Lord is absolutely right: nothing seems to be happening.
Viscount Astor: I think I am right in saying that the implementation date is 1st April.
Lord Ross of Newport: That is an appropriate date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 260:

941
Page 99, line 40, leave out from first ("section") to end of line 41 and insert ("286—

(a) in subsection (1), paragraph (b) is omitted and in paragraph (c) for "an established use certificate under section 192" there is substituted "a certificate under section 191 or 192", and

(b) in subsection (2), after "183" there is inserted "or a breach of condition notice under section 187A".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 99, line 41, at end insert:
("27A. In section 288 for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date on which the applicant was notified of the order or decision." ").
The noble Lord said: Under this amendment I am seeking to amend Clause 288(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with the words that appear on the Marshalled List.
Under the Act, in regard to proceedings for questioning the validity of orders, decisions and directions an application must be made within six weeks from the date on which the order was confirmed. The problem is that people who wish to appeal do not always get notified.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has asked for evidence on this. A case occurred in the courts in 1988. It seems to be very unfair that an appeal must be instituted within six weeks of the decision being taken. I understand that that is interpreted by the courts as the date on which the decision letter is typed, signed on behalf of the Secretary and date-stamped. The period is absolute so that if the appeal is brought outside the six weeks it must fail.
In the case to which I referred the High Court rejected the argument that, as a result of a flawed consultation procedure, the Secretary of State was without jurisdiction to determine the appeal. The fact that the applicant was unaware that the local authority had made an appeal and only found out when it was too late meant that he lost his case, which seems to be unfair.
I should have thought that if we put in the word "notified" it would make it abundantly clear that when notification was received an applicant had six weeks from that date. In the case of which I am speaking, the person did not know that the local authority had made an appeal against the decision and so was ruled out of court when he went to law. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I listened with interest to the noble Lord. He will appreciate that the rule provided for in Section 288 is a long-standing one. Indeed, it goes back to the 1962 Act. In addition, it has the merit of clarity. The period runs from the time of the Secretary of State's decision or order. The date should thus be clearly recorded and there should be no dispute about it. All those involved can be clear that risk of High Court challenge is over once the six-week period has expired. Where there is such a risk, a developer may be anxiously waiting to start his development until he is sure that it is safe to do so.
942
I am concerned that this amendment would introduce uncertainty as to time. As I understand it, the noble Lord is proposing that the time would run from the date of notification, which is not defined. Indeed, in certain circumstances it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain it precisely. That must be undesirable.
The noble Lord would gain greater sympathy for his proposal if the period in question were a very short one, say two or three days, but where there is a duration of six weeks it would seem appropriate to have a fixed time running for six weeks from the date of the decision.
Lord Swinfen: Could my noble friend say what steps are taken to ensure that the applicant is notified?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand it, he would be notified. There may be cases where the notification is not instantaneous and is not necessarily given overnight and where there are delays of some few days. It was for that reason that I indicated that if the period in question were five days or a week I could see greater force in the amendment that is being proposed if through inadvertence or minor incompetence the decision was not immediately notified to the applicant. In such circumstances one might wish to rely on something other than a fixed period of time from the date of the order, but where there is a period of six weeks, even if there has been a short delay—and I do not think that there has been more than a short delay in the past—it would be better to keep to the rule provided, which has the merit of clarity and people know without doubt from which point the decision begins to run.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for what he has said, but he has not answered the question I asked. I asked what steps are taken to ensure that the applicant is notified.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I indicated that notification should be given to the applicant in the ordinary way. It is not a matter of notification being sent by recorded delivery or registered post, or being personally served on an applicant. As I understand the situation, the applicant is notified in the normal manner.
Lord Ross of Newport: We know that things can go wrong with the post. However, in the case that I referred to, the local planning authority admitted that it had not notified the applicant of its appeal to the Secretary of State. The applicant was in total ignorance of that. I have heard what the noble and learned Lord has said. I hope that we can bring forward a slightly different amendment on Report. I believe this area should be covered. I realise that one cannot cover every eventuality but, in the case I referred to, the applicant lost out because of the present wording of the law. He should not have lost out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 100, line 4, at end insert:
("29A.—(1) Section 299 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for "determination under section 64" there is substituted "certificate under section 192".
(3) In subsection (2) for "or determination" there is substituted "or certificate".
(4) For subsection (4) there is substituted—
(4) Any application made by virtue of this section for a certificate under section 192 shall be determined as if the land were not Crown land."
(5) In subsection (5) (a) for "determinations" there is substituted "certificates".
(6) In subsection (6) for "determination" there is substituted "certificate".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 100, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) in the definition of "building operations" after the words "includes" there shall be inserted "demolition or" ")
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a rather more important matter as it relates to the obtaining of planning consent for demolition. I am aware that this matter has been debated in another place. A Private Member's Bill has been introduced in another place to cover this situation. I believe that it was introduced in the previous Session.
At present it is considered that the demolition of a building does not usually require planning permission because it is not a building operation as defined in the 1990 Act. In the report Control of Demolition of 1974 by Mr. George Dobry QC, a recommendation was made that demolition should be brought under control. However, that recommendation has never been implemented. The amendment before us this evening would bring demolition under control as recommended in the report. It would stop someone demolishing an existing building in order to force a planning authority's hand. Further, the gap in the legislation inhibits proper planning of an area. Furthermore, the amendment would prevent premature demolition of houses and other buildings in advance of firm proposals for the redevelopment of a complete site, and the demolition of buildings within a community such as shops, cinemas and other such buildings.
If the amendment were passed, the general development order of 1988 could also be amended to provide exceptions for minor operations or those which do not materially affect the external appearance of a building. We do not wish to be too niggardly about this matter but some alarming cases have been brought to my attention. I am sure the Minister will be aware of a case in North London where half of a semi-detached house was pulled down. The people living there went through absolute hell as they were exposed to the elements. However, there was little they could do about the matter. I have received photographs of that house.
The National Housing and Town Planning Council worked with Mr. John Wilkinson MP, on his Private Member's Bill to try to bring such situations under planning control. The council has stated that it wants,
"to establish a system that would be genuinely effective in controlling demolition, without being unduly onerous in cases where demolition did not matter. We were inclined to the view
944
that prior notification had advantages, but did not wish to rule out other possibilities, including amending the definition of development (or building operations).
We have been disappointed that the Government has not followed up the responses to that consultation with any proposals for action"
in this legislation.
I draw the Minister's attention to the article that was written by Mr. Hugh Dykes MP entitled Nightmare on Elms Road. That illustrates how appalling it is when half someone's house is taken away. This matter should be given serious consideration while we are debating this legislation. On the whole it has the support of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. That body believes demolition should be brought under planning control. Obviously I shall listen to what the Minister has to say. I hope I shall obtain some support for this matter in this Chamber. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I give my strong support to this important amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, this matter has come before Members in another place on a number of occasions. As the Minister will no doubt make clear, it is a matter which has been discussed within the department, and it is a matter on which there has been consultation. I believe that a consultation document was produced last summer which proposed a number of different alternative solutions for dealing with this complex and potentially serious subject.
The consultation document suggested, first, that more conservation areas should be established. By that it meant areas where special consent was needed to demolish a building. Secondly, the document suggested there should be more closely defined special development areas where planning permission was required before a building could be demolished. Thirdly, the document suggested there should be some system of prior notification. Fourthly, it was suggested there should be a code of practice and, fifthly, that there should be further planning policy guidance which made it clear that there was no planning advantage in demolishing a building. In other words, demolition did not give the applicant the right to assume that he would obtain permission for a more intensive or different use, or that his case would be strengthened by the fact that he was now dealing with a vacant site rather than an existing building.
The proposal behind my amendment—that is, to change the definition of development—appeared only as the sixth alternative in the consultation document. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to analyse the results of the consultation. Certainly the view of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is that the sixth alternative—that is changing the definition of development—is the right course to follow because demolition that is intended to bypass or circumvent the planning laws can be an extremely damaging procedure in towns, cities and villages. It can create vacant sites which are eyesores and can be health hazards. It can involve the loss of large houses which need not necessarily be architecturally

945
distinguished in themselves but which make up the character of an area. The character of an area can be dramatically changed if they are removed in a random and haphazard way.
Developers and others may make the supposition that demolition without permission is being carried out in order to force the hand of the local planning authority. There is no doubt that local planning authorities are under pressure to give permission for some other use when the alternative is an empty site which is an eyesore. There may already be light at the end of the tunnel. I read last month in the Local Government Chronicle that Mr. David Widdicombe QC, who is well known and well beloved by the Government, allowed an appeal by Cambridge City Council in its attempt to stop a developer from converting two houses near a new office complex into a car park. Mr. Widdicombe stated that the question of whether demolition constituted development was,
"a ghost which haunts planning law. The time has now come for the ghost to be laid".
I do not know whether there will be a further appeal on the case which came before Mr. Widdicombe. However, it would be to the advantage of everyone concerned, and would make the planning law clearer, if the Government now recognised that the evasion or avoidance of planning controls by unauthorised demolition can no longer be ignored, and that unless this is put right there will be a major gap in the effectiveness of our planning law. I hope the Government will agree with the proposals contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised an issue which we know is a matter of concern in some areas of our towns and cities. The worry is that where prospects for redevelopment are commercially attractive—for instance, where large houses in older suburbs have sites which could accommodate several smaller modern houses—developers may try to force the hand of the planning authority by demolishing the existing property before they seek planning permission for redevelopment. The general assumption—at any rate until a few days ago—has been that they need no permission to demolish, unless the building is listed or is in a conservation area.
The concern is that the planning authority may in those circumstances be pressured into giving permission for redevelopment which it would not in ordinary circumstances have found acceptable. It may do so on the basis that the only alternative is to accept that the site will be left vacant and untidy.
Those arguments were put to us in support of a Private Member's Bill in another place last spring. As a result we undertook a consultation exercise aimed at establishing the real extent of the problem and what might be done about it. We made clear at the time that in our view the extent and gravity of the problem should determine the appropriate solution, and a change in primary legislation would only be justified
946
on the basis of systematic and general evidence of a problem going well beyond the natural process of demolition and redevelopment.
We had 175 responses to the consultation paper. Many of them argued for a change in the legislation, but they did not produce systematic evidence of a general and widespread problem. The problem of premature demolition appears to be most prevalent in certain areas of London and the South-East. We have evidence of problems also in some other areas but relatively few in rural areas and shire districts. Even in those areas where demolition has proved a problem, the number of cases giving rise to genuine concern appears to be fairly small.
Against that background, our view is that a great deal can be done to tackle the problem by the inclusion of appropriate policies in local plans and unitary development plans. If a developer knows that the stated policy of the planning authority is not to grant permission for more intensive development in a particular neighbourhood he will know that his chances of forcing its hand by speculative demolition are minimal. After all, it is always open to the planning authority to grant permission for no more than an exact replacement of the original dwelling house.
We intend to give new policy guidance on these matters in a revised and updated planning policy guidance note on housing which will be published shortly. It will make clear that the demolition of existing property does not in itself create any presumption that permission will be granted for more intensive redevelopment. It will also stress that local plan policies can make clear that the creation of an unsightly vacant site will not strengthen the case for redevelopment where on other planning grounds it would not be acceptable. Such policies can, we believe, help a great deal.
The question of legislation is more difficult. One crucial question is the exact significance of the present law. Noble Lords will know that the general understanding has been that demolition does not of itself require planning permission. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, a judgment was given in the High Court only a couple of weeks ago which appears to take the opposite view, at any rate in respect of certain types of demolition. We shall be studying the transcript of that case when it is available with great interest. That is an issue which we can take no further today.
Turning to the noble Lord's amendment, on the face of it it would go far wider than the problem that has been put to us. It would bring all types of demolition under planning control, in all areas. That, in our view, is far too sweeping a response to what seems a relatively limited problem. It would clog an already overloaded planning system with more applications, many of which would be unnecessary. I do not believe that such a step would be justified on the evidence we have of the scale of the problem. It would be preferable, in my view, to deal with the problem through policy guidance and through the policy framework set out in local plans and UDPs. If

947
we were to go down the legislative path I am quite sure that we would have to devise an approach which enabled planning controls over demolition to be applied selectively. I am not convinced at this stage that even that is necessary.
I hope following that explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, responds to the Minister, I hope that she will reconsider her answer to Amendment No. 263. The noble Baroness made much of the point that she had not heard much criticism from shire district councils. My experience, as an active member of the Association of District Councils, is very much to the contrary.
I have personally had to try to stop a developer from knocking down a house opposite mine which was built in the 1860s, and was not in a conservation area. I was able to do so by placing a preservation order on the trees. The house was saved because the site was wrecked for the purposes of the developers.
I believe that the Minister's hope that a vacant site will not produce a presumption in favour of development is not worldly and realistic. That is not what we have come to expect from the Minister. The amendment must be the only way forward and I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider her view before Report stage.
Lord Ross of Newport: I, too, was disappointed with the reply, particularly as it was Cambridge City Council which brought the case which has been mentioned. I hope that the appeal is overruled, in which case the Government will have to take action.
The situation may be easier now, and perhaps for the next year or two, while property speculation is in the doldrums. However, the problem will come back. One knows of cases in which the value of a property on a site is much less when the property is up than when it is down and if one turns the site into a private car park one would probably make a great deal of money.
I do not believe that we should allow the type of situation which occurred in Harrow, where people found that the house next door had suddenly disappeared and great pressure was placed on them by unscrupulous developers to get out of their own property. I believe that I am right in saying that in such a case it is up to the owner of the remaining property to make the outside wall watertight rather than being the job of the developer who has exposed the wall. That point should also be covered. I am very unhappy with the situation.
I accept that the amendment may be too wide. I understand that this is a very difficult area. One does not want to place more work on the planning authorities, who are already under enormous pressures. In my Second Reading speech I pointed out that they are very short staffed. It will be very difficult to get back some of the more experienced staff, particularly as local authorities are short of cash. None of us, on either side of the Chamber, want to
948
place unnecessary burdens on them, but I believe that planning authorities themselves would like to see such a measure brought in.
If it is a question of reconsidering the amendment and defining it more tightly, I shall accept that. However, it is a matter that we must raise on Report. I hope that noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber will support us. It was two Conservative MPs, representing suburban areas of London, who brought the matter forward in another place. I am sure that the problem occurs in other areas. That in itself should have made some impression on the Government.
While giving notice that I intend to bring the matter back, having consulted further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 100, line 40, at end insert:

("(3A) In paragraph 8(1) after sub-paragraph (c) there is inserted "(d) or any amendment to any application, of which the council of a parish or community has been so informed" and after the words "in writing to the application" there is inserted "and of any amendment thereto".

(3B) At the end of paragraph 8(1) there is added "but the authority shall be treated as having satisfied the requirements of this sub-paragraph in any case in which it sends to the council a copy (whether obtained from the applicant or produced by itself) of the application submitted to it and in any case in which such a copy is sent the planning authority shall be entitled to refuse to supply any additional information (other than a copy of any amendment to the application) to the council or to answer any question about the contents of the documents comprising the application".

(3C) In paragraph 8(2) after sub-paragraph (b) there is inserted "(c) a local planning authority not to inform the council of a parish or community of any amendment which is insignificant, or has no substantial modifying effect on the application or is unnecessary to be notified to the council by reason of any comments on the application which it has already submitted to the planning authority".").

The noble Lord said: This is a special case in the series of amendments which I have been moving to protect the rights of parish and community councils. The particular complaint that we have received from a number of parish and community councils relates to the fact that they are notified of an application for planning permission but they have no assurance that they will be notified of any amendment to it.
Amendment No. 264 makes two changes which give parish councils the same basic right to be informed of the amendment to an application as of the original application. We do not want there to be useless notification of trivia, so we remove the duty to notify when the amendment is insignificant or is unnecessary because the parish council has covered its scope in its original comments.
I believe that the amendment is in line with the thinking of the Government on the relationship between parish councils and local planning authorities. I hope that it will therefore prove acceptable to Ministers. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The amendment represents a logical extension of the statutory requirement for local planning authorities to notify parish or community

949
councils of applications for planning permission. The Government are therefore content to accept the principle of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 265 to 269:
Page 100, line 41, leave out ("the words") and insert (""serving" there is inserted "planning contravention notices under section 171C or" and after").
Page 101, line 16, leave out ("and").
Page 101, line 22, at end insert:
("(aa) In the entry relating to sections 61 to 64 for "64" there is substituted "63"").
Page 101, line 39, at end insert:
("Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 (c. 11.)
39. In Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990, paragraph 10 is omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 265 to 269 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 270 to 273:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("Mines and waste - Scotland
1. The 1972 Act is amended as follows.
2. In section 27A (aftercare conditions on permission for winning and working of minerals)—

(a) in subsection (1) after "minerals" there is inserted "or involving the depositing of refuse or waste materials";

(b) in subsection (2) for "operations for the winning and working of minerals have been completed" there is substituted "the winning and working is completed or the depositing has ceased"; and

(c) in subsection (18) for the words from "carried out" to "under the land" there is substituted "won and worked minerals or deposited refuse or waste materials".

3. In section 38(3) (circumstances in which general condition limiting duration of planning permission does not apply) for paragraph (bb) there is substituted—
"(bb) to any planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste which is granted (or deemed to be granted) subject to a condition that the development to which it relates must be begun before the expiration of a specified period after—

(i) the completion of other development consisting of the winning and working of minerals already being carried out by the applicant for the planning permission; or

(ii) the cessation of depositing of mineral waste already being carried out by the applicant for the planning permission;".

4.—(1) In section 41A (limit of duration of planning permission for winning and working of minerals), in subsection (1) for "consisting of the winning and working of minerals" there is substituted "—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals; or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,".

(2) In subsections (2) and (5) of that section for "development", in both places where it occurs, there is substituted "the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste".
(3) In subsections (6) and (7) of that section the words "consisting of the winning and working of minerals" in both places where they occur, are omitted.
5.—(1) Section 49 (discontinuance orders, etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1A), after "minerals" there is inserted "or involving the deposit of refuse or waste materials".
(3) In subsection (1B), for "of minerals" there is substituted "or depositing".
(4) In subsection (1C), after "minerals" there is inserted "or involving the deposit of refuse or waste materials".
(5) For subsection (1E) there is substituted—
"(1E) An order under this section may grant planning permission for any development of the land to which the order relates, subject to such conditions as may be—

(a) required by section 41A of this Act; or

(b) specified in the order.".

(6) In subsection (1F), for the words from "before" to "under it" there is substituted "before the development began";
(f) in subsection (7) at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (7A) of this section,".
(7) After subsection (7) there is inserted—
"(7A) Subsection (7) of this section does not apply where the order under this section relates to the discontinuance of a use of land consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the deposit of refuse or waste materials.".
6.—(1) For subsections (1) to (3) of section 49A (prohibition of resumption of winning and working of minerals) there is substituted—
"(1) Where it appears to the planning authority—
(a) that development of land—

(i) consisting of the winning and working of minerals; or

(ii) involving the depositing of mineral waste, has occurred; but

(b) the winning and working or depositing has permanently ceased,
the planning authority may by order—

(i) prohibit the resumption of the winning and working or the depositing; and

(ii) impose, in relation to the site, any such requirement as is specified in subsection (3) of this section.

(2) The planning authority may assume that the winning and working or the depositing has permanently ceased only when—

(a) no winning and working or depositing has occurred, to any substantial extent, at the site for a period of at least two years; and

(b) it appears to the planning authority, on the evidence available to them at the time when they make the order, that resumption of the winning and working or the depositing to any substantial extent at the site is unlikely.

(3) The requirements mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

(a) a requirement to alter or remove plant or machinery which was used for the purpose of the winning and working or the depositing or for any purpose ancillary to that purpose;

(b) a requirement to take such steps as may be specified in the order, within such period as may

951
be so specified, for the purpose of removing or alleviating any injury to amenity which has been caused by the winning and working or depositing, other than injury due to subsidence caused by underground mining operations;

(c) a requirement that any condition subject to which planning permission for the development was granted or which has been imposed by virtue of any provision of this Act shall be complied with; and

(d) a restoration condition."

(2) At the end of subsection (11) of that section there is inserted "or involving the depositing of mineral waste".
7. For subsections (1) to (3) of section 49B (orders after suspension of winning and working of minerals) there is substituted—
"(1) Where it appears to the planning authority—

(a) that development of land—

(i) consisting of the winning and working of minerals; or

(ii) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

has occurred; but

(b) the winning and working or depositing has been temporarily suspended,

the planning authority may by order (in this Act referred to as a "suspension order") require that steps be taken for the protection of the environment.
(2) The planning authority may assume that the winning and working or the depositing has been temporarily suspended only when—

(a) no such winning and working or depositing has occurred, to any substantial extent, at the site for a period of at least 12 months; but

(b) it appears to the planning authority, on the evidence available to them at the time when they make the order, that a resumption of such winning and working or depositing to a substantial extent is likely.

(4) In this Act "steps for the protection of the environment" means steps for the purpose—

(a) of preserving the amenities of the area in which the land in, on or under which the development was carried out is situated during the period while the winning and working or the depositing is suspended;

(b) of protecting that area from damage during that period; or

(c) of preventing any deterioration in the condition of the land during that period.".

8. In section 49F (resumption of winning and working of minerals after suspension order)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "in, on or under the land" there is substituted "or involving the depositing of mineral waste at the site";

(b) in subsection (2) for "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals" there is substituted "the development";

(c) for subsection (3) there is substituted—

"(3) The planning authority shall revoke the order if the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste has recommenced to a substantial extent at the site in relation to which the order has effect.";
(d) for subsection (7) there is substituted—
"(7) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste has recommenced to a substantial extent at the site in relation to which the order has effect, he shall revoke the order."
9. In sections 100(1) (b) (enforcement of orders under sections 49, 49A and 49B) and 251(1) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) after "minerals" there is inserted "or involving the depositing of mineral waste".
10.—(1) Section 167A (regulations as to compensation in respect of orders relating to mineral working etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (7A) of this section,".
(3) After subsection (7) there is inserted—
"(7A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) (a) of this subsection may provide that where an order is made under—

(a) section 42 of this Act modifying planning permission for development involving the depositing of mineral waste; or

(b) section 49, 49A or 49B of this Act with respect to such depositing,

sections 153, 159, 167, 226 and 227 of this Act shall have effect subject, in such cases as may be prescribed, to such modifications as may be prescribed.
(7B) Any such regulations as are mentioned in subsection (7A) of this section may make provision—

(a) as to circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable;

(b) for the modification of the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation is to be assessed;

(c) for the assessment of any such amount on a basis different from that on which it would otherwise have been assessed,

and may also make different provision for different cases and incidental or supplementary provision."
(4) In subsection (10) for "have effect until" there is substituted "be made unless a draft of the regulations is laid before and".
(5) In subsection (11) "or bodies of persons" is omitted.
11.—(1) In section 251A(1) (duty of planning authorities to review mineral workings) for the words from "site" where it first occurs to the end there is substituted "mining site in their area; and
(b) to consider whether they should make an order under section 42, 49, 49A or 49B of this Act, and if they do consider that they should make any such order, to make it."
(2) For subsection (2) of that section there is substituted—
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) "a mining site" means a site which

(a) is being used for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste;

(b) has been so used at any time during—

(i) the period of five years preceding the date of the beginning of the review; or

(ii) such other period preceding that date as may be prescribed; or

(c) is authorised to be so used."

12. In section 275(1) (interpretation}—

(a) in the definition of "buildings and works" for "or construction" there is substituted "construction, carrying out or demolition";"

(b) after the definition of "conservation area" there is inserted—

""depositing of mineral waste" means any process whereby a mineral-working deposit is created or enlarged and "depositing of refuse or waste materials" includes the depositing of mineral waste;
(c) the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals" is omitted;
(d) in the definition of "minerals" for "minerals and substances in or under land" there is substituted "substances"; and
(e) at the end there is inserted—
""the winning and working of minerals" includes the extraction of minerals from a mineral working deposit."").
After Schedule 6 insert the following new Schedule—
("Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances:
Scotland. The 1972 Act
1. The 1972 Act is amended as follows.
2. For section 53(5) (offences: penalties) there is substituted—
"(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both."

3. In section 56L(4) (offences)—

(a) for "the statutory maximum" there is substituted "£20,000"; and

(b) for the words following paragraph (b) there is substituted—

"(4A) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence."
4. In section 92, (power to serve listed buildings enforcement notice), for subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) A listed building enforcement notice shall specify the date upon which it is to take effect, being a date not less than twenty-eight days after the latest service thereof under subsection (3) of this section.".
5. After section 92 there is inserted—
"Variation and withdrawal of listed building enforcement notices
92A.—(1) A planning authority—

(a) may waive or relax any requirement of a listed building, enforcement notice issued by them and, in particular, may extend the period specified in accordance with section 92(1)(c) of this Act in the notice; or

(b) if it appears to them that such a notice no longer serves any useful purpose, may withdraw it.

(2) The powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section may be exercised after the notice takes effect and those conferred by paragraph (a) of that subsection may also be exercised before the notice takes effect.
(3) Those powers shall not be exercised unless the authority—

(a) have given notice of their proposal to every person who has been served with a copy of the listed building enforcement notice or would, if the notice were re-issued, be served with a copy of it; and

(b) have considered any representations made to them, within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of service, by any of the persons served with notice of their proposal.

(4) The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise to every person to whom they gave notice of their proposal.
(5) The withdrawal of a listed building enforcement notice does not affect the power of the planning authority to issue a further listed building enforcement notice."
6.—(1) Section 93 (appeals) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) that the matters alleged to constitute a contravention of section 53(1) or (4) of this Act have not occured;
(ba) that those matters (if they occurred) do not constitute such a contravention;"; and
(b) paragraph (k) is omitted.
(3) For subsection (2) of that section there is substituted—
"(2) An appeal under this section shall be made either—

(a) by giving written notice of the appeal to the Secretary of State before the date specified in the listed building enforcement notice as the date on which it is to take effect; or

(b) by sending such notice to him in a properly addressed and pre-paid letter posted to him at such time that, in the ordinary course of post, it would be delivered to him before that date."

(4) In subsection (4) (power to correct notice on appeal), for paragraph (a) there is substituted—
"(a) the Secretary of State may—

(i) correct any defect, error or misdescription in the listed building enforcement notice; or

(ii) vary the terms of the listed building enforcement notice,

if he is satisfied that the correction or variation will not cause injustice to the appellant or the planning authority."
(5) In subsection (5), the words "or for varying the terms of the notice in favour of the appellant" are omitted. 7. For section 94 (penalties for non-compliance with listed building enforcement notice) there is substituted—
"Offence where listed building enforcement notice not complied with.
94.—(1) Where, after the end of the compliance period, any step required by a listed building enforcement notice to be taken has not been taken, the person who is for the time being owner of the land is in breach of the duty under this subsection.
(2) If at any time the owner of the land is in breach of a listed building enforcement notice he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) An offence under this section may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.
(4) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for him to show—

(a) that he did everything he could be expected to do to secure that all the steps required by the notice were taken; or

(b) that he was not served with a copy of the listed building enforcement notice and was not aware of its existence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence."
8. In section 95 (execution and cost of works required by listed building enforcement notice), at the end there is inserted—

955
"(4) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
9.—(1) In section 97B (power to issue hazardous substances contravention notice)—

(a) in subsection (3)(b) after "remedy" there is inserted "wholly or partly", and

(b)in subsection (8) after "before" there is inserted "or after", and

(c) at the end of subsection (9) there is inserted "or would, if the notice were re-issued, be served with a copy of it".

10. After section 97A there is inserted—
"Further provision as to rights of entry in relation to listed buildings
97AB.—(1) The provisions of this section and of section 97AC of this Act shall apply, in place of the provisions of section 266 of this Act, to rights of entry exercised under section 265 of this Act in relation to listed buildings and listed buildings control.
(2) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace on information on oath—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for entering any land for any of the purposes mentioned in section 265 of this Act; and

(b) that—

(i) admission to the land has been refused, or a refusal is reasonably apprehended; or

(ii) the case is one of urgency,

the justice may issue a warrant authorising any person duly authorised in writing to enter the land.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) of this section admission to land shall be regarded as having been refused if no reply is received to a request for admission within a reasonable period.
(4) A warrant authorises entry on one occasion only and that entry must be—

(a) within one month from the date of the issue of the warrant; and

(b) at a reasonable hour, unless the case is one of urgency.

Rights of entry in relation to listed buildings: supplementary provisions
97AC.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a person authorised to enter any land in pursuance of a right of entry conferred under or by virtue of section 265 or 97AB of this Act (referred to in this section as "a right of entry"—

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering;

(b) may take with him such other persons as may be necessary; and

(c) on leaving the land shall, if the owner or occupier is not then present, leave it as effectively secured against trespassers as he found it.

(2) Admission to any land which is occupied shall not be demanded as of right by virtue of section 265 of this section unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the land.
(3) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of a right of entry shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) If any land is damaged in the exercise of a right of entry, compensation in respect of that damage may be recovered by any person interested in the land from the person who gave the written authority for the entry.
(5) If any person who enters any land, in exercise of a right of entry, discloses to any person any information obtained by him while on the land as to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if the disclosure is made by a person in the course of performing his duty in connection with the purpose for which he was authorised to enter the land.
(7) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
(8) No person shall carry out any works in exercise of a power conferred under section 97 of this Act unless notice of his intention to do so was included in the notice required by subsection (2) of this section.
(9) The authority of the appropriate Minister shall be required for the carrying out of works in exercise of a power conferred under section 97 of this Act if—

(a) the land in question is held by statutory undertakers; and

(b) they object to the proposed works on the ground that the execution of the works would be seriously detrimental to the carrying on of their undertaking.

(10) Section 213(1) of this Act applies for the purposes of subsection (8) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 266(6)(b) of this Act."
11. After section 97B ther is inserted—
"VAriation of hazardous substances contravention notices.
97BA.—(1) A planning authority may waive or relax any requirement of a hazardous substances contravention notice issued by them and, in particular, may extend any period specified in accordance with section 97B(5)(b) of this Act in the notice.
(2) The powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section may be exercised before or after the notice takes effect.
(3) Those powers shall not be exercised unless the authority—

(a) have given notice of their proposal to every person who has been served with a copy of the hazardous substances contravention notice or would, if the notice were re-issued, be served with a copy of it; and

(b) have considered any representations made to them, within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of service, by any of the persons served with notice of their proposal.

(4) The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise to every person to whom they gave notice of their proposal.
Further provision as to rights of entry in relation to hazardous substances control
97BB.— (1) The provisions of this section and of section 97BC of this Act apply, in place of the provisions of section 266 of this Act, to rights of entry exercised under section 265 of this Act in relation to applications for hazardous substances consent and hazardous substances control.
(2) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace on information on oath—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for entering any land for any of the purposes mentioned in section 265 of this Act; and

(b) that—

(i) admission to the land has been refused, or a refusal is reasonably apprehended; or

957

(ii) the case is one of urgency,

the justice may issue a warrant authorising any person duly authorised in writing to enter the land.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) of this section admission to land shall be regarded as having been refused if no reply is received to a request for admission within a reasonable period.
(3) A warrant authorises entry on one occasion only and that entry must be—

(a) within one month from the date of the issue of the warrant; and

(b) at a reasonable hour, unless the case is one of urgency.

Rights of entry in relation to hazardous substances control: supplementary provisions.
97BC.—(1) A person authorised to enter any land in pursuance of a right of entry conferred under or by virtue of section 265 or 97BB of this Act (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")—

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering;

(b) may take with him such other persons as may be necessary; and

(c) on leaving the land shall, if the owner or occupier is not then present, leave it as effectivly secured against trespassers as he found it.

(2) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of a right of entry shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary convinction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3) If any land is damaged in the exercise of a right of entry, compensation in respect of the damage may be recovered by any person interested in the land from the person who gave the written authority for the entry.
(4) If any person who enters any land, in exercise of a right of entry, discloses to any person any information obtained by him while on the land as to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the disclosure is made by a person in the course of performing his duty in connection with the purpose for which he was authorised to enter the land.
(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (4) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
(7) The authority of the appropriate Minister shall be required for the carrying out of works in exercise of a power conferred under section 265(8) of this Act if—

(a) the land in question is held by statutory undertakers; and

(b) they object to the proposed works on the ground that the execution of the works would be seriously detrimental to the carrying on of their undertaking.

(8) Section 213(1) of this Act applies for the purposes of subsection (7) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 266(6)(b) of this Act."
Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65.)
12. In Part I of Schedule 30 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the following is inserted at the appropriate place among the provisions there listed: 92A; 97AB.")
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—
("Simplified Planning Zones - Scotland
Part I
Modification of procedure for making or altering schemes
Procedure before and after deposit of proposals
1. In Schedule 6A to the 1972 Act (simplified planning zones) for paragraphs 5 and 6 there is substituted—
"Steps to be taken before depositing proposals
5.—(1) A planning authority proposing to make or alter a simplified planning zone scheme shall, before determining the content of their proposals, comply with this paragraph.
(2) They shall—

(a) consult—

(i) the Secretary of State; and

(ii) any local roads authority in whose area the proposed zone or any part of it lies,

as to the effect any proposals they may make might have on existing or future roads; and

(b) consult or notify such persons as regulations may require them to consult or, as the case may be, notify.

(3) They shall take such steps as may be prescribed, or as the Secretary of State may in a particular case direct, to publicise—

(a) the fact that they propose to make or alter a simplified planning zone scheme, and

(b) the matters which they are considering including in the proposals.

(4) They shall consider any representations that are made in accordance with regulations.
Procedure after deposit of proposals
6. Where a planning authority have prepared a proposed simplified planning zone scheme, or proposed alterations to a simplified planning zone scheme, they shall—

(a) make copies of the proposed scheme or alterations available for inspection at such places as may be prescribed;

(b) take such steps as may be prescribed for the purpose of advertising the fact that the proposed scheme or alterations are so available and the places at which, and times during which, they may be inspected;

(c) take such steps as may be prescribed for inviting representations or objections to be made within such period as may be prescribed; and

(d) send a copy of the proposed scheme or alterations to the Secretary of State and to any local roads authority whom they have consulted under paragraph 5(2) (a) of this Schedule."

Dealing with objections, etc.
2.—(1) For paragraph 7(1) to (3) (objections: local inquiry or other hearing) there is substituted—
"Procedure for dealing with objections
7.—(1) Where objections to the proposed scheme or alterations are made, the planning authority may—

(a) for the purpose of considering the objections, cause a local inquiry or other hearing to be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State or, in such cases as may be prescribed, appointed by the authority, or

(b) require the objections to be considered by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) A planning authority shall exercise the power under sub-paragraph (1), or paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State."
(2) For paragraph 10(3) and (4) (consideration of objections, etc., by Secretary of State) there is substituted—
"(3) Where on taking the proposals into consideration the Secretary of State does not determine then to reject them he shall, before determining whether or not to approve them, consider any objections made in accordance with regulations (and not withdrawn) except objections which—

(a) have already been considered by the planning authority or by a person appointed by the Secretary of State, or

(b) have already been considered at a local inquiry or other hearing.

(4) The Secretary of State may—

(a) for the purpose of considering any objections and the views of the planning authority and of such other persons as he thinks fit, cause a local inquiry or other hearing to be held by a person appointed by him, or

(b) require such objections and views to be considered by a person appointed by him.

(5) In considering the proposals the Secretary of State may consult with, or consider the views of, any planning authority or any other person; but he need not do so, or give an opportunity for the making or consideration of representations or objections, except so far as he is required to do so by sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph."

Part II Minor and consequential amendments
3. Schedule 6A to the 1972 Act is amended as follows.
4. At the end of paragraph 4(1) there is added "and, in either case, requires the planning authority to take all the steps required by this Schedule for the adoption of proposals for the making or, as the case may be, alteration of a scheme."
5. In paragraph 7(4) for "to hold a local inquiry or other hearing" there is substituted "for the purposes of this paragraph".
(6).—(1) In paragraph 8 for sub-paragraph (1) there is substituted—
"(1) After the expiry of the period for making objections or, if objections have been made in accordance with the regulations, after considering those objections and the views of any person holding an inquiry or hearing or considering the objections under paragraph 7, the planning authority may by resolution adopt the proposals (subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and of paragraph 9 of this Schedule)."
(2) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, for "consider modifying" there is substituted "modify".
7. In paragraph 9(2) (a) after "hearing" there is inserted "or any consideration of objections".
8. For paragraph 11(1) there is substituted—
"11.—(1) Where—

(a) a planning authority are directed under paragraph 3 to make a simplified planning zone scheme which the Secretary of State considers appropriate or to alter such a scheme in such manner as he considers appropriate, and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied, after holding a local inquiry or other hearing, that the authority are not taking within a reasonable period the steps required by this Schedule for the adoption of proposals for the making or, as the case may be, alteration of a scheme,

he may himself make a scheme or, as the case may be, the alterations."
9. In paragraph 12(2) —
(a) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
960
"(bb) make provision with respect to the circumstances in which representations with respect to the matters to be included in such a scheme or proposals for its alteration are to be treated, for the purposes of this Schedule, as being objections made in accordance with regulations;" and
(b) in paragraph (e) the words from "for the purpose" to "5(3)" are omitted.").
After Schedule 6 insert the following new Schedule—
("Planning compensation repeals-Scotland: minor and consequential amendments
Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c.51)
1. In section 23 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (assumptions not directly derived from development plans)—
(a) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, it shall be assumed that, in respect of the relevant land or any part of it, planning permission would be granted—

(a) subject to the condition set out in Schedule 16 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, for any development of a class specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to that Act; and

(b) for any development of a class specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act."; and

(b) in subsection (4), paragraphs (a) and (b) are omitted.
(2) This paragraph shall have effect, or be treated as having had effect, in relation to compensation which fell or falls to be assessed by reference to prices current on 16th November 1990 or on any subsequent date.
Gas Act 1965 (c. 36)
2. In Schedule 3 to the Gas Act 1965, paragraph (3) is omitted.
Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 56)
3.—(1) In section 5 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (assessment of compensation: assumptions as to planning permission)—
(a) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(3) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be assumed that, in respect of the land in which the interest subsists ("the relevant land") or any part of it, planning permission would be granted—

(a) subject to the condition set out in Schedule 16 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, for any development of a class specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to that Act; and

(b) for any development of a class specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act."; and

(b) in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) and (b) are omitted.
(2) This paragraph shall have effect, or be treated as having had effect, where the relevant date for the purposes of Part I of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 fell or falls on or after 16th November 1990.
The 1972 Act
4. The 1972 Act is amended as follows.
5. In section 19 (meaning of "development" and "new development") subsection (5) (meaning of new development) is omitted.
6. In section 40(3) (date when development is begun), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) development of a class specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act;".
7. In the proviso to section 29(2) (permission to retain buildings or works or continue use of land), for "of sections 64 to 83 or of Part VII" there is substituted "or of sections 64 to 83".
8. Sections 35 and 36 (review of planning decisions where compensation claimed) are omitted.
9. In section 56G (deemed hazardous substances consent by virtue of authorisation of government department), in subsection (3) for "Parts VII and XII" there is substituted "Part VII".
10. In section 58(2)(a) (tree preservation orders) "35, 36" is omitted.
11. In section 231(3) (validity of orders etc.) paragraph (c) is omitted.
12. In section 106 (compensation on compulsory acquisition of listed building) the words from "other than" to the end are omitted.
13.—(1) In section 153(4) (compensation where planning permission modified or revoked) for "for development of the land of any class specified in Schedule 6 to this Act" there is substituted "—

(a) subject to the condition set out in Schedule 16, for any development of a class specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6;

(b) for any development of a class specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6."

(2) This paragraph shall have effect, or be treated as having had effect, in relation to claims made on or after 16th November 1990.
14. In section 155 (recording and apportionment of compensation for depreciation)—
(a) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) Regulations under this section shall make provision—

(a) for enabling the claimant or any other person to whom notice of the planning authority's apportionment has been given in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, or who establishes that he is entitled to an interest in land which is substantially affected by such an apportionment, if he wishes to dispute the apportionment, to require it to be referred to the Lands Tribunal;

(b) for enabling the claimant and any other person mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection to be heard by the Tribunal on any reference under this section of that apportionment; and

(c) for requiring the Tribunal, on any such reference, either to confirm or vary the apportionment and to notify the parties of the decision.";

(b) in subsection (5), the words from "and subsection (5)" to the end are omitted;
(c) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(5A) In relation to compensation for depreciation specified in a notice recorded or, as the case may be, registered under the preceding provisions of this section, references in this Part of this Act to so much of the compensation as if attributable to a part of the land to which the notice relates shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say—

(a) if the notice does not include an apportionment under the preceding provisions of this section, the amount of the compensation shall be treated as distributed rateably according to area over the land to which the notice relates;

(b) if the notice includes such an apportionment, the compensation shall be treated as distributed in accordance with that apportionment as between the different parts of the land by reference to which the apportionment is made; and so much of the compensation as, in accordance with the apportionment, is
962
attributed to a part of the land shall be treated as distributed rateably according to area over that part of the land."; and

(d) in subsection (6), "and in section 156 of this Act" is omitted.
15. Section 156 (contribution by Secretary of State towards compensation in certain cases) is omitted.
16. Before section 157 there is inserted—
"Recovery of compensation on subsequent development.
156A.—(1) No person shall carry out any development to which this section applies, on land in respect of which a notice (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "compensation notice") is recorded or, as the case may be, registered under section 155(5) of this Act, until such amount, if any, as is recoverable under this section in respect of the compensation specified in the notice has been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, this section applies to any development—

(a) which is development of a residential commercial or industrial character and consists wholly or mainly of the construction of houses, flats, shop or office premises, or industrial buildings (including warehouses), or any combination thereof; or

(b) which consists in the winning and working of minerals; or

(c) to which, having regard to the probable value of the development, it is in the opinion of the Secretary of State reasonable that this section should apply.

(3) This section shall not apply to any development by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of this section if, on an application made to him for the purpose, the Secretary of State has certified that, having regard to the probable value of the development, it is not in his opinion reasonable that this section should apply thereto.
(4) Where the compensation specified in the compensation notice became payable in respect of the imposition of conditions on the granting of permission to develop land, this section shall not apply to the development for which that permission was granted.
(5) This section does not apply to any development—

(a) of a class specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 which is carried out in accordance with the condition set out in Schedule 16; or

(b) of a class specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6.

(6) This section does not apply in a case where the compensation under section 153 of this Act specified in a compensation notice became payable in respect of an order modifying planning permission, and the development is in accordance with that permission as modified by that order.
Amount recoverable, and provisions for payment or remission thereof.
156B.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amount recoverable under section 156A of this Act in respect of the compensation specified in a compensation notice—

(a) if the land on which the development is to be carried out (in this subsection referred to as "the development area") is identical with, or includes (with other land) the whole of, the land comprised in the compensation notice, shall be the amount of compensation specified in that notice;

(b) if the development area forms part of the land comprised in the compensation notice, or includes part of that land together with other land not comprised in that notice, shall be so much of the amount of the compensation

963
specified in that notice as is attributable to land comprised in that notice and falling within the development area.

(2) Where, in the case of any land in respect of which a compensation notice has been recorded, the Secretary of State is satisfied, having regard to the probable value of any proper development of that land, that no such development is likely to be carried out unless he exercises his powers under this subsection, he may, in the case of any particular development, remit the whole or any part of any amount otherwise recoverable under section 156A of this Act.
(3) Where, in connection with the development of any land, an amount becomes recoverable under section 156A of this Act in respect of the compensation specified in a compensation notice, then, except where, and to the extent that, payment of that amount has been remitted under subsection (2) of this section, no amount shall be recoverable under section 156A of this Act in respect of that compensation, in so far as it is attributable to that land, in connection with any subsequent development thereof.
(4) No amount shall be recoverable under section 156A of this Act in respect of any compensation by reference to which a sum has become recoverable by the Secretary of State under section 244 of this Act.
(5) An amount recoverable under section 156A of this Act in respect of any compensation shall be payable to the Secretary of State, and

(a) shall be so payable either as a single capital payment or as a series of instalments of capital and interest combined, or as a series of other annual or periodical payments, of such amounts, and payable at such times, as the Secretary of State may direct, after taking into account any representations made by the person by whom the development is to be carried out; and

(b) except where the amount is payable as a single capital payment, shall he secured by that person to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State (whether by heritable or other security, personal bond or otherwise).

(6) If any person initiates any development to which section 156A applies in contravention of subsection (1) of that section, the Secretary of State may serve a notice on him specifying the amount appearing to the Secretary of State to be the amount recoverable under that section in respect of the compensation in question, and requiring him to pay that amount to the Secretary of State within such period, not being less than three months after the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice.
(7) Where, after a compensation notice in respect of any land has been recorded or, as the case may be, registered, any amount recoverable under this section in respect of the compensation specified in the notice, or any part of such amount, has been paid to the Secretary of State, or circumstances arise under which by virtue of any provision of this Act no amount is so recoverable in respect of the land specified in the notice or any part of that land, the Secretary of State shall cause to be recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland, a notice of that fact, specifying the land to which such fact relates, and, in the case of any notice of the fact that part only of such amount has been so paid, stating whether the balance has been secured to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State or has been remitted by him under subsection (2) of this section, and shall send a copy thereof to the planning authority."
17. In section 157 (recovery, on subsequent development, of compensation under section 153)—

(a) subsection (1) is omitted;

964

(b) in subsection (2), for "section 148 of this Act, as applied by subsection (1) of this section" there is substituted "section 156A of this Act";

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) paragraph (a) is omitted; and

(ii) in the proviso, "paragraph (a) or" is omitted; and

(d) subsection (4) is omitted.

18. In section 169 (purchase notice on refusal or conditional grant of planning permission)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "no account shall be taken" to the end there is substituted "no account shall be taken of any prospective development other than any development specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act."; and

(b) subsection (3) is omitted.

19. In section 176 (special provisions as to compensation where purchase notice served)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "existing use value" there is substituted "Schedule 6 value"; and

(b) in subsection (5), for the definition of "existing use value" there is substituted—

""Schedule 6 value", in relation to such an interest, means the value of that interest calculated on the assumption that planning permission would be granted—

(a) subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 16, for any development of a class specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6; and

(b) for any development of a class specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6."

20. In section 244 (recovery from acquiring authorities of sums paid by way of compensation)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "147(5)" there is substituted "155(5A)"; and

(b) in subsection (2), the words from "subsection (4)" to "applied by" are omitted.

21. Section 245 (recovery from acquiring authorities of sums paid in respect of war-damaged land) is omitted.
22. In section 246 (sums recoverable from acquiring authorities reckonable for purposes of grant), "or 245" is omitted.
23. In section 247 (expenses of government departments), in subsection (1) (b) "Part VII or" is omitted.
24. Section 248 (payments under section 56 of Act of 1947 and Parts I and V of Act of 1954) is omitted.
25. In section 249 (general provision as to receipts of Secretary of State, "Without prejudice to section 248 of this Act, and" is omitted.
26. For subsection (1) of section 255 (supplementary provisions as to Crown interest), there is substituted—
"(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, where there is a Crown interest in any land, the provisions of sections 155 to 157 of this Act, and the provisions of Schedule 22 to this Act in so far as they relate to those sections, shall have effect in relation to any private interest as if the Crown interest were a private interest."
27. Sections 263 (assumptions as to planning permission in determining value of interests in land) and 264 (recovery, on subsequent development, of payments in respect of war-damaged land) are omitted.
28. In section 275 (interpretation), in subsection (1), the definition of "new development" is omitted.
29. In Schedule 6 (development not constituting new development)—

(a) paragraphs 3 to 9 and 12 are omitted; and

(b) in paragraph 14, for sub-paragraph (2) there is substituted—

"(2) This paragraph does not apply for the purposes of sections 157 and 169 of this Act.
30. In Schedule 19 (provisions referred to in sections 250, 251 etc.), in Part I, the entry relating to section 158 is omitted."
Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)
31. In section 53(1) (a) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 "158," is omitted.
Airports Act 1986 (c. 31)
32. In section 61(1) (a) of the Airports Act 1986 "158," is omitted.")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 270 to 273 were spoken to with Amendment No. 114. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Planning in Scotland: minor and consequential amendments.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 102, line 4, after ("1.") insert ("The 1972 Act is amended as follows—
1A.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 274, I speak also to amendments Nos. 275 to 286. These add to and amend Schedule 7 to the Bill. Schedule 7 makes a series of minor and consequential amendments to the 1972 Act for Scotland which are related to the provisions at Clauses 27 to 42 of the Bill. It also includes amendments which will enable subordinate legislation in particular cases to be made either by regulation or by development order. The additions to Schedule 7 made by these amendments either make essential drafting changes or are equivalent to the minor or consequential amendments in Schedule 6 for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 275 to 286:
Page 102, line 4, leave out ("of the 1972 Act").
Page 102, line 31, after ("(i)") insert:
("the words "Subject to the provisions of section 26(2) to (5) of this Act," are omitted;
(ia)") .
Page 102, line 36, at end insert:
("4A. In the proviso to subsection (2) of section 29 (permission to retain buildings or works etc.), for "or 57, or of Part VII" there is substituted "57 or 145".").
Page 102, line 45, at end insert:
("5A. In subsection (4) of section 32 (reference of applications to Secretary of State)—

(a) for the words from "23" to "28A" there is substituted "26, 27(1), 27A and 28A"; and

(b) at the end there is inserted "and regulations under this Act or a development order may apply, with or without modifications, to an application so referred any requirements imposed by such regulations or such an order by virtue of section 23 or 24 of this Act.".").

Page 102, line 48, leave out ("and").
Page 103, line 1, after ("(b)") insert:
("in subsection (5)—

(i) "23, 24" is omitted; and

(ii) at the end there is inserted "and regulations under this Act or a development order may apply, with or without modifications, to such an
966
appeal any requirements imposed by regulations or such an order by virtue of section 23 or 24 of this Act; and

(c)").
Page 103, line 12, at end insert:
("9A. Section 84(11) is omitted.").
Page 103, line 34, leave out from ("whether") to ("lawful") in line 38 and insert ("on the date on which the appeal was made, any existing use of the land was lawful, any operations which had been carried out in, on, over or under the land were lawful or any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which the permission was granted was").
Page 103, line 39, at end insert:
("(c) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(5A) The provisions of sections 90 to 90C of this Act mentioned in subsection (5B) of this section shall apply for the purposes of subsection (5) (d) of this section as they apply for the purposes of section 90 of this Act, but as if—

(a) any reference to an application for a certificate were a reference to the appeal and any reference to the date of such an application were a reference to the date on which the appeal is made; and

(b) references to the planning authority were references to the Secretary of State.

(5B) Those provisions are: sections 90(5) to (7), 90B(4) (so far as it relates to the form of the certificate), (6) and (7) and 90C."; and
(d) subsection (11) is omitted.
10A. In section 87 (stop notices)—

(a) in subsection (4) (c), for "84(7) (c)" there is substituted "84AA(7)";

(b) in subsection (5), for the words "activity prohibited by the stop notice" there is substituted "relevant activity"; and

(c) in subsection (9), for "84(5)" there is substituted "84".").

Page 103, line 41, at end insert:
("11A. In subsection (2) of section 88 (execution and cost of works required by enforcement notice), "(as defined in section 84(2) of this Act)" is omitted.
Page 104, line 9, at end insert:
("13A. In subsection (1) of section 145 (determination of claims)—

(a) the words "this Part of", in both places where they occur, are omitted; and

(b) at the end there is inserted—

"(d) for requiring the Secretary of State to pay any compensation determined under this section to the person entitled thereto.".")
13B. In subsection (1) of section 166 (compensation for loss due to stop notice)—

(a) for the words "in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) of this section" there is substituted "subject to the provisions of this section,"; and

(b) at the end there is inserted "or, in a case to which subsection (2) (b) of this section applies, the prohibition of such of the activities prohibited by the stop notice as cease to be relevant activities".

13C. In subsection (2) of that section, for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) the enforcement notice is quashed on grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 85(1) of this Act;

(b) the enforcement notice is varied (otherwise than on the grounds mentioned in that paragraph) so that any activity the carrying out of which is prohibited by the stop notice ceases to be a relevant activity within the meaning of section 87(2) of this Act;"

967
13D. In subsection (5) of section 201 (order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway), the definition of "lawful access" is omitted.").
Page 104, line 12, at end insert:
("15. Section 234 is omitted.
16. In subsection (1) (b) of section 247 (expenses of government departments), for "Part VII" there is substituted "section 145".
17. In subsection (2) (a) of section 253 (exercise of powers in relation to Crown land), for "84" there is substituted "83C, 84, 84AB, 87, 87AA".")
18. In section 265 (rights of entry)—

(a) in subsection (1) (b)—

(i) "58 or" is omitted; and

(ii) for the words "either of those sections" there is substituted "section 61";

(b) in subsection (1) (c), for the words "Part V" there is substituted "sections 92 to 97BC and 101";

(c) subsection (2A) (a) is omitted;

(d) in subsection (4) (b), "or 99" is omitted; and

(e) in subsection (5) "Part VII of" is omitted.")

19. In subsection (3) of section 266 (supplementary provisions as to rights of entry), for "premises" there is substituted "land".
20.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 275 (interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of "authority to whom Part II of the 1959 Act applies" there is inserted—
""breach of condition notice" has the meaning given in section 87AA of this Act;
"breach of planning control" has the meaning given in section 83A of this Act;
(b) the definition of "established use certificate" is omitted; and
(c) after the definition of "owner" there is inserted—
""planning contravention notice" has the meaning given in section 83C of this Act;".
(2) In subsection (9) of that section, for "or 257" there is substituted ", 257 or 258".
21.—(1) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 (determination of appeals), in sub-paragraph (1) (a), for "subsections (3) and (5)" there is substituted "subsections (3), (5) and (7A)".
(2) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, in subparagraph (2), for "section 26(3) (a)" there is substituted "section 26(3)".
22. In Schedule 19 (sections 250, 251 etc.)—

(a) in Part I—

(i) after the entry for section 26(1) there is inserted "Section 26A"; and

(ii) for "Sections 48 to 51" there is substituted "Section 49 to 50"; and

(b) in Part II, in the entry for section 33, for "and" there is substituted "to".

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65.)
23. In Part I of Schedule 30 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the following are inserted at the appropriate places among the provisions of the 1972 Act there listed: 83C, 83D, 84AA, 84AB and 87AA.
Town and Country Planning Act 1984 (c.10)
24.—(1) Section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for "determination under section 51 of the Act of 1972 (determination whether planning permission is required)" there is substituted "certificate under section 90A of the Act of 1972 (certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development).
(3) In subsection (2) for "or determination" there is substituted "or certificate".
(4) For subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) Any application made by virtue of this section for a certificate under section 90A shall be determined as if the land were not Crown land."
(5) In subsection (5) (a) for "determinations" there is substituted "certificates".
(6) In subsection (7) for "determination" there is substituted "certificate".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) Order 1991
7.4 p.m.
Viscount Astorrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft order before the House is to transfer to the Securities and Investments Board certain functions. The functions referred to in the order are those relating to an important civil remedy to protect the interests of investors.
The Financial Services Act was brought in by this Government in 1986 to provide a comprehensive framework of investor protection. The Act gives the Secretary of State powers to authorise and regulate the carrying on of investment business. However, the Act allows most of the Secretary of State's powers and functions to be transferred to a designated agency, if it appears to him that the designated agency is willing and able to discharge them and that certain other criteria are met. The majority of the powers and functions in question have now been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board which was set up for that purpose.
Section 61 of the Act allows the Secretary of State to apply to court for restitution orders against a person who has made profits, or caused investors to lose money, where this is the result of his contravening the conduct of business provisions in Chapter V of Part I of the Act.
Under subsections (4) and (5) of Section 61, the court may order the person concerned to pay a sum of money which appears to the court to be just, having regard to the loss suffered or profit made. The money may be paid into court or to the applicant for the order, or the court may appoint a receiver to recover it.

969
Subsections (6) and (7) make provision as to how the money is to be distributed. The Secretary of State's functions in relation to restitution orders were largely transferred to SIB in May 1987, although the Secretary of State has retained the right to exercise the powers concurrently.
SIB's exercise of the restitution functions in relation to contraventions mentioned in Section 61 is subject to the limitation that they cannot be exercised against a person who neither is nor ever has been an authorised person or an appointed representative under the Act. Such persons may however contravene the relevant provisions.
SIB have now indicated that they would find it valuable also to be able to exercise these functions against persons who are not or never have been authorised.
The Government believe that augmenting SIB's powers in this way is in the interests of investors and of effective regulation. Article 3 of the draft order now before the House therefore has the effect of transferring functions under Section 61(3) of the Act in relation to such persons, subject to the functions continuing to be exercisable concurrently by the Secretary of State.
However the effect of Article 3(2) of the draft order is not to transfer these functions in relation to the Society of Lloyd's and Lloyd's underwriters in so far as they are exempt from authorisation by virtue of Section 42 of the Act. This reflects the findings of the Neill Committee that Lloyd's should not be accountable to SIB and that SIB should not exercise any power over Lloyd's. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this order. I am glad to see that I am speaking to the usual full House when it comes to financial services orders! Indeed, I am glad to see that the noble Lords sitting on my right, the Liberals and Social Democrats as I understand them to be, will be contributing to this debate.
My reaction to the noble Viscount's introduction is that I have no problem at all with the substance of the order. Indeed, the only problem I have is that perhaps the order should have been introduced a little earlier than it has been. My problems relate to the primary legislation. I accept that the noble Viscount was not responsible for the primary legislation. But there are some difficulties under Section 114 of the Financial Services Act. The noble Viscount said that his Government were responsible for introducing that Act. That is true. But he would have done better to consider rather more carefully the drafting of some of the clauses of the Bill when it was before your Lordships' House and then we would not be faced with the rather extraordinary things we have this evening.
I itemise the extraordinary things as follows. First, there appears to be no time limit imposed on the
970
laying of this order. This order is subordinate legislation under Section 144(1), but that imposes no time limit at all. I do not quite understand how markets can operate if delegation orders of this nature are going to be laid by secretaries of state with no particular time limit upon them. We frequently find in legislation a time limit of 28 days from the time the order is laid, and if it is not passed by a Motion of both Houses, it lapses.
These are very market-sensitive orders, and it is very odd that the primary legislation does not impose a time limit. The Secretary of State can lay an order now and for the next 12 months, 18 months, two years, five years, or three millennia, it can remain on the table. The market perceives that the Government wish to do something, but the Houses of Parliament have not determined whether that should be done. That seems to be a very odd defect in the primary legislation.
The second difficulty is that this order clearly does not fall under Section 114(9) of the Act because it is not an order which requires the SIB to make rules and regulations. That we understand. But subsection (10) of the section that I have just quoted is a catch-all section which states that:
"The Secretary of State shall also before making a delegation order transferring any functions"—
and these come under "any functions"—
"to a designated agency"—
which in this case is the SIB—
"require it to furnish him with a copy of any guidance intended to have continuing effect which it proposes to issue in writing or other legible form and the Secretary of State may take any such guidance into account in determining whether he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (9) (b) above".
So subsection (10) refers back to subsection (9) and particularly to paragraph (b).
I understand from the preamble to the order that:
"The Securities and Investments Board is not proposing to issue, in writing or other legible form, any guidance intended to have continuing effect".
I ask myself—and the noble Viscount—under these circumstances what is "is not proposing"? It may not propose to do so now. It is now Monday; suppose that the order goes into effect on Wednesday, because it has gone through another place. What happens if it issues guidance on Thursday? Is that something of which the Secretary of State should be advised? Should the House be advised of it? What is the treatment of that?
Let us suppose that the Securities and Investments Board says to the Secretary of State, "We do not propose to issue any guidance whatsoever on this for all time". Is the Secretary of State then required to give an opinion? Does he have any opinion on whether the order as promulgated by his office—and presumably passed tonight by your Lordships—is in the interests that are specified in subsection (9) (b) of Section 114 of the Financial Services Act; that is to say, that it,
"will afford investors an adequate level of protection"?
In the event of a non-issue of guidance at all does the Secretary of State have to be persuaded that investors are thereby properly protected?
I accept that the noble Viscount may not be able to answer all the queries that I have raised because they are comments on the primary legislation. However, I

971
impress on him that a delegation order—an order delegating the powers of a Secretary of State to a governmental body (in this case, the Securities and Investments Board)—is an important order. It is not an order under social security regulations simply uplifting this rate or that. It is an important order and something to which the markets have to pay attention. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could respond to my questions.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, basically welcomes the draft order as laid before the House and therefore does not expect me to answer every technical question that he raised, particularly when it relates to the primary legislation. I explained with regard to time limits that that is not a new power but a transfer to the SIB of existing powers which are exercised by the Secretary of State and so the Secretary of State retains the right to act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to have to intervene. I did not wish to do so. However, I understand that these are delegated powers. The Secretary of State already has these powers and he proposes to delegate them to the SIB. I understand that fully. But at what point are we to know that the Secretary of State in fact delegates those powers? Can he lay an order now, to lie on the table for two, three, four or five years? I said that it might be a millennium, but I exaggerated a little. In very simple terms, the market needs to know whether the SIB or the DTI will
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall try to answer that point in a moment. Perhaps I should just say that the SIB has requested a transfer of these powers. We do not think that any further powers will necessarily be transferred. With regard to the noble Lord's particular point, this order may be cited as the Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) Order 1991 and shall come into force on the day after the day on which it is made. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point. I shall read very carefully any technical points that he made and I shall write to him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interject again but can the noble Viscount tell me when the order will be made?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that we are laying the draft order before the House. I am not sure that I can say when it will come into force. I might have to look at various papers. Obviously I understand the noble Lord's concern. It is a quickly changing world and business needs to know. My noble friend says, "When the Secretary of State says so". I think I can say no more than that that is the answer. I shall certainly look into that point and let the noble Lord know as soon as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.17 to 8 p.m.]

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 287:
After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule:
("Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition
1. After section 22 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 there is inserted—
"Part IV COMPENSATION WHERE PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTED AFTER ACQUISITION Compensation where planning decision made after acquisition.
23.—(1) Where—

(a) any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers and, before the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of completion, a planning decision is made granting permission for the carrying out of additional development of any of the land; and

(b) the principal amount of the compensation which was payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, in the case of a sale by agreement, the amount of the purchase price, was less than the amount specified in subsection (2) of this section,

then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the person to whom the compensation or purchase price was payable shall be entitled, on a claim duly made by him, to compensation from the acquiring authority of an amount equal to the difference.
(2) The amount referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section is the principal amount of the compensation which would have been payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of the interest by the acquiring authority, in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the relevant date if—

(a) the planning decision mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section had been made before that date; and

(b) the permission granted by it had been in force on that date.

(3) No compensation shall be payable by virtue of this section in respect of a planning decision in so far as it relates to land acquired by the acquiring authority, whether compulsorily or by agreement—

(a) under section 142 or 143 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (acquisitions by urban development corporations and by highway authorities in connection with urban development areas);

(b) under the New Towns Act 1981 (acquisitions by development corporations and by high-ways authorities in connection with new town areas); or

(c) where the compulsory purchase order included a direction under section 50 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (minimum compensation where building deliberately allowed to fall into disrepair).

(4) If—

(a) in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section the person referred to in subsection (1) of this section would be entitled to compensation under this section; but

(b) before the planning decision in question that person has died, or any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to compensation
974
under this section, if vested in him immediately before that act or event, would thereupon have vested in some other person,

the right to compensation under this section shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that act or event, as the case may be, and the compensation shall be payable to the persons claiming under him accordingly.
(5) Compensation under this section shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under section 40 of this Act from the date of the planning decision in question until payment.
(6) The provisions of Part I of this Act (so far as applicable) shall apply (subject to the following provisions) in relation to the assessment of compensation under this section as they apply in relation to the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land.
Provisions as to claims under section 23.
24.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the making of claims for compensation under section 23 of this Act—

(a) the person entitled to receive the compensation or purchase price in respect of such an acquisition or sale as is mentioned in section 23(1)(a) of this Act; or

(b) any person claiming under him as being a person who, if compensation under that section became payable, would be entitled to it by virtue of subsection (4) of that section,

may give to the acquiring authority an address for service under this section.
(2) Where, at any time—

(a) after a person has given an acquiring authority an address for service under this section; and

(b) before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 23(1) of this Act,

such a planning decision is made as is mentioned in that paragraph, the acquiring authority shall, subject to subsection (3) of this section, give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to that person at that address.
(3) If—

(a) an address for service has been given by such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section; and

(b) the acquiring authority have reasonable grounds for believing that the person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section is dead or that any other act or event has occurred as mentioned in section 23(4)(b) of this Act,

the acquiring authority need not give a notice to the person mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(4) A claim for compensation under section 23 of this Act in respect of a planning decision shall not have effect if made more than six months after the following date, that is to say—

(a) if the claim is made by a person who has not given the acquiring authority an address for service under this section, the date of the decision;

(b) if the claim is made by a person who has given the acquiring authority such an address, the date on which notice of the decision is given to him in accordance with subsection (2) of this section;

but, where there is an appeal against the planning decision, the reference in paragraph (a) of this

975
subsection to the date of the planning decision shall be read as a reference to the date of the decision on the appeal.
(5) The references in subsection (4) of this section to an appeal against a planning decision include an appeal made by virtue of section 78(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1990.
(6) Where—

(a) a person has given to an acquiring authority an address for service under this section; and

(b) that authority, before the end of the period mentioned in section 23(1)(a) of this Act, cease to be entitled to an interest in the whole or part of the land comprised in the acquisition or sale, without remaining or becoming entitled to a freehold interest in, or a tenancy of, that land or that part of it, as the case may be,

they shall notify the planning authority; and after that it shall be the duty of the planning authority to give notice to the acquiring authority of any planning decision of which the acquiring authority are required to give notice under subsection (2) of this section.
(7) Notice under subsection (6) of this section of a planning decision—

(a) in the case of a decision made by the planning authority, shall be given within seven days after the making of the decision; and

(b) in any other case, shall be given within seven days after the making of the decision has been notified to the planning authority.

Extension to planning permission where no planning decision made.
25.—(1) The provisions of sections 31 and 32(1) of this Act shall have effect in relation to any planning permission falling within column 1 of the following table for any development as if a planning decision granting that permission had been made on the date shown in column 2.

Planning permission

Date of decision

Permission granted by a development order

When development is initiated

Permission granted by the adoption or approval of a simplified planning zone scheme

When the scheme is approved or adopted

Permission granted by an order designating an enterprise zone

When the designation takes effect

Permission deemed to be granted by a direction under section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

When the direction is given

Permission deemed to be granted by a local planning authority

The occurrence of the event in consequence of which the permission is deemed to be granted

(2) Where the provisions of section 23 of this Act have effect as applied by subsection (1) of this section in relation to any planning permission falling within column 1 of that table for any development, then if—

(a) before the date shown in column 2, a person who (under section 24(1) of this Act as so applied) is entitled to give an address for service under that section has given such an address to the acquiring authority; and

(b) the development is proposed to be carried out by the acquiring authority or, if it is proposed to be carried out by a person other than the
976
acquiring authority, notice of that proposal is given to the acquiring authority by the person proposing to carry out the development,

it shall, subject to subsection (3) of this section, be the duty of the acquiring authority to give notice of that proposal in the prescribed form to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection at the address given by him to the authority.
(3) An acquiring authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to give notice of proposed development to the person mentioned in section 24(1)(a) of this Act if—

(a) an address for service has been given to them by such a person as is mentioned in section 24(1)(b) of this Act; and

(b) they have reasonable grounds for believing that the former person is dead or that any other act or event has occurred as mentioned in section 23(4)(b) of this Act.

(4) A claim for compensation under section 23 of this Act in respect of a planning permission falling within column 1 of that table shall not have effect if made more than six months after the following date, that is to say—

(a) if the claim is made by a person to whom notice has been given under subsection (2) of this section, the date on which the notice was given;

(b) in any other case, the date shown in column 2.

Extension to Crown development.
26.—(1) Where—

(a) any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, and before the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of completion there is initiated any additional development of any of the land which was comprised in the acquisition or sale; and

(b) by reason of any such circumstances as are mentioned in subsection (2) of this section the development in question is development for which planning permission is not required,

the provisions of sections 23 and 24(1) of this Act shall apply as if a planning decision granting permission for that development had been made at the time when the additional development is so initiated.
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) of this section are either or both of the following—

(a) that the development is initiated by or on behalf of the Crown;

(b) that there is a Crown or Duchy interest in the land and the development is initiated in right of that interest.

(3) Where—

(a) the provisions of section 23 of this Act have effect as applied by subsection (1) of this section in relation to the initiation of any development; and

(b) before the development is initiated a person who (under section 24(1) of this Act as so applied) is entitled to give an address for service under that section has given such an address to the acquiring authority,

it shall, subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section, be the duty of the acquiring authority to give notice in the prescribed form of the initiation of the development to the person mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection at the address given by him to the authority.
(4) Where—

977

(a) by virtue of subsection (3) of this section, it is the duty of a government department to give notice of development initiated by or on behalf of that department; and

(b) the Minister in charge of the department certifies that for reasons of national security it is necessary that the nature of the development should not be disclosed, except to the extent specified in the certificate,

the department shall give notice of development, but shall not be required to give any particulars of the nature of the development except to the extent specified in the certificate.
(5) An acquiring authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (3) of this section to give notice of proposed development to the person mentioned in section 24(1)(a) of this Act if—

(a) an address for service has been given to them by such a person as is mentioned in section 24(1)(b) of this Act; and

(b) they have reasonable grounds for believing that the former person is dead or that any other act or event has occurred as mentioned in section 23(4)(b) of this Act.

(6) A claim for compensation under section 23 of this Act in respect of the initiation of any development shall not have effect if made more than six months after the following date, that is to say—

(a) if the claim is made by a person to whom notice has been given under subsection (3) of this section, the date on which the notice was given;

(b) in any other case, the time the development is initiated.

(7) in this section "Crown or Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster, or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.
Application of Part IV to certain cases.
27. The preceding provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act.
Regulations for purposes of Part IV
28.—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations for prescribing the form of any notice required by this Part of this Act to be given in the prescribed form.
(2) Any statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Interpretation of Part IV.
"additional development", in relation to an acquisition or sale of an interest in land, means any development of the land other than the following, that is to say—

(a) where the acquiring authority are a local authority, and acquired the interest for the purposes of any of their functions, development for the purposes of the functions for which they acquired it;

(b) where the acquiring authority are not a local authority, development for the purposes of the project in connection with which they acquired the interest;

(c) development for which planning permission was in force on the relevant date;

978

(d) in the case of compulsory acquisition, development for which it was assumed (in accordance with the provisions of sections 14 to 16 of this Act) for the purpose of assessing compensation that planning permission would be granted; and

(e) in the case of a sale by agreement, development for which, if the interest (instead of being sold by agreement) had been compulsorily acquired by the acquiring authority in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the relevant date, it would have been so assumed;

"date of completion", in relation to an acquisition or sale of an interest in land, means the date on which the acquisition or sale is completed by the vesting of that interest in the acquiring authority;
"local authority" means—

(a) a charging authority, a precepting authority, a combined police authority or a combined fire authority, as defined in section 144 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;

(b) a levying board within the meaning of section 74 of that Act;

(c) a body as regards which section 75 of that Act applies;

(d) any joint board or joint committee if all the constituent authorities are such authorities as are described in paragraphs (a) to (c); and

(e) the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple or the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple;

and includes any internal drainage board under section 6 of the Land Drainage Act 1976;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act;
"the relevant date", in relation to a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, means the date of service of the notice to treat and, in relation to a sale of such an interest by agreement, means the date of the making of the contract in pursuance of which the sale was affected.
(2) In this part of this Act any reference to the granting of permission for the carrying out of development of any land is a reference to the granting of permission (including where applicable outline permission) for that development—

(a) either unconditionally or subject to conditions; and

(b) either in respect of that land taken by itself or in respect of an area including that land."

2. After Schedule 2 to that Act there is inserted—
"THIRD SCHEDULE APPLICATION OF PART IV TO CERTAIN CASES Disturbance, severance and injurious affection
1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Schedule, any reference in section 23 of this Act to the principal amount of any compensation shall be construed as including any sum attributable to disturbance, severance or injurious affection.
2. If the person entitled to the compensation under section 23 of this Act—

(a) as, at the time of the compulsory acquisition or sale mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, entitled to an interest in other land contiguous or adjacent to the land acquired or purchased; but

(b) is, at the time of the planning decision in question, no longer entitled to that interest, either in respect of the whole or in respect of part of that land;

979
any reference in section 23 of this Act to the principal amount of any compensation or the amount of the purchase price shall be construed as excluding so much of the compensation or purchase price as was or would have been attributable to severance or injurious affection of that land or, as the case may be, of that part.
Increase in value of contiguous or adjacent land
3. In determining for the purposes of section 23 of this Act the difference between the principal amount of the compensation specified in subsection (2) of that section and the principal amount of the compensation or the amount of the purchase price mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, in a case where—

(a) the compensation or the purchase price was or would have been reduced (whether by virtue of section 7 of this Act or otherwise) by reason of an increase in the value of an interest in contiguous or adjacent land; but

(b) at the time of the planning decision the person entitled to the compensation under section 23 of this Act is not entitled to the interest or is entitled to it only as respects part of the contiguous or adjacent land,

the amount specified in section 23(2) and the principal amount or purchase price mentioned in section 23(1) shall be calculated as if the circumstances by reason of which it was or would have been so reduced had not existed or, as the case may be, as if the interest in the contiguous or adjacent land had subsisted only in that part of the land.
Mortgaged land
4. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to settled land, where, in a case falling within section 23(1) of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a mortgage, any reference (however expressed) in section 23 or section 24 of this Act to the person entitled to the compensation or purchase price shall be construed as a reference to the person who, subject to the mortgage, was entitled to that interest, and not as a reference to the mortgagee.
5. For the purposes of the application of section 23 of this Act, and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph, to a case falling within the preceding paragraph, any reference to the principal amount of the compensation which was or would have been payable in respect of any compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would have been payable if the interest in question had not been subject to a mortgage.
6. No compensation shall be payable by virtue of section 23 of this Act in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement where the interest acquired or sold was the interest of a mortgagee (as distinct from an interest subject to a mortgage).
Settled land
7.—(1) Where, in a case falling within section 23(1) of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a settlement, and accordingly the compensation or purchase price was payable to the trustees of that settlement, any reference (however expressed) in section 23 or section 24 of this Act to the person entitled to the compensation or purchase price shall be construed as a reference to the trustees for the time being of the settlement.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph applies, section 23(4) of this Act shall not apply.
(3) Any compensation paid to the trustees of the settlement by virtue of section 23 of this Act in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement shall be applicable by the trustees as if it were proceeds of the sale of the interest acquired or sold.
(4) In this paragraph "settlement" means a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, or a trust for sale within the meaning of the Law of Property Act, 1925.
Interpretation
8. References in this Schedule to sections 23 and 24 of this Act include references to those sections as applied by section 25 or 26 of this Act, and references to the time of any planning decision shall be construed accordingly."").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 288, 288A, 293, 298, 354A, 362, 366 and 367. Government Amendments Nos. 287 and 298 consist of a new schedule and clause which together have the effect of reviving, in respect of England and Wales, Part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961. This provided for additional compensation to be paid to owners of compulsorily acquired land, or those who sold under the threat of compulsory purchase, in the event of an increase in the value of the land resulting from a planning permission granted within a period of five years after the acquisition.
These provisions were first enacted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 and remained in force until repealed by the Land Commission Act 1967. It seems to us, however, that there is a powerful case for restoring them to the statute book. The argument for doing so runs as follows.
As Members of the Committee will be well aware, compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land is based on the current open market value of the land taking into account any existing planning permission and hope value but discounting the effects on value of the particular scheme for which the land is required. This is the central principle of the land compensation code and it is, in our view, an inherently fair one. Cases can, however, occasionally arise where land is required for a particular form of development but, in the light of a change of circumstances, it is subsequently decided that it can more appropriately be devoted to an alternative form of development.
Planning permission for that development is accordingly granted, but the effect of the new permission may well be to increase the value of the land above that on which the original award of compensation was based. A good example would be where an authority acquires land compulsorily for housing but because of changed circumstances decides that the land would be better developed for office or industrial use. Where an increase in value occurs in this way it seems wholly unfair that the original owner of the land should be unable to derive any benefit.
The purpose of the renewed Part IV provisions is to deal with this situation by giving the former owner a right to claim additional compensation in the event of the value of the land increasing as the result of a planning permission obtained after acquisition. The provisions are reinserted in the 1961 Act in a form broadly similar to that of the original ones. There is, however, one major difference; the original five-year period within which planning permissions were taken into account for the purpose of assessing additional compensation is now to be extended to a full 10 years.
There is no simple basis for deciding over what length of time the entitlement to claim additional compensation should operate. On the one hand, we obviously want to ensure that the procedure provides an effective safeguard for those whose land is acquired. On the other hand, I do not believe that it would be right for the question of additional compensation to become too detached in time from the actual acquisition to which it relates. From this latter point of view it does seem to me that the 21-year period suggested in Amendment No. 288 proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley, is altogether excessive. I accept that any figure must involve some degree of arbitrariness. But it seems to us that 10 years—which is, as I have said, double the time originally allowed—strikes the right balance overall.
Amendment No. 366 adds the new provision for England and Wales to those compensation provisions listed in Schedule 10 to the Bill on which interest is payable.
The remaining government amendments in this group (Nos. 293 and 354A, and part of Amendments Nos. 362 and 367) make similar provision in respect of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.
I turn now to Amendment No. 288A tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley. The effect of this is to provide that, in considering the amount of compensation originally paid to the claimant for the purpose of assessing entitlement to additional compensation under the revived Part IV, any element within the total which related to disturbance should be left out of account.
I must say that this proposal appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the current compensation code and the way in which Part IV will operate. The effect of case law is that an owner cannot claim payment for disturbance in circumstances where the compensation that he is receiving for the land reflects a development value which exceeds the existing use value plus the cost of disturbance. For example, where farmland is acquired the owner cannot claim for disturbance if the land has a value for housing which exceeds its agricultural value together with any disturbance cost.
That being so, where the value of land is enhanced by a planning permission granted after acquisition and the former owner claims compensation under Part IV, it is entirely proper that in determining how much compensation is due, if any, account should be taken of the fact that the original compensation award included a payment for disturbance—given that, as I have said, the disturbance payment was only made on the assumption that the land had no value above existing use. To leave the disturbance payment out of account would in effect involve an element of double-counting.
The approach that we are adopting here is identical to that followed in the original 1961 Act provisions. I hope that my noble friend will accept that it is the only fair one. I also hope that the Committee will agree that our proposals constitute a significant improvement in the overall fairness of the compensation system. On that basis, I warmly commend the government
982
amendments to the Committee and express the hope that the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley, will not press their amendment.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 287, Amendment No. 288.
Line 13, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: A long explanation of the amendment is unnecessary and, therefore, I shall not take up the time of the Committee. The government amendment allows 10 years from the date of completion of the sale as the period during which further development on the acquired land may trigger compensation. Often there are more than 10 years between the date of the acquisition of the land for development and the completion of the project. In many cases the timescale extends to 11 or 12 years. It would appear to be reasonable that the period during which additional payment could be triggered should extend beyond completion of the project.
Extending the period to 21 years would achieve two further objectives. First, it would bring the Bill into line with the usual practice in the private sector. Where an interest is reserved against future development the period is usually 21 years. Secondly, it would correspond to the maximum period of 21 years allowed under the Land Compensation Act. I hope that the Minister will reconsider her remarks. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to my amendment now. I do not believe that I have failed to understand the present compensation arrangements, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I believe that I understand them only too well; I believe them to be unfair. I suggest that my amendment takes a different approach and indeed is fairer, not least because if disturbance is included, that could prejudice the smaller man, particularly if he has developed his land or has the capability of so doing.
I shall try to explain the matter to my noble friend. The circumstances of the award of disturbance are related to the particulars of the claimant's agricultural, business or personal use of the land acquired at the time of the event, and not to the amount of development value attached to the interest to which these clauses relate. The amount of monetary compensation awarded for the disruption of the individual claimant's business 10 or 15 years before has nothing to do with the estimate of the development value attached to the land to which this measure is meant to relate.
That was recognised by Lord Justice Goddard in his dissenting judgment in the case of Horn v. Sunderland in 1941. That is now highlighted in the circumstances of these clauses, and against the history of land development over the 50 years since the majority Court of Appeal decision and 30 years since the passing of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It may also be said that that view has been expressed by other authoritative persons in the field. As I have said before, there is an inherent defect in the proposition that disturbance be linked to development value.

983
I fully understand that I am putting forward an approach which is different from that of my noble friend. However, I hope that she may consider my amendment to be a fair approach to the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister responds to those amendments to her amendment, I should explain why we have grave reservations about the approach in this series of amendments and about the whole approach taken in a large number of amendments with which we shall deal in the consideration of Part IV.
Those reservations can be very simply expressed. It seems to us that Members of the Committee are putting forward amendments which protect land and property owners from almost every possible adverse eventuality arising from planning laws or land compensation. In effect they are saying that if anything goes wrong because of the intervention of the public sector in land ownership or access to land, they must be compensated from now virtually until kingdom come, if one takes the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. And yet, they are the same people who took off the statute book the development land tax and all taxation which would have taken away some of the windfalls which fall to land and property owners as a result of public sector activity.
One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, on the one hand, that land and property owners will reap all the benefits of changes in use and development and all activities of the public or private sector while on the other hand compensating them for anything which may go wrong. If that is some people's idea of the market place, it is not mine.
Until justice is restored in this matter and there is some recognition that benefits can be gained for land owners from public investment activity which should be shared with the public, we shall not support amendments which seek to protect land and property owners when the market goes down.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to enter into the differences of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other Members of the Committee.
My noble friend and I must agree to differ about his amendment. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, that we are doubling the length of time over which this measure would apply. It relates to other development being proposed on the land and is not comparable with that which arises in the private sector. I must rest my case and hope that the Committee will support it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis: I am very disappointed to hear those remarks, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We are not talking about land which is bought for the development of a particular project. We are talking about additional land which is often acquired unnecessarily at the outset and which is not, as a rule, returned to the land owner but is developed by an outside body at its considerable profit.
984
There is an example of that in the development which took place at the Channel Tunnel terminal. Surely it is not equitable that land should be taken at existing use value and, having built the motorway, railway or whatever it may be, an outsider should then benefit from, for example, building a petrol station on that surplus land which was taken in excess of what was originally required.
Much land is sold by willing treaty for public sector companies at figures which are in excess of compulsory purchase figures and into which these agreements are happily written. It seems to me a pity that the basic principle that the length of time for which the original owner should be covered should not extend beyond the period over which the development takes place. As I say, in many cases a development from the date of purchase is longer than the 10 years proposed by the Government. I shall not press the point this evening but I may well return to it at a later stage.
Amendment to Amendment No. 287, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 288A not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 287 agreed to. Clause 44 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.289:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Advance payments of compensation and interest
(".—(1) In section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (right to advance payment of compensation) for subsection (5) there is substituted—
"(4A) Where, at any time after an advance payment has been made on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation, it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low, they shall, if a request in that behalf is made in accordance with subsection (2) above, pay to the claimant the balance of the amount of the advance payment calculated as at that time.
(5) Where the amount, or aggregate amount, of any payment under this section made on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation exceeds the compensation as finally determined or agreed, the excess shall be repaid; and if after any payment under this section has been made to any person it is discovered that he was not entitled to it, the amount of the payment shall be recoverable by the acquiring authority".
(2) After that section there is inserted—
"Right to interest where advance payment made.
52A.—(1) This section applies where the compensation to be paid by the acquiring authority for the compulsory acquisition of any interest in land would (apart from this section) carry interest under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or any bond under Schedule 3 to that Act or section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.
(2) If the authority make a payment under section 52(1) above to any person on account of the compensation—

(a) they shall at the same time make a payment to that person of accrued interest, for the period beginning with the date of entry, on the amount by reference to which the payment under section 52(1) above was calculated; and

(b) the difference between the amount of the payment under section 52(1) above and the

985
amount by reference to which it was calculated is an unpaid balance for the purposes of this section.

(3) If the authority make a payment under section 52(4A) above to any person on account of the compensation, they shall at the same time make a payment to him of accrued interest, for the period beginning with the date of entry, on—

(a) the amount by reference to which the payment under section 52(4A) above was calculated; less

(b) the amount by reference to which the preceding payment under section 52(1) or (4A) above was calculated.

(4) Where the authority make a payment under section 52(4A) above on account of the compensation, the difference between—

(a) the amount of the payment; and

(b) the amount by reference to which it was calculated less the amount by reference to which the preceding payment under section 52(1) or (4A) above was calculated,

is an unpaid balance for the purposes of this section.
(5) If, on an anniversary of the date on which the authority made a payment to any person under section 52(1) above on account of the compensation—

(a) the amount of accrued interest on the unpaid balance under subsection (2) above or, as the case may be,

(b) the aggregate amount of the accrued interest on any unpaid balances,

exceeds £1,000, the authority shall make a payment to the claimant of the amount or aggregate amount.
(6) The acquiring authority shall, on paying the outstanding compensation, pay the amount of the accrued interest on the unpaid balance under subsection (2) above or, as the case may be, the aggregate amount of the accrued interest on any unpaid balances.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) above, interest accrues on any unpaid balance for the period beginning with—

(a) the making of the payment under section 52(1) or, as the case may be, 52(4A) above; or

(b) if any payment has already been made in respect of that balance under subsection (5) above, the date of the preceding payment under that subsection.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) interest accrues at the rate prescribed under section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 or, in the case of a bond under section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, at the rate specified in section 85; and

(b) the amount by reference to which a payment under section 52(1) or (4A) was calculated is the amount referred to in section 52(3) (a) or (b) for the purposes of that calculation.

(9) Where any payment has been made under section 52(1) above on account of any compensation, the acquiring authority is not required to pay interest under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or any bond under Schedule 3 to that Act or under section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.
(10) Where the amount, or aggregate amount, of any payment under section 52 above made on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation is greater than the compensation as finally determined or agreed and, accordingly, the interest paid under this section is excessive, the excess shall be repaid.
(11) If after any interest has been paid to any person under this section on any amount it is discovered that he was not entitled to the amount, the interest shall be recoverable by the acquiring authority.
(12) The Secretary of State may from time to time by order substitute another sum for the sum specified in subsection (5) above; and the power to make orders under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 289A, 289B, 331, 345, 358, 362, 363, 364, 364A, 365 and 382. These amendments deal with the procedure whereby compensation can be paid to claimants at regular intervals.
As the Committee will be aware, besides adding substantially to the list of provisions under which compensation attracts interest, we are proposing to establish an entirely new entitlement under which claimants can be paid the interest which is due to them in annual instalments.
Provisions for the payment of interest in instalments are already included in Clause 53 of the Bill. This is, however, a complex matter and we have concluded that the provisions as they stand will not achieve what we want. It is therefore necessary to come forward with new provisions which will produce the desired result.
The substance of the new provisions in respect of England and Wales is contained in Amendment No. 289. This links the entitlement to interest to be paid in instalments to the existing provision in Section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, under which claimants in compulsory purchase cases can receive an advance payment of compensation for their land pending the final settlement. The effect is to provide that, where a claimant receives an advance payment of compensation under these circumstances, he will also be entitled to be paid at the same time any interest which has become due to him up to that point. Thereafter the claimant will be entitled to be paid, at 12-monthly intervals, any further interest that has accrued, provided that the amount of interest owing exceeds £1,000 or such other sum as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order. The entitlement to annual payments of interest will continue until the compensation claim is finally settled.
I turn now to the various proposals put forward in Amendments Nos. 289A, 364 and 364A regarding the frequency of instalment payments and the specified minimum amount of interest which triggers the instalment entitlement. These would provide for payments to be made every six months rather than annually and would reduce the minimum amount from the £1,000 we propose to either £500 or £10.
It is clearly necessary that the interest instalment provisions should be framed in such a way as to ensure that the system does not become unduly burdensome in administrative terms for the responsible authorities. A requirement to make payments of small sums at relatively frequent intervals could well impose a serious administrative cost on authorities.
I accept that there is room for argument as to where the limits should be set. But the six-monthly interval

987
and the alternative minimum amounts proposed by the noble Lords would not in our judgment be reasonable from the point of view of authorities. The £10 minimum amount suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would be particularly open to objection on that count. The 12-month interval and £1,000 minimum amount which we propose were both specifically referred to in the department's consultation paper and there was no widespread dissent from respondents.
I turn finally to my noble friend's Amendment No. 289B, which would provide for interest on compensation to be calculated on a compound rather than a simple basis. I fear that this is a proposal we could not entertain. A change to compound interest would mean placing an altogether unreasonable burden on the public purse. Simple interest is the principle firmly established not only in the statutory compensation code but also in other legislation which involves the payment of interest. It is also the basis on which interest is awarded by the courts. There is absolutely no ca se for adopting a different approach for the purposes of this Bill. Accordingly, I commend the government amendments to the Committee.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 289, Amendment No. 289A:
Leave out lines 68 and 69 and insert ("exceeds £500, the authority shall make payment to the claimant of the amount, or aggregate amount and similarly at six monthly intervals thereafter.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 289A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 289B. Both amendments refer to the situation which arises when notice to treat has been given and 90 per cent. of the compensation has been agreed and paid. Therefore we are speaking of the 10 per cent. balance. I should say that that 10 per cent. balance can in certain cases be substantial.
The payment of interest on any outstanding balance of compensation is in no way a privilege conferred upon the claimant. The aim of compulsory purchase legislation is to ensure that the owner or occupier of land being acquired is no better and no worse off as a result of the development proposed by the acquiring authority. On this occasion I hope that I can carry with me the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that this is what he would agree is fair compensation. He may help me on this amendment as opposed to the last time.
The amendments refer to a situation where an authority, following notice to treat, has entered into possession and has given an advance of up to 90 per cent. of the estimate of total compensation. That leaves outstanding the balance of 10 per cent. The process of negotiation, through no fault of the claimant and by its very nature, is often protracted. During that period the estimate is often revised resulting in further outstanding sums. Those sums can be quite substantial.
The range of opportunities for investment has changed greatly over the past decade—I address my remarks to my noble and learned friend—as well as becoming more mobile and extensive. If the claimant is to be placed in the position in which he would have
988
been had he had a fair crack at the whip—if I may put it that way—and part of his capital had not been sterilised while negotiations were proceeding, the availability of compound interest to match such an outside investment would be essential.
I do not understand my noble and learned friend saying that it would be unfair to give compound interest. It is unfair on the person whose land is being acquired to do otherwise. The Government are getting a very good deal. I would not mind obtaining loans at fixed interest, particularly the fixed interest that one receives from Her Majesty's Government, which is remarkably low on most occasions.
I am sorry to be going backwards rather than forwards. In Amendment No. 289A, as my noble and learned friend said, we are suggesting that the payment, instead of being £1,000 every 12 months, should be £500 every six months. It may not be much money for the richer Members of the Committee, but for others £500 is a large sum of money. I do not see why its payment should be delayed for 12 months. If the sum is much larger than £1,000 it should be paid after six months. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Linked with these amendments is Amendment No. 364A, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred briefly. As he said, Clause 53(2) obliges a person liable to pay compensation of any kind as described in Parts I or II of Schedule 10 to the Bill, if requested, to pay interest by yearly instalments provided that the interest due,
"exceeds £1,000 or such other sum as the Secretary of State may for the time being by regulations prescribe".
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, for which I speak—I do not see why others should not agree—desires that instalments should be paid at six-monthly intervals, and that there should be no minimum limit on the instalment. That is the reason the £10 is there; it is really saying that there should not be a minimum. Amendment No. 364 provides for six-monthly instalments rather than yearly payments and substitutes the sum of £10 for £1,000 as a minimum payment, omitting any power for the Secretary of State to vary it. Why cannot we get it right today?
The Government appear to be going back on their original intention that in principle all kinds of compensation should be payable by instalments if requested. There is a strong case for payment at half-yearly intervals with no or a very small minimum. I suggest that, as at long last the Government have started paying interest on tax repayments due to us, and that if I were to put the money in a bank or building society I would be paid interest at once, the same should apply to HMG.
Lord Cornwallis: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 364. I shall not be moving the amendment. I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in his Amendment No. 289A.
I cannot follow the argument that it is burdensome to pay interest at six-monthly intervals. In the days of modern technology and computers, etc., the payment of sums of money on a regular basis is something that

989
could be accomplished with comparative simplicity. A much fairer system would be for these sums to be paid on a regular six-monthly basis.
As an aside, we are still waiting for some of the payouts on the M.25.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I cannot elaborate on what I have said in speaking to the Government's amendments and responding in advance to others. Clearly there can always be an argument whether six months or one year is appropriate, or whether £1,000 or £750 is appropriate. However, the Government have moved a considerable way forward on this matter and what is put forward is a reasonable amount. Similarly, the interval for payment is also reasonable.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 289A.
Amendment to Amendment No. 289, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 289B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 289 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 291:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Purchase notice: serious injury from works
.—After section 64 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (extension of grounds for challenging validity of compulsory purchase order) there is inserted
"Purchase notice: serious injury from works.
64A.—(1) Where the owner of an interest in land claims that the land is seriously affected land of a description falling under subsection (2) or subsection (2A) of section 26 of this Act (responsible authority may acquire land by agreement where enjoyment of land affected by public works) or subsection (2) or subsection (2A) of section 246 of the Highways Act 1980 (acquisition of land by agreement where enjoyment of land affected by works) the owner may serve on the responsible authority or the highway authority as the case may be a notice (in this section referred to as a purchase notice) specifying the land and the nature of his interest in it and the affection by reason of which it falls within one of those sub-sections, requiring that authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with this section.
(2) The authority shall before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of service of the purchase notice serve on the owner by whom the purchase notice was served a counter-notice stating either—

(a) that they are willing to comply with the notice, or

(b) that for reasons specified in the counter-notice they object to complying with the purchase notice on the ground—

(i) that the owner is not the owner of an interest in the land, or

(ii) that the land does not fall within any of the descriptions specified in subsection (1).

(3) Where a counter-notice has been served under subsection (2) the owner may require the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
(4) An objection on either of the grounds specified in subsection (2) shall not be upheld by the Lands Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded.
(5) If the Lands Tribunal determine not to uphold the objection in respect of the whole or any part of the land the Tribunal shall declare that the purchase notice is a valid notice for the land or that part.
(6) Where no counter-notice has been served in time under subsection (2) or such a counter-notice has been served but has been withdrawn or the purchase notice declared to be valid by the Lands Tribunal the responsible authority or the highway authority as the case may be shall be deemed—

(a) to be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the appropriate enactment the interest of the owner in the land or in that part comprised in the declaration of the Lands Tribunal, and

(b) to have served notice to treat in respect of the land or that part on the date on which the period for service of a counter-notice expired or the date of withdrawal of the counter-notice or the date of the declaration of the Lands Tribunal as the case may be.

(7) A notice to treat deemed to be served by virtue of subsection (6) shall not be capable of withdrawal.
(8) A person who has served a purchase notice under subsection (1) may withdraw it at any time before it has been declared valid under subsection (5).
(9) For the purposes of this section 'responsible authority' has the same meaning as in section 1(4) of this Act (right to compensation) and 'highway authority' has the same meaning as it has for the purpose of section 246 of the Highway Act 1980; and 'relevant date' has the same meaning as in section 1(9) of this Act.
(10) A purchase notice under this section shall not be served before the expiration of one year from the relevant date and no subsequent purchase notice after the first shall be served until three years after the service of the last previous notice.
(11) Once a purchase notice has taken effect under subsection (6) of this section no further purchase notice shall be served under this section in respect of the land for which the purchase notice has taken effect provided that notice of the taking effect of the purchase notice has been registered as a local land charge in the local land charges register of the appropriate local authority.
(12) Where compensation has been claimed under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (further provision as to compensation for injurious affection) or under Part I of this Act (compensation for depreciation caused by the use of public works) any compensation payable consequent upon such claim shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in consequence of a notice to treat deemed to be served under subsection (6)." ").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which is concerned with the provision of a purchase notice facility for those whose land suffers a material detriment in connection with public works. The concept behind this amendment is contained in the blue booklet published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It rests on the fact that in many respects there are those whose land is affected very adversely by public works. That is referred to as "material detriment". That can be defined as meaning that the property concerned is less useful or valuable in some significant degree. I stress that this can affect equally residential, commercial or agricultural property.
Under the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Highways Act 1980 there are already powers vested in local authorities which are responsible for public works to purchase land by agreement where they perceive the land to be seriously

991
affected by the construction or the use of public works or a highway. These powers are extended by Clause 44 of the Bill.
The intention is that an authority will be able to acquire land which it considers to be seriously affected in the way described. The new section which this amendment proposes to insert takes the description "seriously affected" one stage further. Where an owner claims and can successfully establish that his land is seriously affected, and the land falls within the descriptions already provided for in the Acts of 1973 and 1980, he may then serve a purchase notice on the authority requiring the purchase of his interest in the land. This is the corollary which gives the facility for the person who sees his land affected to reverse the facility that a public authority already has.
That does not alter the category of land or claimant as against existing legislation. I feel very strongly that those who suffer this serious and detrimental effect on their land should have some facility for redress in the way suggested by the amendment. Quite frankly, it is totally unacceptable to me as a chartered surveyor and somebody who takes a fairly dispassionate line on this issue, that there should effectively be a cross-subsidy in this respect by those who stand to be affected in favour of the public authority in pursuit of its statutory function. I noted very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier. It is a question of balance and having a reasonably even playing field. It is not a question of there being residential occupiers and therefore potential voters. It is a question of straightforward justice. That cuts through the political aspects of the measure, on which I am certainly not going to raise any point. I am not competent to do so.
Unless we have a system that operates fairly and with proper balance, then it does not make any difference whether there should be a special case for one or another. It is a point of principle which remains notable because of the fact that there is no redress given. That is the background to this amendment. It will be noted that it provides for the authority carrying out the work the opportunity to object to the notice as proposed and that any dispute can be settled by the Lands Tribunal. The matter is quite comprehensive and I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Earl indicated, the Land Compensation Act or, in the case of road schemes, the Highways Act 1980 gives responsible authorities a discretionary power to acquire by agreement any land of which the enjoyment is seriously affected by the carrying out or use of public works. This discretionary power is used by authorities in appropriate cases to mitigate hardship arising from the adverse effects of works during the construction stage of the project or when the scheme has come into use. It is important to understand those two separate parts. As the Committee will be aware, we are proposing in Clause 44 of the Bill that the discretionary power should in future be available to authorities from a much earlier stage in the life of a
992
development project; that is, from the point at which the proposed location of a scheme has been announced.
The noble Earl is arguing that the power for authorities to acquire property should become an obligation in the event of an owner serving a purchase notice. It seems to us that the discretion to acquire, as extended by the Bill in Clause 44, and the entitlement to compensation for loss of value together constitute an adequate protection for those affected by public development. To convert that important discretion to acquire into an outright obligation on authorities would, in the Government's view, be unjustified. It could lead to authorities being compelled to acquire substantial stocks of land. Such a requirement would have enormous cost implications and would hardly constitute a sensible use of resources.
The concept of "serious affection" is not in any way defined in the amendment and it is therefore hard to establish how widely the right to serve a purchase notice would extend. Perhaps I may anticipate the response that I am likely to get from the noble Earl. That concept appears within the 1973 Act similarly and without any definition. But as he will appreciate, that is only in the context of a discretion being given to the authorities to acquire. An actual obligation to purchase would surely require a more specific frame of reference. The number of people claiming to be "seriously affected" by any particular development scheme could be very large. It could be difficult to establish how the line was to be drawn. The noble Earl's amendment envisages that it would be left to the Lands Tribunal to settle the matter but I do not think that would be right from the point of view of either the principle itself or the substantial case-load burden likely to be involved.
It appears to be the intention that the obligation on authorities to purchase would apply both during the construction stage of a project and after the scheme had come into use. However, as I am sure the noble Earl appreciates, the effect of work at the construction stage, though unpleasant, may often be quite short-lived. It would therefore be wholly inappropriate in such circumstances that the authority should be obliged to purchase a property whenever the owner required. We in no way underestimate the difficulties and the misery which may be caused to others from the proximity to a major public development scheme. But it does seem to us that the existing compensation provisions, as extended by this Bill, do go just about as far as is reasonable and practicable in terms of safeguarding the interests of those affected. The right approach is to allow the authorities to weigh up each case on its merits and use the discretion they already have to acquire where there is good reason to do so.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that I am not in a position to accept his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has put forward a very compelling response. I accept many of the things he says and I agree that the amendment suffers from a number of

993
defects in drafting. I hope that he will nonetheless accept that it is the principle behind the issue that I am trying to get at.
I would feel a little happier if circumstances were available whereby someone who was seriously affected in the way envisaged—I stress that the matter is already covered in statute law—could have access to some form of review. For instance, an authority exercising its functions in this way will, of necessity, seriously affect some people. It is not intended that that should be a free for all or that there should be major resource implications. That was not the intention behind the proposal. It seems to me that there is no review provision to allow an individual who considers that he has been particularly badly affected to go along to a higher authority to say that the local authority has declined to exercise its discretion in his favour and that it ought to exercise its discretion in that way. That is a defect in the present provision. However, I accept that what the Lord Advocate said covered many of the more serious areas.
I am particularly anxious because, as in all such matters, there are resource implications. I am especially concerned that an authority, in carrying out major works, might be influenced by the overall cost rather than necessarily by the consideration of plain justice for someone who was badly affected.
I reserve my position on this matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 292:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Confirmation of compulsory purchase of land
. The Secretary of State or the Minister shall not confirm an order for the compulsory purchase of any land or rights over land unless he is satisfied:

(a) that the acquisition of the land or rights in, on or over the land in question is essential to enable the purchaser to meet its statutory obligation;

(b) that there is no suitable alternative way in which the purchaser could meet those obligations; and

(c) that the owner in question of the land or rights in, on or over land in question is unwilling or unable to enter into an agreement to sell the land or the rights voluntarily.").

The noble Lord said: I am asked by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to give his apologies to the Committee for not being here. He did not realise that the amendment would be called up this evening.
Compulsory purchase powers are obviously essential to enable undertakings to fulfil their statutory duties, particularly where they are met with intransigent resistance to that which they need to do to carry out those duties. However, those powers should not be used as the easy way either to draw their plans or to abandon careful consideration of whether what they want to do is the best way of doing it or it is even necessary to do it at all. The amendment tries to ensure that due consideration is given both to the need to carry out certain works and to the method and route by which those works are to be executed.
Paragraph (c) places an obligation on the undertaker to try to purchase the land or buildings by negotiation and private treaty and to do that in advance of seeking compulsory powers. A great many people will negotiate willingly if they do not feel they are under duress. Psychologically they are more amenable if they do not feel threatened. Any negotiation must take place before compulsory powers are invoked since negotiated payments above CPO level cannot be paid once they are invoked. Extra payments are barred under Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
I am sure I shall be told that all this will bring about intolerable delays. In fact it is far more likely to speed things up. If this were not the case, why do so many undertakers who have compulsory powers negotiate rather than use them and find that extra payments are a commercially viable answer which actually save them both time and money? The Government themselves have indirectly admitted the viability of this principle by paying bonuses to firms completing roadworks and so on ahead of time. How much more could be saved for the benefit of the country and the owners by speeding up the starting time of many projects! The undertaker would quickly know whether or not the owner was going to be a willing negotiator. Under present conditions an owner can hold up a project for months or even years while haggling over the details of compulsory purchase in which he is sure he is being unfairly treated. Most people are fair minded and, approached properly, are willing to negotiate and come to agreement. Compulsory powers must be a reserve against those who are obstructionists, but it is as reserve powers that they should be used and not as the spearhead. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I warmly support the amendment because an important point of principle is involved. If one can get people to negotiate without the stick of compulsory powers held immediately over them, they will do so more easily. It is a perfect carrot and stick situation. If the Government were prepared to look along this line I am sure, as the noble Lord has already said, that settlements would be much quicker and, in the long run, much cheaper.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment would require the authority confirming a compulsory purchase order to be satisfied that acquisition of the land, or rights over the land, is essential for the fulfilment of a statutory obligation; that there are no suitable alternative means of fulfilling any such obligation; and that the owner is unwilling to sell by agreement.
Powers of compulsory acquisition are spread across a large number of enactments and relate to a wide range of authorities and purposes. Broadly speaking, however, the powers of acquisition are couched in terms of land which is "required" by the authority for a particular purpose. The word "required" is a fairly strong one and it has been interpreted by the courts as implying that the acquisition in question must be one

995
which is needed to accomplish the relevant authority's purpose. It is not enough, the courts have held, for the authority to argue that acquisition is merely desirable.
The need for compulsory acquisition is of course a matter on which the Secretary of State or Minister has to satisfy himself before confirming a compulsory purchase order. The law provides for objectors to an order to be heard at a local inquiry or hearing at which arguments as to whether the acquisition is needed can be properly aired.
The noble Lord's proposal would involve confining the use of compulsory purchase powers to cases where acquisition were shown to be "essential". This would in our view constitute an unreasonably rigid test, since authorities would in practice rarely be in a position to demonstrate that the acquisition of a particular piece of land was truly essential in the strictest sense. The effect would be to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for many desirable development projects which depended on compulsory purchase to proceed at all.
The amendment would further provide that the authority must have attempted to acquire the land by agreement before proceeding with compulsory purchase. Authorities will very often seek to negotiate for a voluntary sale of land without waiting for completion of the compulsory purchase procedures. But to make it a statutory requirement that negotiations take place in all cases before a compulsory purchase order could be confirmed would not in our view be a sensible proposition. I do not see that such a requirement could make any substantive difference to the situation as between the owner of the land and the acquiring authority.
The noble Lord has indicated that the effect of his proposal would be to provide an opportunity for negotiations to take place between the parties on a proper open market basis. But the reality is surely that there can never be a genuine open market situation when both parties know that there is ultimately the prospect of a compulsory acquisition in the event of negotiations breaking down. The fact that the authority was not at that point allowed to use compulsory powers would hardly alter the position. The acquiring authority would not generally be prepared to offer more for the land than it would expect to have to pay in the event of a compulsory purchase.
In these circumstances the requirement proposed by the noble Lord would seem to offer no significant benefit to the owner of the land. All it would do would be to add an extra stage to the acquisition process, with a consequent risk of unnecessary delay to important public development projects. From that point of view I see the noble Lord's proposal as being positively harmful. Although I know that that explanation will be less than helpful both to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, I hope that they will not press the amendment.
Lord Cornwallis: I take note of the noble Baroness's response. I believe that you can have a relatively open negotiation even with the threat of compulsory
996
purchase powers in the background. If that were not so I would entirely fail to understand why those organisations which have been privatised but which still retain compulsory purchase powers almost invariably do not use such powers. In fact, they negotiate their acquisitions freely with the owners concerned and find, first, that it speeds up the process considerably and, secondly, that it proves to be cheaper than going through all the processes of necessary planning inquiries and so on. It is a fact of life that this is indeed already happening.
I am sorry about the Minister's attitude towards the amendment. However, if possible, I should like her to think very carefully about paragraph (c) of the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 293:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition
.—(1) Schedule (Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition) to this Act (which revives Part V of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963) shall have effect.
(2) This section applies to an acquisition or sale of an interest in land if the date of completion (within the meaning of that Part) falls on or after the day on which this section comes into force.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 294:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
Time limit on validity of notice to treat
.—(1) A notice to treat under section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 shall, for the purposes of any compulsory purchase to which the provisions of the first Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 apply, cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which it is served unless—

(a) the compensation has been agreed or awarded or has been paid or paid into a bank;

(b) a general vesting declaration has been executed under paragraph 1 of Schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;

(c) the acquiring authority have entered on and taken possession of the land specified in the notice; or

(d) the question of compensation has been referred to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

(2) If the person interested in the land, or having power to sell and convey it, and the acquiring authority agree to extend the period referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the notice to treat shall cease to have effect at the end of the period as extended unless—

(a) any of the events referred to in that subsection have then taken place; or

(b) the parties have agreed to a further extension of the period (in which case this subsection shall apply again at the end of the period as further extended, and so on).

(3) Where a notice to treat ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the acquiring authority—

(a) shall immediately give notice of that fact to the person on whom the notice was served and any other person who, since it was served, could have made an agreement under subsection (2) of this section, and

997

(b) shall be liable to pay compensation to any person entitled to such a notice for any loss or expenses occasioned to him by the giving of the notice and its ceasing to have effect.

(4) The amount of any compensation payable under subsection (3) of this section shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.
(5) Compensation payable to any person under subsection (3) of this section shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under section 40 (rate of interest after entry on land) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 from the date on which he was entitled to be given notice under that subsection until payment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 368. Amendment No. 294 inserts a new clause for Scotland which makes parallel provision to Clause 46 of the Bill for England and Wales. Clause 46 limits the period during which a notice to treat has effect and, as the Committee will appreciate, its substance will be considered shortly. Amendment No. 368 makes a consequential addition to Schedule 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Planning assumptions in connection with highway schemes]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 53, leave out lines 12 to 20 and insert:
("(7) The determinations referred to in subsection (5) of this section are—

(a) a determination, for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition, whether planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted for any development if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, and

(b) a determination under section 17 of this Act as to the development for which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, planning permission would or would not have been granted if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 296, 297, 299, 301 to 306, 350, 355 and 381. Amendments Nos. 297, 350 and 381 are government amendments which contain modifications to the provisions set out in Part III of the Land Compensation Act 1961 under which the owner of land which an authority proposes to acquire compulsorily or by agreement—or the acquiring authority itself—can apply to the local planning authority for a certificate stating what development, if any, would have been permitted on the land if it were not being acquired by the authority. The statement in the certificate—usually referred to as a Section 17 certificate—is then taken into account in valuing the land for compensation purposes.
As the law stands, the certification procedure is not available where the land concerned comes within an area designated in the development plan as either an area of comprehensive development or as an area allocated for residential, commercial or industrial use or a combination of such uses. In such cases the
998
planning position for valuation purposes is determined on the assumption that permission would be granted for any development that is consistent with the contents of the development plan.
The argument has been advanced that this restriction on the certification procedure is no longer reasonable since in practice the designation shown on a development plan may not always provide a sufficiently precise or up-to-date indication of the planning position in respect of an individual site. The Government accept the force of this argument. The main purpose of the new provisions is therefore to extend the certification procedure to include land covered by development plans. The amending provisions are structured in such a way as to ensure that, broadly, where a Section 17 certificate is issued, its contents will override any contrary planning assumptions arising from the development plan which would otherwise have to be taken account in establishing the planning potential of the land.
These provisions also modify the certification procedure to provide for the reimbursement of costs which have been reasonably incurred by the claimant in connection with a certificate. In general, the legal and surveyors' fees arising from a compensation claim are included. However, the Court of Appeal has held that costs incurred in connection with the certification procedure cannot be recovered. That seems to us an anomaly and we are therefore proposing that it should be rectified. These changes were foreshadowed in our 1989 consultation paper on compensation and met with general approval. Similar modifications are made to Scottish legislation by Amendments Nos. 305 and 355.
I turn now to the two amendments concerning the certification procedure tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendments Nos. 299 and 306. These have the same basic object as the government provisions which I have described and are drafted on similar lines. There is, however, an important difference in that the noble Earl's provisions do not appear to address the possibility of a conflict between the content of a Section 17 certificate and a planning assumption derived from a development plan. It is certainly the case that the chances of such conflict should be much reduced by virtue of the new development plan procedures introduced under earlier provisions in the Bill, but the risk cannot be ruled out altogether. Hence the need to provide, as our amendments do, that where a Section 17 certificate is issued it will override any contrary planning assumptions arising from a development plan. I have to say that the noble Earl's amendments are defective in not dealing with that aspect of the certification procedure and I hope in the circumstances that he will not feel it necessary to press them.
I turn finally to deal with a separate series of government amendments. I refer to Amendments Nos. 295 and 301 to 304. These make necessary technical modifications to the provisions already in the Bill; namely, Clause 45 in respect of England and Wales and Clause 50 in respect of Scotland. They are

999
intended to exclude the existence of an imaginary alternative when determining the value of land to be acquired for a highway scheme. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said much more cogently than I could have done almost all that I needed to say about Amendments Nos. 299 and 306 which are tabled in my name. I thank him for doing so. However, can he clarify whether he is saying that the principle behind those amendments is defective. I do not believe that that was what he meant to say. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that apart from the fact that the two amendments are deficient in that they do not resolve the position regarding conflict with the development plan, they are, nonetheless, very much along the lines of those which he has tabled. If that is the case, it seems to me that we are at one on the principle, involved and that it is merely a question of bringing into line what in effect is a provision for England and Wales and making it equal to the one which he proposes for Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should point out to the noble Earl that I am also dealing with England and Wales. In using the word "defective" it is possible that he has taken it in the rather narrower sense which we tend to use in Committee; namely, to indicate that the drafting is defective. What I am indicating is that it seems to me that, by omitting the one provision that is not mirrored in the government amendments, he is leaving open a possibility of conflict which the Government consider to be an undesirable risk. It may not be a very great risk, for the reasons I have given, but the possibility is there. For this reason we would consider it very much more desirable to follow the pattern laid down in the fuller amendments that we have provided.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 296:
Page 53, line 22, after ("construction") insert ("alteration or improvement").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 297:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
Certification of appropriate alternative development
(" .—(l) For section 17(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (certificate of appropriate alternative development may be issued only if land is not in an area defined in development plan as an area of comprehensive development or shown in the plan as allocated for residential, commercial or industrial use) there is substituted—

"(1) Where an interest in land is proposed to be acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, either of the parties directly concerned may, subject to subsection (2) of this section, apply to the local planning authority for a certificate under this section".

1000

(2) In subsection (4) of that section (certificate stating that permission for development would or would not be granted) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) that planning permission would have been granted for development of one or more classes specified in the certificate (whether specified in the application or not) and for any development for which the land is to be acquired, but would not have been granted for any other development; or

(b) that planning permission would have been granted for any development for which the land is to be acquired, but would not have been granted for any other development,

and for the purposes of this subsection development is development for which the land is to be acquired if the land is to be acquired for purposes which involve the carrying out of proposals of the acquiring authority for that development."

(3) After subsection (9) of that section there is inserted—

"(9A) In assessing the compensation payable to any person in respect of any compulsory acquisition, there shall be taken into account any expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with the issue of a certificate under this section (including expenses incurred in connection with an appeal under section 18 of this Act where any of the issues on the appeal are determined in his favour)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 298:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition
(" .—(1) Schedule (Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition) to this Act (which revives Part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961) shall have effect.
(2) This section applies to an acquisition or sale of an interest in land if the date of completion (within the meaning of that Part) falls on or after the day on which this section comes into force.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 299 not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 300:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for loss where order not made or notice to treat not served
. After section 3 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (acquisition by agreement in pursuance of compulsory purchase order) there is inserted—
"Compensation for loss where order not made or notice to treat not served.
3A.—(1) Where an acquiring authority have resolved to make or have taken any statutory step initiating the procedure for making a compulsory purchase order for any land but have not thereafter made an order which has become operative within a period of four years or earlier notified the owner of any interest in the land that they do not intend to make the order the authority shall be liable to pay compensation to any such owner for any loss or expenses occasioned to him in consequence of the resolution or the statutory step between the date of the resolution or the taking of the statutory step whichever is the earlier and the expiration of the said period of four years or the date of any such notice whichever is the earlier.
(2) The amount of any compensation payable under subsection (1) shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Lands Tribunal.
(3) Compensation payable to any person under subsection (1) shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 from the date of the resolution or statutory step referred to in subsection (1) whichever is the earlier.
(4) Where a compulsory purchase order has become operative but no notice to treat is served within the period specified in section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (time limit) or the acquiring authority have not earlier notified the owner of any interest in land comprised in the order that notice to treat will not be served the authority shall be liable to pay compensation to any such owner for loss or expenses occasioned to him between the date on which the order was resolved to be made or the first statutory step to initiate it was taken whichever is the earlier and the date of the expiration of the period specified in the said section 4 or the date on which the authority gave notice that no notice to treat would be served whichever is the earlier in consequence of the resolution, the initiation of the first statutory step and the making and coming into operation of the order.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall apply to compensation to be assessed under subsection (4) as they apply to compensation to be assessed under subsection (1).
(6) Subsection (4) and (5) do not apply where a blight notice is served and becomes valid under Chapter II of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (interests affected by planning proposals: blight) in consequence of the land being blighted land within paragraph 22 of Schedule 13 of that Act." ").
The noble Earl said: The principle behind Amendment No. 300 is that it provides for compensation to be paid for a demonstrable loss where a compulsory purchase order is not in fact made or notice to treat is not in fact served. There is very little more I can add to it, other than to say that when an acquiring authority or prospective acquiring authority sets off down the road of obtaining compulsory powers it can involve claimants and potential claimants in a very significant amount of expense in terms of protecting their interests.
This provision is something which is already, as I understand it, implemented by a number of authorities where they decide for whatever reason to withdraw from or not to proceed with a compulsory purchase order. Although the amendment appears to be a very long one, its import is quite limited. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: At the risk of over-simplifying what I think the noble Lord intends by these amendments, I would say that, largely, they all seek to make further provision for compensating owners who are facing compulsory purchase but who are nonetheless in a period of uncertainty as to whether or when the authority will proceed with the acquisition of their property.
Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 concern the steps that owners should reasonably be required to take in order to mitigate their compensatable losses. I agree that it is desirable for the owner and the authority to work out in advance of compensation being assessed what are reasonable steps to take to mitigate losses, and when they are best taken. However, I am not convinced that these are matters which need to be
1002
enshrined in the law. The courts have already concluded that expenses incurred by owners in connection with compulsory purchase should be reasonably direct and not too remote. That seems to me to be a sufficient legal basis on which to assess such compensation. I therefore do not support the idea of amending the provisions as they stand.
Amendment No. 300 seeks to provide compensation for owners' expenses incurred from the date when the authority initiated the procedure for making a compulsory purchase order if, within four years of that date, the order has not become operative nor has the authority formally abandoned its proposal, or, alternatively, if the order has become operative but notice to treat has not been served within the statutory three-year period nor formally withdrawn by the authority. Again, I can appreciate the good intentions behind the noble Earl's amendment. However, it is our view that an adequate safeguard is already available in the form of the statutory blight provisions, under which owners can normally ask the authority to purchase their property in advance of compulsory purchase. Where this occurs it is a well-established principle that expenses incurred before notice to treat are recoverable, provided they are not unreasonable, unnecessary or too remote.
It would appear from the form of Amendment No. 300 that the liability to pay compensation would be triggered even before an authority had firmly committed itself to making a compulsory purchase order. Thus the liability would presumably arise in relation to proposals which were published simply for the purposes of public discussion. This would scarcely be conducive to openness and participation in the planning system.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 342, under which an owner who has been served with notice to treat and who therefore can no longer require the authority to purchase his property under the blight provisions would be able to require the authority to take entry on to his property. It is certainly not right that an owner who has had notice to treat served on him should then be left to face a substantial period of uncertainty as to precisely when the authority is going to take possession of his property.
It is for this reason that we have introduced a provision at Clause 46 of the Bill under which notice to treat shall cease to have effect if the authority have failed to act on it within three years of its service. The clause further provides for compensation to be paid to affected owners where notice to treat lapses in these circumstances. In our view this provision strikes the right balance—on the one hand, not leaving owners in the dark for an excessive period and, on the other hand, allowing authorities sufficient time to take stock of their requirements for the proposed scheme and to carry out the complex processes that are necessary when land is compulsorily purchased. We hope that the three-year time limit will act as an incentive for local authorities to complete transactions as soon as possible. To do as the noble Earl suggests would be to impose an unreasonable constraint on acquiring

1003
authorities. I hope that that explanation is helpful to the noble Earl and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I do not find that a very satisfactory response. It seems that the Government are saying that if the local authority, or whatever body it is which serves the compulsory purchase order or passes a resolution that it intends to go forward with compulsory purchase proceedings and then does not actually carry out that intention nor serve a notice to treat, the compensation to the owner who is affected might be triggered by serving a purchase notice. Why should the owner serve a purchase notice if in fact he dearly loves his property and does not wish to abandon it? It seems to me that there is a gap. Perhaps I have not completely taken in everything the noble Baroness has said but, as I understood her explanation, if the authority passes a resolution that it intends to make a compulsory purchase and then does not serve a notice to treat, messes about and finally abandons the project, the owner of the property, unless he serves a purchase notice, actually gets no compensation whatsoever. That surely cannot be right. He should have some recognition that he has suffered through this. There has been a blight on their property, and there is no way that they can sell it. Suddenly, the whole thing is off. The procedure may take three or four years and they receive nothing. That is wrong.
The Earl of Lytton: I listened with care to what the Minister said. Perhaps I may apologise to her for not having spoken to all the amendments to which, obviously, I should have spoken. I thank her for her courteous reply to all the amendments to which I did not speak and to the one to which I did speak. I apologise to the Committee for that.
There is an unresolved problem here, as has rightly been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. It brings into sharp focus the type of problem that I have encountered when dealing with claimants in respect of small road-widening schemes and such matters. Bearing in mind that in the South East of England there is a high turnover of residential properties—people do not tend to remain on average for more than three or four years—the chances are that, within a scheme involving several hundred properties, several people may wish to move on whose homes are blighted by the provision whereby a resolution has been made but nothing further has happened.
Such people are left in an invidious position. They can cut their losses and run or, if the acquiring authority is trying to acquire by agreement, they can settle for whatever they are offered in order to get rid of the problem that is hanging over them. It is an imposition in the sense that draconian powers are being exercised which in many respects clearly prejudice the interests of individuals. I am especially interested in residential occupiers who may stand to lose a piece of front garden or something like that.
While I do not wish to press the amendment, I feel that there remains a case that the Minister has not yet answered. I ask her further to consider the matter
1004
carefully to see whether something can be done to improve the operation of the blight provisions so that they can catch up with even a few of the hard cases.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may apologise for the second time today for being presumptuous; but there was an agreement that we would discuss Amendments Nos. 338, 339 and 342 at the same time. I thank the noble Earl for dealing with those amendments. I shall of course read everything that has been said during the course of the debate, without commitment and without prejudice to the outcome of any deliberations, between now and Report stage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and repeat what I said when speaking to the amendments, that it is our view that an adequate safeguard is available in the form of statutory blight provisions where an owner can require the authority to purchase the property in advance of compulsory purchase.
The Earl of Lytton: I assure the Minister that the mistake over the groupings of the amendments was entirely mine. I did not read what was on the list. She stands completely exonerated on that score, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Planning assumptions in connection with acquisition of land by roads authorities]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 301 to 304:
Page 60, line 14, leave out ("for the purpose of providing") and insert ("for the purpose of, or in connection with, providing, altering").
Page 60, line 16, after ("purpose") insert ("or in that connection").
Page 60, line 25, after ("purpose") insert ("or in the connection").
Page 60, line 26, leave out subsection (7) and insert:
("(7) The determinations referred to in subsection (5) of this section are—

(a) a determination, for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition, whether planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted for any development if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, and

(b) a determination under section 25 of this Act as to the development for which, in the opinion of the planning authority, planning permission would or would not have been granted if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority possessing compulsory purchase powers.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 305:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
Certification of appropriate alternative development
.—(1) For section 25(1) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (certificate of appropriate alternative development may be issued only if land is not in an area defined in development plan as an area of comprehensive development or shown in the plan as allocated for residential, commercial or industrial use) there is substituted—
"(1) Where an interest in land is proposed to be acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, either of the parties directly concerned

1005
may, subject to subsection (2) of this section, apply to the planning authority for a certificate under this section".
(2) In subsection (4) of that section (certificate stating that permission for development would or would not be granted) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) that planning permission would have been granted for development of one or more classes specified in the certificate (whether specified in the application or not) and for any development for which the land is to be acquired, but would not have been granted for any other development; or

(b) that planning permission would have been granted for any development for which the land is to be acquired, but would not have been granted for any other development,

and for the purposes of this subsection development is development for which the land is to be acquired if the land is to be acquired for purposes which involve the carrying out of proposals of the acquiring authority for that development."
(3) After subsection (9) of that section there is inserted—
"(9A) In assessing the compensation payable to any person in respect of any compulsory acquisition, there shall be taken into account any expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with the issue of a certificate under this section (including expenses incurred in connection with an appeal under section 26 of this Act where any of the issues on the appeal are determined in his favour)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 306 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Time limit on validity of notice to treat]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 54, line 12, at end insert:
("(2DD) The Secretary of State shall satisfy itself in respect of any financial year in which this section has effect that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to enable them to fulfil the requirements of subsection (2C) (b) above without detriment to other services provided by any such authority").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 322. We support the intent of Clauses 46 and 47, but the amendments seek to ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to implement them. Clause 46, as the Committee will be aware, limits the validity of a CPO notice for three years, which is probably sensible. Should the implementation of the CPO notice be delayed, not necessarily through the fault of the local authority—for example, as a consequence of a substantially reduced capital allocation, a fate befalling many of them at the moment—the CPO notice may expire, and the whole procedure may have to be repeated later at considerable additional cost, because local authorities will have had to reorganise their capital and financial programmes.
Amendment No. 322 amends Clause 47 which we support. Clause 47 increases tenant compensation from £1,200 to £1,500. It will make occupants eligible for that compensation after one year rather than five and will ensure that they will be paid more quickly. We support all of that, but as it means that more
1006
people will claim compensation—more compensation and faster compensation—there will obviously be costs for the local authority.
Therefore, both amendments require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities have the resources available to do what we should all wish. Otherwise, we fear that this will simply be one more item in a long list of dogs, litter, community care and environmental protection in which duties —highly desirable duties but ones which have associated costs—are imposed on local authorities without additional resources, putting them at risk of charge-capping.
I am sure there is general agreement that resources should be commensurate with responsibilities. That is what these amendments seek to ensure. I beg to move Amendment No. 307.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment as drafted begs some important questions. Exactly how is the Secretary of State to satisfy himself of the facts? If he is not satisfied, what is he to do about it? What exactly is meant by "detriment", and how is it to be judged?
Nonetheless, the underlying thought is clear enough: it is that when central government impose new burdens on local government, they should also ensure that local government has the resources it needs in order to put those burdens into effect. I agree with that view. But this amendment is not remotely helpful in enabling it to be carried out.
Every year there is a financial settlement in which the Government determine how much they think local authorities need to spend and how much they will give them in support of that expenditure. Before the settlement is made, the Government review all the circumstances including, among other things, the new burdens which they have placed on authorities for the coming year. They also go through an extensive consultation with local authorities and their representatives.
In other words, it is already the case that new burdens are included in the settlement to the extent that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. There is no need for us to legislate to spell this out. Indeed, it would be odd to spell it out with regard to these particular burdens, which are certainly important matters but are not in the overall scheme of things major items of local authority spending. From this point of view, the amendments are at best unnecessary and are out of proportion with the other factors which the Secretary of State is bound to take into account.
There is another hidden implication in the amendments which I wish to draw out. It is that each year's settlement includes specific provision for each item of spending by local authorities. That is simply not the case. The settlement is determined as an overall figure, taking account of a wide range of factors—new burdens, certainly, but also the level of inflation, the scope for improved efficiency, the cutting out of wasteful expenditure and, more generally, what the country as a whole can afford.
These amendments speak of avoiding detriment to other services. To satisfy himself on this score the

1007
Secretary of State would have to assess in some detail exactly what it would cost local authorities to provide a "non-detrimented" service—I apologise for that word but it is the only one that will do—for each of these functions. He would in effect have to second-guess local authorities' own decisions about their local priorities. I am sure that if we on this side had come up with such a proposal it would have been fiercely opposed by Members opposite on the grounds that it undermined local discretion and democracy. We do not intend to fall into that trap.
I hope the noble Baroness will not be surprised at my reply and will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I appreciate some of the points made by the noble Baroness, but I have to say that she shares with me a concern that local government more generally is having additional burdens imposed upon it. This may not be the best way of addressing that problem. As she does, I fear increasing centralisation by central government over local government. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness is a convert to our side in trying to hold at bay central government, and of course we should welcome her spirited support for that position.
Nevertheless, I was slightly concerned at the Minister's comment that the new burdens were included in the settlement to the degree that the Secretary of State thought appropriate; and then the Minister indicated that what was appropriate was inflation, savings and what the country can afford. That leaves out the additional responsibilities imposed on local authorities by the Minister.
I hope that what the Minister may take from this fairly brief exchange is that central government must think hard before asking local authorities to take on additional responsibilities, desirable though they may be, if their annual allocations, their capital allocations, their PES forecasts, their standard spending assessments for local authorities and the like neither keep pace with inflation on the one hand nor are commensurate with increased responsibilities on the other.
Over the past three years every local authority association has complained to the joint consultative council that the financial settlement by central government to local government has not fully compensated for the additional burdens that central government have imposed on it. If as a result of this exchange the Minister would accept that issue and bring it to the attention of her colleagues in another place, I think we should be well served. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 308 to 311 not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 312:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Payment of additional sum
.—(1) After section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 there is inserted—
"Additional sum.
.—(1) In addition to the total compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition assessed in accordance with the rules in section 5 of this Act there shall be paid by the authority paying such compensation to any person to whom such compensation is paid an additional sum calculated as 10 per cent. of such compensation subject to a maximum additional sum of £25,000 to assist in the re-organisation of his affairs having regard to the fact that the paying authority have or are deemed to have a compulsory power of acquisition whether exercised or not and whether or not consequent on the service of a purchase notice or a blight notice under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Rights of owners etc. to require purchase of interests).
(2) Where a person is entitled to an additional sum under this section and a home loss payment under section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Right to home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling) only the higher of the two amounts shall be payable and not both."
(2) At the end of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (Further provisions as to compensation for injurious affection) there is inserted—
"(4) Section—of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (Additional sum) shall apply to the total compensation payable under this section as it applies to the total compensation on a compulsory acquisition of land assessed under section 5 of that Act (Rules for assessing compensation) but having regard to the fact that the injurious affection is compulsorily imposed on the claimant's land."
(3) At the end of section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (Tenants at will etc.) there is inserted—
"(7) Section—of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (Additional sum) shall apply to the total compensation payable under this section as it applies to the total compensation on a compulsory acquisition of land assessed under section 5 of that Act (Rules for assessing compensation) but having regard to the fact that the claimant is compulsorily required to give up possession of the land."
(4) At the end of section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Assessment of compensation: general provisions) there is inserted—
"(6) Section—of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (Additional sum) shall apply to the total compensation payable under this section as it applies to the total compensation on a compulsory acquisition of land assessed under section 5 of that Act (Rules for assessing compensation) but having regard to the fact that the depreciation is compulsorily imposed on the claimant's land." ").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I must say that I was greatly heartened by the comment just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that she considered local authorities should be fully compensated for the shortfall that she believed existed. Amendment No. 312 seeks to achieve exactly the same objective. The amendment attempts to rectify what is certainly perceived by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and many other bodies to be a deficiency in the fundamentals of the compensation system.
The principles that are at stake here are as follows. First, under a compulsory purchase order or a threat of compulsion the vendor is likely to act unwillingly. However, it must be said that no regard is to be paid to compulsion in assessing compensation. Secondly, the vendor is refunded only his cash costs and the price

1009
of his land and buildings at valuation. That fails to address the principle that there is more to the business of land and property ownership and the occupation and ownership of a dwelling house than a crude assembly of all the various bits and pieces. That omits the concept of the personal trauma or inconvenience that is suffered by a claimant and the temporary blight—on the admission of the Minister the latter is not taken into account—and unquantifiable losses which may occur and which are not necessarily reflected in the value of the land. One also has to take into account loss of view and such considerations as historic ownership. No amount of compensation can ever reinstate those considerations.
The measure obliges a claimant to sell at a time and at a value which are not necessarily of his choosing. He is totally under the control of the acquiring authority regarding the date and timing of the particular acquisition which then fixes the valuation date. The amendment seeks to remedy an imbalance between the public and private interests in so far as it is not already taken into account. I believe there is a compelling argument for saying that the existing measure is deficient in a material respect.
I did not move Amendment No. 308. This amendment differs from Amendment No. 308 only in that it applies a flat rate increase to the totality of compensation. The aim of this amendment is the same as that of Amendment No. 308, but I feel that, administratively, it is a lot easier to handle. The percentage uplift is there to reflect the compulsory nature and the unquantifiable factors of the compulsory acquisition process.
The amendment safeguards against paying double compensation; for instance, in the event of home loss payments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may wish to leap to his feet and tell me that residential property is a special case and should be treated as such. I do not wish to pre-empt what he may say. I believe there are provisions in the world of compulsory purchase and compensation that make every claimant something of a special case. However, I agree that the householder may require specific fall-back provisions which are not applicable elsewhere. I do not accept that the concept of a payment to reflect the compulsory nature of the acquisition is such a fall-back provision.
My amendment provides for a ceiling to be placed on this additional amount. The ceiling is specified as £25,000. The purpose behind setting such a ceiling was quite deliberate in the sense that one of the obvious criticisms that could be made of the amendment would concern its resource implications. The cut-off point is intended to address that criticism. I know that there are others who do not agree with that and I shall not comment further on what they may have to say in that respect.
There is a compelling reason for an additional sum being payable. It has resource implications and I do not want to make light of the provision. It is not my place to make the process more expensive than it need be.
I should like to pick up a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. Unless claimants can rest assured that the system will treat them in a self-evidently fair manner in respect of compensation payable there will be continued resistance to compulsory acquisition at every stage—at the making of the compulsory purchase order and on disagreements over value—with the consequential factors of public inquiries and references to the Lands Tribunal.
We cannot continue down that road. It requires an act of faith to break that vicious circle of on the one hand authorities wielding extensive powers and on the other hand the claimant who is in a relatively vulnerable position. There are reasons to believe that savings which may not be immediately quantifiable will be produced by an amendment such as this and they should be taken into account.
Amendment No. 334 is consequential on this amendment. I do not believe that I need to say more about it. I beg to move.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 312, Amendment No. 313:
Line 9, leave out from ("compensation") to ("having") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: I support the principle behind the previous amendment but with reservations. I see no reason for there to be a cut-off point in compensation payments. Surely injurious effect upon one's business or home is bound to be in proportion to the size of the asset taken. In the case of land the financial damage to the viability of the remainder of the area and the quality of the land must also be taken into consideration.
The view may be taken, and has been taken by the noble Earl, that the proposal will help people at the bottom end of the market. So it will. However, does that mean that the remainder should not be placed on an equal footing? As already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in 1941 the Court of Appeal in Horne v Sunderland held that the vendor must be in no worse state than he was prior to the acquisition. That ruling must surely hold across the board.
Equally, it seems that no one must be worse off but some must be more equally worse off than others if the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is agreed as it stands. I am thoroughly in favour of helping those at the bottom end of the scale, but we seem to have an obsession that the rest must be penalised in order to do so. It is that very principle which has placed the CAP in such a mess and is bedevilling current negotiations. We should look at the wealth creators—and I do not mean money—just as much as the others. The wealth creators tend to be the larger enterprises.
I have reservations about the sentence which refers to,
"the re-organisation of his affairs".
However, I understand that that has sympathetic Inland Revenue connotations and I would hate to upset anything that had sympathetic Inland Revenue connotations. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 312 as I added my name to it, and also to Amendment No. 326ZA in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Meston.
Amendment No. 312 is intended to write into legislation what often but not always happens in practice, and quite sensibly so. I do not have experience of the acquisitions made in connection with the Channel Tunnel and its access roads, but I suspect that the compensation paid there was often up to twice the current market value. I may say it is very difficult for valuers to try to assess values at 87/88 or at 73/74, because values seem to be increasing almost overnight. That is another reason why there should be some extra money written in, because if in 1987 somebody had accepted a market price, had completion and then went off trying to find somewhere else to live, he would have had a shock, because every time he put an offer in he would probably have been gazumped.
Another reason for this amendment is that it smooths the path. Time costs money. If you have a reluctant vendor and a rather tough-minded purchaser—somebody who is going to be pretty mean—the chances are that it will be long held out and the matter in the end will probably have to go to arbitration. Surely, it is only right that in addition to the market price there should be some incentive. This goes back into the last century. It has been authorised on many occasions. We are trying to write into the Bill only what happens very often in practice, and should certainly happen here. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out, we are not trying to add a further £25,000 to the maximum of £15,000. That will be taken into account, and it will not necessarily be any extra amount over and above that.
On Amendment No.326ZA, this will try to help small businessmen. Goodness knows, they are in enough trouble as it is. If any of them are left after this recession I shall be very surprised. I may be asked what is the definition of a small business. I am desperately trying to think of the report on small businesses of 15 or so years ago. I am informed by the Labour Front Bench that it was the Bolton Report. In that report one finds a definition of small businesses; it is a term applying to businesses having 200 or less employees.
Lord Mottistone: For the distributive trades, the figure was six employees.
Lord Ross of Newport: In any event, there is a definition of small businesses which would apply in this case. It could at least be taken by the Government as a guide. We all feel particularly sorry for small businesses at this particular time; they are facing all sorts of problems, not the least of which are the huge increases in rate demands. I hope that they might also be taken into account. My noble friend Lord Meston was certainly wishing to speak on their behalf.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, in particular on the principle, which I do not think we have quite grasped,
1012
that if you are compulsorily purchased you are not a willing seller, and therefore it alters the books quite a lot.
The other amendment which I support is the one to which I have added my name: the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. At the risk of infuriating the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh (he did the same to me two or three nights ago on farm buildings, so I do not see why I should not do it to him now) and making him rise to his feet, I see no harm in offering slightly over the odds to encourage settlement. Certainly, it works extremely well in France. I believe that Amiens tried to get the fast railway track through the town in order to get compensation. For all I know, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will have the railway through Haringey.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, thinks that I rise infuriated, he has another think coming.
I think that this exchange is marvellous. It encapsulates everything that I expected it to do and all that I anticipated when I spoke on an earlier amendment. What we have is a little difference of opinion between those who—purely altruistically as regards themselves—represent the very greedy and those who represent the very very greedy.
One can go a lot further. Why are there no amendments to suggest that the proper price to be paid should not be the price at the time of the compulsory acquisition but, let us say, the best price that could have been obtained in any of the past 10 years? That would truly be a shift for the benefit of land owners and property holders. If one continues for long enough one might stop any sort of public investment for infrastructure development which involved land at all. No doubt that would be very comfortable for some noble Lords.
As for the reference to Amiens, if the noble Lord examines the history of the case he will find that, like the city of Lille and Arras, the city of Amiens wanted the TGV because of the economic development opportunities rather than the compulsory purchase price that they would receive for the land.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: First of all, I congratulate my noble friend for managing to get the noble Lord opposite to rise to his feet. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, that much as I share his views on the proposals for the reform of the CAP, it is not a parallel that I feel able to continue to draw with him as we deal with compensation provisions in this Bill.
In bringing forward his amendments the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, argued that compensation payable in all compulsory purchase cases—because that is what it comes to—should include an additional payment over and above the market value of the property itself, in recognition of the fact that the claimant, though I am not sure that the claimant is necessarily an individual, or it may be some other person, is being displaced under compulsion or the threat of it. That brings us up against an important issue to which I am sure we must give careful consideration.

1013
We have considered at some length in the course of this evening's deliberations the essential principle that a claimant should be left neither better nor worse off than he would have been if the compulsory purchase were not taking place.
Market value compensation and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses are available to all claimants. However, there is an important addition.
Those who are displaced from their homes are also entitled to further compensation in the form of a home loss payment. This additional entitlement rests on the premise that a special payment over and above the value of the property itself is justified in order to provide some recompense for the personal distress that normally arises when someone is forced to leave his or her own home in these circumstances. The Government remain firmly committed to the principle of the home loss payment, and indeed one of the main purposes of this Bill is to increase the level of such payments and the number of claimants entitled to receive them. We do not retreat from that at all. The law also provides for farm loss and other special payments to help in particular cases and the Bill improves those provisions in a number of ways.
It does not however seem to us that there is the same justification for extending the principle of the supplement above market value to include all cases of public acquisition, regardless of the circumstances. Home loss payments are not made only because the acquisition is taking place under compulsion or the threat of it. Rather, they are intended to reflect, as I indicated, the view that the compensation system needs to give specific recognition to the particular problems faced by those who are deprived of their own homes. It does not seem to us that these problems arise in the same way where non-residential displacements are concerned. It is true that the enforced loss of any type of property will almost always prove to be a painful experience. But I would expect most people to agree that displacement from one's home will generally give rise to an altogether exceptional degree of inconvenience and distress. Hence the distinction which the compensation system makes between the residential and non-residential situations. It is not of course a distinction newly created by this Bill. It has been applied since the home loss payment scheme was first introduced nearly 20 years ago and has been upheld by successive governments since that time. The changes that we propose in the Bill do not involve any departure from the basic concept of the home loss payment.
Amendment No. 312 provides a basis for assessing additional payment. There is a great deal that I could say about the potential cost implications of the proposals. However, I am unable to entertain the basic principles underlying the amendments. We are strongly of the view that the concept of a supplementary payment above the market value cannot, in all conscience, be justified in the case of non-residential acquisitions.
I turn to Amendment No. 326ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It provides for a special payment which is broadly comparable to the home
1014
loss payment in the case of a compulsory acquisition of a small business. I understand the sympathy felt by the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee for small businesses but I see no way of accepting the proposal advanced. I have indicated the basis on which home loss payments are made but the small business is in a different situation. I cannot see that the loss of property in such a case is comparable to the loss of a home.
Businesses can claim for some losses—for instance, staff time spent on the relocation and the loss of goodwill—which are not available to home owners. Even if we were to adopt the principle of a special payment for small businesses we should immediately come up against the problem of definition. How could we frame a provision targeted at the genuine small business which was not open to circumvention and abuse?
It would appear that the amendment attempts to link eligibility for the proposed payment to entitlement for small businesses to the home loss payment. The intention appears to be that the proposed payment will apply only to those living in the business premises. If that is the intention I see no reason in logic or equity why someone who happens to have a small business which is attached to part of his home should receive a payment while another person who has a business in no way attached to his home but which is to be lost should be well treated.
I do not like to dismiss the problems of the small business. However, the home loss payment is an exceptional situation. It is improved upon in the Bill but it should not be extended.
Lord Cornwallis: I beg to withdraw Amendment No. 313.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lytton: I listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I shall give his comments serious consideration. There appears to be a credibility gap into which the compensation code currently falls. I shall withdraw Amendment No. 312 with the proviso that I may return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 313A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for land sales
.—(1) This section shall apply in any case where a local authority, public corporation or other public body may be required pursuant to a statutory provision to dispose of land where the body certifies that it would not, but for the operation of the provision, seek to dispose of the land at the intended date concerned or to the person to whom, or the price at which, it is proposed that it be disposed.
(2) In any case in which subsection (1) above applies, the Secretary of State shall issue a notice stating that—

(a) he is satisfied that the proposed disposal is at a price or on terms which are fully commensurate with the value of the land, calculated on the basis of any existing or proposed use of the land (whichever is the higher) of which the authority notifies him; and

1015

(b) he is satisfied that no alternative use of the land which the authority or other body has proposed to him is more desirable or conducive to the needs of the area in enabling the body to maintain or improve its services, or on planning or environmental grounds.

(3) No disposal falling within subsection (1) above shall be completed before the issuing of a notice under subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: There is an issue upon which I hope to have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, if I have not totally alienated him as a result of my previous remarks. Amendment No. 313A relates to the possibility of a local authority being forced to sell land at a time which may be unsuitable in terms of the market place or alternative uses for the land.
This is a probing amendment. It does not relate to any provision in the Bill but arises from a consultation paper encouraging the use of vacant public land. It was issued by the department last summer and has received a spirited response from those who were consulted. We have not yet received a formal indication of the response nor of the Government's reaction. However, rumours are circulating that somebody somewhere in Marsham Street, whether on the 17th floor or elsewhere, would like to bring into this the provisions proposed in the consultation paper. Those provisions would mean that local authorities which had vacant land could be required to dispose of it to a named buyer or, for example, they could be forced to dispose of all vacant land within a given geographical boundary.
The original thinking behind that is the fact that there is too much vacant public land. There is also too much vacant private land, but the Government do not think of those two facts in the same way. Indeed, there is a lot of vacant land, much of which has been vacant for far too many years. Experience of the docklands and many other parts of London, to take only the places which I know best, is that vacant land continues unused for far too long.
The thinking behind the Government's consultation paper appears to be that somehow that is a failure of property portfolio management rather than what I suspect is much more the case and has been the case for many years—namely, not that there is unwillingness to use the vacant land but that there are either genuine disputes about what the land should be used for or, more often, a serious lack of positive and well financed proposals for the use of the land. In other words, what is wrong is the economies of our inner city areas rather than the property management powers of the public sector.
Indeed, if it were only the property management powers of the public sector which were at fault, why is there so much vacant privately-owned land? It has always been held to be a virtue by house builders, for example, that they should hold a land bank and should have enough vacant land available to them to have a building programme for a number of years ahead. That was in the days when there were house builders and building programmes. Those days may return but probably not under this Government. I suspect that that belief is a fallacy and the reasons for
1016
private and public vacant land are very much the same: the state of the economy and conflicts as regards the potential uses for land rather than failures of management.
This amendment seeks to protect the community charge payers and those who are behind local authorities. The intention is to make sure that the public assets which they own are not disposed of at the whim of the Secretary of State at anything under the best possible value. Also, they should not be disposed of when suitable alternative uses exist on service, planning or environmental grounds. Therefore, the amendment provides that if the Secretary of State is to make statutory provision to dispose of that land, he shall require the public body to certify that it would not, but for the operation of the provision, seek to dispose of the land at the intended date to the person to whom or at the price at which it is proposed that it be disposed of; and, if it applies, he shall issue a notice saying that he is satisfied that that is the right price and that there is no alternative public use of the land which is more desirable or conducive to the needs of the area. I summarise wildly in order not to impose on the Committee.
The responsibility for proper estate management is quite properly held as being a very important responsibility of local authorities and public bodies. They are quite properly called to task if they fail to dispose of land at the best prices or fail to take account of proper alternative uses. If there is any truth in the rumour that the Secretary of State is to take over those responsibilities, the very least we can ask is that he should take on the responsibility also of determining, for the protection of the public body concerned, that the price is right, or that the alternatives have been properly considered, or both. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: I fear that there has been some serious pre-emption of the consultation paper in the amendment. I assume that the noble Lord's amendment—which seems to me to be clearly outside the scope of the Bill—is aimed at the Secretary of State's power under Section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to direct the disposal of unused or underused land owned by a relevant public sector body and entered on his register. I am certainly not aware of any other powers to which it might apply.
As such, the amendment is misconceived. Before making a direction the Secretary of State is required to give the owner formal notice of its proposed contents and at least 42 days to make representations about any aspect of it. In taking his decision the main point the Secretary of State normally considers is whether the owner has firm and practical proposals either to bring the land into use or to dispose of it within a reasonable period. The desirability or otherwise from a planning, environmental or other point of view of the particular use the owner has in mind is not relevant to his decision in this context. In practice the representations made have been taken so seriously that only one direction has been made for every three notices issued; and where a direction has been made it has sometimes

1017
incorporated changes in the proposed method or terms or timing of disposal to meet points made by the owner.
Directions normally leave the owner free initially to decide the method of sale and only specify a particular method as a last resort; for example, auction or advertised tender. For cases where there is only one likely purchaser—for example, an adjoining owner—the price is normally required to be no less than the district valuer's valuation.
A direction that specifies the method of disposal carries with it implied consent to waive the best-price requirement of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, as the courts held in the 1987 Manchester case; but we would certainly not normally expect any conflict with that requirement. We are as concerned as anyone that an owner should get a proper price for his land; indeed for that reason we would be hesitant about directing disposal when the general level of the market was depressed in the short term or when problems affecting the price of a particular site—for example, the planning position—were likely to be resolved within a reasonable period. But where an owner uses arguments about best price merely as an excuse for unreasonably hanging on to land, the Secretary of State should remain free to exercise his own judgment in the light of all material considerations without being fettered as to which considerations he must take into account.
The noble Lord may well have in mind some of the proposals in our recent consultation paper Encouraging the Use of Vacant Public Sector Land and the possible effect they might have on the price obtained by owners or on the use of a particular site. Some people seem to have the impression that our proposals were aimed at developing sites which were or could sensibly be used as, for instance, public open space, which was certainly not our intention. I do not think that in the context of this Bill we should embark on a general debate about how to deal with vacant public sector land. On this I would only stress that it is a poor use of public resources that so much public land is still being held without being used. We therefore need to consider further measures to bring such land into use. The consultation paper was part of this consideration.
The Government are looking at a wide range of options for encouraging the use of vacant land. In doing so we shall certainly take full account of the responses received to the consultation paper. I do not think I shall be betraying any great secret if I admit that there have been fairly strong adverse reactions in some quarters to our proposals for named-person directions and for franchises in particular. However, any decision to proceed with these proposals would involve legislation at some future date and your Lordships would have full opportunity to debate them then.
In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is goaded into deciding which way he will reply, perhaps I may stress that I do not rise in any
1018
sense out of anger stemming from what was said earlier in the debate. Far from it. I draw to his attention that I was the one who had the cut-off point when the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Cornwallis, were suggesting that I was not going far enough.
I say straight away that the principle behind getting these matters on a level playing field, which I suspect is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was saying, is something with which I agree. However, that is as far down the road as I would go with him. He is espousing the interests of the most powerful of the organisations involved with compensation; namely, the acquiring authorities. I do not think that that should be forgotten. The fact that they are responsible to committees does not make them any less powerful or capable of using those powers in their own interests.
In particular the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is trying to achieve a situation which has been a common thread throughout the debates on this Bill. I refer to the expansion of the non-recourse powers available to local authorities whether for planning or compensation. I stress the term "non-recourse" because I stand fairly and squarely against that concept unless there is a compelling reason why that should be the case.
In my understanding of the situation the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants everything to be accorded to local authorities. He has been at pains to deny the private claimant. By that I mean the residential and the large claimant supposedly represented by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley and my noble friend Lord Cornwallis. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is trying to heap a pile of earth in front of the other side's goal while removing the pile in front of his own. I am not sure that that is a fair way of doing things. I had to make that point clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I get lost in football metaphors. Even I, who have never played football voluntarily and not at all since the age of 13, know that if I wanted to win a game I would not heap a pile of earth in front of the opposing goal and clear the way to my own. I would do the reverse.
The Earl of Lytton: The simile is a poor one. Noble Lords can tell that I am not an expert on football, but I believe that the noble Lord has the gist of what I was saying.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have the gist of what the noble Earl is saying. Whenever I hear noble Lords talking about issues of principle I know that considerable sums of money must be involved. I do not mean that personally. The Minister's reply was quite fascinating. It made me very pleased that I had persisted with this amendment. I was pleased with her response that this Bill is not the appropriate place for the amendment. I was also pleased to hear her admit that the response to last year's consultation paper contained a good deal of antagonism and that if anything were to be done it would require future legislation. Can the Minister now be absolutely precise and confirm that future legislation does not mean at a future stage in the proceedings on this Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am pleased to hear that and that there is no prospect in this Bill of what has been threatened, which is in effect the privatisation of vacant public land. When and if such legislation comes—if the Government are still here to propose it we shall oppose it vigorously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 47 [Home loss payments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 54, line 18, at beginning insert:
("(1) In section 29(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (right to a home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling) there shall be added after paragraph (e) the following paragraph—
"(f) the making by a magistrates court of a nuisance order prohibiting use of the dwelling for human habitation pursuant to section 82(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990."
and in sub-paragraph (v) after the words "paragraph (e)" there shall be added the words "or (f)".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 315, 316, 317, 326 and 332. In the admirable reply given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to a preceding series of amendments, we have clearly distinguished between the very special case of home loss payments and other forms of compensation. We have now reached, the stage of the Bill where we deal with home loss compensation. From these Benches I welcome the increased provision which has been made for home loss payments. Let us not be at all grudging about that.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord speaking also to Amendments Nos. 321A and 322A in this grouping?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I did not understand that I was. Amendment No. 321A is in a group with Amendment No. 317. I do not have Amendment No. 322A anywhere.
In welcoming the improved provisions for home loss, we are pointing out through these amendments where the home loss provisions are too heavily weighted towards owner occupiers and not heavily weighted enough towards tenants, particularly certain classes of tenants. After, all we are talking about home loss; we are not talking here about loss of property. The loss of property is dealt with in the compensation on the value of a property.
Home loss payments are the payments for the loss of a home and they are in addition to any payments for the property. So far as we can see there is no good reason why there should be improved payments in home loss terms for people who have been owner occupiers for a shorter period of time, which is what is proposed in the Bill, as compared with those who may have been tenants for a considerable period of time. We take the welcome concessions on home loss
1020
payments and extend them to a number of groups which in our view are at least as deserving of home loss payments.
Amendment No. 314 deals with those tenants who are shifted permanently from their homes because those homes have become unfit for human habitation. Amendment No. 315 refers to those who are removed permanently from their homes because of repairs and improvement work. The change towards movement for improvement reasons is valid, but repairs, if they are serious enough, can equally require permanent removal. Amendment No. 316 reflects the new forms of tenancy of the 1989 and 1990 Acts and provides that home loss payments should be available to assured tenants as well as to secure tenants.
Amendment No. 317 reflects changes which have taken place in legislation and also changes which have taken place in the practice of the private rented market. It extends home loss payments to contractual licensees as well as to secure tenants. On reflection, we should have added to Amendment No. 317 spouses with rights of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act. I regret that we did not think of including such a provision. If we come back to the matter at another stage we shall certainly wish to do so.
Amendment No. 326 in the same group is an attempt to provide a better definition of the phrase, "date of displacement", which is used in the legislation without being defined. I said "a better definition"; I should have said "a definition", because there is not a proper definition. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister thinks "date of displacement" means. We think and hope that our amendment gives a reasonable and workable definition.
Finally, Amendment No. 332 deals with the issue of disturbance payments which are the payments not for home loss but for compensatable interest. It is interesting to see that those Members of the Committee interested in property are no longer in the Chamber. The amendment deals with tenants who do not have what is called—it is an unpleasant word—compensatable interest. It seeks to deal with their actual expenses in removal and forced removal.
The people covered by these amendments are very much more deserving than some of those who have been the subject of previous amendments designed to help landowners and property holders. I suggest to the Committee that the amendments are very much in line with the welcome steps that the Government have taken to improve the home loss amendments. I hope the Government will feel that the extensions which have already been made would in terms of pure social justice be properly extended to the categories of tenants covered in my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The fundamental purpose of the home loss payment scheme is to provide a monetary solace for the distress and upheaval which people suffer when compelled to leave their home at a time not of their choosing. We are concerned here with situations which involve the permanent loss of a home. Indeed, it is from the permanence of the loss that the personal distress mainly arises. There would

1021
thus seem to us no case for accepting the principle of Amendment No. 314, which would extend the entitlement to cases where a person is only displaced temporarily from his home by a court order under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 while action is taken to abate a statutory nuisance which is affecting the dwelling.
Similarly, we could not accept Amendment No. 315, which brings in cases where the occupant is displaced in certain circumstances to allow repairs to be made to his home. The legislation already provides for some home loss payments to be made where there is a permanent displacement because of an authority's need to carry out improvements. But one would expect that where repairs—as distinct from improvements—are concerned, there is a strong possibility that the occupant will return to his home once the work has been carried out. The amendment might have the effect of discouraging authorities from carrying out essential repairs because of the potential liability to pay home loss payments.
Amendment No. 316 would establish an entitlement to a home loss payment in circumstances where a housing association tenant with an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 was displaced under the terms of the redevelopment ground in that Act. I have every sympathy with the noble Lord's objective. I am not convinced, however, that it would be best achieved by extending the scope of the home loss payment scheme in the way he suggests. It is of course true that home loss payments continue to be available to those housing association tenants who have secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985. But we would not be happy about legislating to apply the same principle to those with assured tenancies under the 1988 Act. The assured tenancy regime has been the basis for most new housing association lettings since January 1989. It is the same statutory regime as applies to most new private landlord lettings and our general policy has been to avoid introducing specific statutory provisions for assured tenancies let by housing associations that are not part of the assured tenancy regime as a whole.
It seems to us that the right way forward in this matter is by way of the tenants' guarantee. That is the general framework of guidance which is formulated by the Housing Corporation, with statutory backing, and with which all registered housing associations are expected to comply in managing their properties. The guarantee already makes some provision for compensation and disturbance payments where associations carry out improvement work. But we propose to ask the corporation to look at the issue more broadly with a view to providing, via the guarantee, the safeguard which the noble Lord is seeking.
Amendment No. 317 seeks to introduce three further categories of person who would be entitled to claim home loss payments. The first covers,
"a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977".
That is unnecessary because, although the Land Compensation Act 1973 refers to tenants under the Rent Act 1968, the Interpretation Act permits us to
1022
apply the home loss payments provisions to re-enactments of the 1968 Act such as the 1977 Act. The second category includes those occupying a dwelling under a contractual licence. Home loss payments are aimed at people who are forced to leave a home to which they have developed a real attachment. There is really no case for making them available to people who merely occupied a dwelling on a short-term basis, as this amendment would require. Such people cannot normally be regarded as having any commitment to their home and might move on at any moment. The existing provisions implicitly but purposely exclude licensees such as lodgers, because of the possibility that such persons could deliberately move from place to place, where they had knowledge that an authority was soon to acquire the property compulsorily, and could claim a home loss payment on each occasion.
The third category of additional claimant would be spouses with rights of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. We are of course concerned here with those who have been deserted by their marriage partner. I certainly do not want to give the impression that the Government are insensitive to the problems faced by such people. However, it is a basic principle of the home loss payment scheme that eligibility for payment depends on having a legal interest in the property.
Under the Matrimonial Homes Act a deserted spouse may retain the right to occupy the marital home but he or she does not acquire a legal interest in the property. A deserted spouse can seek to make arrangements by agreement or through the courts to have a legal interest in the property transferred to him or her as part of a divorce or judicial separation settlement. The fact that such arrangements may not have been made in a particular case would not seem to justify a departure from the principle that eligibility for a home loss payment is dependent upon having a legal interest in the property.
I move now to Amendment No. 326. Under the existing home loss payment provisions, the entitlement to receive a payment occurs on the date on which the claimant is displaced from his home in consequence of any of the circumstances laid down in Section 29(1) of the 1973 Act. The date of displacement is thus the date on which he ceases to occupy his home and, by implication, the date on which the authority takes possession of the property. That seems to be an eminently sensible and uncomplicated arrangement which appears to work perfectly well. There thus seems no reason to make the change proposed by the noble Lord.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 332. This would extend the circumstances under which a disturbance payment can be made under Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Section 37 applies to people without a compensatable interest in land (including homes but excluding agricultural land) from which they are displaced by the action of a public authority. The circumstances of displacement are very similar to those which give rise to home loss payments. Disturbance payments therefore particularly apply to

1023
those who occupy land or houses under a tenancy but, as with home loss payments, do not apply to those merely occupying property on an informal basis. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to widen or redefine the circumstances in which disturbance payments are payable, in much the same way as his other amendments sought to extend eligibility for home loss payments. For similar reasons to those which I have already stated, I am not persuaded that there is any case for extending the existing provisions in the ways the noble Lord proposes.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord is happy with that explanation, but I hope that he will not press his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the Minister and I really have the same objective in mind. We are looking for home loss payments to be made where there is a substantial attachment to the home, mainly because somebody has been there for a very long time. In the Government's own amendments and in the changes they have made to the home loss payment scheme for owner-occupiers they have reduced the period of occupation very substantially so that it is now down to one year at the minimum. Therefore so far as owner-occupiers are concerned—I understand it is on a sliding scale—the Government have departed from the principle that the noble Baroness expressed and with which I expressed agreement.
If the noble Baroness looks at the real world she will find that the great majority of cases which fall under my amendments are not exclusively concerned with people who have been in occupation for a long time, but they do include substantial numbers of tenants who have been in occupation for a long time. Whenever one looks at compulsory purchase orders and remembers that they are in a minority, one finds that they tend to be—because it is more convenient to design road schemes and similar schemes where there are on y tenants rather than owner-occupiers—older properties, tenanted properties and properties where people have been in occupation for a considerable time.
I was not convinced that the noble Baroness had an adequate answer to my case for those who are removed permanently from their home because it is unfit for human habitation or else requires very substantial repair rather than improvement. The effect on the tenant, after all, is the same whether it is a case of repair, improvement or redevelopment. I was not convinced that the noble Baroness had dealt with the cases which undoubtedly exist of very long-standing tenants in those categories.
I was not convinced either that she had answered the case which was put for the new classification of assured tenant as well as that of secure tenant. I shall have to read carefully what the Minister said, and think about the Housing Corporation rules before I decide what to do about the amendments. On Amendment No. 326, I am satisfied with the definition given t y the Minister, and I do not wish to pursue that amendment. On disturbance payments, I do not
1024
believe that the Minister has addressed the issue of the expenses of those who do not otherwise have a compensatable interest.
I have an apology to make to those few Members of the Committee who may have been listening in detail. Because of the layout of Amendment No. 317, I did not realise that I had adequately provided for spouses under the Matrimonial Homes Act. I thought that it would have been a separate sub-paragraph. With those remarks and the thought that there are some aspects of the amendments to which I may wish to return, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 315 to 317 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 317A:
Page 54, line 41, leave out ("10") and insert ("25").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 318 to which my noble friend Lord Coleraine and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have their names, and Amendments Nos. 326A and 326B which are the Scottish equivalents to the first two amendments. Grouped with them are Amendments Nos. 317B, 318A, 319A, 320, 321A, 321B and 322A. I am advised, as I am sure the Committee will be aware, by the CBI. I am told that the amendments are also supported by the British Road Federation.
As the CBI has shown in its report Trade Routes to the Future, a good road and rail network is vital to this country's economic well being. Without it we shall not be able to manufacture goods on time and deliver them to customers when they need them. Our business people will be sitting in traffic jams while our competitors conclude contracts. The CBI estimates that road congestion alone costs the country £15 billion each year and is becoming worse.
This is not the time to have a full-scale debate on infrastructure and the extent to which the Government might subsidise it; it is, however, an opportunity to see whether the planning system can be used to encourage rather than delay the provision of vital infrastructure. There is no doubt that the planning approval system works too slowly and frustrates developments crucial to the general business community. It is democratic. That is something we all wish to preserve. So the dilemma is how to reduce the automatic tendency of those affected by development to object to it. In a nutshell, it is bureaucracy versus democracy.
Business believes that in broad outline the Government have the right solution. They compensate those affected with more than the market value of their property and offer them a just reward for the loss that they suffer, so that there is a real incentive to settle terms without undermining the whole development project.
The amendments do not in any way negate the principle which the Bill introduces of offering reasonable levels of compensation to create an incentive for home owners not to object to nearby development. However, the Government have not allowed a sufficient premium over market value to

1025
discourage people from formally opposing development proposals. Nor have the Government appreciated that many properties, especially in rural areas and in the South-East where the Channel Tunnel rail link will be needed, have values in excess of £150,000 and that by stipulating a £15,000 interest in the dwelling as a maximum, the incentive element is substantially eroded.
I do not believe that it is fair, justifiable or necessary to state a maximum. Accordingly, in Amendments Nos. 318 and 326B I ask the Committee to remove it from the Bill.
In France where, as we have heard earlier, the system provides 20 per cent. compensation above the market rate, restrictions are built in so that those being compensated waive their rights to object. I accept that that is not a model which the Government would wish to follow. However, if people are voluntarily to refrain from objecting, the level of compensation should probably be higher than that which is offered in the Bill. In the Bill in my Amendments Nos. 317A and 326A I suggest that the very reasonable and conservative figure of 25 per cent. should replace the 10 per cent.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Government on the innovative provision that allows home loss compensation above current market value. I realise that the rate suggested may have been derived from a study within the Department of the Environment, but I believe that the CBI, with its greater understanding of the real marketplace, would have a better idea of the right figure.
I hope that the Government will accept my argument for 25 per cent. If, for some reason, my noble friend does not see the merit of the argument, I hope that she will have a very good explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I should speak briefly to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Meston. Unfortunately, he cannot be here, and he apologises for his absence.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has covered the area very comprehensively. His amendment contains the figure of 25 per cent. and that of my noble friend Lord Meston proposes a figure of 20 per cent., but they are both in agreement that there should not be a maximum.
I assume that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will speak to his own amendment, to which I have added my name, covering the problems of tenants. I am sure that he will do so much better than I. It seems to be totally wrong that we should restrict the maximum compensation to tenants to £1,500. I admit that initially I put in a figure of double that amount —£3,000—but I have withdrawn that because the figure could be substantially higher. The amendment which the noble Lord will shortly be moving sets out the reasons why we think tenants should be entitled to greater compensation when they have carried out substantial improvements to their properties. In many cases this could well be to a value in excess of £3,000. They are going to come off extremely badly, judging
1026
by the example which has been quoted to us by a body which is acting for clients whose properties are subject to acquisition. Long leaseholders who have bought their properties are likely to get £100,000, whereas secure tenants are restricted to £1,500. That does not seem to be fair and equitable.
I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the Government have moved on the issue and are writing into the Bill the provision of home loss payments—which certainly has not always been adhered to in the past—by authorities and others who are acquiring. That is very much a move in the right direction. However, I hope that the Government will be a little more generous.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendments in my name in this group are Nos. 320, 321A and 321B, and I should like to confine myself basically to those three amendments. Amendment No. 321A has already been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Amendment No. 320 takes up the point on which I thought that the Minister and I were in agreement, that the criterion for home loss payments ought to be the length of time which an owner-occupier or a tenant has been in the property and therefore the degree of attachment which might be thought to apply to it. We have applied the same principle to these payments, and we have suggested that rather than having it based on the value—which is a sordid commercial consideration—it should reflect the number of years in occupation. In sheer logic I do not think the Minister, having said what she has, has any way of resisting this extremely modest proposal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, Amendment No. 321A was tabled on behalf of a group of tenants in West London who would suffer considerably if the new home loss payments scheme were to pass unaltered into legislation. Walterton and Elgin Community Homes Limited is a tenants' association in London W9. That association has two tower blocks on its books that contain a few secure tenants and leaseholders who are all members of the same group. The leaseholders have exercised their right to buy, but the secure tenants clearly have not done so.
The local authority has served notices on the secure tenants to seek possession under Ground 10 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. That is the provision that deals with works. It is negotiating with the leaseholders to buy back their flats. Some of the leaseholders may be able to buy property outside the local authority's stock, and some of them may be able to obtain replacement property from the local authority's stock. However, some tenants have moved voluntarily as a result of the local authority's action, and have been offered home loss payments of £1,500. That is the present maximum. Those tenants will not benefit at all from the provisions of this Bill. However, the leaseholders who would receive £1,500 under the existing legislation could now obtain as much as £10,000. The group of people whom I am discussing believes fair treatment should be extended to tenants and leaseholders. There is no difference between them as regards the degree of attachment to their dwellings.

1027
They have all spent the same amount of time in them, but only some of them have had the opportunity to exercise the right to buy.
Amendment No. 321B seeks to ensure that payments are regularly increased in line with house prices. I could expand on that point substantially but I shall spare the Committee a detailed explanation. Those amendments are a modest contribution to this block of amendments but I hope that they will find favour with the Government.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I wish to extend the welcome that other Members of the Committee have given to the Government for introducing Clause 47, which is a real improvement to the home loss provisions. My Amendment, No. 318, has already been discussed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I do not wish to add anything further to his comments except to say that the principle of a cut-off at £15,000 would, I believe, be a difficult one to impose at the present time when so many houses, especially in the South East, are selling for very much more than £150,000. That is the price that would produce the compensation.
The Committee should also consider what happened to the property market in the first half of 1988 when in many parts of the country house prices increased by 30 per cent. Therefore someone whose compensation was fixed on the value of his property at the beginning of that year found that, by the time he came to buy somewhere else to live, property prices had risen by much more than the 10 per cent. which the home loss supplement is to provide under the terms of this Bill.
I do not necessarily think that one should talk in terms of the 25 per cent. supplement for which the CBI has asked. However, I think that there must be some case for suggesting that the Secretary of State should retain the power not only to alter the maximum and minimum payments, but also to alter the percentages, as there may be times when a 10 per cent. supplement would be inadequate.
A number of points have been made on this matter and I associate myself with the spirit of most of them. I hope that my noble friend will consider that there are aspects of the clause which need to be fairly radically reconsidered.
Whereas the 1973 Act was even-handed as between freeholder and tenant the Bill distinguishes between freeholder and tenant. The cut-off is to be a definition of "owner" contained in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which has nothing to do with compensation. In my view that cut-off produces unfairness and anomalies as between freeholders or owners and tenants.
It seems to me to be quixotic to treat a lease with three years and a day to run and no security at the end of the term on more favourable terms than a Rent Act statutory tenancy which may run for many years and which will be of great value to the tenant and would be of great monetary value if the tenant were allowed to sell, which the tenant is not allowed to do. There is also the position of the long residential lessee under
1028
Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 with less than three years unexpired and a very advantageous ground rent, plus the right at the end of the term of hold-over as a statutory tenant. That tenant has much of value and it is arguable that he or she should not be left with a maximum of no more than £1,500 compensation.
Quite apart from the anomalies there is the question of balance between the owner and the tenant. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suggested that the clause unduly favours the owner. The Committee may know of my feelings on the matter because I have put down a Motion for a balloted short debate to draw attention to the fiscal and other distortions which favour owner-occupation and the affect of those distortions on every aspect of life, including economic and investment decisions. I am inclined to look at the matter from the point of view of the tenant. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords who have spoken that a maximum of £1,500 is inadequate. It is, after all, the sum which a number of tenants would have received had their properties been compulsorily acquired in 1973.
It may be that the Bill should provide for a flat payment to all persons who are dispossessed and entitled to compensation. That flat payment would be more than £1,500. Other figures have been mentioned. It is inappropriate for me to suggest a figure because resources are involved, but a flat payment of £1,500 is quite inadequate. It should be more, possibly with a right without limit to percentage compensation. That percentage might be less than 10 per cent.
There is another aspect of this matter: the compulsory acquisition of tenanted properties by local authorities and other authorities such as British Rail, which is in our minds tonight in view of the Channel Tunnel proposals. I believe that where a compulsory acquisition is made where there is a tenant occupier in most cases there is an obligation on the acquirer, if it is a local authority, to rehouse the tenant in council housing. As I understand it, there is an obligation on British Rail to see that the occupier is rehoused, which may mean that they have to go to the local authority and persuade them to make council housing available to the person being displaced by British Rail.
If there was some way of getting that person out of council housing and into the private housing market as a tenant, for example under the new provisions introduced by the 1988 Housing Act, that would seem to me to be very advantageous. But it follows from this that if we are talking about several grades of compensation, it might be right to suggest lower compensation for a tenant who is being rehoused by the local authority and higher compensation to persuade other tenants to move into the private sector and find their own rented accommodation, or perhaps in more favourable times to get a mortgage and buy their own houses. I have said enough. I support everything that is in the clause, but I think it has not yet got it right.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments involve changes to our proposed new basis for determining the level of

1029
home loss payments for those displaced from their homes as a result of compulsory purchase or other statutory action.
As I have indicated to the Committee during earlier debates, the basic purpose of the home loss payment is to provide some compensation for the personal distress and inconvenience people normally suffer when required to move house at a time not of their own choosing. The payment is made on top of market value compensation for the property itself and the reimbursement of incidental expenses which apply in all compulsory purchase cases. The changes we are proposing provide for home loss payments to be made to owner-occupiers on considerably more generous terms than the current flat rate of £1,500. Tenants remain on the flat rate but they in particular should gain from the substantial reduction in the qualifying residence period from five years to one year. They will also benefit from the new provision which enables periods of residence prior to a previous qualifying displacement to be taken into account in determining whether the residence qualification is satisfied.
I hope all noble Lords will accept that, taken together, our proposals represent a significant advance on the existing position in respect of home loss payments. The question is: Have we gone as far as we could have done in these matters? The noble Lords moving these amendments are all suggesting in their different ways that we have not.
I would be the first to admit that the issues we are dealing with here are sensitive and difficult ones. Clearly, there is no simple way of putting a monetary value on personal distress. Whatever approach we adopt can be only a matter of judgment, and in exercising that judgment we have to have regard to what is fair not only to the claimant but also to the taxpayer, or charge payer, who has to underwrite whatever level of payment we fix.
So far as concerns the percentage payment for owner-occupiers, I cannot say that our proposed 10 per cent. is the right figure and that the alternatives suggested are wrong. I can say only that, having thought long and hard about the matter, we concluded that it was reasonable to plump for 10 per cent. The same goes for the specified minimum and maximum amounts. These seem to us to provide appropriate parameters, bearing in mind they are to apply across the country as a whole. To those who feel that the maximum amount is unduly low, I would say that, on the evidence we have concerning the value of properties affected by compulsory purchase, there will be very few cases in which the upper limit actually bites.
A number of the amendments reflect concern that our proposals do not involve sufficiently generous treatment of tenants as compared with owner-occupiers. While it is undoubtedly true that nearly everyone is distressed when they have to move home against their will it does seems to us that the distress will normally be greater for those who have substantially invested in their homes. Therefore, we believe it right that the level of payment for owner-occupiers should in general be higher than for
1030
tenants. But, as I have already said, tenants do stand to gain significantly from the other changes we are proposing.
I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Amendment No. 321B, which would require the Secretary of State to review the minimum and maximum amounts annually in relation to movements in house prices and, if they had not held their value, propose increases to Parliament. As I said, we are generally satisfied that the amounts specified in the Bill are the right ones to choose at the present time. However, the Secretary of State will continue to have power to prescribe different amounts by regulation. This is a point that I know will interest my noble friend Lord Coleraine: that is to say, primary legislation is not required for any change to the minimum or maximum.
Lord Coleraine: I thank my noble friend. Does that apply only to the maximum and minimum or does it apply to the percentage?
Baroness Blatch: I believe that it does not apply to percentages but it applies to the maximum and minimum.
Lord Coleraine: The percentage was what I was asking for in my speech. I asked that the Government should consider a power to change the percentage.
Baroness Blatch: Then I fear that I have not pleased my noble friend.
In conclusion, it may be helpful to remind the Committee once again of the main features of the Government's home loss payment proposals. Owner-occupiers, who previously received a flat rate payment of £1,500, will now receive 10 per cent. of the value of their property, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000. The payment for non-owner-occupiers remains at the £1,500 flat rate. But the residence qualification for all claimants is cut from five years to one year. We are also broadening entitlement in various other ways—in particular by removing the bar on a home loss payment in the case of blight notice acquisitions. These new arrangements apply to anyone displaced in qualifying circumstances as from 16th November 1990.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 321A and 322A. These would broadly require the landlord of a secure or assured tenant who is entitled to a home loss payment to reimburse the tenant on his displacement with the value of any improvements which the tenant has made to his home. Such a requirement would fall right outside the concept of the home loss payment and has nothing to do with the value of material objects which may have been added to the home at some stage. There is no obligation on tenants to make improvements to their homes but, where they do, they may be eligible for a grant towards the cost.
I hope that the Committee will accept that what we are concerned with here are essentially issues not of simple fact but of judgment and balance. Overall, we are confident that we have the balance right and that, taken together, our proposals add up to a much better

1031
deal for all claimants. I hope that Members of the Committee will be prepared to accept this and not see a need to press their amendments.
Lord Mottistone: I heard what my noble friend had to say. She talks quite rightly about the need for home compensation to compensate for personal distress on the part of owners of houses. The burden of my remarks from the point of view of industry is that the compensation also acts as a discouragement to such people formally to oppose the development proposals. That is a rather different argument.
The reason I wanted more money for them was that when people have been in a house for a long time they may feel that they do not want to leave the house and receiving an extra 10 per cent. will not be enough to make them feel that they are sufficiently compensated. They therefore say, "We shall jolly well enter the battle to try to get a public inquiry and slow down the whole thing". So the roads and railways are never built and industry suffers.
My noble friend did not address that argument at all. I shall ask her to think about it in the meantime. I do not at this stage of the game wish to press this amendment but I may well come back at Report stage to repeat that argument, especially so that my noble friend may give me an answer which shows that she understands that point. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 317B:
Page 54, line 41, leave out ("10") and insert ("20").
The noble Lord said: I should like to say in relation to this, amendment that the compensation to tenants is totally out of line. It ought to be reconsidered. I feel that the rest of these measures are probably quite generous but, so far as tenants are concerned, it seems that they are losing out all down the line. We must reconsider that. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 317B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 318 to 320 not moved.]>
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 55, leave out lines 1 to 11 and insert:
("(3) For the purposes of this section and section 32 below the market value of an interest in a dwelling—

(a) in a case where the interest is compulsorily acquired, is the amount assessed for the purposes of the acquisition as the value of the interest; and

(b) in any other case, is the amount which, if the interest were being compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the date of displacement, would be assessed for the purposes of the acquisition as the value of the interest,

amount referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.
(3A) In determining for the purposes of this section and section 32 below the market value of an interest in a dwelling, the dwelling shall be taken to include any garden, yard, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoyed with a at dwelling.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 321, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329 and 330. Amendments Nos. 321 and 323 to 325 make
1032
what are essentially technical changes to the new provisions on home loss payments contained in Clause 47 which apply to England and Wales.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, we are proposing that the home loss payment for an owner-occupier should be 10 per cent. of the market value of the property, subject to a specified minimum and maximum. Clause 47 as drafted defines "market value" for this purpose but only in relation to cases where property is being compulsorily purchased. However, the entitlement to a home loss payment also applies in certain cases which do not actually involve compulsory acquisition. These include, for instance, displacements arising from clearance orders under housing legislation. It is necessary to provide a basis for determining market value in such cases and our proposal under Amendment No. 321 is that the calculation should be done as if there were a compulsory acquisition in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the date of the displacement concerned.
The remaining amendments in the group deal with the implications of this new provision in relation to the date by which the home loss payment must be made and the right of the claimant to receive an advance payment. Amendments Nos. 327 to 330 make similar changes to Clause 49, which applies to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 321A to 322A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 323 and 324:
Page 55, leave out lines 30 to 45 and insert:
("(2) Where a person is entitled to a home loss payment, the payment shall be made on or before the latest of the following dates—

(a) the date of displacement;

(b) the last day of the period of three months beginning with the making of the claim; and

(c) where the amount of the payment is to be determined in accordance with section 30(1) above, the day on which the market value of the interest in question is agreed or finally determined.

(2A) Where the amount of the payment is to be determined in accordance with section 30(1) above—

(a) the acquiring authority may at any time make a payment in advance; and

(b) if, on the later of the dates referred to in subsection (2) (a) and (b) above, the market value of the interest in question has not been agreed or finally determined, the acquiring authority shall make a payment in advance (where they have not already done so).").

Page 56, line 1, leave out from ("agreed") to ("estimate") in line 4 and insert ("to be the market value of the interest in question or, if there is no such agreement, 10 per cent. of the acquiring authority's").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 56, line 8, leave out ("on the completion of the acquisition") and insert ("when the market value of the interest in question is agreed or finally determined.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 326 not moved.]
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 326ZA not moved.]
Clause 49 [Home loss payments]:
[Amendments Nos. 326A and 326B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 327 to 330:
Page 58, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) For the purposes of this section and section 29 below the market value of an interest in a dwelling—

(a) in a case where the interest is compulsorily acquired, is the amount assessed for the purposes of the acquisition as the value of the interest; and

(b) in any other case, is the amount which, if the interest were being compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the date of displacement, would be assessed for the purposes of the acquisition as the value of the interest,

and any dispute as to the amount referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.
(3A) In determining for the purposes of this section and section 29 below the market value of an interest in a dwelling, the dwelling shall be taken to include any garden, yard, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoyed with that dwelling.").
Page 58, leave out lines 31 to 46 and insert:
("(2) Where a person is entitled to a home loss payment, the payment shall be made on or before the latest of the following dates—

(a) the date of displacement;

(b) the last day of the period of three months beginning with the making of the claim; and

(c) where the amount of the payment is to be determined in accordance with section 28(1) above, the day on which the market value of the interest in question is agreed or finally determined.

(2A) Where the amount of the payment is to be determined in accordance with section 28(1) above—

(a) the acquiring authority may at any time make a payment in advance; and

(b) if, on the later of the dates referred to in subsection (2) (a) and (b) above, the market value of the interest in question has not been agreed or finally determined, the acquiring authority shall make a payment in advance (where they have not already done so).").

Page 59, line 1, leave out from ("agreed") to ("estimate") in line 4 and insert ("to be the market value of the interest in question or, if there is no such agreement, 10 per cent. of the acquiring authority's").
Page 59, line 8, leave out ("on the completion of the acquisition") and insert ("when the market value of the interest in question is agreed or finally determined").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 331:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
Advance payments of compensation and interest
.—(1) In section 48 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (right to advance payment of compensation) for subsection (5) there is substituted—
"(4A) Where, at any time after an advance payment has been made on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation, it appears to the acquiring authority that their estimate was too low, they shall, if a request in that behalf is made in accordance with subsection (2) above, pay to the claimant the balance of the amount of the advance payment calculated as at that time.
(5) Where the amount, or aggregate amount, of any payment under this section made on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation exceeds the compensation as finally determined or agreed, the excess shall be repaid; and if after any payment under this section has been made to any person it is discovered that he was not entitled to it, the amount of the payment shall be recoverable by the acquiring authority".
(2) After that section there is inserted—
"Right to interest where advance payment made.
48A.—(1) This section applies where the compensation to be paid by the acquiring authority for the compulsory acquisition of any interest in land would (apart from this section) carry interest under paragraph 3(1) of the second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedures) (Scotland) Act 1947 or any bond under section 84 (promoters to be allowed to enter on lands before purchase on giving bond etc.) of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.
(2) If the authority make a payment under section 48(1) above to any person on account of the compensation—

(a) they shall at the same time make a payment to that person of accrued interest, for the period beginning with the date of entry, on the amount by reference to which the payment under section 48(1) above was calculated; and

(b) the difference between the amount of the payment under section 48(1) above and the amount by reference to which it was calculated is an unpaid balance for the purposes of this section.

(3) If the authority make a payment under section 48(4A) above to any person on account of the compensation, they shall at the same time make a payment to him of accrued interest, for the period beginning with the date of entry, on—

(a) the amount by reference to which the payment under section 48(4A) above was calculated; less

(b) the amount by reference to which the preceding payment under section 48(1) or (4A) above was calculated.

(4) Where the authority make a payment under section 48(4A) above on account of the compensation, the difference between—

(a) the amount of the payment; and

(b) the amount by reference to which it was calculated less the amount by reference to which the preceding payment under section 48(1) or (4A) above was calculated,

is an unpaid balance for the purposes of this section.
(5) If, on an anniversary of the date on which the authority made a payment to any person under section 48(1) above on account of the compensation—

(a) the amount of accrued interest on the unpaid balance under subsection (2) above or, as the case may be,

(b) the aggregate amount of the accrued interest on any unpaid balances,

exceeds £1,000, the authority shall make a payment to the claimant of the amount or aggregate amount.
(6) The acquiring authority shall, on paying the compensation, pay the amount of the accrued interest on the unpaid balance under subsection (2) above or, as the case may be, the aggregate amount of the accrued interest on any unpaid balances.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) above, interest accrues on any unpaid balance for the period beginning with—

(a) the making of the payment under section 48(1) or, as the case may he. 48(4A) above; or

1035

(b) if any payment has already been made in respect of that balance under subsection (5) above, the date of the preceding payment under that subsection.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) interest accrues at the rate prescribed under section 40 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 or, in the case of a bond under section 84 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, at the rate specified in that section; and

(b) the amount by reference to which a payment under section 48(1) or (4A) was calculated is the amount referred to in section 48(3) (a) or (b) for the purposes of that calculation.

(9) Where any payment has been made under section 48(1) above on account of any compensation, the acquiring authority is not required to pay interest under paragraph 3(1) of the second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedures) (Scotland) Act 1947 or any bond under section 84 (promoters to be allowed to enter on lands before purchase on giving bond etc.) of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.
(10) Where the amount, or aggregate amount, of any payment under section 48 above made on the basis of the acquiring authority's estimate of the compensation is greater than the compensation as finally determined or agreed and, accordingly, the interest paid under this section is excessive, the excess shall be repaid.
(11) If after any interest has been paid to any person under this section on any amount it is discovered that he was not entitled to the amount, the interest shall be recoverable by the acquiring authority.
(12) The Secretary of State may by order increase the sum specified in subsection (5) above; and the power to make orders under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 332 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 333 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments relating to land compensation]:
[Amendment No. 334 not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 104, line 23, at end insert:
(". In section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (rules for assessing compensation), at the end of rule (4) (disregard of increase in value of land by use contrary to law) there are inserted the words "provided that for the purpose of this rule development which constitutes a breach of planning control as defined in section 171A(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (expressions used in connection with enforcement) shall be deemed not to be contrary to law but, in assessing the compensation, regard shall be had to any likelihood of any enforcement action as defined in subsection (2) of that section being taken and of its success or of any injunction being granted under section 187B of that Act (injunctions restraining breaches of planning control) or of any planning permission being granted or condition discharged in the course of such enforcement action or pursuant to an application under section 63 of that Act (applications in connection with existing buildings and uses) or of any certificate being granted under section 191 of that Act (certificate of lawful use or development).".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment relates to the valuation basis and in particular the assumptions to be made in valuing property to be acquired by compulsion.
The present rules refer to the exclusion of any increase in value due to an activity or use which is contrary to law. That has produced a certain amount of uncertainty and litigation. The amendment is not intended to add value to a property due to some pernicious activity. However, it is intended to cater for the very limited instance in which the use is, in theory, contrary to town and country planning legislation but where the opportunity for enforcement proceedings is long past.
The fundamental concept behind this amendment is that it is reasonable to allow the additional value of a use of the premises which is actually going on and cannot be caused to cease by the powers in town and country planning legislation.
The wording of the amendment may be defective and I am always willing to consider any other views which there may be on this matter. However, I believe that the principle has already been accepted. A Department of the Environment consultation document in 1979 referred to that and indicated that legislation should be forthcoming. I am sorry that I cannot give the Committee the reference for that document.
However, the aim here is to value the property to be acquired on the principle which is well known in rating law known as rebus sic stantibus, which basically means you value the thing as you find it. Therefore, on that basis I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I congratulate the noble Earl on producing an amendment of 16 lines which contains no punctuation other than one comma.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand that this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 336 and 343. It is not clear to me whether or not the noble Earl intends to move those amendments.
The Earl of Lytton: I can confirm to the noble and learned Lord that I do not intend to move those amendments or Amendment No. 337.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that indication. As regards Amendment No. 335, I immediately accept that the noble Earl is touching on an issue about which the Government have been anxious. As he rightly says, a consultation paper acknowledged that the value of unlawful development against which enforcement action cannot be taken should properly be considered as part of the market value of the land. It was proposed in that consultation paper that rule (4) in the 1961 Act should be amended accordingly.
The question arises as to why a suitable amending provision has not been included in the Bill. After further consideration we have concluded that such a provision is not after all necessary, given what we are proposing elsewhere in the Bill. As the noble Earl will

1037
appreciate, Clause 10 establishes a new procedure under which a local planning authority can issue a certificate to the effect that a specified use of land is lawful, notwithstanding that planning permission has not been granted. The clause provides, among other things, that a use is lawful if no enforcement action can be taken against it. This new certification procedure should provide a satisfactory framework within which the lawfulness or otherwise of a particular piece of land can be established. It therefore seems to us that, against this background, rule (4) can be left to operate on its current basis without giving rise to the risk of unfairness. In acknowledging the point raised by the noble Earl, and with that explanation, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said. As it appears that the amendment is unnecessary, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be happy that I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 336 to 343 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 344:
Page 105, line 24, leave out ("Subsections (3) to") and insert ("The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Subsections (3), (7) and").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 344 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 348, 349, 351 to 357, 359 to 362 and 382.
These are all amendments to Schedule 8 and Schedule 9 designed to ensure the effectiveness of the compensations provisions of the Bill. I shall gladly answer questions about them but will mention one in greater detail.
Amendment No. 349 adds a new category of land in respect of which a blight notice may be served. It is already possible under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to the 1990 Act to serve such a notice in respect of land on which the Secretary of State proposes a new trunk or special road. Amendment No. 349 extends this entitlement to owners of land which may be required for the improvement or alteration of such a road. This will in particular help people affected by the motorway widening programme. Amendments Nos. 356 and 359 make similar modifications in respect of Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 344A:
Page 105, leave out line 50 and insert:
("(6) Subsections (1) (b), 3(c), (4), (5) and (6) are omitted.
6A.—In sections 35 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, subsections (2), (3), and (6) are omitted.
6B.—In sections 36 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, subsections (1) and (2) are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I thank the Government for altering Section 34 of the 1973 Act. However, I do not understand it because it leaves doubt, and I shall explain why.
The Bill sees the farm loss payment appearing in a new form, which I welcome, and becoming applicable to freeholders, owner occupiers and indeed tenants. However, there are some technical problems. The new qualifying area of half a hectare needs complete realignment of expectation for this allowance.
I assume that the payment is to be considered as an amount calculated to provide recompense for the farmer, whether freeholder or tenant, displaced from any area of land whether part of a holding or above half a hectare. I also assume from paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 to the Bill that the requirement of moving to a new holding and the rigorous process of qualification outlined apply. But, for example, if three-quarters of a hectare were required from a holding of 10 hectares, it cannot be that in order to qualify for the payment the farmer would have to seek another farm.
I am assuming an awful lot, and I ask my noble friend whether she will allow her advisers to consult with mine to ensure that paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 achieves what the Government want and what I welcome. At the moment I and my advisers do not believe it does. That is my question in regard to Amendment No. 344A.
Regarding Amendment No. 344B, the new conditions under which farm loss payments become payable need a review on the basis of calculation, not least because the Government have moved the goal posts. The acquisition of small parts of the farm makes the detailed and complicated formula contained in Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 unnecessary. These payments could increase in future because of the moving of the goalposts. A fair award would be twice the amount of the annual profit. We are asking for twice the annual profit rather than the existing one year's annual profit because the Government have accepted in the Bill the need to help the small claimants. If the floor is £500 it will have to be up-rated to twice the annual profit otherwise very few will be able to claim because they will not reach £500. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Two of my noble friend's amendments would change the basis for calculating farm loss payments which are made when farmland is acquired compulsorily. Amendment No. 344A consists of a series of repeals relating to Sections 34 to 36 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 which would affect the way in which the farm loss payment scheme operates. It would seem that these changes are being proposed in order to improve the position of tenant farmers who are displaced from their land because of compulsory purchase. However, I understand that the real problem affecting tenant farmers appears to be the acute shortage of replacement land which is available on suitable terms for them to rent.
We are not aware of a particular problem in respect of the amount of farm loss payments which are made to them. The repeals appear to conflict with the fundamental principle that compensation should leave the claimant in no worse but no better financial position than if he had not been affected by

1039
compulsory purchase at all. I say to my noble friend that the problem is best addressed by measures to revitalise the rented sector. To this end my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales have indicated their intention to issue a consultation paper.
Amendment No. 344B would provide for farm loss payments of twice the annual average profits of the land subject to a minimum of £500. It does not specify how the average would be worked out but provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe a different minim um payment. The Land Compensation Act 1973 provides that the farm loss payment shall be equal to one year's net profit from the land concerned. That amount is normally an average of the profit for the three years preceding the farmer's displacement with a deduction for the actual or notional rent that would have been paid on the land. These payments are currently only available to landlords, farmers and tenants with a compensatable interest in the land. In the Bill we are making such payments available to farmers who are tenants for a year or from year to year, where only part of the agricultural unit is taken and where the farmer successfully serves a blight notice or where he chooses to leave his land before required to do so by the acquiring authority.
The purpose of the farm loss payment is to enable farmers who have had to leave their land because of compulsory purchase to take up farming again on replacement land whose farming characteristics may be unfamiliar, and to protect them against a shortfall in profits in the first year of farming the new land. The payment is in addition to market value compensation for the land taken and compensation for disturbance. While it is admittedly an arbitrary calculation, the size of the payment will depend very much on the success that the farmer has made of his business over the period of account.
It will therefore to a great extent reflect the effort he is likely to make in restarting his operations elsewhere. That seems to be a perfectly fair basis on which to calculate the farm loss payment. To double it and to provide a minimum payment as my noble friend suggests, would in our view cushion affected farmers unnecessarily against loss at the taxpayers' expense and would go well beyond the farm loss payment which it is intended to represent.
We have not received any representations about the amount of the payment and therefore see no need to change it. Should my noble friend not be happy with the reply that I have given, I shall arrange for his advisers to speak with my officials in the department. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will not press these amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think we are at cross purposes here. I am not complaining about the Government's new plans in the Bill. In fact I welcome them very much because, for a change, they help tenants. However, my advisers tell me that what is in the Bill does not make the sense which my noble friend
1040
thinks it does. I very much welcome her offer to see my advisers so that we can iron out this technical difficulty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 344B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 106, line 2, leave out paragraph 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 106, line 18, at end insert:
("Application to Crown: government aerodromes
. For subsection (1) of section 84 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Part I of the Act does not apply to any aerodrome in the occupation of a government department) there is substituted—
"(1) References in Parts I and II of this Act to public works and responsible authorities include references to any works or authority which, apart from any Crown exemption, would be public works or a responsible authority." ").
The noble Earl said: I can deal with this amendment very briefly. It relates to Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which refers to compensation arising from the use of public works. Section 84(1) of the Act makes it clear that Part I does not apply to any aerodrome which is in the occupation of a government department. It is obvious that airfields, particularly those in military use, can cause as much depreciation to values of property through their use as any other type of aviation establishment. This is a probing amendment in order to ascertain what justification the Government can give for the continuation of that exception. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: It is not difficult to understand the historical reason for the MoD's exemption. It acquires land under a code set out in the Defence Acts of 1842 to 1935 rather than under the normal arrangements for compulsory purchase. Defence works such as airfields are provided and used under prerogative rather than under statutory powers as the provisions of Part I require. To bring MoD airfields under Part I would entail a complex and substantial revision of the way in which these powers operate, which is not a practical proposition at this time. However, I understand that in practice the MoD has for many years complied administratively with the Part I provisions and has met claims in appropriate circumstances. Indeed in some cases it has been prepared to depart from a strict interpretation of Part I to provide a measure of compensation that would otherwise have been denied. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Earl not to press the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: The Minister has told the Committee something which I certainly did not know before; namely, what is the custom of the Ministry of Defence. I shall certainly consider this with a view to seeing whether the system is working satisfactorily. In the meantime, I think it would be entirely churlish of me to do anything other than withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 347:
Page 106, line 18, at end insert:
("General vesting declaration: valuation date
. After subsection (3) of section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (constructive notice to treat) there is inserted—
"(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act the valuation date for assessing any compensation payable following the date on which a general vesting declaration was executed in respect of any land specified in that declaration shall be the date of assessment of the compensation or the date on which the acquiring authority in fact took possession of the land whichever is the earlier." ").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses a single issue. It deals with the valuation date under general vesting declarations. Under the general rules of compensation the amount is assessed either at the date of taking possession or at the date of actual assessment, whichever is the earlier. In the case of a vesting declaration that does not apply. If the authority does not take possession until some time much later than the vesting date and compensation has not by then been determined, the value of the property may well have increased but the claimant will not be entitled to that increase. It is also true to say that the value could decrease, so the claimant will obviously take a chance on that.
The amendment seeks to insert a new provision in the 1981 Act to apply the ordinary compulsory purchase rule as laid down in Birmingham City Corporation v. West Midlands Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc.) 1970. In cases where general vesting declarations are involved, it seems to me that there is no good reason to alter the general rule of how the date for compensation is assessed. I invite the Minister to comment on why this provision should be retained.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment in a different context. The Committee is looking at someone who actually owned a farm and sold it off under bank pressure for £26,000. After five years it was worth at least £80,000. It finally changed hands a year or two later for £150,000. I felt pretty miffed. I imagine that anyone who sold some land at the vesting date for £14,000, as in the example given to us, only to find that four years later it was worth over £40,000 would feel aggrieved.
I accept that in normal trading circumstances one would say, "Jolly good luck to you. You were stupid enough to do it in the first place". But in such a case the local authority is acquiring the land in a rapid process and may then decide not to take occupation. In fact, it is dodging the normal compulsory purchase procedures and short-cutting the process. There is something to be said for the fact that such authorities should pay the compensation which is due, which may have decreased. I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, whether he thought that there were any farmers making a profit these days, but I thought that I had better desist from so doing.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The law as it stands requires that, where this procedure is used, compensation must be assessed on the basis of the
1042
value of the land as at the date on which it becomes vested in the authority. The noble Earl has argued that this is an unsatisfactory requirement.
It must be appreciated that the essential feature of the general vesting procedure is that the owner loses his legal right to occupy his property in return for a right to compensation on the date of vesting. Accordingly, the vesting date has to be the only logical date at which the property can be valued for compensation purposes. Any alternative approach would simply not make sense in legal terms. To suggest that the valuation date can be defined on the same basis as applies under normal compulsory purchase procedures is to misunderstand the fundamental difference between the two systems.
With the normal compulsory purchase procedure, the claimant retains his legal right to occupy the property until the authority gives him formal notice that it wishes to enter on his land, which may be some considerable time after the compulsory purchase order came into force. Under the vesting procedure he loses his right, as I have said, on the date on which the vesting takes place. Any period of grace after that date during which the claimant continues to occupy the land is strictly a private matter to be arranged between him and the authority, whether by a contract or informal agreement. However, it is quite irrelevant for the purposes of assessing compensation. As the noble Earl will appreciate, if we were to continue on that way a further complication would arise because it does not necessarily follow that the value of the land will always increase. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: Although I have some reservations about what the noble and learned Lord has said, I understand that there are difficulties. I hope that I did not misunderstand the procedure, as he suggested, even though it may appear from the amendment that this may be the case. There is an anomaly here, but with regard to the lateness of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 347ZA:
Page 106, line 18, at end insert:
("8A.—(1) For subsection (1) (b) of section 59 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 there is substituted—
"(b) either—

(i) subsection (1) of section 26 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 does not apply to the notice by virtue of subsection (2) of that section and case B of Schedule 3 to the said Act; or

(ii) the Agricultural Land Tribunal have consented to the operation of the notice and stated in the reasons for their decision that they are satisfied as to the matter mentioned in section 27(3) (f) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (land required for non-agricultural use not falling within Case B of Schedule 3)."

(2) After subsection (7) of section 59 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 there is inserted:—
"(7A) (a) Where a tenant is served a notice to quit in pursuance of Case B of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 by a landlord who is not in possession of compulsory purchase powers and who is

1043
not in receipt of a notice to treat having been served by an authority with such powers the tenant shall be entitled to elect that subsection (2) of this section applies as if a notice to treat had been served; and
(b) for the purposes of this subsection the landlord shall be deemed to be a person with compulsory purchase powers.".").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I should declare an interest at this stage in so far as I have been a tenant farmer since 1954. I have also been an owner-occupier and a landlord. As the Committee will know, my heart lies with the tenant. The amendment addresses the very unfair position of the tenant farmer who is being evicted by his landlord because the latter has obtained planning consent.
A tenant who is dispossessed of his holding by a landlord without compulsory purchase powers—the landlord himself not having been compulsorily purchased, as in the case I am citing, whereby he has managed to obtain planning permission —is placed in a much more disadvantageous position than the tenant dispossessed under compulsory purchase powers. The maximum compensation available here is five to six years' rent. This is wholly inadequate and will rarely be enough in order for a tenant farmer to purchase another holding. Much more importantly, most holdings are let with a dwellinghouse and the tenant farmer is faced with the additional problem of finding a home for himself and his family. It should not be to the detriment of the tenant that the status of the landlord determines the amount of compensation payable to his tenant. As I say, in this case a landlord has been fortunate enough to get planning permission.
The hardship caused to the tenant dispossessed under the agricultural holdings legislation is exactly the same as the hardship caused to the tenant dispossessed under compulsory purchase legislation. Both should be compensated equally. I will give your Lordships a perfect example. Take the case of two neighbouring tenants: one is compulsorily acquired and is being evicted, and the other is being evicted because his landlord has managed to get planning permission on his farm. They are not equally entitled to the same compensation, and I believe that in fairness they should be. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Having opposed the whole slew of amendments about compensation, I think t he case put by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is very sound. I cannot see why it is that two tenants -one evicted because of compulsory purchase and the other because of planning permission - should in the one case get a valuation of tenancy compensation and in the other get only compensation equal to a multiple of the rent, which could not be as much. I hope that the Government will feel that there is a case which ought to be put right here without affecting the public purse.
Baroness Blatch: To extend the scope of the land compensation system in this way would be quite inappropriate. I recognise that there is anxiety about the level of compensation provided for in the 1986 Act, but clearly no formula will satisfy everyone. I
1044
understand that the main problem for those losing land is the difficulty of finding new land to rent. Anything which would discourage landowners from letting will exacerbate the problem. The first priority must be to find ways of encouraging landlords to let their land and to this end my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has indicated his intention to issue a consultation paper. I know this answer will be disappointing to my noble friend, but I hope he will not press this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, always amazes me, particularly —if I may flatter him—on his knowledge of agricultural compensation: he filled in the part that I did not detail, and I am most grateful for his support. I do not think my noble friend answered the argument correctly. In this case somebody is being dispossessed of his home. I am not particularly worried about his finding another farm: that is his bad luck. There should be equal compensation for the loss of the home; but that is not the case. It is quite clear, as the noble Lord says.
It is almost 11.30 p.m. At any other time I would be strongly tempted to press this amendment. I shall not do so tonight, even though it would only lengthen proceedings for a short time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I may well come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 347A:
Page 107, line 2, after ("management") insert ("and that neither the purchase nor the proposed measure of preservation or improved management would prejudice any existing freedom of access to the land enjoyed by the public").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, with Amendment No. 347B, is a perfectly straightforward amendment. Their purpose is to protect existing public access on common land which is acquired under Schedule 8, paragraph 13. In our debate on common land, somewhat earlier—a long time ago, in fact—we drew attention to the loss of access rights on land which was in public ownership and is now privatised—gas, water, electricity, etc. Therefore access to common land becomes even more precious. Although the amendment refers to common land which is purchased for nature conservation purposes, despite the arguments to the contrary, nature conservation and access are not necessarily incompatible.
The amendments simply seek to ensure that where an access right existed—not an extension of it—that right is continued unless there are good reasons for not doing so. When I began to study the background to this matter, I became rather worried about the provisions of paragraph 13 of Schedule 8 when set in context with the original Act, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Land acquired under the new provision, if found to be unsuitable for the purpose for which the local authority acquired it—presumably it then ceases to be common land—could be sold on for development or whatever. I should like to be reassured by the Minister that that is not possible.
We should remember that land bought under the new provision is not replaced. That is an important point. Until now, common land taken for any reason

1045
has to be replaced by equivalent land somewhere else. We are now dispensing with that provision. There could therefore be a net loss of common land. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendments relate to paragraph 13 of Schedule 8, which modifies the current legal position regarding the need for special parliamentary procedure in cases where there is a proposed compulsory acquisition of—or a proposed new right over land forming part of—an open space or common. As the noble Baroness said, the relevant statute here is the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. That Act already provides that special parliamentary procedure is not necessary where the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied as to certain specified criteria. The purpose of paragraph 13 is to extend those criteria so as to exclude the need for special parliamentary procedure where the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that the purpose of the compulsory acquisition of the land, or new right, is to secure preservation of the land, or improve its management, as—and I emphasise this—open space or common land.
The effect of the amendments would be to provide that, in exercising that new power, the Secretary of State must also satisfy himself that the proposals concerned would not prejudice any existing freedom of public access to the land. While it may not have been intended, such a requirement would seem to us unduly restrictive.
"Open space" under the 1981 Act means any land laid out as a public garden or used for public recreation. "Common" includes any town or village green. In both cases there is an automatic entitlement—whether by statute or custom—for the public to use the land. Since the purpose of compulsory acquisition would be to secure preservation or improved management of the land as open space or common land, basic rights of access would be unaffected. It is true that a preservation or management scheme might involve some changes as to how the right of access to open space or common land might be exercised. Where that was likely to occur it could be a material consideration in the Secretary of State's decision as to whether or not compulsory acquisition should be authorised. We should not, however, consider it necessary or desirable that that aspect should be a material factor in determining whether or not the Secretary of State can issue a certificate obviating the need for special parliamentary procedure.
As the noble Baroness will appreciate, compulsory purchase powers can, in principle, be applied to any land, including common land, but all compulsory purchase orders must be confirmed by the appropriate Minister. The requirement for open space land to go for special parliamentary procedure arises in addition to the normal confirmation procedure where there is no equally convenient land to replace the open space lost. The Bill's provisions remove only the additional requirement, but in the limited circumstances that I have described.
1046
If the noble Baroness reads that elaborate explanation she will see that her fears, although I appreciate them, are ill-founded.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for that very full reply. I need to clear up one or two small issues that are relevant to it, and I should like to consider what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.347B not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 348 to 354.
Page 107, line 13, leave out ("Town and Country Planning Act 1990") and insert ("principal Act").
Page 107, line 17, at end insert:
("14A. In Schedule 13 to that Act (blighted land) after paragraph 16 there is inserted—
"16A. Land to be included in a trunk road or special road as proposed to be improved or altered by the Secretary of State if he has given written notice of his proposal, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the land in question, to the local planning authority".").
Page 107, line 19, at end insert:
("Land Compensation Act 1961 (c. 33.)
14B.—(1) In section 14(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 after "shall" there is inserted "(subject to subsection (3A) of this section)".
(2) In section 14(3) of that Act, for the words from "but" to the end there is substituted—
"(3A) In determining—

(a) for the purpose referred to in subsection (1) of this section whether planning permission for any development could in any particular circumstances reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land; or

(b) whether any of the assumptions mentioned in section 16 of this Act (but not section 15) are applicable to the relevant land or any part thereof,

regard shall be had to any contrary opinion expressed in relation to that land in any certificate issued under Part III of this Act."
14C. In section 17 of that Act—

(a) for the words from the beginning of subsection (2) to "acquire it" there is substituted "If the authority proposing to acquire the interest", and

(b) subsection (8) is omitted.

14D. In section 19(1) of that Act for "in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of section 17 of this Act" there is substituted "by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers".
14E. Section 22(3) of that Act is omitted.").
Page 107, line 26, leave out ("for the diocese in which the land is situated") and insert ("in which the land is vested").
Page 107, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 107, line 33, leave out paragraphs 16 and 17 and insert—
("16. In section 13 of the Land Compensation Act 1973—
(a) in subsection (1) for "to the Church Commissioners to" there is substituted—

"(a) in the case of land which is not diocesan glebe land, to the Church Commissioners; and

(b) in the case of diocesan glebe land, to the Diocesan Board of Finance in which the land is vested,

and (in either case) shall", and
(b) at the end of subsection (2) there is added "or being diocesan glebe land; and "Diocesan Board of Finance" and "diocesan glebe land" have the same meaning as in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976".
16A. In section 26 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (2) for "of the kind mentioned in section 22(2) above" there is substituted "a qualifying interest", and

(b) in subsection (5) for "and (2)" there is substituted "(2) and (2A)".

17. In section 52 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (9) after "the amount of the advance payment" there is inserted "together with any amount paid under section 52A", and

(b) in subsection (10) the words following "unpaid" are omitted.

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65.)
17A. After section 141(5) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 there is inserted—
"(5A) No compensation is payable, by virtue of an order under this section, under Part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961".").
Page 107, line 42, leave out paragraphs 19 to 21 and insert:
("19. At the end of section 12(3) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule I to, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 there is added "or being diocesan glebe land within the meaning of the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976".
20. Section 20 of, and paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to, that Act are repealed.
The principal Act
21. I a section 151(4) (d) of the principal Act for "or 16" there is substituted "16 or 16A".
22. In section 231 of that Act the words from "for a purpose" to "is situated" are omitted.
23.—(1) In section 318 of that Act, in subsection (3) for the words from "be" (in paragraph (a)) to "shall" (in paragraph (b)) there is substituted—
"in the case of land which is not diocesan glebe land, be paid to the Church Commissioners; and
(b) shall, in the case of diocesan glebe land, be paid to the Diocesan Board of Finance in which the land is vested,
and shall (in either case)."
(2) In subsection (4) (b) of that section for "(3) (b)" there is substituted "(3)".
(3) At the end of section 318(6) of that Act there is added "or being diocesan glebe land; and "Diocesan Board of Finance" and "diocesan glebe land" have the same meaning as in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976".
24. In Schedule I to that Act, in paragraph 20(4) for "paragraph 16" there is substituted "paragraphs 16 and 16A".
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9.)
25.—(1) In section 86(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for the words from "be" (in paragraph (a)) to "shall" (in paragraph (b)) there is substituted—
"in the case of land which is not diocesan glebe land, be paid to the Church Commissioners; and
(b) shall, in the case of diocesan glebe land, be paid to the Diocesan Board of Finance in which the land is vested,
and shall (in either case)."
(2) At the end of section 86(4) of that Act there is added "or being diocesan glebe land; and "Diocesan Board of Finance" and "diocesan glebe land" have the same meaning as in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976".
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (c. 10.)
26.—(1) In section 34(3) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 for the words from "be" (in paragraph (a)) to "shall" (in paragraph (b)) there is substituted—
"in the case of land which is not diocesan glebe land, be paid to the Church Commissioners; and
(b) shall, in the case of diocesan glebe land, be paid to the Diocesan Board of Finance in which the land is vested,
and shall (in either case)."
(2) At the end of section 34(4) of that Act there is added "or being diocesan glebe land; and "Diocesan Board of Finance" and "diocesan glebe land" have the same meaning as in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 354A:
After Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule:
("Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition—Scotland
1. After section 30 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 there is inserted—
"PART VCOMPENSATION WHERE PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTED AFTER ACQUISITION Compensation where planning decision made after acquisition.
31.—(1) Where—

(a) any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers and, before the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of completion, a planning decision is made granting permission for the carrying out of additional development of any of the land; and

(b) the principal amount of the compensation which was payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, in the case of a sale by agreement, the amount of the purchase price, was less than the amount specified in subsection (2) of this section,

then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the person to whom the compensation or purchase price was payable shall be entitled, on a claim duly made by him, to compensation from the acquiring authority of an amount equal to the difference.
(2) The amount referred to in subsection (1) (b) of this section is the principal amount of the compensation which would have been payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of the interest by the acquiring authority, in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the relevant date if—

(a) the planning decision mentioned in subsection (1) (a) of this section had been made before that date; and

(b) the permission granted by it had been in force on that date.

(3) No compensation shall be payable by virtue of this section in respect of a planning decision in so far as it relates to land acquired by the acquiring authority, whether compulsorily or by agreement—

(a) under section 142 or 143 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (acquisitions by urban development corporations and by roads authorities in connection with urban development areas);

(b) under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (acquisitions by development corporations and by roads authorities in connection with new town areas); or

(c) where the compulsory purchase order included a direction under section 107 of the Town and

1049
Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (minimum compensation in case of listed building deliberately left derelict).

(4) If—

(a) in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section the person referred to in subsection (1) of this section would be entitled to compensation under this section; but

(b) before the planning decision in question that person has died, or any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to compensation under this section, if vested in him immediately before that act or event, would thereupon have vested in some other person,

the right to compensation under this section shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that act or event, as the case may be, and the compensation shall be payable to the persons claiming under him accordingly.
(5) Compensation under this section shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under section 40 of this Act from the date of the planning decision in question until payment.
(6) The provisions of Part II of this Act (so far as applicable) shall apply (subject to the following provisions) in relation to the assessment of compensation under this section as they apply in relation to the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land.
Provisions as to claims under section 31.
32.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the making of claims for compensation under section 31 of this Act—

(a) the person entitled to receive the compensationor purchase price in respect of such an acquisition or sale as is mentioned in section 31(1) (a) of this Act; or

(b) any person claiming under him as being a person who, if compensation under that section became payable, would be entitled to it by virtue of subsection (4) of that section,

may give to the acquiring authority an address for service under this section.
(2) Where, at any time—

(a) after a person has given an acquiring authority an address for service under this section; and

(b) before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 31(1) of this Act,

such a planning decision is made as is mentioned in that paragraph, the acquiring authority shall, subject to subsection (3) of this section, give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to that person at that address.
(3) If—

(a) an address for service has been given by such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) (b) of this section; and

(b) the acquiring authority have reasonable grounds for believing that the person mentioned in subsection (1) (a) of this section is dead or that any other act or event has occurred as mentioned in section 31(4) (b) of this Act,

the acquiring authority need not give a notice to the person mentioned in subsection (1) (a).
(4) A claim for compensation under section 31 of this Act in respect of a planning decision shall not have effect if made more than six months after the following date, that is to say—

(a) if the claim is made by a person who has not given the acquiring authority an address for service under this section, the date of the decision;

1050

(b) if the claim is made by a person who has given the acquiring authority such an address, the date on which notice of the decision is given to him in accordance with subsection (2) of this section;

but, where there is an appeal against the planning decision, the reference in paragraph (a) of this subsection to the date of the planning decision shall be read as a reference to the date of the decision on the appeal.
(5) The references in subsection (4) of this section to an appeal against a planning decision include an appeal made by virtue of section 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
(6) Where—

(a) a person has given to an acquiring authority an address for service under this section; and

(b) that authority, before the end of the period mentioned in section 31(1) (a) of this Act, cease to be entitled to an interest in the whole or part of the land comprised in the acquisition or sale, without remaining or becoming entitled to the dominium utile, or a tenancy, of that land or that part of it, as the case may be,

they shall notify the planning authority; and after that it shall be the duty of the planning authority to give notice to the acquiring authority of any planning decision of which the acquiring authority are required to give notice under subsection (2) of this section.
(7) Notice under subsection (6) of this section of a planning decision—

(a) in the case of a decision made by the planning authority, shall be given within seven days after the making of the decision; and

(b) in any other case, shall be given within seven days after the making of the decision has been notified to the planning authority.

Extension to planning permission where no planning decision made.
33.—(1) The provisions of sections 31 and 32(1) of this Act shall have effect in relation to any planning permission falling within column 1 of the following table for any development as if a planning decision granting that permission had been made on the date shown in column 2.
When development is initiated
Permission granted by the adoption or approval of a simplified planning zone scheme
When the scheme is approved or adopted
Permission granted by an order designating an enterprise zone
When the designation takes effect
Permission deemed to be granted by a direction under section 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972
When the direction is given
Permission deemed to be granted by a planning authority
The occurrence of the event in consequence of which the permission is deemed to be granted
(2) Where the provisions of section 31 of this Act have effect as applied by subsection (1) of this section in relation to any planning permission falling within column 1 of that table for any development, then if—

(a) before the date shown in column 2, a person who (under section 32(1) of this Act as so applied) is entitled to give an address for service under that section has given such an address to the acquiring authority; and

(b) the development is proposed to be carried out by the acquiring authority or, if it is proposed to be carried out by a person other than the acquiring authority, notice of that proposal is given to the acquiring authority by the person proposing to carry out the development,

it shall, subject to subsection (3) of this section, be the duty of the acquiring authority to give notice of that proposal in the prescribed form to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection at the address given by him to the authority.
(3) An acquiring authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to give notice of proposed development to the person mentioned in section 32(1) (a) of this Act if—

(a) an address for service has been given to them by such a person as is mentioned in section 32(1) (b) of this Act; and

(b) they have reasonable grounds for believing that the former person is dead or that any other act or event has occurred as mentioned in section 31(4) (b) of this Act.

(4) A claim for compensation under section 31 of this Act in respect of a planning permission falling within column 1 of that table shall not have effect if made more than six months after the following date, that is to say—

(a) if the claim is made by a person to whom notice has been given under subsection (2) of this section, the date on which the notice was given;

(b) in any other case, the date shown in column 2.

Extension to Crown development.
34.—(1) Where—

(a) any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, and before the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of completion there is initiated any additional development of any of the land which was comprised in the acquisition or sale; and

(b) by reason of any such circumstances as are mentioned in subsection (2) of this section the development in question is development for which planning permission is not required,

the provisions of sections 31 and 32(1) of this Act shall apply as if a planning decision granting permission for that development had been made at the time when the additional development is so initiated.
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) of this section are either or both of the following—

(a) that the development is initiated by or on behalf of the Crown;

(b) that there is a Crown interest in the land and the development is initiated in right of that interest.

(3) Where—

(a) the provisions of section 31 of this Act have effect as applied by subsection (1) of this section in relation to the initiation of any development; and

(b) before the development is initiated a person who (under section 32(1) of this Act as so applied) is entitled to give an address for service under that section has given such an address to the acquiring authority,

it shall, subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section, be the duty of the acquiring authority to give notice in the prescribed form of the initiation of the development to the person mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection at the address given by him to the authority.
(4) Where—

(a) by virtue of subsection (3) of this section, it is the duty of a government department to give notice of development initiated by or on behalf of that department; and

(b) the Minister in charge of the department certifies that for reasons of national security it is necessary that the nature of the development should not be disclosed, except to the extent specified in the certificate,

the department shall give notice of development, but shall not be required to give any particulars of the nature of the development except to the extent specified in the certificate.
(5) An acquiring authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (3) of this section to give notice of proposed development to the person mentioned in section 32(1) (a) of this Act if—

(a) an address for service has been given to them by such a person as is mentioned in section 32(1) (b) of this Act; and

(b) they have reasonable grounds for believing that the former person is dead or that any other act or event has occurred as mentioned in section 31(4) (b) of this Act.

(6) A claim for compensation under section 31 of this Act in respect of the initiation of any development shall not have effect if made more than six months after the following date, that is to say—

(a) if the claim is made by a person to whom notice has been given under subsection (3) of this section, the date on which the notice was given;

(b) in any other case, the time the development is initiated.

(7) In this section "Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.
Application of Part V to certain cases.
35. The preceding provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act.
Regulations for purposes of Part V.
36.—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations for prescribing the form of any notice required by this Part of this Act to be given in the prescribed form.
(2) Any statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Interpretation of Part IV.
37.—(1) In this Part of this Act—
"additional development", in relation to an acquisition or sale of an interest in land, means any development of the land other than the following, that is to say—

(a) where the acquiring authority are a local authority, and acquired the interest for the purposes of any of their functions, development for the purposes of the functions for which they acquired it;

(b) where the acquiring authority are not a local authority, development for the purposes of the project in connection with which they acquired the interest;

(c) development for which planning permission was in force on the relevant date;

(d) in the case of compulsory acquisition, development for which it was assumed (in accordance with the provisions of sections 22 to 24 of this Act) for the purpose of assessing compensation that planning permission would be granted; and

(e) in the case of a sale by agreement, development for which, if the interest (instead of being sold by agreement) had been compulsorily acquired by the acquiring authority in pursuance of a notice to treat served on the relevant date, it would have been so assumed;

"date of completion", in relation to an acquisition or sale of an interest in land, means the date on which the acquisition or sale is completed by the vesting of that interest in the acquiring authority;
"local authority" means a regional, islands or district council;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act;
"the relevant date", in relation to a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, means the date of service of the notice to treat and, in relation to a sale of such an interest by agreement, means the date of the making of the contract in pursuance of which the sale was effected.
(2) In this Part of this Act any reference to the granting of permission for the carrying out of development of any land is a reference to the granting of permission (including where applicable outline permission) for that development—

(a) either unconditionally or subject to conditions; and

(b) either in respect of that land taken by itself or in respect of an area including that land."

2. After Schedule 2 to that Act there is inserted—
"THIRD SCHEDULE APPLICATION OF PART V TO CERTAIN CASES Disturbance, severance and injurious affection
1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Schedule, any reference in section 31 of this Act to the principal amount of any compensation shall be construed as including any sum attributable to disturbance, severance or injurious affection.
2. If the person entitled to the compensation under section 31 of this Act—

(a) was, at the time of the compulsory acquisition or sale mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, entitled to an interest in other land contiguous or adjacent to the land acquired or purchased; but

(b) is, at the time of the planning decision in question, no longer entitled to that interest, either in respect of the whole or in respect of part of that land;

any reference in section 31 of this Act to the principal amount of any compensation or the amount of the purchase price shall be construed as excluding so much of the compensation or purchase price as was or would have been attributable to severance or injurious affection of that land or, as the case may be, of that part.
Increase in value of contiguous or adjacent land
3. In determining for the purposes of section 31 of this Act the difference between the principal amount of the compensation specified in subsection (2) of that section and the principal amount of the compensation or the amount of the purchase price mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, in a case where—

(a) the compensation or the purchase price was or would have been reduced (whether by virtue of section 14 of this Act or otherwise) by reason of an increase in the value of an interest in contiguous or adjacent land; but

(b) at the time of the planning decision the person entitled to the compensation under section 23 of this Act is not entitled to the interest or is entitled to it only as respects part of the contiguous or adjacent land,

the amount specified in section 31(2) and the principal amount or purchase price mentioned in section 31(1) shall be calculated as if the circumstances by reason of which it was or would have been so reduced had not existed or, as the case may be, as if the interest in the contiguous or adjacent land had subsisted only in that part of the land.
Land held subject to heritable security
4. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to settled land, where, in a case falling within section 31(1) of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a heritable security, any reference
1054
(however expressed) in section 31 or section 32 of this Act to the person entitled to the compensation or purchase price shall be construed as a reference to the person who, subject to the heritable security, was entitled to that interest, and not as a reference to the heritable creditor.
5. For the purposes of the application of section 31 of this Act, and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph, to a case falling within the preceding paragraph, any reference to the principal amount of the compensation which was or would have been payable in respect of any compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would have been payable if the interest in question had not been subject to a heritable security.
6. No compensation shall be payable by virtue of section 31 of this Act in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement where the interest acquired or sold was the interest of a heritable creditor (as distinct from an interest subject to a heritable security).
Land held in trust
7.—(1) Where, in a case falling within section 31(1) of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a trust, and accordingly the compensation or purchase price was payable to the trustees of that trust, any reference (however expressed) in section 31 or section 32 of this Act to the person entitled to the compensation or purchase price shall be construed as a reference to the trustees for the time being of the trust.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph applies, section 31(4) of this Act shall not apply.
(3) Any compensation paid to the trustees of the trust by virtue of section 31 of this Act in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement shall be applicable by the trustees as if it were proceeds of the sale of the interest acquired or sold.
(4) In this paragraph "trust" has the same meaning as in the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921.
Interpretation
8. References in this Schedule to sections 31 and 32 of this Act include references to those sections as applied by section 33 or 34 of this Act, and references to the time of any planning decision shall be construed accordingly." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Amendments relating to Land Compensation in Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.355:
Page 109, line 7, at end insert:
("5A.—(1) In section 22(1) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 after "shall" there is inserted "(subject to subsection (3A) of this section)".
(2) In section 22(3) of that Act, for the words from "but" to the end there is substituted—
"(3A) In determining—

(a) for the purpose referred to in subsection (1) of this section whether planning permission for any development could in any particular circumstances reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land; or

(b) whether any of the assumptions mentioned in section 24 of this Act (but not section 23) are applicable to the relevant land or any part thereof,

regard shall be had to any contrary opinion expressed in relation to that land in any certificate issued under Part IV of this Act."
5B. In section 25 of that Act—

(a) for the words from the beginning of subsection (2) to "acquire it" there is substituted "If the authority proposing to acquire the interest", and

(b) subsection (8) is omitted.

5C. In section 27(1) of that Act for "in the circumstances mentioned in section 25(1) of this Act" there is substituted "by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers".
5D. Section 30(3) of that Act is omitted."). On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361 and 362:
Page 109, line 8, at end insert:
("5E. In section 181 of the 1972 Act (scope of blight provisions), after paragraph (h) of subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(hh) land to be included in a trunk road or special road as proposed to be improved or altered by the Secretary of State if he has given written notice of his proposal, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the land in question, to the planning authority;".").
Page 110, line 1, leave out ("Subsections (3) to") and insert ("The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Subsections (3), (6) and").
Page 110, line 31, leave out paragraph 10.
Page 111, line 2, at end insert:
("The 1972 Act
11A. In subsection (2) (d) of section 183 (objection to blight notice) of the 1972 Act, for "or (h)" there is substituted "(h) or (hh)"").
Page 111, line 4, leave out ("(2)").
Page 111, line 5, after ("1973") insert ("(a) in subsection (2)").
Page 111, line 6, at end insert ("and
(b) in subsection (5), for "and (2)" there is substituted "(2) and (2A)".
13. In section 48 (right to advance payment of compensation) of that Act—

(a) in subsection (8), after "the amount of the advance payment" there is inserted "together with any amount paid under section 48A", and

(b) in subsection (9) (b), the words following "unpaid" are omitted.

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65.)
14. After section 141(5) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 there is inserted—
"(5B) No compensation is payable, by virtue of an order under this section, under Part V of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Interest on compensation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.363:
Page 61, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) If it appears to any person that he may become liable to pay to another—

(a) compensation under any provision mentioned in Schedule 10 to this Act, or

(b) interest under subsection (1) above, under any provision mentioned in Part II of Schedule 10 to this Act or under any bond under section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 or Schedule 3 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965,

1056
he may, if the other person requests him in writing to do so, make one or more payments on account of such compensation or interest.
(2A) If after a payment has been made by any person under subsection (2) above—

(a) it is agreed or determined that he is not liable to pay the compensation or interest, or

(b) by reason of any agreement or determination, any payment under that subsection is shown to have been excessive,

the payment or, as the case may be, excess shall be recoverable by that person.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 364 and 364A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 365:
Page 62, line 3, leave out ("Regulations or").
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Compensation Provisions referred to in section 53]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 366 to 368:
Page 115, line 25, at end insert:
("Section 23 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (permission for additional development granted after acquisition).").
Page 116, line 2, at end insert:
Section 31 (compensation where planning decision made after acquisition) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.").
Page 116, line 9, at end insert ("Section (time limit on validity of notice to treat) of this Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Short title, commencement, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 368A not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 369 and 370:
Page 116, leave out lines 15 and 16.
Page 116, leave out line 30.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 371:

Page 117, line 8, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 74(2) "section 71 of this Act and".").

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 371, and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 372, 373, 375 to 378, and 384 to 394. These amendments are all consequential on the provisions of the Bill as it is amended in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 372 to 394:
Page 117, leave out line 15.

Page 117, line 40, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 286(1) (b).").

Page 118, line 3, leave out ("2").
Page 118, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert:

1057

("2, in sub-paragraph (1) (c) "and subsection (5) of section 196" and in sub-paragraph (8) "or 290".").

Page 118, line 25, at end insert:

("1990 c. 9.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

In section 9(5) "on indictment". Section 55(6). In section 88(6) "or the presence of minerals in it".

In section 90(6) (b) "and 42(6)".

In section 92(2) (b) "and 42(6)".").

Page 118, line 26, leave out ("25(2) (c)") and insert ("25(1) (c)").

Page 118, line 27, at end insert:

("1990 c. 11.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 10.").

Page 118, line 32, at end insert:

("1965 c. 36.

Gas Act 1965.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.").

Page 119, line 23, leave out ("47") and insert ("49").

Page 119, line 35, at beginning insert:

("1961 c. 33.

Land Compensation Act 1961.

Section 17(8). Section 22(3).").

Page 119, line 36, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 52(10), the words following "unpaid".").

Page 120, line 6, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 23(4) (a) and (b).

Section 25(8).

Section 30(3).

1965 c.36.

The Gas Act 1965.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.").

Page 120, line 7, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 5(3) (a) and (b).").

Page 120, line 8, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 48(9).").

Page 120, line 9, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 19(5).

In section 28(1), the words "Subject to the provisions of section 26(2) to (5) of this Act,".

Section 35.

Section 36.

In section 41A(6) and (7), the words "consisting of the winning and working of minerals".").

Page 120, line 9, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 58(2) (a), "35, 36,".").

Page 120, column 3, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert:

("Section 84(11).

In section 85, in subsection (5), the words "or for varying the terms of the notice in favour of the appellant; and subsection (11).").

Page 120, line 18, column 3, at end insert:

1058

("In section 88(2), the words "(as defined in section 84(2) of this Act)".

Section 91(3) and (5).

In section 93, subsection (1) (k) and, in subsection (5), the words "or for varying the terms of the notice in favour of the appellant".").

Page 120, line 21, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 98(3).").

Page 120, line 25, at end insert:

("In section 106, the words from "other than" to the end.").

Page 120, line 26, at end insert:

("(except section 145).

In section 155(5), the words from "and subsection (5)" to the end.

In section 155(6), the words "and in section 156 of this Act".

Section 156.

Section 157(1).

In section 157(3), the words from "(a)" to "(b)" and, in the proviso, the words "paragraph (a) or".

Section 157(4).").

Page 120, line 28, at end insert:

("In section 167A(11), the words "or bodies of persons".

Section 169(3).

In section 201(5), the definition of "lawful access".

Section 231(3) (c).

Section 234.

1048312029543

Page 120, line 29, at end insert:

("In Part I of Schedule 19, "section 158 except subsection (5)".

1982 c. 16.

Civil Aviation Act 1982.

In section 53(1) (a), the word "158".

1986 c. 31.

Airports Act 1986.

In section 61(1) (a), the word "158".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to express my thanks to my noble friends Lady Nicol, Lady Hollis and Lady David who have suffered three late nights on this Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and to all on the Government Front Bench for their courtesy. I thank those few but doughty Members of the Back Benches who have put up with what has sometimes been a dialogue des sourds as the sound has not reached too far back into the Chamber. This is a totally different Bill to that which came to the Chamber and I protested about that at the beginning. We shall have to consider it afresh on Report in two weeks' time.
Baroness Blateh: It is only the lateness of the hour that prevents me from reciprocating at length. I thank

1059
the noble Lord for his comments and thank all who have been concerned in our proceedings, including the staff.
[Amendment No.395 not moved.]
1060
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before midnight.

  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: DANGERS OF ELIMINATION ATTEMPTS
  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: DANGERS OF ELIMINATION ATTEMPTS
  MR. KONDA NSATA PINDI
  MR. KONDA NSATA PINDI
  BRAILLE GRANT: REDEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS
  BRAILLE GRANT: REDEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS
  MEDICAL CERTIFICATES
  MEDICAL CERTIFICATES
  LONDON ZOO: FUNDING
  LONDON ZOO: FUNDING