Sitting of 21 February 1991

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

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 28 February.

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 27 February at Seven o' clock.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 February.
    Mr. Speaker: As Bills 3 to 14 on the Order Paper have blocking motions, with the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his objectives to be achieved in any reform of the CAP.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): Any reform of the common agricultural policy should make European Community agriculture more market-oriented, reduce budget costs, lead to closer integration between agricultural and environmental policies, and apply fairly throughout the Community.
    Mr. Burns: On behalf of farmers in Chelmsford, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his forthright rejection of proposals that meet none of those criteria and that place British farmers at an unfair disadvantage compared with European farmers? Will my right hon. Friend contrast his robust defence of British farming interests with the craven attitude of the Liberal party, the leader of which is reported to have said——
    Mr. Speaker: No, these are questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend fully elaborate on his robust defence of British farming interests and tell the House that he will never accuse British farmers of "whingeing" and that he will not allow British farmers to be placed at a disadvantage compared with small European farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. This is a battle which must be fought on behalf of the farming community throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that what farmers are saying about their present position and the damage that the current proposals would do is absolutely true. I deplore suggestions that they are in any way "whingeing" and I am sorry that the word was used by the leader of the Liberal party.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister assure the House that the internal logic of the CAP, which has driven us for so long to the destruction of wetlands, moorland, woodlands and birdlife, has been arrested and, preferably, put into reverse?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's comments are perhaps a little sweeping. The internal power of the CAP ensured that the European Community ceased to fear hunger and could feed its people. That is a great achievement. I support the hon. Gentleman's view that, today, in a world of surplus, our environmental policies should be integrated with our agricultural policies. That is one of the basic principles that I enunciated earlier.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend may know that this is the 150th anniversary of the election to the House of that greatest of free traders, the anti-corn law campaigner, Richard Cobden. Does he agree that a wonderful way to

    419
    celebrate that event would be to rid ourselves of the 20th century equivalent of the corn laws, the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Gummer: If my hon. Friend were to read Richard Cobden's views more closely, he would discover that he does not adhere to many of them. It would not help farmers, environmentalists or citizens of Britain to destroy our countryside by not ensuring a reasonable livelihood for those who look after it—the farmers.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I do not wish to make a political point——
    Mr. Cryer: Fancy doing that in here—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Howells: In view of the crisis currently facing British agriculturists, what advice would the Minister give to young farmers who want to enter the industry today?
    Mr. Gummer: My first advice is that they should support the Government's recent proposals, which would make it easier for land to be available to let. Secondly, I hope that if they enter farming, they will set out to produce goods that the public want and to narrow the gap between imports and exports of food products which was graphically exposed yesterday by Food From Britain. Thirdly, there will be a difficult time ahead because we are in a world of surplus for those who can afford it, but in such a world there will always be a place for the specialist, efficient producer who produces what the public want and at a price that they can afford.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reforms of the CAP he will propose to improve the prospects of closing the trade gap in food and drink products.
    Mr. Gummer: We have to take every opportunity to ensure that the reform of the CAP enables British farmers to improve their marketing and their share of the whole European market.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend has already referred to this morning's announcement that the trade deficit in food and drink products has widened. Will he take an early opportunity to discuss with the chairman of Food From Britain how that trend could be reversed? In those discussions, will he consider how the French have apparently managed to do the opposite during the past 12 years, by creating a surplus in food and drink profits which is equivalent to the deficit that we are experiencing?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to Food From Britain. Since taking over that body, its dynamic chairman, Paul Judge, has concentrated on precisely that issue, which is an important aspect of British farming and British food production. We should have a major campaign to ensure that people realise that in choosing food, there is a remarkable range of extremely good products from this country. I do not want anyone to buy British merely because it is British but because it is the best. In whole areas of food production, British is best. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if you wish to buy an egg produced under the safest conditions and regulations and with the best in animal welfare, you should buy a British egg and no one else's.
    Mr. Graham: If the Minister wishes to close the trade gap in food, will he consider a letter that I received from a farmer in my area who is very concerned about the closure of the knackeries? That makes it difficult for farmers to get as much money as they used to get before the advent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
    Mr. Gummer: The inability to sell fallen stock but to have to pay for it to be taken away has more to do with the fact that the price of tallow, which is the major end product, has been driven down to a third of its original price. The hon. Gentleman does the industry no good by suggesting that the reason for the problems in the knacker and the rendering industries is other than the world problem of a low price for their products.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consumers' ability to buy British depends on the freest possible market? In that context, does he agree that the reason why the British consumer so often has to buy French cheese or German yoghurt lies in the monopolistic and outdated practices of the milk marketing board? Does he support the milk marketing board's upcoming proposals, which should create a freer market—and not just in whole milk products?
    Mr. Gummer: I look forward to the milk marketing board's proposals. I agree that it is very difficult to see how British producers can get the best price for their milk or how British manufacturers can get the best part of the market for their manufactured products unless the system, which was designed for wholly different circumstances, is changed. If not, British producers will be supplying the end of the market that produces the least money while the top end of the market will be provided by products coming from the rest of Europe.
    Dr. David Clark: On the trade gap, did the Minister see the claim by Safeway supermarkets earlier this week that it had to import 70 items of food which could be grown in Britain because British suppliers could not guarantee quality, consistency or price? If that is true, it is a massive indictment of our agricultural support system. Will the Minister set up an inquiry into that allegation, which has also been made to me from other quarters? It is the reason why we have a massive £5·1 billion deficit in food trade.
    Mr. Gummer: That question would have come better from the hon. Gentleman had he not advised people to eat New Zealand apples and said that he did not eat British sausages. It would be much easer to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman if he had not spent the past 18 months undermining the British food and farming industries. On that basis, I shall decide what action to take without the benefit of any spurious advice from the hon. Gentleman.

    Set-aside Scheme
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of new applicants for the set-aside scheme have applied for the non-agricultural use and woodland options.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): About 27 per cent. of third-year set-aside applicants in England applied for the non-agricultural use option and about 5 per cent. applied for the woodland option.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend gives rather disappointing figures. Will he try to galvanise the famers of Esher—[Laughter.] I should have thought that that would be taken seriously. Will my hon. Friend try to galvanise the many farmers of Esher into adopting the woodland option so that we can add woodlands to the green belt and have all the attractions of woodlands, with their waving trees, dells, glades and cover for pheasants?
    Mr Curry: I accept that the woodland option under set-aside has not proved as popular as we had hoped. That is why we are examining the relationship between the farm woodlands scheme and all the other woodland schemes to determine whether we can put together a better package. We intend to draw up a consultation paper and I shall take particular care to forward it to the farmers of Esher. If we wish to carry out experimental work, no doubt they will volunteer for it
    Mr. Morley: Perhaps one reason why farmers have not been keen on set-aside is that it appears that farmers are being paid for doing nothing. But it is an opportunity to use public money in a desirable way, because it encourages the creation of woodland. If land is to be set aside, it should be used in ways that encourage wildlife and promote conservation. I know that there are Premium payments for doing that.
    Will the Minister give an assurance that farmers will be encouraged to participate in the woodland schemes, particularly for urban and community forestry? The schemes enable farmers to take their land out of production and put it into forestry for the benefit of themselves and the community in general.
    Mr. Curry: In the early stages of the set-aside scheme, when whole farms could be taken out of production, people may have been able to level the accusation that it was payment for doing nothing. In fact, that was not the case, because farmers had to maintain their land in trim. But that accusation was precisely the reason why we reduced the incentives for whole-farm set-aside. We have steadily increased the environmental element of set-aside, because that is the best justification for the scheme. We intend to take the Countryside Commission's East Anglia premium scheme nationwide and we are looking hard at its environmental benefits. If set-aside becomes one of the centrepieces of the eventual Community reform programme, we shall wish to ensure that it is closely associated with environmental objectives.
    Mr. Marland: When studying the woodland options, will my hon. Friend remember that we need to find ways of improving the environment and habitat of wildlife and of putting more money into the farmer's pocket, rather than that of the store owner? Will he consider the possibility of encouraging farmers to care for existing woodland, a great deal of which, up and down the country, is being seriously neglected?
    Mr. Curry: I thought that my hon. Friend was on the point of painting some especially enchanting woodland options, but I shall certainly bear in mind the points that he made when we examine the scheme.

    Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Organophosphorous sheep dips are approved under the Medicines Act 1968 for the effective control of sheep scab. Products are currently being reviewed and any that do not meet up-to-date safety standards will have their licences withdrawn.
    Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern about the use of organophosphorous sheep dips? As alternatives exist, what is the Minister doing to promote their use?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course, I am aware of the concern about the use of sheep dips. Two organophosphorous sheep dips and one alternative are currently available. We should be very happy if anyone were to come to us for approval with a new sheep dip that did not contain those materials, provided that the new dip met all other standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Such dips, which contain potent materials, are necessary to deal with the nasty problem of sheep scab. That is why there are strict warnings on the labels and a scheme to encourage anyone who is adversely affected to report it to our independent advisory committee.
    Mr. Speller: Although I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the vital need for strong sheep dips, is he aware of the fear that when the beast is driven through the dip, it becomes agitated and its pores open? It thus ingests a certain amount of the dip within the fabric of the body. Has the Minister anything to say about the safety of those dips in such circumstances?
    Mr. Maclean: When the veterinary products committee reviews sheep dips, it will keep in mind the problem of whether any residue is left on the animal or ingested into its system. The official leaflet that we publish on the control of sheep scab gives specific safety instructions to farmers to ensure that the animals have been rested before they go through the sheep dip so that they are not sweaty, their pores are not open and they are in prime condition.

    Agriculture Reform
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet EC Agriculture Ministers to discuss EC agricultural reform.
    Mr. Gummer: At the Agriculture Council on 4 and 5 March.
    Mr. Griffiths: When the Minister goes to Brussels, will he bear in mind the urgent need for change, given that the GATT round has restarted? Will he consider the information, which I imagine was passed to him by the director general of the Nature Conservancy Council, that 80 per cent. of damage to sites of special scientific interest in Britain is caused by bad farming? Will he make it an urgent priority in the reform of the common agricultural policy to introduce green premia along the lines advocated by the Labour party?
    Mr. Gummer: The Labour party's proposals have not gained much support outside the Labour party. They would certainly not be acceptable in the European Community and do not meet most of our requirements. However, at the National Farmers Union I spoke about the environmental changes that we should make and which I consider a necessary part of CAP reform. I hope that we shall reform the CAP to make it better. Some of the suggestions that have been made would make it decidedly worse. We need to ensure that farmers can do their two jobs—produce the food that we need and look after the land that we care about.
    Mr. Marlow: Given that within the European Community Britain is one of the least self-sufficient countries in terms of food and agricultural produce, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to give a simple undertaking to the House today that he will not agree to anything coming out of Brussels which will reduce still further our self-sufficiency in food and agricultural produce?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is both a farmer and someone who takes a great deal of interest in farming, but it is an odd view of our membership of the European Community—or of the world community—that we should be self-sufficient in everything. The German Government took such an autarkic view in the past. It would not commend itself to democrats or anyone with a liberal view of trade.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In the ongoing debate on common agricultural policy reform it has been suggested that only large farms are economic and efficient. Will the Minister take this opportunity to refute that suggestion? Does he accept that many smaller farms in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are equally efficient? Is not there something wrong with the CAP when 80 per cent. of funds available are directed to only 20 per cent. of farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not know of many farms in the United Kingdom that could not be classified as family farms. The idea that a family farm must have less than about 30 acres is nonsense. Some family farms hold and look after four or five families and that is how British agriculture has generally developed. The real distinction to make is between farms of a realistic size that are able to support a family and farms that we know perfectly well cannot produce an acceptable income as standards rise in countries such as Portugal, which traditionally have had tiny farms. We want to help such farms to reach a more sensible base so that they can support the people who run them.
    Farming in this country is efficient and very much able to compete. I am determined that it should be able to continue to do so. As 80 per cent. of production is achieved by 20 per cent. of farms covering nearly 70 per cent. of the land area, it is not surprising that they receive 80 per cent. of the support.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I was most disappointed with the reply from my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about self-sufficiency. Would not it be in the interests of this country and every other to be as self-sufficient as possible in the production of food? Will my right hon. Friend undertake a study to find out the rate of self-sufficiency in
    424
    Britain and Europe and compare it with American self-sufficiency? It seems that the GATT round is all about the United States hogging world trade.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend produces wheat, a product which we could go on producing in such amounts only if we were able to export a large proportion of it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want his wheat production to be cut because other countries wanted to be self-sufficient in its production. The economic base that he proposes is one that I should not like to be applied throughout the industry. Would he suggest the same for coal or computers? That would destroy any progress and prosperity in the world.
    Dr. David Clark: May I state the Labour party's agreement with the Minister's objectives for CAP reform as outlined in his answer to Question I? However, we believe that the reform must be cash-limited. It is absolutely indefensible that the British taxpayer and consumer currently pays £13·5 million a day to support the common agricultural policy. Why is the Minister so dismissive of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), along Labour party lines, for the payment of a green premium? I know that the Minister likes the idea—why will not he discuss it with us and acknowledge that the green premium not only gives us environmentally sensitive farming, but provides us with a sensible agricultural support system and is more economical to the consumer and the farmer?
    Mr. Gummer: I happen to think that the policy as outlined is not as good as a range of other policies that we have adumbrated and that is why I do not wish to implement it. I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about supporting our policy. I hope that that means that he will tell his Front-Bench colleagues that it is no longer Labour party policy to support the MacSharry plans.
    Mr. Moate: How can my right hon. Friend, of all people, be so non-communautaire as to attack the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for not eating British sausages? Will my right hon. Friend follow the logic of his remarks and urge the reform of the CAP so that production policies are at last returned to a national basis and the role of the European Commission is reduced to ensuring fair trade between member states? Does he agree that we are now paying £25,000 direct agricultural support for every full-time farmer and that we could get much better results on a national basis?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that the CAP is a basis of our membership of the European Community. I am wholly in favour of that membership and I support the CAP. I intend to get it reformed so that it does more good for Britain, for British farmers and for the farmers of the rest of Europe. I do not find it uncommunautaire to say that as British sausages are the best in Europe, they should be eaten by British people; I am sorry that the Labour party spokesman for agriculture says that he will not eat them.

    Animal Diseases
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Veterinary Association to discuss the control of animal diseases in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: My ministerial colleagues and I meet the BVA periodically, most recently on 13 December 1990, as do my officials, to discuss a range of subjects including animal disease control.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Has the Minister noted what Mr. John Logie wrote in Farmers Weekly of 25 January? Mr. Logie is a leading member of the Scottish knackery industry and is greatly concerned about the number of knackeries that are closing in Britain. In particular, there is great concern about the number of farmers leaving animal carcases to rot in the countryside. Mr. Logie wrote:
    "It is really beyond belief that the Government is ignoring what could become a major health hazard. It would be terrible if the public were poisoned before something is done."
    Does the Minister agree that this is a major concern for human and animal health?
    Mr. Maclean: Let us get one thing straight from the start. There would be no knacker industry in Britain if the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), had not pulled off a marvellous coup in Brussels just before Christmas, when he protected the whole knacker industry for at least the next five years. My Department is taking strenuous action to ensure that there are alternative systems available. The knacker industry can continue collecting dead animals. We are giving help and advice to farmers on other disposal methods. We are spending £800 million per year in general support for the livestock industry. I do not think it reasonable to ask the taxpayer to spend any more money on specific subsidies to farmers. We shall take strenuous action against anyone dumping animals by the roadside.
    Mr. Harris: While accepting a lot of what my hon. Friend said about the knacker industry, may I ask him to accept that there is great concern among veterinary surgeons, particularly in Cornwall, about the disposal of fallen animals and animals that have disease? Is my hon. Friend further aware of the concern about the future of the Polwheal veterinary investigation service station which covers the whole of Cornwall? May we have an assurance that that station is not under threat, as rumours suggest?
    Mr. Maclean: I cannot deal with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question because the matter is under review. We are aware of the concern in some sections of the agriculture and knacker industries. We have had extensive discussions with knackermen and renderers. There are still outlets for the materials involved if farmers wish to use them. Alternative disposal systems are available and, as I said earlier, only the action taken by the Government has prevented the EC from closing down the whole knacker industry.

    Intervention Stores
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current amounts of foodstuffs held in EC and non-EC intervention stores in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: A table showing intervention and private storage stocks in the EC and United Kingdom is deposited monthly in the House of Commons Library. Latest figures were tabled on 19 February.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister admit that, despite all the set-aside schemes and attempts to run down the industry, surpluses in intervention stocks are increasing again? Does he agree that at a time when every family is paying £16 a week to prop up the common agricultural policy, and when we have the cock-eyed MacSharry proposals before us that will make matters worse, it would make more sense if those stocks of food found their way into empty bellies in the third world instead of being wasted as they are now?
    Mr. Curry: First, the House should note that this is one of the rare occasions on which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agrees with his Front Bench, in his condemnation of the MacSharry proposals. His suggestion that European surpluses should be sent to the third world would do positive damage to the third world by simply wiping out local production. To suggest getting rid of our surpluses by using the third world as a dustbin does no good to European agriculture and would be a major disservice to the third world.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When will my hon. Friend discover what ought to be self-evident—that only by a quota policy can we ensure that agricultural support goes to the producers of food, not to the storers of food or the exporters of subsidised food?
    Mr. Curry: What I have discovered is that we must have an agricultural policy that is closer to the marketplace and the consumer. I am afraid that the formula that my hon. Friend suggests would have precisely the opposite effect.
    Mr. Ron Davies: We all agree that a system of agricultural support that does not benefit producers or consumers but rewards people who store food, people who destroy food and people who dump food cannot be justified and has to be reformed. We know which reforms the Government oppose. Why are they so coy about giving details of the reforms that they would like to see?
    Mr. Curry: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the National Farmers Union. It spells out clearly what we have said for years—that farming must get closer to the marketplace and that institutional prices have to come down. We have to make sure that farming is compatible with the environment and that its job is to supply what people want to eat. There is nothing very original about that. It is common sense, and common sense is the hallmark of the Government's policies.

    GATT
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet his EC counterparts to discuss the Community's attitude towards agricultural measures in the context of the GATT round talks.
    Mr. Gummer: The Agriculture Council regularly reviews progress in the GATT negotiations, and I expect it to do so on 4 and 5 March.
    Mr. Knapman: My right hon. Friend is a doughty fighter in Europe for British industry. He has heard today the many concerns about the cost, waste, fraud and protectionism associated with the present CAP. Does he agree that there should be an early resumption of the GATT round of talks? Perhaps it is time for delegates to be locked in a room until they reach agreement.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the announcement today that resumption looks likely is very encouraging. I wholly agree that we shall get a solution to the GATT round only if those participating stop addressing themselves to the columns of newspapers and sit down in a conference room at a table from which they do not get up until they have found a solution.
    Mr. Cryer: What influence can the Minister bring to bear on the EEC to make sure that there is a resolution of the conflict in the GATT round? As he well knows, the GATT round of talks is crucial not only to agriculture but to other industries, notably the textile industry which in Bradford in my constituency faces difficulties because of high interest rates. The uncertainty of the GATT round indicates a difficult and dark future. Can the Minister tell the House what influence, if any, he can and will bring to bear in the European Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I think that he will agree that it is the British attitude which has very much won the support of the European Community. It is we who got the Community to put its proposals to the GATT round. We have kept the Community at that negotiating table and we have supported the Commission in fighting to negotiate on those terms. We have also stopped those in the Community who wish to resile from those negotiations from succeeding. Britain can say that the successes so far are based upon British initiative and support.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the CAP is lurching from crisis to crisis? Is he also aware that the future will be very bleak indeed when the EEC is extended by Poland and Hungary coming in, which will lead to even greater pressures on the CAP? Is he really telling the House that he has not looked at the possibility of withdrawing completely from it and repatriating our agricultural payments?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about GATT, not CAP.
    Mr. Maclean: Our way to deal with the CAP is through the GATT round, because the GATT round will enable us to liberalise trade much more widely. The common agricultural policy is part of the basis of the European Community. We need to reform it and to change it, but not to suggest that there can be a Europe which does not have a common agricultural policy, which would be to run totally contrary to the facts of the matter.

    Food Poisoning
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss methods of reducing food poisoning incidents in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend met consumer organisations, including the Consumers Association, yesterday as part of a series of regular meetings to discuss policy issues, including food safety matters.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there is general concern about the increase in food poisoning, as illustrated by a sixfold increase in the Trent region in the past seven years? Does he agree that local authority environmental health officers have an important part to play in combating food poisoning, but that their task is being made far more difficult by an insufficiency of financial resources?
    Mr. Maclean: I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking a rather simplistic approach to combating food poisoning. We have a whole host of measures to deal with food poisoning, not least the Food Safety Act which came into effect on 1 January this year. The Act gives widely and greatly increased powers to environmental health officers and others to implement the law without a huge increase in resources being necessary, but we have also provided an extra £30 million for local authorities to help enforce the Food Safety Act.

    Food and Drink
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to reduce the food and drink sector trade deficit; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: The Government are firmly committed to supporting Food from Britain, which has set itself the task of reducing the trade deficit in the food and drink sector by promoting our products at home and abroad.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the conclusion to the current GATT rounds, no competitiveness will be lost in connection with United Kingdom food and drinks exports, particularly the great confectionery industry based in cities such as York?
    Mr. Curry: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are particularly attentive to the needs of the processing industry and that when it comes to the cutting of restitutions we should get full restitution for the raw material components of processed foods. I know that the confectionery industry runs up a balance of payments surplus of about £100 million a year and that is particularly important to it.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's position in the discussions now under way in the European Community with regard to fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government have been the most consistent supporter of reform of the CAP and I am determined to fight for a reform that meets the criteria that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) earlier today.
    Mr. Martlew: We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Minister today about buying British, but, as British dairy farmers are not allowed to produce more than 86 per cent.

    429
    of the milk consumed in this country, will the Minister state categorically that he will not accept any further cut in the United Kingdom milk quota? Would not it be monstrous for the efficient farmers of north-west England and elsewhere to have to pay the price for inefficiency and overproduction in the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: Since Britain has become a member of the European Economic Community we have increased the amount of self-sufficiency in the dairy industry. One of the sadnesses of the present situation is that although we are only 86 per cent. self-sufficient, we are still manufacturing some of the lower-cost products, with lower returns to producers, because of our milk marketing system. So we need to reform that as a matter of urgency. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am not prepared to have a greater reduction in quotas in this country than occurs in other member countries of the European Community. The MacSharry plan proposes exactly that. I believe in fair shares for all.
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the effect on British agriculture of the European Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP.
    Mr. Gummer: British agriculture would be severely disadvantaged by what we know of the Commission's ideas. They would imply that support for cereals, compulsory set-aside, quota cuts in milk and headage limits for sheep would all bear vastly more heavily on the United Kingdom than on any country in the European Community.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that the MacSharry proposals would not only discriminate against Britain but would involve a major increases in CAP costs in all European countries?
    Mr. Gummer: At a time of great budget crisis, MacSharry has produced proposals which would cost more than the 25 per cent. increase in the budget which appears to be scheduled for this year if we continue as we are. They are, therefore, unacceptable in budgetary terms and they are completely unacceptable because they disadvantage the United Kingdom.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Viggers: Bearing in mind the horrors that have been perpetrated in Kuwait, where thousands have been murdered and tortured, and bearing in mind also the awful nature of the weapons available to Saddam Hussein, does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no doubt that the implementation of all the United Nations resolutions is both a just and a necessary cause? Does he also agree that since August Saddam Hussein has had every opportunity to withdraw from Kuwait, and that if a major
    430
    land offensive should now be necessary our forces will carry with them the gratitude and good will of the entire nation?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The only message that we wish to hear today is that Iraq is prepared to accept and implement all the Security Council resolutions in full and immediately. That is a message which can be given to us at any time. As I told the House on Tuesday, only when such a message is received and has begun to be implemented can there be an end to the conflict.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that within the past 48 hours every one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council has made it crystal clear to Saddam Hussein yet again that if immediate and unconditional removal of all Iraqi forces were to take place the fighting could end? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what the whole world wants—including, had they but the freedom to say it, the ordinary people of Iraq? Knowing that, is not it obvious that of all the many cruelties committed by Saddam Hussein, the greatest would be his failure to take the opportunity, which has always existed and still exists, to avert a major land battle and the great suffering that it would bring?
    The Prime Minister: It has certainly been made clear by the allies that we stand by the Security Council resolutions in full. As the House may know, I understand that, within the past few minutes, Saddam Hussein has begun broadcasting to Iraq. There is no indication yet of what he has said or what he will say, but I am bound to say that he preceded his broadcast with yet another Scud attack.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is an inventive nation and that we maintain a strong science base? Will he, therefore, join me and other hon. Members from both sides of the House in congratulating the Royal Society of Chemistry on celebrating its 150th anniversary this year? Will he also pay tribute to the chemical industry, which contributes a balance of payments surplus of more than £2,000 million per annum to Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. Only last Friday I had the pleasure of opening an innovative ICI factory in Runcorn in the north-west which will manufacture an alternative to CFCs—the first such factory in,the world. The chemical industry has an impressive record both in investment in research and development and in the exploitation of that investment by our scientists. That is the basis of industry's necessary recovery.
    Mr.Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that no one, but no one, can relish the prospect of having to fight a land war in the Gulf, that even at the 11th hour every realistic avenue for peace ought to be pursued, but that we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by culs-de-sac designed to delay the freedom of Kuwait? Will he confirm that the aim of the allies is not a temporary peace, leading

    431
    to conflict later, but a durable, United Nations-based peace, a basic ingredient of which must be recognition of the legitimacy of Kuwait?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, particularly about durability and security. There is no need for particular peace proposals. The peace proposals that we wish to hear are those that we have set out and agreed with our allies and others in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. That has been and remains the position. If Iraq is prepared to accept and implement those, the conditions exist for an end to the conflict. Without that, they do not exist.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the management and work force of the Rover Group on their contribution to the British export drive? Does he agree that the figures recently announced are self-evident proof that it was a very good deal between British Aerospace and Rover for the west midlands, the taxpayer and the country?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a remarkable renaissance in the motor car industry generally. That, of course, includes Rover.
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that West and South Yorkshire police and fire authorities are about to set their budgets this weekend for the forthcoming year? Is he also aware that the options before them are to do so in accordance with the Home Secretary's guidelines, and thus maintain their present effective forces, or to set the budget according to the standard spending assessments of the Department of the Environment, which would result in the loss of hundreds of police and firemen's jobs and consequently of services? Considering the increase in the crime rate and the ever-greater demands on the fire service, what advice does the right hon. Gentleman have for them?
    The Prime Minister: Like all authorities, this one must select its own priorities.
    Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware, not least from his knowledge of his own constituency, of the wonderful work done by many thousands of people working for village hall committees. Is he aware that, notwithstanding the marvellous efforts of our right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) two years ago to protect village hall committees from some of the worst trepidations of EEC VAT directives, VAT remains a serious problem for them? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and encourage him to try to find a fiscal device to make life easier for those voluntary fund-raisers?
    The Prime Minister: It is not readily apparent what fiscal device my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he cares to suggest something I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine it.
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Hoey: Does the Prime Minister recall when he was a young man being a councillor in Ferndale ward in my constituency? Does he realise that this month there is 25 per cent. unemployment in Ferndale ward? Will he have time in the next couple of weeks to come and see the people there, many of whom have been out of work for more than two years, and tell them what more they can do to get jobs under the Conservative Government?
    The Prime Minister: While visiting Ferndale ward, which I had the privilege of representing for a period after 1968, I might also discuss with the people why, so many years later, nothing has been done by Lambeth council to improve their environment, their housing, their street cleaning or any of the other matters that concern them.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the answers to any review of the community charge are staring us in the face from Westminster city hall? Would my right hon. Friend note that that council—a single-tier authority—has been able to reduce its community charge as a result of good housekeeping? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Dame Shirley Porter is made a member of the Government review team immediately?
    The Prime Minister: We should be happy to have Dame Shirley's advice on that or on many other matters and I am happy to congratulate Westminster city council on the community charge that it has levied. It is certainly an example to other authorities and I hope that they will follow that example.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the
    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister agree that concern about loss of face, or part face, by any leader leading a nation involved in the Gulf war pales into insignificance when compared with the possible loss of life if a land war is embarked upon?
    The Prime Minister: Nobody wishes artificially to bring about a land war if it is avoidable. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind who began this conflict, what the aims were and what is necessary both to end it and to ensure that there is a secure and durable peace, which means that conflict will not recommence at a later date. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
    Mr. Cash: When my right hon. Friend saw Chancellor Kohl the other day, did he discuss the German proposals for political union, which have now been submitted to the intergovernmental conference? Did he agree that those proposals were completely unworkable and that if they were put into effect they would mean, to all intents and purposes, the end of the Westminster Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I discussed a range of matters with Chancellor Kohl. I did not discuss the letter which the French and the Germans put forward, although we discussed in general terms some of the matters related to both the economic and monetary union IGC and the political union IGC. I set out for Chancellor Kohl our concerns about those matters and the policies that we have set before the House.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michael: On a day when the Government's own gross domestic product figures have illustrated the depth of the recession and the frightening drop in production created by his policies as Chancellor and now as Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the stupidity of adding 6,000 experts on training the unemployed to the queues of unemployed? Opposition Members have lived with the misery caused by the Government for millions of people during the recession in the early 1980s. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to prevent a repetition of that misery for millions in the 1990s?
    The Prime Minister: We have an excellent record on training, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As for economic circumstances in this country and elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman will know that three of the G7 countries are now officially in recession and two more have had a downturn in output. The hon. Gentleman imputes too much authority to me if he thinks that I am responsible for all that.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably one of the biggest mistakes that the western alliance has made was to try to treat Saddam Hussein as though he were an honourable man when in fact his words are worthless? When my right hon. Friend next telephones President Bush, he may be able to tell him of some of the evidence that we have heard in the House about the human rights being destroyed in Kuwait and the genocide taking place there which must mean more and more deaths for the Kuwaitis every day.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend expresses a view which is held by the vast majority of hon. Members in the House. There is no doubt that since 2 August the Iraqis
    434
    have broken any number of international obligations and there must be some considerable concern about whether we can trust what is said to us by them.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement that he made on 29 November following his election to his present position? He said then that he wanted to see a country at ease with itself. Does he believe that 2 million unemployed, the continuing decimation of our health service, the imposition of the hated poll tax and the current deepening recession represent a climate in which the people of this country can be at ease with themselves? Does he not now recognise that the only way to remove those problems is by the removal of the present Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is a class warrior who believes in conflict; I am not. That is the difference between us.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the country which five local authorities have the highest community charge, which five have the worst education results and which five have the largest rent arrears?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend will a detailed list of those authorities. I think that I can tell him now, however, that he will find no Conservative authorities among them, and an overwhelming predominance of Labour authorities, almost certainly including Brent, Camden and Lambeth.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Road Traffic Bill.
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lome) Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock,
motions on social security benefit uprating and other orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY I MARCH—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY 4 MARCH—Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuation) Order.
Remaining stages of the Census Confidentiality Bill [Lords] and the Oversea Superannuation Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to assistance to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Mr. Speaker, the House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10·30 am on Wednesday 27 February to consider European Community Document No. 7057/90 relating to agricultural and agro-industrial research 1990–94; and that European Standing Committee B will also meet on Wednesday 27 February at 10·30 am to consider European Community Document No. 10149/90 relating to promotion of energy efficiency in the community.
[Wednesday 27 February:
Social Security benefit uprating and other orders and regulations

1. Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order

2. Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations

3. Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order

4. Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations

5. Social Security (Contributions) (Re-Rating) Order

6. Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order

7. State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations

8. Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employer's Relief) Regulations.

European Standing Committee A:
Wednesday 27 February
Relevant European Community Document
7057/90 Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Research
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 11-xxxii ( 1989–90)
European Standing Committee B:
Wednesday 27 February
Relevant European Community Document
10149/90 Energy Efficiency
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 29-vi (1990–91)
Floor of the House:
Monday 4 March
Relevant European Community Documents

10880/90

Aid for Soviet Union

4120/91

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 29-vii ( 1990–91).]
Dr. Cunningham: If, regrettably, Saddam Hussein continues to ignore the United Nations resolutions, there is a serious deterioration in the situation in the Gulf and a land war begins, may we have an immediate statement in the House from Her Majesty's Government? The Leader of the House has been very good at ensuring that the House is kept informed of developments and changes in the Gulf: let me on behalf of the Opposition, express our appreciation of that. Nevertheless, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, if a widespread land war begins, a statement should be made immediately.
Last week, the Leader of the House said again that he was trying to find time for a debate on the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea. We now have the details of next week's business, and yet again, regrettably, no time has been found for a debate on that important report. May I urge the Leader of the House to find time for this matter in the business for the week after next, because hon. Members on both sides of the House are very anxious, as are many of their constituents, to have the recommendations of the Cullen report debated?
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the report of the inquiry by Lord Justice Woolf into the Strangeways riots will be published next Monday? If so, or if it is to be some other day next week, may we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the inquiry report? It is somewhat ironic, if not unsatisfactory, that we shall be finalising our deliberations on the Criminal Justice Bill before the House has had the opportunity to discuss and learn the lessons of the Woolf inquiry. It would have been far better if we could have had a statement on the report before the House had concluded its consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill.
It has been the tradition of the House, whichever party was in power, to have a debate on Government public expenditure plans. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to have such a debate and that they are not trying to wriggle out of that commitment. We are now in danger of not debating the Government's public expenditure plans before the Chancellor introduces his Budget on 19 March. I believe that even supporters of the Government would regard that as wholly unsatisfactory. I well recognise the Government's embarrassment, especially since we know from the public expenditure paper from the Department of Employment, for example, that £350 million is to be cut

437
from the training budget at a time when we are heading deeper and deeper into recession. There are many other important public expenditure issues involved, and the Opposition have the right to demand a debate on them.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for what he said about the way in which business in the House on the Gulf had been handled. As he knows, we have kept regularly in touch through the usual channels. He will know that the House is to debate the situation in the Gulf later today, and we had a statement earlier this week, both of which are indications of my determination to carry out my promise to the House to review regularly the need for debates and statements. We must be watchful of developments in the Gulf, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and hope to carry on as I have been doing in ensuring that a statement is made whenever one is appropriate.
The hon. Member has raised on a number of occasions the subject of the Cullen report. I said last week that I hope to arrange a debate on this topic as soon as possible. I am aware of the desire of other hon. Members to debate it. The hon. Member asked me for three debates last week. I have been able to fulfil one of his requests in next week's business, because we are to have a debate on Welsh affairs. I cannot guarantee to fulfil in a single week all my promises to him, but I certainly hope to arrange a debate on the Cullen report. Unfortunately, it cannot be next week.
It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on the Woolf report as soon as it is published, which we expect to be very early next week. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about trying to arrange it in advance of the conclusion of our debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. I will certainly see what I can do to arrange that sequence of events.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question whatever of our wriggling on the question of public expenditure. I am very proud of our public expenditure programme, and that includes this year's. The hon. Gentleman will know that we now have a new arrangement for the publication of public expenditure plans. They are not all now contained in one document. Particularly at the request of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, there is, for the first time, a series of individual departmental plans. We have had a stream of reports in the past few weeks.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no embarrassment about having a debate, but we have to take into account the new system and the new method. I certainly intend to arrange a debate on the public expenditure plans, although I doubt whether it will be before the Budget. I hope that we shall have the debate when the House has had an opportunity to absorb the wide range of White Papers.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we are to have today an important debate on the Gulf war aims and the restoration of peace in the middle east—in the name of members of the Scottish National party—in which no fewer than 24 hon. Members wish to take part. I would therefore ask the House——
Mr. Tony Banks: They are not here; they have been caught out.
Mr. Speaker: It does not matter whether they are here or not. Many of those present wish to participate. Exceptionally, therefore, I propose to allow business questions to continue only until 4 o'clock. Then we must move on to the debate.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend listen carefully to the debate on the Gulf and ensure that there is plenty of opportunity for the Labour spokesman to explain the contradiction between the statements of those on the Opposition Front Bench—or what is left of it—and the actions of local Labour parties, such as that in Battersea, which have been subscribing to the "stop the war" campaign and repudiating the policies of those on their own Front Bench? If there is not time today, will my right hon. Friend allow another opportunity for that to happen?
Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that, because of other commitments, I cannot be present throughout the debate this afternoon. The whole House will be aware that some people in the Labour party oppose the policy of those on the Labour Front Bench. Some of them will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. Equally, the House knows that a large majority of the Labour party strongly support the Government's position.
Mr. Norman Hogg: As we are not doing much next week, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on early-day motion 400, standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends?
[That this House condemns without reservation the disreputable actions of the Scottish National Party on Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council in determining a budget and fixing a poll tax which slashes funding for housing, homeless persons, housing maintenance, environmental services, planning, building control, recreation and leisure, libraries, refuse collection, refuse disposal and parks etc., with serious consequences for the level of service to the public, jobs and conditions of council staff and impairs the council's ability to meet new statutory requirements required by Parliament in such Acts as the Environment Protection Act; demands that the SNP leadership clarify why and when it became their policy to act in support of Tory Scottish Office Ministers in making cuts to an extent beyond even the excessive demands of the Scottish Office; and asserts that SNP councillors who support such policies while refusing to pay the poll tax are wholly unprincipled but consistent with SNP's position in Scottish public life.]
The motion deals with the scurrilous behaviour of the Scottish National party councillors on Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council who have fixed a budget and increased the poll tax but refuse to pay it themselves. May we have a debate about the poll tax and the hypocritical behaviour of SNP representatives on Scottish local authorities? If we cannot, will the right hon. Gentleman at least add his name to the early-day motion?
Mr. MacGregor: I refute the hon. Gentleman's claim that we are not doing very much next week. The House is to complete its proceedings on two of the major Bills in the current legislative programme. We are also to debate a number of important social security orders. I rather suspect that hill farmers would not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the motion on the Hill Livestock

439
(Compensatory Allowances) Regulations is unimportant. Many Scots hill farmers will warmly welcome the fact that we are to deal with that next week. Moreover, given the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, I am surprised to hear that he regards a whole day's debate on Welsh affairs as irrelevant and not important. We are to discuss a lot of important matters next week.
The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to early-day motion 400. As a Minister, I am not entitled to sign early-day motions. I know that the Scottish National party has been anxious to portray itself as the party of community charge non-payment, but as soon as SNP members gain power in the council chamber, no one is keener to set and collect the charge than they are. That was the case with Angus district council, which the SNP controls, and now it is the case with Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council. The SNP is the party of shallow slogans in opposition and the party of sheer hypocrisy when it gets into power.
Mr. Robert Hayward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Boundary Commission for England announced its intention to start its work today. Would it be possible, without interfering with the independence of the Boundary Commisson, to have a brief debate on the preparations for the report so that we can take the opportunity to express our views on the way in which the system will operate?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that it will be possible to arrange a debate. I will, however, consider my hon. Friend's request, although I am sure that he will be able to find other opportunities to make his views known.
Mr. James Wallace: Is the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, concerned about the fact that today a Select Committee reported that attempts had been made to conceal from the House certain important aspects of the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace? Notwithstanding any embarrassment that it might cause the Government to have a debate on this matter, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the integrity of the House of Commons demands that there be a debate on this very shabby and dishonourable means of attempting to conceal information from it?
Mr. MacGregor: The right way to proceed is to do what we always do—wait for the detailed reply of the Department of Trade and Industry after it has considered the report.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange as soon as possible another debate on manufacturing industry to give the Opposition spokesman a chance to make amends for his performance early this week? On that occasion the hon. Gentleman, for much of his speech, refused to give way to hon. Members on the Government side. He also failed to produce any proper, costed Opposition proposals, and he failed totally to present any proper policies.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate immediately, although I recognise that my hon. Friend has made some very good points. Following the Budget statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. on 19 March, there will be an opportunity to debate industrial and economic matters at some length. I am sure that my hon. Friend will again make his points then.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that next week the families of some Gulf personnel will come to the House of Commons to meet members of the Gulf families support group? Those people are very anxious about the lack of co-ordination between the groups that have sprung up and about the absence of Government funds to enable them to function. They are worried about men who may return from the Gulf disabled and needing jobs, houses and rehabilitation. May we have a statement or a debate next week on those subjects?
Mr. MacGregor: Support groups and the Gulf Trust have the backing of the whole House. Many of my hon. Friends are very active in their constituencies in support of such groups. I am sure that the group to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will get the message next week that they have the warm support of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will know that a considerable range of benefits—in particular, war pensions—are available for those who may most unfortunately suffer injury in the Gulf. I believe that these arrangements are widely known, but in any case we shall make sure that they are widely publicised at the appropriate time.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House, when he is thinking about that matter, take into account the fact that war pensioners in Strathclyde now have to pay the poll tax? A constituent of mine whose husband lost half his brain in the last war and receives full poll tax rebate has her war pension included for poll tax purposes. This is a sick tax, and it should be abolished. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to that effect?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, in relation to the community charge, there is a wide range of reduction schemes and reliefs for those on lower incomes. Indeed, they were extended considerably very recently.
Mr. Michael Latham: My right hon. Friend, in declining any statement this week on the terrorist atrocities in London, reflected the mood of the whole House. Will he bear in mind the fact that it is important that from time to time the House be given an opportunity to debate the situation in Northern Ireland? Will he see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is given an opportunity to open a major debate on this subject within the next few weeks?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely that it is important that the House should have an opportunity to debate these matters. On 4 March, consideration of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuation) Order will provide hon. Members with such an opportunity. In addition, I expect to be able to announce before very long the date on which we shall take the Report and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a proposal for a draft Northern Ireland fisheries order was published in March 1988? It met with considerable criticism and many amendments and changes have been made to it. Although we have been told that its reappearance is imminent, it has not as yet re-emerged from the Northern Ireland Office. Does not

441
that episode show clearly the absolute need to deal with Northern Ireland legislation by Bills so that, instead of changes being made by officials after representations without public debate, there could be public debate on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee where all the issues in the order could be explored? Will the Government consider the order again and reproduce it as a Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise to reproduce it as a Bill. I am not aware of the latest developments with regard to the order and I will have to look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I will also draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and discuss it with him.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the past 47 years it has been the accepted wisdom of successive Governments that the German authorities were responsible for the massacre in Katyn, in Poland? However, the Soviet Union has accepted full responsibility for it. Given that substantial change, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: We have rather a lot of business ahead of us in the next few weeks and I have received many requests for debates. However, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend and, without making any commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I will see what the position is.
Mr. John Hughes: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 506.
[That this House, having recognised that the honourable Members' constituents who may be wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of troops serving in the Gulf, will be gravely concerned to learn that, whilst their loved ones were poised, preparing for the moment when they would be engaged in the bloodiest battles and facing the most horrendous of modern killing weaponry, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and a team of senior British businessmen, hundreds of miles from the combat area, in luxury hotels, were dispassionately discussing with Kuwaiti Royalty the final scenario of the conclusion of the war, the British and American carve up of a Kuwait restoration programme and the financial benefits to be accrued from the obscenity of war; finds it difficult to understand the insensitivity of senior ministers or equate their mercenary activities to their superficial expression of support for the troops; and puts on record its condemnation of a Government which allows its obsession with market force philosophy to overrule every other issue, even the Gulf War.]
The motion refers to the costs and rewards of the Gulf war. With regard to the rewards, the Government have shown their commitment and have produced a 32-page document which lists 168 companies. The restoration of Kuwait is broken down into six sections. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and teams of senior business men have visited Kuwait and have discussed the matter—[ Interruption.] This is true.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have the hon. Gentleman's drift. Will he please ask for a debate?
Mr. Hughes: Can the Leader of the House tell me whether the people who sat down with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Kuwaiti royalty to discuss the restoration programme——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate and not deal with wider issues.
Mr. Hughes: I am asking for one.
Were the business people who sat down with the Prime Minister also members of the team of 48 people who rushed to China after the Tiananmen square massacre? With regard to——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say, with kindness, to the hon. Gentleman that he is taking up his colleagues' time. It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to have an Adjournment debate during business questions.
Mr. Hughes: May I refer——
Mr. Speaker: No. The Leader of the House has the hon. Gentleman's drift.
Mr. Hughes rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will try to call the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
Mr. Hughes: Further to that——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. MacGregor: It would be right for me to address my remarks to the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We deplore the views expressed in the motion. The Government of Kuwait are planning urgently the reconstruction of their country, which is likely to have been ruined by the barbaric invasion of Iraq. They have warmly welcomed the prospect of United Kingdom participation in the rebuilding work, particularly as British firms have been suppliers for many years. Therefore, in view of our attitude to that early-day motion, I certainly do not intend to find time for a debate on it.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time next week for a debate on a subject about which I have received more messages and letters than about badgers, the community charge or any other subject that I can recall over the past eight years, namely, the coverage of the Gulf war by the BBC and ITN? Many of my constituents, over a range of political views, have been incensed by the fact that the British media have allowed themselves so treacherously to be used as Iraqi propagandists. The House should be able to express a view about that.
Mr. MacGregor: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has received more letters on any subject than on the Badgers Bill—[ Laughter.] To respond to his serious point, views have already been expressed in the House on that matter. It is clearly the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities to behave responsibly on all those issues. It is a matter that can be and has been raised in our debates on the Gulf.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Is the Leader of the House aware that, with the support of the Rutherglen Liberals, the Greater Glasgow health board sold public land in Rutherglen to TaKare plc for the provision of units for the care of the elderly? The board

443
justified that sale by stating that the site would be used for national health service patients, but it has now been revealed that TaKare plc intends to use part of the site exclusively for the care of the elderly in the private sector. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a member of the Treasury Bench to make a statement to the House on the legality of the sale?
Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing about that matter, and I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate.
Mr. Paul Marland: Will my right hon. Friend consider setting aside a little time in the not-too-distant future to discuss further the profligacy of some county councils, especially Gloucestershire county council, which, under the control of the Liberal Democrats, has increased its spending at twice the rate of inflation and exceeded its own budgets by millions of pounds? Now, thank goodness, it is faced with the possibility of charge capping. This year, despite previous promises——
Mr. Speaker: Ask for a debate, please.
Mr. Marland: Well, may we have a debate to discuss this matter? Despite previous promises, and despite an extra grant from the Department of Transport for road improvements, under the Liberals, Gloucestershire county council will still not meet its commitment for the construction of the Lydney bypass, an important road in the Forest of Dean. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate to discuss the matter—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Enough; let us have a debate on that, too.
Mr. MacGregor: In the majority of cases, the overspending to which my hon. Friend referred has been undertaken by the Opposition parties, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at Question Time earlier. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find other opportunities of raising in the House the issue of the bypass, as well as his general question, on which he has my sympathy.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time next week—I accept that he has said that there will be time after the Budget—to discuss the deep recession that the country is now in? If he will give Government time for that, perhaps he will arrange to bring to the Dispatch Box Ministers who take the situation seriously. My constituency and the Calder valley have lost 3,000 manufacturing jobs in the past 12 months, but instead of answering a serious point about industrial policy, yesterday a junior Minister resorted to personal insults. That did not insult me, but it does insult every person who has lost his or her job in Halifax and who is now facing dire consequences and struggling to pay the poll tax and mortgages. Will the right hon. Gentleman please make some time available to discuss the recession because things are desperate and thousands of jobs are being lost every day?
Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely the charge that there is a deep recession. There is no doubt that all Ministers take seriously the importance of pursuing the right economic policies to ensure that we achieve the kind of growth in the 1990s that we achieved throughout the 1980s.
444
On the hon. Lady's point about a debate, she will know that we have debated such matters quite a lot recently and, as I have said, some days will be devoted to all economic issues following the Budget statement.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us would welcome a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on Rover and British Aerospace because it would enable us not only to point out that that deal saved nearly 200,000 jobs, which the Opposition are so concerned about, and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, but to draw attention to the fact that the wild allegations made by the Opposition Front Bench on this issue were wholly rejected by the European Commission?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I cannot pre-judge it, I imagine that those are some of the points that will be dealt with in the Government's reply. It is right to wait for the official reply and we shall then consider whether it is appropriate to have a debate. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend has made his point effectively.
Mr. Tony Banks: When gliding around London in his chauffeured limousine, is the Leader of the House aware of the deep anger of Londoners, especially London commuters, about the state of London transport? The Secretary of State made a statement yesterday, but that is no substitute for a full debate. The Government took responsibility for the administration of London transport from the Greater London council, which is why it is in such a mess. May we have a debate? The matter is urgent.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman said, a statement was made yesterday. We have a full programme of legislation and many hon. Members are pressing me for debates on many issues. I cannot promise a debate in the near future on the state of London transport.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will have noted early-day motion 500, entitled "Merchant Navy," which has attracted 244 signatures in just two days.
[That this House welcomes the recent report of the Joint Working Party on British shipping published in September 1990; notes the vital importance of Britain's merchant fleet for the economy, employment and our strategic defences; recognises the links with regard to economic activity and maritime skills, between the merchant fleet and the marine related industries; notes that British shipping and those marine related industries together contribute some f5 billion a year to the country's invisibles; and calls on her Majesty's Government to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers.]
As maritime activity is essential to the economic well-being and security of this country, and as there is widespread support in the House for the regeneration of our maritime fleet, may we have a debate on the subject at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. MacGregor: I have indeed noted the early-day motion, and I agree about the importance of the maritime fleet and the industry as a whole. My hon. Friend knows that the Government are actively following up the

445
recommendations of the joint working party report to which the early-day motion refers. The recommendations deal with, among other things, recruitment and training. Assistance with the cost of training Merchant Navy officer cadets is provided for under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The early-day motion refers to financial assistance. The General Council of British Shipping and others have made submissions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the context of the forthcoming Budget. I cannot anticipate any decisions on that issue.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have not been able to call all hon. Members. I shall keep the list carefully next week to ensure that those who were not called have precedence at business questions next week.

Opposition Day
[8TH ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]
Opposition Day

  The Gulf
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  I make a special plea to those on the Front Benches and those on the Back Benches to limit their speeches. As I have already said, 24 hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I should like to call as many of them as possible. If Back-Bench Members were to limit their speeches to, say, five minutes each and those on the Front Bench to 10 minutes each, it would enable most hon. Members who wish to participate to be called.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reconsider your decision? We are on the point of a ground war and the only way in which hon. Members who oppose the war starting could express their opinion would be to vote for the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others. I ask you to give us the chance to do that by taking that amendment, too.
  Mr. Speaker: Sadly, it is not possible for me to call more than one amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. I have made my selection.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that there have been occasions, albeit rare, when other amendments by smaller groups in the House have been accepted and that this should be one of those occasions? Would you also bear it in mind, Mr. Speaker, that since the motion was tabled last night, another 20 people have signified their willingness to add their names to the 20 who tabled the amendment? Would you, therefore, reconsider what you have just said?
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot reconsider. The hon. Gentleman knows that I can select only one amendment, but, of course, those who oppose the motion will have the option to express their opposition in the Division Lobby later.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. Jim Sillars: I beg to move,
  That this House, having given continuous overwhelming support to British forces in the Gulf and therefore mindful of its responsibility to them, and to the status and integrity of the United Nations, calls on the Government to ensure that war aims, and efforts to create peace and security in the area, are restricted to the terms set out in the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions; and declares that no diplomatic opportunity should be lost to bring the present conflict to an end in terms compatible with United Nations Security Council Resolution 660.
  In a sense, I am in an unenviable position. I am like a man trying to step on a single spot in a moving river because I understand that information is still coming out of Baghdad. The latest that I have heard is that Saddam Hussein has said—this is a very rough translation and quotation:
  "We will continue the struggle confident that we will eventually win victory …They want us to surrender but they will be disappointed."
  When Tariq Aziz delivers the Iraqi response to the Soviet offer there will be no other. Hussein says:
  "The mother of all battles will be let loose."

  447
  I rise to speak in an extremely pessimistic mood. Earlier this week, I talked to people with background knowledge of the situation. Their view of Saddam Hussein was that his calculation is that if he could not personally survive, he would rather bring the whole temple down on his head, irrespective of the human cost involved. This afternoon's debate is highly relevant because whether there is a final, final chance of peace, whether before the land battle starts or when the land battle is engaged, it is extremely important that we understand the war aims for which the troops are engaged. It is legitimate for us this afternoon to probe and investigate the Government's war aims.
  Before doing so, I place it clearly on the record that nothing that I say in probing those war aims or in disagreeing with the Government is a diminution of the support of the Scottish National party for British forces implementing United Nations policy in the Gulf. They have our unequivocal support. I also ask the House to recognise that we are arguing, as we have done since 2 August 1990, that Saddam Hussein bears the primary responsibility for the conflict in which we are engaged. It has always been his key decision whether there has been peace or war.
  We in the west, who live in a democracy, often find it difficult to understand that someone like Saddam Hussein could have, from the beginning, determined on war as part of his political policy. However, that has always been part of his political policy.
  There are two reasons why the Scottish National party chose this issue for debate on our one half Supply day. First, it reflects our long-standing concern about the Gulf, a great strategic region of the world. I advance as proof the letter that I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 24 July 1990, eight full days before the invasion of Kuwait. I wrote:
  "Dear Douglas,
  Iraq and Kuwait.
  I am extremely concerned at the dispute that Iraq has whipped up with Kuwait, and the latest news of Iraqi troop movements at the Kuwait border lends a new dimension of anxiety, particularly in view of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and the long standing Iraqi claim to what is Kuwait territory.
  I appreciate that you and other EC governments may be awaiting the outcome of the inter-Arab efforts to settle the dispute, but given the difficulties that other Arab states face in dealing with Iraq, now arguably the most powerful and certainly the most free-moving of all in the Arab league, I believe that other pressures must be brought to bear.
  As a permanent member of the Security Council, and because of Britain's historic ties with the region, a special responsibility would seem to rest with us. May I urge you, therefore, to place the issue of Iraq's conduct before the full Security Council with a view to that body providing Kuwait, a small nation with considerable elements of democracy built into its system (unlike Iraq), receiving international assurances about its security in the light of aggession from Iraq.
  I am of course aware that you and your department will not have been idle on the issue, and that considering taking the issue to the Security Council is a matter of fine judgement. However, and again I emphasise Hussein's record, when faced with Iraq seeming to mobilise for conflict, I believe it is right to call upon the UN to act decisively to preserve the peace and protect the rights of small nations."
  That was written eight days before the invasion.
  On 25 July, April Glaspie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam Hussein to his face:
  "The United States has no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait … I have been instructed by Secretary of State Baker to emphasise and underscore this message to you … I am under instructions from President Bush to seek better relations with Iraq."
  448
  No doubt in due course there will be some explanation of that inexplicable American position on 25 July when someone such as myself, a Back-Bencher with limited resources, could see on 24 July what was likely to happen. I put that on the record because it allows us properly to claim a record of reading the position accurately and a commitment to the integrity of the state of Kuwait.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States made it perfectly clear that it in no way condoned the possibility of the Iraqis taking over Kuwait?
  Mr. Sillars: The important words in Miss Glaspie's statement are "conflict" and "border". The United States probably gave the green light, or at least it was seen that way in Baghdad, to venture into the border dispute. However, I have no doubt that that will be examined in due course.
  The second reason is much more important. We are reaching the final phase of the political and military engagement between the coalition and Iraq. It is clear that as we approach it—perhaps we are already in it—the war aims and their consequences, which will carve out the political contours of the middle east for a generation or more, are of prime importance. The war aims have lain at the heart of the past seven days of activity between Moscow, Baghdad, Tehran, Washington, Paris and London.
  The Government should give a calm, rational and honest explanation about what has transpired since last Friday afternoon. The House should undertake a calm, rational and honest examination of the Government's conduct in the past seven days. I draw the attention of the House to the motion before it. It refers to our responsibility for the people whom we have overwhelmingly supported—the forces in the Gulf—and our responsibility to the United Nations.
  It is one thing for people like us to send young people in uniform to risk their lives for United Nations policy, to uphold the authority of the only organisation upon which we can build a new world order and to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's torture squads. It is different to ask them to risk their lives for an American war aims agenda, which goes beyond the United Nations mandate in respect of the use of force. We have a deep obligation because the troops—the Army, Navy and Air Force—are instruments of political policy. But they are not robots. They are flesh and blood. They have families, wives and children and they also have intelligence and their own opinion.
  In a democracy the armed forces will always be the instrument of politics. But we have certain obligations to them. We have an obligation not to allow them to die for policy that goes astray in the hands of politicians.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If Iraq withdraws from Kuwait with the majority of its armour, artillery and aircraft intact, would the hon. Gentleman trust Saddam not to use them in future?
  Mr. Sillars: I shall come to that during my speech.
  As I said, the United Nations is the only organisation upon which we can build a new world order. It is paramount that we are not party to using its resolutions as paper flags of convenience, to be discarded when they place limits on any policy that might emerge from Washington and London.

  449
  There is a clear implication that there is cause for concern about the war aims and their definition. I intend to develop an argument to show that the Government must respond to that anxiety. My submission is that the war aims are in danger of going beyond the United Nations mandate. I shall come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) in a few moments. If I am disabused of the notion that the war aims may go beyond the mandate no one will be happier than me. If Iraq tells the Soviet Union that it will immediately meet the terms of resolution 660 and withdraw unconditionally, given our original limited war aims the basis will exist for bringing the killing to a swift end and avoiding the horrors of a land battle.
  However, I have been disturbed by the statements made and stance taken by the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom before and especially after last Friday's Baghdad communiqué. Let me first chart the movement of the war aims before last Friday. On 15 January, in an important exchange in the House between the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said:
  "I now address my remarks briefly to the question of aims, constraints and objectives. I hope that the Government will, in clearer terms than I have heard so far from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary, announce what the aims of any actions would be. It is important that if we go into this terrible action we do so clear about our objectives. It would be a catastrophe to allow a war which invented its own aims as it rolled along. We must now state what our aims will be."—[Official Report, 15 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 760.]
  Winding up the debate, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked a key question about our aims if there is a war, and they are clear. They are contained in the Security Council resolutions. They are to get Iraq out of Kuwait—all of Kuwait—to restore the legitimate Government of Kuwait and to uphold in that way the collective security and authority of the United Nations. Beyond that, there is a hidden agenda."—[Official Report, 15 January 1991, Vol. 183, c. 814.]
  On 17 January, the Prime Minister made this statement to the House:
  "Our aims are clear and limited. They are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions: to get Iraq out of Kuwait—all of Kuwait; to restore the legitimate Government; to re-establish peace and security in the area; and to uphold the authority of the United Nations."—[Official Report, 17 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 979.]
  So far, so clear. On the same day, the Prime Minister made a ministerial broadcast to the people, in which he said:
  "Our aims are clear. They have been set out, for all to see, by the United Nations Security Council. First, we must get Iraq out of Kuwait—right out of Kuwait. Second, we must restore Kuwait's legitimate government. And third, we must uphold the authority of the United Nations.
  We and our allies want nothing more than that."
  In an article in The Times on 18 January, the Foreign Secretary, maintaining a consistent line, said:
  "Our aims are laid out in the United Nations resolutions."
  He went on to repeat that the aims were:
  "First, to get Iraq out of Kuwait, all of Kuwait. Second, to restore the legitimate government of Kuwait. Our aims do not go beyond this. We are not trying to dismember Iraq or to decide who should govern it. More generally, we are acting to uphold collective security and the authority of the UN Charter and UN Security Council."
  450
  The crucial words, "more generally", were the lead-in to the issue of peace and security. However, on 28 January, the Secretary of State for Defence was reported in the Financial Times as saying:
  "Mr. Tom King, Britain's Defence Secretary, yesterday made clear that dismantling President Saddam Hussein's war machine formed part of fulfilling UN resolution 678 … 'It has to be right, after all the effort and all the costs and all the pain that we have been involved in. We cannot leave this half finished with a continuing menace, continuing to threaten other states in the area."
  The Financial Times commented:
  "While this position has long been tacitly understood both in London and Washington, Mr. King's remarks are the first public acknowledgement in the United Kingdom that disarming Iraq is an aim of the leaders of the coalition."
  On 31 January—we now see them beginning to creep forward—an interview with the Prime Minister was reported in The Times.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order, given the shortage of time and your direction, for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) to read from newspapers?
  Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the mover of the motion to do so, and it is a rare opportunity for the spokesman for the SNP to make his own speech in his own way.
  Mr. Sillars: The Times wrote:
  "Asked if the allied war aims were changing to include more action in Iraq once Saddam's forces had withdrawn from Kuwait, Mr. Major did not rule this out. It was impossible to be precise in defining what was meant by action to secure and preserve peace and security in the region, he said, until the circumstances arose. 'We will judge the situation at the time against the Security Council resolutions.'"
  I go back to 29 November 1990, to the Security Council, at which the Foreign Secretary represented the United Kingdom when resolution 678 was introduced and voted on. We should remember that the Prime Minister was telling us on 31 January 1991 that it was difficult to be precise. This is what the Foreign Secretary said way back in November.
  "We see it as one of the main purposes of this resolution to blow away the uncertainties and set out for the Iraqis exactly how they stand and how we stand. There is no ambiguity about what the Council requires in this resolution and in previous resolutions. We require that Iraq comply fully with the terms of resolution 660 and all later resolutions and withdraw all its forces unconditionally to the positions on which they stood on 1 August."
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that dismantling a war machine during the course of a war is helpful in securing peace and stability in the area? Does he further accept that dismantling that war machine in this war would be helpful in removing Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait?
  Mr. Sillars: If we are talking about dismantling the Iraqi war machine in what is known as the Kuwaiti theatre of operations, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be yes. But is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 270,000 Iraqi troops on the border with Turkey should become legitimate targets for the coalition? I would say no—that would go well beyond the Security Council resolution—unless they began to move actively into the Kuwaiti theatre of operations. I acknowledge the fairness of the hon. Gentleman's question. Let us assume

  451
  that Saddam is expelled from, or leaves, Kuwait. I do not believe that the United Nations has given us a mandate to advance on those 270,000 troops on the Turkish border.
  Having sought to show that there has been a creeping of the war aims, I now quote our ally Mr. Bush, the President of the United States. At a press conference President Bush was asked:
  "Now obviously it's a semi-hypothetical; he hasn't gotten out, of course. But could you tell us something about your conditions for agreeing to a cease-fire in the event that he did begin?"
  Mr. Bush replied:
  "Well, it would have to be a credible, visible, totally convincing withdrawal. There would be other things that I will not state here that I would want to see happen."
  Mr. David Winnick: There is nothing wrong with that.
  Mr. Sillars: I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. My point is that the elected representatives of people who have sent troops to the Gulf are entitled to know what those other things are. We are entitled to know whether those things advanced or retarded the chances for peace in the last seven days. We are also entitled to know whether they are conditions in conformity with or compatible with the resolutions of the United Nations, of which resolution 660 is the foundation and upon which resolution 678, the licence for force, is based.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Have not those troops whom we all support the right to expect us to allow them to get on with the job of dismantling this war machine in every particular? If it is not dismantled, the war machine may result in thousands of British casualties.
  Mr. Sillars: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman follows the logic of what he says. The logical conclusion is that there comes a point at which political control is not applied to the military. I profoundly disagree with that.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sillars: I have been generous in giving way and I want to make some progress. I am trying to balance our right to deploy our arguments with the rights of other hon. Members to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is one of those seeking to participate later.
  Mr. Sillars: On Friday, Baghdad issued its communiqué and on first reading it seemed to be a list of impossible demands designed to procure a negative reply. The Foreign Secretary said that it might have had two purposes, one to split the coalition and the second simply to gain time for Saddam Hussein to regroup his military forces for a continuation of the conflict. Others who have a legitimate position in the international community, in Europe and elsewhere, took a different view. The Soviets thought that it might have been a signal of a willingness to comply. Tehran also thought that it might have been a signal and the Iranian Foreign Minister described it as a wish list rather than a list of demands. Since then everything has gone behind a veil of secrecy.
  The time has arrived, especially in the light of Saddam Hussein's statement, for what has happened since last Friday to come into the open. How otherwise can we make a mature judgment about whether the next stage, the land
  452
  battle and the death toll, is justified? Perhaps I could put it more brutally. What am I, as a Member of Parliament, to say to a mother in my constituency who asks, "Did my young son really need to die in that land battle?" The only answer that I can give at the moment is, "I do not know." We are entitled to know.
  Until now there have been no concrete statements. We have read in the newspapers about sources in Washington and elsewhere talking about extending the aims to take out the Saddam Hussein regime, virtually to disarm Iraq and to demand recognition by Iraq of the al-Sabah family as the legitimate Government of Kuwait. That would be a different principle from that applied by the United Kingdom to international recognition, because while for a long time we have not recognised governments, we have always recognised states. Therefore, we seek to impose on Iraq a position that we do not accept in international law. There is also the issue of reparations.
  Today we were assisted by the Prime Minister at Question Time telling us that to end the war Saddam Hussein must obey all United Nations resolutions immediately. He used the word "immediately" and I shall examine his use of that word in a moment. When I made my notes, I assumed that only the public would be led to believe that the United Nations has further imperative demands on top of resolution 660 which must be met before the guns fall silent. Now, listening to Conservative Members, it appears that they have joined what I perceive to be the public position. The public has been led to believe that and so have they. If that is the position being put forward by the Government, it is not an honest summation of the 12 resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.
  Eight of those resolutions—661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669 and 677—present no fundamental obstacles if Iraq says that it will withdraw under resolution 660.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Resolution 666 is about food and medical supplies to Iraq following problems which resulted from the imposition of sanctions and the onset of military action, so presumably that does not have to be complied with by Iraq, rather by the United Nations.
  Mr. Sillars: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right; he reinforces my argument. Resolution 677 says that the United Nations Secretary-General should hold the register of the population of Kuwait. What does the Prime Minister mean by the immediate implementation of all the United Nations resolutions? Resolution 670 might be important. That refers to violations of international law and the fourth Geneva convention and says explicitly that Iraq is liable for violations against human rights. Is it Government policy that, even if Iraq withdraws under resolution 660, there can be no cessation of hostilities until Saddam Hussein and his regime are brought to a war crimes trial, with all the problems inherent in that? That is important because the Minister's reply to that question will either bring in or knock out one of the resolutions to which the Prime Minister referred.
  Resolution 674 refers to the liability of the state of Iraq for the costs involved and the damage done to the property of individual Kuwaitis and others and the state of Kuwait. Nowhere does that resolution mention "reparations" and that proves the absurdity of the Prime Minister's use of the word "immediately". It is not Saddam Hussein who will

  453
  meet the cost. How will the Iraqi people make reparations immediately? There will have to be a mobilisation of international help for the Iraqi people. We are entitled to some explanation of the Government's attitude to resolution 674.
  That leaves us with resolution 660, the foundation policy, and 678, the instrument of implementation. Resolution 660 says that Iraq should withdraw to the positions held on 1 August. It does not say that the Saddam regime should be removed or that there should be disarming or humiliation. That was a considered judgment, reinforced by resolution 678, despite the fact that Iraq had committed the greatest crime among states—the attempt to extinguish one. Is resolution 660 still the foundation of our policy, or, now that Iraq is on the ropes, is the hidden agenda to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime? I have no doubt that any declared intention to bring down Saddam Hussein would be extremely popular among the general public, but it would go well beyond the terms of the Security Council resolution. It is our duty not to be carried away by the fever or the opportunity presented by war, but to think carefully of the consequences of our action.
  Perhaps I can put the question in a different form. What precisely does Saddam Hussein need to accept tonight, or when the conflict goes into its second phase, before we will call off the war, or how far into Iraq are we prepared to go? I recognise the temptation for the coalition forces to take Saddam Hussein's regime out by decisive military action. Like every other hon. Member, I detest that man and his regime. I was arguing against it when he was gassing the Kurds at a time when western and other Governments were supplying him with arms and credit.
  I know that there is a concern to defeat Saddam Hussein. I am trying to be fair to the Government, and it is a fair point for them to make that up till now one of their anxieties has been that they could win a military victory but that Saddam Hussein could win a political victory because he does not need to win militarily to win politically. Two weeks ago that was possible. I doubt whether it is now.
  We are talking about an Iraq with a broken-backed economy, with its social system in tatters, with its infrastructure shattered and with a military machine that is being pulverised daily. But apparently tonight Saddam Hussein is still shaking his fist. After last Friday's communiqué, in which he used the word "Kuwait", not the 19th province, and the word "withdraw", I believe that he was politically and fatally weakened and that his days are numbered.
  Let me express my fear that if we are not sensitive to Arab feelings—that is, the feelings of the people and not of King Fand and the other rulers—we could win the war but go on to lose the peace. As much as anyone else, I want Saddam Hussein to get his just desserts——
  Mr. Winnick: Let us get on with the war.
  Mr. Sillars: Let me tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that it is crucial to the future that Saddam Hussein is brought to account by his own people. Saddam the martyr, martyred by the United States of America, would remain a potent force for evil and instability. If we want peace and security in relations
  454
  between the Arab world and the west, we must be careful that they are not poisoned by our conduct in the war and its immediate aftermath.
  I beg the Government to make the Americans understand the delicacy and sensitivity of the Arab peoples in the wake of an Iraqi retreat or an Iraqi defeat. I do not want to see Saddam the martyr devour the peace from the grave the way he has done while alive.
  4.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'having overwhelmingly supported the despatch of British forces to the Gulf, welcomes the affirmation by the Government that the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.'.
  You have asked us to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I shall seek to be so.
  I propose, in the course of my speech, to touch on four issues: the causes of the conflict; the objectives of the coalition; how the conflict can be ended; and what needs to be done when it is concluded.
  The conflict began on 2 August last year when, after weeks of intimidation and despite negotiations arranged by fellow Arab countries, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. To the very eve of the invasion Saddam Hussein was promising fellow Arab leaders that he did not intend to use force. That was a lie.
  The attack on Kuwait, a small sovereign state, militarily weak, no threat to him and Islamic in character, was wholly unprovoked. His pretence that he invaded Kuwait in order to free Palestine is a lie. He used force in order to promote his own policies in precisely the same way as he used force against Iran in 1980 and against the Kurds in 1988.
  Iraqi forces have plundered Kuwait. Two thirds of the indigenous population has been displaced. The country has been looted. Many of its citizens have been murdered. As the Amnesty report makes plain, Iraqi forces have systematically employed brutality and torture as an instrument of policy. This is the nature of the regime and these are the causes of the conflict. It is not possible to conceive of a clearer act of aggression.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) talked about the Iraqi people removing Saddam Hussein. My hon. and learned Friend has just given us a chapter on the behaviour of Iraqi troops in Kuwait. We know, from the massive breaches of human rights in Iraq—the torture, the removal of political opponents and their death at the hands of the security forces—that there is neither the will nor the people to lead any attempt to remove Saddam Hussein in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. Hogg: We shall see. The destruction that Saddam Hussein has brought upon his people may prompt them to remove him, and to do so soon.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall press on for a little while.
  As regards our objectives, the reaction of the international community to this act of Iraqi aggression

  455
  was swift and resolute. Twelve resolutions have been passed by the Security Council, either unanimously or by overwhelming majorities. Some 30 countries have now committed themselves in support of the United Nations, either to enforce the embargo or to defend Saudi Arabia or to liberate Kuwait. Within this coalition are to be found 11 Muslim states, most notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. This is an international operation, an exercise in collective security which is taking place under the authority of the United Nations.
  Our objectives are clear: the full and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of the legitimate Government of that country arid the restoration of peace and security in the region. Iraq must also accept the authority of the Security Council and its decisions. We have no other objectives.
  I have told the House what our objectives are. Now let me tell the House what we do not intend: we do not intend to occupy Iraq; we do not intend to change its borders; and we do not wish the destruction of its economy. While we would not grieve if Saddam Hussein were induced to stand aside, or otherwise ceased to be the leader of Iraq, it is no part of our purpose to change the Iraqi system of government or to select its leader for it. Moreover, while part of our legitimate campaign to expel Iraq from Kuwait will involve the dealing of heavy and telling blows, both against Iraqi troops in Kuwait and against legitimate military targets and facilities in Iraq which support Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, the destruction of the Iraqi army is not itself a war aim. That may happen in the course of the campaign, but it is not in itself a specific war objective.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's extremely wise words will be welcomed throughout the House, with the emphasis that he puts on war aims. Will he confirm that that means there are no plans to occupy Basra, except in the course of pursuing the war, if, sadly, a land war has to start, and that there is no long-term American objective of taking Basra, as has been rumoured? Also, will he confirm that the Security Council will be in regular and frequent session, monitoring the progress of these unfortunate matters as they develop?
  Mr. Hogg: As I said, occupying Iraq is not our objective—and Basra is part of Iraq—save in the process of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. What is true of this country is true of other countries within the coalition.
  As regards the circumstances in which the conflict can be brought to an end, our purpose is to secure compliance with the Security Council resolutions. What the international community requires and has a right to expect is an unequivocal commitment by Iraq to withdraw its forces fully and unconditionally from Kuwait. When the Iraqi Government are ready to comply with the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council, they should say so unambiguously and match their words with decisive and irreversible proof. There needs to be clear evidence of withdrawal, and there must be repatriation of allied prisoners of war. As yet, there has been no such statement, there is no such proof and we have seen no such evidence. Accordingly, hostilities will continue.
  Mr. Giles Radice: What is the Government's reaction to Saddam Hussein's speech this afternoon, which a number of us have been watching on CNN, including, I suspect, President Bush?
  Mr. Hogg: I have not seen the speech, although I have heard reports of it. It would be premature to come to a firm conclusion, but, regretfully, it did not sound like the speech of a man who was about to comply unconditionally and irrevocably with the resolutions of the Security Council.
  I now turn to the proposals put forward by the Soviet Government. On Monday evening my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a personal message from President Gorbachev. In it, Mr. Gorbachev set out the proposals which he had already put to the Iraqis and which he hoped might form the basis of a ceasefire.
  The message was delivered and received in confidence and its full contents have not yet been publicised.
  The Soviet Government have given the Iraqis yet another opportunity to comply with the requirements of the United Nations. We welcome that fact. What we now expect from Iraq is a response which fulfils those requirements. When we see that the United Nations Security Council resolutions are to be fulfilled, there can be an end to this conflict. This afternoon's launch of two Scud missiles to Saudi Arabia was not the message that we were looking for.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the Minister's judgment, is the view of the United Nations, in whose name this is supposedly being done, taken into account? Is any effect being made to ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations what he thinks before decisive action is taken?
  Mr. Hogg: There is no supposedly about it. We are taking action under the authority of resolution 678 of the Security Council. We are acting under the authority of the United Nations and pursuant to the wishes of the Security Council.
  Sir Alan Glyn: Does that include the destruction of chemical materials and possible atomic weapons in Iraq before the completion of the peace agreement?
  Mr. Hogg: A great deal of damage has already been done to Iraq's chemical, and potential biological and nuclear warfare capacity, delaying its ability to produce such weaponry for a long lime to come.
  Although we will not trespass beyond the terms of the Security Council resolutions, we do not propose to derogate from them. We are not seeking the humiliation of Iraq, but nor are we interested in face-saving formulas designed to remove Saddam Hussein from the hook on which he has impaled himself.
  We will not allow the Iraqis to play for time. We will not put at risk the lives of our forces. We are determined to ensure an early return of British and allied prisoners of war. Iraq knows how to end this conflict: by a complete and unconditional compliance with the decisions of the United Nations. As Saddam Hussein was well aware, his proposals of 15 February did not meet that requirement.
  Mr. Tony Benn: For three days now the War Cabinet has been in possession of the Soviet proposals, but has not yet disclosed them to the House or the public. As the War Cabinet has had an opportunity to study those proposals, it would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government believe

  457
  that, if Saddam Hussein accepted them in their entirety, the requirements that the Minister has set out would be satisfied.
  Mr. Hogg: Welcome though they are, the Russian proposals do not ensure full compliance with the Security Council resolutions; nor do they ensure that Saddam Hussein will accept the authority of the Security Council.
  When the conflict is over, there will be much to be done——
  Mr. Benn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  As I have said, there will be much to be done: the reconstruction of Kuwait, the establishment of a durable and effective security structure for the Gulf states, a renewal of the efforts to promote a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem, and the setting up of a more effective arms control regime in the area. All those issues are urgent and important, but I shall confine myself on this occasion to the questions of Gulf security and the Arab-Israeli settlement.
  We are willing to play a part in underpinning the arrangements that the Gulf states and other regional powers may devise, but the concepts, the proposals and the principal effort must come from within the region. We will respond if that is what is required by our Arab friends, but our commitment will inevitably be modest. It could take the form of a naval presence, training or joint exercises. What we could not consider is the stationing of British ground troops in the area, or a return to the pre-1971 east-of-Suez role. That would not be in the long-term interests of the region.
  Saddam Hussein's attempt to link his invasion of Kuwait with the fate of the Palestinians was a lie, and was widely recognised as such; indeed, Saddam's aggression has made the search for a durable solution yet more difficult. Once the conflict is concluded, however, we need to return with yet greater vigour to our efforts to resolve the wider issues within the midle east. There are two principles on which we should stand: first, the right of Palestinians to determine their own political future; and, secondly, the right of Israel to live within secure and accepted frontiers. In the absence of a settlement, the middle east will remain unstable. We therefore have a duty to solve this problem, and an interest in doing so.
  Let me deal now with the issue before the House. We applaud the despatch of British forces to the Gulf. We acknowledge their courage, skill and dedication to duty. We assert the importance of their task. We declare that they act under the authority of the United Nations, and to sustain that authority. It is for those reasons that they are there, and upon the achievement of which they will return.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: After this afternoon's broadcast by President Saddam Hussein, this must be a sombre day in the House and throughout the world. The position is not clear but, as the Minister has said, it does not sound promising. Of course, we must wait for an authoritative version of the speech, and we must also wait to see what message Mr. Tariq Aziz takes with him to Moscow tonight. We must hope that Saddam Hussein will
  458
  see sense even at this late hour, but if Saddam's message constitutes a rejection of the Soviet peace plan and he does not intend to withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally, any decision to start a land assault will have been made not by the allies but by Saddam Hussein himself.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: Not at this early stage—I must get on with my speech.
  Today's debate is about war aims. The country will surely be asking, "Are not the war aims of the 28 nations in the coalition perfectly clear, and are they not enshrined precisely and concisely in all 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions under which the liberation of Kuwait is authorised?".
  Thousands of British troops—constituents of all of us—are in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Many are from Scotland, reflecting the Scottish domination of the professional army of which this country is so proud. They are ready to risk their lives to get Saddam Hussein's army out of the land that it has annexed and to restore a legitimate Government to Kuwait, a sovereign country which has been eliminated and brutalised by Iraq since 2 August last year. Those British troops demand, deserve and will receive the continuing support of their Parliament and their fellow countrymen and women. They are far from us and from their families, and they face a powerful and well-armed opposing force which cannot and should not be underestimated.
  Let us be clear and unanimous on one point. From the beginning, ever since the invasion of Kuwait, the war has been the responsibility of one person and one person alone—the one person who, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) pointed out, could have stopped the conflict, bombing and destruction on both sides at any time of his choice in the past six months. Saddam Hussein started the war on 2 August when he invaded Kuwait. With his rejection of every peace plan that was presented before the United Nations deadline of 15 January, he personally continued that war and the misery that it inflicted on his people and the people of Kuwait.
  The hon. Member for Govan, whose professional background gives him great insight into the affairs of the region, said in a perceptive article in The Scotsman on 12 January:
  "I may of course be wrong and perhaps Saddam's extravagant rhetoric is for real and he will not budge for anything. If so then the use of early force is inevitable, because if Saddam is still in Kuwait after Ramadan he will never be removed."
  On 28 January, the hon. Gentleman wrote in the same paper:
  "Whatever one may think about the use of sanctions or whether a final compromise offer should have been made to him, we cannot ignore the stark evidence that Saddam Hussein calmly chose the path of war."
  Time and again, he has rejected every opening given to him.
  Until last Friday there was not the slightest inkling that Saddam cared anything for an end to the punishment of his people. and even as we speak in this debate there is still no evidence that last Friday's signal was anything more than a device to avoid some possible extension of the conflict.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister described the Soviet proposal as inadequate in some unspecified way. I

  459
  understand that the Leader of the Opposition has had a briefing from the Soviet ambassador. Can the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) tell us whether, in the view of the Labour party, the Soviet proposal is adequate and a basis for settlement?
  Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear yesterday that, from what he knows and has been told of the outline of the Soviet proposal, in general it contains points that we would support; but my right hon. Friend made it clear on one specific issue, as we have done since the beginning of the war, where there is some doubt about what the Soviet proposal actually says, that we will support a ceasefire only if there is a genuine, complete and immediate implementation of unconditional withdrawal. As I shall go on to say, we believe that the Soviet peace plan offered an opportunity to break the inflexibility, which might well have prevented a further extension of the conflict.
  However, for the sake of the wider peace of the world, we must hope beyond hope that even in these few hours President Gorbachev's brave and imaginative initiative may appeal to the Iraqis. Saddam Hussein now knows what he is up against. He knows that he cannot win, and he must by now realise that he must unconditionally leave Kuwait before there can be any ceasefire. He must also know, because he has been told often enough, that by withdrawing he can avoid the assault that will follow any new decision on his part to "choose the path of war". He must also be convinced that if he withdraws and complies there will be no question of an outside threat to himself or the dismantling of his Government or state.
  Our troops out there in the desert also know that by a deliberate policy of minimising any civilian casualties in Iraq they perhaps prolonged the conflict and undoubtedly added to their own risks, but it was an essential part of showing that our standards are in marked contrast with those of Saddam, with his indiscriminate and random Scud attacks on populated civilian areas in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Our troops know what they are fighting for and can be clear that the objectives of the whole military exercise are to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and restore that country's own Government in line with all the United Nations resolutions.
  We are absolutely clear in the Labour party about this. On 21 January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "The war aims of liberating Kuwait from occupation and restoring the legitimate Government are precise and limited, and rightly so."
  He went on to say that they
  "do not relate to the dismembering of Iraq … or include … the death of a dictator."—[Official Report. 21 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 33.]
  On Tuesday this week the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), made it clear that
  "Saddam's removal is in no sense a war aim",
  and he has been precise and explicit this afternoon as well. I would like also to quote General Schwarzkopf, whose words at a press conference yesterday are reported as follows in The Guardian today:
  "But when asked if he would consider his military mission successful if Iraq withdrew unconditionally from Kuwait, even though Hussein might remain in power with part of his military intact, he replied 'Absolutely. The President has said all along that we weren't out to destroy the country of Iraq, we weren't out to destroy the army of Iraq'."
  460
  That is the commander of the American forces in the area and the leader of the alliance of 28 nations.
  Those words seem to me explicitly to remove any ambiguity that may have existed. The Minister and the general were right to reiterate those truths and they were also correct to underline the strict and sensible limitations on what the alliance is in the Gulf to do.
  Ms. Short: I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that what the Minister of State said today is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that when I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether that part of the United Nations resolution which talks about destroying international peace and security in the area might authorise the attempt to destroy the Iraqi regime, its war machine and so on, he said that it might well, but that what he has said today is a very welcome change and shift back from that?
  Mr. Robertson: I am not certain whether it is a change or not, but this debate was called specifically to consider the war aims. I believe that what the Minister has said in such precise terms removes any ambiguity that others may have indicated and that General Schwarzkopf, speaking on behalf of the American forces, has also said something which will reassure those who may have believed until now that there was some ambiguity.
  It is right that we should consider the war aims because they are intimately connected with the aims of peace. The peace and stability referred to in resolution 678, which must be the overwhelming objective after Iraq leaves, will be accomplished by the way in which the war is conducted and concluded. There is concern that the liberation of Kuwait will none the less create a martyr and lead to the birth of Saddam Hussein as an Arab hero, even a posthumous one, especially if the masses in the Arab countries who are in the coalition choose to follow his message rather than that of the United Nations. It is therefore crucial that we in this unique coalition win the political campaign as well as the military one. So, in being precise about the aims of the war, we can and must be precise about the aims of peace. That is why the aims of the war and of the peace lie in all the Security Council resolutions and not just in resolution 660.
  On the motion and amendment before the House, the Labour party believes that there need not be a vote this evening. Before the House we have a motion and an amendment, both framed in words which seem to say exactly the same thing. One would have to be a forensic scientist—perhaps a political forensic scientist—to spot the differences. So why are we being forced to choose? Could there not have been some common resolution which would have united the objectives of both sides of the House?
  Mr. Livingstone: We are going to have a vote, whatever happens, George.
  Mr. Robertson: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would have voted whatever the resolution was and I fear that he would have been on the losing side whatever the resolution was as well.
  I add, in a spirit of no acrimony at all, that I frankly cannot understand why the Scottish National party insists in the final line of the motion that the end to the present conflict is compatible only with resolution 660 and not

  461
  with all 12 of the United Nations resolutions on Kuwait. Labour Members believe that all the resolutions matter, not only for the war but for a just and securely based peace when it is all over. We therefore believe that in those circumstances a perhaps unnecessary distinction is being drawn in the motion which seems to derive from a difference between the Government and the SNP. We shall therefore adhere to our usual policy in minority party debates and stay out of the argument and out of the Lobbies.
  Mr. Benn: Two questions will be before the House: whether or not to accept or vote for the SNP motion—which many, including myself, cannot accept—and a Government amendment preceded by a speech from the Minister who has rejected the Soviet proposal as unacceptable. Yet the hopes of the world and of those who wish to avoid a land war hinge on the possibility that Saddam Hussein will accept it. I hope that my hon. Friend will not invite us to assent to the Government's view that the Soviet proposal is unacceptable.
  Those are the issues that will be before us.
  Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend was perhaps listening to the radio rather than to what I said. I said that we would stay out of the argument and stay out of the Lobbies. We support neither the SNP motion nor the Government amendment. My right hon. Friend has been a Member of the House a great deal longer than I have. He knows that speeches are not the same as motions and that we are being asked to vote on a motion dealing with aims and objectives.
  The Gulf war has been a wholly avoidable conflict. It was, and still is, the creation of a brutal repressive dictator who, not for the first time, is willing to see his poor benighted people further persecuted for the sake of his own futile megalomaniac territorial ambitions.
  The issue before us is of some importance because out of the war, with all the dreadful problems that it has created, has come one major benefit. It is that the role of the United Nations has been exercised, as we always hoped that it would and never expected that it could, and that the United Nations is pivotal to the construction of the peace that must come hereafter. All parties in the House agree that the aims of the war lie precisely in the authority given from the United Nations. If we are to learn from all that has happened, it is essential that the aims of the peace must also lie in the United Nations. In that way alone, the outcome of the peace can be as certain as the outcome of the war.
  5.10 pm
  Sir Dennis Walters: The obvious joy and relief shown by Iraqi people when it looked as though Saddam Hussein had agreed to withdraw from Kuwait indicated better than anything what their true feelings are. They have already paid a heavy price for Saddam Hussein's indefensible adventurism and we all hope that their suffering, and that of the people of Kuwait who have been subjected to appalling torment since August, will soon be ended. From what we have just heard, however, it would appear that Saddam Hussein is determined to make the ending of the war even bloodier than its beginning.
  462
  It was never likely that the Gulf war would end either bloodlessly or in a matter of days. Saddam Hussein's determination to hang on to Kuwait made war inevitable and war is never surgical or painless.
  The danger of the war escalating in other directions seems to have receded and Saddam's missiles over Israel have so far not achieved their primary objective. More than anything else, what rockets over Tel Aviv, launched from Iraq, have shown is the futility of the argument that a mini-Palestinian state on the west bank and Gaza was the main threat against which Israel had to guard. With modern weapons, a few extra miles of land are quite insignificant. A future threat to Israel would arise not from the west bank, but as a result of Israel's not having achieved a modus vivendi within an overwhelmingly Arab world and not having defused the Palestinian issue by agreeing to self-determination in the west bank and Gaza. If Israel was willing to do that, it would have an excellent opportunity of living in peace with its Arab neighbours, as it has successfully done with Egypt.
  Saddam wanted Kuwait and refused to believe that the United Nations resolutions would be implemented, if necessary by force, so any form of negotiation with him would have come to nothing and he became interested in the Palestinian cause only when he realised that it was a useful card to play.
  Even so, our reluctance to give prompt support to the idea of an international conference on the Arab-Israeli dispute—which after all is British and European policy—is not wholly easy to understand. We seemed to get unnecessarily bogged down in the semantics of "linkage".
  The reality is that there is a clear association between the incapacity of the United Nations to deal effectively with Israel's unlawful occupation of Arab territory acquired by force in 1967—in particular, of the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, which is all that remained of mandatory Palestine—and the extremely effective way in which the United Nations has dealt with the unprovoked aggression on Kuwait in 1990. United Nations resolution 242 has never been implemented. Nearly half a million American and allied troops have gone to war to implement resolution 660.
  We all refer constantly these days to the breaking of the Geneva convention—quite rightly so—yet the Geneva convention has been broken day in, day out for 23 years in the Israeli occupied territories provoking little protest. Why did the United States either veto or blunt successive United Nations resolutions on Israel while leading the field against Iraq? These are not academic questions—they go to the heart of the divisions, instability and bitterness that prevail in the Arab world and explain why, despite everything that a devious and cruel despot like Saddam Hussein has done, he still enjoys considerable support. Unless they are satisfactorily answered, the charge of double standards will stand and in the long run the consequences will be disastrous.
  When Saddam Hussein has been defeated and Kuwait liberated there will be an opportunity to resolve these festering problems, and it must be seized.
  An international conference on the Arab-Israeli question is no magic or exclusive formula. What is essential is that the Palestinian question should be resolved according to the principles of the United Nations charter and the resolutions of the United Nations.

  463
  Resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in the war of June 1967, and which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described as
  "the internationally agreed basis for settlement",
  must be enforced. The Palestinians have a right to self-determination and Britain has a particular moral responsibility to Palestine which it must stop trying to shirk.
  The Palestinians must negotiate with Israel—of course—but they are entitled to choose who represents them; if that representation turns out to be the PLO, Israel must accept that fact. Alternatively, free elections, supervised by the United Nations, should be held as a matter of urgent priority on the west bank and in Gaza so that the Palestinians can elect their representatives. Palestinians in the diaspora should also be represented, and in any event almost certainly the PLO would continue to be the chosen representatives of the Palestinians within and without.
  Israel has a right to guaranteed and secure borders—of course it has—but those borders must be defined according to international law and United Nations resolutions.
  Personally I take the view that Mr. Arafat was gravely mistaken in lending support to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even though he had been seriously provoked. Professor Waleed Khalidi put it well when he said recently that in the years before the crisis Arafat had
  "probed the outermost circumference of concessions to Israel in the hopes of winning the dialogue with the United States. But no sooner had the dialogue begun than it became clear that Washington, despite its commitment to a substantive dialogue, was bent on treating Arafat like a criminal on probation, denying him a visa to the United Nations, hounding the PLO out of UN bodies."
  That said, Arafat was still wrong because the principles violated by Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait are the very principles from which the Palestinian cause derives its moral strength.
  Western economies are oil-oriented and will remain so in the foreseeable future. It is therefore imperative, even as a matter of pure self-interest, that we should resolve a problem that has been at the root of all the disputes and turmoil in the middle east for the past 40 years and that the United Nations should retain the momentum. An overall settlement should include an agreement to ban all nuclear and chemical weapons in the area. It should apply to all the relevant countries in the middle east, including Israel, and should be properly monitored and enforced by a United Nations supervisory team backed by the Security Council. Unless these things are done, all the efforts and sacrifices to defeat Saddam Hussein will have been in vain. Bitterness and frustration will grow, other Saddam Husseins will emerge, and peace and stability in the middle east will be as far away as ever.
  5.21 pm
  Sir David Steel: In the interests of the brevity that the Chair has sought, I shall refrain from following the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters) into wider middle east questions. I do, however, agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said on the subject.
  This debate began in very sad and sombre mood. Just after 3.30 pm we heard reports of Saddam Hussein's television speech, in which he said that Iraq's armed forces are determined to continue their struggle—thereby, in my
  464
  view, removing any last hope that the Soviet proposals might have any real effect. Saddam Hussein went on to say that he was sending Tariq Aziz back to Moscow tonight with counter-proposals, which he described—I think I have the correct translation—as the sister of those that he had made previously. In other words, this is a different orchestration of the same tune. This House must do what the five permanent members of the Security Council did in recent days—make it clear that we do not need alternative proposals from Saddam Hussein. All that he needs to do is withdraw unconditionally and quickly. He should announce his intention to withdraw from Kuwait and then withdraw immediately. That would bring the war to an end. But Saddam Hussein is not doing that.
  In the meantime, the parliamentary human rights group has produced evidence that the people of Kuwait continue to suffer as a result of the appalling inhumanity of the occupying regime. I shall dwell on this for a moment because, like many other hon. Members, I am impressed by the effect that much of the television reporting from Baghdad has had on public opinion in this country. At the weekends in my constituency I find deep resentment at the fact that so much censored and doctored material fills our television screens. Most people accept, with deep regret, the casualties that have occurred inside Iraq as a result of allied action. They accept that those are a catastrophic harsh accident of war. But that is very different from the catalogue of deliberately inflicted cruelty that the document from the parliamentary human rights group lists. It is different in kind and, in my view, it is altogether different in moral standing. We have to remind ourselves that, in view of the action being taken by the occupying forces in Kuwait, and in view of the many peace initiatives that have been taken but have come to nothing, it is right that our forces should be given full support for the action that they have to take.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir David Steel: I will give way once, but only very briefly.
  Mr. Rowe: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the recent accounts of Iraqi prisoners and some refugees having said that the extraordinary accuracy of the allied bombing left their houses untouched, while military establishments next door were destroyed.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the shelter?
  Sir David Steel: I accept that there have been regrettable casualties. It was not our intention or our wish that there should be such casualties. All that I am saying is that they are different from the cruelty and barbarism being deliberately inflicted on the people of Kuwait—cruelty and barbarism that were catalogued by our colleagues two days ago.
  It is the view of my party that we should not be justified in moving to the next stage—what will inevitably be an even bloodier war on land—were we not fully satisfied that every realistic peace initiative to prevent that war had been completely explored. We have never pooh-poohed the efforts of the Jordanians, the French, the Soviets, or anyone else. However, we have to face the harsh reality that all those initiatives, however well meant, have failed.

  465
  It is right that this House, while supporting the forces to the full, should debate the war and lay down limits to its aims. We have to say yet again that we regard the aim of the war as being limited to the liberation of Kuwait, the restoration of peace and stability there, and the restoration of the country's sovereignty and its government. In that connection, I seek three assurances from the Minister of State. I welcome very much what he had to say about the non-occupation of Iraq. That is very important. In the press a few days ago, there was a report of an American official having talked about preparations for some kind of interim administration in the city of Basra. It is very important that such loose talk be stamped on firmly. The Minister of State did so, and on that score we need ask no more.
  The second assurance that I seek concerns the nature of the destruction that inevitably arises from allied raids. Of course, we all understand the need to interrupt transport lines and to attack bridges and power stations. A newspaper article, referring to a very important report issued by Greenpeace, says:'
  "The war zone is littered with storage tanks filled with chemicals of the petrochemical industry, including benzene, ethylene and hydrochloric acid.
  Bombing or land detonation would spill their contents. 'Release of large amounts of these and other toxic substances could cause loss of life both to human and to terrestrial and marine life,' the environmental group said in a report published yesterday.
  Detonation of phosgene and chlorine gas storage tanks posed a further risk."
  I should like an assurance that our forces will be given an instruction that every effort that is reasonable, given the knowledge of these tanks, will be made to avoid any further environmental destruction. I repeat: I accept that, in war, accidents are inevitable.
  The third assurance that I seek concerns the much-discussed question of the supposed removal of Saddam Hussein himself. No doubt we all agree that that is an end devoutly to be wished. The dancing in the streets of Baghdad the other day following the false reports that he was prepared to leave Kuwait showed that it is something devoutly to be wished by most Iraqi people, too. Those television pictures depicted a very significant interlude. However, it is not for the allied forces to say who should rule Iraq. That has nothing to do with the United Nations resolutions. Were we to try to dictate who should rule Kuwait—were we to try to extend the war aims to include the removal of any government in Iraq—we should be making the same mistake as Saddam Hussein is making. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to assure us that that is not part of the Government's understanding of the war aims and of Security Council authorisation.
  The amendment that we tabled, although it has not been selected, expresses our view very clearly. Since hostilities began, I have often expressed the anxiety that we may win the military war but lose the political war. It is desperately important that loose talk be ended. I think that such talk has come mainly from American sources. We have heard it said that there may have to be a long period of western occupation in the middle east. It should be made clear that the presence of American or British forces there following the war is not part of the Government's objectives. We must ensure that any long-term British
  466
  presence would be under the direct authority or command of the United Nations and that, when the peace comes, the long-term security of the area and the peace settlement will be implemented and supervised by the United Nations. If we can achieve that, out of this disaster may yet come precisely the sort of authority for the United Nations that many of us have long hoped to see.
  5.29 pm
  Sir John Stokes: I think that this is the fourth debate that we have had on the Gulf war. I do not complain about that; indeed, I am glad about it. However, we must bear in mind what has happened in the past. I recall that the turning point of the second world war was the tremendous battle at El Alamein which lasted 11 days. During that time the House was in recess and it was not recalled.
  Perhaps on this very solemn occasion I can make a lighter remark. When I first saw that the motion was to be proposed in the name of the Scottish National party, all my historical and Jacobite sentiments began to tingle. I thought that the motion might be some new and startling motion about the restoration of the Stuarts or some other impossible cause. However, I was being far too romantic and imaginative.
  When listening to the carefully reasoned and argued speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), I thought that he was a little cheese-paring in his attitude to the Government. I believe that the Government's amendment is absolutely right to state that
  "the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council's resolution."
  That summarises the matter perfectly.
  Diplomatic opportunities are sometimes dangerous and disappointing. The Soviet opportunity was largely instigated by Mr. Gorbachev because of his obvious inherent local difficulties. I believe that the Soviet action was being used by Saddam Hussein to try, if possible, to divide the allies and to delay the inevitable advance of the coalition armies to repossess Kuwait. We know as a result of the end of the Iraq-Iran war that Saddam Hussein is a past master of deceit and dissimulation. The allied solidarity under the United Nations umbrella has been a remarkable phenomenon, unique since the second world war, and it holds out great hope for world peace in future.
  There will be little hope of peace in the region if Saddam is left with a large army, biological and chemical warfare facilities and possibly atomic weapons. The state of Kuwait is now spiritually, morally and physically appalling. It will need to be built up to regain its life as a nation. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states will also continue to feel threatened unless Saddam's army is defeated. The whole area will therefore continue to experience instability and the allied forces may be compelled to remain there at least for a short time, although I very much hope that that will not be necessary.
  Once peace has been secured and safeguarded, the United Nations will be able to concentrate on the other pressing problems in the middle east such as the highly unsatisfactory situation with regard to Israel and the occupied territories about which reference was made most eloquently and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters).
  I am pleased that the motion refers to the overwhelming support for the British forces in the Gulf. As Kipling once

  467
  said in a famous poem, perhaps it takes a war for people remember the debt that we all owe to our armed services. The armed services, from private to general, have been most impressive on television. The people whom we have sent to the Gulf in the Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force are the cream of our nation and the debt that we owe them is immense. They have maintained in their professional service those ideals of chivalry, honour, courage and service to the Queen to which some other professions in this country could well look.
  The only thing that dismays me is that the support for our forces, which is widely felt throughout the country, is not entirely shared by some sections of the news media which have now become so terrifyingly and overwhelmingly important. If the news media are not controlled—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—they will present a great danger to many facets of life in this nation. If we are not careful, we shall be dominated by what comes out of that television box night after night.
  At first the BBC—and later ITV—broadcast many programmes which lasted all day and were often boring and repetitive. Like many of my colleagues, I am worried by the attitude of some of the press people in Baghdad who fail to point out that they are speaking under duress and are showing only what the Iraqis want them to show. As a great admirer of what the BBC once was and of Lord Reith, I say with sadness that the BBC has failed the nation as it failed the nation during the Falklands war. Its lack of patriotism sticks out a mile and I should like to see a thorough investigation of those producers whose loyalties seem in doubt. Those ideas men and very dangerous people seem miles away from the ordinary Englishmen we meet in the streets.
  We have now heard that the Soviet initiative has been destroyed as a result of Saddam's recent speech in which he said that he wanted war. Therefore, a final assault on his forces seems inevitable. As I know the country and was a soldier there for some time, I emphasise that we must not assume that our attack will he a walkover. Heavy artillery and large tanks which are well dug in are difficult to neutralise by bombing alone. In the end, the poor old infantry—the men with rifles and bayonets—must go over the top and occupy, seize and hold the ground. We must therefore prepare ourselves for the possibility of heavy losses and high casualties, although I pray that I am wrong. Meanwhile, our duty is to back our forces, the resolution and the United Nations.
  5.37 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: I am pleased to have the chance to participate in this extremely important debate and to follow some enormously important and constructive speeches about the expansion of the war aims and the post-war settlement. However, I must first tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) that, when he criticises the BBC, he undermines democracy in our country. There is no reporting freedom in countries like Iraq. The tide of opinion from the Tory Benches constantly calls for more censorship so that the people of this country cannot learn as much as is necessary about the war that is being prosecuted in their names. That is deeply undemocratic.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I cannot give way as time is short. [Interruption.] I have a lot to say and I do not want to waste time on trivial interventions.
  I want to put before the House my analysis of the grave errors that have been made by the United States Government in their handling of the crisis in Kuwait. shall do so not only to criticise what has been done in the past—serious though that is, and history will analyse it—but because it seems to me that the way in which the war is being prosecuted has major implications for the post-war settlement in the middle east. The evidence so far is that that settlement is likely to be disastrous and to leave the middle east even more unstable than now. In my judgment, it is unlikely that the Palestinian issue will be settled, although it is desperately urgent that it should he settled. In my judgment, there will inevitably he another war in the middle east in the next 10 years. I remind the House that there have been wars in the middle east in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and now there is a war in 1991. If there is no decent settlement following the war, there will be yet another war.
  The background to this conflict and the major cause of the disaster is United States policy in the middle east—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will let me put my views to the House—if they are democrats. It is strange that the United States of America intervened when Britain was involved in a disastrous strategy at the time of Suez and prevented that by making a constructive intervention. Ever since then, however, the United States has seemed to have a short-sighted policy, which has basically been to prop up the state of Israel, to hack it in all its intransigence and its gross breaches of international law in terms of its behaviour towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The United States has massively subsidised the Israeli state and has given it a mighty war machine. That means that the United States of America has colluded in the confiscation of half the land in the occupied territories—a grave breach of the Geneva convention: colluded in the expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories—a grave breach of the Geneva convention: colluded in the detention without trial of nearly half the males who live in the occupied territories—another grave breach of the Geneva convention; and colluded in the horrendous beatings and shootings of men, women and children in the occupied territories, which is also a grave breach of the Geneva convention. Israel has incorporated east Jerusalem into the Israeli state, and also the Golan Heights. That is totally illegal under international law, but the United States of America backs and subsidises Israel and gives it arms.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Tell us why.
  Ms. Short: Please allow me to make my speech.
  The suffering of the Palestinian people is heartbreaking to all of us who have visited the occupied territories and have seen in hospitals some of the children who have been damaged and beaten since the intifada began. It has also led to enormous distress and to a feeling of humiliation throughout the Arab world. That has led to the attitude in the Arab world that the United States of America is hostile to the Arab world and to the interests of the Palestinians. In the end, it is leading to a great and deep sense of antagonism towards the United States of America

  469
  throughout the middle east. It also means that the Arab powers feel deeply threatened by the mighty war machine of Israel.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms. Short: No, I am sorry.
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose——
  Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I am not giving way—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Ms. Short: I should like to give way, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is obvious from the noise that if I gave way I should not be able to complete my speech. I think that the best thing to do is simply to put my views before the House—if some of the rude Conservative Members, who are hardly honourable, will allow me to do so.
  There is an enormous feeling about the Palestinian issue throughout the middle east. There is, therefore, enormous antagonism towards the United States of America because it has backed all the illegality and intransigence of the state of Israel. There is also a feeling of threat and worry about the possibility of future wars because there have been many previous wars. There is therefore a need for Arab states to seek to arm themselves to counter the might of the power of Israel. Thus, western Governments charge into the middle east to sell arms to all the Governments in that region simply to make money, thereby increasing the instability of the middle east and the danger of the constant repetition of war.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Short: No, the hon. Gentleman knows that I will not.
  The west and the United States of America have played a major role of complicity in building up the power of the monstrous tyrant, Saddam Hussein. It was convenient for the United States of America when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. It was the same breach of international law, but because Iran was seen as a threat to United States interests at that time, Saddam Hussein was massively supplied with weapons, equipment and export credits by the west, and by the Soviet Union. However, there is absolutely no question—it is a matter of historical record—that America snuggled up to Saddam Hussein and supported him by providing him with intelligence information when prosecuting that war because that was convenient to America as Iran was seen as the major threat to American interests at that time.
  Although our own country officially stopped supplying arms to Iraq following the beginning of that war—a million people died in a war that the west, especially the United States, helped to feed—we allowed the superguns to get into Iraq. That story has not been fully told—[Interruption.] If hon. Members look at the evidence, they will see that that was not stopped. This country also supplied export credits after we had ceased to supply arms. After the gassing of the Kurds, the current Foreign Secretary went to see Saddam Hussein, offered him export credits and tried to improve the relationship between Iraq
  470
  and Britain. Tory Members may well rise now to talk about the gassing of the Kurds, but we heard none of that at the time.
  As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said, we also know that, following the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when there was a dispute between Kuwait and Iraq about whether Iraq had to pay back the loans that had been given to it by Kuwait when helping to prosecute the war, the then United States ambassador gave a signal to Kuwait and to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not object if there was some military action against Kuwait. That is an enormously important issue. History will show exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that that happened and it is another major element in the complicity of the United States of America and the fact that we are now involved in this war.
  None the less, the invasion of Kuwait was intolerable and unacceptable. It was a grave breach of international law and must be reversed. The whole world agreed on sanctions. The evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency gave to the committees of Congress in the United States suggested that sanctions were working effectively. Because we have such a weak democracy in this country, we could not dream of asking our intelligence services what they thought about the working of sanctions. That is just one issue that shows the poverty of democracy in Britain.
  Not to continue with sanctions for longer was an enormous historical error. We could have dealt with the tyrant Saddam Hussein by using sanctions. If we could have reversed that grave breach of international law by using sanctions in this instance, we could do so in others, and the world would move to a higher level of civilisation. It is shameful and disgraceful that that attempt was not made.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
  Ms. Short: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The question is this: did the United States of America give up on sanctions deliberately because of its strategy in the middle east and because it decided that it had better use the situation in Kuwait to break the power of the Iraqi war machine, or did the United States blunder into war? I am inclined to think that it was incompetence and blunder and that the turning point came when President Bush, who is constantly trying to prove that he is not a wimp, sent out further soldiers. By the time there were votes about sanctions or war, the thing had been decided. The beginning of the end of the sanctions strategy came when the extra forces were sent out in November. I suspect that Bush thought that he could frighten Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but when all his troops were there he realised that he would look like a wimp if he did not call a war. That is why we have this monstrous war instead of continuing with sanctions.
  Another background point is the deeply worrying situation in the United Nations Security Council. We all respect the United Nations—I have never heard Tory Members have so much respect for the United Nations before—but we must recognise that, with the decline of the power of the Soviet Union, there is no longer a balance in the Security Council to represent the interests of the world.

  471
  The United States has been able to manipulate and misuse the United Nations to undermine the latter's authority in the world——
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms. Short: No, I am sorry but I cannot give way to my hon. Friend because I have not given way to any other hon. Member.
  Unlike most of my hon. Friends, for whom I have great respect and whose feelings I understand, I felt, once we were at war and had given up on sanctions, that it was not right for me simply to rail against the war. As a politician, I thought that it was our job to ensure that the war was cut short, to minimise casualties and to achieve a just settlement. Therefore, I have taken a rather different perspective from those who simply say that they were against the war from the beginning, although I respect their position.
  The gung-ho Conservative Members and our nasty tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun and The Daily Star, do not care for our troops. Their attitude encourages a bigger war, which means more casualties and more deaths. That is not the best way to care for the interests of our troops. Those of us who wish to contain the war and bring it to an end are doing our best to care for them. That is a more honourable and intelligent attitude.
  There is absolutely no doubt that there has been deliberate duplicity on the question of widening the war aims as shown by the evidence produced by the hon. Member for Govan. Once the war had started, it became clear that the United States of America was followed, poodle like, by Britain. Anyone who thinks that Britain has influenced what has happened should realise that Britain has constantly followed what America decided to do. America started to change the objectives of the war. It ceased to talk about the liberation of Kuwait and started to emphasise the part of the Security Council's resolution which dealt with the restoration of international peace and security in the area. That is carte blanche for anything.
  I am told that during the arguments on the drawing up of the resolution to authorise "all necessary means", many countries would not vote for a resolution which contained the words "including force"—so the phrase "all necessary means" was used so that America could later interpret it to mean force. At the same time, the section of the resolution dealing with the restoration of international peace and security in the area was slipped in deliberately to allow room for manoeuvre in interpreting it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who says?"] The researchers who did the work for the Brian Walden programme. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is an enormously well-resourced and respected programme. However, this is a serious analysis, so it will not interest Conservative Members.
  We should all like to see Saddam Hussein fall, but the question of how we achieve that is crucial to the post-war settlement. I believe that the nature of the bombardment of Baghdad, with the deliberate destruction of the civilian population's water supplies, sewage systems and access to medical care and electricity, is, in practice, an enlargement of the war aims. Some of the bombardment cannot be justified for military purposes. The Arab world now takes the attitude that the war aims have been widened and that it is now a question of an attack on an Arab country. The Arabs believe that we do not care about the death of Arab
  472
  children and Arab women, but only about our own casualties. There has been a sweeping change in attitude in the Arab world—from initial hostility to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait to the belief that America is destroying an Arab country to perpetuate its control of the middle east. That is very dangerous for the post-war settlement. It is a question of winning the war but possibly losing the peace.
  There are two possible post-war settlements. I believe that the most likely is the pessimistic settlement. The United States is now determined to destroy Iraq. It is interesting that the United States, again followed poodle-like by Britain, rubbished the Soviet initiative from the beginning.
  The briefing from this morning's war Cabinet, as reported in the Evening Standard, said:
  "There will be no let-up in the war against Saddam Hussein, even if he accepts all the Soviet proposals for peace."
  That means that the war aims are wider than the liberation of Kuwait.
  If the objective is to destroy Iraq, the likelihood is that America will continue to see its interests protected by propping up the Israeli state and not settling the Palestinian issue. America and Britain will send arms to prop up the Gulf states and maintain a military presence in the Gulf. There will inevitably be another war in the middle east, possibly over Syria, which happens to have switched sides to the coalition, but which could easily switch back again. That is another horrible, tyrannous regime with a mighty war machine.
  The second possibility—and one for which we should aim—is to seek the liberation of Kuwait, and only that. We should then seek to remove all non-conventional weapons—nuclear, chemical and biological—from Israel, Syria and Iraq. We should also settle the Palestinian issue by giving the Palestinians their state based on the west bank and Gaza. Since the Palestinians changed their objective, gave up their aspiration to a secular state in the whole of the old Palestine, and simply said that they wanted their own state in the occupied territories, that problem has been resolvable. It is a disgrace that the United States did not respond to that massive shift by the Palestinians, which meant that the old dispute could have been resolved.
  The optimistic settlement would be to remove weaponry from the region, to stop selling arms, to settle the Palestinian question and to seek the development of an economic community which would mean that the wealth of the oil states could be properly shared by the people of the middle east. There is enormous resentment in the middle east that the tiny, undemocratic states monopolise the wealth and that it is not shared by all.
  We are now on the brink of a war which, so the military experts and the Iraqi soldiers who have surrendered tell us, will inevitably become a chemical war. That would be a horrendous war, not just in terms of our own casualties, but of Iraqi soldier casualties. Hon. Members should realise that many young Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait do not want to be there. I have a friend whose brave family have resisted the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for years and who have been persecuted for it. That family has a son in Kuwait and he is wholly opposed to the Iraqi regime. There are many like him in Kuwait at the end of a barrel of a gun.
  If chemicals are used in the war against Israel, heaven knows what the escalation will be. Even if Saddam Hussein agrees to the initiative at this late stage, a ground

  473
  war seems inevitable. The Government are not interested in whether he agrees with the Soviet peace proposal. That is disgraceful. The way in which the war is fought is crucial. Are we to try to slaughter the Iraqis in Kuwait or seek an opportunity for them to surrender? Have we made broadcasts or given them leaflets to assure them that they will be properly treated? Have we looked for routes to get them out through the minefields? Today and yesterday, there have been big demonstrations in Iraq of people calling for the downfall of Saddam Hussein and his regime. We are bombing them: why are we not telling them that our war is not with the Iraqi people and giving them the right to get rid of this tyrant who has oppressed them for so many years?
  We have heard about the horrendous treatment of the Kuwaiti people. Saddam Hussein's regime has treated the Iraqi people like that for a long time. One report after another from Amnesty International has shown that he put the children of political opponents in prison to torture them and get the parents to confess. The brutality in Kuwait has been perpetrated on the Iraqi people for a long time. We should deplore it all and not use part of it to justify the bombardment of the Iraqi people who have suffered for so long.
  I appeal to the British Government to cease being a poodle. It seems that in our mono-power world—in which the United States is dominant because the Soviet Union is in such a weak position—the possible balancing power is Europe. But Europe is unable to act, even though it has a better understanding than the United States has of the middle east and of the need to settle the Palestinian question. Britain is so attached to the policy of the United States that Europa is disabled and unable to act to balance that policy.
  In all seriousness, I know that the Foreign Secretary understands the situation in the middle east very well, but he does not talk as if he did. Even when the European Foreign Ministers met, our Foreign Secretary imposed conditions when it was said that there had to be a settlement of the Palestinian issue. He said, "But the question is, who will we talk to?" It is not for Britain or Israel to say with which Palestinians we shall talk. We should talk to the representatives whom the Palestinian people choose. That is democracy. I ask in all seriousness even at this late hour for the British Government to be wiser about this conflict and not lead us into a dreadful war which could escalate horrendously and resonate for years to come.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I reiterate Mr. Speaker's appeal that hon. Members make short speeches, in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). As she knows, I have great respect for her honesty and the courage with which she expresses views which are frequently wrong, but nevertheless sincerely held.
  I wish to comment on some of the hon. Lady's remarks before making my brief speech. First, the hon. Lady and several of her right hon. and hon. Friends have a paranoia about the United States which I find depressing. One must
  474
  remember that the reason why it is possible even to consider Europe as a counterweight to the United States or, indeed, the Soviet Union is that the United States gave so much money and time, and suffered bloodshed, to assist the Europeans to rebuild their economies after the war, which the Americans helped us to win, and to remain steadfastly in Europe at considerable cost to themselves right up till now, when the Soviet empire is crumbling and change has been brought about there as a direct consequence of the support that the Americans have given.
  In many parts of the world the Americans have been extremely supportive of democracy. Of course, all great powers and all small powers make mistakes from time to time. The Americans have taken action at times which I would find difficult to support. Certainly, with hindsight, many Americans regret those actions. But we are free to discuss whether the Americans are or are not appropriate allies only because of the steadfastness of America in the past.
  I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood that it would have been lovely if sanctions could have been made to work. If they could have been made to work, sanctions would have been by far the cheapest, least bloody and most effective way of cutting off the Iraqi aggression. If ever there were a sign that sanctions could not work, it must have been the extraordinary spectacle in Baghdad. The Iraqis have virtually no petrol and it is said that they have little water or food, yet Saddam Hussein has no intention of allowing them to deflect them from his purpose. So I fear that sanctions would never have worked and would not have worked within a timescale that we could conceivably have supported.
  The hon. Lady made some comments about the war aims. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said so well, it is remarkable that the war aims have changed so little. After all, many things have changed during the war, not least the fact that the Iraqi ambassador has consistently sought to make out that Israel is a party to the war when manifestly it is nothing of the sort. It is astounding that we have stuck to the war aims, as defined by the United Nations, so steadfastly, instead of shifting in some Machiavellian way, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and the hon. Member for Ladywood maintained that we have done.
  I have an extraordinary admiration for the British forces and the allied forces as a whole. It is remarkable that they have meshed together so effectively. At the beginning of the war anyone who thought that a coalition of such diverse partners could fight together with such skill would have been thought to be a dreamer. I congratulate the commanders of the allied forces on the way in which they have made the war machine work.
  There has never been a war in which an army has been so constrained or so conscientious. The idea that young men should fly aeroplanes at over 600 mph through anti-aircraft fire a short distance from the ground seeking targets that would be approved even by Greenpeace seems ludicrous. Yet that is what they have done night after night, with an astounding degree of success. Of course, they made errors from time to time. They blew up a bunker which turned out to be a shelter, although our intelligence believed that it was a command post. That is very sad and deeply to be regretted, but it is an extraordinary achievement that the allies have kept so well to military targets.

  475
  As I said in an earlier intervention, the latest reports from refugees and others leaving Iraq are that the allies have destroyed military targets and civilian targets next door have remained extraordinarily undamaged. I congratulate the allies on that.
  What is more, there has never been a war which has been so meticulously and overwhelmingly covered by the media. The whole world can see day in and day out photographs of what we have done and of what we are alleged to have done. The only thing that is lacking is coverage from within Kuwait. That gives a strangely unbalanced view of what this war is about. I d o not altogether blame the media for that, but it must be constantly borne in mind by those of us who watch our television screens that we are seeing only two thirds of the picture and that the third which matters—Kuwait—is never shown because Saddam Hussein would never dream of letting it be shown.
  I admire enormously—and how lucky we are to be able to admire—the dignity, courage and loyalty of our armed service families. Like almost every Member of the House, I have a Gulf family support group working in my constituency. It is made up mostly, but by no means entirely, of women. Parents and wives manage somehow to give each other support, sustain their loved ones in the field and not to complain about very much. The sort of complaints that we hear are that the post office has run out of blueys. That is an important complaint, but it does not undermine the war effort. Families realise that their loved ones have joined up to serve the political purposes of a democracy and, however frightened and anxious they are, they are very proud of what is being done. I support and admire them hugely. It is always a privilege to meet them.
  As many hon. Members have said, when the war is won, we shall have to address directly the question of arms supplies. It is not an easy question. Our friends in the Gulf will instantly ask for all the amazing equipment which they have seen in such effective action. It will be enormously difficult for us, when countries can afford to buy them, to refuse to supply the latest weapons to protect those countries. There will be powerful arguments that if we arm our friends we will create stability in the Gulf.
  Some of the allies in this great fight are allies only for a short while because it serves their present purposes. We must look carefully at how we re-supply the armed forces of the countries in those areas. That will not be easy. Many employees of arms companies are represented by hon. Members. For example, Opposition Members have complained, for sound reasons, about the closing of military bases in Scotland. Nevertheless, when it comes to the crunch, if we do not supply the arms, another country will be only too ready to do so. Such matters must be dealt with on a much wider basis than simply a single nation trying to achieve a commercial advantage in the short term.
  We must remember that, for centuries, it has been common for countries with an advanced military capacity to sell off their second-hand, less good or obsolescent goods to other countries. But those goods are now capable of creating such damage that it is intolerable to continue selling them.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will forgive me if, in the interests of time, I do not pick up any of his remarks. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
  In the 12 years that I have served in Parliament, the Gulf war and all that it entails is by far the most serious issue that I have had to consider. Like every other hon. Member, I have had to give much thought to the issues and implications of our decisions. I concluded that there was no course other than to support the United Nations and the actions necessary to secure the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 660 and 678.
  The war was not sought by this or any other nation, but is a direct consequence of Iraq's refusal to accept the rule of international law as expressed by the United Nations. The world community was and is in no doubt about what is required to achieve peace and stability in the middle east. Iraq must unconditionally remove its forces from Kuwait. The war would never have taken place had not Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August. His action would not have resulted in this tragic war if, after that event and before 16 January, he had withdrawn from Kuwait.
  The United Nations has never in its history spoken with such unequivocal authority on any international crisis—120 member states supported the resolutions and 28 are currently engaged in military action.
  One of my constituents, critical of my support for the United Nations and the coalition forces, said that the war was "imperialistic and materialistic". In one sense, he is completely wrong but in another he is completely right.
  Mr. Corbyn: Completely right.
  Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend said, my constituent was completely right.
  Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because of oil. He aimed to secure control of more than 65 per cent. of the world's oil reserves. He wanted to control oil prices and the rate of oil extraction. If that is not imperialistic and materialistic, I do not know what is. The consequences of Saddam Hussein's action, had he succeeded, would have been extremely detrimental to the interests of the world community and not least to the working people of this country.
  I respect the view of those who say that they cannot support the United Nations and the coalition forces. I agree with the argument expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to the House on 11 December that the achievement of UN objectives by comprehensive sanctions would be a notable success for sanctions and would strengthen them as an effective international instrument for use in other contexts. But if, in the end, force was necessary, force it would have to be.
  Like all my colleagues, I wanted sanctions to work and should have preferred longer time to allow sanctions, the blockade and military readiness to have the maximum effect. In the event, force was used and the Labour party stands by the British troops and the coalition force.
  As the war proceeds and sanctions remain in place, it becomes increasingly apparent that sanctions would have taken a very long time to be effective. One wonders whether Saddam would ever have capitulated to such action, even if Iraqi children had been starving on the

  477
  streets of Baghdad. I have never viewed sanctions as a soft option. Their consequences could be devastating for the nation and people against whom they are directed.
  The Scottish National party introduced this debate and I refer to Scotland in the context of the war. I believe that the people of Scotland support the stand that has been taken in support of the United Nations. All the evidence from polls points to that conclusion, as do my soundings in my district. Scots are essentially internationalists in their outlook. They readily work abroad—indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) worked in the district that is now caught up in the conflict.
  Many Scots work for international and multinational companies and understand the international dimension of economic life. The same is true of Scottish academic life and the arts. "Scotland in Europe" is a good slogan, if for no other reason than that it taps into the Scots' internationalist outlook. Because of their internationalism, the Scottish people support the United Nations and the coalition forces.
  Naturally, there is a body of influential opinion opposed to the war. Although I respect that stand, it cannot be presented as reflecting Scottish opinion. The System Three opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald showed that 77 per cent. of Scots supported military action in the Gulf, while only 13 per cent. opposed it. It showed that war support was stronger among Scottish Nationalists, at 76 per cent., than among Labour supporters—74 per cent. Liberal Democrats registered, marginally, the least support at 21 per cent.
  I do not doubt for a moment that the coalition forces will win the war if it is prosecuted to a conclusion. Saddam has a formidable army and war machine, which is said to be the fourth largest in the world. I recognise that such a force could be matched only by a coalition consisting of United States, European and Arab nations, and I appreciate the tensions that such a multinational force presents to the Arab people of the middle east. It means that, when the hostilities are over, tackling the peace will require great commitment and determination, just as was required to prosecute the war.
  I hope that, even in the circumstances that are developing tonight, diplomatic activity will secure the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. However, whether by diplomacy or force, we must deal with peace once the conflict is over. It would be naive to believe that the settlement of the Palestinian problem will mean an end to instability in the region. Justice demands that that issue must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but that will not, of itself, resolve all the problems of the region. There must be a Palestinian homeland and self-determination, although it will be difficult to decide what those boundaries should be and what will be required of other nations in the region. At the same time, Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries must be established and guaranteed by international treaty. That, in itself, will not solve all the outstanding problems caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Boundaries, the economic viability of a new Palestine and the issue of Jerusalem must all be considered—the difficulties are formidable.
  What I am struggling to say was best summed up in an article in The Economist published last week, which states:
  "The Gulf episode has killed the fashionable pre-war idea that Israel would have nothing to fear from its Arab
  478
  neighbours if only it made peace with the Palestinians. Peace with the Palestinians is a necessary condition for a stable Middle East, not a sufficient one. True stability will have to wait until democracy reaches the Arab world, so that despots no longer prop themselves up by telling their people that the road to Jerusalem, and to paradise, runs through their neighbour's country."
  There are mighty forces at work that militate against the stability of the middle east. The absence of any sort of democratic tradition, with Governments run either by military regimes or hereditary rulers, hardly bodes well. It seems unlikely that such Governments can establish stability or accept a limitation on arms. Nothing that has happened in the post-second world war period suggests that such a policy is likely to commend itself. Oil riches will continue to be spent on arms—at least in some of the nations—as a first priority, with social and economic development coming a poor second. We must also recognise that nationalism remains a potent force in the region. Taken with the continuing Islamic revival and its expression in political terms, there exist sufficient ingredients in the cauldron to cause great problems in the future.
  This country will be a major player in the settlement that will have to flow from the present conflict, but we cannot continue to be involved. We have already had more than our share of involvement in the middle east and, some would say, there are issues and problems that we created in our previous role. A return to stability and lasting peace must initially come from the nations of the region, in conjunction with the United Nations.
  No one dealing with those problems can fail to appreciate the huge difficulties facing the United Nations in the aftermath of the war. Establishing a peace with justice will not be easy. We cannot have repeats of these terrible events, and the responsibility on our Government, the Governments of the coalition countries and the United Nations is greater than has been presented by any other world crisis since the second world war. The British people know those difficulties and understand that they must be faced. I believe that they are right to have placed their faith in the United Nations as the only mechanism to establish and build peace.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said that anything he had to say would not diminish the Scottish National party's support for troops in the Gulf. He referred to his own extensive knowledge of the Gulf area, particularly Iraq and Kuwait. He attempted to occupy the moral high ground by casting doubt on the integrity of President Bush, the Prime Minister and the Government with regard to the aims of the United Nations forces in the Gulf.
  As I read it, the SNP motion calls for an end to the conflict compatible with the United Nations resolution 660, but ignores the other 11 resolutions. The hon. Gentleman read out the other resolutions, but they do not appear in the motion.
  A letter was published in the Glasgow Herald on Friday 1 February headed,
  "Scots troops in the Gulf".
  It stated:
  "Sir,

  479
  The more I look at the Gulf war the more I sympathise with the intelligent anti-war attitude expressed by our partners in Europe and marvel at the arrogance of a UK Government which, under the unbalanced leadership of Margaret Thatcher rushed to commit Scottish, English and Welsh lives at the crack of the American whip and now whines after European financial support. Of course Kuwait deserves help even though only 7 per cent. of the people had a vote and the parliament had been dissolved by feudal rulers.
  But why only Kuwait? What about the Kurds? Or the Baltic States? Or indeed the many other nations, including our own"—
  that is, Scotland's—
  "seeking independence from a cynical and callous world?
  I am especially concerned about the undue sacrifice expected from Scottish servicemen. According to your own correspondent, Ian Bruce, Scottish troops will form 40 per cent. of the ground assault forces. I find this figure hard to believe but, if it is only half true, then the British Army will have carried out a betrayal of Scotland equalled only in recent times by the abandonment of the 51st Highland Division at Dunkirk."
  That spells out more clearly than anything else could the problems of the SNP.
  The letter suggests that the British Government—or the English Government, as the SNP would put it—colluded with Hitler to ensure that his Panzers broke through the Maginot line in such a manner as to leave the Jocks stranded many miles from Dunkirk. Two members of my close family did not return from St. Valery, so I take a personal interest in these matters. There is no doubt that what has been said is a distortion of the facts. The Jocks, as always, fought gallantly, but not effectively due to weapon systems that were inadequate to deal with Hitler's Panzers. I am pleased that the Jocks in the Gulf today have the best equipment available to soldiers in the field. We should be proud of that.
  A former SNP councillor, Flora Isles, said that the SNP had different policies for parts of different parts of Scotland, for different people, and no policies. That sums up the SNP's position, which has been clearly exposed tonight. The hon. Member for Govan never considered properly the fact that political control should never be extended to tactical battle decisions, which must be taken by the military commanders on the spot in the Gulf. I speak with some emotion because, as a young service man, I served in the middle east when stupid political decisions cost the lives of colleagues, and I vowed that, if I had anything to do with it, it would never happen again.
  The hon. Member for Govan drew attention to the Iraqi troops near the Turkish border. Although badly mauled, the Iraqi military is still a powerful military force, capable of doing immense damage to the United Nations forces. That is why the Government are right to say, as did the Minister of State, that if there is to be a peace and ceasefire, it must include assurances on the return of prisoners of war. We do not even know whether our aircrew are prisoners because we have not been told.
  Experience in the Gulf, possible United Nations demands in future and instability in the Soviet Union must mean—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is listening—that "Options for Change" will, in time, become options not for less defence expenditure but more expenditure on different weapons systems. When service personnel risk their lives in the Gulf as they are doing today, it is not the time for any of us publicly to consider or talk about possible closures of their home bases or the disbanding of their regiments.
  480
  The Scots, as always, have contributed more than their fair share to the needs of this nation at a time of distress, and they will continue to do so. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said, if the Opposition say otherwise, they will not be reflecting the attitudes and views in Scotland.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is sad to think that we are today trying to decide whether to send our troops into Iraq. I do not know to whom some Scottish hon. Members speak about these issues, but when I speak to my constituents I get a very different picture indeed.
  I do not know who wants this war. I am a great believer in the saying that there is a time for living and a time for dying. I fear that Her Majesty's Government have chosen a time for dying, not for themselves but for our troops in the middle east.
  I cannot understand the hypocrisy of the Minister when he talks about the Iraqis firing Scud missiles. Let us not forget that they have been bombed every minute since the war started. Thousands of tonnes of bombs have been dropped on them, killing men, women and children. Does any hon. Member really believe in the so-called surgical instrument, the cruise missile, that, we are told, can go in and out of letter boxes? It was disgusting to see on television a general describing precisely how a cruise missile carrying 600 lbs of explosive could go down a vent shaft, where it probably annihilated hundreds of men and women working in a Ministry of Defence office in Iraq.
  I did not become a Member of this place to authorise the firing of cruise missiles or the dropping of aged bombs—chemical, biological or any other type—on people. And when people talk about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of arms, let us ask who supplied him with those arms. One can look down the list of Conservative Members who have been freeloading, running back and forth to Iraq, all their journeys paid for, but who now talk about this bad man, Saddam Hussein.
  When we think of the great United Nations and its Security Council, we have to think of the shower of wimps who comprise them. Those who say that our endeavours are on behalf of implementing United Nations resolutions are talking through their hats. The Americans have created this war, and let us not forget the petition that was signed by 42 million Americans.
  I am worried about the Scottish troops, some of them aged only 17. Although they are not yet of an age to vote or buy a drink in a public house, they are out in the Gulf battling. We should get some of the brats out of Oxford and Cambridge and put them in the front line. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) said, "We are proud of them, the cream of the nation." I assure him that many on the Opposition Benches do not think a lot of the so-called cream of the nation. We remember them from the last world war. We are talking about people who are in need of bread and butter and others who have been denied heating allowances.
  While our troops are out there fighting for the nation, what is being done here on their behalf by the Government? Ministers are hounding their mothers and fathers to pay the poll tax, even to the extreme of barbaric warrant sales. Those are the sort of people in the Government with whom we are having to deal.

  481
  I am extremely worried about the way in which people, especially the Americans, are talking about human life. People talk about other human beings as though they were talking about turkeys. When the matter was raised in Congress, it was suggested that the losses might amount to 900 tanks, 600 aircraft, 63,000 human beings and 319,000 injured. That was the estimate of losses if the war lasted six months. The cost of the war, we are told, is $500 million a day. I believe that Britain does not have that much in the pot, possibly £3 billion. It is costing our country £4 million a day. Not long ago the Minister was going cap in hand begging for more money to carry on the war.
  Who are the peacemakers in this affair? I suggest that nobody fills that role. Indeed, I do not think Mr. Bush wants peace. He did not give sanctions a chance and he did not listen to the CIA. I do not believe that our Prime Minister is a wimp. Nor is Bush a wimp because, let us not forget, he was in charge of the CIA. We must also ask who gave the order for the invasion of Panama and Grenada and who arranged for the funding of the Contras and the killing of the Nicaraguans. Bush did all of that.
  Our Prime Minister has not been in his present office for long, but in the streets of Scotland he is known as the butcher of 10 Downing street—[Interruption.]—and other names that I do not care to mention. He is hanging on to the coat tails of Mr. Bush. No United Nations or Security Council body has a say over when the war in the Gulf will stop. Bush has already got it all cut and dried.
  We need to study British history to see where the truth lies. Whether or not people like it, finding a solution to the crisis in the middle east lies in a study of the history of British, European and United States interference in the area over the years. After the first world war, the Mesopotamian region, which was part of the Ottoman empire, though historically a remnant of the Assyrian empire, was divided by the British into two nations, Iraq and Kuwait, which were geopolitical inventions of Europeans trying to pursue economic and political gains.
  The Kurdish people were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein, but those who supplied him with the weapons to do that were every bit as bad. In that respect, we are just as guilty as the Russians, the French and the Italians. We built up this turkey and now we are being asked to vote for its killing. I do not want to be any part of that killing.
  I get worried when the Minister casually says, "We fear that we shall have to open up the hospitals that have been closed." We are told that 7,500 beds will be needed in Scotland and that 500 beds a day will be needed for casualties as a result of hostilities thousands of miles away. This is a capitalist war, not a war about principle—[Interruption.] It is about oil, and those who argue that it is about principle must explain why the hell it has taken 23 years to implement resolutions 242 and 238. What is the difference between implementing resolution 242 and resolution 678?
  Do those who claim, as the Minister does, that we shall return Iraq to the Iraqis and Kuwait to the Kuwaitis believe that we are talking, in the latter case, about a democratic empire when in reality it is the family possession of the al-Sabah family? I doubt whether the borders about which the Minister spoke will be left intact
  482
  at the end of this war. The area has been bombed to bits. The Iraqis say that there will be an enormous holy war, a war that every hon. Member here will regret.
  My party, the Scottish Labour party, is comprised of international socialists. We have brothers and sisters everywhere—in Iraq, Iran and everywhere else—and we all want peace. We want to save lives, not lose them.
  The way in which the media have covered the war has been disgraceful. We see "Captain Adie" and others in uniform running all over the place. Newspapers use terms such as "the bastards of Saddam" and other gung-ho stuff. We belong to a peaceful nation and I am a member of a party that believes in peace. We respect the sanctity of human life.
  I am ashamed and disgraced when I hear people asking our troops to run through the sand with rifles and tanks, firing at other human beings who are terrified for their lives. Iraqi troops are surrendering like confetti. About 500 of them surrendered because four helicopters flew over dropping bombs on them. Is that the sort of thing that the Government want? We have suffered not only in this war but in past wars because of decisions taken by the Government's forefathers, and we do not want to suffer any more. The only way for any hon. Member with sincerity and compassion to help the troops is to get them home. To hell with Saddam Hussein and the rest of them: let them get on with it.
  6.40 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The number of hon. Members who have participated in the debate and the many others who had hoped to participate show that the Scottish National party has rendered a great service by enabling hon. Members to debate this vital issue. We felt that it was right to explore the war aims and to look beyond the war to see how we could achieve a peaceful settlement. I hope to emphasise the key points of our motion.
  First, the motion mentions strong support for the troops in the Gulf. Some hon. Members seem to think that the only way to support the troops is to rant and rave and make pacifist speeches. That is not a line that I pursue. The best way to support our troops is to argue the case for diplomatic means to bring our men home as quickly as possible. My constituency contains two key RAF bases that have been involved in the crisis since early August and whose role in the war will be seen to be significant when the history of the war is written. I know about the worries of the families of service men. They ask us to send messages of support but also to do everything possible to avoid mass killings. They all want to see their families safely home, but they recognise the responsibilities of members of the armed forces.
  Our motion emphasises the position of the United Nations, whose status and integrity must be upheld. As some hon. Members have said, the United Nations may be an imperfect organisation, but it is all that we have as a facility for reaching peaceful, negotiated decisions. Unfortunately, upholding the authority of the United Nations means recognising that the ultimate sanction must be used when every other possibility has been rejected. If we do not accept that, we relegate the United Nations to an organisation that is no better than the League of Nations, which was so ineffective between the two world wars.

  483
  Some hon. Members have asked why other United Nations resolutions have not been implemented. I have great sympathy for that argument because there are many resolutions that we would all like to see implemented. However, in this case the United Nations has said that it is prepared to use the ultimate sanction, and we must support it. I hope that that will lead to the United Nations becoming stronger and more effective internationally so that we can reach more negotiated settlements in future.
  The motion concentrates on the issue of the war aims. Irrespective of their stance, hon. Members have been grateful for the Government's substantial clarification of that issue. That in itself makes the motion extremely worth while. Yesterday I received a letter from the Prime Minister referring specifically to the war aims. The letter states:
  "It is not for us, nor indeed any outsider, to decide who should rule Iraq. Neither do we seek the destruction, occupation or dismemberment of Iraq."
  The Minister of State, in opening the debate, clearly reinforced that view. We welcome that, because there was genuine concern in the House and throughout the country that we were not altogether clear about the exact aims of the war. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) cited a catalogue of events that seemed to indicate slippage. I am grateful to the Government for clarifying their position.
  The motion states
  "that no diplomatic opportunity should be lost to bring the present conflict to an end".
  The world is holding its breath. Despite Saddam Hussein's belligerent speech today in Baghdad, I understand that negotiations are to occur and that Tariq Aziz has gone to Moscow, where it seems likely that he will continue discussions. Will the Government tell us exactly what the Minister of State meant when he said that there were inadequacies which would make the terms unacceptable? The House has a right to know about those inadequacies, because it seems that this afternoon the European Parliament has supported the Soviet initiative. We are told that there are inadequacies of some sort, but we have no knowledge on which to base a judgment. I hope that in his summing up the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will clarify the matter.
  I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. They spoke clearly and frankly about where they stand on this key international issue. Some Conservative Members bayed at us that this was not a Scottish subject. Members of the Scottish National party are the sort of internationalists who were referred to earlier. We have a strong international perspective. SNP Members are elected in the same way as other hon. Members, and we have the right to speak out on issues that we see as issues of great concern. We have done everyone in the House a service.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This has been an interesting debate with varied contributions from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who opened the debate, said that Saddam Hussein bears the primary responsibility for the war, as I think that we all agree. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said that Saddam Hussein started the war. Since the war started the allies have tried to secure a peaceful solution.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister consider that in the past 10 years the British Government lent £1 billion to the Government of Iraq, sponsored 39 trade missions there, took no action whatever over violations of human rights in Iraq and promoted arms sales at the Baghdad arms fair only a year before the war started? Is this not really a war about oil and about protecting royal families in the region?
  Mr. Hamilton: We have heard those arguments from the Opposition many times. We have not sold lethal equipment to Iraq. We have thoroughly maintained that position, although others may not have done so.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that he hoped beyond hope that Saddam Hussein would see sense. The House shares that view. I would certainly support any motion that resulted in a peaceful withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait without the necessity for military action. I very much resent the accusation by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), in a noisy speech, that we relish the idea of men being killed and that we thought this would help the Government. That is a very unworthy accusation and I hope that he will take it back. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the statement that Saddam Hussein made today probably removed the last hope of a peaceful solution.
  Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that virtually no tyrant or aggressor has been given so much opportunity to undo his aggression, five months before the war started and even now, whatever reservations one may have about what Moscow has proposed? He seems to have turned it down. Is not it quite clear that here is a tyrant and aggressor who is determined to stick to the occupation of Kuwait? The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to counter-proposals. We are not interested in counter-proposals. What we are interested in is that he should leave Kuwait—no ifs, no buts and no conditions at all.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. We can be quite unequivocal about this. Saddam Hussein has been given every opportunity since last August to withdraw and he has not done so. It does not seem to make any difference how much pressure there is from the international community; he seems to be prepared to ignore it all.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? What aspect of the Soviet initiative do the Government find inadequate in terms of the opening speech that we heard from the Front Bench? What aspects of that initiative would the Government turn down?
  Mr. Hamilton: We have already said that the Soviet Union has asked us to keep these proposals secret. It does not want us to reveal what the proposals are, and we are abiding by that request. If we spelt out in detail what our reservations are, we should obviously reveal the original recommendations. The fact is that they do not meet all the United Nations resolutions. Therefore, they are not adequate as they stand.
  The right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale wanted some reassurances. I repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister made clear: the allies do not intend to occupy or govern Iraq or any part of it. Our actions are aimed to achieve the liberation of Kuwait.

  485
  The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about the Greenpeace report on the environmental consequences of attacks on chemical and biological tanks and so forth. We do as much research as possible into sites that are to be attacked, and we are careful to ensure that the collateral damage is kept to an absolute minimum. As my hon. and learned Friend acknowledged, no one can guarantee that bombs will not go astray. I am afraid that occasionally they do. It is always much better if wars do not start and if peaceful solutions are found.
  We do not have to look any further than Iraq to see a civilian population which is held in complete disdain. Iraq is more than happy to send Scud missiles to kill people in Israel and in Saudi Arabia. Any environmental concern seems to be pretty minimal when one considers the wilful pollution of Gulf waters with oil slicks.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the removal of Saddam Hussein. As my hon. and learned Friend made clear, we would in no way grieve if Saddam Hussein were deposed. It would be a very satisfactory solution, but it is not one of our aims to remove him. The selection of a leader for Iraq must be for the Iraqi people, not for the allies.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked of the suffering of Palestinian people. I believe, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) does, that, in even considering the problems of the Palestinian people in parallel with the quite illegal occupation of Kuwait, she has been drawn into a trap by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein made no reference whatever to the problems of the Palestinian people when he moved into Kuwait. That was only a subsequent argument that he introduced in the face of the condemnation of the international community.
  Ms. Short: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait to help the Palestinian people. What I said was that the unresolved problem of the Palestinians was the reason why the middle east is such an unstable and dangerous region. If we do not resolve it after the war, it will remain unstable.
  Mr. Hamilton: There are many different reasons why the middle east is an unstable region; I do not think that the Iran-Iraq war had any bearing on the Palestinian problem either. There are many difficult and different problems in the middle east. The hon. Lady risks over-simplifying the problems if she believes that a solution to the Palestinian issue would end all the problems of the middle east. I do not think that there is anything to support that argument. Again, she argued that we should have continued sanctions. Sanctions continued for five and a half months. How much longer would she have wanted them to go on? Should we have gone on until Ramadan started, or until the weather got so hot that it would have been difficult for our troops to fight? Should we have gone on for so long that the strains on the international consensus began to show, or until it was impossible to rotate our troops, in which case we would have to start withdrawing from the area?
  To advocate that we should have waited a bit longer might have meant waiting for so long that Saddam Hussein remained in Kuwait and Kuwait became annexed
  486
  to Iraq. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth recognised that we could not go on indefinitely and that action had to be taken.
  The conflict has gone well so far for the allies. Allied naval forces have emasculated the Iraqi navy and we are proud of the role that Royal Navy ships have played in the van in this action. We have seen brave actions by Lynx helicopters with Sea Skua missiles. The air battle, which has been more successful than any of us could have dared hope due to the professionalism of our pilots, has now established air supremacy in the area. There have been 3,100 combat sorties by the Royal Air Force. This must be seen in terms of a force multiplier in terms of the aid that it will give to our troops on the ground should the land battle begin.
  We can be very encouraged by the action we saw after the town of Khafji was relieved. When large amounts of artillery and the Iraqi armoured forces were massing in the area behind the Kuwaiti border, they were attacked thoroughly by the air forces and serious damage was done to them.
  We should also take great heart from the recent helicopter attack carried out by the Americans which resulted in some 450 to 500 Iraqi prisoners of war. If that is their state of morale, we can have every hope that if it comes to a land battle it will be short.
  The multi-launch rocket system and the eight-inch M110 self-propelled howitzer have both been fired in anger for the first time. There is no doubt that our troops will fight bravely if they have to. They are grateful for the support that they get from the majority of Members of the House.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said, the way in which the alliance of our coalition partners has held together through the action is remarkable. Our resolve has never weakened.
  Saddam Hussein has promised his people, his poor Iraqi people, the mother of battles. He seems to relish a war that could only kill thousands of his countrymen, destroy his armed forces and lead inevitably to his defeat. If there has to be a ground war, we will fight it and win. I hope that the House will support the Government's amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division——
  Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am eager to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but he must wear the hat and be seated.
  Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gives the hat a firm thump, he will find that it will open. If he then puts the hat on and remains seated, I shall willingly listen to his point of order.
  Mr. Brown (seated and covered): This is the longest-running pantomime in the west end. But one thing that I do know is that this place only gives certain individuals the right to speak. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Many people are losing their lives in the Gulf at the present time and, sadly, many more will do so in the near future, but the House deliberately

  487
  ensures that only certain people speak on the matter. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, extend today's debate so that we can speak about the reality of the issues and how to deal with them? There is a socialist answer to the problem.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not throw down the hat and be so contemptuous of the proceedings of the House. I hope that in future he will desist from any such behaviour. I am not prepared to listen to his point of order any longer.
  The House having divided: Ayes 16, Noes 320.

  Division No. 74]

  [7.01 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Salmond, Alex

  Bellotti, David

  Sillars, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Fearn, Ronald

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Dick Douglas and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Allason, Rupert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Amos, Alan

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Critchley, Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Benyon, W.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Day, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Devlin, Tim

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Eggar, Tim

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Chris

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Franks, Cecil

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  488

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclean, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mans, Keith

  Green way, Harry (Eating N)

  Maples, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marland, Paul

  Gregory, Conal

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Ground, Patrick

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hague, William

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayward, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hill, James

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Janman, Tim

  Price, Sir David

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Kilfedder, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  489

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin

  Walden, George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, Sir John

  Watts, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Trimble, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 25.

  Division No. 75]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amos, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cartwright, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Churchill, Mr

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Beggs, Roy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellotti, David

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Couchman, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Peter

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Day, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Dykes, Hugh

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Eggar, Tim

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Burns, Simon

  Evennett, David

  Butler, Chris

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Butterfill, John

  Fallon, Michael

  490

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Luce. Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maginnis. Ken

  Gill, Christopher

  Major. Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maples, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gregory, Conal

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Hague, William

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moss. Malcolm

  Hayward, Robert

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Owen. Rt Hon Dr David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt. Rt Hon David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Price, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Janman, Tim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shelton, Sir William

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sillars, Jim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sims, Roger

  Knowles, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knox, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smyth. Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  491

  Speed, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wallace, James

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stokes, Sir John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whitney, Ray

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sackville.

  Trimble, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Madden, Max

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Mullin, Chris

  Canavan, Dennis

  Nellist, Dave

  Clay, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cohen, Harry

  Strang, Gavin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wray, Jimmy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  492
  That this House, having overwhelmingly supported the despatch of British forces to the Gulf, welcomes the affirmation by the Government that the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
  Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House to make arrangements for a statement to be made tomorrow morning in the event of the land war beginning? Today the Minister made an important statement to the effect that the Soviet proposals were not acceptable. I shall not go into the merits of it, but he said that. Since that statement is being clarified tonight and there is a possibility of the land war beginning, may I ask that a message be sent through you to the Leader of the House to ask for a statement to be made at 9.30 tomorrow morning in that event?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): No doubt the right hon. Member's comments will be conveyed to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week there was an unfortunate set of circumstances, when a most important statement was made by the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and the Government appeared to know nothing about it all day. Finally, a Minister was enticed here by points of order. I am sure that you agree that that is a most unsatisfactory way to deal with an important matter.
  In the event of a statement not being made at 9.30 am, which is quite possible, may we have an undertaking, through you, from the Government that they will make a statement during tomorrow's proceedings so that we are not reduced to the unsatisfactory system of trying to raise at 2.30 pm points of order on a matter of international importance?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member recognises that these are not matters for the Chair, but doubtless, as with the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House.

  Midland Metro Bill (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  7.26 pm
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: This Bill is promoted by Centro and the West Midlands passenger transport executive and authorises the extension of the network upon which they are embarked in the midlands.
  Mr. Terry Davis rose——
  Mr. Bevan: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have long enough to speak and so I shall not give way at this stage.
  Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this matter through you on a point of order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give way and would allow me to mention this matter to him so that he would have an opportunity to explain something to the House. Since he has refused to give way, I am sorry but I must put the matter to you as a point of order. He will hear what I am saying and he may wish to comment——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I doubt that this is a matter for me. If the hon. Member wishes to dispute some point that is made in an hon. Member's speech, it is not for the Chair to arbitrate or adjudicate. Doubtless the hon. Member will get his opportunity to catch my eye to make his own arguments, including the argument of rebuttal.
  Mr. Davis: It is not an argument and it has nothing to do with the content of the Bill. It is a matter of order which I wish to put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I am having to do it in this way, but it will be a point of order for the Chair.
  During the debate on the carry-over motion for the Bill, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) intervened in a speech that I was making and I gave way to him, of course. He admitted to the House that he had visited Grenoble at the expense of Centro, the promoters of the Bill. I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify whether he has declared an interest, because overseas visits are supposed to be included in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not think that that overseas visit has been declared.
  The hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill and has not declared a relevant overseas visit. Subsequently—not on the night that he introduced the Bill—he told the House that he went abroad at the expense of the organisation promoting the Bill. I understand that all overseas visits, other than those paid for by Parliament, should be declared. Other hon. Members have declared similar overseas visits to Grenoble at the expense of the passenger transport authority. As you will see, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wishes to identify that he has declared that very interest. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; that seems to be a fair point of order. Hon. Members with a direct interest in matters that are debated
  494
  in the House should of course declare it, and no doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) will feel obliged to do so during his speech.
  Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member for Hodge Hill is aware, I made a clear declaration to the House that I had visited Grenoble in the middle of last year at Centro's expense. I repeat that now, and it will of course be declared in the register.
  Mr. Davis rose——
  Mr. Bevan: It matters not—if I might be allowed to continue—on what date the declaration is made; it will appear in the register.
  Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to say this, but what the hon. Gentleman says is not entirely accurate. He is right in saying that he declared his interest, on 22 October, but that is not the issue in my point of order. I am saying that he introduced a Bill on 5 March 1990, seven months earlier, and, indeed, spoke again, when moving the carry-over motion, without declaring his interest. He finally admitted it during an intervention in a speech of mine.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take it if it is on the same subject.
  Mr. Skinner: I have two points to make. First, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) did not declare his interest here at the appropriate time on—according to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis)—two separate occasions, although he has done so now. My second point is more serious: the hon. Gentleman did not declare his interest in the register.
  Less than two years ago we went through quite a hazardous procedure in the House when the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) did not declare what was almost certainly a more substantial interest. The matter went to the appropriate Committee, and the House's time was taken up by the introduction of the necessary measures.
  The issue does not relate solely to whether the hon. Gentleman's interest was declared in the House. The register allows hon. Members eight paragraphs in which to declare their interests, which apparently were not filled in this instance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any allegations of non-compliance with our rules relating to registration and declaration of interest should be referred to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
  Mr. Bevan: Of course I made the declaration to which the hon. Member for Hodge Hill refers. Let there be no innuendo suggesting that I am trying to avoid saying clearly, as I said last time we debated the matter in the House, that I have visited Grenoble—for, at the most, one or two nights; I cannot remember precisely. If I have failed to obey the rules to the letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise humbly to you now. The position will be corrected at the first possible opportunity, and I will accept whatever suggestion you care to make to enable my interest to be registered in writing, if it was not registered at the time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) expected me to comment on his remarks. I can only repeat that, if hon. Members feel that the rules regarding compliance with the register have not been satisfied, they should refer the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I hope that hon. Members will now feel that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has done the proper thing, and has explained the position adequately.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I feel that it might. help if the Bill's sponsor withdrew it, to avoid any unfortunate implications, and allowed someone else to sponsor it. That would remove any possible taint from the proceedings. It is possible that an hon. Member will complain to the Select Committee, as hon. Members are entitled to do; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) may do so himself. Before that, however, it would clarify the position beyond peradventure, as they say, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) withdrew his sponsorship of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no obligation on the hon. Gentleman to do that.
  Mr. Bevan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will continue to sponsor the Bill as I was asked to do; and I take note of what you have said.
  What we have just heard is typical of the attempts that have frequently been made, first by one hon. Member and subsequently by others, to prevent the Bill from completing its stages. In this morning's Birmingham Post, the hon. Member for Hodge Hill is reported as having said last night that he would speak at length, and that he hoped that other hon. Members would support him. The writing is not just on the wall, but in the newspaper: the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will persist in his tactics to try to prevent the majority of the citizens of Birmingham and the midlands from securing the Bill's correct passage through the House, under the only procedure that can be afforded to it—which, currently, is the private Bill procedure.
  Although many hon. Members may feel that the private Bill procedure is not adequate in all respects, it is the only procedure that is open to the Bill's promoters, Centro, at this stage. Even now, when we have come so far, I hope that democracy will be upheld and that the Bill will be allowed to proceed.
  The Bill is partly the consequence of legislation enacted in February 1989. This Bill had its First Reading in March 1990. It went into Committee during June and July of that year, and was referred to an Opposed Private Bill Committee in October. A carry-over motion followed in October and November. Objections were made to the Bill, but only three of the original 35 petitions were referred to the Committee. I pay tribute to the excellent-Chairman and members of the Committee for their thorough scrutiny of the Bill over a period of 11 days.
  As with the first Bill, this Bill will provide a beautiful form of rapid electric rail transport—fume-free and environment-friendly—which cannot exceed a speed of about 50 mph, and usually travels much more slowly. Wherever possible, disused railway lines and segmented roads are being used. It will join the new railway station at Five Ways, which I was able to bring into existence when
  496
  I chaired the West Midlands passenger transport authority, to Ashted road in Birmingham by means of an underground link. It will then continue, on the surface, to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham international airport in Solihull. It will measure 26·7 km. The Black Country route, measuring 25 km, will connect Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, passing through other areas.
  Hon. Members will wish to know the capital costs involved. The money will be tied to the provision of public sector transport to bring the area up to the modern standards that obtain in other European countries and elsewhere, and will, I hope, provide us with rolling stock that will be the envy of the world. The cost will be £224 million for the Birmingham-Solihull route, and £139 million for the Black Country route. There will be about £30 million for stock on the routes and nearly £6 million for one of the diversions which the Opposed Private Bill Committee proposed and which has been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. The cost, therefore, is a substantial one, and to it must be added the cost of the land.
  The network that will result from the passage of the Bill will play a most important part in reversing the decline in the use of public transport. Although it will not solve all our traffic problems, it will help them a great deal and should postpone for many more years the advent of major new highway proposals which might otherwise be required. It will certainly remove from the road a substantial number of the vehicles that contribute to the present congestion.
  Mr. Skinner: A couple of weeks ago we had the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. It was introduced by a Labour Member rather than a Tory Member. From what I could gather, its purpose was to do some of the things that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has mentioned. Certainly public expenditure was involved. I should like to know why the hon. Gentleman was one of those people who came in on a whipped vote, a payroll vote, on private business, and took part in the exercise. A War Cabinet meeting was cancelled to get members of it to come here and vote. Was it because this Bill has been introduced by a Tory Member and the last was introduced by a Labour Member?
  Mr. Bevan: In his attempt to delay consideration of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong, as he usually is. I did not vote on that Bill, and had the hon. Member bothered to check the voting list before wasting the time of the House he would have found that out. If he were to listen for a change, he would realise that that was a totally different Bill, using a totally different infrastructure which constituted a grave environmental intrusion because it was both high and large by comparison with this slim-line and excellent surplus rail venture. They are totally different. Furthermore, the high-capacity rail vehicles which are envisaged for the Metro will result—he will be pleased to hear this because he is no doubt fascinated by it all—in very low noise along the route, certainly much lower than that of buses, trains and other types of transport.
  Mr. James Hill: To compare the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill, now defunct, with this excellent Midland Metro is farcical. Not only was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not here for the

  497
  debate that night—he came in for the vote of course—but he is wrong in trying to compare a railway transport system of three miles with this excellent long-distance Metro transit. Perhaps I shall be able to make my own speech later.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not about Southampton.
  Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who knows what an abhorrence that scheme would have been if the Bill had come to pass, and who has come here tonight specifically to demonstrate to everyone in the Chamber his willingness to vote for this Bill. I am delighted to see among those present the hon. Member for Bolsover, even though he was not present for the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill.
  This system will be much less obtrusive than the old tramway system and the wires are much less obvious. [Interruption.] It is plain that certain hon. Members are attempting to harass the proceedings—not me because they could not do that—and are making as much use as they can of interruptions from a somnolent posture.
  Thirty-five petitions were originally deposited against the Bill, of which only three went to the Select Committee. The Committee met on 11 occasions in May and considered all the relevant representations made by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill and his residents, from FORSE, and other objectors.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) is aware that my constituents were not allowed to present their petition to the Committee. So how could the Committee consider their objections?
  Mr. Bevan: Their objections were known on a locus standi basis. The hon. Member's constituents did not attend. Those of Forsco did, and re-routing was obtained in the constituency of the hon. Member.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken again. He is being as careless about the facts as he was about declaring his interest. The hon. Gentleman told the House a few moments ago—and fair-minded hon. Members will agree that he said it—that the Committee met on 11 occasions and considered the objections of everybody, including my constituents. That is not correct. I suspect that he has confused a company called Foseco, which is not in my constituency, with a group of residents in my constituency known as FORSE. There is a big difference between FORSE and Foseco. Foseco is a business, and it is correct to say that an amendment to route is coming forward which will benefit Foseco. But that is not in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman is being very careless. I would respect him more if he were more careful in what he said.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for Hodge Hill is correct in saying that the company is Foseco and the site of the deviation, which I had mentioned and which will cost the promoters £6 million, was near the hon. Member's constituency, if not in it. It was understood to be one of the factors which his supporters wanted to be considered.
  Mr. Davis: I am hopeful that the passenger transport authority, known as Centro, will at last see sense and will discuss this Bill and the route with me as it would affect my
  498
  constituents. However, at the moment they have not made any offer which would benefit my constituents in the Bromford estate—and the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to recognise that throughout our proceedings that is the area that I have talked about and they are the people I have sought to represent.
  Mr. Bevan: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hodge Hill has intervened yet again as it will now be unnecessary for him to develop his arguments at great length, as he has given the press to understand, because presumably he has already said everything that he needs to say.
  May I compliment the Select Committee. It received r j 8–9from the promoters a number of undertakings given for the benefit of one of the petitioners. In the case of the other petitioner, the Committee asked the executive to devise a new alignment which did not pass through the petitioner's site. I hope that I have put that correctly.
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me remind the House that we are debating whether the Bill should be considered. I hope that the debate will proceed along those lines.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) aware that there is much enthusiasm in my part of the world for this new form of public transport, bearing in mind the extent to which public transport has been undermined during the lifetime of the Government? We have made clear our support for the Metro system, as have the local authorities. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that there continues to be some controversy about the proposed route as it affects my constituency?
  Mr. Skinner: Ah, the route.
  Mr. Winnick: The route, as my hon. Friend says.
  Such difficulties often arise. I am particularly concerned about a small area—I accept that it is a small area—of the memorial park in Willenhall, which, as I reminded the House on 5 March, commemorates those who served in the first world war. It is a great attraction in Willenhall.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is supposed to be an intervention. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye later if he wishes to make a speech.
  Mr. Winnick: Perhaps I may conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by asking the hon. Member for Yardley whether, even at this late stage, the promoters would be willing again to consider the objections to which I have referred.
  Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for his reminder about the memorial park, which he mentioned during the debate on the carry-over motion. I cannot give an undertaking now, but I shall certainly see that the matter is referred.
  If the Bill is allowed to proceed, many amendments will have to be considered. I hope that that will happen and that the numerous people who support the extension of the public transport system—to whom the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred—will be afforded that opportunity.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The Labour party supports the extension and promotion of this new form of public transport. Those hon. Members who have objections to raise on behalf of their constituents will do so, but as a general principle we favour this modern and updated system, which will be of great benefit to the region.
  I have a personal and constituency interest in the matter. Line I would run through my constituency and through the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends who are present. I wish to put it on record that, as the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich, East, my view is that, the sooner the line is up and running—to mix my metaphors—the better.
  I hope that many of the difficulties that have arisen will be resolved. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has left us in no doubt as to the depth of feeling among his constituents about the proposals. I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), on behalf of Centro, will attempt to bring the parties together so that further discussions may take place. I am sure that, with a little give and take on both sides, the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill has outlined are not insurmountable.
  I have never made a secret of my views about the Bromford estate, although I do not profess to know it as intimately as my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill does. I suspect that the fears of some of those on the estate are groundless, but I understand those fears and I think that if they were aired and an attempt made to find a compromise—even at this late stage—it would be more beneficial than the protracted wrangling that has taken place at each and every stage of our proceedings on the Bill so far.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Yardley will take that message back to the promoters. He shakes his head. I would not wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill or to put words into his mouth, but it does not strike me as very helpful for the hon. Gentleman merely to shake his head. Surely some attempt ought to be made to bring the parties together. It has been a frequent complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill that he has had to make all the running. He has been to see Centro on various occasions, but still no satisfactory outcome has been reached.
  Mr. Bevan: I have made appointments for the hon. Member for Hodge Hill to see the director of Centro to discuss these matters in depth. I went in person to ensure, if I could, that the discussion terminated in concrete proposals which would satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Regretfully, I concluded after that meeting—and after all the other meetings that have taken place between the hon. Gentleman and varous representatives of Centro—that the hon. Gentleman does not intend any accommodation to be reached.
  Mr. Snape: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Perhaps a new negotiator or arbiter is needed.
  Mr. Skinner: How about Tariq Aziz?
  Mr. Snape: I suspect that the Iraqi Foreign Minister has more powers in embarking on his missions than the hon. Member for Yardley has.
  Mr. Skinner: Do you know him?
  Mr. Snape: I know the hon. Member for Yardley, which makes me express that view. Perhaps I may tentatively offer my own services as an arbiter in this matter, because it would be a great pity——
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Snape: I am not sure that it is wise, but I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Morgan: I have absolutely no interest in the west midlands economy or its transport system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in the financial or old English sense.
  Mr. Skinner: He has not been to Grenoble either.
  Mr. Morgan: No. I do not have that type of financial interest either.
  The intransigence of the promoters of private Bills is becoming an increasing problem for all of us because they now feel that they do not have to accommodate the view of local Members whose consituents' houses, and so on, are affected. That makes the task of potential negotiators extremely difficult.
  Mr. Snape: That may be so. Even though my hon. Friend does not have any great interest in transport matters in the west midlands, I must put it to him that compromises have been reached in respect of other petitioners. It is only the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill in respect of one estate—the Bromford estate—which have not yet been settled.
  I give my hon. Friend the Member for Hoge Hill the undertaking that I shall try to bring the parties together again. If my hon. Friend wants me to come to the meeting and listen, I shall be delighted to do so. I plead with him not to prevent my constituents and people throughout the west midlands from enjoying the benefits of the system—if and when the Government decide to put up some money. I hope that the Minister will stop equivocating and will cough up some cash. He well knows that we are waiting to put line 1 and the associated works out to tender. Centro has been anxious to get the go-ahead from the Department and has kept officials informed at each stage. It has also done its best to answer any queries. It would not be fair at this stage to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill for any delay. At least 50 per cent. of the cost will have to come from central Government, but so far we have had only elegant phrases. No doubt we shall get another dose of the same in a moment. My concluding advice is this—drop the phrases and cough up the money.
  8 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) on his enthusiastic, eloquent, and very determined approach to the Bill. He is to be commended by the whole House for the way in which he presented it.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked me a specific question about line 1. We are

  501
  here concerned with line 2; the line that runs from Birmingham Snow Hill to Wolverhampton was the subject of a previous Bill. This measure makes provision for other routes which are clearly related to and will be integrated with that one. We have said that the appraisal is under way. Centro and the Department of Transport have jointly set the middle of May as the target for completion of that work. That has been agreed with the chairman of the passenger transport authority. If the appraisal turns out to be satisfactory, and if the agreement of the Treasury is forthcoming, we shall pay development grant in the coming financial year, and then consider the line for capital funding in the year beginning 1 April 1992. I cannot be clearer or fairer than that.
  Mr. Terry Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is always most fair.
  Is the hon. Gentleman willing, within the next few months—before a decision is taken—to visit the site that has caused so much controversy? Only one section of the two routes is causing any trouble. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited Centro a few weeks ago, and was seen on television looking at parts of the system, but he did not come to the part that is controversial. I hope that this Minister will come with me to meet my constituents so that he may understand the strength of feeling. Those people feel neglected by the Government.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I visited the Snow Hill—Wolverhampton line several months ago. I saw it from the air and from the ground. I shall be happy to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency next time I am in Birmingham. This is a private Bill. It is not promoted by the Government, but the Government provide section 56 grant aid and credit approvals for qualifying light rail schemes.
  I should like briefly to restate the Government's position on the Bill. It is traditional in the case of private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. That was made clear to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who was then Minister for Public Transport, in the Second Reading debate last March.
  The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to this proposed extension of the Midland Metro network. This is one of a number of light rail schemes being brought forward in our major cities. We recognise that, in appropriate circumstances, light rail can have an important role in reducing traffic congestion and in helping to promote urban regeneration. We welcome the efforts that transport planners are making to assess what light rail has to offer. Naturally, as I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would agree, it cannot be the ideal solution in all cases.
  The Manchester Metrolink scheme now under construction, with some £50 million of Government cash grant, will be our first modern street-running system of the kind envisaged by this Bill.
  It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. An Opposed Private Bill Committee of this House has
  502
  carefully scrutinised the Bill and allowed it to proceed, with amendments. I hope, therefore, that in the conventional way the House will allow the Bill to proceed.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kind remarks. He has always taken a very fair and balanced view, and I appreciate that. He has a responsibility to speak for the Opposition on transport in general. As he made clear to the House, he also has a constituency point of view. His constituency is not affected by the route that concerns me, but it is affected by one of the other routes. He has always tried to take an overall view and, as he has made clear in public statements in Birmingham, he believes that local people should be consulted. After all, public transport is the people's transport, and their views must be taken into account. My hon. Friend has always been most willing to listen. I am grateful for his offer to act as some sort of go-between with a view to achieving a compromise, even at this late stage. For reasons that I will explain later, that will be very difficult because of the way in which Centro and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) have handled the Bill. If my hon. Friend can help to achieve a reasonable settlement of the dispute, I, for one, shall be very grateful.
  My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East, for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and, I think, for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) have made it very clear, in public and in private, that they have absolutely no complaint about my efforts to represent my constituents who would be adversely affected by this scheme. They have always made it clear that, even though they differ from me—for reasons that I understand—they respect my right to represent my constituents to the best of my ability. They have no complaint whatever about the tone, content or length of the speeches that I make. They have always made it clear that they would not wish to prevent me from doing my job as a Member of Parliament.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to visit the constituency. That offer has affected my speech tonight, as I had not expected this Minister to take part in the debate. I thought that it would be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who recently visited the west midlands in connection with these proposals. As I said, he did not come to my constituency. That was a great pity. I assure this Minister that he will be most welcome. The residents will be grateful for the opportunity to explain why they feel so strongly. He will find that the residents of the estate have not adopted a party political point of view. In that area, this has not been a partisan matter. Indeed, the residents' association was kind enough to distribute a leaflet saying that, in its opinion, neither the local councillors nor I had sought to make political capital or to turn the issue into a partisan one. Of course, the matter will be mentioned during the election campaign. All candidates will then be able to declare their views. The residents' association made it clear that it admired the way in which the matter had been fought. Indeed, it scorned the attempt of a former Liberal, now a Conservative, to make party political capital out of the issue by misrepresenting the views of the local Labour councillors and myself. The

  503
  Minister can be assured that his discussions with my constituents will be conducted in a friendly, pleasant, non-partisan atmosphere.
  The Bill has been in progress for 18 months. It is unfortunate that, over that time, the hon. Member for Yardley, even though he introduced the Bill, has not come to talk to the residents. I am sure that he has paid a quiet visit. I think that he has even been seen on the estate, but he has not actually talked to my constituents, despite the fact that they invited him more than once. I accept his criticism of last October—that he had been given very short notice. He was not being set up. These are ordinary working people who have to do their jobs during the day and their secretarial work in the evening. I accept that they did not post their letter as quickly as they might have done.
  They were not trying to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. That honest invitation was made four months ago, but the hon. Gentleman has still not met my constituents. I can understand why he did not meet them in the few days between receiving a letter and the debate in the House, but we would have appreciated it if he had come to visit us.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that my visit to his constituents would have been significant with regard to the promoter's plans and intentions. Will he confirm that he and his residents' organisation known as FORSE have met the various heads of Centro on several occasions to discuss in detail many matters concerning the route and the Bill? I have minutes of those meetings with me. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those heads of Centro are the appropriate people with whom his residents should discuss the points of impact? The promoter deals with the route submissions in conjunction with the local authority. Will he confirm that he attended a meeting on 5 February during which many details were discussed with the representatives of his organisation and the heads of Centro? There were many other meetings as well.
  Mr. Davis: I hope that I shall be allowed to comment on all those matters. The hon. Gentleman referred to FORSE as my organisation. It is not my organisation. I did not organise or set it up. I do not control or dominate it. It is a genuine residents' group which was formed as a result of the proposals in the Bill. FORSE stands for For Other Routes Save Estates. I should have preferred it to be called the Bromford and Firs residents group, but they wanted a catchy title so they called it FORSE. The hon. Gentleman was being careless: it is not my organisation.
  The hon. Member for Yardley was right that the residents' group has attended several meetings with Centro representatives. I was present at all those meetings because I made myself available to my constituents. However, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would have those talks as genuine discussions and consultations.
  Mr. Bevan rose——
  Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I will explain why I doubt that. I am giving the hon. Gentlemen credit, but he is rebuffing me and that is typical of all the proceedings on the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at those discussions, he would not think that my constituents had been treated fairly and that their views had been listened to. However, he was not present;
  504
  he is relying on the minutes. As I have already pointed out, the hon. Gentleman has not met my constituents. If he had met them, he would understand why they feel as they do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will come to my constituency all the way from West Bromwich. The Minister is going to come all the way from Kettering——
  Mr. Freeman: No, from Marsham street.
  Mr. Davis: That is even further away than Kettering. However, the hon. Member for Yardley will not even come to my constituency from Yardley.
  The hon. Member for Yardley was wrong when he said that my constituents met the heads of Centro on 5 February. I know about that because they asked me to attend that meeting and it is a good job that I did so. I can bear witness to what was said. My constituents did not meet the heads of Centro: they did not meet the director-general or the head of public relations who was on holiday. My constituents met some new people whom we had not seen before.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davis: I am always anxious to be fair to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bevan: Besides Mr. Hawkins, Mrs. Hawkins and Mr. Poole from FORSE and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), the following people were present at that meeting on 5 February: Mr. Ray Hughes, who is the head of Centro development; John Fallon, who is the press and public relations manager; Rod Dixon, the engineering and design manager; and Janet Kings, the principal planner. Are not they heads? Is it not a fact that the discussions included the offer to resite the football pitch to the other side of the M6, to realign the safety fencing and other issues such as park and ride, environmental impact, the extension of the Heartlands area and the Water Orton line? Many issues about infrastructure were discussed.
  Mr. Davis: I do not agree that those people were heads. Mr. Fallon is a very nice man, but he does not head any Centro department. Obviously the hon. Member for Yardley and I disagree on the definition of "head". Mr. Robert J. Tarr is a head because he is the director-general.
  The hon. Member for Yardley complained earlier about the length of my speeches, but his interventions and red herrings are delaying the completion of my speech.
  At that meeting we did not meet the chairman of the passenger transport authority, any PTA members, the director or even the head of public relations who had arranged the meeting. I am not complaining about that, but the people present were not heads.
  I was present at that meeting and I was told by the Centro representatives that we were discussing the environmental impact study. They said that that was what they wanted to talk to us about, not the route. Well, my constituents want to talk about the route. The location of a football pitch or play area is very important, but those issues are not central to the objections to the Metro.
  I am always anxious to be fair to the hon. Member for Yardley. He asked me to accompany him to meet Mr. Tarr, who is the director-general of the PTA, which now calls itself Centro. I accompanied the hon. Gentleman willingly, and we met Mr. Tarr and one or two people

  505
  whom I would regard as heads, unlike the people who were present on 5 February. They included the solicitor who was handling the Bill and Mr. Parker, the head of public relations. I told those people that they had not talked properly to my constituents. As a result, Mr. Tarr said that he would arrange for discussions with my constituents about their objections to the route and about the alternative. I am sure that the hon. Member for Yardley will confirm that.
  It was agreed that Centro officers would talk to my constituents about the alternative route. However, after those talks my constituents told me that they felt that those discussions had not been, to use their words, genuine. That was their opinion and they can speak for themselves. That opinion was confirmed to me by the PTA chairman who said "We are entrenched." That is the sort of phrase with which we are familiar these days, internationally. He said, "There will not be any rerouting unless Parliament does it." That is what the chairman of the PTA said in my hearing.
  The hon. Member for Yardley cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that there were genuine discussions with my constituents when the chairman, the very head of the organisation, was saying, "We are not going to change anything anyway." My constituents' suspicions were reinforced and confirmed by what the chairman himself said to them in my hearing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not attend any of those meetings. I did not expect him to, but I am sorry that, having set up those talks in what I believe was a genuine effort to achieve——
  Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davis: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is interrupting me again.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman says that he spoke to the chairman of the PTA. It is upon the strategy of the passenger transport authority that Centro's plans have been made. Its directions have been followed by Centro as the promoter of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke to the very head of the organisation, the chairman, who put the views clearly to him. The hon. Gentleman saw someone even greater than the director-general of Centro.
  Mr. Davis: That is the point. I am sorry to belabour this issue, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped it. The man at the very top—one cannot have more of a head than that——
  Mr. Bruce George: What about a bigger head?
  Mr. Davis: I did not want to say that because it could be misconstrued. I do not want to engage in personal attacks on Councillor Bateman, who is not here to answer for himself. He is at the very top of the PTA. In my hearing, he made it clear that all the 11 meetings to which the hon. Member for Yardley has just referred were pointless. That is not the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. Even the Minister is more flexible than that. At least he is willing to talk to people and to hear what they have to say. The actual words used were, "I have invited you here to have a chat." I shall return later to what people said to the chairman and
  506
  what he said to them. I do not want to destroy the order of my speech because the hon. Member for Yardley might accuse me of repetition.
  As I was saying, the hon. Member for Yardley has not taken the trouble to meet my constituents, and he has been careless. It is a pity that he would not give way to me at the beginning of the debate because, if he had done so, I should have been able to put to him without embarrassing him too greatly the point that I then had to make on a point of order. I was anxious to be fair to him.
  After the hon. Gentleman had moved the carry-over motion on 22 October, he admitted that he had received the benefit of an overseas visit at the expense of Centro. I emphasise that that matter arose in an intervention only because the hon. Gentleman challenged me. I pointed out that I paid my own fare to Grenoble. I asked him who had paid his fare and he blurted out that it had been paid by Centro—[Interruption.] Well, the record shows it. He blurted out that his fare was paid by Centro, but he had not declared that fact before that evening or on 5 March when he introduced the Bill. He should have done so.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the problem of practices that verge on malpractice in terms of the way in which private Bill promoters get their Bills through the House. They set up a slush fund so that hon. Members who would like to visit a certain place can go there at public expense. It might be somewhere outside the country, in which case the visit should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests. It might be a place where the private Bill's promoters are intending to carry out works. They could invite any one of 650 Members of Parliament to visit that place, to do so repeatedly, and to stay overnight in an hotel. The House will have to address the problem of private Bill promoters and their slush funds at some stage if the private Bill procedure can ever hope to have a proper reputation of propriety. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Davis: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend down that route, although I have much sympathy with what he says. I do not want to cast any unnecessary aspersions on the PTA and I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I began to discuss the general procedure for private Bills. I want to stick to this Bill.
  Some hon. Members have declared that they have been abroad at Centro's expense. I have no objection to that. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Yardley for having accepted Centro's offer, although it is a pity that it had to be done through a firm called Ian Greer Associates Ltd., as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East confirmed on an earlier occasion. Nevertheless, hon. Members will always be interested in certain private Bills because they may have a passionate interest in that subject or a constituency interest—they need not necessarily be a sponsor—and if they cannot afford to go to, say, Grenoble——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was right to anticipate that if he pursued his present line the Chair would reproach him. I am reproaching him.
  Mr. Davis: I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply anxious to acquit hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Yardley, of any imputation of dishonesty. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was

  507
  simply careless. However, it was that hon. Gentleman who impugned my honesty in our previous debate when he said in an intervention, "If I were an honest man", meaning me. I think that he regrets that now.
  Mr. Bevan: At the moment, unchallenged, there is an imputation of slush fund creation by a public body so that there could be a very necessary visit. I should like the hon. Gentleman categorically to deny that there was a slush fund. However, it was either that slush fund or a different one that enabled the Select Committee on Transport also to visit Grenoble to study the railway which has been used as a model for Midland Metro and is regarded as a state-of-the-art light electric railway. Only the best is wanted in this Bill. Whether we shall eventually get it nobody knows, but there was no slush fund.
  Mr. Davis: I thought that when a Select Committee went abroad, the House paid for it.
  Mr. Bevan: By a fund.
  Mr. Davis: But the hon. Gentleman said that it was paid for by this fund.
  Mr. Bevan: By a fund.
  Mr. Davis: Yes, of course, by a House of Commons fund.
  Mr. Bevan: Is that a slush fund?
  Mr. Davis: No, but that is not what we are discussing.
  Mr. Bevan: Well, why should this fund be a slush fund?
  Mr. Davis: Actually, I did not suggest that there was a slush fund. The hon. Gentleman is very touchy about this. I was simply seeking to defend him. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), "Was I or was I not defending the hon. Member for Yardley and the passenger transport authority?"
  Mr. Morgan: Yes, defending him.
  Mr. Davis: I do not know whether there was a slush fund. All that I know is that the invitation came from a firm with which I will not associate, which is called Ian Greer Associates Ltd.—a public relations firm which has a certain reputation. I shall say no more than that because it cannot defend itself here.
  I must advise the hon. Member for Yardley that I tried to be fair to him by suggesting that he had just been careless. He should have included in the Register of Members' Interests, as many other hon. Members did, the fact that he went abroad at somebody else's expense. That is what the rules are and he forgot to do it. That is all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that we had cleared up that matter at the commencement of this evening's proceedings. I hope that we shall not go down that road again.
  Mr. Davis: I refer to it only because there have been interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, including from the hon. Member for Yardley.
  I am anxious to get on because the hon. Gentleman also complained that I intended to speak at length. He quoted from The Birmingham Post, which asked me, "Are you going to speak at length, Mr. Davis?", to which I replied, "Yes, I shall speak at length and for as long as it takes to put my constituents' point of view." That is only to be
  508
  expected. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-East and for Walsall, South recognise that. I must admit that this is taking a lot longer than I had intended. Indeed, I have not yet started my speech properly because the hon. Member for Yardley keeps interrupting to intervene. I said what I said to The Birmingham Post quite clearly and I shall, indeed, speak for as long as it takes to put my constituents' point of view. I said then that my hon. Friends have not criticised me for doing that in the past and will not do so on this occasion. I left it at that.
  I turn now to why I do not think that the Bill should be considered. In both our previous debates, I have made it clear that my objection is not to the idea of light rail or rapid transit. I do not oppose that concept, nor do I oppose the Midland Metro project. Although the hon. Member for Yardley got carried away in one of his intemperate interventions in our previous debate and suggested that I was not telling the truth—a suggestion that he then retracted—my position throughout has been that, like my constituents, I do not oppose the concept. I emphasise that the residents' group, FORSE, has made it clear, to the dissatisfaction of one or two people who live on the estate, that it does not oppose the concept as such. It has said that rapid transit is a good idea, but has added, "We are not convinced that it has to have disadvantages and costs in personal terms to people living on the estate, if that can be avoided." FORSE has gone on to say, "We are not convinced that that cannot be avoided, so we want to suggest an alternative route."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East said that the Metro system was to link Birmingham with the black country. That is correct and we are not trying to stop that link. I am talking about the route from Birmingham to Solihull, which is in the opposite direction. It goes to the east, from Five Ways to the national exhibition centre in Solihull. That route runs through my constituency and through the Bromford and the adjacent Firs estates. I shall use the name of the former estate as an abbreviation for both. I oppose only that section of the route.
  My constituents and the local councillors are not satisfied that the route must take a path through the Bromford estate where people would lose the amenities that they currently have. It may seem trivial to talk about the possible effects on children's play areas, football pitches, cycle tracks, social clubs and the family and sports community centre. People feel, very strongly about such things. My constituents are concerned not only about the loss of such amenities, but about the fact that the route runs through the only green area in that part of my constituency. The estate was built in the 1960s when there was, generally speaking, system building and its subsequent problems. The residents have had to deal with damp, central heating and other problems and the council has had to spend a small fortune to repair the defects over the years.
  Not far from the estate, there is a motorway and a problem with aircraft from Birmingham airport. Aircraft reach the required height just over the estate before manoeuvring to the right or left, so my constituents are at a disadvantage in many ways. Now, after 25 or 30 years, the estate is beginning to look better. The ribbon of grass—as I call it—between the houses and the motorway is precious to those people. It is used not only to exercise dogs, but for children to play and for informal family

  509
  recreation. I am told that on hot Sunday afternoons, people picnic on the grass between the houses and the motorway. All those amenities are precious because there are so few. The estate was one of the classic cases of the rush in the 1960s to build houses. I do not criticise the local councillors because they built such estates with the best motive in the world. They had to deal with the terrible housing problems in Birmingham and they went for quantity, not quality. They made mistakes, but it is easy to criticise after the event.
  Over the years, the council and especially the residents have done much to make the best of what they have. The residents are very upset at the prospect of losing that—not only the people who live in the houses immediately fronting the grass area, but the whole of the estate of several hundred people.
  The residents are also concerned about the visual impact of the Metro. People feel passionately about the trees which were planted by local people and which now screen the ugliness of the motorway. Many were planted by children from the local school and, apparently, families know which is their tree and feel that it belongs to them. Although I was rather sceptical about that at first, I was convinced by the people's feelings. It is very much their wood—it is more of a copse than a wood, but it is how they see it that matters. They are depressed at the idea of losing any of those trees. A line of trees was planted to screen the motorway, Fort Dunlop and the derelict industrial area on the other side of the motorway. It can be seen through the arches because the motorway is elevated at that point, but it is now screened by growing trees. They must be 20 years old and they are tremendously important to the people who live in houses immediately adjacent to the motorway. Those houses have big picture windows, so the people are distressed about the visual impact.
  When the hon. Member for Yardley spoke for the promoters of the Bill, he said that the Metro system would bring major benefits to the environment. My constituents do not agree. They believe that the section of route that passes by them will detract from their environment and make it worse rather than better. They would naturally prefer, if possible, to make arrangements for the Metro system to be re-routed slightly to reduce or eliminate its visual impact on their homes.
  We should bear it in mind that Centro has not yet been able to tell us where it will put the stops on the route. That is important because the stops are rather long, unlike bus stops, and there will be platforms. Centro is also unable to say what the gantries that hold the cable to provide the power will look like, so people are naturally worried. Nobody knows whether they will have a concrete gantry which would be very visible just a few metres away from the living room window. People know that vehicles will pass by every five minutes in each direction. That means, in effect, that vehicles will run past their picture windows every two and a half minutes. That is some picture.
  People are concerned not only about the visual impact, but about the noise, which is an extremely important aspect of the environment. People are becoming increasingly concerned about noise levels.
  Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend knows, I take an interest in the Bill and in the way in which he has followed up his constituents' problems with the correct concern and zeal.
  510
  The reverse of the argument is that the development of public transport and light railways is a useful asset for any community. Are there routes which would be less intrusive, but which would benefit the community without the consequences that he has outlined so graphically?
  Mr. Davis: Yes, is the short answer. There are several alternatives, one of which has been suggested by my constituents. I think that it was rejected too cavalierly with an explanation that I do not accept, but I shall deal with that later. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would stay to hear it.
  My constituents are not against public transport and I emphasis that they are not against the Metro as such. They are certainly not against it running from Five Ways in the centre of Birmingham with a stop at the new convention centre, which is about to be opened in the centre of Birmingham, together with hotels. They are not trying to stop the Metro running to the NEC, to Birmingham international airport, or to Birmingham international railway station. They see the logic and know that it would be beneficial to the economy of Birmingham, but they say that the system can be built without causing them any disadvantage. That is a moderate point of view.
  Mr. Bevan: If that is the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to tell us why he tabled amendments to kill off line 2 completely and to ensure that it could not be constructed.
  Mr. Davis: I was saving my remarks for my speech to move the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that because I was thinking the same. We should have a more orderly debate if we got on to the amendments so that he can speak to them.
  Mr. Davis: I want to put it on the record that I am not afraid to discuss these matters. It is at your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not answer the point. I am trying to be helpful, but I am having difficulty getting on with my speech, thanks to the hon. Member for Yardley. At the right time, I shall explain why there is nothing inconsistent in what I have said about not opposing the Metro while opposing one section of the route. My amendments were tabled in such a way on the advice of the Clerk to ensure that they were in order. I will leave it at that for the moment.
  I was explaining why my constituents feel so concerned about the route proposed in the Bill. Their second concern is noise. The hon. Member for Yardley told the House that the vehicles that will be used will be
  "quieter than the 1940s trams or even the Blackpool trams".—[Official Report, 5 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 645.]
  That statement leaves a great deal to be desired because those trams were noisy. I can just about remember the 1940s trams and I have seen and been on the Blackpool trams. It is nice to go on them and it is part of going to Blackpool for the Labour party conference. However, I would not want such a tram running as close to my home as the Metro will run to the homes of some of my constituents. The noise of those trams is definitely excessive. The hon. Member for Yardley says that the

  511
  noise will not he as bad as that. That is little comfort to those who do not have trams running in front of their homes at present.
  The hon. Member for Yardley also said that the noise of the rolling stock will be less intrusive than that of a tram because it will have a "higher frequency". I am not clear whether he meant "frequency" in the sense that it applies to sound or the frequency of vehicles. Trams will run in each direction every five minutes, which means that a vehicle will go past every two and a half minutes. One could say that there will be a constant hum. That will not please people who live in the area.
  The hon. Member for Yardley then told the House that, even if people's environment was adversely affected by noise, there would be noise insulation grants. He said on 5 March 1990 that they would be payable under a scheme similar to that in operation for highways. I want to make two points about that. First, the hon. Gentleman admits that there will be noise of a level sufficiently high to merit noise insulation grants. Secondly, those of us who have experience of noise insulation grants in our constituencies will know that the level required to qualify for that grant is high. I hear constant complaints from many of my constituents who believe that they should be entitled to noise insulation grants because of Birmingham airport. That is one of the biggest problems in my constituency. I think that those people should be entitled to grants and that is why I am introducing a private Member's Bill to help not only my constituents, but people all over the country who suffer from such noise.
  The existing noise insulation schemes for aircraft and highways are not good enough. The people who live on the Bromford estate have personal experience of noise insulation schemes. Nobody on that estate gets a noise insulation grant for the effect of aircraft that turn just as they reach the estates. However, many people on the estate have obtained noise insulation grants as a result of the motorway. Ten years ago, we had a tremendous problem because we discovered that because of the way in which the scheme had been introduced, people got a noise insulation grant only if the noise from the motorway qualified them for such a grant. There was no allowance for the cumulative effect.
  I was not here at the time, so I can say how grateful I was to Ministers in the Labour Government in the 1970s. One of them decided that the old system was wrong and that the grants should take cumulative noise into account. It was decided that families should not be told, "You do not qualify although you have a terrible amount of noise, because the amount of noise from the motorway is not enough, even though, if we took it all together, you would qualify." People had a terrible problem, but they were being told by the council that it could not pay noise insulation grants under the law. A Minister at the Department of Transport took a sensible decision on behalf of my constituents living on the Bromford estate and decided that the scheme should take account of cumulative noise.
  However, the change applied only to noise from highways. The issue now is my constituents, who will not qualify for noise insulation grants because of the Metro alone, but who will suffer because the incremental noise—that noise taken with that of local traffic—puts them above the level. They will not get the grant because the single source does not generate enough noise. They also hear noise from the railway, which is not far away. Some
  512
  people have asked why the Metro does not use some of the disused railway line, which is a valid point. My constituents have had bitter and disappointing experiences with noise insulation schemes. They are nervous about anything that may add to the noise.
  I always try to be fair to those with whom I disagree. Councillor Bateman, the chairman of the passenger transport authority, said that he thought that my constituents had a horrendous problem at present without the Metro. Why introduce it? Why make a horrendous situation worse by putting the Metro in front of people's homes?
  The hon. Member for Yardley said that the Metro would be "whisper-quiet". He said that the system in Grenoble was "whisper-quiet". That is not the opinion of the environmental services department of Birmingham city council. That department employs people whose objectivity I do not question. I have found them excellent officers who say it the way it is. They have looked at the Metro scheme—they are conscious that the council's policy is to build the Metro—and they say that on their calculations—I stress that they are calculations—118 homes on the Bromford estate would be affected to the extent to which they would qualify for noise insulation grants. One can understand the attitude of my constituents, who say, "My goodness, if 118 homes are going to qualify for noise insulation as a result of the Metro and we know that those noise levels are totally inadequate, what will it mean for those of us who do not qualify for noise insulation?" Naturally, they are nervous about it, and I do not blame them.
  I have told my constituents that I have been to Grenoble and that the Metro equivalent there is quieter than some other forms of transport. I readily agree with that, and I am not trying to exaggerate the case or to give my constituents unnecessary cause for alarm. The Metro in Grenoble is called the Tram and it is not "whisper-quiet". It is certainly quieter than other forms of transport. There is no doubt that the Tram has brought about a reduction in noise. The people there live in flats above shops or, in some cases, in blocks where the ground floor does not have any flats. It is not like our system. The ground floors contain garages and other facilities. The people living on the higher floors do not suffer from worse noise because the Tram has replaced existing traffic. That is the big difference.
  It is not proposed that the Metro will use a disused railway line. We are not talking about a route that will replace existing traffic on the roads. We are talking about a section of the route that will run through green grassland—an area where the loudest noise at present is from dogs. The road is an estate road and a cul-de-sac. No one goes along it except the residents, the milkman and the postman, who does not usually use a car. No bus goes along, so there is no means of transport to be replaced. The Metro will be additional transport. People say, "We are going to get a high level of noise. We are not like the residents in Grenoble. Having heard your description, Mr. Davis, we can understand why people in Grenoble would say that it was an improvement. It is not an improvement to us. It will be a deterioration. The noise will add to all the other noise and it will go close to our houses." The Metro will go about 10 metres from a block of flats and close to people who already suffer from noise from the motorway. I agree that what has been done in Grenoble is good, but,

  513
  contrary to the constant references by the hon. Member for Yardley to Grenoble, it is not comparable with what will happen on this section of the route.
  My constituents also feel aggrieved, angry and upset about the consultation, and they are angry about the way in which they were treated. Some time ago Mr. Tan, who has already been mentioned, wrote to a local councillor who lives in my constituency but does not represent a ward in it. The councillor was worried about a previous rapid transit proposal. At the time Mr. Tarr was secretary of the passenger transport authority. He still does the same job but his title has changed and he is now director general. When he was secretary of the PTA, he wrote to the councillor, who has passed the letter on to me. Mr. Tarr promised that there would be full consultation before any further schemes which affected my constituency were introduced. That promise was not kept.
  Whenever I put it to the passenger transport authority, I am told that it was the job of the city council to consult. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East impressed me with his description of the thorough consultation that took place in Wolverhampton. It is important to involve people. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East told my constituents in a letter, people should be involved and should feel that they are being consulted at an early stage. They should feel that their fears are being considered, their points taken into account and their suggestions listened to. They should feel that someone is trying to meet their objections in order to achieve a satisfactory solution without putting the scheme in jeopardy.
  The residents' group in my constituency has made it clear from the beginning that its motive was to have its views taken into account. I respect it for that. The residents have made it clear that they did not seek to sabotage the project. They merely wanted their legitimate objections and interests to be taken into account. They felt that there was not consultation until a late stage, and they were right.
  In my hearing, the chief executive of Birmingham city council told other Members of Parliament from Birmingham that he would ensure that it was done better next time. He now knows that it cannot be left to Centro. The chief executive was worried about the way in which the people of Birmingham were treated, even if Centro were not. On that occasion, he said to me, "You see, Mr. Davis, we have learned from that experience." I am genuinely glad that no one else in Birmingham will have problems, but I do not see why my constituents should be sacrificed. I do not see why the city council should learn the lesson—the lesson that Centro refused to learn—at the expense of my constituents.
  When I talk to the PTA, it shelters behind the city council. When I talk to the chief executive of the city council, he shelters behind Centro and says that it was its job to consult. The only thing that has changed is that at least the chief executive has been big enough to say that, although it was Centro's responsibility, he accepts that it is not good enough and that it must not happen again. He gave a personal promise to Birmingham Members of Parliament that in future there would be proper consultation and he has done so. He is consulting Members of Parliament about future routes which affect Birmingham. I am pleased about that.
  514
  Centro did not consult and the city council did not consult my constituents. A decision was taken about the scheme and it was launched here at the House. My hon. Friends and Conservative Members were invited. The hon. Member for Yardley may have sponsored it, but I cannot remember. In a room off Westminster Hall there was a presentation and a major public relations exercise. It was not consultation. It was held to tell us how marvellous the scheme would be.
  No one thought of going to the people affected and asking them what they thought of the scheme and whether they had any points to make about it so that their objections could be taken into account at an early stage. It was a fait accompli. They were told, "You can oppose it if you like, but this is what we intend to do. Your Member of Parliament, your councillors and your Members of the European Parliament may oppose it, but we intend to impose it." That was how my constituents saw the way in which they were treated.
  Before the Bill was presented to the House, my constituents were told that they had a choice. The route could go down either Bromford drive or through the grassed area next to Chillingholme road, Wanderer walk and Douglas house. My constituents said, "We shall not choose. We know what you are about: you are trying to divide us and rule us. You are trying to set one group of residents against another. You are trying to make us say `Not in our backyard, impose it on the other lot, not us."
  My constituents refused to be divided. They could see through it. Many of them are trade unionists who work in industry. They have more savvy than that and they can see a problem when it is coming towards them. They said, "We are going to stand together. We do not see why we should sacrifice our neighbours." The people in Bromford drive said, "We do not see why we should save ourselves at the expense of people in the other road." The people in the other road said exactly the same thing. I was delighted that they stood together throughout. The people in Bromford drive are still worried about the scheme even though they feel safe because the route will not be imposed on them. They feel that the people in the other road have a justified grievance and they are upset at the way in which their neighbours have been treated. But, as I shall explain later, Centro has exploited that position, too.
  Centro tried to divide and rule, but it did not work. It gave my constituents a choice between having an arm amputated or a leg amputated. It did not work. My constituents said that they did not want either. They did not think that anyone should have the Metro passing in front of their homes. They suggested an alternative route. I shall return to that in a moment.
  I give credit to Centro for undertaking what it called consultation, even though I would not call it that. The hon. Member for Yardley calls it consultation. I have read his remarks to the House carefully. Tonight he did not make a great deal about consultation but previously he has done so. He told the House that in general the project was the subject of widespread consultation several years ago in 1989. He said that 300 videos lasting six minutes each were sent to residents' associations. But they were not sent to residents' associations in my area. He said that videos were sent to community groups. I have not yet met a community group in my constituency which has had the benefit of a video. The hon. Gentleman said that videos were sent to local political parties. I can speak only for the Labour party. Neither at constituency nor branch level has

  515
  the Labour party received one of the videos. I do not know where they went, but they did not come to the political party which represents the people who will be affected by the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Yardley told the House that 95 presentations were made. He claimed that Centro had consulted through those presentations. Who benefited from those presentations and who and what were the 95 groups? The hon. Gentleman said that they were business groups, chambers of commerce, rotary clubs—there is no rotary club on the Bromford estate—and breakfast clubs. We do not have breakfast clubs in my constituency. He left out supper clubs—we do not have many of those either. He said that presentations were made to local groups and—this is the crunch—Confederation of British Industry groups. No CBI group represents the Bromford estate. The people there live on what they earn in the factories; they are not CBI members.
  The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been 17 exhibitions at conferences and transport events. However, they did not benefit my constituents, who were not consulted. He also said that many leaflets had been distributed on the first route, but he could say only that a much smaller number of leaflets had been distributed on the route that affects my constituents. He said that 14,000 leaflets, of which 10,000 were for the area outside the city centre, had been distributed within 1 km of the proposed route. I know that that is true because I received one through my letterbox, although I do not think that I live within 1 km of the proposed route. However, those leaflets would not have allowed my own residents' group to express an opinion one way or the other because we live too far away to use the Metro.
  The hon. Member for Yardley said that council officers and Centro arranged 13 consultation venues attended by 1,400 members of the public, but they were not consultation venues. People came to caravans—I did so myself—and saw part of a video. The set-up was rather like the caravan that was parked at the Palace of Westminster a few months ago in connection with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
  He said that the exhibition at the Bromford neighbourhood office lasted for three and a half weeks, but its aim was to inform people, not to consult them. He was correct to say that public meetings were organised, and that 239 people attended them. I attended several of them and, at one meeting alone, counted between 300 and 400 people who were all opposed to the scheme, except for a couple of members of the passenger transport authority. I did not identify them then as they might have been subjected to verbal abuse from my constituents, and I shall not identify them now.
  The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been 26 meetings with businesses and business groups. As I have already explained, those would have concerned the route through the Bromford estate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, by discussing routes, the hon. Gentleman is going on to the first group of amendments. I am finding it a little difficult to relate what he is now saying about routes to the consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Davis: Thank you for the guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply explaining that my constituents are
  516
  upset. They oppose the Bill because they were not consulted by its proposers. I shall not go into the details of one route versus another as that is the subject of detailed amendments.
  My constituents were not consulted by the organisation that should have consulted them. Centro got off on the wrong foot at an early stage. It would have behaved differently, had it taken advice from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, who sent a letter to my constituents on behalf of the Labour party saying that it believed in full consultation with local people on such matters. Centro's only defence is that the city council supported the route that was proposed after consultation. But it was opposed by every councillor in my constituency—not only Labour councillors but the Conservative one. They all criticised the lack of consultation and time, and the way in which Centro was behaving.
  How can we say that the committee procedure is democratic when it all took place in secret? Not even the local councillors representing my constituents were consulted. The locally elected representatives did not even know about it until Members of Parliament were given a presentation in a room off Westminster Hall and I telephoned them to break the news that the city council had been here with Centro to present those routes. That is an incredible story, and it shows that the democratic process has not been properly observed. The die had been cast without councillors having been consulted.
  As a result of that lack of consultation, all the local councillors and almost everyone who lives in the district is opposed to that section of the route. A small minority says that it does not want Metro at any price, anywhere. A poll conducted in the area—not by me, the residents' association or local councillors, but by Centro and Birmingham city council—showed that the overwhelming majority of people were opposed to the route. In a secret ballot, 10 per cent. voted for it and 90 per cent. against. The result could not be much more overwhelming. The detailed analysis of those figures was not reported even to the councillors involved in the subsequent stages, who were on those committees. Quite a few of the 10 per cent. who were in favour of it said that they would not use it. So they were in favour of it for other people—to get them off the roads—but not for themselves. Not surprisingly, it was opposed by myself, by the local Labour and Conservative councillors and by the local MEP—in other words, by all the political parties in my constituency.
  The hon. Member for Yardley disagreed with me about that when we last debated the matter. He said that he had private information from the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate to the effect that what I had said was not correct. I can only reply that, in my hearing, the Conservative councillor for the area told his constituents that he agreed with me on this issue—he was careful to say "on this issue"—that he supported me on it, that he agreed with my opposition and with my objections. Not only did he associate himself with those objections, but I believe that he seconded some of our motions on the subject at the meetings in question.
  In addition, the Conservative candidate at the latest local elections declared his opposition. He tried to pretend that the local councillors and I had not opposed it, but the local people soon put him right about that.
  As a result of the inadequate consultation that took place—it would be an exaggeration to say that there had been a total lack of consultation—the city council decided

  517
  to put the route along one of the two alternatives that it had put forward, so that it would affect the houses in the way that I have described. I have not gone into all the details of the other route involved because it would be unreasonable of me to do so.
  My constituents said, "We will not be persuaded in this way. We will not sit back and have the scheme imposed on us. We have looked at it and we are not against the Metro. We do not want to oppose the project and the Bill, but the route should and could be amended in such a way as not to affect any homes." There is no question of our trying to move the route so that it will affect the homes of other people——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now anticipating amendments standing in his name that have been selected for debate.
  Mr. Davis: I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall discard that part of my speech.
  My constituents say, "We accept not only the concept but the thinking behind it." My constituents are more impressed by the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends than by those of the hon. Member for Yardley. After all, in the debates on the Bill the hon. Member for Yardley talked about the scheme being modern, up to date and necessary to raise the image of the passenger transport area. My constituents are more impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friends about the Metro regenerating derelict industrial areas and providing jobs. None of us wants to stand in the way of that.
  When the hon. Member for Yardley concedes that it would make a major contribution to regenerating derelict and economically depressed areas, my constituents say that that is fine, and indeed that sentiment is expressed in the statement that hon. Members have received urging them to consider the Bill. I will not read the whole of that statement, issued on behalf of the promoter, in support of consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee, but it says in paragraph 6:
  "It is also expected that the development of the metro network will make a major contribution to the regeneration of derelict or economically depressed areas and bring major benefits in the improvement of the environment."
  The first part of that sentence is welcome and endorsed by my constituents. But the estate that I have been describing is not a derelict or economically depressed area—certainly not in that sense, although many people there are unemployed—and it is not a derelict or industrial wasteland.
  My constituents agree that the Metro should run through the Heartlands area, as it is called, in the city of Birmingham, as that is an old industrial area. I am sure that were I to ask all the councillors in my constituency about that, they would agree with the desirable aim of regenerating derelict and economically depressed areas.
  But that is not what we are discussing. The section of the route with which I am concerned does not come into that category. After the city centre bit of the route, it goes through a derelict industrial area—the scheme is definitely to be welcomed there—but it then proceeds through an ordinary residential area, where it is not to be welcomed.
  The promoter's statement says that the system will bring major benefits through the improvement of the environment. My constituents do not accept that and say
  518
  that it will bring a major—or at least a minor—deterioration in the environment. The statement says that the use of electric power should assist in the reduction of local pollution from exhaust fumes. That is not true because the system will not replace any traffic running through the estate. Part of the statement harks back to another point that I made—that the vehicles intended for the Metro will result in lower noise levels than those experienced from buses and trains. But it will not replace buses and trains on that section of the route. It may replace some buses and trains, but I am not sure that my hon. Friends would want that because that would simply be to substitute one form of public transport for another. I shall return to that. One has to make a value judgment about which form of public transport is best, and I am not convinced that the Metro is superior to buses. I emphasise again that I see advantages in light rail rapid transit systems for getting people quickly to and from the national exhibition centre, but that does not have to be done by imposing extra noise on people who live in the estate that I have described.
  For all those reasons, my constituents were unhappy and wanted an alternative route. I shall not describe that in detail now because we may come to it later, although that may be difficult for technical reasons that I shall explain. My constituents submitted an alternative which met the objectives in the promoter's statement and would have benefited and helped to regenerate a derelict industrial area. That derelict area has just been added to the Heartlands. Therefore, all the arguments that apply to the Heartlands apply to the area which my constituents suggest could benefit from this modern system of transport.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. I know that he is speaking strongly on behalf of his constituents, but his arguments about different routes and the like would be much more relevant to the amendments that have been selected for debate later.
  Mr. Davis: The trouble is that my amendment has not been selected for debate. I quite understand that and I would not challenge Mr. Speaker's selection. The Clerk has explained why the amendment, which is in line with what my constituents have asked for, cannot be debated. I shall not go into the merits of my amendments, which are different from what my constituents suggest. There is no identity between my amendments and the argument that I am advancing. My amendments recognise that what my constituents suggest cannot be accepted by the House at this late stage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering a technical motion on whether the Bill should be considered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that in developing his arguments at length, as he is perfectly entitled to do, he must address himself to the fairly technical proceedings in which we are engaged.
  Mr. Davis: My argument is that we should not consider this Bill because the alternative was rejected by the passenger transport authority. I am not allowed to promote that route in the House. The passenger transport authority did not properly and fairly consider the alternative. If it had, I would not oppose the Bill. The passenger transport authority did not reject the proposal

  519
  out of hand. It gave three reasons why my constituents' suggestion could not be put into effect. I will not describe those in detail because I do not want to trespass on your kindness and generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The three reasons were briefly that, first, the Centro officers who were mentioned—described as heads by the hon. Member for Yardley, but who I consider to be junior, little heads—said it was not physically possible. That was disproved. They have had to drop that because when I asked the city engineer if it was physically possible he said that it was, so that argument cannot be advanced, and is knocked on the head.
  The second argument which has been made——
  Mr. Bevan rose——
  Mr. Davis: I shall give way later. The hon. Gentleman has interrupted quite often and it was he who complained about the length of my speech. If this goes on I shall not have time to finish it—[ Interruption] Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) wish to intervene, because I would always give way to him? No, he does not.
  The second reason given for rejecting my constituents' suggestion was that it was estimated to cost £16·5 million. That estimate was subsequently reduced by Centro to £12·5 million, but it then admitted under questioning that this section of the route in the Bill to which we are objecting would cost £2·7 million. If £2·7 million is deducted from £12·5 million, that, in round figures, is an extra £10 million which my constituents wanted to spend.
  The hon. Member for Yardley told the House on 22 October in an intervention in my speech that I got it wrong. He said that the cost of the route, as put forward in the Bill, is £6 million. I am happy to be corrected. The Centro officers have told me that it costs £2·7 million, but the hon. Gentleman, to whom I must defer because he introduced the Bill in the House, said that it would cost £6 million. We have been told that the cost of the alternative, which I shall not describe in detail, would be £12·5 million. But the hon. Member for Yardley says that this section in the Bill would cost £6 million. It follows, does it not, that the extra cost is £6·5 million? Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make a special note of that because it is important that my constituents were asking for an amendment which would cost only £6·5 million. That compares with the total cost of £273 million. That is the hon. Member for Yardley's latest figure, as of October, for the cost of the whole route, not the whole network.
  Mr. Bevan: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, who consistently seeks to belittle the status of the heads of Centro. He has tried to downgrade them to junior heads. He has tried to say that they are not correctly represented and he is as accurate on that as he is on many other matters. He is quite wrong. Ray Hughes is the head of Metro Development—I repeat that and I should like the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge it. John Fallon is the press and public relations manager—the head, not the junior head. Ray Dixon is the engineering design manager—the head—and Janet Kings is the principal planner. They are not junior heads. They are not also-rans. They are not middle executives. They are as described—the heads of the department.
  Mr. Davis: I thought that the hon. Member for Yardley was going to help me with more figures and tell me that the
  520
  cost of the alternative was even lower than we had been told before and that the cost of the Bill was higher than we had been told before. He has not denied the figures that I have given.
  On the question of heads, if it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and stop him interrupting me, I will concede that Centro is a many-headed body. It is a positive hydra. It has lots and lots of heads. They are all heads. They are all talking heads.
  Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have worked in really big organisations. I was called a manager for many years, but I never described myself as a head. The people working with me would have been amazed if I had thought that I was a head of the company. I was certainly a manager, with many of those titles, but I never presumed to call myself a head of the company. I would have accepted the description of executive. I was a company executive at one stage. That is how I described myself. Later I had "manager" after my name and described myself as a manager, a perfectly respectable title. There is nothing wrong with being a manager. I have been one. I am a member of the managers' trade union. But that does not make one a head of an organisation.
  I do not know how many heads the Government have, but nobody would suggest that the very generous Minister for Public Transport is a head of the Government. I do not think that he would even describe himself as a head of the Department. Like me, he is a modest man. He is an important person, but he is not the head of the Department of Transport, any more than I was the head of any of the organisations for which I worked. At least, I do not think that I was. However, let us not pursue that diversion any further.
  The hon. Member for Yardley is trying to divert us from the cost. That cannot be denied. I am quoting the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave the House. He told the House that the cost of what is popularly known as the southern route is £6 million, compared with the cost of what is known locally as the northern route of £12·5 million. I got that figure from one of the people whom the hon. Gentleman calls a head of the organisation, so it cannot be contradicted. I am happy to have that person called the head.
  The difference between £12·5 million and £6 million is £6·5 million, which is a very important figure for two reasons. It is £6·5 million compared with a total estimate for the route—not just the section in my constituency, but the route from Birmingham to Solihull—of £273 million, so we are talking about a little over 2 per cent. of the total cost.
  The third reason why Centro rejected the alternative, which we cannot discuss this evening but which is relevant, is that they said that there would be a lower ridership if the route suggested by my constituents were adopted. They said that fewer people would use Metro. We asked them for figures, and they said that fewer people would use it because fewer people lived near that route. That is certainly true. That is why my constituents suggested it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just said that there is a certain matter which we cannot discuss this evening. He now appears to be proceeding to discuss it.
  Mr. Davis: It is important because of something that the hon. Member for Yardley said. I will ask you in a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you agree.
  Centro told us that between 1,900 and 2,200 people would use the route described in the Bill from Birmingham to Solihull every day. Let me explain immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to go into detail about how I think some of my amendments would keep that ridership, because that would be wrong and would delay progress, and I do not want to do that. Centro said that the passenger total was an important figure. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remember that, because I shall come back to it when I move the first group of amendments.
  The promoters said that if we did not choose their scheme, or something close to it, ridership would be reduced to between 500 and 800 per day. We asked the promoters how the figures were made up. My constituents were told—in my hearing—that the figure of between 1,900 and 2,200 passengers a day, on the route laid down by the Bill, was made up of 75 per cent. who would transfer to the Metro from buses, 15 per cent. being new passengers who would not travel between Birmingham and Solihull if it were not for the Metro, and 10 per cent. being people who previously travelled by car. Let us take special note of those figures, which have been cited several times.
  The hon. Member for Yardley said today that the route described in the Bill would take a considerable number of vehicles off the road. He nods his head, so he must agree with me. Does it not follow, therefore, that the vehicles which will be taken off the road if the Bill is enacted will be buses, because three-quarters of the people using the Metro will have transferred from buses? On previous occasions, however, the hon. Member for Yardley said that the Bill was intended to relieve traffic congestion, that it would ensure increased use of the public transport network and would bring about environmental improvements. I shall not discuss those improvements because I have already done so at length.
  My hon. Friends and I want to provide better public transport. We want people to use the public transport network, and so do my constituents. They are adamant about it. There is considerable criticism in my constituency and in the west midlands about the present inadequate public transport service, so of course we are in favour of improvements to it. But that is not what the Bill is about, because 75 per cent. of the passengers will have transferred from the existing public transport network and not from cars.
  Let us consider the promoter's statement in support of consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee. It says:
  "It is expected that the Metro network will play an important role in reversing the decline in the use of public transport. It will not of itself solve all traffic problems on roads but will assist to this end. It is also likely to defer for several years the need for some highway improvements or traffic control measures for the relief of congestion on roads."
  The hon. Member for Yardley said something similar when he moved the motion for consideration of the Bill today, but I do not think that he is completely accurate. In my view, the promoter's statement is not correct. There are many reasons why we should have the Metro, and I shall give reasons why we are in favour of the project as a whole—I have already touched on some of them—but it is not true to say that it will reverse the decline in the use of public transport. The hon. Gentleman is right when he
  522
  says that the Bill will not solve all the traffic problems—I suppose that that is a concession—and will not relieve congestion on the roads, because everyone knows that that is caused by motor cars and not by buses. If passengers transfer from buses instead of cars, the impact on congestion will be slight. The hon. Member for Yardley ought to concede that argument because it is the inevitable logic of the arithmetic supplied by the people whom he describes as the "heads" of Centro.
  On an earlier occasion, the hon. Member for Yardley also said that car use has increased, and asked us to support the Bill because buses and cars would be provided with free car parks, enabling passengers to use trains following the Midland Metro Act 1989. I see no logic in that argument; there is no connection between the 1989 Act and increased car use, although there is a connection between that Act and the Bill that we are discussing. The 1989 Act introduced the first of these routes, which I believe will run from Birmingham to Wolverhampton. I did not oppose it, although the hon. Member for Yardley keeps trying unfairly and inaccurately to suggest that I did. I simply cannot get it into the hon. Gentleman's head that I opposed neither the 1989 Act nor the concept that it embodied; there was no reason for me to do so. None the less, he is wrong to suggest that the Act provided benefits that it did not provide—and, indeed, has been unable to provide, as the route has not been built, and whether it is ever built will depend on the Department of Transport.
  Even if it is built, the route will not help the buses. As it has not yet been built, it has provided no car parks, and there are no proposals for them in either the Act or this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that such a large network implies the existence of a free car park, but there is no such thing, as I know to my cost—or, rather, I do not, because I have been given a pass, but that is because I am a Member of Parliament. As far as I know, no one else is given free parking facilities, unless they are granted to employees of Birmingham station.
  Mr. Bevan: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. I have taken advice on the matter, and I am told that the promoters of the Bill expect 10 per cent. of people to abandon their motor cars for the Metro. They expect perhaps 15 per cent. more traffic to be generated. I have also been told that between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. eventually transfer from cars to the Metro in other parts of Europe where the system has been installed. The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of all this. Fewer people will use cars, and the reduction in the number of car users will increase as time goes on.
  Mr. Davis: What the hon. Gentleman has not told us is how long we must wait for that transfer. We have not been told before about an eventual transfer of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. My constituents have not heard anything about it when they have talked to the people described by the hon. Gentleman as heads of Centro. He has given us some fresh information today, but he has not told us whether the transfer will happen next year, next century, or later—and he does not look as though he intends to do so. I suspect that he will not do so because he does not know.
  Mr. Bevan: I have made it clear that the system, once established, will prove attractive and popular enough to win over more car users than it will at the beginning. I expect the initial 10 per cent. figure to rise to the

  523
  continental norm of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent., which it may do at any point after the system has been installed and allowed to mature. I do not want to be a crystal ball gazer, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does—I certaintly wish he would look at the crystal ball rather than at the mud.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman invites me to look into a crystal ball. I am not sure that my hon. Friends want me to engage in such speculation, nor do I think that it would be fair to the promoter. The point is that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to give us a date. He talks of what will happen when the system has "matured". That is typical of the predictions of Conservative Members—they are always telling us that things will get better, but they never say when. Unemployment, for instance, is always going to come down, but we never hear when it will do so, and, in our experience, it generally goes up.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davis: If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish what I am saying, I will give way to him a little later. He has been very patient, and I much appreciate his courtesy.
  The hon. Member for Yardley introduced the Bill with plenty of dash. Clearly he did not know the statistics that I read out, which is in itself instructive. After I had read them out, he simply repeated them as though he were giving the House new information.
  I told the House that the people whom the hon. Member calls the heads of Centro told my constituents that 75 per cent. of the passengers would be transferred from buses, 15 per cent. would be new traffic and 10 per cent. would be from cars. The hon. Gentleman then rushed from the Chamber, checked, came back and read out the same figures. So we have confirmed that. The only difference between us is that he says that the figure will eventually be 20 to 40 per cent. I do not know, and I am not looking into a crystal ball. Centro has said that it will be 75 per cent. from buses, 15 per cent. new traffic and 10 per cent. transferred from cars. That will happen immediately, which has not been denied, so we shall be able to monitor it. It is not a prediction for some unspecified time in the future when none of us—certainly not the hon. Member for Yardley—will be here anyway.
  Mr. Turner: I am not anxious to intervene because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill wants to make the case that he has been making, substantially on behalf of his constituents, but I wanted to ask him about the figures that we are discussing. Those of us who support the Metro firmly believe that it will make a real contribution to the relief of traffic congestion in the black country and the west midlands. My hon. Friend mentioned 10 per cent. I have just finished serving on the Committee on the Road Traffic Bill. The number of cars running across the roads of the west midlands and the black country grows year by year, causing major congestion. If we could move 10 per cent. of our car-owning population to the Metro, it would make a tremendous contribution. So even if it is no more that 10 per cent. of the hundreds of thousands of cars to begin with, it is right for us to believe that the number will grow as we get the route fully developed, and that will take even more cars off the road. If we can get 10 per cent. of car
  524
  owners on to the Metro, it will make a majestic contribution to solving the road traffic problems of the west midlands.
  Mr. Davis: There is no difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East and me, he will be delighted to learn. I agree completely with him. If we could get 10 per cent. on to the Metro it would make a majestic, to use his adjective, or perhaps one should say a major improvement in congestion, but I do not think that this Bill would do it. I understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm and I share it, but I think that he has let himself be carried away slightly. I ask him to listen again to what I said. I did not say that 10 per cent. of car owners will transfer to the Metro, as he seems to think I did. I said that 10 per cent. of the passengers on the Metro would be people who had previously used cars. There is a very big difference. I did not suggest that 75 per cent. of bus passengers would transfer to the Metro, but that 75 per cent. of predicted passengers on the Metro would be people who had previously travelled by bus.
  Only 10 per cent. of passengers on the Metro, according to Centro's own figures, would be people who had previously travelled by car. If it were 10 per cent. of car owners, as my hon. Friend would like, that would be an incredible improvement; it really would bring about a major reduction in congestion in the west midlands. I wish I could see that day. There are ways, but I would not be in order if I proceeded to discuss how we could get 10 per cent. of car owners out of their cars and on to public transport. I have ideas about that, and I think that my hon. Friend has very good ideas about that, too. I have just one thing to say to him. I went—I do not think that he was able to be there, although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East was and made a very good intervention—to a very interesting presentation recently. I thought more of it than my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East did. I think that it would be fair to say that he was more critical than I was. I was very enthusiastic about it. The presentation was made by West Midlands Travel, whose representatives were talking about how we could increase the number of people using buses and achieve a major shift from car-driving to bus-using in the conurbation. The presentation was very exciting. I shall not pursue that subject, however, as that is not what we are discussing this evening.
  I want to return to the most important reasons why we should not consider the Bill further. The most important point—I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Yardley wishes to divert us from it—arises from what the hon. Gentleman told the House nearly a year ago. The hon. Gentleman is not even listening, and that is the whole point—Centro will not listen, and its representative in the House will not listen.
  A year ago, the hon. Gentleman told the House that if we gave the Bill a Second Reading, it would proceed to its Committee stage and be fully examined. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, Centro made sure that that did not happen. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said today, Centro made sure that my constituents and other residents could not present their objections to the Committee. With the exception of the hon. Member for Yardley, every hon. Member who spoke in support of the Bill urged and advised Centro to act differently. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East, for

  525
  Walsall, North for Walsall, South—and, I think, even my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East—advised Centro not to use the obscure parliamentary procedure of objecting to the locus standi of residents. The hon. Member for Yardley, who I know gets carried away, misled the House when he said that all the objections were considered by the Committee whose report we are considering. He said that only three petitions went to the Committee. He is right, but of those three petitions, two were not from residents and one put only part of the case of one of the five residents' groups which originally petitioned against the Bill. That was significant, as I shall explain in a moment. The residents of Bromford estate were not allowed to put their case to the Committee, despite what had been said previously.
  Mr. Snape: In my role as assistant or arbiter in these matters, perhaps in fairness to Centro I should explain that when my hon. Friend and I and other hon. Members criticised its decision not to allow my hon. Friend's constituents to present their petition, Centro told me that it had done so because it had received advice from the authorities of the House to the effect that it should interpret the rules as strictly as possible. I paraphrase, but that was basically the story that Centro told me after a similar exchange at an early stage in our proceedings on the Bill.
  Mr. Davis: That is the story that Centro will have told my hon. Friend, but it is not wholly correct. I will explain what Centro meant by "the authorities of the House". The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure drew attention to the locus standi rules, but that does not absolve Centro. Centro told me that it was the fault of Sherwood and Company, the parliamentary agents, and that it had put the Bill in the hands of Sherwood and Company and not in the hands of the hon. Member for Yardley. According to Centro, Sherwood and Company took the decision to challenge the locus standi of my constituents. I was interested to discover, following my research, that only two bodies had used that obscure procedure—Centro and British Rail. Those are the bodies that have tried to stifle the opinions of ordinary people and used the procedure to prevent them from being heard. The implications are tremendous, and to hon. Members they are horrifying. The procedure did not have to be used. No promoter of any other private Bill has tried to stop people presenting their views to the Committee set up for that purpose.
  Mr. George: My hon. Friend has made his case very strongly over the last hour and three quarters. He is very concerned that people should be allowed to express their views. Having listened to him patiently, I should be exceedingly grateful if he would allow other Members to have their say before the debate ends at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Davis: I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to speak before me. I suspected that the hon. Member for Yardley would interrupt—[interruption.]—as indeed he has. I was anxious to give my hon. Friend a chance to speak. [Interruption.] We do not have to finish—the Bill can be carried forward to another date. If we are forced to vote on a closure motion, I shall vote to allow my hon. Friend to have his say.
  526
  I shall not be distracted from making the point that I have to make—that Centro prevented my constituents from presenting their case to the Committee. But that is not all. Earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you asked me about routes. The alternative route suggested by my constituents cannot be considered on the Floor of the House. Centro employed Queen's counsel to prevent ordinary working people from explaining their objections. As a result, the Committee was prevented from considering those objections, and the House is prevented from considering and voting on what my constituents suggest. In addition, I am advised that, because of the actions of Centro, it will be impossible for Members of another place to consider that alternative. I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to the reasons that were given, which are very technical and complicated.
  It is important to note that there has been another development. Earlier, there was a reference to Mr. Tarr, the director general of Centro. Recently, Mr. Tarr went to a meeting to discuss another route—a route in Coventry—to which people had objected. As I have no desire to interfere in other Members' constituencies, I was not present, but I am told that Mr. Tarr explained to the people of Coventry that their views could be heard by the Committee. A constituent of mine, who was present, tells me that he asked, "In that case, why did you prevent the people of Birmingham from having their views considered by the Committee?" He was not given an answer.
  Mr. Snape: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. I have just been reading about the meeting to which he refers. The press cuttings describe that part of Coventry as a yuppie stronghold. I do not know whether that is true, but I am sure that such a description does not fit the portion of my right hon. Friend's constituency to which he refers.
  Mr. Davis: Certainly not—and the constituent to whom I have referred certainly could not be regarded as a yuppie. As secretary of the residents group, he was prevented from explaining the alternative route that my constituents wished to suggest. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the attitude adopted by Centro towards yuppies in Coventry is different from that adopted towards the people of the Bromford estate. That would be outrageous.
  The Committee considered two petitions. I have here a copy of the notes that the Chairman was using when he explained the Committee's decisions. We heard that there were three petitions but one of them was withdrawn. In the case of Foseco, the Committee decided to ask the promoter to devise a new route which would not pass through the site of the factory. Foseco was a business, of course—not a group of residents—and it managed to get to the Committee to persuade it that Centro had behaved so badly that there should be a new route.
  Mr. Bevan: For the sake of accuracy, if the hon. Gentleman has read the papers he must agree that that decision was taken because of the sensitivity of the instruments used in the process. The diversion was agreed for the special reason that it would have been very difficult to move those instruments.
  Mr. Davis: That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman concedes that that action was taken only because of the petition to the Select Committee. Centro had not intended to do anything about Foseco's sensitive

  527
  instruments until the company explained to the Select Committee why its case was so important. That is the point—Centro prevented my constituents from explaining why they were sensitive.
  The hon. Member for Yardley has made much of the sensitive instruments. I care, perhaps more than he does, about the sensitivity of ordinary people. Centro has prevented ordinary people, residents and people whose only investment is in their homes, from explaining their arguments to the Select Committee. Centro knew that that would prevent me from putting a detailed case on my constituents' behalf to the House at this late stage—[Interruption.] I have taken advice from the Clerks about this and they doubt whether my constituents will be able to present an alternative in the other place. That is a direct result of Centro's actions, which are endorsed by the hon. Member for Yardley—the only hon. Member to have condoned Centro's actions.
  This point is important because another group managed to get to the Select Committee. The CARE residents group from Chelmsley Wood, which is not in my constituency, presented half its objections. The Chairman of the Select Committee said:
  "So far as the CARE residents are concerned we have listened most diligently to their case. We were not, however, convinced by their argument that the route should not pass through their area. Nevertheless"—
  this is the key point—
  "we hope to be able to ameliorate the effects of the Bill on the local residents and to this end we seek a number of undertakings from the Promoters".
  Five undertakings are then listed. As a result of CARE's presenting half its case, the people whom it represents have benefited from five undertakings from Centro. However, those undertakings had to be extracted from Centro. My constituents could not get any undertakings. Sherwood and Company is employed by Centro, and it represents Centro just as the hon. Member for Yardley represents Centro. Those people should be ashamed because they have stopped ordinary people from having their views heard by the Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Yardley referred to my earlier comments about the residents, meeting with the chairman of the PTA. I was there and I noted that he said:
  "We have drawn our battle plans and are absolutely entrenched."
  Mr. George: We have heard that before.
  Mr. Davis: We certainly have. The chairman went on:
  "There is no chance of re-routing, not since the Bill was put in Parliament."
  The hon. Member for Yardley has said that my constituents have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with heads of Centro. However, the chairman of Centro—the "top head"—has said that there is no chance of re-routing since the Bill entered Parliament.
  I want to make a special point about the figures to which I am referring. The cost of the proposal from my constituents is £6·5 million. However, the amendment which appears in the promoter's statement today will cost £6 million. One organisation has managed to have its petition heard by the Select Committee and there is an amendment which will cost an additional £6 million. My constituents, however, were thwarted, obstructed and stifled—they could not present their petition to the Select
  528
  Committee for an amendment that would have cost £6·5 million. That is unfair and undemocratic, and it is why we should not allow the Bill to be considered today.
  I repeat that my constituents and I are not opposed to the concept of Metro—just to one small section of the route. We believe that a compromise could have been achieved, whereby my constituents would not have been affected and the Metro would have been allowed to proceed from Birmingham to Solihull. According to the chairman, it is Centro that refused to talk to my constituents, in good faith—and it is Centro that prevented my constituents from putting their case to the Select Committee. It should therefore not be allowed to take the Bill any further today because that is not fair. Centro should be told that it has not behaved properly.
  I do not want to stop the route which goes through Walsall. I understand the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to support that route and I shall not do anything to stop it. So far as I am concerned, that route can go ahead.
  Mr. George: My hon. Friend is vetoing it.
  Mr. Davis: No, I am not vetoing it. Will my hon.Friend say why he thinks that I am doing that? If my hon. Friend were to rise, I should be pleased to hear his point of view.
  Mr. George: I am grateful for the chance to intervene, but I should have much preferred 15 minutes to explain my case. My hon. Friend accuses Centro of preventing free speech, but he has fallen into the trap of doing exactly the same thing.
  Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is mistaken. He has been a Member of the House longer than I have and he should know that I am not stopping him speaking. I say this in all comradeship and friendship. I am not stopping my hon. Friend speaking.
  Mr. George: My hon. Friend has done just that.
  Mr. Davis: No, my hon. Friend has mistaken the procedures of the House. We do not have to vote today. We can go forward and resume the debate. My hon. Friend can then have more than 15 minutes. I should like him to speak. That is why I asked him if he would like to speak before me. I offered to give way before I even started——
  Mr. Bevan rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 9.

  Division No. 76]

  [9.56 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amos, Alan

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon, Michael

  Bellotti, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Gregory, Conal

  529

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Grist, Ian

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hague, William

  Powell. Ray (Ogmore)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Ruddock, Joan

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Harris, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Haynes, Frank

  Short, Clare

  Hill, James

  Snape, Peter

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stern, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stevens, Lewis

  Irvine, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Janman, Tim

  Summerson, Hugo

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Turner, Dennis

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Waller, Gary

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Watts, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Mans, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maples, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Michael, Alun

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Mr. Roger King and Mr. Bruce George.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Mr. Terry Davis and Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question.)
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 28 February.

  Midland Metro Bill (By Order)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day
  Representation of the People Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Representation of the People Bill
    New Clause 2

      AUDIT OF PAYMENTS TO RETURNING OFFICERS (No. 2)
      '(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After section 29 there shall be inserted
      "(29A) Where any payments are made to a Returning Officer under section 29 of this Act for charges in respect of services properly rendered or expenses properly incurred for or in connection with a Parliamentary election then any such payment relating to a service or expense of any specified description for which no maximum recoverable amount has been specified by the Treasury under subsection (3) of section 29 of this Act shall be audited by the National Audit Office and a report of the audit including details of the payments made shall be presented to the House of Commons.".'—[Dr. Marek.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.5 pm
      Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As a result of the preceding vote, I fear that if hon. Members speak at length on Government business, the Whips will have to do some telephoning around to make sure that they get to bed at a reasonable hour. However, the Bill is not very contentious. I hope that the Government will see some sense in the new clauses and amendments which we have tabled and which we shall debate. If the Government are willing to help, I have no intention of keeping the House a moment longer than is necessary.
      New clause 2 is a scrutiny clause to ensure that the House can be satisfied that any expenses and charges paid to returning officers are properly audited. The Bill removes the maximum that can be paid under certain headings to acting returning officers and returning officers for parliamentary elections. Where the maximum is not available, the House must have some form of scrutiny to check that money which has been spent has been spent reasonably. We made some progress on that in Committee. I congratulate the Government because it is clear that if any hon. Member wishes to put down a question relating to his or a nearby constituency about what was spent at a parliamentary election, the Treasury is happy to give the answer under the precise headings given in the regulations detailing expenses.
      However, we need to know more—scrutiny is only the first part. The House will want to know that the sums have been audited and are reasonable expenses or charges. There is a general duty on the National Audit Office to examine anything spent from the Consolidated Fund. I do not know in how much detail the National Audit Office examines the accounts of acting returning officers and returning officers. It may examine them closely, but I doubt it. I think it plucks out one account and examines it. That is a well-known strategem which may work. But there is no harm in spending time examining in detail accounts rendered by acting returning officers as general elections do not happen very frequently. In the past 10 years we have had elections about every four years.

      531
      I shall give some reasons why the accounts should be rendered. The Government supplied every Committee member with examples of the highest and lowest expenditure for each sub-head at the 1987 general election. The list is not exhaustive and I shall list the details provided. Under heading B5, returning officers' travelling overnight subsistence expenses can be claimed. The highest claim of £264·58 was made by the acting returning officer at Cirencester and Tewkesbury. No claims were made from Harlow.
      10.15 pm
      I imagine that, in some constituencies, acting returning officers would need to have overnight subsistence and travelling expenses but not, surely, in Cirencester and Tewkesbury. That does not mean that I think the claim was improper—I do not know. I might have expected it from a large constituency such as Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, but where the constituency is compact, I raise my eyebrows at such a figure. Why should the claim for Cirencester and Tewkesbury be £264·58 when no money is spent in Harlow?
      Section B6 provides for presiding officers' and poll clerks' subsistence expenses. The highest figure in the 1987 election was in the constituency of Tatton, where the Consolidated Fund was debited £2,756·25. But in Preston constituency, which is not far away, no claim was made against the Consolidated Fund. Does that mean that the acting returning officer was not looking after his staff and not providing them with subsistence expenses so that they had to bring their own sandwiches, whereas in Tatton Harrods hampers and bottles of champagne were delivered? I do not know. I am merely asking the question, which is not one into which I or any hon. Member would specifically want to inquire. However, it should be considered by the National Audit Office, and the new clause seeks to provide for that.
      For clerical assistants' subsistence expenses, the highest claim came from Tottenham—£707·15. No claim was made in Gelding. For printing and providing ballot papers, the claim in Berkshire, East was £2,780·70. In Copeland it was only £609·50. That difference might be explained by different methods of printing, or perhaps Copeland has its own printing press whereas Berkshire, East has not. An explanation should be given, or at least we should be satisfied that the National Audit Office has gone into the matter accurately and that, in its view, the figures for Berkshire, East and Copeland are acceptable. I do not know whether the NAO looks into the figures or simply picks a few at random from the 650 constituencies.
      Printing and providing poll cards in Stroud cost £3,803 whereas in Fylde it cost only £101·1. While the constituencies are not greatly different in size, that was a huge differential in costs and claims made against the Consolidated Fund.
      For printing notices about the election, in Staffordshire, South-East it cost £2,744·34, whereas in Canterbury one might think that the returning officer did not want his constituents to know about the elections because he claimed only £56. For renting rooms for electoral purposes, the cost in Hornsey and Wood Green was £6,709·15 whereas in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale the claim was only £536·61.
      The cost of adapting and fitting rooms in Hornsey and Wood Green was £27,067·94, whereas Banbury claimed only £50. One might have thought that Hornsey and
      532
      Wood Green would have built some new classrooms on the strength of the Consolidated Fund or at least redone the local committee chambers. I would hope that that figure was spotted by the NAO and certified as being reasonable.
      I repeat that I am not casting doubts on the reasonableness of any of the figures. I hope that the Economic Secretary can assure us that, when the figures appear high, questions are asked to ensure that they are reasonable.
      For repairing and providing ballot boxes, the claim was £1,984·30 in Falmouth and Camborne and nil in Gelding.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain the relevance of Gelding as opposed to Gedling?
      Dr. Marek: I am referring to Gelding, not Gedling.
      Mr. Arnold: If the hon. Gentleman feels that Gelding is so important, will he say where it is?
      Dr. Marek: I dare say it is somewhere in England. Being a Welsh Member, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not knowing precisely where it is. If it turns out to be Gedling, he will have to address his strictures to the Economic Secretary because I am reading from a Treasury paper. Should it be Gedling—I still do not know where it is, though it must be somewhere in the south-east of England—I compliment it on making a nil claim for the second time.
      It was stated in Committee that the claim in Slough for transporting ballot boxes and ballot papers was £4,079·86, while at the other end of the scale, in Alyn and Deeside, it was £1·27. What happened there? Did the returning officer tell the presiding officers at the polling stations, "You must pack up the ballot boxes when you have finished with them?"
      Sir William Clark: Really!
      Dr. Marek: These are important matters. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who has taken part in many Finance Bill debates, would not wish to gloss over significant variations in figures and would want to know why such differences occurred.
      Slough spent £4,079·86, whereas Alyn and Deeside spent £1·27. Fylde spent £573·38 on stamping instruments, but Calder Valley spent £2·47. In Halton, no charge for copies of the electoral register was made against the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Harwich £140 was spent. We should not capriciously debit the Consolidated Fund. If it is debited, it should be for a good purpose. Finally. miscellaneous expenses——
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is this final?
      Dr. Marek: It is the final matter in the list, but it is not the end of my speech.
      Slough had miscellaneous expenses of £9,656·83, whereas Halton spent £22·42. It seems that some constituencies carefully husband their resources, but I do not suggest that they should do so at the expense of providing comfortable working conditions for staff and convenience for the electors. I have not been to Slough, but perhaps it is a dangerous place and it may be necessary to engage taxis to take staff home at night. Plainly, Alyn and

      533
      Deeside is not a dangerous place because the returning officer there feels that there is no risk in transporting ballot boxes.
      There are wide variations in the list, and they cannot be explained by saying that constituencies are diverse. There must be another explanation; and if there is, it must be unusual and must relate to circumstances that arise at a particular time. The National Audit Office should look at individual expenses to make sure that they are reasonable. [ Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just entered the Chamber, so I now have some support.
      The clause is tightly drawn because we do not want to put the National Audit Office under great pressure. It asks that the National Audit Office should look at any payments
      "relating to a service or expense of any specified description for which no maximum recoverable amount has been specified by the Treasury under subsection (3) of section 29 of this Act … "—
      that is, the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill makes changes to the 1983 Act and the new clause is sensible and sober. It does not ask for much, and I look forward to the Government's acceptance of it.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made an interesting speech. I cannot explain all the differences in the expenses that he outlined. He mentioned transport costs. I think that in Alyn and Deeside the ballot boxes must have been taken on the bus; and, clearly, in urban constituencies some people are not willing to work late at night unless taxis are provided to take them home. The fitting out of election rooms often occurs because local authorities have become increasingly reluctant to disrupt schools for a whole day. That means that other premises have to be found, rented and fitted out.
      The present system of checking expenses is that no payment can be made from the Consolidated Fund without the approval of the National Audit Office and the Treasury. That is a statutory requirement. The National Audit Office also audits the Consolidated Fund. We think that that scrutiny is adequate.
      If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would cause considerable administrative problems. Fewer than 50 per cent. of the expenditure headings would have maxima attached to them, meaning that about 20 expenditure headings would be subject to the procedure set out in this clause, multiplied by 650 constituencies. We are talking about a lot of specific checks and information.
      The Government's view is that it would be expensive to administer, involving a lot of extra work, which would be difficult to justify, and the publishing of much information which, I suspect, eventually, nobody would read. Additionally, there would be a delay of between one and two years. As there is a general election only every four or five years, the work on checking those expenses and details is spread out over a year or two, and the information, if it were published, would necessarily be published somewhat late.
      I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman in Committee that, should any hon. Member wish to know the details of the expenditure in any constituency, this
      534
      could be achieved by tabling a parliamentary question. The hon. Gentleman did that in respect of his own constituency.
      If the functions were transferred under this Bill from the Treasury to the Home Departments, which is a possibility envisaged by clause 1(4) of the Bill, the system would change slightly; payments under these regulations would be administered by the Home Departments, so what would be transferred from the Consolidated Fund would be blocks of money rather than payments of specific headings of expense. Those could be transferred only with the approval of the National Audit Office and the Treasury, but individual payments to constituencies would be made by the Home Departments concerned which would be responsible for checking the individual payments, subject to later audit by the NAO. This is the usual system of public expenditure control.
      The National Audit Office is responsible to Parliament for producing accounts for these Departments and for the Consolidated Fund. The Public Accounts Committee could look into these activities if it wanted to.
      I hope that I have succeeded in persuading the House that adding this clause to the Bill would cause administrative delays, and would serve no useful purpose and that existing scrutiny is adequate.
      Question put and negatived.
      Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Question on the new clause was put twice. On the first occasion only aye was shouted, so why was the Question put again?
      Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not follow the loud example of Opposition Members by shouting. I said no.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That dispute had better be resolved by hon. Members.

    Clause 1

      CHARGES FOR RETURNING OFFICERS' SERVICES AND EXPENSES
      10.30 pm
      Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, at end add
      'but subject to the condition that any fees paid to any Returning Officer or Acting Returning Officer for conducting a combined poll will be no higher than what would have been the higher of the individual fees paid had the elections not been combined'.
      The amendment seeks to achieve greater fairness. Hon. Members will know that acting returning officers and returning officers receive a specified fee for conducting parliamentary and general elections. The fee for conducting parliamentary elections is about £1,000 and the acting returning officer in an average constituency receives about £1,100. For European elections the fee is much higher. Statutory instrument 995 on the representation of the people, which came into force on 13 June 1989, shows that for conducting a European parliamentary constituency election a returning officer receives at least £6,760, to which various emoluments are added. Returning officers at European elections would perhaps receive about £7,500.

      535
      Returning officers have a fully inclusive salary from their local authorities, and I do not think that they forgo any of that at any stage. On 23 January I asked the Home Secretary
      "whether for the 1987 general election any chief executive of a local authority (a) refused appointment as an acting returning officer or (b) took unpaid leave from their authority in order to carry out the function of an acting returning officer."
      The Minister of State, Home Office, replied:
      "Chief executives of local authorities in England and Wales who are acting returning officers are not directly appointed to that office: they have a statutory responsibility to carry out the duties of acting returning officers by virtue of the fact that they are electoral registration officers appointed by a district or London borough council."
      Because they are appointed electoral registration officers, they automatically become acting returning officers. The Minister went on to say:
      "We are not aware of any chief executive who took unpaid leave in order to carry out the duties of acting returning officer at the last general election."—[Official Report, 23 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 185.]
      However, it is clear that there are constituencies where, if one is not an acting returning officer or returning officer but a presiding officer or poll clerk, one's pay is docked for the day because a poll clerk receives the princely sum of £50 or so and a presiding officer receives, I think, £84.
      That does not seem to be fair. If people are paid an extra fee, so be it, although I am not sure that I am convinced of the rightness of that, but I do not see why, if there is a combined poll, that fee should be further increased. Schedule 2 of the statutory instrument relates to the scale of maximum charges in respect of services rendered and expenses incurred by returning officers for specified functions at combined polls. Where the returning officer conducts a parliamentary election on the same day as a European parliamentary election, the fee is £217. That is just the fee, but there are disbursements in addition. I do not think that there can be an argument for paying that sum, although it is small.
      I am glad that the Minister agreed in Committee to consider again combined polls and fees paid. I hope that he has done so. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
      Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he would return to the question. What he suggests is that, when two polls are conducted on the same day, the returning officer should receive only the higher of the two fees. We believe that the returning officer should receive more than the higher fee but less than the total of the two combined. There is more work involved in running a combined poll, but obviously less than in running two separate polls. The returning officer has more complicated arrangements to make for polling stations, counting ballots and the co-ordination and liaison of two polls being conducted at the same time on the same day in the same polling stations.
      There are considerable complications in deciding exactly how the fees should be arranged in the circumstances of a combined poll. For instance, a returning officer might be the returning officer in both elections or he might be the returning officer in only one election.
      The fees paid to returning officers in local government elections are set and paid not by the Government, but by local authorities. In some cases they may be incorporated in the returning officer's salary. The duties may be part of
      536
      his contract. They are more usually reimbursed with an additional and separate fee. The fees are agreed informally by local authorities. Most local authorities pay according to the scale that they have agreed.
      There is the inter-action of three sets of fees—parliamentary, European and local elections fees—together with the different combinations of returning officers' duties. The same person could be returning officer in the parliamentary and the European elections, or the returning officer in only one. In the case of the parliamentary election, the returning officer could be returning officer for more than one parliamentary election within the same Euro-constituency or the same local authority.
      We recognise the concern over the matter. Large fees are involved. It is clear that people should not get two fees. The hon. Gentleman's probing has thrown up anomalies in the regulations. There are no regulations which deal with parliamentary elections being combined with local elections. When the new regulations are introduced, we will deal with the problem. I cannot say exactly how we will do so, but we will make sure that a returning officer receives an appropriate amount more than the higher fee, but considerably less than both fees together.
      In the case of a Euro-election, I am afraid that the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not make the provision which I have described as being the Government's policy. They allow for both fees to be paid, with the £217 in addition. That is a mistake. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for illuminating the mistake which we will put right. Those regulations will also be amended to make sure that practice is in line with policy, which would be that a sum appropriately in excess of the higher fee would be paid, but on no account would both fees combined be paid. On absolutely no account would a supplement in excess of both fees be paid.
      I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
      Dr. Marek: I am glad to have been of some service to the Treasury. What the Minister said has been illuminating. There are, indeed, no regulations about parliamentary elections combined with local elections. What the Minister has said cheers me up. I think that we will get our financial business right as a result. It shows that the debate has been worthwhile.
      In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
      `(3A) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
      "(6) No superannuation contributions will be required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
      `(3A) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
      "(6) No superannuation contributions shall be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.".'.
      Dr. Marek: These amendments deal with superannuation. The House will know that payments made to acting returning officers and to returning officers are superannuable. I shall not repeat our arguments in Committee, but general concern was expressed there about this practice for fees for elections. Conservative Members pointed out that the pensions of returning officers who retired after a spate of elections would be increased, while the pensions of returning officers who retired perhaps after four or five years without an election, or with only one election, would not be increased. It was felt that that was inherently unfair, and that there was an element of chance when an acting returning officer retired.
      I would go further, as I do not think that such payments should be superannuable. The claim would again be against the Consolidated Fund. Returning officers have a good salary—as they should—and are well paid for the job that they do. Clearly, as they are appointed electoral registration officers and necessarily become acting returning officers, it could be said that the latter duties should be part of their duties on behalf of the local authority and that they should carry them out for nothing.
      That is not the position and the history is somewhat different. However, it is unnecessary for any fees to be superannuable. It causes a lot of administration and introduces an element of chance. We could well do without it and I recommend to the Economic Secretary that the Treasury should save its money and keep the Consolidated Fund in a healthy surplus.
      The two amendments differ slightly. The first states that:
      "No superannuation contributions will be required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person",
      giving the option to the local authority, if it so wished, to pay a superannuable contribution to the fee. Nevertheless, the amendment also states that
      "no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose."
      It is a permissive amendment, but it protects the Consolidated Fund from any depredations by way of superannuation contributions.
      Amendment No. 2 is a little more strict and states that:
      "No superannuation contributions shall be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section … and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose."
      As I am a generous person, I have given the Economic Secretary a choice this time. He can accept either amendment, and I shall be delighted to hear which it is.
      Mr. Maples: This is another matter that was raised in Committee and to which we said that we would return on Report. I am gratified by the interest of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) in the health of the Consolidated Fund. I wish that his interest were shared by some of his colleagues, and sometimes by some of mine.
      The question of superannuation is difficult. We discussed it in Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee expressed the view that payments should not be superannuable. I said in Committee that I would do two things. First, I would let the House know what procedure was necessary to change the arrangement and whether it was necessary to amend the Superannuation Act 1972, or whether this could be achieved by amending the 1986 regulations. It can be done by changing the regulations.
      538
      I said also that I would look into the matter and take it further within the Government. This subject really concerns the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, telling him of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on this issue and suggesting that it is appropriate to look into the matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham will understand that it is more complex than it appears on the surface. Therefore, I am not in a position to give him the Government's considered view at present, but I shall do so when a decision has been reached.
      The amendments would simply stop the contributions. The fees would remain superannuable, under the 1986 regulations: the employee—in this case the returning officer—would have to make his contribution, but one of the amendments would stop the local authority from making its contribution while the other would give it the right not to do so if it so wished. In neither case would the authority be reimbursed from the Consolidated Fund.
      The pension rights of the returning officer would remain in place, but part of the funding would be removed. We do not consider that that is the right way to deal with the matter. If the House decided that it wanted to deal with it by ensuring that such payments would not be superannuable in the future, the right way to do so would be to amend the 1986 regulations.
      10.45 pm
      That would be a complex process, and would involve questions of fairness. Some people who have acted as returning officers for some time will have been paying money into their local authorities' pension funds for several years, and that arrangement could not suddenly change: transitional arrangements would be needed. We all take a great interest in our own pension arrangements, and I suspect that local authority chief executives and others who act as returning officers take an equal interest.
      The views expressed in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House have been communicated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are considering the matter, and I will inform the hon. Member for Wrexham as soon as we form a view.
      Dr. Marek: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I assure him that the Opposition did not intend to deprive anyone of benefits that have already been agreed to, and which people expect to gain when they retire. The Minister is quite right: it is not a simple matter to table an amendment in the way in which we have sought to do. I readily accept that ours are defective.
      I shall wait with interest to see what happens. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Maples.]
      10.47 pm
      Dr. Marek: The Bill has not taken too much of the House's time. In Committee, it took us a single sitting to go through a number of amendments, as a result of which certain things will happen that would not have happened

      539
      without our debate. This is, I think, an example of parliamentary deliberations improving a Bill. I hope that the Bill is now in a fit state to be added to the statute book.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Ordered,
    That Mr. Nicholas Winterton be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Territorial Army
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: Let me say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is replying to the debate—accompanied by his parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). Many hon. Members are interested in this subject, however—including, I believe, your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I number among those who are present my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Winchester (Mr. Browne), for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
  The gravity of the situation in the Gulf has again highlighted the need for the United Kingdom to retain an adequate military capability. The response to recent events has illustrated the Army's ability to meet the challenge of the unexpected in a magnificent manner while it continues to fulfil its roles in Northern Ireland, Belize, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and many other parts of the globe.
  However, to meet this new demand our forces in north-west Europe and in the United Kingdom have been stripped both of men and of material. But for the lessening of tension in Europe, I doubt whether we should have been able to respond. Even so, we have had to recall individual reservists and have enlisted nearly 1,000 territorial soldiers in support of Operation Granby. This includes those who have had to volunteer for service on a regular engagement in order to ensure that they could take part.
  There is a large element of the Territorial Army general hospital deployed to the Gulf—namely, 205 General Hospital from Glasgow, along with individuals from many regiments and corps. Of course, they would all have preferred to be deployed as part of their own units, but, because the TA has not been embodied, many have volunteered as individuals.
  The House will also be interested to know that in addition to those TA soldiers who have enlisted their services in support of operations in the Gulf, many have been employed during their normal training periods in this country in various roles directly in support of those operations. A number of TA personnel have been instructing regular service men in a variety of special skills prior to their deployment.
  The House will be aware that regular reservists are ex-regular soldiers who have a statutory liability to serve, while the territorials are all volunteers. Many members of the Territorial Army are clearly disappointed that they have not been called upon to contribute to the operation in view of what in recent years has been referred to as the "one Army" concept.
  Here I should mention that those reservists who have responded and have been successful in going have been supported magnificently by their employers in every case. I think that we should acknowledge that, and I hope that the Department will in due course write individually to those employers expressing thanks.
  542
  The disappointment of territorial soldiers is increased by the knowledge that so many of the regular Army units serving in the Gulf have had to be brought up to strength from other units and individual reservists. Nevertheless, it is heartening to know that our volunteers who have in the past so often come to the defence of our country still feel that same sense of loyalty.
  We have rightly hoped for a peace dividend with the advent of glasnost and it was with this in mind that the Secretary of State announced in the House on 25 July 1990 his intention to conduct studies into "Options for Change" for defence. In his statement, he said:
  "volunteer reserves will continue to play a key role, and we wish to consider the appropriate numbers for the future, having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention."—[Official Report, 25 July 1990; Vol. 177, c.472.]
  His more recent statement on 22 January indicated that the studies on "Options for Change" would take account of the changes in eastern Europe and the Gulf operations. The House may not be aware that, despite those statements, an exercise continues within the Ministry of Defence aimed at drastic reductions in the TA. The feeling among many of those concerned is that the cuts proposed are such that they could in the long term mean the demise of the Territorial Army as we know it today.
  That would seem unbelievable when comparing the relative costs of the territorial and regular forces. In the plans for the support of NATO, the TA provided one third of the Army at only 6 per cent. of its total cost. The cost of a volunteer is about one seventh of that of a regular soldier.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the need for a reduction in the services after the Gulf war, terrorism will not go away and, therefore, the need for the Territorial Army to be available at stations and airports will grow, and that it would be folly for this exercise within the Ministry to continue?
  Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate for making that important point; it is one which we must consider seriously.
  If we are to recruit, train and retain an adequate number of volunteer soldiers, they must feel that they belong to a worthwhile organisation. That will not be the case if we reduce their units to skeleton strength and split them up in war among previously unknown commanders. Nor shall we encourage a healthy community spirit if we organise them on a central rather than a territorial basis, with a lesser training commitment. That has already been demonstrated by the difficulty experienced in recruiting for the home service force, which had that lesser commitment. If we take that course, we shall lose many of our volunteers and find it difficult to attract the quality of recruits required.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I have recently returned from a drill night with a home service force unit, at which we were told that the number of man training days next year is to be reduced by a quarter.
  Mr. Thorne: I hope that that is only a temporary measure, as the importance of proper training for the TA is vital.
  Mr. John Greenway: The community feature of the Territorial Army is especially important the further away from London one is. There is a loyalty to the unit and the cap badge, and to the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that loyalty were lost, many would not bother to join the TA in the first place?
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks.
  While military operations will remain the prime role of the Territorial Army, I see tremendous scope for employment in support of the civil community, especially in the event of national disasters such as the Lockerbie air and Clapham rail tragedies. The House will be aware that Territorial Army volunteers played a valuable part at Lockerbie and were some of the first on the scene of the accident.
  The present spread of Territorial Army units across the country provides, at little cost, a framework in the community to maintain an awareness of our defence responsibilities. It provides a source for utilising the energies of young people who wish to serve their country, but would not necessarily wish to be part of the regular forces. Many of those who join to get a taste of military life later transfer to the regular forces.
  The large network of TA units plays a valuable part in any community and, along with our cadet forces, instils a sense of discipline and civic responsibility in our young men and women.
  I am concerned that the Ministry of Defence, faced with inadequate resources for its regular forces, will take decisions about the Territorial Army, as it did in 1967, that might be justified against the precise military needs of today, but which are contrary to the wider and longer- term interests of the nation and which once implemented would be almost impossible to reverse.
  As we pull forces out of Germany, there will be great difficulties in providing accommodation and training areas for an adequate regular army, quite apart from the pressures on defence spending. That is all the more reason for retaining a strong TA. These citizen soldiers are high calibre, well-motivated people whose training standards can be quickly improved in time of tension—and we can expect more warning time now that the Warsaw pact has crumbled.
  The success of the United States in mobilising many members of the National Guard and reserves, and the political backing that this has received, helps to prove that reserves can make a most valuable contribution in a variety of circumstances.
  The nationwide spread of the TA is an important element in its continuing effectiveness. The benefits to those who train in the TA help to make up for the lack of national service in bringing the benefits of military training to many more of our young people than could ever join the regular forces. Indeed, the TA provides a valuable link between the military and the community as a whole and promotes an awareness of defence requirements.
  However, if the figures said to be under consideration are true—a reduction from an establishment of 86,000 to a possible 51,000—the TA might not be sustainable. The reduction of an infantry battalion to cadre size, while retaining cap badges, for example, does not provide either the challenge or the esprit de corps that will attract the volunteer.
  Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend's active support of the TA is well known. Does he agree that the TA offers flexibility of manning as well as of spending for the Army, both of which are extremely important? If we use the TA, we can spend more on the essential battlefield oxygen of logistics. We are learning how important that is in the Gulf, in a modern high-intensity battlefield. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation surrounding Queen's order No. 2 is too inflexible and that the Government are not able to use the TA to best advantage?
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This is a matter which ought to be looked into. In my view, there will be an increasing role for the TA. Unless we explore all avenues, we shall not get the maximum benefit.
  The argument that the recruited strength of the Territorial Army is only 71,000 and that, therefore, the reduction would not be serious is incorrect, in that a reduction to 51,000 would lead to a reduction in the actual strength of about 40,000. It is, of course, essential that the strength of senior officers and non-commissioned officers be maintained so that in times of emergency there is a firm base on which to build.
  How does the proposed reduction in the Territorial Army, together with the reductions that have already taken place in the funding of training, square with the statement of the Secretary of State on 25 July that greater use is to be made of the reserves? Can the House be assured that the Government accept that an effective TA recruited widely across the country is of vital importance to the life of the nation, that no proposals for the reduction of the Territorial Army have been agreed by the Army Board and, moreover, that any decisions on its future size and shape will be delayed until after the conclusion of operations in the Gulf when the lessons of that conflict have been analysed?
  11.1 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on obtaining this debate. The fuure of the TA is, I know, a matter of great interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  This country has a long history, spanning centuries, of part-time volunteer soldiering. When the present Territorial Army was formed in the early years of this century, many units had their origins in the infantry and yeomanry that had been raised in Napoleonic times. The Territorials have fought with distinction in two world wars, and the TA is making a significant contribution to the current operation in the Gulf—a contribution to which my hon. Friend alluded. All those members of the TA serving in the Gulf volunteered to do so, and I know that the House will wish to join me in thanking them for their selfless contribution to the effort to liberate Kuwait.
  The Territorial Army has changed much since its inception as the territorial force in 1908. In the years following the second world war, it retained a peacetime organisation based on complete reserve divisions, but with the end of conscription in the 1960s it became clear that this organisation was no longer appropriate and the divisions were disbanded in 1967.
  In the following years a major reorganisation was accomplished to form the basis of the TA that we know

  545
  today. Both teeth arms and support units became integrated into the command structure alongside the regular Army and asssumed key roles in major NATO and home defence commitments. Standards of training and equipment were raised, and the TA was moulded into a force with professional standards of which they and we can be justly proud.
  It is worth recalling that the Territorial Army has a number of distinct elements. The great majority—over 75 per cent.—are members of independent units. These units are based in their own TA centres, usually in the cities or town, where they train, and they recruit locally. They are supported by their own permanent staff, who include regular personnel, in training and administration.
  About 15 per cent. of the TA are members of specialist units. These units are trained and administered by a central volunteer headquarters of their own arm or service, which will be regular headquarters. These volunteers are recruited on a countrywide basis, and usually have a civilian occupation similar or identical to their military occupation.
  The home service force to which my hon. Friend referred, is the most recent part of the TA. It was first raised as a pilot scheme in September 1982. That scheme involving four HSF companies and fewer than 400 volunteers, was so successful that it was expanded to 47 companies. These units are recruited locally from those with previous service experience, like my hon. Friend, and I am pleased to say that recruiting over the past year has gone very well, with more than 500 new members.
  The Government have always been conscious of the important part that the volunteer reserves play in the defence of the country and we have therefore been committed to building on those improvements. We believe that high standards play a vital role in maintaining the essential public support for the TA.
  I remind the House that some 10 years ago when the situation in eastern Europe was far different from what we see today, this Government took steps to increase the size of the volunteer reserves. The TA grew in strength by some 20 per cent. in the early 1980s and throughout that decade the Territorial Army stood ready, on mobilisation, to provide a quarter of the Army's mobilised strength. More than 70 per cent. of the TA has had a NATO role. Formed units of the TA have provided more than 50 per cent. of the Army's infantry and medical support, and more than 60 per cent. of logistic support in the reinforcement of NATO. The remaining TA, including the home service force, has important home defence roles, guarding installations, reconnaissance duties and providing communications. Over this period, the visible strength and effectiveness of the TA made an important contribution to the maintenance of deterrence and the preservation of peace and stability in Europe.
  During the 1980s, the TA was re-equipped with much of the most modern fighting equipment used by the regular Army. Its role was also expanded with the creation of a TA helicopter squadron. Another change of significance during this period has been the growth in numbers of female volunteers for the TA, reflecting the much better career possibilities that are now available to women throughout the regular and reserve forces. We will continue to encourage that trend in the future.
  546
  I also remind the House that the Government initiated the national employers' liaison committee which, under the leadership of Mr. Tommy Macpherson, has had great success in encouraging major employers to support those members of their staff who wish to serve in the volunteer reserves.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No Conservative Member doubts the support that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government have given to the TA and my hon. Friend the Minister has given an adequate account of what has happened. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who spoke so eloquently, referred to the present. He said that he was extremely concerned about a movement afoot in the Ministry of Defence to indulge in an inquiry that would weaken the TA. That is why there are so many Conservative Members in the Chamber tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us about that.
  Mr. Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that I will refer to that point later. I am sorry if he thinks that I am trying to duck the issue; I am not.
  This initiative has now reached the point where well over half the country's work force have employers who have pledged their support and the process has not ended. Emphasis is now being given to this work continuing at regional level where the smaller employers, perhaps, have an even greater appreciation of how they can gain from the military training that the volunteer reservist receives. Teamwork, self-discipline, self-reliance and clear communication are all of real value in the civilian workplace and provide living proof of the fact that there is a genuine partnership between the reserves and civilian employers. I also express my thanks and appreciation to employers who have shown full understanding of our need to call out their staff for the Gulf operations and this includes not only the volunteer reserves, but those ex-regulars whose engagements include a reserve liability.
  Retention is, of course, a key issue in the maintenance of a reasonably experienced and skilled volunteer reserve force, particularly one that seeks to meet the challenges posed by the complex roles and tasks required of it by the modern British Army. At present some 75 per cent. of TA recruits leave within three years of joining, 30 per cent. within their first year. Clearly, this is not satisfactory. We are already seeing signs that the liaison committee's activities are helping in this area, but it is also vital that the TA itself is made as attractive as possible to the individual volunteer. Pay and bounty arrangements are obviously important, and we have introduced several initiatives aimed particularly at helping those who found that, perhaps temporarily, they have not been able to offer the full commitment to the reserves which the training schedules demand. We continue to explore what further improvements are possible and we are about to look, with the help of TA officers who are management consultants in their business lives, at how we can increase the efficiency of our training in the hope that we can both reduce the annual commitment and make the training more fulfilling and enjoyable.
  The Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations—the TAVRAs—are the regional organisations which have very important functions in administering the volunteer reserves and in advising the

  547
  Ministry of Defence. Their committees are composed of individuals with long experience of the TA who willingly give up much of their time in the interests of the reserve forces. I assure the House that their contribution is valued and listened to closely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South mentioned the role of the TA in the current operation. Some 570 TA personnel have volunteered to be called out for service during the Gulf emergency. The vast majority are medical specialists, manning 205 general hospital in Saudi Arabia—a vital element in our casualty treatment arrangements in the Gulf. Some hon. Members will probably be surprised that. more TA members have not been called out—my hon. Friend mentioned this—and I know that there would have been many more volunteers ready to serve if asked, but the regular Army has been able to meet the vast majority of our manpower requirements for the operation and it is only right that we should look to them first before calling on the reserves.
  In opening this debate, my hon. Friend looked to the future of the TA. As one who has served in the TA and has always taken an interest in its fortunes, he will recall that emphasis has been given in recent years to the "one Army" concept, which seeks to underline the fact that the regulars and the TA are not separate armies, but come together and are integrated into one structure at a time of mobilisation. He will also recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was able to make a statement to the House last summer—again, he mentioned this—which announced that, in the light of the very fundamental changes which had been taking place in eastern Europe, he was setting in train studies on "Options for Change' for defence. It follows from the "one Army" approach that any examination of the size, role and structure of the regular Army must also look at the contribution to be made by the Territorial Army. However, as we have made clear, the conflict in the Gulf has implications for the options work and it would be quite inappropriate to take final decisions on the size and shape of the Army's front-line forces or the reserves until the lessons of the conflict are clearer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] My hon. Friends would not expect me to rule out change in the TA, but I give an assurance that, despite rumours to the contrary, no final decisions have been taken.
  However, we are clear that the TA will continue to play a crucial part in meeting our defence needs and that it will retain a prominent role within the Army. We are also confident that the TA will be able to keep abreast of the challenges of developing battlefield technology and to apply its accustomed dedication and enthusiasm in its training. As ever, the size of the volunteer pool will be an important factor in the future of the organisation.
  548
  In determining the future roles, account must be taken of the limitations of part-time service offered by the volunteer, but, at the same time, the role must be challenging to the individual. The volunteer's motivation and sense of purpose must be sustained. We are well aware that there are other pressures on the spare time of a volunteer. He must take into account the impact of his civilian employment and the needs of his family. We must understand that the volunteer may wish to pursue other interests in his spare time. We must not, therefore, seek over-commitment to the TA and we must use some ingenuity in balancing the time that we can reasonably expect of a volunteer, seek to use that time usefully, efficiently and imaginatively, and produce the required level of preparedness.
  The TA of the future must reflect its name and be truly territorial. There are already many TA centres—over 500 in all—whch give a sizeable presence in every county. We must take account of the existing spread of assets in deciding our future deployment. We must also look at population trends and listen carefully to the advice of the TAVRAs in determining the most propitious recruiting areas.
  We believe it to be important that there must be more effective co-operation between the regular Army and the TA. We will be looking to the possibility of developing closer links between regular and TA units which would help the status of the TA.
  The support of the nation is fundamental to the maintenance of a viable and well-recruited TA. I have already mentioned the invaluable part played by the national employer liaison committee, which we have decided will run on after the initial five-year period that we agreed in 1988. But it is not only the support of employers that is required. The volunteer ethos must be encouraged and nourished and we must also continue to gain and retain the support of families and peer groups.
  I hope that what I have said will show the House that the Government have a high regard for the Territorial Army. I know that some hon. Members who have served in the TA or who have taken particular interest in their local units may on occasion wish us to do more.
  While it is too early to say what the future holds, I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to listen carefully to the many friends of the TA who express their views—as we have heard this evening—with force and clarity. Indeed, I assure the House that we attach the greatest value to the role of the TA as an efficient force, a truly territorial force, and one that plays and will continue to play an essential element in our national defence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternative solutions to the problem of traffic congestion on the M62 motorway were considered and rejected in favour of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Chope
  Expanding capacity by widening of the existing motorway; reducing demand for the road by limiting access to the motorway for local traffic or encouraging alternative modes of transport.

  Bus Lanes, Westminster
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on what action is to be taken to enforce no parking in bus lanes in Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Enforcement is entirely a matter for the police. My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to intervene in the way suggested.

  Airport Congestion
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the study that his predecessor commissioned on ways in which the system for allocating slots at congested airports might be improved.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The consultants, SD-Scicon UK Ltd, have completed stage one of the study. I have placed copies of their report in the Library of the House and shall be circulating it to interested parties.

  The consultants have identified a number of options for allocating slots which could merit further study and have developed a technique for standardising the assessment of different methods.

  Breakdown (by programme) of DOE expenditure in Y and H region

  (£ million)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911 forecast outturn

  1991–92 estimate

  Rate Support Grant/Revenue Support Grant

  1,176·30

  1,278·20

  1,325·40

  1,305·80

  888·10

  n/a

  Housing Investment Programme Allocations

  125·30

  124·30

  123–70

  106·30

  186·70

  188·90

  Housing Subsidies

  0·29

  0·27

  Nil

  Nil

  256·73

  n/a

  UDG/URG/City Grant Approvals

  2·09

  3·67

  33·32

  7·54

  37·74

  n/a

  Urban Programme

  n/a

  24·08

  24·10

  26·88

  27·96

  29·32

  Urban Development Corporations

  n/a

  n/a

  10·60

  18·25

  33·00

  25·00

  Gypsy grants

  0·69

  0·31

  0·70

  0·26

  1·45

  2·00

  City Action Team

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0·76

  0·85

  194
  I have asked the consultants to proceed to stage two of their study and to present a further report to me in the summer.

  Retail Deliveries
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to encourage out-of-hour retail deliveries.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: I have no current plans to do so. The matter is best determined by highway authorities in response to local circumstances under the wide powers available to them in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. A considerable volume of out-of-hours deliveries already takes place under these arrangements and through agreements between businesses and distribution firms.

  A2070
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the date for the public inquiry into the route of the A2070 Ham street bypass in Kent.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: I cannot give a date until Kent county council proposes dates for the inquiry convenient to itself, whereupon the Secretary of State will arrange for the appointment of the independent inspector.

ENVIRONMENT

  Expenditure, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown, by programme, of his Department's expenditure in Yorkshire and Humberside from 1979 to the present.

  Mr. Key
  A breakdown of the Department's main programmes is given in the table for the years 1986–87 to date. In the case of some DOE programmes, the information available relates to allocations or approvals rather than expenditure.

  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1985–86 is not readily available.
  195

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911 forecast outturn

  1991–92 estimate

  Derelict Land Grant

  3·30

  8·90

  9·68

  10·54

  14·11

  15·58

  Private Sector/DLG

  1·34

  0·83

  4·08

  1·63

  0·55

  1·21

  1 1990–91 saw the introduction of a new capital control system and new financial regime.

  2 This is the housing element of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy.

  3 City Grant approvals to date.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown, by programme, of his Department's expenditure in the metropolitan district of Leeds from 1979 to the present.

  Mr. Key
  A breakdown of the Department's main programmes is given in the table for the years 1986–87 to

  Breakdown (by programme) of DOE expenditure in Leeds metropolitan district

  (£ million)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911 (forecast outturn)

  1991–92 (estimated)

  Rate support grant/Revenue support

  135·400

  144·800

  145·800

  138·800

  137·700

  n/a

  Housing investment programme allocations

  22·400

  21·900

  20·800

  16·900

  33·600

  31·900

  Housing subsidies

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  28·350

  n/a

  RDG/URG/City grant (grant approvals)

  0·800

  2·400

  0·200

  0·070

  0·050

  n/a

  Urban programme

  n/a

  3·800

  4·700

  4·700

  5·300

  5·400

  Urban development corporation

  n/a

  n/a

  2·600

  8·750

  14·000

  12·000

  Gypsy grants

  nil

  nil

  0·410

  0·035

  0·760

  0·170

  City action team

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0·370

  0·400

  Derelict land grant (DLG)

  0·037

  0·132

  0·169

  0·227

  0·750

  0·750

  Private sector DLG

  nil

  nil

  0·300

  0·330

  3 nil

  nil

  1 1990–91 saw the introduction of a new capital control system and new financial regime.

  2 This is the housing element of the housing revenue account subsidy.

  3 Private sector DLG no longer available in Leeds following the introduction of city grant.

  Satellite Receivers
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he gives to planning authorities on the fixing of satellite receivers on the outside of properties; under what conditions permission to site such a receiver may be refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Where the installation of a satellite dish does not fall within the general permission granted by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, it is in the first instance for the local planning authority to consider whether planning permission should be granted or refused, having regard to all material considerations. We hope later this year to publish planning guidelines which will give advice on unobtrusive siting of dishes.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to amend the regulations specifying the planning conditions for the fixing of a satellite receiver on the outside of a property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given by the then Minister for Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 1 November,Official Report, column 695, and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 13 November, Official Report, column 93. We hope to announce shortly how the Town and Country Planning General
  196
  date. In the case of some DOE programmes, the information available relates to allocations or approvals, rather than expenditure.

  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1985–86 is not readily available.

  Development Order 1988 will be amended in the light of the consultation exercise undertaken last summer and the subsequent Sky-BSB merger.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the accuracy of the advice given to purchasers of a satellite receiver by the suppliers in respect of planning conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No representations have been received. The forthcoming departmental planning guide for the siting of satellite antennas will be widely distributed among the suppliers of antennas. This should help to improve the quality of advice and also the standard of installation.

  Waste Disposal Plants
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to encourage the use of electromagnets at waste disposal plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  The potential return on the use of magnetic separation at a waste disposal plant should be enough to encourage the use of electromagnets without any Government intervention.

  Nevertheless, we have made available £10 million in supplementary credit approvals for local authorities in England in 1991–92, for investment in recycling facilities.

  Countryside Premium Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many farmers are currently eligible for admission to the countryside premium scheme; how many are actively enrolled in the scheme; what is the current cost of the scheme; and what percentage of the total amount is reimbursed from CAP funds.

  Mr. Baldry
  All farmers in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire and Suffolk entering permanent fallow land into MAFF's set aside scheme are eligible for admission to the countryside premium scheme. Land set aside for rotational fallow, grazed fallow or non-agricultural use may also be eligible in certain circumstances. There are currently about 850 farmers in the seven counties with set-aside land in these eligible categories.

  To date, the Countryside Commission has made agreements under the countryside premium scheme with 160 farmers and, in 1991–92, expenditure is expected to be £750,000. The scheme is not currently eligible for reimbursement from CAP funds.

  Structure Plans
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what employment factors he takes into account when approving structure plans.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 12 February,Official Report, column 426. The economic factors taken into account by local planning authorities and my right hon. Friend would include considerations such as current and possible future levels of employment in the area.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whom he expects to consult on his proposed modifications to the Cheshire structure plan in the spring.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend will notify Members of Parliament of the proposed modifications of the Cheshire structure plan who have expressed an interest, and all those who represent Cheshire, together with the participants at the examination in public. Cheshire county council will be asked to place copies of the proposed modifications and supporting documents on deposit for public inspection. It must advertise that this has been done and inform those who made representations on the plan.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's policy relating to the promotion of low-energy lighting is, wherever practicable, to replace all standard luminaires, both tungsten and fluorescent, with low-energy consuming equivalents.

  In the three largest headquarters buildings a programme of lighting improvements is currently being carried out. All these projects incorporate the installation of low-energy fluorescent tubes and miniature fluorescent
  198
  fittings. The number of tungsten bulbs in current use throughout the Department's offices is minimal, but these will be replaced as part of the ongoing programme to reduce overall energy consumption.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of radioactivity are permitted for release to the atmosphere after the incineration of radioactively contaminated materials.

  Mr. Baldry
  Radioactive waste may be disposed of only if an authorisation has been issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Authorisations impose strict conditions and activity limits and are issued only after careful assessment is made of the environmental impact of proposed disposals to ensure that doses to the public are below the maximum permissible limits as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. As for disposal by incineration, authorisations are issued on a case-by-case basis taking all the local circumstances into account. However, it is usual to permit disposals of up to 4 megabecquerels per day of the commonly used tritium and carbon-14 without this detailed examination.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he expects all requisite guidance to be in place before the implementation of integrated pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  General guidance on the operation of integrated pollution control will be issued before 1 April. More detailed guidance on particular categories of process will be made available in accordance with the timetable for bringing processes in these categories under integrated control.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the speciality chemicals industry about integrated pollution control requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has received representations from the speciality chemicals industry about particular characteristics of the processes they operate. In addition, we have consulted the industry's main representatives, the Chemical Industries Association, in drawing up guidance and preparing regulations on integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will further consult the speciality chemicals industry before the detailed implementation of integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has already drawn on the expertise of the speciality chemicals industry in preparing regulations and drawing up general guidance for the implementation of integrated pollution control. Final versions will be published shortly. Further consultation will be undertaken on detailed issues as appropriate.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to adopt the
  199
  principle of a presumption in favour of unrestricted access for the public to information held by pollution control authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. The Water Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provide for public access to information in respect of water pollution, integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members serve on the fire advisory panel; and how many of those members are also members of the Society of Fire Safety Engineers.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Fire Advisory Panel has 13 outside members, of whom seven are also members of the Society of Fire Safety Engineers. In addition, eight officials regularly attend its meetings, and of those, three are members of the society.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will name the designated bathing beach in England which had the highest number of total coliforms present in any single water sample taken during the 1990 bathing season; and if he will indicate the level reached;

  (2) if he will name the designated bathing beach in England which had the highest number of E. coli present in any single water sample taken during the 1990 bathing season; and if he will indicate the level reached.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the publication "Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) Article 13 Report (1990 Survey Results) United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to publish information concerning the presence of chemicals and the level of general pollution as part of the beach standards test list.

  Mr. Baldry
  Monitoring of the quality of bathing water is carried out in accordance with the requirement of directive 76/160/EEC. In England and Wales the results of the monitoring are maintained on public registers by the regional offices of the National Rivers Authority. Summary results are published in "Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) Article 13 Report (1990 Survey Results) United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the designated bathing beaches in England, indicating for each the date that they became designated in accordance with the 1976 EC bathing water directive.

  Mr. Baldry
  The dates on which bathing waters were identified as being subject to the requirements for standards specified in directive 76/160/EEC are as follows:

  Date Identified

  Northumbrian Region

  Spittal

  1987

  Bamburgh Castle1

  1989

  (1987)

  200

  Date Identified

  Seahouses North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Beadnell

  1987

  Low Newton

  1987

  Alnmouth

  1987

  Warkworth

  1987

  Druridge Bay

  1987

  Newbiggin North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Newbiggin South1

  1989

  (1987)

  Blyth South Beach1

  1989

  (1987)

  Seaton Sluice1

  1989

  (1987)

  Whitley Bay

  1987

  Tynemouth Cullercoats1

  1989

  (1987)

  Tynemouth Long Sands North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Tynemouth Long Sands South1

  1989

  (1987)

  Tynemouth King Edwards Bay1

  1989

  (1987)

  South Shields

  1987

  Marsden

  1987

  Whitburn North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Roker/Whitburn South1

  1989

  (1987)

  Seaham Beach1

  1989

  (1987)

  Seaham Remand Home1

  1989

  (1987)

  Crimdon

  1987

  Seaton Carew North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Seaton Carew Centre1

  1989

  (1987)

  Seaton Carew North Gare1

  1989

  (1987)

  Redcar Coatham1

  1989

  (1987)

  Redcar LB Station1

  1989

  (1987)

  Redcar Granville1

  1989

  (1987)

  Redcar Stray1

  1989

  (1987)

  Saltburn

  1987

  Yorkshire Region

  Staithes

  1987

  Runswick Bay

  1987

  Sandsend

  1987

  Whitby

  1987

  Robin Hoods Bay

  1987

  Scarborough North Bay

  1979

  Scarborough South Bay

  1979

  Clayton Bay

  1987

  Filey

  1987

  Reighton

  1987

  Flamborough North Landing

  1987

  Flamborough South Landing

  1987

  Bridlington North Beach

  1979

  Bridlington South Beach

  1979

  Wilsthorpe

  1987

  Fraisthorpe

  1987

  Earls Dyke

  1987

  Barmston

  1987

  Skipsea

  1987

  Hornsea

  1987

  Tunstall

  1987

  Withernsea

  1987

  Anglian Region

  Cleethorpes

  1987

  Mablethorpe Town

  1987

  Sutton-on-Sea

  1987

  Moggs Eye

  1987

  Anderby

  1987

  Chapel St. Leonard

  1987

  Ingoldmells South

  1987

  Skegness

  1987

  Heacham

  1987

  Hunstanton Beach

  1987

  Wells

  1987

  Sheringham

  1987

  Cromer

  1987

  Mundesley

  1987

  Great Yarmouth North

  1987

  Great Yarmouth Pier

  1987

  Great Yarmouth South

  1987

  Lowestoft North

  1987

  Lowestoft South

  1987

  Southwold

  1990

  Felixstowe North

  1987

  Felixstowe South

  1987

  201

  Date Identified

  Dovercourt

  1987

  Walton

  1987

  Frinton

  1987

  Holland

  1987

  Clacton

  1987

  Jaywick

  1987

  Brightlingsea

  1987

  West Mersey

  1991

  Thames Region

  Shoebury East

  1989

  Southend Thorpe Bay

  1979

  Southend Westcliff Bay

  1979

  Southern Region

  Sheerness

  1991

  Leysdown

  1987

  West Beach

  1987

  Herne Bay

  1987

  Minnis Bay

  1987

  St. Mildred's Bay

  1987

  Margate the Bay

  1979

  Margate Fulsam Rock

  1987

  Joss Bay

  1987

  Broadstairs

  1987

  Ramsgate

  1987

  Sandwich Bay

  1987

  Deal Castle

  1987

  St. Margaret's Bay

  1987

  Folkestone

  1987

  Sandgate

  1987

  Hythe

  1987

  Dymchurch

  1987

  St. Mary's Bay

  1987

  Littlestone

  1987

  Camber

  1987

  Winchelsea

  1987

  Hastings

  1987

  Bexhill

  1987

  Norman's Bay

  1987

  Pevensey Bay

  1987

  Eastbourne

  1987

  Seaford

  1987

  Newhaven

  1987

  Saltdean

  1987

  Brighton

  1987

  Hove

  1987

  Southwick

  1987

  South Lancing

  1987

  Worthing

  1987

  Littlehampton

  1987

  Middleton-on-Sea

  1987

  Bognor Regis

  1987

  Pagham

  1987

  Selsey

  1987

  Bracklesham Bay

  1987

  West Wittering

  1987

  West of Eastoke

  1987

  West Hayling

  1987

  Eastney

  1987

  Southsea

  1987

  Stokes Bay

  1987

  Lee-on-Solent

  1987

  Hillhead

  1990

  Calshot

  1987

  Lepe

  1987

  Milford-on-Sea

  1987

  Christchurch Bay

  1987

  Highcliffe

  1987

  Compton Bay

  1987

  Totland Bay

  1987

  Colwell Bay

  1987

  Gurnard

  1987

  Cowes

  1987

  Ryde

  1979

  Seagrove

  1987

  St. Helens

  1987

  Bembridge

  1987

  202

  Date Identified

  Whitecliff Bay

  1987

  Sandown

  1979

  Shanklin

  1979

  Ventnor

  1987

  Wessex Region

  Christchurch Highcliffe Castle1

  1987

  (1979)

  Christchurch Friar's Cliff

  1990

  Christchurch Avon Beach

  1987

  (1979)

  Christchurch Mudeford Sandbank1

  1987

  Bournemouth Hengistbury

  1987

  Bournemouth Pier

  1979

  Poole Shore Road Sandbanks

  1987

  Poole Harbour Sandbanks

  1979

  Poole Harbour Lake

  1987

  Poole Harbour Rockley Sands

  1987

  Shell Bay

  1987

  Studland

  1987

  Swansea

  1979

  Kimmeridge Bay

  1987

  Lulworth Cove

  1987

  Durdle Door East

  1987

  Durdle Door West

  1987

  Ringstead

  1987

  Bowleaze Cove

  1987

  Church Ope Cove

  1987

  Weymouth Lodmoor

  1987

  Weymouth Central

  1979

  Portland Harbour Castle Cove

  1987

  Portland Harbour Sandsfoot

  1987

  West Bay (West)

  1987

  Eypemouth

  1987

  Seatown

  1987

  Charmouth West

  1987

  Porlock Weir

  1987

  Minehead Terminus

  1987

  Dunster North West

  1987

  Blue Anchor West

  1987

  Burnham Jetty

  1987

  Berrow

  1987

  Brean

  1987

  Weston-S-Mare Uphill Slipway1

  1987

  (1979)

  Weston-S-Mare Grand Pier1

  1987

  (1979)

  Weston-S-Mare Sand Bay1

  1987

  (1979)

  Clevedon Swimming Pool

  1987

  South West Region

  Lyme Regis Church Beach1

  1989

  (1987)

  Lyme Regis Cobb1

  1989

  (1987)

  Seaton (Devon)

  1987

  Beer

  1987

  Sidmouth Town1

  1989

  (1987)

  Sidmouth Jacobs Ladder1

  1989

  (1987)

  Ladram Bay

  1987

  Budleigh Salterton

  1987

  Sandy Bay

  1987

  Exmouth

  1987

  Dawlish Warren

  1987

  Dawlish Town1

  1989

  (1987)

  Dawlish Coryton Cove1

  1989

  (1987)

  Teignmouth Holcombe1

  1989

  (1987)

  Teignmouth Town1

  1989

  (1987)

  Shaldon

  1987

  Ness Cove

  1987

  Maindencombe

  1987

  Watcombe

  1987

  Oddicombe

  1987

  Babbacombe

  1987

  Redgate

  1987

  Meadfoot

  1979

  Beacon Cove

  1987

  Torre Abbey

  1979

  Hollicombe

  1987

  Paignton Preston Sands1

  1989

  (1979)

  Paignton Paignton Sands1

  1989

  (1979)

  Goodrington

  1979

  Broadsands

  1979

  Shoalstone

  1987

  203

  Date Identified

  St. Mary's Bay

  1987

  Dartmouth Castle and Sugary Cove

  1987

  Blackpool Sands

  1987

  Slapton Sands Monument1

  1989

  (1987)

  Slapton Sands Torcross1

  1989

  (1987)

  Mill Bay

  1987

  Salcombe North Sands

  1987

  Salcombe South Sands

  1987

  Hope Cove

  1987

  Thurlestone South1

  1989

  (1987)

  Thurlestone North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Bantham

  1987

  Bigbury-on-Sea South1

  1989

  (1987)

  Bigbury-on-Sea North1

  1989

  (1987)

  Challaborough

  1987

  Mothecombe

  1987

  Wembury

  1987

  Bovisand

  1987

  Plymouth Hoe East1

  1989

  (1987)

  Plymouth Hoe West1

  1989

  (1987)

  Portwrinkle

  1987

  Downderry

  1987

  Seaton (Cornwall)

  1987

  Millendreath

  1987

  East Looe

  1987

  Readymoney

  1987

  Polkerris

  1987

  Par

  1987

  Crinnis Golf Links1

  1989

  (1987)

  Crinnis Leisure Centre1

  1989

  (1987)

  Charlestown1

  1989

  (1987)

  Duporth1

  1989

  (1987)

  Porthpean

  1987

  Pentewan

  1987

  Polstreath

  1987

  Port Mellon

  1987

  Gorran Haven Little Perhaver1

  1989

  (1987)

  Gorran Haven (Vault)1

  1989

  (1987)

  Porthluney

  1987

  Pendower

  1987

  Gyllyngvase

  1987

  Swanpool

  1987

  Maen Porth

  1987

  Porthallow

  1987

  Porthoustock

  1987

  Coverack

  1987

  Kennack Sands

  1987

  Pollurian Cove

  1987

  Poldhu Cove

  1987

  Gunwalloe Cove

  1987

  Porthleven East2

  1989

  (1987)

  Porthleven West1

  1989

  (1987)

  Praa Sands East1

  1989

  (1987)

  Praa Sands West1

  1989

  (1987)

  Perran Sands

  1987

  Mounts Bay L Hogus1

  1989

  (1987)

  Mounts Bay Heliport1

  1989

  (1987)

  Mounts Bay Penzance1

  1989

  (1987)

  Mounts Bay Wherry Town1

  1989

  (1987)

  Porthcurno

  1987

  Sennen

  1979

  Porthmeor

  1979

  Porth Gwidden

  1987

  Porthminster

  1979

  Carbis Bay Station Beach1

  1989

  (1987)

  Carbis Bay Porth Kidney Sands1

  1989

  (1987)

  The Towans (Hayle)1

  1989

  (1987)

  The Towans (Godrevy)1

  1989

  (1987)

  Portreath

  1987

  Porthowan

  1987

  Trevaunance Cove

  1987

  Perranporth Village End1

  1989

  (1987)

  Perranporth Penhale Sands1

  1989

  (1987)

  Holywell Bay

  1987

  Crantock

  1987

  Fistral

  1979

  Towan

  1979

  Watergate

  1987

  204

  Date Identified

  Mawgan Porth

  1987

  Treyarnon Bay

  1987

  Constantine Bay

  1987

  Mother Ivey's Bay

  1987

  Harlyn Bay

  1987

  Trevone Bay

  1987

  Rock

  1987

  Daymer Bay

  1987

  Polzeath

  1987

  Widemouth Sand

  1987

  Bude Summerleaze1

  1989

  (1987)

  Bude Crooklets1

  1989

  (1987)

  Bude Sandy Mouth1

  1989

  (1987)

  Hartland Quay

  1987

  Westward Ho!

  1987

  Instow

  1987

  Saunton Sands

  1987

  Croyde Bay

  1987

  Woolacombe Putsborough1

  1989

  (1987)

  Woolacombe Village1

  1989

  (1987)

  Ilfracoombe Tunnels Pool

  1990

  Ilfracombe Capstone1

  1989

  (1987)

  Ilfracombe Hele1

  1989

  (1987)

  Combe Martin

  1987

  Lynmouth

  1987

  North West Region

  Meols

  1987

  Moreton

  1987

  New Brighton

  1987

  Formby

  1987

  Ainsdale

  1987

  Southport

  1987

  St. Annes

  1987

  St. Annes North

  1988

  Blackpool South

  1987

  Blackpool Central

  1987

  Blackpool North

  1987

  Bispham

  1987

  Cleveleys

  1987

  Fleetwood

  1987

  Heysham—Half Moon Bay

  1987

  Morecambe South

  1987

  Morecambe North

  1987

  Bardsea

  1987

  Aldingham

  1988

  Newbiggin

  1988

  Walney Biggar Bank

  1987

  Walney Sandy Gap

  1987

  Walney West Shore

  1987

  Roan Head

  1987

  Askam-in-Furness

  1987

  Haverigg

  1987

  Silecroft

  1987

  Seascale

  1987

  St. Bees

  1987

  Allonby South

  1988

  Allonby

  1987

  Silloth

  1987

  Skinburness

  1988

  1 Some bathing waters have been subdivided since first identified. The date in parenthesis is when the bathing water was first identified, and the other date is when the bathing water was subdivided for the purposes of Directive 76/160/EEC.

  2 A landslip at Porthleven East in May 1989 made the beach inaccessible.

  Estuaries
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estuaries in the United Kingdom which are regarded as of environmental importance and those which require to be protected under the terms of the Ramsar convention.
  205
  Mr. Baldry
  The information readily available relates to Great Britain. The majority of our estuaries encompass areas that are of environmental importance and where appropriate these are protected as sites of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy Council has undertaken a review of the nature conservation interests of the estuaries of Great Britain and I understand that its full report is due to be published on 25 March. Sites which contain estuarial areas where it has been agreed that the Ramsar criteria are met, and which have been designated, are as follows:

  1. Bridgewater Bay

  2. Cors Fochno and Dyfi

  3. Lindisfarne

  4. Minsmere-Walberswick

  5. North Norfolk Coast

  6. Chesil Beach and The Fleet

  7. Dee Estuary

  8. The Swale

  9. Alt Estuary

  10. Rockliffe Marshes

  11. Chichester and Langstone Harbours

  12. Upper Severn Estuary

  13. The Wash

  14.Pagham Harbour

  15. Bridgend Flats, Islay

  16. Griunart Flats

  17. Loch an Duin

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications for the voluntary sector of changes in local authority funding levels.

  Mr. Key
  It is for each individual local authority to decide on the level of its funding for the voluntary sector. We have increased the amount of external support to local authorities next year by 12·8 per cent.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on action to mitigate oil spills and ecological damage in the Gulf.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The states whose coastlines are most at risk from the oil deliberately released from Iraqi installations or as a consequence of Iraqi shelling have the primary responsibility for response action. Recognising the unprecedented scale of the threat, both the coalition Governments and the wider international community have offered assistance to the Gulf states in the form of expertise or pollution control equipment. I described the initial assistance offered by the United Kingdom in my letter to hon. Members of 6 February which included both expert advice on pollution control and assessment of the biological effects of the oil spill. Our current information is that the largest oil slick has had a serious impact along parts of the coastline of Saudi Arabia from Khafji as far south as the island of Abu Ali. Protective booms are in place round the intakes for major industrial and desalination plants along the Saudi coast and work has begun on protecting the most ecologically sensitive sites.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the destruction of coral reefs in the Gulf forming the spring spawning grounds for large shrimp fisheries.
  206
  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 18 February 1991]: The assessment of the biological effects of the Gulf oil spill carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council for my Department includes a description of the likely effects of oil on the coral ecosystem in the Gulf. A copy of this report is in the Library. We do not yet have sufficiently detailed information from the Gulf to determine how serious the impact of the slick has been, but it is likely that at least some of the coastal reefs between Khafji and Manifa in Saudi Arabia have been affected.

  Litter Code
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities submitted comments on his proposals to implement the litter code under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 into existing compulsory competitive tendering arrangements, as set out in his letter of 9 January to the three local authority associations; and what proportion of the comments he received were in favour of the proposals.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department received 39 responses to its consultation letter of 4 January setting out the Government's proposals for introducing transitional arrangements to facilitate the implementation of the litter duty in cases where street cleaning contracts had already been let by local authorities. The respondents, who included the main local authority associations in England, Wales and Scotland and various other representative associations, made a significant number of constructive comments. These comments are being carefully considered and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Interim Development Orders
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to alter the procedures relating to interim development orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Yes. The Government believe that it is inequitable that the extent and terms of these permissions, which have been in existence for close to 50 years, are not recorded and that householders and others may have been disadvantaged by this lack of knowledge.

  The Government intend, therefore, to table amendments during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Bill to provide that, unless the holder of an IDO permission applies to the appropriate mineral planning authority within four months of the date of the commencement of the provisions for the permission to be registered, the permission will cease to have effect. My Department will consult on the detail of what we have in mind, including the appropriate time period for applications to be submitted.

  The Government recognise that registration in itself will not deal with the problems of the lack of conditions attached to such permissions. Residential and other development may have been built on or near IDO permission areas; similarly, parts of IDO sites may have been designated as sites of special scientific interest or of other environmental importance—without knowledge of the fact that the permission existed or the terms of the conditions attached to it. The Government are therefore considering whether to require that applications for registration of IDO permissions are accompanied by schemes of operating, restoration and, where appropriate,

  207
  aftercare conditions for the approval of the mineral planning authority. The Government take the view that it would be sensible to use the opportunity of registration to apply conditions and believe that responsible operators would share that view. Applicants would be able to appeal to the Secretary of State against refusal or the imposition of unreasonable conditions by the authority. My Department will be issuing today a short consultation paper on these proposals, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and will consider the response before taking a firm decision. The question of the impact of the proposals on the compensation rights of operators would be covered in the consultation exercise.

  The Government have also considered carefully whether it would be right to take statutory measures now to deal with the problems of unworked land and IDO permission boundaries. Although we fully appreciate the strength of feelings on this issue and the legitimate concerns expressed, we are not convinced that it would be right to expropriate legitimate mineral working rights without a detailed examination of all the implications and full and considered consultation on any proposed changes.

  My Department will therefore look at these issues very closely in its comprehensive review of the existing powers available to mineral planning authorities for dealing with inadequate permissions and we shall be considering whether we can reach early conclusions on the compensation aspects. In the meantime, I intend to invite the industry, in the context of agreeing a scheme of operating and restoration conditions with the mineral planning authority, to discuss an adjustment to the boundaries of their rights where appropriate.

  These proposals are subject to consultation with representatives of the local authorities, environmental groups, the industry and land-owners. They aim to provide the right balance between the needs of the country for a secure and effective supply of minerals, together with information about where these sites are worked and ensuring that the minerals are extracted in an environmentally sensitive way. As we made clear in the Environment White Paper it is necessary to strike a careful balance between the interests of amenity and the need to exploit the resource. Mineral operators must take account of best environmental practice and aim to be good neighbours. I am aware that increasingly the industry accepts its responsibility to work sites in an environmentally sensitive manner and to restore land once working has ceased.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the latest figures are on the arrears of rent outstanding to each local housing authority in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have today arranged for the information to be placed in the Library.

  As at 1 April 1990, rent arrears owing to all English housing authorities amounted to some £360 million, (7·8 per cent. of the total rent collectable.) This is an increase of 12 per cent. compared with the figure at 1 April 1989. The 10 authorities with the worst arrears represent 37 per cent. of the total; their level of arrears ranges from about 18 per cent. of the rent collectable, in Camden, to about 45 per cent., in Brent. London accounts for 46 per cent. of the national total; total London arrears are £165
  208
  million and nine of the 10 worst authorities are in London; but I am glad to see that seven London boroughs have reduced the amount of rent outstanding to them.

  The figures are an indictment of too many authorities for their poor management and, while a third have improved their performance and deserve commendation for this, the figures show that far too many are not acting upon the advice on rent collection given by the Department and the Audit Commission.

  The three poorest performing authorities are those that turned in the worst performance last year. In Brent, Lambeth and Southwark, tenants between them owe over £60 million worth of rent. Since the introduction of the new housing finance system in April 1990, the cost of arrears are borne by the tenants who do pay their rent. If some tenants do not pay, either rents generally will go up or the level of service will fall. Authorities are also required to account to their tenants for their housing management by publishing indicators of their performance, from April this year onwards. I expect tenants to demand major changes in authorities' policies towards non-payers, and to put pressure on them to ensure that arrears of this magnitude become a thing of the past.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what consideration was given to seeking an order to restrain former Chief Superintendent George Reade from going to Australia prior to the hearing of the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he was first made aware that former Chief Superintendent George Reade was proposing to travel to Australia; and what undertaking he sought as regards Mr. Reade's availability for inquiries relating to the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  This case remains under consideration by the courts. I will write to the hon. Member after the appeal has been determined.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to public funds of sending Devon and Cornwall police officers to Australia to interview former Chief Superintendent George Reade.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has arranged for the chief constable of the Devon and Cornwall police to write to the hon. Member giving the information requested.

  Pre-trial Issues
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement concerning the inter-agency working group on pre-trial issues.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and I have received a report from the working group on pre-trial issues which makes a number of detailed and far-reaching recommendations for improvements in the processing of criminal cases to the point of trial.

  We welcome the report as a valuable basis for action in consultation with the CPS, the police, the courts, and other organisations and bodies with a direct interest in the

  209
  implementation of the recommendations. We have appointed a steering group of officials to carry forward implementation of the report and to undertake these consultations in order to establish the resource implications of the proposals made, and to provide by the summer recess a costed action plan for implementation.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and sent to the Select Committee on Home Affairs which last year conducted an inquiry into the impact on the criminal justice system of the establishment of the CPS and made many recommendations which the working group has carried forward.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to promote the meeting of legal quotas for employing disabled people in Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  All Departments and agencies aim to employ a 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled staff. My Department has introduced a range of initiatives, outlined in the code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service, to help Departments and agencies to achieve this. The annual report on progress will be published next month in the magazine "Independent". Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to propose legislation to incorporate the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms into domestic law. We are committed to, and support, the principles of human rights in the convention, but we believe that it is for Parliament rather than the judiciary to determine how these principles are best secured.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the efficiency of magistrates courts' committees; and if he will make a statement;

  Nationality

  Naturalisation1

  Registration1

  General immigration casework1 2

  Asylum and related casework1 3

  Outstanding cases

  October

  63,553

  24,485

  20,910

  29,936

  November

  64,818

  23,853

  21,931

  32,566

  December

  63,597

  22,677

  21,765

  35,304

  January

  61,331

  21,859

  20,919

  37,666

  Intakes

  October

  1,645

  969

  30,656

  6,261

  November

  1,425

  803

  30,264

  5,800

  210
  (2) if he has received any representations on the report of the scrutiny team concerning magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether his Department has any plans to reform the financial administration of magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the scrutiny report on magistrates courts' services.

  Mr. John Patten
  No decisions have yet been reached on the proposals for reorganising and financing the magistrates' courts service contained in the scrutiny report on the service. We have received views from the representative organisations of the service, magistrates courts' committees, individual members of the service and other interested parties. We are considering these views in the light of the assessment by independent consultants last year of the costs of implementation.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give the number of court actions which have so far been undertaken in the Mansfield court area for the non-payment of the poll tax;

  (2) if he will give the number of court actions which have so far been undertaken for the non-payment of the poll tax by petty sessions division area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information, which is provided by justices' clerks on a clerkship basis, is placed in the Library as soon as possible after its collation. Information for the period 1 April to 30 September 1990 is already in the Library and for the period 1 October to 31 December 1990 will be placed in the Library this week.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding cases there were for October, November, December 1990 and January 1991 under the headings of(a) naturalisation, (b) registration, (c) refugees, (d) asylum seekers, and (e) general immigration; and what was the number of new casework applications in each of those areas for each month.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of outstanding cases and intakes in the immigration and nationality department by the categories requested is as follows:
  211

  Nationality

  Naturalisation1

  Registration1

  General immigration casework1 2

  Asylum and related casework1 3

  December

  1,334

  667

  21,467

  4,740

  January

  1,514

  883

  27,356

  6,513

  1 Does not include applications received in the Department but which await allocation to caseworkers.

  2 Includes referred entry clearance applications, and enquiries submitted by letter, as well as variation of leave cases. Includes both general and eastern European casework (the latter was absorbed into general casework in July 1990).

  3 These figures are a total of all work outstanding in the refugee unit.

  Police Costs
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current cost of the Metropolitan, West Midlands and Merseyside police forces expressed in terms of cost per crime cleared up.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information on the amount of police time spent on different types of activity, including clearing up crime, does not yet make it possible to produce an accurate and consistent unit cost of crime cleared up for each force. A programme of work, following a joint Home Office/Treasury study of police manpower, is under way to develop standard methods of activity analysis in forces. This should in due course make it possible to attribute time and cost to different activities, including those relating to crime.

  Asylum
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the total number of people who sought asylum in the United Kingdom in each quarter of 1990;

  (2) if he will list the total number of people who sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 1990; and how many (a) were awarded refugee status, (b) were awarded exceptional leave to remain and (c)were refused entry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Reliable quarterly estimates of the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in 1990 cannot yet be made, but provisional indications are that the total in 1990 was of the order of 30,000, including associated dependants.

  Comprehensive information on decisions in 1990 on asylum applications is not yet available. Decisions recorded to date are shown in the following table, but these understate because of delays in recording.

  Decisions1 on applications2 for asylum in the United Kingdom made in 1990 as recorded at Mid-February 1991

  Numbers

  Granted asylum

  1,600

  Granted exceptional leave

  3,700

  Refused asylum or exceptional leave

  650

  1Including associated dependants.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1990.

  Fuller and more reliable estimates of applications and decisions in 1990 will be published as usual in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom" later this year.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1985 the number of applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom who have been held in detention for more than one month.
  212
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. On 15 February, 110 persons who had claimed asylum had been detained under Immigration Act powers for more than one month.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Council of Europe ministerial conference on east-west migration in Vienna regarding the asylum question.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I attended the ministerial conference in Vienna on 24 and 25 January, at which representatives of Council of Europe member states, as well as all the states of central and eastern Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States were present. The conference was not concerned specifically with asylum, but with the problems posed for both receiving countries and countries of origin by the growth of migration from central and eastern Europe. There was general agreement on the need for international cooperation on measures to limit migratory flows, including action in respect of economic migrants who seek to exploit the asylum process and on the importance of tackling the root causes of migration in the countries of origin. A group of senior officials from the participating states was invited to follow up the recommendations of the conference.

  A copy of the final communiqué of the conference has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the establishment of a European appeal court to give a right of appeal against a refusal to grant asylum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. I see no merit in such a proposal.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he distinguishes in policy between measures taken to combat abuse of the asylum procedure and measures taken to regulate the flow of asylum seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our policy is to meet our international obligations towards refugees who may properly look to the United Kingdom for protection, while taking firm action to maintain normal immigration control in respect both of those who have already found safety elsewhere and of those whose applications for recognition of refugee status have no basis in the criteria of the 1951 United Nations convention.

  National Boundaries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government will join the Schengen process.
  213
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not intend to accede to the convention on the abolition of checks at common borders which was signed by the Schengen group of countries in June last year.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government will press for the adoption of the convention on the crossing of the communities' external frontiers by all member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The draft convention on the crossing of external frontiers is still under discussion between the member states and is not yet ready for signature.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in the United Kingdom record racially motivated attacks; if he will arrange for the latest figures for each force to be published, together with the figures for the comparable period of the previous year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All police forces in England and Wales record incidents as being racially motivated if the victim, the investigating officer or a third party witness perceive them to be so. Publication of such information is for chief officers. Some include statistics in their annual reports, while others may decide to make such information available in response to a particular inquiry.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary examines carefully during inspections forces' response to racially motivated crime. The Government are currently monitoring the impact of recent guidance to the police and other agencies, and will be formally reviewing progress with all statutory bodies. The Government have made it clear to the police service that racial attacks must be tackled as a priority.

  Tote
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who owns the Tote; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Horserace Totalisator Board (the Tote), by virtue of section 12(1) of the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, is established as a body corporate. It is therefore an independent legal person.

  Boundary Commission
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Boundary Commission for England has decided when to start the next general review of constituencies in England.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The commission has given notice of its intention to commence a general review forthwith. It is required to report between February 1993 and February 1998.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from Viscount Colville of Culross QC on the operation in 1989 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  214
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have received such a report from Viscount Colville and have placed copies in the Library.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Savings
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, as a percentage of total household disposable income, net savings in the United Kingdom in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Maples
  The estimates for the period 1985 to 1989 are as follows:

  Balance (household income less expenditure) as percentage of total household disposable income

  Percentage

  1985

  0·5

  1986

  -0·4

  1987

  -1·9

  1988

  -2·6

  1989

  -1·8

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 January to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside,Official Report, column 391, on the community charge reduction scheme, if he will publish in the Official Report the assumptions used in reaching he figure given.

  Mr. Mellor
  The savings on community charge benefit resulting from the introduction of the community charge reduction scheme are a broad estimate based, like all the figures for the scheme, on the family expenditure surveys for 1987–89. Account has also been taken of preliminary information on the numbers of people claiming community charge benefit.

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of tax relief given in respect of moneys invested by individuals and companies in all types of pensions and pension funds during the last five years.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates are as follows:

  £ million

  Relief for:

  Employees contributions to occupational pension schemes

  Employers contributions to occupational pension schemes1

  Contributions to personal pensions and retirement annuity contracts2

  1986–87

  1,700

  3,300

  475

  1987–88

  1,700

  3,000

  525

  1988–89

  1,800

  3,100

  625

  1989–90

  2,000

  3,500

  950

  1990–91

  2,200

  3,800

  1,100

  1 On the basis that under present arrangements, employers' contributions are not taxable as a benefit in kind for the employee.

  2 Includes income tax relief on FSAVCs.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has carried out of the impact of corporation tax on smaller businesses and the survival rate of small companies.

  Mr. Maude
  The impact of corporation tax on small companies is kept under regular review. The profits limit for the small companies relief has been doubled in the last two years so that 40,000 more companies now pay tax at 25 per cent.—the small companies rate of corporation tax. And we have reduced the small companies rate itself from 42 per cent. to its present level of 25 per cent.

  Nursing Agencies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legislative or administrative changes have been made since 1 January 1989 affecting the liability for VAT of nursing agencies.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. The United Kingdom has always exempted from VAT the supply of services by a person registered or enrolled in any of the medical or

  Departmental Report

  Published

  Supplement to the Autumn Statement

  (Cm 1520)

  Friday

  1 February

  Department of Social Security

  (Cm 1514)

  Friday

  1 February

  Ministry of Defence

  (Cm 1501)

  Tuesday

  5 February

  Department of Employment

  (Cm 1506)

  Tuesday

  5 February

  Home Office (inc Charity Commission)

  (Cm 1509)

  Tuesday

  5 February

  Cabinet Office

  (Cm 1519)

  Thursday

  7 February

  Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments and Net Payments to EC Institutions

  (Cm 1518)

  Thursday

  7 February

  Energy

  (Cm 1505)

  Thursday

  7 February

  Department of Transport

  (Cm 1507)

  Thursday

  7 February

  Department of Health and OPCS

  (Cm 1513)

  Thursday

  7 February

  Department of Education and Science

  (Cm 1511)

  Tuesday

  12 February

  Trade and Industry

  (Cm 1504)

  Tuesday

  12 February

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Intervention Board and Forestry Commission

  (Cm 1503)

  Wednesday

  13 February

  Environment

  (Cm 1508)

  Wednesday

  13 February

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including ODA)

  (Cm 1502)

  Wednesday

  13 February

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  (Cm 1512)

  Wednesday

  13 February

  Legal Departments

  (Cm 1510)

  Thursday

  14 February

  Scotland

  (Cm 1515)

  Thursday

  14 February

  Wales

  (Cm 1516)

  Friday

  15 February

  Northern Ireland

  (Cm 1517)

  Friday

  15 February

  There are no departmental reports outstanding.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has to the new budget format of departmental reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We shall be reviewing all aspects of departmental reports in the light of comments received from departmental Select Committees and others over the coming months.

  Mr.Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requests from Chairmen of departmental Select Committees he has received to discuss the new departmental reports.

  Mr. Mellor
  This is a matter for the Chairmen of departmental Select Committees.
  216
  paramedical registers. However, under both United Kingdom and EC law this relief does not extend to the services of non-professionally qualified people.

  Financial Reporting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve financial reporting to Parliament and to departmental Select Committees.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government set out their proposals for the presentation of financial information in their White Paper "Financial Reporting to Parliament" (Cm 918). These proposals were implemented by the introduction this year of departmental reports. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government will keep the arrangements for the presentation of financial information under review.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the departmental reports published to date and those that are outstanding.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  Real Interest Rate
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in tabular form the real interest rate for each month for the last year; and if he will make a statement on the apparent trend.

  Mr. Maples
  There is no agreed definition of the real interest rate. The table shows the average three-month inter-bank rate, for each month for the last year, deflated by the 12-month all-items RPI inflation rate for that month. In the three months to end January, the average real interest rate was 4·1 per cent. compared with an average of 7·0 per cent. for the same three months a year earlier.

  'Real' three-month inter-bank rate

  per cent.

  1990

  January

  6·9

  February

  7·1

  217

  per cent.

  March

  6·7

  April

  5·3

  May

  5·0

  June

  4·7

  July

  4·7

  August

  4·0

  September

  3·6

  October

  2·8

  November

  3·6

  December

  4·1

  1991

  January

  4·6

  Alcohol Duties
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the first forecast excise duty revenue for the latest revised estimates for 1989–90 and 1990–91 for(a) still wines less than 15 per cent. alcohol, (b) still wines more than 15 per cent. alcohol, (c) sparkling wines, (d) beer, (e) cider and perry, (f) made wines and (g) spirits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information available is as follows. Forecasts are not made for individual categories of wine.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Outturn

  Autumn Statement

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Beer

  2·1

  2·3

  Spirits

  1·5

  1·8

  Wine and made wine

  0·8

  0·9

  Cider and perry

  0·1

  0·1

WALES

  Employment Practices
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which district health authorities in Wales have(a) adopted and (b) implemented policy statements on child care facilities for staff employed within the districts; how many hospitals in each health authority area offer child care facilities and how many take advantage of such facilities; and whether he has any plans to issue guidelines, including the issuing of targets for child care facilities in the health service;

  (2) which district health authorities have produced guidelines or policy statements concerning the application of job-share schemes; how many job-share posts have been (a) advertised and (b) filled in each district health authority in Wales; and how many of these job-share schemes applied to (i) health visitors, (ii) district nurses, (iii) midwives, (iv) sister nurses and (v) staff nurses.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not held centrally. Whilst there are no guidelines and targets for child care facilities, health authorities are encouraged, through the annual manpower resource planning process in particular, to consider and develop a range of employment practices. These include child care facilities and job-share schemes. However, the adoption and implementation of such practices is a matter for local employers to decide.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental check-ups were performed in Wales on(a) children (b) adults and (c) pensioners in each of the health areas in Wales for the years 1986 to 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information is in the tables.

  Table 1 gives the number of examinations, scheduled for payment during the appropriate year, performed within the general dental service.

  Table 2 gives the number of inspections performed within the community dental service during the year in question. These figures include inspections conducted as part of screening programmes carried out by the community dental service to indentify patients requiring full examination.

  Table 1

  General dental services—number of examinations1

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Children (aged 0–17)

  Clwyd

  75,590

  76,330

  77,620

  75,150

  Dyfed

  61,740

  61,740

  62,370

  61,650

  Gwent

  89,160

  85,340

  84,870

  83,080

  Gwynedd

  44,270

  42,750

  42,590

  40,270

  Mid Glamorgan

  95,170

  92,760

  92,240

  90,320

  Powys

  18,010

  18,190

  18,690

  18,660

  South Glamorgan

  97,910

  90,850

  85,190

  81,660

  West Glamorgan

  91,670

  89,150

  87,640

  84,520

  Adults (excluding pensioners)

  Clwyd

  121,550

  128,780

  136,430

  126,900

  Dyfed

  103,920

  109,970

  116,220

  109,450

  Gwent

  132,950

  138,170

  148,780

  139,710

  Gwynedd

  75,140

  77,550

  82,500

  76,750

  Mid Glamorgan

  134,280

  142,110

  150,070

  131,930

  Powys

  32,180

  35,330

  37,520

  36,720

  South Glamorgan

  149,380

  155,650

  161,640

  149,480

  West Glamorgan

  134,920

  141,960

  146,110

  130,640

  Pensioners2

  Clwyd

  17,210

  14,740

  16,950

  15,280

  Dyfed

  14,110

  12,000

  13,930

  13,190

  Gwent

  14,270

  11,690

  14,310

  12,970

  Gwynedd

  13,560

  10,960

  12,730

  11,500

  Mid Glamorgan

  12,980

  10,720

  12,910

  11,010

  Powys

  4,430

  3,710

  4,440

  4,310

  South Glamorgan

  18,930

  15,730

  18,010

  16,550

  West Glamorgan

  16,270

  13,810

  16,480

  13,780

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 Women aged 60 and over. Men aged 65 and over.

  Table 2

  Community Dental Service: Number of Inspections

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Children1

  Clwyd

  42,709

  46,377

  30,546

  29,011

  East Dyfed

  38,131

  28,365

  18,836

  16,819

  Pembrokeshire

  17,254

  23,553

  23,361

  23,858

  Gwent

  54,623

  63,110

  51,302

  41,204

  Gwynedd

  17,994

  14,772

  15,305

  17,963

  Mid Glamorgan

  71,514

  63,389

  61,571

  61,422

  Powys

  22,081

  20,289

  17,309

  15,617

  South Glamorgan

  40,343

  43,207

  45,941

  44,531

  West Glamorgan

  52,512

  53,239

  54,368

  53,010

  Adults2

  Clwyd

  648

  810

  1,015

  661

  East Dyfed

  363

  558

  553

  722

  Pembrokeshire3

  15

  17

  27

  51

  Gwent

  1,986

  3,389

  1,737

  1,379

  219

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Gwynedd

  1,131

  1,162

  2,035

  1,197

  Mid Glamorgan

  755

  672

  705

  1,311

  Powys3

  28

  57

  56

  130

  South Glamorgan

  1,425

  1,754

  1,819

  1,551

  West Glamorgan

  645

  1,090

  804

  1,333

  1 Children under five and school children.

  2 Includes mothers and handicapped adults. No further age split is available.

  3 The figures for Pembrokeshire and Powys exclude handicapped adults on which data have not consistently been collected.

  Overseas company

  Country of ownership

  Location1

  Commencement date1234

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  USA

  Swansea

  1965

  Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. Ltd.

  Japan

  Cardiff

  1976

  Sony (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  Bridgend

  1974

  Gallaher Ltd.

  USA

  Cardiff

  21968

  Hoover plc

  USA

  Merthyr

  1947

  British Alcan Aluminium plc

  Canada

  Newport

  pre 1945

  CMB Packaging (UK) Ltd.

  France/UK joint ownership

  Neath

  31989

  Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  Wrexham

  1985

  Valeo SA

  France

  Ammanford

  21989

  SGS-Thompson Microelectronics Ltd.

  France/Italy joint ownership

  Newport

  21989

  Calsonic International (UK) Ltd.

  Japan

  Llanelli

  21989

  Warner-Lambert (UK) Ltd.

  USA

  Pontypool

  1971

  Fram Europe Ltd.

  Italy

  Treforest

  41961

  STC plc

  Canada

  Newport

  21990

  Monsanto plc

  USA

  Wrexham

  pre 1945

  Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Ltd

  USA

  Swansea

  21968

  TRW UK Ltd

  USA

  Neath

  1946

  Thomson Corp plc

  Canada

  Cardiff

  21959

  Bristol-Myers Squibb

  USA

  Shotton

  1982

  James River UK Holdings Ltd.

  USA

  Bridgend

  21973

  3M UK Holdings plc

  USA

  Tredegar

  1950

  Brother Industries Ltd.

  Japan

  Wrexham

  1985

  Alfa-Laval Co. Ltd.

  Sweden

  Cwmbran

  1948

  Hitachi Ltd.

  Japan

  Aberdare

  21979

  Texaco Inc.

  USA

  Pembroke

  1964

  1 A number of overseas companies listed in the table have more than one plant in Wales, in which case the location and date of their first known investment is given.

  2 Some overseas companies became established in Wales by acquisition of then United Kingdom owned assets; these are separately identified by the notation 2, and the date given is the date of change of ownership to overseas.

  3 This was the merger, in 1989 between a United Kingdom company with plants in Wales and a French company.

  4 This is the date of the first investment at Treforest, subsequently the business was transferred to Llantrisant.

  Notes:

  1. Changes of asset ownership between one foreign company and another foreign company are not identified; and the commencement date is the date of the first known overseas investment.

  2. It is possible for an overseas company first established in Wales by direct new investment to have subsequently expanded by means of acquisition of existing assets.

  3. The primary data source for the above table is the Welsh Office Regional Data System.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 21 February.

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

  Foreign-based Employers
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report the 25 largest foreign-based employers, by numbers employed, country of origin, location and date and size of initial investment in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following table lists the 25 largest overseas employers in Wales, together with information on location and the date of the commencement of their operations in Wales. Current employment and capital investment details for individual companies are confidential. In total, however, these companies employ some 30,000 in Wales.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the translated text on which he based his initial response to the statement issued by the Iraqi Government on 15 February;

  (2) when he received an expert translation from the original of the statement put forward by the Iraqi Government on 15 February; and if he will arrange for it to be placed in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  We received a copy of the full BBC translation of the Iraqi statement during the early afternoon of 15 February. This proved to be the same in all major respects as the English translation issued later by
  221
  the Iraqi Government. Arrangements have been made for a copy of both texts to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Norwegian Prime Minister
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals were made by his Norwegian counterpart during their recent meeting; and what response he made.

  The Prime Minister
  I had discussions with Mrs. Brundtland on 13 February 1991 which covered a range of issues including developments in the Baltics, Europe and the Gulf.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's progress in the last 10 years on achieving a co-ordinated policy for reducing hypothermia.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been a significant overall decline in the levels of excess winter mortality (the difference between the number of deaths in the quarter from January to March and the quarter from July to September) between 1979 (47,311 deaths) and 1989 (23,853 deaths). In only a very small number of these was hypothermia identified as the underlying cause: 166 in 1989, plus an additional 209 cases where it was a contributory factor.

  While there is clearly a correlation between excess mortality and winter weather, the exact causes of increased deaths in winter are extremely complex. Factors include diet, alcohol intake, smoking, clothing (especially dressing appropriately when going out of doors in cold weather) and exercise, as well as adequate warmth in the home. The need for further research in this area is being investigated by the Medical Research Council.

  The improved figures in recent years are no doubt due in part to the progress we have been able to achieve through the collaborative efforts of Government, the statutory services and the voluntary sector, in the provision of community health and personal social services, as well as to the more general improvements in housing, social security benefits and overall standards of living.

  Arms Register
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the establishment by the United Nations of a register of arms; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We are playing a full part in the United Nations study group set up to look at ways and means of promoting transparency in international transfers of conventional weapons, including the possibility of establishing a universal and nondiscriminatory United Nations register. It is hoped that a report will be made to the United Nations Secretary-General later this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctica
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he will be putting forward on the minerals issue at the April meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 20 February at column 177.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from hon. Members and members of the public on the issue of Antarctic minerals.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received over 2,000.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his present policy towards a prohibition on mining in Antarctica.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to him on 20 February 1991 at column 177.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it remains Government policy to ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are at present no plans to ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities (CRAMRA).

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he will take to prevent any waste disposal in Antarctica.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Antarctic Survey complies fully with the waste disposal provisions of Antarctic treaty recommendation XV-3.

  The long-term policy of the survey is that all wastes, other than human or kitchen waste, should be removed from the Antarctic treaty area. This policy goes further than is required by measures currently under consideration in the Antarctic treaty consultative forum.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all future(a) conferences, (b) seminars and (c) meetings which Ministers in his Department have been invited to attend (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in the European Community and (iii) elsewhere; and if he will list the dates of these events for the next three months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is not our normal practice to announce future engagements more than a few days before they are due to take place.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 697, if he will outline the rights of Portuguese fishing vessels in St. Helena's coastal waters.
  223
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Portuguese vessels do not enjoy automatic fishing and access rights in the waters of St. Helena and the dependencies, but can acquire them by separate and negotiated agreement. The only such agreement in force permits two Portuguese vessels to fish for an experimental period of two years within restricted areas of the waters of St. Helena and Ascension island.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much financial aid has been provided to Bulgaria to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Commission, as chairman of the group of 24 donor countries, publishes a regular "scoreboard" of assistance to all eastern European countries, including Bulgaria. The latest edition, issued on 30 January, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from whom he obtained the English translation of the statement broadcast by Iraqi Radio on 15 February; if he will place a copy in the Library; if he is aware of any discrepancies in translation of the broadcast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the time and date when his office first received from the Government of Iraq their statement of 15 February in both Arabic and English.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We received a full English text of the Iraqi statement, translated by the BBC monitoring service, during the early afternoon of 15 February. A copy of the Arabic text was received, also from the BBC, later that afternoon. In the late afternoon of 16 February we received an English text issued by the Iraqi Government, which was the same in all major respects as the BBC translation. I am arranging for copies of both texts to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent conditions have been set by the Austrian Government concerning the issuing of permits for the overflight of Austrian territories by British aircraft flying to the Gulf region.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The details of bilateral arrangements with other countries covering military overflights are classified and it is not our policy to comment on such matters.

  Military Exhibition, Baghdad
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any of his officials attended the first international exhibition for military production held in Baghdad in 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Members of the British embassy in Baghdad attended the exhibition.

ENERGY

  Insulation
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 30 January,Official Report, column 507, what information he has on the proportion of the 43 per cent. of eligible homes in England and Wales with 4 in. or more of loft insulation which have 150 mm or more of loft insulation, as recommended in his Department's publication entitled "Energy in Your Home".

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on levels of loft insulation in existing homes is derived from surveys undertaken annually by Audits of Great Britain. Information currently available from these surveys does not enable identification of specific levels of loft insulation in excess of 4 in. in homes in England and Wales.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what changes have been made as a result of the electricity privatisation legislation concerning the distribution companies' ability to cut off the electricity supply to households during periods of cold weather.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The public electricity supply licences issued to the regional electricity companies under the Electricity Act 1989 require them to produce a code of practice on payment of bills and to draw up methods for dealing with customers in debt. The Director General of Electricity Supply has now approved the code and methods submitted by Yorkshire Electricity and the submissions of the other companies are expected to be approved shortly. Disconnections now stand at their lowest level since records began, and the Director General has stated that one of his priorities is to secure a continuing and significant reduction in disconnections.

  Topping Cycle Technology
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide support for research and development in relation to the pursuit of topping cycle technology.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government announced at the beginning of February that they would be providing an additional £3·7 million this financial year for research into British Coal's topping cycle project at Grimethorpe. This brings the Department of Energy's total contribution to the project this year to £9·2 million and maintains the project's schedule.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions since the publication of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" the ministerial committee on energy efficiency has met under his chairmanship; and whether he intends to increase the frequency of such meetings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The ministerial committee meets approximately every two months and has met twice under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend. Four further meetings are planned this year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Department of Trade and Industry continues to pursue the objective of encouraging enterprise, as set out in the 1988 White Paper "DTI—The Department for Enterprise". Towards this end, a number of notable achievements have been recorded across the whole range of the Department's activities: the enterprise initiative, bringing together a range of DTI services, was successfully launched in January 1988 and continues to stimulate business development and innovation; further privatisations have taken place, notably through the sale of Rolls-Royce plc, Rover Group, British Steel and Girobank; a major campaign has been undertaken to inform businesses about progress on the single market; major legislation, in particular the Companies Act (1989) and the Consumer Protection Act (1987), has been implemented to maintain a satisfactory framework for the operation of businesses and the protection of the consumer while, at the same time, further progress has been made towards removing unnecessary burdens placed on business by regulations and bureaucracy. Innovative activity by smaller firms is being stimulated by a comprehensive package of assistance including the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART) and three new schemes, support for products under research (SPUR), the manufacturing, planning and implementation studies scheme (MPI), and the small and medium-sized enterprises technical advice service (SMETAS). DTI has also been at the forefront of implementing the Government's "next steps" initiative. Since 1988, nine agencies have been established within DTI involving roughly half the total manpower of the Department.

  Graylaw Holdings Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has released the inspector's report on Graylaw Holdings Ltd. to any organisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  It would be inappropriate for me to discuss details of individual unpublished reports. Such reports, which include that into the affairs of Graylaw Holdings Ltd., are disclosed where appropriate under the Companies Act 1948 (as amended), under part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 (as amended), and under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, for each year since 1985, the(a) agricultural and (b) the manufacturing goods exported from the United Kingdom to each one of the countries in (i) the Persian Gulf region and (ii) the Maghreb, indicating their value in 1990 moneys.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Volume indices of trade by product category are published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". A copy is available in the Library. However, estimates at constant prices of exports by product category to individual countries are not kept.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recommendations the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has made on the disposal of smoke detectors containing Americium 240.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has made no recommendation to me about the disposal of smoke detectors containing Americium 241. But the National Radiological Protection Board has assured me that they can be disposed of safely with domestic rubbish.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for requiring the packaging of smoke detectors to indicate that they contain radioactive material.

  Mr. Leigh
  The proposed Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations will require approved products to be labelled "approved by the National Radiological Protection Board under the Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations". It is therefore unnecessary to indicate that a product contains a radioactive substance since the product will bear a label indicating that it has been approved as safe.

  Military Exhibition, Baghdad
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any of his officials attended the first international exhibition of military production held in Baghdad in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by his Department on activities arising from the first international exhibition of military production held in Baghdad in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No financial support was given by my Department in respect of this event. Some staff time was involved in providing the non-financial assistance mentioned in my reply on 31 October 1990 to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) at column 608. It is not possible to quantify expenditure on the staff time involved.

  Legislation
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what process is undertaken to ensure that all new Government legislation avoids adding to the costs and reducing the economic viability of British industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  The White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm 512, 1988) committed Departments to compile compliance cost assessments (CCAs) for every regulatory proposal that could affect business. A CCA, which is to be drawn up before decisions are taken, seeks to identify the following: the sectors affected and any additional costs (recurring and non-recurring) they will have to bear; the impact on a "typical" business in the sectors principally affected and any differential effect on small firms; and any effect on international competitiveness. To ensure that
  227
  estimated costs are as accurate as possible, when business is consulted about regulatory proposals, information about compliance costs is to be requested and current estimates exposed in the form of a draft CCA.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Hospitals (Readmissions)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to collect central information for all national health service patients in Scotland who, having been discharged from national health service hospitals, required subsequent hospitalisation for(a) the same complaint or (b) a different but related complaint.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Arrangements are already in train to provide this kind of information through record

  Community psychiatric nurses at 31 March 1989–30 September 1990

  Whole time equivalent

  March 1989

  September 1989

  March 1990

  September 19901

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  22·0

  21·0

  22·0

  25·0

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  10·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  14·0

  14·0

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  15·0

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  6·0

  32·0

  28·0

  30·0

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  1·0

  —

  —

  2·0

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  29·0

  53·0

  64·0

  97·7

  1 Provisional.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Government Finance
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the regional rate for Northern Ireland in each financial year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regional rate for Northern Ireland for each year since 1985 is as follows:

  Year

  Regional rate (non-domestic)

  (pence)

  1985–86

  100·87

  1986–87

  110·38

  1987–88

  113·53

  1988–89

  122·59

  1989–90

  138·07

  1990–91

  148·27

  (1) Overall Domestic Rates

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Antrim

  130·87

  144·13

  150·03

  161·59

  179·07

  190·77

  Ards

  138·87

  151·38

  154·53

  164·59

  183·57

  201·27

  Armagh

  123·37

  136·38

  139·53

  151·59

  170·07

  183·77

  228
  linkage based on the SMR (Scottish Medical Record) system. When fully in operation this will enable episodes of care to be linked together for the same patient and it will be possible to work out details of subsequent hospitalisation for the same condition and for different but related conditions.

  Community psychiatric nurses
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of community psychiatric nurses in post at 1 April each year from 1982 to 1 January 1991 for each health board in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available centrally for community psychiatric nurses is given in the following table.

  Domestic ratepayers have received a reduction of 12p in the poundage each year through the domestic rate aid grant. The resulting domestic regional rate poundages were:

  Year

  Regional rate (domestic)

  (pence)

  1985–86

  88·87

  1986–87

  98·38

  1987–88

  101·53

  1988–89

  110·59

  1989–90

  126·07

  1990–91

  136·27

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the overall rate payable by ratepayers in each district council area in Northern Ireland for each financial year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The overall rate payable by ratepayers in each district council area since 1985 is set out in the tables.
  229

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Ballymena

  125·22

  136·38

  141·38

  153·44

  170·07

  183·27

  Ballymoney

  131·12

  143·63

  147·53

  157·59

  176·32

  190·27

  Banbridge

  133·80

  146·35

  152·51

  161·57

  177·05

  191·15

  Belfast

  157·91

  174·74

  181·56

  194·55

  210·93

  224·35

  Carrickfergus

  143·87

  155·88

  160·94

  173·09

  191·82

  205·77

  Castlereagh

  121·87

  137·46

  142·53

  150·49

  163·97

  180·66

  Coleraine

  133·87

  147·38

  151·53

  163·59

  181·07

  191·27

  Cookstown

  124·72

  138·13

  144·53

  153·34

  173·82

  188·02

  Craigavon

  143·80

  158·59

  164·88

  173·94

  193·54

  207·04

  Derry

  148·37

  165·38

  171·03

  183·14

  202·87

  220·27

  Down

  133·87

  151·38

  161·53

  175·59

  194·07

  206·27

  Dungannon

  126·87

  139·88

  145·53

  154·59

  170·07

  184·02

  Fermanagh

  131·62

  147·13

  152·28

  164·09

  181·57

  193·77

  Larne

  133·87

  147·08

  154·08

  166·34

  182·82

  200·95

  Limavady

  123·87

  137·38

  142·48

  154·09

  173·07

  186·77

  Lisburn

  135·11

  147·18

  151·28

  164·16

  179·64

  191·83

  Magherafelt

  121·91

  134·94

  142·58

  154·09

  172·41

  185·27

  Moyle

  148·62

  164·13

  167·28

  176·09

  194·47

  210·49

  Newry and Mourne

  137·87

  152·68

  161·23

  170·29

  184·07

  194·27

  Newtownabbey

  141·47

  153·49

  158·77

  170·65

  190·17

  200·96

  North Down

  140·37

  155·28

  162·43

  174·29

  191·92

  205·51

  Omagh

  131·87

  145·38

  153·18

  165·59

  184·57

  200·57

  Strabane

  132·37

  148·88

  155·53

  167·59

  186·82

  203·52

  (2) Overall Non-Domestic Rates

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Rate pence

  Antrim

  142·87

  156·13

  162·03

  173·59

  191·07

  202·77

  Ards

  150·87

  163·38

  166·53

  176·59

  195·57

  213·27

  Armagh

  135·37

  148·38

  151·53

  163·59

  182·07

  195·77

  Ballymena

  137·22

  148·38

  153·38

  165·44

  182·07

  195·27

  Ballymoney

  143·12

  155·63

  159·53

  169·59

  188·32

  202·27

  Banbridge

  145·80

  158·35

  164·51

  173·57

  189·05

  203·15

  Belfast

  169·91

  186·74

  193·56

  206·55

  222·03

  236·35

  Carrickfergus

  155·87

  167·88

  172·94

  185·09

  203·82

  217·77

  Castlereagh

  133·87

  149·46

  154·53

  162·49

  175·97

  192·66

  Coleraine

  145·87

  159·38

  163·53

  175·59

  193·07

  203·27

  Cookstown

  136·72

  150·13

  156·53

  165·34

  185·82

  200·02

  Craigavon

  155·80

  170·59

  176·88

  185·94

  205·54

  219·04

  Derry

  160·37

  177·38

  183·03

  195·14

  214·87

  232·27

  Down

  145·87

  163·38

  173·53

  187·59

  206·07

  218·27

  Dungannon

  138·87

  151·88

  157·53

  166·59

  182·07

  196·02

  Fermanagh

  143·62

  159·13

  164·28

  176·09

  193·57

  205·77

  Larne

  145·87

  159·63

  166·08

  178·34

  194·82

  212·95

  Limavady

  135·87

  149·38

  154·48

  166·09

  185·07

  198·77

  Lisburn

  147·11

  159·18

  163·28

  176·16

  191·64

  203·83

  Magherafelt

  133·91

  146·94

  154·58

  166·09

  184·41

  197·27

  Moyle

  160·62

  176·13

  179·28

  188·09

  206·47

  222·49

  Newry and Mourne

  149·87

  164·68

  173·23

  182·29

  196·07

  206·27

  Newtownabbey

  153·47

  165·49

  170·77

  182·65

  202·17

  212·96

  North Down

  152·37

  167·28

  174·43

  186·29

  203·92

  217·51

  Omagh

  143·87

  157·38

  165·18

  177·59

  196·57

  212·57

  Strabane

  144·37

  160·88

  167·53

  179·59

  198·82

  215·52

  Housing
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of new houses built by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the number of new houses completed by the Housing Executive in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  2,952

  1980–81

  2,701

  1981–82

  2,342

  1982–83

  3,628

  1983–84

  3,874

  230

  Number

  1984–85

  3,384

  1985–86

  3,160

  1986–87

  2,222

  1987–88

  1,805

  1988–89

  1,653

  1989–90

  1,577

  11990–91

  1,151

  1 The figure for 1990–91 is for the period April 1990 to January 1991.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of manufacturing jobs lost in Mid-Ulster since 1 April 1990.
  231
  Mr. Needham
  The information available relates to redundancies notified to the Department of Economic Development involving 10 or more employees at any specific workplace. This shows that 77 redundancies have occurred in the manufacturing sector in the Mid-Ulster parliamentary constituency since 1 April 1990.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to secure the welfare of livestock in transit(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) for export outside Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Present Northern Ireland measures, as updated in 1989 and enforced by the veterinary inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, provide wide protection of the welfare of animals both on internal and international journeys.

  The controls conform to the standards of the EC directives on international transport. These will be adjusted as required following the current EC review of welfare of animals in transport.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the numbers of(a) cattle, (b) horses, (c) sheep, (d) chickens and (e) other livestock killed in transit each year in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held by the Department.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce a measure to require drivers of animal transit vehicles to have basic skills in animal welfare matters.

  Mr. Hanley
  Current Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EC legislation for the protection of animals in transit places a duty on drivers to exercise care in the loading, unloading, feeding and watering of such animals.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what role the Audit Commission will have in respect of the auditing of(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) city technology colleges.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Auditing of grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges is the function of external auditors appointed by each school and college. The Audit Commission has successfully tendered to become the external auditors of several grant-maintained schools under the provisions of section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Geography
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he has taken in the preparation of the national curriculum geography draft order of the recommendations of the geography working group and the National Curriculum Council regarding the inclusion of inquiry skills and the possible conflict between geography and environmental education.
  232
  Mr. Eggar
  The draft order for geography accepts the greater part of the National Curriculum Council's advice. This advice was based on proposals for the geography curriculum published in June last year, which were based on the geography working group's final report. In publishing the draft order my right hon. and learned Friend explained his view that the main emphasis of the attainment targets should be on the assessment of pupils' knowledge and understanding of aspects of geography, and less emphasis should be placed on the assessment of skills which are not particular to geography and the study of people's attitudes and opinions. The draft order confirms the importance of environmental education in geography through the inclusion of a separate attainment target devoted to this subject.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he was given by the governors of Stratford school, Forest Gate, London E7 on the application for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  A majority of the governing body of Stratford school was opposed to grant-maintained status, and advised rejection of the application.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the implications are for Newham council educational reorganisation and case for a secondary school in docklands of the decision to allow grant-maintained status to Stratford school, Forest Gate, London E7.

  Mr. Eggar
  The first phase of Newham education authority's reorganisation was approved by the then Secretary of State in April 1990, some six months before any decision was made about Stratford school. The possible long-term need for a secondary school in the docklands development area was not a factor in the decision to give grant-maintained status to Stratford school. My right hon. and learned Friend will consider any proposal for a new school in docklands on its merits.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many hon. Members contacted him expressing support for the granting of grant-maintained status for Stratford school, Forest Gate, London E7.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of pupils at Stratford school, Forest Gate, London E7(a) before grant-maintained status was given and (b) at present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Stratford school had 765 pupils in January 1990. I understand that there were 393 pupils on roll in January 1991. In March 1990 the school published proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. These were approved in October 1990. The school will transfer to grant-maintained status on 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will place in the Library copies of advice and memoranda from Her Majesty's inspectors of schools regarding the application for grant-maintained status in respect of Stratford school, Forest Gate, London E7;
  233
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 February, Official Report, column 257, if the advice from Her Majesty's inspector of schools was in favour of granting grant-maintained status to Stratford school, Forest Gate, London E7; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Advice provided by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools is confidential to Ministers.

  Education Resources
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to ensure that more resources are delegated to schools; and if he will make a statement.

  1990–91 budgets: percentage of potential schools budget delegated to schools

  Local education authority3

  Percentage of PSB1 delegated to schools

  Discretionary2 exceptions as percentage of PSB

  Central administration as percentage of PSB

  1. Bolton

  89·10

  10·90

  2·02

  2. Berkshire

  87·68

  12·32

  2·71

  3. West Sussex

  87·49

  12·51

  1·95

  4. Sefton

  87·44

  12·56

  4·45

  5. Barking

  87·01

  12·99

  3·34

  6. Sunderland

  86·86

  13·14

  3·10

  7. Gloucestershire

  86·78

  13·22

  3·65

  8. Northumberland

  86·54

  13·46

  3·10

  9. Rotherham

  86·13

  13·87

  3·74

  10. Leeds

  86·12

  13·88

  3·87

  11. Bradford

  86·04

  13·96

  3·87

  12. Hampshire

  85·78

  14·22

  3·34

  13. Rochdale

  85·74

  14·26

  2·55

  14. Walsall

  85·72

  14·28

  3·37

  15. Suffolk

  85·66

  14·34

  2·75

  16. Surrey

  85·57

  14·43

  6·17

  17. Doncaster

  85·45

  14·55

  2·29

  18. Solihull

  85·31

  14·69

  2·49

  19. Warwickshire

  85·24

  14·76

  3·90

  20. Lincolnshire

  85·13

  14·87

  2·68

  21. Liverpool

  84·91

  15·09

  4·07

  22. Buckinghamshire

  84·88

  15·12

  4·58

  23. Kent

  84·87

  15·13

  3·79

  24. Northamptonshire

  84·74

  15·26

  3·69

  25. Staffordshire

  84·61

  15·39

  4·51

  26. Shropshire

  84·60

  15·40

  2·48

  27. Tameside

  84·40

  15·60

  2·47

  28. Trafford

  84·38

  15·62

  3·49

  29. Salford

  84·37

  15·63

  3·19

  30. Barnet

  84·36

  15·64

  5·07

  31. Cheshire

  84·31

  15·69

  5·15

  32. East Sussex

  84·09

  15·91

  2·42

  33. Essex

  84·03

  15·97

  4·11

  34. Bedfordshire

  84·02

  15·98

  3·91

  35. Dudley

  83·98

  16·02

  3·62

  36. Havering

  83·87

  16·13

  2·28

  37. South Tyneside

  83·76

  16·24

  4·20

  38. Brent

  83·63

  16·37

  4·82

  39. Cleveland

  83·63

  16·37

  5·56

  40. Norfolk

  83·62

  16·38

  4·05

  41. Cornwall

  83·57

  16·43

  3·72

  42. Sutton

  83·44

  16·56

  4·05

  43. Barnsley

  83·38

  16·62

  2·86

  44. Kirklees

  83·38

  16·62

  3·98

  45. Derbyshire

  83·37

  16·63

  2·96

  46. Gateshead

  83·29

  16·71

  3·01

  47. Wigan

  83·28

  16·72

  3·70

  48. St. Helens

  83·27

  16·73

  3·69

  49. Sandwell

  83·24

  16·76

  3·75

  50. Durham

  83·13

  16·87

  4·35

  51. Devon

  83·11

  16·89

  3·06

  52. Birmingham

  83·04

  16·96

  4·36

  53. Somerset

  82·91

  17·09

  3·58

  54. Wakefield

  82·87

  17·13

  2·98

  55. Nottinghamshire

  82·72

  17·28

  5·24

  56. Redbridge

  82·71

  17·29

  4·91

  57. Lancashire

  82·66

  17·34

  3·65

  58. North Yorkshire

  82·62

  17·38

  4·15

  234
  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 December 1990, c. 324–29]: We have now received the budget statement prepared by Waltham Forest local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act. The two tables update the figures published in my original reply to include data from Waltham Forest and revised information from Barking and Dagenham local education authority.
  235

  Local education authority3

  Percentage of PSB1 delegated to schools

  Discretionary2 exceptions as percentage of PSB

  Central administration as percentage of PSB

  59. Sheffield

  82·61

  17·39

  3·49

  60. Cumbria

  82·53

  17·47

  4·04

  61. Isle of Wight

  82·48

  17·52

  4·68

  62. Wiltshire

  82·35

  17·65

  3·92

  63. North Tyneside

  82·30

  17·70

  5·03

  64. Avon

  82·30

  17·70

  3·40

  65. Bury

  81·92

  18·08

  4·70

  66. Knowsley

  81·91

  18·09

  5·07

  67. Calderdale

  81·86

  18·14

  4·84

  68. Dorset

  81·85

  18·15

  4·71

  69. Wolverhampton

  81·77

  18·23

  5·26

  70. Humberside

  81·71

  18·29

  3·57

  71. Ealing

  81·66

  18·34

  6·33

  72. Oldham

  81·64

  18·36

  4·98

  73. Hounslow

  81·59

  18·41

  5·19

  74. Harrow

  81·52

  18·48

  5·76

  75. Enfield

  81·50

  18·50

  5·56

  76. Oxfordshire

  81·37

  18·63

  5·46

  77. Bexley

  81·33

  18·67

  4·61

  78. Coventry

  80·93

  19·07

  6·00

  79. Cambridgeshire

  80·75

  19·25

  4·82

  80. Bromley

  80·70

  19·30

  4·49

  81. Richmond

  79·98

  20·02

  6·91

  82. Merton

  79·79

  20·21

  7·86

  83. Newcastle

  79·75

  20·25

  6·12

  84. Waltham Forest

  79·65

  20·35

  7·02

  85. Haringey

  79·36

  20·64

  6·04

  86. Kingston

  78·46

  21·54

  7·09

  87. Westminster

  77·97

  22·03

  8·20

  Average

  83·76

  16·24

  5·26

  1 PSB = General Schools Budget minus mandatory exceptions, school meals, home to school transport and transitional exceptions.

  2 Column 2 is the percentage of the PSB not delegated to schools, for example 100 per cent, minus the percentage in Column 1.

  3 All 87 LEAs which introduced LMS in April 1990 were required to publish budget statements for 1990–91 under Section 42 of ERA.

  1990–91 budgets:

  Percentage of the aggregated schools budget1 allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and ages

  LEA2

  Percentage

  1. Redbridge

  89·30

  2. Lincolnshire

  87·25

  3. South Tyneside

  86·93

  4. Barking

  86·73

  5. Bolton

  85·73

  6. Dudley

  85·72

  7. Tameside

  85·57

  8. North Yorkshire

  85·51

  9. Northumberland

  85·49

  10. Bromley

  84·99

  11. Oldham

  84·77

  12. Bexley

  84·40

  13. Gateshead

  84·36

  14. Wigan

  84·35

  15. Westminster

  84·20

  16. Staffordshire

  84·00

  17. Harrow

  83·83

  18. Kent

  83·72

  19. Coventry

  83·52

  20. Sefton

  83·33

  21. Trafford

  83·28

  22. Gloucestershire

  83·22

  23. Barnsley

  82·80

  24. Devon

  82·64

  25. Suffolk

  82·57

  26. Cambridgeshire

  82·34

  27. Avon

  82·30

  28. Solihull

  82·29

  29. Northamptonshire

  82·19

  30. Calderdale

  82·17

  31. West Sussex

  82·13

  32. Waltham Forest

  81·99

  33. Humberside

  81·97

  34. Rotherham

  81·79

  35. Salford

  81·69

  236

  LEA2

  Percentage

  36. Isle of Wight

  81·62

  37. Bury

  81·45

  38. Cleveland

  81·43

  39. Hounslow

  81·42

  40. Wiltshire

  81·00

  41. Cornwall

  80·93

  42. Sunderland

  80·69

  43. Newcastle

  80·66

  44. Ealing

  80·62

  45. Durham

  80·40

  46. Sutton

  80·29

  47. Somerset

  79·99

  48. Warwickshire

  79·89

  49. Buckinghamshire

  79·73

  50. Berkshire

  79·68

  51. Enfield

  79·21

  52. Dorset

  79·03

  53. Leeds

  78·90

  54. Birmingham

  78·63

  55. Bradford

  78·51

  56. Merton

  78·36

  57. Haringey

  78·25

  58. Walsall

  78·19

  59. Kirklees

  78·17

  60. North Tyneside

  78·00

  61. Shropshire

  77·91

  62. Brent

  77·81

  63. Cheshire

  77·78

  64. East Sussex

  77·41

  65. Richmond

  77·26

  66. Sheffield

  77·19

  67. Essex

  77·05

  68. Bedfordshire

  77·00

  69. Kingston

  76·84

  70. Hampshire

  76·63

  71. Derbyshire

  76·04

  72. Norfolk

  75·99

  73. Cumbria

  75·62

  237

  LEA2

  Percentage

  74. Oxfordshire

  75·61

  75. Doncaster

  75·38

  76. Havering

  75·36

  77. Wakefield

  75·29

  78. Barnet

  75·19

  79. Liverpool

  75·00

  80. Rochdale

  75·00

  81. St. Helens

  75·00

  82. Knowsley

  75·00

  83. Wolverhampton

  75·00

  84. Sandwell

  74·94

  85. Surrey

  74·91

  1 ASB=Aggregated Schools Budget: the amount planned to be allocated through the LMS formula.

  2 The budget statements produced by Lancashire and Nottinghamshire LEAs did not contain the relevant information.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  The Gulf
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his remarks in the House on 14 February,Official Report, column 1002, who, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, has made representations to the broaacasting authorities concerning coverage of the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No formal representations have been made.

HEALTH

  Funding, Leeds
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much expenditure has been allocated to Leeds from regional and central funding in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information derivable from annual accounts submitted to the Department is shown in the table.

  Leeds health authorities—total expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  Year

  Revenue expenditure £000 (Cash)

  Capital expenditure £000 (Cash)

  1979–80

  86,377

  7,735

  1980–81

  111,821

  11,339

  1981–82

  123,904

  14,297

  1982–83

  131,728

  13,862

  1983–84

  141,456

  13,135

  1984–85

  150,450

  9,694

  1985–86

  160,481

  9,919

  1986–87

  172,071

  7,903

  1987–88

  191,063

  8,618

  1988–89

  213,367

  12,305

  1989–90

  232,187

  13,761

  Source:

  Annual accounts of the Leeds Western and Eastern health authorities (Leeds area health authority for the years prior to 1982–83) and those of the Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Notes:

  1. HCHS covers all services directly managed by the health authorities concerned including hospital, community health and
  238
  other services. Expenditure on family practitioner services (now family health services) is not strictly attributable to districts and is excluded. However, the figures for the years prior to 1985–86 include small elements relating to the administrative expenses of the former Leeds family practitioner committee which were included in relevant annual accounts but are not separately identifiable.

  2. The figures for capital expenditure include amounts in respect of schemes within Leeds districts but recorded in the annual accounts of the Yorkshire regional health authority. All other expenditure incurred by the latter authority for the Leeds area or the Yorkshire region as a whole is excluded. Expenditure met on a national basis by other NHS organisations or by the Department is similarly excluded.

  3. Figures for capital expenditure at regional and sub-regional levels tend to fluctuate year on year mainly reflecting changes in the pattern of capital investment throughout the country.

  Myodil
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the Government's response to the side effects of the drug Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 13 December 1990 at columns 466–69.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for results from cervical smear tests by region and district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available in the form requested. Health authorities are asked to ensure that laboratories return results of smear tests to the smear-taker within one month. A survey of laboratory backlogs and workload carried out in the second half of 1990 indicated that around two thirds of laboratories were meeting that target in July 1990. In those areas where backlogs existed the average processing time was 7·5 weeks.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cervical smear tests have been carried out on women for each year since 1980(a) per region and (b) per district; and if he will state by (i) district and (ii) region how many are still to be dealt with.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of cervical smear tests carried out on women for each year from 1980 to 1989 is given in the table by region. The 1988–89 figure is for 193 out of the 200 laboratories which submitted a return in that year. The information is collected from laboratories. It is not possible or relevant to produce it by district. Smears taken from women in a particular region are sometimes analysed by laboratories in other regions.

  Information on the number of smears outstanding was collected for the 1988–89 year, but the quality and completeness of the data were such that no useful figures can be produced.

  Improvements are being set in hand to improve the quality of this new data collection system.
  239

  Cervical Cytology

  Smears examined by Regional Health Authority

  Thousands

  England

  Regional Health Authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northern

  152

  158

  154

  172

  186

  226

  224

  270

  300

  Yorkshire

  199

  211

  204

  224

  242

  271

  266

  299

  305

  Trent

  275

  288

  281

  297

  320

  359

  343

  393

  403

  East Anglia

  101

  104

  104

  121

  130

  145

  144

  159

  185

  North West Thames

  263

  261

  244

  260

  264

  302

  297

  317

  375

  North East Thames

  221

  230

  254

  275

  277

  316

  308

  325

  326

  South East Thames

  223

  225

  218

  233

  246

  282

  284

  317

  326

  South West Thames

  187

  193

  182

  195

  208

  231

  229

  248

  267

  Wessex

  155

  160

  160

  170

  182

  208

  211

  233

  233

  Oxford

  137

  137

  133

  151

  164

  195

  195

  222

  238

  South Western

  154

  161

  157

  173

  102

  214

  219

  247

  247

  West Midlands

  291

  292

  289

  310

  342

  395

  403

  465

  507

  Mersey

  90

  93

  91

  104

  118

  138

  154

  203

  212

  North Western

  333

  328

  322

  347

  370

  399

  416

  389

  392

  Special Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  England

  2,789

  2,850

  2,809

  3,046

  3,245

  3,696

  3,709

  4,099

  4,326

  Notes:

  These figures relate to smears analysed by laboratories in each region.

  Smears taken from women in one region are in some cases analysed in laboratories in other regions.

  Figures for 1988–89 are for those 193 laboratories which submitted a return.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the national screening programme for breast and cervical cancer towards achieving its objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is the first country in the EC to have a nationwide call and recall scheme for both breast and cervical cancer screening.

  Breast Screening Programme

  Between 1987 and 1990 £55 million was allocated in England to set up and run the nationwide breast screening programme. Women aged between 50 and 64 will be invited every three years for mammographic screening. Specialised screening centres are now operating over most of the country and all eligible women throughout England should have been invited for screening by 1993. Figures for those centres operational for the whole of 1988–89 indicate that around 70 per cent. of women receiving invitations are accepting them. A report issued in January 1991 by the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening supported the current programme and concluded that it could reduce mortality in the eligible age group by around a quarter by the year 2000.

  Cervical Screening Programme

  Computerised call and recall systems were implemented in all district health authorities by April 1988. Women aged between 20 and 64 should have been invited for screening by 1993 and will be recalled at least every five years. Health authorities must ensure that all abnormal smears are followed up and facilities for investigation and treatment are available.

  In the first six months since the introduction of the GP's contract 54 per cent. of GPs received payment for 80 per cent. coverage of women screened and 35 per cent. for 50 per cent. coverage.

  The NHS has set up the national co-ordinating network for the cervical screening programme which supports
  240
  managers and others responsible at local level. £95,000 has been awarded to the network for each financial year 1990–91 and 1992–93.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to bring forward the necessary measures to implement the conscience clause of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I announced on 14 February that a commencement order will be laid which will enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to assume its full powers on 1 August 1991. The commencement order will bring section 38 (conscientious objection) of the Act into force at the same time.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement giving details of the proposed timetable for the implementation of the different sections of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A commencement order and regulations relating to the termination of pregnancy (section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act) will be laid shortly. A commencement order and regulations necessary to enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to function fully from 1 August 1991 will be brought forward later this year. The implementation of secton 30 of the Act (to facilitate parental orders where a surrogate mother is involved) depends on certain sections of the Children Act 1989 which are expected to come into force in the autumn of this year.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will respond to the 10th report of Session 1989–90 of the Social Services Committee on the working of the conscience clause of the Abortion Act—House of Commons Paper No. 123;
  241
  (2) what action he has taken to ensure that candidates for medical school are no longer asked their views on abortion.
  242
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are carefully considering the committee's report and will be publishing our response shortly.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes making any changes to the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990 which introduce new temperature controls from 1 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  New controls on the temperature of foods during production, storage, distribution and service to the consumer were announced on 18 July 1990 and regulations specifying relevant foods and control temperatures come into force in stages from 1 April.

  The requirements are introduced to help minimise the opportunity for growth of pathogenic micro-organisms such as listeria and salmonella. For many food businesses the regulations represent the first statutory requirement to maintain temperature control. The controls are additional to the general provisions contained in the Food Safety Act on the safety of food for the consumer.

  I am concerned that requirements are not introduced which unnecessarily alter working practices where there is no overriding food safety reason for doing so. I am also concerned that the regulations should be practical to implement.

  Together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods and the Welsh Office I have considered representations made on the way in which the regulations apply to certain foods. I believe that in certain areas it is reasonable for changes to be made to the regulations which would not present a public health risk.

  Officials will therefore be consulting interested parties on further changes to the regulations and a copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Library. When the consultation is complete, further amending regulations will be laid before Parliament.

  The main changes proposed are:
  to allow a two hour period immediately after baking before certain baked products need to begin to be chilled. Any micro-organisms present after baking would take at least two hours before starting to multiply to levels which could give rise to health concerns. I am satisfied that this relaxation would make a significant difference to the investment required by industry and is consistent with the food safety objectives of the temperature control regulations;
  to allow certain uncut baked egg pastry products, such as custard tarts and Yorkshire curd tarts, to remain outside temperature controls if to be sold on the day of their production. I am satisfied that this exemption would allow craft bakers to continue their traditional practice whilst still safeguarding public health;
  to allow an exemption of four hours outside temperature controls for foods displayed on premises such as railway buffet cars, mobile catering facilities, or marquees provided that no more food than necessary is displayed. This exemption extends to these facilities the exemption already available to catering premises;
  to extend the deadline for compliance with the temperature controls, which operate from 1 April 1991, to 1 April 1992 for some airline catering where compliance can only be achieved by refrigeration of highly specialised delivery vehicles;
  to exempt foods delivered by mail order through the post or by courier to allow industry more time to develop practical means of achieving necessary controls. Research studies have been commissioned by Government to identify ways of maintaining product stability in this area and further discussion with industry on practical solutions will be needed. This exemption will be kept under review and we shall be examining urgently ways of providing consumers with information on these products.

  Other detailed points are contained in the consultation document. Comments on these changes are being sought from consumer interests, industry, and enforcement
  244
  agencies. I understand that my colleagues at the Scottish Office will also now be conducting a consultation on parallel draft Scottish regulations.

  The temperature controls are an important new measure in seeking to improve food safety and I shall continue to keep their operation and effectiveness under review to ensure they achieve the intended objectives while being practical. I am conscious that there will be an important period of education and learning for all concerned in the early stages of the new controls. Enforcement agencies will clearly want to bear in mind the proposed changes when considering advice and action to enforce the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken to ensure that products of the blood products laboratory meet the conditions laid down under the Medicines Act and enforced by the Medicines Control Agency;

  (2) what proposals his Department has to import unlicensed plasma products from unlicensed overseas sources.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The bioproducts laboratory is not at present covered by the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act because of Crown immunity. However, some of its products are so licensed and it will be seeking licences for other products under the arrangements leading to the removal of Crown immunity. For many years the BPL has been inspected by the medicines inspectorate and its products have been tested by the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, as are similar licensed pharmaceutical products.

  The Department has no plans to import plasma products.

  Brook and Greenwich Hospitals
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received about the number of operations cancelled at the Brook and Greenwich district hospitals during 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not collect information about the number of operations cancelled. We collect information about operating theatre sessions held and cancelled in each district health authority. This information is not broken down by hospital.

  Fostering
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many responses he has received to paragraph 16 of his draft guidance notes on gay and lesbian fostering; how many were(a) in favour and (b) critical of the proposals; and if he will list those in each case from organisations;

  (2) what plans he has to review his guidance notes on gay and lesbian fostering, paragraph 16, following representations he has received.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The responses received on the foster placement consultation document are now being considered. We plan to issue guidance that the interests of children are paramount.
  245
  I shall write to the hon. Member about the general responses, letters and pre-printed postcards.

  Diploma in Social Work
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diplomas in social work courses he expects to have been approved by October 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Approval of courses is a matter for the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). The council's current targets for full approval are a total of 19 by 31 March 1991 and 59 by 31 March 1992. Planning figures for March to October 1991 are not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum number of diplomas in social work courses that he expects to be approved.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Approval of diploma in social work courses is a matter for the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). The council has no plans at present for a maximum number of courses but expects a total of 109 throughout the United Kingdom by 1993–94.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diplomas in social work courses he expects to be approved in the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work northern region.

  Senior Managers in Social Services Departments in England and Wales 1990

  Directors

  Deputies

  Assistant/Divisional Directors or equivalent

  Totals

  Percentages

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  English Counties

  38

  1

  30

  3

  185

  36

  253

  40

  86

  14

  English Metropolitan Districts

  31

  5

  24

  2

  111

  26

  166

  33

  83

  17

  London Boroughs

  25

  7

  12

  2

  79

  34

  116

  43

  73

  27

  Welsh Authorities

  7

  1

  6

  1

  29

  5

  42

  7

  86

  14

  Totals

  101

  14

  72

  8

  404

  101

  577

  123

  Percentages

  88

  12

  90

  10

  80

  20

  82

  18

  Note: Not all posts are included because of vacancies.

  Women make up 86·5 per cent. of the local authority personal social services work force and 12 per cent. of senior management.

  Miscarriage Association
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now announce the core grant for central administrative costs to the Miscarriage Association for the next three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Recipients of awards made under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 will be informed about their grants shortly.

  Female Circumcision
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will obtain a videocassette and transcript of the BBC 2 "Forty Minutes" television programme on female circumcision to be shown on 21 February for his departmental library.
  246
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has set a target of 20 courses providing 1,700 student places by the end of 1993–94.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is seeking a regional balance of diploma in social work courses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Approval of diploma in social work courses is a matter for the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). The council is seeking to ensure that there is a reasonable distribution of courses throughout the United Kingdom, and within each region of the United Kingdom, reflecting service needs.

  Social Services Departments (Women Managers)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women there are in senior management positions in local authority social services departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not routinely collected centrally. However a recently published report of the social services inspectorate entitled: "Women in Social Services, a neglected resource" identified the following distribution of women senior managers in local authorities in England and Wales:

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. The Department is already aware of the proposed broadcast and will obtain a copy.

DEFENCE

  Night Flying
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the comparative noise levels at take-off and requirement to conduct flying exercises at night as between F15 and F111 aircraft operated by the USAF from Lakenheath.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The FI5Es to be introduced at RAF Lakenheath are expected to operate to the same night flying restrictions which apply to the F111F aircraft presently stationed at the base, with an increase of around 12 sorties a month currently planned. Noise levels generated by F111F and F15E aircraft are very similar. It is our practice to review existing compensation
  247
  arrangements when aircraft deployments change, and this will apply at RAF Lakenheath once the F15E aircraft are in place.

  The Gulf
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the adequacy of supply of sunglasses to troops serving in Operation Desert Storm.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date some 49,000 pairs of sunglasses have been dispatched to the Gulf. This is an adequate supply to provide one pair of sunglasses to each of the troops serving there.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a soldier aged 17 years and three months and eligible to serve with the British Army in the Gulf can be required to take part in military action.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in the reserve forces have refused to serve in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1991]: Of those reservists issued with compulsory call-out notices 33 made successful appeals for exemption on the basis of difficult personal circumstances or conscientious objection. A small number of reservists have failed to report for duty without apparent good reason. A decision on what action should be taken in respect of these non-reporters has yet to be made.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) British service personnel and (b) service personnel from each of the coalition forces have been killed or injured in the Gulf since 17 January to date; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are his estimates of dead and injured Iraqi military in Iraq and Kuwait since 17 January to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to provide overall estimates of the number of allied or Iraqi military personnel killed or injured so far during hostilities. The United Kingdom has no personnel confirmed as killed or injured as a direct result of hostilities.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the major producers of small arms ammunition which have been given contracts to replace the munitions being used by British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The question of replacing small arms ammunition used in the Gulf has not yet arisen.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in the reserve forces, who volunteered to serve in the Gulf, were refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February]: No Royal Navy or Royal Air Force reservists who volunteered for service in the Gulf were rejected. Of the 1,124 Army reservists who volunteered, 206 were rejected for various reasons.
  248
  Call-out procedures have proved satisfactory and the requirement has been met largely on a voluntary basis.

  RAF Honington
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF Honington.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of our studies following the statement on "Options for Change" by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 July 1990 at col. 470, we are considering the future of a number of RAF stations in the United Kingdom, including Honington, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Defence Quality Assurance
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has determined a date for the relocation of the directorate general of defence quality assurance.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It was proposed to move some 1,600 posts of the directorate general, defence quality assurance to Stockton-on-Tees between 1993 and 1995. This project is now being reassessed and I will make an announcement in due course.

  Military Exhibition, Baghdad
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any of his officials attended the first international exhibition for military production held in Baghdad in 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Military Personnel
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have so far been returned to the United Kingdom for medical treatment since the commencement of Operation Granby; and if he will broadly classify the cases according to treatment, and identify the regional health authorities involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 467 service personnel have been returned to the United Kingdom from the Gulf for medical reasons since the commencement of the deployment. Those involved have suffered varying degrees of accidental injury or have illnesses which could be best treated in the United Kingdom.

  One case has been referred to the NHS—South Western regional health authority.

  HMY Britannia
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the daily cost of running HMY Britannia; and how much is to be charged per day for any commercial usage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The daily cost of running HMY Britannia in 1990–91 is about £25,400, including an allowance for servicing work undertaken during the year. Catering and other additional expenses incurred are charged for her use on commercial activities in support of British industry.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals to convert HMY Britannia for hospital use in the Gulf war.
  249
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 4 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) at column 69.

  Nuclear Warships
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions he has declined to follow the advice of the nuclear-powered warship safety committee in every particular.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I can confirm that it is the MOD's policy to act in accordance with the independent expert advice of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee on the construction, operation and maintenance of our nuclear submarines.

  Lundy Island
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the nature conservation status of Lundy island and to the preservation of its rare coral when designating an area close by for bomb disposal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 15 February at column 621. B52 aircrews have been instructed to avoid Lundy island if an exceptional emergency requires them to jettison bombs in the danger area off Hartland point.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the protection of small fishing vessels and their crews when designating the area off Lundy island and Hartland point for bomb disposal at sea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West on 15 February at column 621.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider a site 40 miles south of Lundy island for B52 bomb disposal at sea in preference to the Lundy island area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what significant changes have been introduced in terms of content and presentation in his first annual report—Cm 1506—when set against the 1990 public expenditure White Paper; what steps were taken to draw it to the attention of the media and other possible interested parties; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether his Department has any plans to develop its annual report further.

  Mr. Jackson
  The report shows the wide range of opportunities offered by my Department for training, enterprise, education and special help for the unemployed and the way it is promoting a fairer and safer workplace. Each part of the Employment Department group now has a separate section in the report describing its expenditure 250
  on programmes and services which reflects broadly the order in which the estimate for 1991–92 will be presented. This enables an easier read across to estimates than the 1990 public expenditure White Paper presentation by departmental objectives. The report introduces more detail on running costs, more detail on the impact of Europe and an account of departmental responsibilities regarding the environment. The use of colour and charts helps present the information to the general public.

  Notice of the publication of my report was given a week beforehand in a written question on 29 January 1991 at col. 466. A press notice was released on the day of publication and copies of the report were placed in the Libraries of the Houses. Copies were also sent to the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and to members of the Employment, Treasury and Civil Service Committees as interested parties.

  I intend to continue presenting details of my Department's plans in as helpful a way as possible.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, in ranking order, the 30 parliamentary constituencies with the most economically active people.

  Mr. Jackson
  The only regular source of data on the economically active population is the labour force survey. This is a sample survey of about 60,000 households in Great Britain. Because of the size of the sample, estimates can be made only down to regional level.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table comparing the plans agreed in the 1989 and 1990 public expenditure surveys on the same price base and using the gross domestic product deflator assumptions given, respectively, in 1990 and 1991 public expenditure White Papers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the following table. The plans for 1991–92 onwards in the 1991 departmental report are not directly comparable to the plans for 1991–92 onwards in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper chiefly because they exclude the amounts transferred to the Scottish programme, mainly for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which will be responsible for delivering the main training and enterprise programmes in Scotland with effect from 1991–92.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's three-year plans for running costs.

  Mr. Jackson
  My departmental report includes information on running costs over the three forward years and on the efficiency and effectiveness with which these resources are used. More detailed information is published for the employment service in the "Annual Performance Agreement and Operational Plan" and for the Health and
  251
  Safety Executive in the "Health and Safety Commission's Plan of Work". Other management documents are for internal use within the Employment Department group.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect on those in employment training in Avon of the closures of schemes, under the reduction in the employment training budget, for Avon for 1991–92 over 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  All employment training trainees affected by scheme closures will be reviewed individually and an alternative ET place or other appropriate outcome will be offered to them.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies prosecuted between 1 October 1989 and 30 September 1990 under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations; and if he will give details of the alleged offences which led to the prosecutions.

  Mr. Forth
  Provisional details of the companies prosecuted under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations between 1 October 1989 and 30 September 1990 are given in the following list:

  Informations Laid under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations by HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates, 1 October 1989 to 30 September 1990 (provisional).

  Name of Company

  No. of Informations

  Regulation

  Fairey Arlon Ltd, Hounslow

  1

  7(1)

  SI Industries, Croydon

  1

  6

  Messrs. Sandberg. London

  5

  All 7 (1)

  Wolverhampton MBC Works Dept.

  3

  6, 7, 12

  BPC Ltd, Northfield

  1

  6

  Delta Crompton Cables Ltd, Swansea

  2

  7, 12

  Glynwed Consumer and Building Products Ltd, Telford

  13

  7, 12, 12

  S&D Castings Ltd, Chesterfield

  2

  Both Reg 12

  AWT Painters Ltd, Leigh

  1

  7

  Parkcrest Foundry Ltd, Ashton-Under-Lyne

  2

  Both Reg 9

  Brimset Ltd, Rotherham

  1

  7(1)

  Electrical Motor Service Centres Ltd, Chester-Le-Street

  3

  6, 7, 12

  Advance Sectional Buildings (Cleveland) Ltd, Hartlepool

  1

  6

  Stonewest Cox, Newcastle

  1

  7(1)

  James Howden Ltd, Renfrew

  2

  6,7

  1 One information on Regulation 12 withdrawn

  Note:

  Prosecution under the above specific regulations concern the following requirements:

  Regulation 6:—undertaking on assessment

  Regulation 7:—preventing or adequately controlling exposure

  Regulation 9:—Maintaining control measures

  Regulation 12:—Providing sufficient information instruction and training.

  The data do not include details of cases under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 taken solely where employers have failed to comply with enforcement notices concerned with the COSHH regulations.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the seasonal factors involved in the adjustment of the unemployment and jobcentre vacancy figures for January announced on 14 February, in each case citing the factor concerned and the number of those affected by it so as to account for its part in the difference between the adjusted and unadjusted total.

  Mr. Howard
  The seasonal factors applied to the United Kingdom unemployment and jobcentre vacancy figures for January 1991 are as follows:

  Factor

  Change in factor on previous month

  Unemployment

  -68,600

  +63,300

  Vacancies

  +28,400

  -12,500

  Note: These factors are provisional and subject to revision, mainly in the following month.

  The seasonal influences on the unemployment and vacancy figures follow a broadly similar pattern year to year, with January having the most unfavourable influences of any month. The precise reasons for this are not known. It is likely that both the unemployment and vacancy figures in January are affected by the fact that (a) many firms close over Christmas and new year and so temporarily cease recruiting; (b) the majority of seasonal employment recruitment for the Christmas and the new year period will have come to an end by January; (c) the weather inhibits employment and recruitment in, for example, the construction and tourism-related industries. For these reasons, unemployment in January is usually well above the average for the year (and therefore has a negative factor applied to the headline total to get the seasonally adjusted figure), just as in June unemployment is usually below average. With vacancies the reverse is the case.

  Further details of the process of seasonal adjustment used on the monthly unemployment figures can be found on page 604 of the December 1990 issue of Employment Gazette. A similar process is used for vacancy figures.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Feedstuffs
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the expenditure implications of the EC directive on the official control of feedstuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  An extra £30 million a year has been added to the revenue support grant from 1991–92 to meet the costs falling to local authorities in Great Britain as a result of new food legislation.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Government will set up a national network of incinerators to destroy the carcases of BSE-infected cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  Over 80 per cent. of the carcases are already dealt with in Britain's existing network of incinerators and more will come on stream later this year.
  253
  I hope the hon. Member does not want to override local planning laws with a socialist alternative to NIMBY (not in my back yard)—LSIMBIMBY (Labour says it must be in my back yard).

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) earlier today.

  Clone Breeding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about clone breeding of various species.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aware of the basic research which is being carried out at home and abroad and are closely monitoring developments on the cloning of animals.

  The Department will ensure that the same high standards of welfare will apply to all farm animals, regardless of their origin.

  Horses and Ponies
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has been able to negotiate improved treatment for the export of horses and ponies to the EC after 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  Negotiations are still at an early stage on the proposals for a Council regulation on the protection of animals during transport. We will press strongly for retention of measures which will prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter.

  British Food
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to promote sales of British food.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory).

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Britain's exports of food products.

  Mr. Curry
  In the 12 months to November 1990, United Kingdom exports of food and drink amounted to £6 billion. This figure represents about 6 per cent. of the total value of our visible exports, and is an 8 per cent. improvement over the previous 12-month period.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards an EC directive on the transport of food animals.

  Mr. Gummer
  There have been two meetings of officials from member states to discuss the Commission's proposal for a new regulation on protection of animals during 254
  transport. As the discussions proceed we will be pressing for high welfare standards which will be properly enforced throughout the Community.

  Turtles
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expertise resides in his Department on hawksbill turtles and green turtles.

  Mr. Maclean
  Turtles are protected under United Kingdom, EC and international provisions, the primary responsibility and expertise for which rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Agricultural Reform
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends meeting the EC Commissioner for Agriculture to discuss his farm proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  At the Agriculture Council on 4 and 5 March.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations he consults on animal welfare.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department consults a wide range of organisations on animal welfare matters.

  Lamb and Sheepmeat
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he estimates that there will be full free trade in lamb and sheepmeat between the United Kingdom, France and the remaining EC countries.

  Mr. Curry
  Free trade within the EC and the establishment of a support system capable of allowing United Kingdom producers to compete on equal terms were key aims of the Government in the review of the sheepmeat regime in 1989. These remain the Government's aims during the transitional period before the reformed sheep regime becomes fully operational by the end of the 1992 marketing year at the latest.

  Unfit Carcases
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many carcases were condemned as unfit for human consumption during 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Inspection of meat intended for human consumption is the responsibility of local authorities. My Department does not at present collect information from them on the number of condemnations of carcases.

  Slaughter Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the United Kingdom slaughtering industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  The slaughtering sector faces major changes with the advent of the single market. I am pleased to note that the leading companies are gearing up to the challenges and opportunities it offers.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on payment of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 11 February.

  Farm Bankruptcies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about farm bankruptcies.

  Mr. Curry
  There were 142 bankruptcies in agriculture and horticulture in 1989. In the first half of 1990 there were 136, but agriculture's share of the total has remained broadly in line with the rest of the economy over the last decade.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions for each of the last five years his officials or state veterinary service officials have attended mink farms for the purpose of inspecting slaughter; and which slaughter methods were, on each occasion, observed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 13 December 1990 at column 474. The additional information now requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusion he has drawn from the statistics produced by the public health authority on the reduction in salmonella enteritidis infection in layer flocks and the increase in salmonella enteritidis isolations in humans.

  Mr. Maclean
  The reported incidence of salmonella enteritidis, the main target of the Government's control measures, fell by 38 per cent. in laying birds producing eggs for human consumption between 1989 and 1990. While it is too soon to draw firm conclusions, indications are that the comprehensive package of measures introduced by this Department may be having a significant effect on the number of egg laying flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis.

  The figures on the number of salmonella enteritidis isolations in humans indicate that there is a continuing public health problem. A number of factors might be involved in the increase in the number of cases between 1989 and 1990. It would therefore be inappropriate to compare directly the human and animal data. This was stressed when the latest PHLS/SVS Update on salmonella infection was published last month.

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ii' he will indicate when he expects to publish the findings of the research in connection with the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990 at Torry.
  256
  Mr. Maclean
  I expect to publish the results when the research has been completed.

  Food Marketing
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many counties in England now have their own food marketing and promotion organisations.

  Mr. Curry
  Comprehensive information is not available, but we know that there are county-based speciality food groups in 18 English counties.

  Nitrates
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the nitrate-sensitive areas scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The pilot-nitrate sensitive areas scheme opened in June 1990 and applications last year covered over 50 per cent. of the eligible agricultural land. Additional applications are expected before the scheme finally closes on 31 May this year. Equipment to take water samples in the soil zone has been installed and deep core sampling is also being undertaken.

  Marginal Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards the use of marginal land.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government support farming on marginal land through designation as less-favoured areas under EC directive 75/268 which gives access to hill livestock compensatory allowance payments and enhanced rates of capital grant.

  Riparian Zones
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards the management of riparian zones and the surrounding farming community.

  Mr. Curry
  There is evidence that riparian zones can be managed in ways which help to reduce nutrient leaching in surface water catchments and encourage species diversity. The possibilities for encouraging such management will be considered when existing schemes are reviewed and new ones introduced.

  Smoked Salmon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out in the Official Report the exact nature of the research brief given to the research station at Torry regarding the growth of pathogenic organisms in smoked salmon; and if he will make a statement indicating when he expects the research project to be concluded.

  Mr. Maclean
  The work involves measuring the time and temperature profiles of foods in the mail system, the physical, chemical and microbiological status of mail order foods, their capacity to support the growth of food pathogens and how best the mail order trade can adapt to the new regulations. The preliminary results are expected shortly.

  CAP
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about current negotiations within the EEC to reform the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Commission is expected to present price proposals, including proposals for changes to the common agricultural policy, to the Agriculture Council on 4 and 5 March.

  Farming Incomes
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of farming incomes.

  Mr. Curry
  Total income from farming is forecast to be £2,113 million in 1990.

  Deer
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many deer of each species were culled in 1990 in each conservancy; whether they were taken by Forestry Commission employees or others; what arrangements were made for the disposal of carcases or trophies; and what was the income to each conservancy as as result of such sales and fees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The statistics requested are given in the following tables. These cover the year to 31 March 1990, the latest period for which figures are at present available. The income from trophy fees is not recorded separately from the income from permit charges and lettings and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Deer carcases are sold by the Forestry Commission to licensed game dealers. Individual stalking contracts stipulate whether trophies belong to the Forestry Commission or may be retained by the permit stalker.

  Number of deer culled

  Conservancy

  By commission staff

  By others

  Income from venison (£)

  Sika Deer

  North England

  19

  —

  1,224

  East England

  26

  —

  933

  West England

  17

  16

  1,901

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  North Scotland

  297

  106

  16,778

  Mid Scotland

  293

  132

  14,231

  South Scotland

  67

  —

  3,003

  Income support MR255

  September

  October

  November

  December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1990

  London South Region

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  21

  15

  7

  4

  Number of awards refused

  2

  9

  1

  2

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A(2), ASW

  Number of awards made

  1

  6

  0

  1

  Number of awards refused

  1

  5

  0

  9

  London North Region

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  33

  34

  33

  16

  Number of awards refused

  9

  7

  4

  1

  258

  Number of deer culled

  Conservancy

  By commission staff

  By others

  Income from venison (£)

  Fallow Deer

  North England

  2

  —

  120

  East England

  1,193

  69

  66,679

  West England

  533

  7

  28,670

  Wales

  85

  9

  3,501

  North Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Scotland

  38

  13

  1,709

  South Scotland

  40

  —

  2,669

  Muntjac

  East England

  311

  31

  3,096

  West England

  14

  —

  120

  Roe Deer

  North England

  1,327

  376

  57,464

  East England

  473

  137

  15,863

  West England

  133

  31

  6,344

  Wales

  12

  —

  157

  North Scotland

  2,182

  697

  100,930

  Mid Scotland

  2,097

  773

  83,053

  South Scotland

  2,390

  593

  104,883

  Red Deer

  North England

  50

  6

  6,594

  East England

  2

  —

  214

  West England

  54

  7

  5,982

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  North Scotland

  1,973

  280

  204,234

  Mid Scotland

  2,500

  909

  274,386

  South Scotland

  534

  19

  55,483

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Ms.Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants have (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rules in each month since August 1990, showing those whose claim was in doubt due to(a) actively seeking work and (b) availability for work.

  Mr. Jack
  Most unemployed people are required to be available for and actively seeking work as a condition of receiving benefit. A payment to avoid hardship will be automatically considered by the adjudication officer where someone fails to fulfil this condition, resulting in the loss of benefit.

  The statistics kept are given in the table. The remainder of the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  259

  Income support MR255

  September

  October

  November

  December

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1990

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A(2), ASW

  Number of awards made

  14

  11

  6

  4

  Number of awards refused

  10

  1

  0

  3

  Midlands Region

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  10

  24

  7

  5

  Number of awards refused

  6

  9

  5

  1

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A(2), ASW

  Number of awards made

  2

  9

  0

  1

  Number of awards refused

  1

  3

  3

  1

  Wales and South Western Region

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  29

  21

  20

  15

  Number of awards refused

  16

  16

  21

  5

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A(2), ASW

  Number of awards made

  9

  5

  4

  2

  Number of awards refused

  4

  1

  0

  1

  North Eastern Region

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  10

  11

  20

  8

  Number of awards refused

  17

  11

  9

  3

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A (2), ASW

  Number of awards made

  2

  9

  8

  6

  Number of awards refused

  1

  10

  3

  0

  North Western Region

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  37

  19

  48

  12

  Number of awards refused

  56

  61

  40

  37

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10(A) (2), ASW

  Number of awards made

  4

  7

  11

  13

  Number of awards refused

  5

  5

  17

  1

  Scotland

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  16

  8

  14

  8

  Number of awards refused

  7

  10

  16

  7

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A (2), ASW

  Number of claims made

  1

  10

  21

  11

  Number of claims refused

  2

  4

  5

  0

  National

  Hardship claims under Regulation 8(3), availability

  Number of awards made

  156

  132

  149

  68

  Number of awards refused

  113

  123

  96

  56

  Hardship claims under Regulation 10A (2) ASW

  Number of awards made

  33

  51

  50

  39

  Number of awards refused

  24

  29

  28

  15

  Staffing Levels
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration is being given to improving staffing levels in the local office network.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department allocates staffing resources to local offices using a system designed to match resources to requirements. The staffing levels are based on the latest estimate of workload forecasts and are kept under review.

  Local Offices (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline his Department's policy on checking benefit payments during the recent industrial action in a number of local benefit offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  During the recent industrial action in a number of local benefit offices, the Department's policy was to continue to operate benefit checks normally 260
  as far as possible. Of the offices involved in the industrial action all continued to carry out security benefit payment checks in the usual way. The local benefit offices at Camberwell, Bloomsbury, Port Talbot, Wallasey, Stockton, Redcar, Hull (East) and Ilford did abandon checks on quality of work, but maintained all security checks on benefit payments.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any checks of benefit payments were abandoned in local offices where officers normally responsible for checking procedures were on strike during the recent industrial action.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Security checks on benefit payments were not abandoned in any of the local benefit offices affected by the recent industrial action, and were carried out in the normal way. Some checks on quality of work were abandoned in the local benefit offices at Camberwell, Bloomsbury, Port Talbot, Wallasey, Stockton, Redcar, Hull (East) and Ilford.
  261
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will quantify the amount of money lost through overpayments of benefit as a result of the recent industrial action in a number of social security offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member. for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)Official Report, 1 February, column 672, how many people claiming disability working allowance it is estimated will earn below the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates for the disability working allowance (DWA) have necessarily been based to a significant extent on assumptions about behavioural changes among disabled people who are not currently in work. As a result, any projections of the earnings of recipients can be only tentative. We estimate, however, that up to 5,000 DWA recipients at any one time may have earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Pension Upratings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of the pension upratings to be introduced in April 1991; and what would be the value of the pension upratings needed in April 1991 in order to bring pensions up to the same level as if pensions had been increased from their 1979 level each year in line with the rise in average earnings or the retail prices index whichever was the higher.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April the basic retirement pension will rise by £5·10 for a single person and by £8·15 for a married couple. To bring the same pension up to the level that would have been paid had it been uprated by the higher of earnings or prices would require an extra £12·80 and £20·50 respectively, on top of the actual increases. The extra cost of such a measure would be in excess of £5·7 billion per annum and would cost an additional £7·90 in national insurance contributions for an employee on average earnings and his employer.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance is available from his Department to those whose income support level is inadequate to meet the costs charged by the residential or nursing homes for the care which is required.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The income support limits for various categories of residential and nursing home care represent the maximum amounts available. Any additional assistance—for example, that provided by relatives or charitable organisations—is, however, disregarded in the calculation of income support entitlement. Local authorities have powers to place people in private residential care homes and meet their fees in full, recouping from the resident an assessed amount towards the charge.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentages of, and the percentage increase in real terms between 1979 and the 262
  latest year for which figures are available in pensioner income from (a) benefits, (b) occupational pensions, (c) savings and (d) earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Types of Pensioners' Income

  Percentage of Gross Incomes

  Real Terms increase Per cent

  1979

  1987

  1979–87

  Total Social Security Benefits

  61

  53

  17

  Occupational Pensions

  16

  21

  77

  Savings Income

  11

  19

  130

  Earnings

  12

  7

  -20

  Total Income

  100

  100

  31

  Sources: Family Expenditure Survey 1987.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by quintile the percentage change in pensioner net income from 1979 to date using standard prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Changes in real income for each pensioner net income quintile

  Quintile

  Increase (per cent.)

  1979–87

  Bottom

  19·0

  Second

  23·5

  Third

  24·0

  Fourth

  26·5

  Top

  43·8

  Source: Family expenditure survey.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner units receive income from state benefits to the value of(a) 100 per cent. of income, (b) 75 per cent. of income or more and (c) 50 per cent. of income or more.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1987 the percentage of pensioner units receiving income from state benefits to the value of(a) 100 per cent. of income was about 16 per cent.; (b) 75 per cent. of income or more—about 54 per cent. and (c) 50 per cent. of income or more—about 75 per cent.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the research(a) currently under way and (b) planned into the reasons for increasing numbers of invalidity benefit recipients, giving the title of the research, its authors, its cost and its completion date in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  No such research is being undertaken by or on behalf of the Department. A large survey of invalidity benefit recipients is planned to start later this year and the detail of this study has yet to be agreed. It is anticipated. however, that much of the work will be undertaken by in-house researchers and the study is likely to take about two years to complete.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special assistance is offered to those elderly people who need an immediate cold weather payment in order to pay for fuels which require immediate cash payments.

  Mr. Scott
  Where there is entitlement to cold weather payment, the Department's offices can and do make immediate payments to the elderly who require assistance to pay for fuels. Payments may be made at the office in cases where it is essential to do so.

  Staff are encouraged to adopt a sympathetic approach in their dealings with the elderly, and often provide assistance in helping the eligible customer to complete the application form.

  In cases where a request is received for an amount above the £6 award, a specially trained social fund officer may decide that an application for an interest-free crisis loan, on top of the cold weather payment, should be invited. Such an award is discretionary and would be considered if the officer identified a serious risk to the health or safety of the customer.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average weekly temperature in each weather station area used for cold weather payments for each week since 3 February; and how much was claimed in cold weather payments in each of these weeks.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of average weekly temperatures in weather station areas used for cold weather payments since 3 February are held in the Library. Details of the total amounts claimed are not yet available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the precise days to which the Prime Minister's announcement of 7 February,Official Report, column 408, waiving the seven consecutive day temperature requirement for cold weather payments,

  Uprating date

  Period used to determine rate

  Single Person

  Married Couple

  Actual rate

  Hypothetical rate

  Difference

  Actual rate

  Hypothetical rate

  Difference

  November 1978

  —

  19·50

  —

  —

  31·20

  —

  —

  November 1979

  November 1978—November 1979

  23·30

  23·20

  -0·10

  37·30

  37·15

  -0·15

  November 1980

  November 1979—November 1980

  27·15

  27·35

  0·20

  43·45

  43·80

  0·35

  November 1981

  November 1980—November 1981

  29·60

  30·65

  1·05

  47·35

  49·05

  1·70

  November 1982

  November 1981—November 1982

  32·85

  33·20

  0·35

  52·55

  53·10

  0·55

  November 1983

  May 1982—May 1983

  34·05

  36·10

  2·05

  54·50

  57·75

  1·25

  November 1984

  May 1983—May 1984

  35·80

  37·95

  2·15

  57·30

  60·70

  3·40

  November 1985

  May 1984—May 1985

  38·30

  41·30

  3·00

  61·30

  66·05

  4·75

  June 1986

  May 1985—January 1986

  38·70

  43·60

  4·90

  61·95

  69·75

  7·80

  April 1987

  January 1986—September 1986

  39·50

  45·50

  6·00

  63·25

  72·80

  9·55

  April 1988

  September 1986—September 1987

  41·15

  49·10

  7·95

  65·90

  78·55

  12·65

  April 1989

  September 1987—September 1988

  43·60

  53·30

  9·70

  69·80

  85·30

  15·50

  April 1990

  September 1988—September 1989

  46·90

  58·45

  11·55

  75·10

  93·55

  18·45

  April 1991

  September 1989—September 1990

  52·00

  64·80

  12·80

  83·25

  103·75

  20·50

  Notes:

  1. Hypothetical rate is uprated from November 1979 using prices or earnings whichever is the greater in each year.

  2. Figures quoted are £s per week.

  Disabled People (Employment Quotas)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what quotas apply to his Department for the employment of disabled people arising from the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and other legislation; and if he will make a statement.
  264
  refers and the days to which the Prime Minister's statement made on 12 February, Official Report, column 728 applies.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcements of 7 and 12 February, concerning the seven-day qualifying period for cold weather payments, refer to the periods 1–7 February and 8–14 February respectively.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what discussions his Department has had with the electricity companies with a view to enabling those who could receive cold weather payments to use such payments at the time of need by electricity payment cards;

  (2) if he will give consideration to the possibility of putting cold weather payment vouchers in pension or benefit books to enable such payments to be turned on by the Government when necessary.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to make changes to the methods of payment of cold weather payments this winter, but as I announced in the House on 11 February, we will be reviewing the scheme in time for next winter, including the operational arrangements.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the basic state retirement pension for(a) a single pensioner and (b) a married pensioner couple at 1979 and at each uprating since 1979, including that proposed for April 1991; what it would have been if it had been uprated in line with average earnings at each of these upratings; and what was the total cumulative loss as a result of not uprating in line with earnings at each uprating (i) at current prices and (ii) at 1991 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested in part (i) of the question is in the table. We are unable to give the figures at 1991 prices as the RPI figure for April is not yet available.

  Mr. Scott
  In common with other Crown employers, quotas do not apply to this Department. However, the Department is aiming to meet the 3 per cent. quota.

  Benefits Take-up
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in ascending order the percentage take-up of each benefit administered by his Department.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available information on take-up is contained in the technical notes on take-up of benefits, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Agency Business Plans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the dates for each social security-related agency to publish its business plan.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We intend to publish business plans for 1991–92 for each of the Department's agencies by the end of April.

  Benefit Schemes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the cost of(a) housing benefit schemes and (b) community charge benefit schemes is met by (i) cash-limited grant from central Government and (ii) other sources by category; and what are the trends in these proportions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Most of the benefit costs of the two schemes are currently met through direct subsidy (which is not cash limited) at a rate of 97 per cent. The balance is taken into account in local government finance settlements. In addition there are a number of lower rates of direct subsidy, ranging from nil to 50 per cent. in certain "incentive" areas where authorities have most scope to control costs. Sums reflecting unavoidable expenditure in these areas are also taken into account in local government finance settlements.

  The main change since the 1988 social security reforms has been the introduction of the housing revenue account arrangements in England and Wales in April 1990; under these, most rent rebate expenditure is taken into account at 100 per cent. when calculating subsidy, with expenditure in the "incentive" areas subsidised through a cash-limit specified sum. The basic rate of subsidy for expenditure outside these arrangements will change from 97 to 95 per cent. next April; again, this change has been taken into account in local government finance settlements.

  The Department also subsidises 50 per cent. of local authorities' estimated administrative needs through a cash-limited specific grant; the remaining 50 per cent. is taken into account in local government finance settlements. The proportion met by direct subsidy was 60 per cent. between April 1988 and March 1990; there are no present plans for further changes, although all subsidy matters are kept under review.

  Hostels
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the 22 hostels run by his Department via the Resettlement Agency for single homeless people and the projected date in the case of each hostel for its transfer to local authorities and voluntary bodies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Resettlement Agency is responsible for the following 22 resettlement units:266

  Alvaston, Derby;

  Bishopbriggs, Glasgow;

  Bridgehouse, London;

  Brighton, East Sussex;

  Camden, London;

  Cedars Lodge, London;

  Fazakerley, Liverpool;

  Lancelot Andrews House, London;

  Leeds, West Yorkshire;

  Leicester, Leicestershire;

  Newbury, Berkshire;

  Plawsworth, Co. Durham;

  Pound Lodge, London;

  Sittingbourne, Kent;

  Southampton, Hampshire;

  Spur House, London;

  Stormy Down, Mid-Glamorgan;

  Walkden, Manchester;

  West End House, London;

  West Midlands, Worcester;

  Winterbourne, Bristol;

  Woodhouse, Sheffield.

  The Resettlement Agency's main aim is to establish sufficient replacement provision in the local authority and voluntary sectors to enable its resettlement units to be closed.

  The Brighton resettlement unit is to close by the end of March 1991 and the running of the Fazakerley unit will be transferred to Knowsley metropolitan borough council from April 1991.

  The replacement of a further four of the agency's units is to be announced shortly, but no firm dates have yet been established for closure of the remaining units.

  Care Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost of providing(a) residential and (b) nursing home care; and what is the average payment made to those on income support in each category.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not collect data on the average cost of providing residential or nursing home care. Last year we commissioned Price Waterhouse to undertake a survey into costs; some figures are available in its report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  For information about average payments made to those on income support I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 5 February at column 133–34.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average percentage of total costs of(a) residential and (b) nursing home care met by his Department for those who are on income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps is his Department taking to increase the take-up of mobility allowance by the deaf-blind; and if he will make a statement on progress to date.

  Mr. Scott
  We have been monitoring the take-up of mobility allowance by people who are both deaf and blind and we have been disappointed that more claims have not been made. That is why on 18 February we started a nationwide publicity campaign primarily targeted on
  267
  carers and professionals working with disabled people. It involves a direct mailshot to carers and professionals, the distribution of leaflets in specialist journals, and radio broadcasts.

  Benefit Applications
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to process applications for each of the main benefits for which his offices covering the Nottingham, North constituency are

  Clearance times in working days

  Castlegate

  David lane

  Shakespeare street

  Station street

  Income support

  7·00

  3·90

  8·80

  11·00

  Retirement pension

  16·80

  9·00

  26·70

  17·90

  Sickness/Invalidity benefit

  6·80

  7·50

  10·70

  7·70

  Social fund

  (i) Budget loan

  4·50

  17·03

  3·82

  4·83

  (ii) Community care grant

  7·99

  15·36

  6·26

  6·91

  (iii) Crisis loan

  0·30

  0·25

  0·16

  0·46

  SERPS
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 194, within which heading the administrative costs of the state earnings-related pension scheme are subsumed; and what are the total costs under that heading for all fees, commissions and administrations covered by that heading.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administrative costs of SERPS are not separately identified, but are included in the overall figure for retirement pension. In 1989–90 the total estimated administrative cost of retirement pension was £331 million.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sums have been paid for each of the years since 1986 from general taxation into the national insurance fund to make good deficits arising from opting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  Payments have never been made into the national insurance fund from general taxation specifically to make good contribution rebates arising from opting out of SERPS.

  Management Consultancies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 441, if he will list those projects for which there is a publicly available report and those for which a report is not available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Consultancy reports are usually internal working documents and are not publicly available. The exception is the Price Waterhouse report on residential care and nursing home costs, which was considered to be of wider interest. A copy of this report is available in the Library.
  268
  responsible; and whether the operational strategy makes such information available to any hon. Member who asks a similar question.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average length of time taken to process each of the main benefit claims for the offices covering the Nottingham, North constituency over the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990 is in the table. This information can be made available to any hon. Member who asks a similar question. Hon. Members may also obtain the information from the appropriate district manager.

  Benefit Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has done on changing the balance between income tax and national insurance so that total benefit costs are met from national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jack
  No such research has been undertaken.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to have information on the take-up level of community charge benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the take-up of income-related benefits such as community charge benefit, can be obtained only from retrospective data. Information about take-up for the first full year of the community charge benefit scheme can be produced only after the results of the 1991 family expenditure survey become available.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is issued by his Department to ensure that those in receipt of attendance allowance are made aware of other benefits which they may claim; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department's leaflets are available to people receiving attendance allowance from normal outlets including social security offices, citizens advice bureaux, post offices, voluntary organisations and by writing or telephoning the Department of Social Security's leaflets unit at Stanmore. In addition the attendance allowance claim pack (DS2) gives information about invalid care allowance and home responsibilities protection. It also directs potential attendance allowance beneficiaries to sources of help and advice, including the social security freeline telephone service.

  The leaflet which is sent with all decisions on attendance allowance (DS668) alerts recipients to a range of other

  269
  social security benefits to which they might be entitled, including invalid care allowance, income support, housing benefit and severe disablement allowance, and where to seek advice about social security benefits. It also gives details of the independent living fund. Children approaching 16 years of age who are receiving attendance allowance are sent specific advice about severe disablement allowance and income support, for which they may qualify.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of attendance allowance reviews by doctors, of original decisions by delegated medical practitioners not to award, result in an award of attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on all successful reviews is given at table E1·02 of "Social Security Statistics 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library. The figures for 1990 are given in the table.

  Decisions on review by the Attendance Allowance Board and reason for review

  Figures

  Total Reviews

  68,094

  Number successful

  51,320

  Success rate

  75 per cent.

  Reason for Review

  Dissatisfaction:

  Number reviewed

  33,615

  Number successful

  21,330

  Success rate

  63 per cent.

  Deterioration:

  Number reviewed

  32,347

  Number successful

  29,084

  Success rate

  90 per cent.

  Other change:

  Number reviewed

  2,132

  Number successful

  906

  Success rate

  42 per cent.

  Note: A successful review is one where an award is made or increased or is backdated.

  Quality of Service Targets
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will include in his next departmental report the key quality of service targets for his Department and current performance results on each target.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We will continue to publish key targets for forward periods and results for past periods in the most appropriate documents. The results for years to 1989–90 and targets for 1990–91 were published in the departmental report (Cm 1514) on 1 February 1991. Targets for 1991–92 for the DSS executive agencies will be published in the individual agencies' business plans in April.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of national insurance contributions is collected by the(a) Inland Revenue and (b) other bodies.
  270
  Mr. Jack
  In 1989–90 the Inland Revenue collected 93 per cent. of all national insurance contributions. The remaining 7 per cent. were collected by the Department of Social Security.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost of staff and administration in collecting national insurance for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is in the table. The figures show Department of Health and Social Security (now DSS) and Inland Revenue costs for the administration and collection of national insurance contributions.

  The increase is accounted for mainly by the effects of inflation on salary and other operational costs. In addition, accommodation costs were transferred from the PSA to the administrative vote during the period covered by the table.

  Income tax year

  Cost £ million

  1980–81

  98

  1981–82

  103

  1982–83

  116

  1983–84

  130

  1984–85

  138

  1985–86

  145

  1986–87

  152

  1987–88

  163

  1988–89

  174

  1989–90

  183

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who set the criteria for the changes in benefits listed on page 6 and 7 of his departmental report—Cm. 1514; and what consultations took place on these criteria with the legislature.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the departmental report (Cm. 1514) set out the Government's approach to social security policy and its development. That approach, and all the proposals and actions of the Department, are subject to continuous parliamentary scrutiny.

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he envisages in(a) parliamentary accountability in general and (b) his method of handling parliamentary written and oral questions arising from the move to agencies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister said in reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 6 June 1990 at column 615, Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for the work of their Departments, including executive agencies.

  As one of the objectives of establishing executive agencies is to respond better to the concerns of hon. and right hon. Members, answers to written questions relating to operational matters for which authority has been delegated to a chief executive will normally be answered with an explanation that the chief executive, as the person best placed to give a prompt and effective response, will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the reply will be

  271
  placed in the Library. Answers to oral questions relating to operational matters will normally be based on information supplied by the chief executive.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will clarify paragraph 17 of his draft circular of 21 December 1990, on the application of local management of schools procedures to special schools in 272
  Wales, by specifying the precise advantages he believes special schools in Wales can obtain from delegated management.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have been asked to reply. We propose to extend the openness and fairness of formula funding to all special schools and to give the opportunity to manage its own budget to every special school that wants to do so and can show that it is able to do so.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Airline Slot Allocation Study
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they assess the completed Stage 1 of their own slot allocation consultancy; and whether they have received the draft regulation on slot allocation sent by the Commission to member states.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in completing Stage 1 of the study, the consultants have achieved some useful work. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked them to proceed to Stage 2 of the study, and to present a further report to him in the summer. We have now received the Commission's proposal for a regulation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I am an optimist but I had hoped for more information in detail to be given to the House this afternoon. The Minister has overlooked the first part of the Question. Will he give us his assessment?
Secondly, do the Government feel that progress in their own slot allocation consultancy is working well with that put forward by the European Commission?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we believe that the consultants have done some useful work. The Government see the work of the consultants as a valuable contribution to the discussions about the EC proposals. The consultants will focus initially on two slot allocation methods. One is a modification of the type of system proposed by the EC; the other is a more radical proposal incorporating an element of market forces.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, since slot allocation is so relevant to the negotiations with the United States concerning the renegotiating of Bermuda 2, can the Minister inform the House as to the progress of those negotiations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the negotiations with the United States are proceeding. We hope that there will be further discussions with them before too long. The issue of slot allocation is not wholly relevant to those negotiations. The issue of the traffic distribution rules is much more relevant.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as regards the rights at present allocated to Pan Am, since that company is, to say the least, in a delicate situation—as is TWA —does the Minister agree that slot allocations assume great importance in the discussions with the United States? I repeat my question: is he able to inform the House on the progress of the current negotiations? In particular, does he recognise that it was never
648
intended in the first Bermuda 2 negotiations that there should be any automaticity on the transfer of such rights from one airline to another?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as to the latter part of the noble Lord's question, that is perfectly right. That is why we have our present negotiating position. As I said before, negotiations are proceeding and I hope that we shall be able to make progress before too long.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, did I gather from the Minister's original Answer that the Government allocation consultancy will make three reports to the Minister? If so, is there any chance that we may learn anything about the subject of those reports, although not the content?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not mention that there may be three reports. The consultants have been asked to proceed to the second stage of their study. The Stage 1 report has been published and is available in the Library of the House, as well as having been circulated to interested parties.

RAF in Germany: Low Flying
3.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether restrictions on low flying by the RAF in Germany are being imposed or threatened by the German Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, a general minimum height of 1,000 feet was introduced for military low flying in Germany in September 1990. Short exemptions were agreed for training related to the Gulf crisis but these expired in October last year. The German Government have recently indicated that they are willing to consider further exemptions for aircrew being deployed to the Gulf and for some other training.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government are happy about restrictions of this kind on important low flying training being imposed on people who may well shortly risk their lives in the Gulf? If the German Government can do nothing else to help us, can they at least not hinder us?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it would have been beneficial if the German Government had allowed us to continue our low flying there. Obviously we welcome the recent indications from them that they are prepared to consider a further request for exemption from the limit of 1,000 feet. At the moment we are examining our requirements in that light.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Gulf war has shown the extreme importance of this training? It takes a long time for a pilot to be proficient. In these circumstances, does the Minister regard the German Government's attitude as unsatisfactory and inappropriate to the situation in the Gulf?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have already said, the German Government are reconsidering the request and we are putting new proposals to them. Yes, I completely agree with the noble Lord on the importance of the valour, courage, skill and professionalism that all our RAF pilots exercise in the Gulf.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the restrictions that are applied to our aircraft are also applicable to the aircraft of other nationalities operating in Germany, including German aircraft? Do the German Government apply any other operating restrictions on our aircraft?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are not alone in this. The German Government have indicated that the minimum low flying level is 1,000 feet, which applies to all other nations flying in German territory.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that far more low flying has taken place over Scotland than over Germany? Does he accept that the people of Scotland are glad that they have put up with the noise when they see the results?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. Scotland, as well as the rest of the country, has undergone considerable low flying in the past. However, the benefits from those endeavours are now seen.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us, with notice if necessary, whether German pilots are trained in low flying? If so, where?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, they are trained in low flying, but the German attitude is that a level of 1,000 feet is sufficient.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that since Chancellor Kohl has taken a greater interest in foreign policy and not left everything to Herr Genscher, relations between this country and Germany have markedly improved?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that is another Question for another day.

Unemployment
3.9 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What special measures they intend to introduce to deal with the unemployment consequences of their present economic policies.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, the prime objective of the Government's economic policy is the defeat of inflation on which future prosperity and employment depend. The Government have taken a number of measures to help unemployed people get back to work through the advice and support services of the employment service. In addition to existing counselling and other schemes, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked the chief executive of the
650
employment service to provide up to 100,000 further opportunities in jobclubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme for unemployed people.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, do the Government accept that the time has gone when they could rely almost exclusively on interviews to put people back into work? The last time the Government's economic policies raised unemployment at this rate, there were special measures and 750,000 people were taken off the register. When will the Government move back in that direction?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it would be quite incorrect to say that the Government are now just relying on interviews. There is a whole range of schemes to help people with training. All 16 to 17 year-olds have the right to training, and 88 per cent. of those who complete youth training obtain jobs. One in five of 18 to 19 year-olds are now in higher education compared with only one in eight in 1979. The training and enterprise councils will be able to spend more in 1991–92 than in 1990–91. The training credit scheme will be in force from April of this year.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most effective measures to bring down unemployment would be for employees, and those who influence them to show maximum restraint in wage demands?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is undoubtedly true. No one wants to see a rise in unemployment. However, if we do not tackle inflation now, the cost in terms of unemployment will be far greater later. The extent of unemployment will depend crucially on the level of wage settlements.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I agree with the Government that bringing down inflation is vital in order to bring down unemployment, given our propensity to pay ourselves more than we are able to earn from increased productivity over the years and certainly relative in unit cost terms to our competitors abroad, how do the Government propose to ensure that unemployment comes down but that inflation does not rise again?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that we should try an incomes policy again. Whenever it has been tried in the past it has failed. We certainly need to get the message over to employers that restraint in wage settlements is of the most vital importance. Firms would gain three times as much from cutting their wage settlements by 1 per cent. than from a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Barclays Bank has recently announced that it will cut its workforce by some 20 per cent.; that the other clearing banks are likely to follow suit, that the retail and distributive industries are also facing mass redundancies, and that this is in addition to continuing redundancies in the manufacturing sector? Is this not a much more dangerous situation than that which pertained in the previous recession in the early 1980s? What special steps are the Government taking to deal with it?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not agree that the situation today is much more serious than in the early 1980s. British industry is in far better shape now than it was then. However, the fact remains that the greatest threat is inflation. If we do not tackle inflation now, we shall have far greater problems in the future and greater unemployment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to measures that are already in train. Do the Government have any new measures in mind to alleviate the increasingly adverse effects of unemployment?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I mentioned in my original Answer the new measures which have recently been announced. The range of measures which are in existence are right for the circumstances.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, one of the consequences of ever increasing unemployment is the possibility that craftsmen may have to learn new skills. Has that factor been taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, clearly training is of great importance. The resources for the employment service have increased. The training budget stands at £2.6 billion. That is two-and-a-half times what it was under the previous Labour Government. Employers are spending £20 billion a year on training. Certainly training is important and the funds are there for it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Government to look at the question of the employment of part-time workers to see whether there cannot be some change in the payments that small employers make towards insurance and other contributions? Those contributions are preventing part-time workers from being employed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I shall certainly look into that matter. It goes wide of the Question, but I recognise its importance. The fact remains that the number of part-time jobs has increased quite dramatically in recent years in response to the demand for part-time work.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the construction industry, of which I have some knowledge, predicts that 150,000 jobs will be lost in the next few months due to the tremendous recession in the building industry. Is the Minister aware that that industry is crying out for a cut in interest rates to enable people to buy more houses?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the overriding priority must be to maintain interest rates at the appropriate level to continue the downward pressure on inflation. Interest rates will be further reduced when it is safe to do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be helpful to put the TECs in the picture as regards finding new jobs so that people are known by name locally rather than just as numbers? Does my noble friend further agree that that would help greatly in finding jobs for people under the new systems that he has announced?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. The TECs are doing an important job. They will be able to spend more in 1991–92 than in this year. Some 51 TECs are fully operational, and they will all be operational by the end of the year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Lord the Leader of the House see the statement made by a representative of the NatWest Bank which asserted that our membership of the exchange rate mechanism would result in an additional 600,000 unemployed people? Does the Minister agree with that statement and, if so, will he not reconsider all the answers that he has given and accept that extra special measures are needed to deal not only with present unemployment but with the high unemployment that is yet to come?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, entry into the exchange rate mechanism was warmly applauded by industry at the time. It is an important discipline. It will help us to keep the downward pressure on inflation that is vital for the future of jobs in this country.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that the Government relied on training and interviews to tackle unemployment. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Employment said in another place on 6th February that the Government were cutting planned expenditure on training for the long-term unemployed because many of them were already trained? He further stated that those people did not require either training or interviews but jobs.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have already pointed out the resources which are being put into training overall. However, the funding arrangements for employment training were altered because studies showed that a significant proportion of the long-term unemployed already possessed the qualifications to match vacancies in their areas. What they needed was advice and assistance to help them get back into the available jobs. Hence the importance of Restart, jobclubs and the job interview guarantee scheme. I make my following comment with the greatest diffidence. I am sure the noble Lord will take it in good part. I remind the House that the noble Lord was the adviser to the Labour Government on these matters between 1975 and 1977 when disaster hit this country. I can only hope that he can assure the House that the Labour Government accepted none of the advice that he tendered.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not true that far more people were in employment then?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I can inform the Minister that I was not the adviser and that period was not a disaster.

Armed Forces: Strength
3.19 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of Soviet military action in the Baltic states, the record Soviet production of

653
battle tanks, and the Soviet circumvention of the CFE Treaty, they will reconsider any reduction in the strength of United Kingdom armed forces.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in view of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the end of the cold war it remains our intention to move towards the new force structures outlined in Options for Change by the mid 1990s. However, in light of the risks that remain we are planning for cautious and measured change and shall ensure that the United Kingdom maintains a responsible and robust defence capability.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In view of the fact that there exists a great deal of anxiety can he assure the House that, until such time as the Soviets stop building up the strength of all three of their armed forces and start obeying the disarmament terms of the CFE treaty, it would be unwise to reduce our forces or the contribution we make to our NATO allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right about our anxieties regarding the Soviets' attitude towards the recently signed CFE treaty. The timetable for decisions on and implementation of change will depend upon many factors, including of course the outcome of the Gulf conflict, discussions with NATO allies and developments in the relationship with the Soviet Union. Once again I can reassure my noble friend that we shall continue to maintain a robust and flexible military capability as our insurance against the unexpected.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether any significant progress was made in the recent CFE negotiations? He spoke of a robust defence capability. Can he say whether our estimated defence expenditure is discussed with our NATO allies to ensure that our contribution is a fair one in relation to their expenditure?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously there are discussions with our NATO allies concerning the future, the new balance of forces, costs and the ongoing situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl did not answer the first part of my question concerning CFE negotiations.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, those negotiations are still going on. At the same time we are remonstrating with the Soviet Union about the situation regarding the CFE negotiations.
Lord Pym: My Lords, in view of the uncertainty and instability that is now so widespread throughout the Soviet Union and evident in other countries, and in view of the Gulf War and the international scene generally, can my noble friend on the Front Bench confirm that our armed forces will not be cut—it would be most unwise and imprudent to do so—before a longer and deeper assessment of our future defence needs has been undertaken with our allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in replying to an earlier question I believe that I have answered my noble friend's question. We shall maintain the defence
654
structure necessary from the United Kingdom's point of view at all times and we shall proceed with great caution.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when considering the future level of our defence expenditure, will the noble Earl bear in mind that when the Government decided on fairly limited reductions in future years the Soviet Union was a unitary state and the Warsaw Pact was in being, whereas the Warsaw Pact is now being formally wound up and the Soviet Union is a mass of different and conflicting authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight those circumstances. As I have already said, we shall be proceeding with caution in the future.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that on the last two occasions when our forces have been in action—in the Falklands and in Iraq—the events were not foreseen by anybody? Should we not be ultra cautious? Can my noble friend confirm that there were no contingency plans for the Falkland Islands? Can he also confirm that we had sold all our desert uniforms to the Iraqis, or somebody else, because we had not foreseen that we might have to participate in a desert war? Will my noble friend and the Defence Ministry please bear in mind that it is always the unforeseen that happens and never anything that is foreseen?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the unexpected, as I have just mentioned, when Options for Change was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State back in July of last year provision was made for a situation such as has now arisen in the Gulf.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the unanimity which has prevailed within the Security Council over the past few months, would it not be more constructive to regard the Soviet Union as a potential ally rather than as a perpetual enemy?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course we regard the Soviet Union as an ally, but the situation in relation to the CFE treaty has not developed quite as we had expected. Strong negotiations are now in hand to see that those requirements are fully carried out.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a great deal of anxiety about the proposed reduction of 40 per cent. in the Territorial Army? Does he further agree that medical reservists and other specialists have played a vital role in the Gulf conflict?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make it quite clear to my noble friend that despite rumours the situation regarding the Territorial Army has not been determined. It will be determined at the same time as the position of the regular Army.
Lord Elton: My Lords, while my noble friend and his right honourable friend are considering that matter will they once again bear in mind the very important social role which the Territorial Army is capable of performing on behalf of its members and their communities as well as its defence role?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, most certainly. Its role is currently being considered. We shall never forget the superb job that it has done and the role it has played in our history.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in view of the point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition regarding cost saving, is it not a fact that if we restructure and reposition our forces over the next few years there will not be a cost saving but probably an overall increase in costs?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the dividends to be reaped from a decrease in the size of our armed forces will not be immediate. They will come through to the bottom line in the years that lie ahead.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name On the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Meston be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran deceased.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Crown land development by the Crown
. For Part XIII of the principal Act there is substituted—
"Crown land and development by the Crown.
293. (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to—

(a) Crown land; and

(b) the development of any land by or on behalf of the Crown or by or on behalf of the Crown jointly with any other persons

subject to regulations made by virtue of this section.
(2) The regulations may in relation to such land or such development—

(a) provide for any of those provisions to apply subject to prescribed exceptions or modifications or not to apply;

(b) make new provision as to any matter dealt with in any of those provisions or statutory instruments thereunder;

(c) make different provision in relation to different classes of land or development or different circumstances or events.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), the
656
regulations may provide—

(a) for appeals in relation to such land or such development to be made to and determined by an independent person or body; and

(b) for the procedure to be followed on such appeals.

(4) In this section—

"Crown land" means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest;

"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;

"Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 91 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 92 and 224. In these amendments we return to the important matter of the inclusion or otherwise of Crown land in planning law. At Committee stage we had a wide-ranging debate on a rather wide-ranging group of amendments, only one or two of which related directly to the issue of Crown land. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 91 and 224 is to secure a greater degree of planning control over Crown land. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to secure a greater degree of planning control over the land of statutory undertakers. I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 91 and 224 first.
Noble Lords who are observant in these matters will see that the amendments have the same intention although they are rather different in wording and in length. One is the simple version and the other is the long-winded version. My bitter experience in these matters has shown that the simple versions never work and that the long-winded versions do not always work or sometimes need to be improved in order to be acceptable in legislation. Nevertheless we have produced a simple version as well as the more long-winded version.
Crown lands are defined in Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the consolidation Act, as land in which there is a Crown interest; namely, an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty but for the purpose of a government department.
There has been a continuing process over the years of increasing the degree of planning control over Crown land. The significant regulation in this respect is Regulation 18/84, which provides that for the first time it is possible for government departments and other Crown bodies to apply for planning permission. There are provisions under the 1990 Act now that certain planning powers may be exercised in relation to Crown land. For example, development plans may include proposals relating to the use of Crown land, and a building which is on Crown land can now be listed for the first time.
But the situation is by no means good enough. Many of the planning controls which exist over Crown land are subject to consultation procedures rather

657
than to direct controls; in other words, it is a requirement that the body concerned should consult the local planning authority and seek to reach agreement with it rather than obtain permission in the normal way. In many cases that works perfectly well, certainly for the major government departments and Crown bodies. Local authorities would acknowledge that there has been a great deal of excellent compliance with those procedures.
But government is changing. It has been the tendency in government, particularly in the past few years, for government agencies to achieve greater independence. The Next Steps agencies and many other public bodies are no longer in the same line of command relationship with government departments. They have a good deal more independence and it is much more difficult to secure the degree of control which would ensure that they involve themselves properly in consultation procedures.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that a number of government bodies working on Crown land do not adequately consult their local authorities. I shall restrict my evidence to one particular case; namely, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office radio transmitter station at Orford Ness in Suffolk. That is a development carried out in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is a high frequency radio transmitter station with 23 separate masts. It was given consent by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1985, despite strong objections from Suffolk County Council and from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. Nobody denied that there was a need for a transmitter, but an alternative location had been proposed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that sometimes—I mean this very seriously —radio transmitters are themselves items of great beauty and can be said to enhance the surroundings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I do agree, no. Living close to Hampstead Heath, as I do, I have seen some which are less ugly than others; but I do not know that I would agree that they are items of outstanding beauty. Certainly Suffolk County Council, which was the responsible authority in this case, did not think so and had proposed an alternative site which was not in an area of outstanding natural beauty and which was technically acceptable. It was overriden by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment.
For fear of raising other such questions, I shall not continue with other examples; but it is clear that there are occasions, and could be many more, when it is necessary to apply normal controls to Crown land. Perhaps I may give one or two illustrations of the need for controls over the land of statutory undertakers. These are more urban examples, but for all that they are very real in environmental terms. Statutory undertakers are also undergoing change. Historically they have been public bodies, as British Rail and British Waterways Board still are. But they now include privatised bodies and a deliberate decision was
658
taken by the Government to continue, for the benefit of the privatised electricity companies, the same degree of exemption from planning controls that they had when they were under public control. That is despite the fact that these electricity companies now have their prime statutory duty to their shareholders and not to the community and therefore have the duty to maximise their profits almost regardless of environmental issues.
The first example that I want to give to the House is that of the Port of Tyne Authority at Jarrow Slake on the Tyne. The Port of Tyne Authority uses the slake to stockpile coal in heaps of up to 20 metres high, which is very damaging in terms of the dust and the traffic generated as well as an intrusion on an area which includes St. Paul's conservation area and St. Paul's monastery, the home of the Venerable Bede. The local authority would never have given permission for such a use without very stringent controls.
The same is true in Sefton, where the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Company is importing and storing substantial amounts of coke and coal on the banks at the edge of the dock close to residential and business premises. There again, Sefton Borough Council would never have given planning permission for that development.
I suggest to the House that the exemptions both for Crown land and statutory undertakings are now an anomaly. Because of the changes in the way in which the public service now operates on Crown land and because of the fact that statutory undertakings are increasingly being privatised and are no longer under the same form of central control, it is an anomaly that they should be exempt from planning regulations; and it is also an anomaly because of the general trend of planning law, which I believe to be right, that there should be as few exemptions from planning control as possible if the planning laws are to operate effectively.
I am sorry that I have had to give those reasons at some length, but I hope that they will convince the House that these amendments should be agreed to. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, his amendments, Amendments Nos. 91 and 224, necessarily go together, one being very much shorter than the other, as he indicated. For example, Amendment No. 224 would substitute for Part XIII the very brief provision that the 1990 Act should bind the Crown except as provided in the development order.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and picked up his note of pessimism with regard to the shorter of his amendments, but I am still not entirely clear which of the two he prefers. It may be that he would be happy to see either of them accepted. If that is his hope or expectation, I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint him.
The changes that we propose as regards development by local authorities have been carefully thought out after extensive consultation. There is an

659
appreciation that not everyone will be pleased, but what has been sought to be achieved is, as much as possible, a sensible balance.
I reiterate what I said at Committee stage about the present arrangements for the Crown to obtain planning clearance for its development proposals. As the noble Lord and others will be aware, the special procedure is set out in Department of the Environment Circular 18/84. I think that it provides the necessary safeguards while preserving the rights and privileges of the Crown. Crown bodies send local planning authorities a notice of their proposed development; the development proposal is then considered in similar fashion to a planning application —and that is true in relation to a notice of publicity for example. I accept that, as he indicated, the authority does not grant or refuse permission, but rather signifies whether or not it finds the proposal acceptable, including whether it believes that planning conditions are necessary. Indeed, in the example that he gave of the radio mast—I do not enter into any question of the desirability or otherwise of radio masts —it is quite clear that the planning authority was very well aware of what was going on and made its views known in the most open fashion.
Furthermore, if the authority has unresolved objections, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether planning clearance shall be given. He may take his decision after receiving written representations or after holding a meeting between the parties, or indeed there may be a non-statutory public inquiry. In that regard the Crown is very much like any other applicant. If the planning authority is not satisfied, the matter goes to the Secretary of State for resolution.
There will always be planning decisions and planning matters which do not satisfy everyone. However, it is the Government's view that there are few complaints about those arrangements which are considered generally to work well. For that reason we see no need to change them.
Amendment No. 92 provides the opportunity to discuss the role of statutory undertakers within the planning system. The noble Lord makes a reasonable point. The role of some statutory undertakers has changed in recent times. It is not true to say that the role of all statutory undertakers has changed. The noble Lord's proposal is nothing if not ambitious. One short section repeals all 22 sections of Part XI of the 1990 Act and two other sections.
I was interested to hear what he had to say about the actions of some statutory undertakers in the examples that he gave. I am sure that there are grounds for criticising them from time to time. The noble Lord's comments in this debate will be carefully borne in mind when the General Development Order is next reviewed. He will not be surprised if I say that a change of the magnitude he proposes would not be introduced without very wide consultation both within government and outside, not least with the statutory undertakers themselves and bearing in mind, as he rightly pointed out, that in recent times some of them have had a change in function.
660
After this short debate, which followed an earlier debate in Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will forgive me when I say that I find his arguments contradictory. He admits that the cases which I have cited in support of my argument may have some validity, but he did not appear to realise that in the case of Orford Ness the local planning authority, although consulted, did not have the power to deny planning permission for that very damaging development.
The noble and learned Lord admits that the role and structure of government departments, the users of Crown land, is changing. He admits that the status of statutory undertakers—I referred to some, not all, statutory undertakers—is changing. He denies the central proposition behind my amendments, that so far as possible the planning laws should be on the same basis for all land use and that exception should be only in the most exceptional circumstances.
My amendments provide perfectly well for exceptions to be made; for example, for reasons of national security. Such exceptions could be provided for in regulations. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate proposes not that we take the opportunity of a major planning Bill to extend the effectiveness of our planning legislation but to undertake such major changes in future revisions of the General Development Order. He agrees that those changes are wide-ranging and of considerable importance. I disagree. If there are to be such changes, and if they are as important as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I agree that they are, they should be made by Parliament and not by changes to the General Development Order.
The noble and learned Lord called my amendments nothing if not ambitious. However, he did not criticise the wording. I am not convinced that the amendments have been satisfactorily answered and that the case against them has been satisfactorily argued. I believe that it is appropriate that I seek the opinion of the House.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Attlee, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Diamond, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Brightman, L.

Falkland, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gibson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

661

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grimond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hacking, L.

Oram, L.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Roskill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ilchester, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kissin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Varley, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Walpole, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hertford, M.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Astor, V.

Holderness, L.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bessborough, E.

Knollys, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Quinton, L.

Gainford, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Richardson, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rodney, L.

662

Romney, E.

Strathspey, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Sandys, L.

Terrington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Teviot, L.

Shannon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Tryon, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Waddington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Demolition
. Schedule 1A to this Act (which provides for the control of demolition) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 100. We believe that the amendment raises a major issue. That might be the only uncontroversial statement that I shall make this afternoon. As was said by Mr. David Widdicombe when acting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench on 11th January, it is a question of whether:
"demolition constituted development".
He said that it was a ghost that haunted planning law, and continued:
"time has now come for that ghost to be laid to rest".
With your Lordships' support, and if the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, we may help to lay that ghost to rest today.
The issue of whether development and demolition are coterminous raises three questions. First, is demolition development? Secondly, if it is, can it be enforced by planning control? Thirdly, if it can, should that control be exercised? As regards the first question, I am sure that your Lordships will recall the wording of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and note its wide sweep. Section 12(1) states:
"'development' means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change of use".
It appears to be the case that, since demolition falls within the scope of building operations—that is, operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on a building business—or is part of engineering operations, or clearly affects the external appearance of a building, demolition is development. That is what Mr. David Widdicombe ruled.
The second question was: can the control of development be enforced? That is problematic. If an unauthorised development has taken place involving construction—for instance, a second house on back land—the local authority can require it to be pulled down. However, once the property has been demolished there is the minor difficulty of how to reinstate it. I wish to remind the House that in every conservation area in the country demolition falls within the planning framework.
There are 7,000 conservation areas embracing more than 1 million properties. In all those areas demolition

663
requires prior authorisation. I am not aware of any difficulty that has been caused by that control in any conservation area. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there have been none. To my knowledge there is no problem about treating demolition as development and making that stick in a conservation area. Once people know that they must obtain planning approval they seek it. Therefore, I suggest that the issue of control or of reinstatement is no different in kind within or without the conservation area.
Is there a difference in scale? The Minister might suggest that this is an inappropriate way forward because of the work load involved when one compares the 1 million properties inside conservation areas with the number outside. Noble Lords will know that prior notification of demolition is already required. Therefore, the necessary administrative arrangements for handling the provision are already in place. As the planning system handles the more minor issues of planning development, construction and significant alteration outside conservation areas, I can see no difficulty in bringing the less extensive, less onerous but visually more significant issue of demolition within the planning system. The additional workload will net be onerous. My consultations show that the local authorities and their planning officers confirm that to be the case.
I hope that that matter will become clear when we consider the likely categories of demolition that will be involved were your Lordships minded to accept the amendment. Legal advice suggests that there might be five categories. The first is demolition on the grounds of health and safety; in other words, where property is dilapidated. Such demolitions are already allowed in conservation areas. No problems are associated with complexity or workload. Issues that may arise within conservation areas about dilapidation are now caught by statutory repair notices or building at risk notices. But there are no differences in kind and problem within or outside a conservation area. If a building requires demolition on the grounds of health and safety, that is done within conservation areas and can be done outside such areas.
The second category is the demolition of unwanted small structures within the curtilage. But, again, such minor works are already exempt from the necessity of planning approval within conservation areas if the structures are unlisted. If the requirement does not already apply within a conservation area there can be no need to apply it outside.
The third category is where there is partial demolition as part of an alteration. However, the alteration already requires planning consent within and without the conservation area. Again, there is no problem.
The fourth category is where full demolition is sought prior to authorised development. But, again, where development is authorised there is no problem. Therefore, in the vast majority of situations where demolition will arise there need be no problem; it is already permitted within conservation areas, or the controls will extend.
The problem lies with the fifth category, as the Minister indicated in Committee, which is demolition prior to proposals for speculative development. The amendment seeks to control that category of demolition because, as I have said, the other categories are already within planning or, under the amendment, will remain exempt. The fifth category is the smallest category and it presents the least onerous workload. However, it causes the greatest damage to the streetscape and presents the greatest threat to sensible planning.
Why should that be so? Such demolition without authorisation can have a noticeable effect on the streetscape and character of the area. In Committee I quoted my own experience. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to that again. We were trying to prevent a developer from knocking down a large Victorian house in a suburban street. He was hoping that the resulting bomb site would so disfigure the street that he would obtain permission for his three storey block of flats. That had already happened along the road. By getting the trees around the house listed, we thwarted the scheme. That street is now in a conservation area and when another builder tried a similar scheme in the same area, he was stopped. However, your Lordships will recognise the faint absurdity of listing trees, which are a renewable source, but not protecting from unauthorised demolition Victorian and Edwardian houses which make up the streetscape of our cities.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that such speculative demolition is designed to force a planning authority's hand. A local authority may subsequently choose to give planning consent to development, when it would prefer to refuse it, merely because that is a more acceptable alternative to having a dangerous vacant site covered with rubble which invites the tipping of rubbish and generates rats.
The Minister may issue policy guidance that demolition should not be the presumption in favour of subsequent development. Such guidance would be welcome. However, that will make very little difference. In reality, when faced with a dirty and possibly dangerous bombed-out site, the local authority may well agree that a development is the lesser of two evils, however unacceptable that development would otherwise be.
Even if the local authority remain stalwart and refuse consent for development, the developer can still go to the Secretary of State who may agree that almost any development on that site is better than leaving it as it is—a vacant tip. The Secretary of State may well be right. I remind the Minister that as the development plan is not a primary consideration, the developer can count on that too.
We all agree that there is a problem that is not extensive and does not generate an onerous workload. However, we all agree that where it occurs it can be a significant problem. Policy guidance, welcome though that is, will not remedy that problem.
What can be done? Clearly it is possible to cover the country in conservation areas, but that would debase

665
the language and stretch eligibility for grant too thinly. I suggest that there are two options. The first, along the lines of Mr. Widdicombe's ruling, would be to have demolition regarded as development. The second would be that the special consent already required for demolition in conservation areas should apply to all property outside. I suggest that both of those are practicable ways forward. The workload is modest and there is in place already a system of prior notification. The cost would be modest and the gains immense.
I repeat that this amendment will not ban demolition. It merely requires it to be authorised as happens now with demolition prior to agreed development. Demolition outside conservation areas will be brought within the same planning framework as demolition within those areas. Demolition for speculative development will be treated in the same way as demolition for agreed development. Acceptance of such an amendment would mean the closure of the largest existing loopholes in regard to the protection of our streetscape and villages. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I raised this matter in Committee. In response to my amendment which I still support—I shall certainly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness—the reply from the Government Front Bench was that the control which we sought against all forms of demolition of buildings was too sweeping, too wide and would clog the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has certainly done her stuff. She has made out a much better case than I did. If arguments well put in this House result in votes, then she should succeed. After all, as long ago as 1974 Mr. George Dobry QC, in the report Control of Demolition, recommended that demolition should be brought under planning controls. That was 16 or 17 years ago. Since that time there have been many flagrant breaches.
My Amendment No. 241 restricts the control to demolition of dwelling houses, which I believe concerns many people. I put forward that proposal only as a substitute. I hope that the Government will see some sense in this matter and accept my proposal if they feel that this amendment goes too wide by suggesting overall control. I do not believe that it is. Nevertheless, if the control were restricted to dwelling houses that would be a step in the right direction.
If examples are needed—and there are plenty of them—I draw attention to Tottenham town centre where an Asda supermarket has been developed. The supermarket owners wanted to pull down a terrace of Victorian houses in order to extend the car park. They acquired the houses at fair prices with which the owners were happy but the general public and the planning authority wanted the properties, which were in an attractive Victorian terrace, to be restored. Therefore, the planning application was refused. Immediately a bulldozer pulled down the houses and
666
a fresh application to extend the car park over that area was granted. That sort of action is diabolical and the Government should not permit that to happen.
In Committee I gave examples of properties in north London, particularly in the Harrow area. Government supporters in the other place have been promoting private legislation to try to persuade the Government of the merits of the case. It may be that at present there will be a pause because development is not very popular, but it will return. Certainly the supermarket scenario will continue because there are many under construction at present. It is time to act. The Government should not wait for the appeal against the decision recently made in the courts. This Bill presents a wonderful opportunity to write the provision into legislation. I hope that the Government will at least support the control of demolition of private residential houses.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am not thrilled with this amendment. It will cause delay. Although such cases may arise in the south of England I cannot wait to see the demolition of parts of Hollyhead and Amlwch. I should not like to see any delay which I believe this amendment may cause.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, the noble Baroness eloquently explained the merits of bringing demolition under the planning control provisions, but I do not wish to speak about that. However, she made a comment which greatly disturbs me. If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she made reference to a case where use was made of tree preservation orders in order to prevent some other activities taking place —in that instance, the redevelopment and, perhaps not in the intended way, the demolition of property which it was felt appropriate to keep.
That fills me with horror. That has been one of my anxieties. Local planning authorities are using orders such as tree preservation orders for purposes which are totally outwith the concept of the facility provided by that order-making provision. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and that the Government will make it their business to make sure that in future these provisions will not be misused. I believe that it is an abuse of a statutory power. I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Baroness because I was concerned to hear confirmation in this House that such a measure is being used in what I consider to be a wholly inappropriate fashion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I explained our general position on the issue of control over demolition in Committee. We recognise fully that there is anxiety in some areas about what may be called speculative demolition; that is, demolition carried out in the hope of securing permission for more intensive and profitable redevelopment.
We consulted last year on a number of options for tackling the issue. The responses to our consultation paper did not produce evidence of a general and widespread problem, nor did they indicate a consensus on what should be done about it. We believe that much can be done, where a problem does arise, by the inclusion of suitable policies in local plans and unitary

667
development plans. If plans make quite clear what the planning authority's policy will be on the redevelopment of cleared sites, a developer is much less likely to feel that he has something to gain by carrying out demolition in the first place. We intend to give new policy guidance on these matters in an updated planning policy guidance note on housing which will be published shortly.
On the question of legislative change, I said that we are not at this stage convinced that such change is necessary; but if we were to go down that road, I am quite sure that it would have to be on a basis which enabled selective controls over demolition to be imposed in some areas but not in others. The present amendments go some way towards recognising this last point: the draft schedule of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would, as I understand it, permit a selective approach. But I have to say again that we remain to be convinced of the need for legislative change of this kind.
One issue which has to be considered in this context is the precise significance of the existing law. As the noble Baroness pointed out, in January a judgment was given in the High Court which apparently supported the view that certain types of demolition are already subject to planning controls. We have been waiting for the full transcript of that judgment before deciding whether any clarification or reinforcement of the existing law is desirable. I hope that transcript will be available shortly, so that we can take a view on the general implications of that judgment, and on the case for the sort of amendment which the noble Lord is proposing.
The noble Baroness quite rightly set out the scenario of the demolition issue in conservation areas. I agree that it is not a problem in those areas in regard to the mechanisms for exercising control over demolition. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, gave a specific example regarding houses that were demolished and then applications submitted for a car park. It is that kind of case which is the subject of the Widdicombe determination. It is the specific transcript of that case that we wish to examine before considering the matter further.
In regard to the issue of the tendency of planning authorities to give permission rather than be left with what I believe the noble Baroness referred to as "bomb sites" or their equivalent, the argument is predicated on the assumption of a feeble response to the problem by planning authorities. Why should they allow their arms to be twisted by demolition? They are quite free to restrict permission to the replacement of what was knocked down. On rare occasions that does happen. It is not so long ago that somebody had to rebuild something that was knocked down.
The noble Baroness referred also to the risk that the Secretary of State may allow development on appeal. We made it clear that we will normally be guided by the local plan, and that when the new development and structure plans are in place, within the context of strategic guidance, the system will become even more effective.
668
It is important that local planning authorities use the powers already at their disposal. In the meantime I do not think we can usefully take this discussion further forward. However, I will take the noble Lord's proposals away and consider them in detail alongside the transcript of the recent High Court judgment when it is available. I say that without at this stage committing the Government to bringing forward amendments of their own—though no doubt the matter will be raised again when the Bill reaches another place. On the basis of that assurance I hope the amendments will not be pressed.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his support. I would certainly have been happy to support his amendment as a fall-back position of reduced scope which would have caught the worst cases.
Perhaps I may refer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that the provision may cause delay. On the contrary, at the moment it seems to us that given the fact that demolition without advanced planning permission for redevelopment is speculative, and is therefore a two-stage process, the existing system generates more delay than would be the case were demolition part of an authorised planning bid. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will accept that the amendment would not add to delay; it would streamline proposals and procedures.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the issue of trees. Perhaps I could respond first by saying that these were very nice trees and there existed a perfectly legitimate ground for their being preserved. However, this was a situation where the developer was trying to beat the declaration of the conservation area timetable. It was with that concern that we were attempting to stop him demolishing a house and leaving us with a bomb site.
I shall turn to the Minister's comments. I welcome her concern. I have to say that, given that she is usually a robust and sturdy defender of the Government position, we did not see in her comments quite the normal robustness and sturdiness that we are customarily led to expect. I could not help but feel that the Minister would be more comfortable on this occasion making our case rather than trying to reject it.
The Minister accepts the problem and recognises that policy guidance is needed to deal with it; she believes that planning authorities should not permit their arms to be twisted, and suggests that local authorities have weapons at their disposal to control it. I say that they do not. At the end of the day once that demolition has taken place and if a developer will not reinstate but prefers to leave the site derelict, there is nothing but nothing a local authority can do. That is the loop-hole; that is the problem; that is where the writ does not run and where they do not have powers at their disposal. It is to meet that situation that we ask

669
the Minister to give local authorities the powers that she wishes they had to deal with the problem she recognises to meet the concerns we all share.
Having said that, I wish I could judge how serious the Minister is—I do not in any sense challenge her good faith or integrity in this House. I wish I could judge how substantially the Minister will be requiring her civil servants to look at the problem. It is of such significance that I would normally seek the view of the House. I shall not do so if there is a realistic possibility that at Third Reading the Minister may be able to give us a way forward; for example, by saying that after a year policy guidance has not produced the required effect and that she will consider legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. With the leave of the House, perhaps I could say that once we have seen the transcript and made a proper interpretation of it, as far as the department is concerned, for this kind of matter we will need to have regard to what it will mean in case law. If it is determined that certain kinds of demolition come into the planning system, then the objective of the noble Baroness will be met.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in the light of that response—having read the transcript we may wish to come back at Third Reading—reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Mines and waste]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 77, line 1, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 94 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 240. A provision is required to apply the Bill's provisions to the Isles of Scilly. In the process of drafting it became evident that it would be desirable to replace the existing rather complex provisions of the 1990 Act applying particular clauses to the Isles with a general section enabling the Secretary of State to make the necessary provision by order. Amendment No. 240, to which Amendment No. 94 is a consequential, is in a form which is now more or less standard for this purpose, including the requirement for the council of the Isles to be consulted before an order is made. We have consulted the council and understand that the amendment will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my only concern with regard to Amendment No. 240, as the noble Viscount said, is that the Council of the Isles of Scilly will be consulted. In subparagraph (2) it says,
"An order under this section may in particular provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of any functions exercisable by a local planning authority or mineral planning authority".
Surely the amendment should say that an order,
"shall provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of some specified functions exercisable by a local planning authority";
670
otherwise the amendment provides that the Council of the Isles of Scilly has no mineral planning authority powers at all.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendment proposes the deletion of paragraph 12 and is conditional on Amendment No. 240 being accepted. It enables the Secretary of State to modify and adapt the principal Act in its application to the Isles of Scilly. Paragraph 12 of the schedule sought to amend only subparagraph (1) of Section 319, which applies—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds further, I must say that his answer so far has been totally wide of the mark. I was not criticising the paving amendment but the substantive amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in practice the council has functions and will have the power to make its own planning decisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 95:

Page 77, line 3, at end insert:
(" . In section 324(8) (rights of entry) after "minerals" there shall be added "or waste".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. This is a probing amendment simply to see whether planning officers have the necessary power to go on to land to check for the presence of waste materials that may have been buried in it. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Amendment No. 95 concerns the right of any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority to enter any land for the purpose of surveying it in connection with the preparation of a plan, an application for the permission for the use of the land or for serving an order. The current right confers a power to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals in it. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to give the right to the local planning authority to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of waste in land.
It is an interesting proposal. However, it is important to bear in mind the duties and powers of the proposed waste regulation authorities to inspect land to ascertain the presence and nature of waste that may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. This duty is formulated in Section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Furthermore, Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 requires local planning authorities to consult the relevant waste disposal authority before granting planning permission for development within 250 metres of land which is or has been within the previous 30 years used for the deposit of refuse or waste.
In those circumstances it seems that existing powers might be adequate. However, the proposed amendment raises issues concerning the relationship between local planning authorities and the proposed waste

671
regulation authorities. I should like the opportunity of considering this matter further. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, that is a generous response which has clarified the situation very well. I hope that the consideration that is now to be given to it will take place. If it is not clear at the moment whether planning officers should discuss the issue with the other authorities, then guidance will be given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 77, line 27, after ("(2)") insert ("(3)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 97, 101 and 102. These are all necessary drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 77, line 28, leave out ("both places") and insert ("each place")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 80, line 25, at end insert:

("18.—(1) This paragraph applies to permissions for mineral extraction continued in effect by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 and Schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 so far as continued in effect by that paragraph in so far as it relates to those provisions ("the relevant provisions").

(2) The relevant provisions are hereby repealed and, subject to subsection (2) any permission in force thereunder shall cease to have effect at the end of 12 months beginning from the passing of this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall within the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, after consulting with bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of the mineral extraction industry and of mineral planning authorities, by order grant permission for such classes of development permitted under the relevant provisions as he considers expedient, subject to such conditions as he considers expedient.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), to the extent that any development falling within sub-paragraph (1) is not granted permission by order under sub-paragraph (3) or is so granted subject to conditions more stringent than those attached to the original permission, the occupier of the land affected by that permission shall be deemed to have applied to the mineral planning authority under Part III of the principal Act for unconditional permission to carry out such development.

(5) An application under sub-paragraph (4) of this section shall only be deemed to have been lodged with the mineral planning authority if and when the occupier of such land serves on the mineral planning authority a copy of the original permission which was continued in force under the relevant provisions, not being later than the end of the period of 12 months from the date of the passing of this Act".).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 99. The purpose of these amendments is to bring consents for mineral working granted in the 1940s—that is, the interim development orders—into the control of mineral planning authorities. In Committee the House considered a number of amendments designed to strengthen control over mineral working. Two related to consents granted under IDOs. These orders were a form of planning control which immediately preceded
672

the introduction of the modern planning system in 1948. Between 1943 and 1948 a large number of these consents were granted by the then local authorities.
These consents have been automatically continued in force by successive planning Acts. There are two difficulties. First, the authorities were not in a position to impose the sorts of conditions which would be normal today governing the programme of working, access to the sites, restoration and aftercare. Some of these consents are very vague, giving a general right to work minerals, unspecified over several hundred acres. Secondly, local planning authorities often cannot even assess the size of the problem because there is no requirement to register the IDOs. Due to local government reorganisation the records of many authorities no longer exist.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, was helpful and sympathetic. In replying to Amendment No. 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, the noble Baroness went rather further and gave an undertaking last Tuesday to bring forward amendments that would go some way to improve the situation. We are grateful for that. I want to move Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 in order to explore the situation a little further.
There is general agreement that the first priority is to create a register and require all the owners of these old consents to come forward and produce them to the planning authority on pain of losing the benefit of the consents. However, a register will not of itself solve the problem and the noble Baroness recognised that. I refer to Hansard of 19th February at col. 541. It will merely provide information on the extent of the problem and the location of the land subject to IDOs. A chance should not be lost to incorporate into the present Bill a framework within which that solution can be identified and implemented without recourse to further primary legislation.
Ideally, from an environmental point of view, one would want to wipe out all these old consents, enabling planning authorities to start afresh, granting permission or imposing conditions that are entirely acceptable and in accordance with today's environmental standards. Of course, the conservation bodies feel strongly on this matter knowing of the damage that has been done to sites of special scientific interest. The Unstarred Question introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on 9th May 1990 on peat resources went into the damage that modern methods of extracting peat can cause.
The minerals industry is understandably concerned at these proposals. Since consideration of the amendments during Committee, the British Aggregate Construction Minerals Industries (BACMI) has made the following points in defence of IDOs. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, spoke about this on Tuesday. He accepted BACMI's arguments rather more readily than we do. I wish to put the points that it makes and our responses to them.
First, BACMI's IDOs are valid planning permissions granted under the final stages of a developing planning system which evolved into the Town and

673
Country Planning Act 1947. That is true as far as it goes. However, it ignores the fact that, unlike planning applications submitted under the 1947 Act, there was no requirement to register the IDOs. Secondly, it states that IDOs usually have rudimentary planning conditions. These are often no more rudimentary than any planning permission granted in the 1950s. For this reason the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 gave local planning authorities power to modify and update planning conditions or suspend or prohibit further working, subject to the payment of compensation. Limited powers are also available to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose planning conditions on an operator's entire quarry where a new planning permission is granted to extend that quarry. That is BACMI's point.
However, this argument ignores the fact that all the conditions imposed on IDOs were very rudimentary. They were even more rudimentary than the condition imposed on applications in the 1950s. BACMI also ignores the fact that while the 1981 Act gave mineral planning authorities power to review minerals workings and, where environmentally damaging, to revoke the permissions, there was a requirement to pay compensation which means that no local planning authorities can afford to implement this part of the Act. This power, therefore, is not an effective power.
The second problem with BACMI's argument is that, while an extension to an existing quarry will enable a local planning authority to impose conditions to ameliorate any problems which are associated with any part of the quarry, this does not apply when there is no requirement for the quarry to obtain planning permission for development. In these cases, quarries may continue to operate even though they cause severe environmental problems. One particular case is the problem of inappropriate access arrangements whereby quarries with the benefit of IDO permissions use an access, lined by houses, which is unsuitable for the lorry movements generated. There is nothing a local planning authority can do in these circumstances to force a determined minerals operator to improve the access arrangements. In addition, the existence of IDOs prevent local authorities from limiting the depths to which a quarry or other mineral undertaking may be worked.
Thirdly, BACMI argues that quarries subject to IDOs have to operate to modern environmental standards as they are subject to control over noise, dust, smoke, fumes, blast, vibration, restoration, aftercare, traffic, and so on. In response to that we say that local planning authorities do not argue that all quarries subject to IDOs cause environmental problems. The vast majority operate satisfactorily. However, the case still stands that much land granted permissions under IDOs is still not developed. BACMI also ignores the fact that if quarry operators are willing to talk to other regulatory bodies over environmental standards why are they so reluctant to talk to planning departments about reviews of their planning positions?
Fourthly, BACMI argues that some very large quarries are fully reliant on IDOs. Such investment may be put at risk by the proposal that all IDOs should expire and require reapplication for permission. In other cases, BACMI argues that IDO sites not currently worked are viewed by quarry companies as a reserve. Our response here is that the aim of this amendment is not to put quarries out of business but to subject them to greater environmental control. The argument in relation to reserve sites is fallacious. The analogy should be that between mineral operators and house builders. Land with planning permission for housing that remains undeveloped after five years loses its planning permission. Why should mineral operators be in a different position?
At Committee stage, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 107, tried to introduce this five-year stop point, but that was not accepted. Much land subject to minerals permission under the IDOs remains undeveloped since the 1940s. Development of this land for minerals extraction should be subject to planning permission to ensure that any developments undertaken on the land are subject to updated environmental conditions. It should be borne in mind that when IDO permissions were given quarrying was basically undertaken to supply local needs. In the past 40 years conditions have changed markedly with the construction of motorways and with the extension of market areas so that quarries are now larger and are more environmentally disruptive.
Fifthly, BACMI argues that any reduction in the area of land subject to IDOs will require an equal tonnage of new quarrying permissions to be granted elsewhere to ensure that government policies on maintenance of land banks are fulfilled. In this statement BACMI ignores the fact that large areas of IDO permissions are unrecorded and unknown so that they do not figure in any assessment of reserves. It also assumes that local planning authorities will turn down planning permission for developments on all lands subject to IDOs. This is not so. What local authorities would do is to impose conditions which are suitable for the environmental standards of the 1990s. That will result in some additional costs to operators.
It may be unrealistic to expect these competing arguments to be resolved within the timescale of the passage of the Bill, but the Bill should empower the Secretary of State to arrive at such a resolution after giving both sides a proper hearing. The amendment accordingly inserts a new paragraph at the end of Schedule 1. All consents would cease to have effect six months after Royal Assent unless by then the original consent had been produced to the mineral planning authority which would compile a register. I understand that the Minister has agreed to do that.
The Secretary of State would then have a further 18 months in which to consult the industry and the authorities to decide how far to continue those consents in force, subject to what conditions and how far they should be allowed to lapse. He will do that by order. At the end of that period any consents which

675
had not been continued would lapse and the provisions which kept them alive would be finally repealed.
In moving this amendment I should like to say that the conservation bodies—the NCC, the CPRE and the RSPB—as well as the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are all anxious that something should be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I indicated to your Lordships on the first day of Report, the Government intend to bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill to provide that holders of IDO permissions must apply to the appropriate mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered, or lose their consents. We shall be consulting on the details of that and on the proposal that applications for registration of IDO permissions should be accompanied by schemes of operating, restoration and, where appropriate, aftercare conditions for the approval of the mineral planning authority.
My honourable friend in another place is today answering a Question on this very matter. I rather hope that copies of the consultation paper will have been placed in the Library of another place and by now, I hope, in the Library of this House. We take the view that it would be sensible to use the opportunity of registration to apply conditions, and we believe that responsible operators share that view. Provision to appeal to the Secretary of State would be necessary, both against refusal or the imposition of unreasonable conditions by the authority, and to resolve disputes about the validity and extension of permissions. Our consultation paper will also cover the impact of the proposals on the compensation rights of operators and we will consider the responses before we take a firm decision.
Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would both require the Secretary of State to grant permitted development rights for such IDO permissions and subject to such conditions as, after consultation, he thought fit. While I appreciate the good intention behind the amendments, I do not think it would be a sensible way to proceed. The problems of individual sites should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the authorities primarily responsible. It would not be right to derogate from mineral planning authorities' responsibilities in this way. We have considered carefully whether it would be right to take statutory measures now to deal with the problems of unworked land and IDO permission boundaries. While we fully appreciate the strength of feelings on this issue and the legitimate concerns expressed, we are not convinced that it would be right to expropriate legitimate mineral working rights without a detailed examination of all the implications and full and considered consultation on any proposed changes.
We shall therefore look at these issues very closely in our comprehensive review of the existing powers available to mineral planning authorities for dealing with inadequate permissions. We shall be considering also whether we can reach conclusions on the compensation aspects in advance of the general findings of the review. In the meantime, we intend to
676
invite the industry, in the context of agreeing a scheme of operating and restoration conditions with the mineral planning authority, to discuss an adjustment to the boundaries of its rights where appropriate.
These proposals are subject to consultation with representatives of the local authorities—a point that I know was made very well by the noble Baroness—environmental groups, the industry and landowners. They aim to provide the right balance between the needs of the country for a secure and effective supply of minerals, together with information about where these sites are worked, and ensuring that the minerals are extracted in an environmentally sensitive way. It would be wrong to deny the right of those likely to be affected by any changes the opportunity to express their views and have them taken into account before any final decisions are made.
The time for consultation will, of necessity, be short, but I am sure that interested parties will have been following our debates closely. As the House is aware, there is a review in train at the moment, but the urgency of the situation was flagged-up in Committee. We said that we wanted to act quickly and positively before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses.
I shall pick up two further points made by the noble Baroness. I believe that she called the group of people to whom she was referring as BACMI. It referred to the permissions as not having the weight of planning permissions granted since the 1947 Act. However crude the conditions that went with those permissions, and however cursory the discussion before those permissions were granted, they are, nevertheless, valid planning permissions and must be seen as such. It would be wrong not to have consultations if there were to be any interference with or modification of those permissions. There was of course no requirement to register, and that is the problem we have today. The registration requirements did not then exist. It is therefore important that we establish registration as the first step. It is precisely because of some of the problems so well set out by the noble Baroness that we believe we need to act quickly. In the light of that explanation, I hope that Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I put this to her. I hope that she recognises that, with the best intentions in the world she has put us, the House and, I suspect, herself, in some difficulty. She said that her honourable friend in another place has answered a Question and published a consultation document which she hopes will be available in the Library of another place and in our Library. As she had good notice that the amendments were to be tabled, surely she could have seen to it that we had copies of the consultation document before the amendment was moved. It would have facilitated the proper conduct of the business of the House and would have made my noble friend's case and the Minister's answer much easier to develop.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that the Question was answered only a short time ago. It has

677

been on the Order Paper in another place, but the consultation paper was not published until the Question had been answered in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that that is good enough. Business managers in another place should have seen to it that the Question and the consultation document were made available in time for consideration on Report in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that the noble Lord welcomes this positive move which I believe meets most of the objectives of the amendment. There will be a period of consultation. We hope that those invited to make representations will do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, as my noble friend said, we are left in a difficult position because we do not know what is in the consultation paper. We have had a fairly positive response from the Minister. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, await developments and read the consultation paper. Is there any hope that the amendments which have been promised will be put down for Third Reading, or will they not appear until the Bill moves to another place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I cannot be precise about that point. I can assure the noble Baroness that the moment the amendments are ready they will be tabled. It is more likely that they will be tabled in another place. If they are ready for Third Reading, they will be tabled then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Mines and Waste—Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments No. 101 and 102:
Page 119, line 29, after ("(2)") insert ("(3)").
Page 119, line 29, leave out ("both places") and insert ("each place").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Trees]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("desirable") and insert ("expedient").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104–112, 113–117, 120–123, 243 and 247. Clause 19 makes various changes for trees reflecting, as far as practicable, the changes made in respect of planning enforcement elsewhere in the Bill. The amendments are technical, aimed at achieving a more precise match with the corresponding provisions in Clause 11 or, as in the case of Amendment No. 108, clarifying the existing drafting. Amendments Nos. 243 and 247 are consequential on Clause 19. Amendments Nos.
678
113–117 and 120–123 make similar changes, as appropriate, to the equivalent Scottish provisions. I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 104–110:

Page 28, line 22, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question").
Page 28, line 27, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose").
Page 28, leave out lines 28 to 31.
Page 28, line 45, at end insert:
("(6A) The Secretary of State shall not authorise any person as mentioned in subsections (2) and (6) without consulting the local planning authority.").
Page 29, line 1, leave out from ("Admission") to ("unless") in line 3 and insert ("shall not be demanded as of right—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) to any building used as a dwellinghouse; or

(b) by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) to any land which is occupied,").

Page 29, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 31 and insert ("Any power conferred under or by virtue of section 214B or 214C to enter land (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")").
Page 29, line 34, leave out from ("land") to end of line 36 and insert ("in the exercise of a right of entry").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 111–112:
Page 30, line 4, leave out ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 30, line 4, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Trees]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 113–117:
Page 51, line 41, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question").
Page 51, line 46, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose").
Page 52, leave out lines 1 to 4.
Page 52, line 18, at end insert:

("(6A) The Secretary of State shall not authorise any person as mentioned in subsections (2) and (6) without consulting the planning authority.").

Page 52, line 19, leave out from ("Admission") to ("unless") in line 21 and insert ("shall not be demanded as of right—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) to any building used as a dwellinghouse; or

(b) by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) to any land which is occupied,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 120–123:
Page 52, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 48 and insert ("Any power conferred under or by virtue of section 99A or 99B to enter land (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")").
Page 53, line 3, leave out from ("land") to end of line 5 and insert ("in the exercise of a right of entry").

679
Page 53, line 20, leave out ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 53, line 20, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 80, line 41, leave out paragraph 2 and insert:
("2. For section 38(5) and (6) of that Act (withdrawal of notices) there is substituted—

"(5) The local planning authority may—

(a) withdraw a listed building enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another); or

(b) waive or relax any requirement of such a notice and, in particular, may extend the period specified in accordance with section 38(3),

and the powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised whether or not the notice has taken effect.

(6) The local planning authority shall, immediately after exercising the powers conferred by subsection (5), give notice of the exercise 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".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125–129, 131–150, 152–156 and 159–165. Amendments Nos. 124–129 and 131–150 are all amendments to Schedule 2 in respect of listed buildings and hazardous substances enforcement provisions. They amend further the changes made by the schedule to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. For the most part, the amendments reflect the amendments tabled to the planning enforcement provisions in Part I of the Bill and will ensure consistency with those provisions. They also include some minor drafting amendments and consequential amendments.
Amendments Nos. 152–156 and 159–165 make corresponding changes to Schedule 8 to the Bill in respect of the listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances enforcement provisions applying to Scotland. I am happy to answer questions about the amendments in more detail if noble Lords wish. In the meantime, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 125–129:
Page 81, line 30, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("subsection (2)").
Page 81, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert:

("(3) In subsection (3) after "shall" there is inserted "subject to any order under section 65(3A)".").

Page 82, line 15, leave out ("compliance period") and insert ("period for compliance with the notice").
Page 83, line 9, leave out ("they think") and insert ("the court thinks").
Page 83, line 20, leave out ("be of no effect, or shall have such effect") and insert ("have effect, or have effect to such extent").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 130:
680
Page 83, line 28, at end insert:
("8A. After section 76 of that Act there is inserted—
"Alteration and extension in conservation areas.
76A—(1) No person shall, notwithstanding any provision of a General Development Order, without authorisation execute or cause to be executed any works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building in any manner which would materially affect the external character or appearance of the building itself, or the character or appearance of the area as a whole as an area of special architectural or historical interest.
(2) Works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building are authorised if—

(a) planning permission has been granted by the local planning authority; and

(b) they are executed in accordance with the terms of the permission and of any conditions attached to it.

(3) The provisions of Part 1 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 shall apply to any alteration or extension of a building falling within this section." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendment No. 130 refers to conservation areas and the alterations within them. We were cheered by the degree of support that the principle of the amendment received in Committee and in some of the letters we have received subsequently. For help I am looking to the Minister, who I know shares the concern of the House on this point. It is a serious, growing and countrywide problem.
Individual buildings of high quality—in other words, listed buildings—are protected from demolition and alteration. Our villages of character and our historic quarters of towns—in other words, our 7,000 conservation areas—are protected front demolition, as noble Lords will gather from previous discussions. But they are not protected from the do-it-yourself alterations and defacements which are rapidly eroding the quality of the very areas that we are seeking to conserve and enhance.
Every one of your Lordships must have horror stories to relate of concrete roofs replacing stone slates and of plate glass windows replacing Victorian sash windows. On Sunday I noticed in one of my own conservation areas in Norwich a substantial late Victorian brick terraced house being clad in fake York stone. The neighbours complained to me and I said that we could do nothing, so they asked what a conservation area was for if it did not conserve.
At Committee stage we hoped that the Minister would agree to extend to unlisted buildings in conservation areas the same protection against significant or material external alterations as apply to all alterations of a listed building. The Minister argued then that that would generate an onerous workload. We do not share that view. We are not talking here about quite minor items of work, as the Minister suggested, but precisely about those aspects of houses which local authorities believe determine the character and the quality of an area.
The Minister made it clear at Committee stage that she prefers the route of Article 4 directions, which empower the Secretary of State to remove permitted

681
development rights of a general development order. I have to say to your Lordships, despite the persuasiveness of the Minister, that the track record of Article 4s is not encouraging. I have just had recent figures for the South-East; they are not compiled nationally. In 1987–88, the number of Article 4 directions brought forward by local authorities was 37, and the Secretary of State agreed 65 per cent. of them. But in 1988–89, when 43 Article 4 requests were brought forward by local authorities, the Secretary of State could find himself minded to grant only 19 of them, or 44 per cent. In other words, many, if not most, local authority applications for Article 4 directions are rejected by the Secretary of State and many more which should be, and would be, sought by local authorities are not, because of the climate of the DoE.
The presumption is against them. Local authorities have to show a real or potential threat to their area and by that time they are too late. Article 4 directions are partial, limited, grudging, cumbersome and belated. Your Lordships will understand why we do not think that they are particularly satisfactory.
This amendment instead offers a different route. It will not catch all alterations. It does not seek to do so, and we do not wish it to do so. It does not seek to catch even minor alterations, but only those material and significant alterations to property, such as roofs, windows and the like, which significantly affect the character of our conservation areas. It will not affect internal alterations, but only external ones, and it should perhaps be operated within a framework of guidance from the Secretary of State if the Minister is concerned that such a policy might be onerous.
But such an amendment, if accepted, would allow all of us to pass on to the next generation our villages and our towns relatively unspoiled. If we do not follow this path there will be less and less to pass on. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have reservations about this amendment. Who will decide what is material and what is not material? What is small to me may be big to the noble Baroness. I see that the amendment will not affect windows, but I think that the noble Baroness said that it would affect windows. What sort of windows? I think that this amendment will be difficult to operate in practice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley makes an interesting point and goes to the heart of some of the difficulties that we have in accepting the amendment. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put down a very similar amendment and I agreed to give it careful consideration with my ministerial colleagues and report back at Report stage. I have also noted the noble Baroness's concluding remarks at Committee stage, when she emphasised that the amendment was intended to affect only "material" changes.
My colleagues and I have considered both the previous amendment and the present one and the

682
points made at Committee stage. There appears to be a misunderstanding of my reluctance to accept the original amendment and I may not have explained my reason clearly at Committee stage.
The noble Baroness has stressed that her amendment is intended to catch only material changes to the exterior of a building. But it is only works that materially affect the external appearance of a building which require planning permission, whether the permission is granted specifically or under the permitted development rights in Article 3 of the general development order. Permitted development covers the more common and generally acceptable alterations and extensions up to certain sizes or percentages of the original building. They may in many instances be minor, but they will always be material changes.
Obviously some changes will be more significant than others and the noble Baroness invites us to require specific planning permission for development which,
"materially and significantly affected the external character and appearance of a building or its area".
The difficulty with this approach is in defining particular types of development as "material and significant" in a way which could be applied to all conservation areas, with all their regional variations and differences in character and appearance.
I understand the great concern felt by the noble Baroness, but I must return to the unacceptable burden that local planning authorities would face if the Government accepted this amendment. We still believe, despite the scepticism of the noble Baroness, that the Article 4 direction procedure can give a reasonable level of protection to unlisted buildings in conservation areas without overloading the planning system.

Although there was a difference between the two sets of figures that the noble Baroness gave, I still believe that 44 per cent. in one case and 65 per cent. in another is a fair degree of protection in conservation areas. However, I must say that we are still considering proposals from English Heritage with a view to issuing further guidance to local planning authorities on Article 4 directions and clarification of the Secretary of State's criteria for approving them. This is the road down which we wish to go, and we believe that what is proposed in the amendment is a rather more draconian measure.
But in terms of the objectives, there is no difference of opinion between the Government and the noble Baroness. We want to achieve what she wants to achieve, but we believe that, in co-operation with English Heritage, she will advise us on how to draft the guidance, and that the Article 4 direction is the route to achieve this objective.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall comment on the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about what counts as "material". I recognise that there appears to be a difficulty here, but in practice I suspect that none of us would have any

683
problems about identifying changes which materially affect the character of an area. I hoped that I had given some examples. We are talking about windows, roofs, the blocking up of windows, the blocking up of doors and moving them along to a different part of the frontage, and about cladding. It is that sort of activity that we are seeking to control.
I shall be very happy to see that defined by a code of guidance from the Secretary of State following consultation with local authorities. That would seem to meet the Minister's point of wanting, on the one hand, equity across the country, while, on the other hand, allowing local flexibility, local discretion and response to local and regional variety. That seems to me to be the way forward.
This amendment as drafted, backed up by the Secretary of State's code of guidance, would seem to meet e very problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the Minister. As at Committee stage, the Minister is putting her faith in Article 4 directions. I do not have an interest as such, but as a commissioner for English Heritage I have a very real concern about the drafting. I hope that the Minister's expectations are rig it, but I have to say that the track record shows that local authorities are discouraged from seeking Article 4 directions, and seek them only as an item of last resort. When they do, nearly 60 per cent. are rejected by the Secretary of State, which does not indicate a very positive response by the Secretary of State to the problems perceived by local authorities.
If the Minister is able, if I may use the phrase, to change that culture and turn it around in conjunction with English Heritage, that would be very welcome. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking to review the effectiveness of Article 4 directions a year or so after the proposed new PPG comes into operation to see whether they meet the needs, as the noble Baroness thinks they will. I remain entirely sceptical about them. I have not yet found a single district planning officer who favours the route of Article 4 direction. It may not be quite such a rare species as I believe it to be, but I have not yet found one of them. If the Minister insists that this is the only way forward, I can do no other than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 131 to 150 inclusive:
Page 83, leave out line 29 and insert:

("9.—(1) In section 88 of that Act (rights of entry)—

(a) in subsection (1) after "on it" there is inserted "or any other land",

(b) in subsection (2)(a) after "surveying it" there is inserted "or any other land",

(c) in subsection (2)(b) after "complied with" there is inserted "in relation to the land or any other land",

(d) in subsection (2)(c) after "on the land" there is inserted "or any other land",

(e) in subsection (2)(d) for "such building" there is substituted "building on the land or any other land",

(f) in subsection (3)(a) after "section 59" there is inserted "in relation to the land or any other land", and

684

(g) in subsection (3)(b) and (c) after "the land" there is inserted "or any other land".

(2) For subsection (7)").

Page 84, line 42, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 84, line 43, after ("entry") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 85, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 34 and insert ("The hazardous substances authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise").
Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("it") to end of line 44.
Page 85, line 45, leave out ("For") and insert ("In").
Page 85, line 45, leave out from ("appeal)") to end of line 5 on page 86 and insert ("after "shall" there is inserted "subject to regulations under this section".").
Page 86, line 14, leave out ("they think") and insert ("the court thinks").
Page 87, line 32, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 87, line 33, after ("entry") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 88, line 7, after ("44A") insert ("88").
Page 88, line 7, at end insert:
("Housing Act 1988 (c. 50.)
16A. In section 67(3A) of the Housing Act 1988 for "25 and 36" there is substituted "26AA, 36 and 36A".")
Page 88, line 10, at end insert:

("( ) in subsection (2) "within such period as may be so specified" is omitted").

Page 88, line 12, after ("notice") insert ("—(a)").
Page 88, line 14, after ("date") insert ("and

(b) shall specify the period within which any steps are required to be taken and may specify different periods for different steps,

and, where different periods apply to different steps, references in this Part to the period for compliance with a listed building enforcement notice, in relation to any step, are to the period within which the step is required to be taken".").
Page 88, line 16, at end insert:
("17A. In section 39(7) of that Act "in writing" is omitted.
17B. In section 42 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (1) for "compliance period" there is substituted "period for compliance with the notice", and

(b) subsection (7) is omitted.").

Page 88, line 17, at end insert:
("18A. In section 46(4) of that Act for "sections 42 and 43" there is substituted "section 42" and for "those sections" there is substituted "that section".").
Page 88, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("for "subsection (7)" there is substituted "section 88B(8)" and").
Page 88, line 26, at end insert:
("23A. In Schedule 3 to that Act, in paragraph 2(1)(b), after "section 41(1), (2)" there is inserted "(2A)".").
Page 88, line 36, at end insert:
("26A. In section 36(5) of that Act "Subject to subsection (6)" is omitted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 151:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Compulsory purchase
(". 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 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: My Lords, in moving this amendment I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, is not able to be in his place this afternoon. Secondly, I have to apologise for an error which has crept into the wording. The intention was that this should be placed in the Bill after Clause 48 and not after Clause 44. The mistake arose because it was the original Clause 44. I am advised that, should the House be minded to approve this amendment, it could be placed in the correct position by a simple amendment.
The arguments in favour of this amendment are three. First, voluntary negotiation before the compulsory purchase procedure is invoked can substantially reduce the resentment, bitterness and alienation which is felt by someone who is having land taken away unwillingly, which is of course the case in a compulsory purchase order. The second advantage is that the procedure is likely to be quicker, easier and involve lower legal and administrative costs. The third consideration is a practical one. Quite small concessions made at the time of negotiation can be used to speed up the negotiation and to reach a quick, agreed settlement.
I have had experience of land being taken by statutory undertakers who have compulsory purchase powers. It is the practice of many statutory undertakers and of private undertakers who have statutory powers to have voluntary negotiations before making use of their statutory power. We have a very nice man who negotiates on behalf of the Electricity Board. He comes along and says "We have to get this through", and I say "It is going to be difficult, because we want the irrigation to …" and then he says "Oh dear: well, what can we do about it?" and we work at it together. One day I said to him, "Mr. So and So, I am not going to agree to this voluntarily, but of course I know you have statutory powers". His reply was, "Oh no, Lord Northbourne, I would not do that to you." And of course in the end you melt and you agree.
We have the same experience with the council roads man. He is such a nice man and he listens to everything you have to say. I can only say to the noble Baroness that this practice really does work. Therefore I believe that, in its modified form, this amendment is simply designed to bring the procedures used by all local authorities up to the standard of that used by the best. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, in bringing forward this amendment the noble Lord argues once more for prohibition on the use of compulsory purchase powers until it has been established that the owner of the land concerned is not prepared to sell it voluntarily.
In preparing for this debate, I looked again at what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said in Committee when moving a similar amendment. I have of course also listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said this evening, but I am afraid that I cannot see what useful purpose this amendment would serve. As he has said, acquiring authorities in
686
many cases seek to negotiate a voluntary sale of land before exercising their powers of compulsory purchase.
The Government would certainly not wish to discourage them from proceeding in this way wherever it makes sense to do so. But I do not believe that there would be any advantage in introducing a statutory requirement that voluntary negotiations must have taken place before a compulsory purchase order can be confirmed. As I said in Committee, it does not seem to me that such a requirement would ultimately make any difference to the respective positions of the vendor and the authority. Each side would be well aware that compulsory purchase powers were available in the event of agreement not being reached.
Therefore I cannot believe that the requirement would in practice cause either party to adopt a fundamentally different attitude from that which they would otherwise have had. Of course it would not be realistic to expect the acquiring authority to offer more for the land than the market price they would have to pay at the stage of compulsory purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has argued that his provision would have the effect of speeding up procedures because owners would be more willing to negotiate without the immediate threat of compulsory purchase. I remain very doubtful about that. Where an owner is prepared to sell his land voluntarily there is nothing under present procedures to prevent the transaction taking place on the basis of an agreement. As we are both agreed, that is precisely what often happens in practice. But where an owner does not want to sell, the fact that the authority may not immediately be able to acquire by compulsion would not, in my judgment, prompt him to change his attitude. The likelihood is that in such a case the authority would surely ultimately still have to resort to compulsory purchase, and all that would have been achieved would be an unnecessary period of delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is also a very nice man and very persuasive, but he has not been quite persuasive enough. I very much hope he will accept that what he proposes will in practice have no material effect on the process of acquiring land for public development, other than to slow it down. We note the people the noble Lord comes across and the persuasive powers they use, together with the disarming and charming way in which they use them, and we hope that such a practice will prevail. However, to insist upon the voluntary element being compulsory before compulsory purchase powers are applied, is, I am afraid, not possible for us to accept. In view of what I have said, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, if I were negotiating with the noble Baroness I would perhaps ask her to issue guidelines or a code of practice to the relevant authorities in this context, urging them to use negotiation wherever possible. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Hazardous Substances—Scotland]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 inclusive:
Page 123, line 23, after ("notice)") insert:

("(a) paragraph (1) (c) is omitted; and

(b)").

Page 123, line 25, after ("notice") insert ("(a)").
Page 123, line 27, at end insert ("and

(b) shall specify the period within which any steps are required to be taken and may specify different periods for different steps,

and, where different periods apply to different steps, references in this Part of this Act to the period for compliance with a listed building enforcement notice, in relation to any step, are to the period within which the step is required to be taken".").
Page 123, line 28, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
("5. For section 92(5) of that Act (withdrawal of notices) there is substituted—

"(5) The planning authority may—

(a) withdraw a listed building enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another); or

(b) waive or relax any requirement of such a notice and, in particular, may extend the period specified in accordance with section 93(4) of this Act,

and the powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised whether or not the notice has taken effect.

(5A) The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising the powers conferred by subsection (5), give notice of the exercise to every person who has been served with a copy of the listed building enforcement not ice or would, if the notice were re-issued, be served with a copy of it".").

Page 124, line 45, leave out ("compliance period") and insert ("period for compliance with the notice").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 inclusive have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 126, line 37, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 160 to 165:
Page 126, line 38, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 127, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert ("The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise").
Page 127, line 29, leave out from ("it") to end of line 36.
Page 128, line 27, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 128, line 28, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 128, line 51, at end insert:
("11A. In section 265 (rights of entry)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "thereon" there is substituted "on that or any other land"; and

(b) in subsection (3), for "the land" there is substituted "on that or any other land".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Consideration of provisions of development plan
. For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
"(2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this amendment has considerable support outside the House from local authority associations and conservation groups. Its intention is to strengthen the whole basis of the new planning system established by the Bill. At present, the Bill does not strengthen the status of structure and local plans. That is why at Committee stage I tabled an amendment making the development plan the primary consideration when dealing with planning applications and appeals.
Unfortunately, the amendment was not acceptable to the Government on the grounds that it would make the development plan override everything else and that all the changes needed to strengthen the plans had already been made in the new planning policy guidance notes. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for discussing the amendment with me last week. I hope that the Government can now accept my new wording. I understand that there is a refined legal debate over the use of the word "primary" so I have simplified matters. The new amendment merely requires the development plan to be the first consideration when dealing with applications and appeals. What objection can there be to that? It is exactly what the Government have been telling us for the past few months.
The amendment does not mean that every development will have to stick rigidly to the plan; merely that greater weight should be attached to it when deciding on planning applications. In simple terms, I am trying to achieve a situation where, for example, if a local plan states that 2,000 houses are required within the next five years, we do not find five years later that 3,000 houses have been built because the plan has been ignored. This is exactly what is happening in too many cases.
I hope that the amendment can be accepted and supported with a change to planning policy guidance. I fear that we have not yet altered all our guidance to confirm the importance of the development plan, despite what the Government said at Committee stage. Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, or PPG1, as it is known, sets out the principle of the planning system, stating that there is a presumption in favour of development. It has not been altered since it was published in January 1988.
Yet, by contrast, it was reported in The Times on 17th November last year that the then Minister responsible for Housing, Michael Spicer, had announced at the press conference launching the Bill that there was "a presumption against" planning applications that conflicted with structure and local

689
plans. I should be grateful if my noble friend would take the opportunity in her reply to confirm that the statement is correct and that the Government will amend Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 accordingly as soon as possible. I cannot overstress the simplicity of the amendment or its beneficial effects and urge noble Lords to support the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we support this amendment, as we did its predecessor at Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, we have drawn back from the situation where the development plan would be the primary consideration to making it the first consideration. This seems a simple and straightforward way of ensuring that sufficient weight is given to development plans.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England supports the amendment and is emphatic that it is not intended to mean that every development should stick rigidly to the development plan. It would only be the first consideration, so far as it is material to planning applications. Surely it is important to provide that developers and conservationists should enjoy a degree of certainty about the future development of the area covered by the plan. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I say to my noble friend that the Government have taken much trouble in Schedule 3, which contains 16 pages, in order to rationalise and strengthen the procedure for making development plans. Therefore, presumably they consider that the development plans are important and in each local authority planning area they should be the foundation of the local policy in the granting or refusing of applications for planning permission and in deciding how development should be distributed in that area.
We do not ask for the development plan to be the overriding or final consideration, but that it should at least be the first consideration so that what is done fits into this greatly improved system of development plans. It seems to me that this, or an amendment to the same effect, is a necessary, natural sequence to what the Government have done in Schedule 12. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will give it serious consideration. I can see no reason why she should not accept it this evening, but, if not, I hope that she will not lose sight of it and if necessary will ensure that action is taken on it in another place.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, in considering*** planning applications, a local planning authority is required by Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material consideration. To that extent the development plan is just one—but an important one—of the material considerations that an authority must take into account in determining an application.
Amendment No. 167, moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie, seeks to alter that balance by requiring
690
an authority first to consider the provisions of the development plan and then to have regard to any other material considerations. Consideration of the development plan first has, to my mind, a strong temporal connotation; or perhaps I should say time sequence. If this is the intended purpose of the amendment, I suggest that little would be gained by it. Alternatively, "first" could involve a degree of weighting, so that the development plan automatically became the priority consideration, to be accorded greater weight than any other material consideration in decision-making. I believe, from what my noble friend has said, that this is, in fact, the underlying aim of his amendment. If so, I am afraid the same objections arise as we raised in Committee to the notion of the development plan as the "primary" consideration. In our view, to take that step and say that there is a presumption in favour of what is in accordance with the plan, and a presumption against what is not in accordance with the plan, is to go too far in the direction of rigidity.
We do not wish to give overriding priority to the provisions of the development plan over all other material considerations in determining planning applications. Section 70(2) already singles out the development plan by name and to that extent gives it a certain standing among the other, unnamed, material considerations. The Government have already stated as a matter of planning policy guidance (in PPG Note 12 issued in 1988) that where there is an up-to-date local plan which is consistent with national and regional policies, and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan, it will carry considerable weight. Where there is such a plan, together with properly substantiated reasons for the local authority's decision, the Secretary of State and his inspectors will be guided by it in dealing with planning applications. It is our intention to incorporate and expand this message about the status of the development plan in a revision of PPG Note 1.
We are reluctant to alter the current statutory position with regard to the status of the development plan, as we wish to maintain the desirable flexibility inherent in the present provision. Our planning system achieves a very difficult balance between the application of consistent general policies on the one hand, and full regard for the merits of individual proposals on the other. That is a balance which is not always achieved by planning systems based on zoning mechanisms. We consider that this amendment would move the system too far in the latter direction, and would weaken the discipline on planning authorities to give full, clear and precise reasons for every refusal of permission. That said, I can confirm it is our intention to continue to stress in policy guidance the importance we attach to the role of the development plan in development control matters. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope she will consider the following point. I have been trying very hard to follow my noble friend, but she speaks faster than my mind registers,

691
unfortunately. It would seem to follow from what she has said that, as there is to be no prime consideration of the development plan, the development plan could, in a few cases, be completely ignored and overruled without any reason having been given. Could that situation follow from what my noble friend has said, and if so, is she content with that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a situation which is wholly unacceptable to the Government. There will be occasions when either the development plan is not sufficiently comprehensive, or it is at the tail end of its life and therefore is not so directly relevant to the issues that are involved in the application under consideration. In policy guidance having regard to the plan will be absolutely essential.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her lengthy reply. We shall have to study Hansard carefully to see exactly what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Development Plans]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 89, line 4, at end insert:
("1A. At the beginning of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Regional Planning Guidance.
9A.—(1) Local planning authorities may combine into regional groupings, or the Secretary of State may specify regional combinations of local planning authorities, to prepare Regional Planning Guidance for approval by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of Regional Planning Guidance and the procedure to be followed in connection with its preparation, withdrawal, adoption, submission, making, alteration, repeal and replacement.
(3) Any regulations made under subsection (2) shall include provision for publicity to be given to—

(a) matters to be included or excluded in Regional Planning Guidance.

(b) the procedures to be followed as mentioned in subsection (2)." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 168, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184. These amendments are concerned with the issue of regional planning guidance. Regional planning guidance is a development which, in my view, has not been very thoroughly planned. It has, rather like Topsy, just growed. As local planning authorities have recognised the desirability of putting their planning policies into the context of their regions, it has been increasingly recognised that there is something between local planning and national planning which is properly the preserve of the Secretary of State and of national government.
Oddly enough, as regional plans and regional planning guidance have grown up, they have done so without any statutory basis, or any proper way of determining how they should be prepared in the first place, or how the public should be involved in their preparation or given an opportunity to comment on the plans after they have been prepared. The
692
Government have recognised that this is a problem. I understand that there is to be a one-day conference in March to discuss the forthcoming review of regional planning guidance for the South East. That is obviously a good thing and we welcome it.
I am sure that Labour local authorities will wish to participate in that conference. However, that is a far cry from the kind of provision which we believe to be necessary to put regional planning guidance into legislation. We are still talking about that as a possibility rather than as a requirement. We suggest in Amendment No. 168 that,
"Local planning authorities may combine … or the Secretary of State may specify regional combinations".
Clearly, if neither the local planning authorities nor the Secretary of State feel that regional planning guidance is desirable, there is no point in imposing it on local planning authorities in a region.
Perhaps the more important aspect of Amendment No. 168 is that it provides for regulations on the form and content of regional planning guidance so that it can be established on a comparable basis throughout the country. The amendment also makes provision for publicity to be given to the regional planning guidance.
Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 have been proposed by the Association of County Councils. The amendments attempt to build on the desirable statutory status for regional planning guidance by restricting the power of the Secretary of State to comment on and alter structure plans except in cases where they conflict with regional planning guidance.
The requirement that the Secretary of State will have to approve structure plans is an unsatisfactory requirement as it stands. First, that is a slow process. It is common for longer delays to arise in waiting for the Secretary of State's approval for structure plans than in the preparation of the structure plans themselves. That cannot be a good thing. Secondly, the powers that the Secretary of State has to disapprove structure plans are very wide. The Secretary of State can in effect do what he likes with them. If he considers them to be unsatisfactory, that is sufficient as a criterion.
We believe we should have a better established network of regional planning guidance. That latter guidance should constitute the regional control of local planning authority structure plans. The locus of the Secretary of State should be confined to those cases where individual structure plans conflict with the regional planning guidance. In that way the Secretary of State is doing what central government should be doing, which is asserting the national interest rather than attempting to double-guess what is properly a regional impact.
I shall not discuss Labour Party policy for the establishment of regional government. That would be inappropriate at this time. Clearly, however, the thinking is on the same lines. We are not talking about the thinking of a single political party, but of many people in local and national government. It is recognised that we are moving in that direction. It

693
seems right to us that the movements that have been made in that direction should now be codified, rationalised and brought more formally into the cascade of decision making on planning matters. I beg to move.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I support the amendment. As a member of the late lamented East Anglia Economic Planning Council I was involved in the original regional plan for East Anglia. That gave rise to the county structure plans within the region, and later the area plans. This Government, in their wisdom, abolished the planning councils. I, together with two Members of your Lordships' House on adjacent Benches to the Benches I sit on, had a very happy time on the East Anglia planning council. However, the Government abolished that body.
I have not kept too closely in touch with planning, but I am kept fairly well informed of the current position. There seem to be in the regions ad hoc bodies of planners which advise the Minister who then tells them what they have advised him to do. I am slightly confused about this situation. There is no public consultation over what those bodies advise the Minister to advise them. I wish to hear the Minister's comments on this matter more than anything else.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I can help the noble Lord, although not as regards agreeing with him about the amendment. I was a member of the East Anglia Consultative Committee which was the successor body to the body that the noble Lord mentioned. I was also a fairly longstanding member of the Standing Conference of East Anglia Local Authorities. That body has done sterling work in this sphere. At this moment that body is advising the Secretary of State on what I believe will become the regional guidance document which will form the background of the structure plan. Therefore, I believe that the situation in East Anglia is pretty healthy at the moment.
Amendment No. 168 would have the effect of making regional groups of local planning authorities responsible for preparing regional planning guidance for approval by the Secretary of State. That would replace the present system where guidance is issued by the Secretary of State on the advice of such groups.
The main purpose of regional planning guidance is to provide a framework for the preparation of development plans. It should cover matters which need to be considered on a wider geographical basis than that of individual county structure plans. It is the government of the day which carries responsibility for policies which apply above the county level. Regional planning guidance represents advice from the Secretary of State for the Environment to local planning authorities on the application of government policy at the regional level.
The existing system works well. It is not a uniform system but it is evolving to meet the different needs of different parts of the country. Regional guidance is in place in south-east England and the Secretary of State
694
is currently considering advice provided by SERPLAN before producing new guidance. As I said, in respect of East Anglia, the Secretary of State will shortly produce his final guidance in response to advice from SCEALA—another local authority grouping. Groups of local authorities are now taking at least the initial steps towards producing advice in all regions.
In drawing up his guidance, the Secretary of State will listen to advice from regional groups of authorities. However, it is no more than advice, and clearly he will give greater weight to advice that has the widest possible backing in the regions. The Secretary of State will also publish his guidance in draft form and consult as widely as possible before issuing guidance in its final form. The existing system allows for the fullest possible consultation before the Government give their guidance. We would not wish to see the system replaced by a third tier of bureaucracy between the counties and the Government.
The Bill makes the status of regional planning guidance absolutely clear. Counties must have regard to it when drawing up their development plans. I see no need to give regional guidance further statutory force or to provide formal statutory machinery. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 is to restrict the Secretary of State's power to direct modification of a structure plan or to call it in for his own approval. The amendments would provide that he could take such action only if a plan was not in conformity with regional planning guidance or with current national policies. We made it clear that the Secretary of State will be particularly concerned to ensure that structure plans are in conformity with national and regional policies; and it is in that context that he is most likely to use his powers of intervention. However, it would be undesirable to confine his powers wholly to that particular context. There may be occasions—rare but not inconceivable—when intervention by the Secretary of State would be desirable for other reasons.
For example, one of the main functions of the county structure plan is to allocate housing provision for the plan period on a district-by-district basis, so that there is a clear framework for local plan preparation at the district level. One can conceive of a situation in which there is unresolved disagreement between districts and county as to the appropriate distribution of housing provision; a situation, perhaps, in which several districts regard the county's structure plan provision as quite simply wrongheaded. Suppose the county persists with its proposals despite the objections of the districts. That is not a matter of national or regional policy; it is a matter of policy at county/district level. Are noble Lords opposite really saying that the Secretary of State should be debarred from intervening and seeking to resolve such a disagreement by the use of his reserve powers? That would not be sensible.
A further objection to the amendments is that they would be bound to give rise to argument as to whether

695
a particular issue was a national or regional issue and therefore one in which the Secretary of State could properly intervene. I appreciate that the intention of the amendments is to circumscribe the Secretary of State's powers, but do we want to do so in a way which is likely to give rise to legal argument and possibly legal challenge on issues which can only be a matter of judgment?
I can assure the House that my right honourable friend has no intention of using his reserve powers in a reckless or meddlesome way. The whole aim of our proposals is to enable him to draw back from day-to-day involvement in the approval of structure plans. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that flexible powers, capable of dealing with a range of situations which we may not be able to foresee in every detail, are essential. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to conceal the fact that I am very disappointed by that response. The Minister appears to have failed to recognise how unsatisfactory the present situation is in relation to structure plans. She made no attempt to answer the point that it very often takes longer for the Secretary of State to consider structure plans for approval than it takes to draw up the plans themselves, despite the fact that the drawing up of structure plans is a slow process because of the amount of consultation that is required, whereas the Secretary of State is not bound to consult anyone when he is considering whether or not to approve structure plans.
The Government are being very heavy handed. Having provided the possibility, rather than a requirement, for the creation of regional organisations such as SCEALA or SERPLAN, they have failed to give the statutory backing that might be required. It would not be imposed on anybody; it would only apply if it was wanted. The Government are failing to ensure that there is adequate consultation on their proposals.
I am not suggesting that either SCEALA or SERPLAN have failed to consult on their proposals. The point is that in every other aspect of planning law and in every response that the Government have given to amendments to the Bill the importance of public consultation has been emphasised. I agree with that. Why should it not apply to this part of the planning legislation?
I also believe that it is wrong for the Government to say that what is proposed here is a new tier of planning authority. What is proposed is a sensible devolution from the present provision that the Secretary of State can intervene on any aspect of a county structure plan which he considers unsatisfactory; and in that context it is the Secretary of State who defines what is unsatisfactory rather than anyone else.
I accept, as a drafting point in relation to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184, that it would be advisable to have an additional provision that the Secretary of State can intervene when there is serious dispute between the districts and the county about the county structure plan. On that basis alone I would not
696
wish to press those amendments. However, it is only with the greatest reluctance that I feel that it would not be appropriate to press Amendment No. 168. I still feel that the Government have not recognised the force of the case that is being made. I hope that we shall find other ways of persuading them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 89, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("Regulations") in line 9, and insert ("for the words from "other" to the end there is substituted "use of land in their area.

(3A) The policies shall, subject to subsection (3B), include policies in respect of—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

(b) the improvement of the physical environment; and

(c) the management of traffic.

(3B)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 170 was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 89, line 35, after ("may") insert ("in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 171 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. There was considerable discussion of urban development corporations at Committee stage and I do not want to go over that ground again. Certainly I shall not bore the House by repeating my strong reservations about some of the activities of urban development corporations.
However, in responding to those amendments the Minister was quite helpful. She said that it would be exceptional for urban development corporations to be excluded from the preparation of plans and that that would occur when the urban development corporation had not completed substantial public consultation or demonstrated that its proposals were acceptable to local people.
With these amendments, and in particular with Amendment No. 172, on the face of the Bill we are fleshing out the indications given by the Minister concerning the ways in which the power to exclude urban development corporations from local plans would be used in practice.
Ideally, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendments as they stand. If not, I hope that she will recognise that they are in line with what she stated in Committee. I hope that she will indicate fairly clearly that they are in line with government policy, and that such provision is the basis on which the Government will consider allowing the exclusion of UDCs from local plans. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, new Section 12A of the principal Act, to which these amendments refer, empowers the Secretary of State to direct, in a particular case, that a UDP shall not apply to the area

697
of an urban development corporation. Amendment No. 172 specifies just two circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to exercise this power.
Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage of the Bill I explained that the power given to the Secretary of State in Section 12A was a precautionary measure, to be used in exceptional circumstances only. I gave two illustrations of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might want to use the power—illustrations which clearly form the basis of this amendment.
But the Secretary of State will need to respond to situations as they arise. It is important that the power should be flexible. Embodying in the legislation definitions of the circumstances in which the reserve power may be used could unwittingly restrict his ability to react to situations which cannot necessarily be foreseen. The two instances the noble Lord has quoted in his amendment (where the urban development corporation has recently completed extensive public consultation on its own development proposals for the area, and where there is conflict between the urban development corporation and the local planning authority) are good examples of when the power might be used, but they may well not be the only examples.
Let me try to give another example. One could have a situation in which consultations by the UDC on its proposals for its area were proceeding more or less in parallel with the planning authority's consultations on a draft local plan, but were not complete by the time that local plan was due to go on deposit. The planning authority and the corporation might be in full agreement that it would be better for the UDC's proposals to be taken forward separately, rather than spliced prematurely into the local plan. Under the noble Lord's proposals, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to respond to that situation by excluding the UDC area from the local plan. I cannot believe that that is sensible if both authorities concerned were agreed that it is the right solution.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the provision as it stands in Section 12A is necessary if the Secretary of State is to be able to respond to such circumstances, and to others which we may not be able to foresee. I can assure the House again that in the normal case we shall expect a UDC area to be included in a local plan or unitary development plan; exclusion will be very much the exception. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State's power should not be unduly circumscribed. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that we could have made more progress. Examples given by the noble Viscount were referred to when the matter was discussed at Committee. I find his further example singularly unconvincing. If there is agreement between the local planning authority and the urban development corporation, and it is simply a matter of the timing of the preparation of plans, I cannot understand why the exclusion should be insisted on by the Secretary of State. He would be
698
intervening between an urban development corporation and a local planning authority which are in agreement about what should be done.
Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 172 provides that the Secretary of State can exclude a UDC area where there is substantial disagreement between the corporation and local planning authorities. That exclusion encompasses not only the additional example that the noble Viscount has given but any other example. It is difficult to see where other flexibility would be desirable when overriding importance must be given to securing that local plans and unitary development plans are as comprehensive and effective as possible.
I remind the House that urban development corporations are not meant to be permanent organisations; they are called short-term bodies. They are supposed to be dissolved when their task has been fulfilled. However, what is likely to happen if the Government persist in that attitude is that the urban development corporations will have disappeared. They will have dissolved themselves. But their memory will linger on in the form of a gaping hole in the unitary development plan. That is a quite unsatisfactory situation. I cannot believe that on mature reflection it is what even this Government would wish to do.
I suppose that it is not appropriate to divide the House on this matter. However, it is an issue on which I am deeply dissatisfied. I may have to reconsider the position at Third Reading. With great reluctance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 90, line 11, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 174 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 180, 193, 197 to 202 and 204. Those are generally technical amendments of a drafting or consequential nature. If individual amendments are of particular interest to noble Lords, I shall be glad to explain their purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 90, line 14, at end insert ("except such representations or parts thereof as relate to those provisions of the unitary development plan which are substantially the same as those contained in any local plan which is in force in respect of the area in question at the time when the unitary development plan is prepared.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I speak also to Amendment No. 176. We have talked about public consultation. I believe we are agreed that in principle we are in favour of public consultation. However, the amendments seek to assume that public consultation is not repetitive, time-consuming and expensive, and that it does not delay the proper progress in preparation of unitary development plans.
Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act, local planning authorities are required to include any local plans which are in force in the area at the time when the unitary development plan is being prepared in Part 2 of the unitary development plan. It is also required that they should indicate which, if any, parts of the local plans have been altered in the preparation of the unitary development plan.
However, because of the public consultation procedures in the unitary development plan, there is the distinct possibility that those who have objected to the local plan have another opportunity, without any change in the circumstances, to object to the incorporation of the local plan in the unitary development plan.
We are in danger of having the same ground dragged over a second time. That cannot be desirable for the effective and speedy implementation of unitary development plans. It does not add to public protection. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this minor restriction on repetitive public consultation is justified. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 175 would be to remove the need for the local planning authority to consider representations to a unitary development plan where the objection relates to policies which have been incorporated without substantial alteration from an existing local plan in force in the area. Amendment No. 176 would remove the existing requirement for incorporating existing local plans into unitary development plans.
This is an aspect of the transition from local plans to unitary development plans that we have considered in some detail, and I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 205, which I believe answers his concern.
Our provision allows policies that have already been adopted or approved as part of a local plan to be incorporated into the unitary development plan for the area without affording objectors an automatic right to be heard by the inspector; but only if the policies have not been substantially altered and the inspector is satisfied that there has been no significant change in the circumstances. This preserves the right to have the objections to any policies in the new plan considered. It will ensure that unitary development plan inquiries do not become unduly overburdened by the objections which have been heard at previous local plan inquiries.

Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that these amendments are unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I shall do so, but Amendment No. 205 is two and a half pages long and comes in a group which is described as transitional provisions. So it is not surprising that I did not study every line, comma, and syllable of that amendment in order to discover what is quite a significant point.
It occurs to me that if Amendment No. 205 answers my arguments, the Government should have suggested that that amendment be taken with my
700
amendments, Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 in the grouping. On the whole that would have helped to avoid wasting the time of the House.
I hope that the noble Lord is right. If he is not I shall certainly return to this matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I must tell the House that if Amendment No. 178 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 179.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 92, line 29, leave out from ("area") to end of line 30 and insert:
("(2A) The policies shall, subject to subsection (3), include policies in respect of—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

(b) the improvement of the physical environment; and

(c) the management of traffic.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 94, line 9, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 96, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert:
("35B.—(1) At any time during the intervening period the local planning authority shall cause an examination in public to be held of any matter affecting the proposals unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis, I should like to move Amendment No. 185 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 185A and 185B tabled by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon—not to the exclusion of him speaking to the amendments, but I know that they are to be considered together.
We return to the issue of examinations in public of structure plans, which was debated in Committee. The problem that we found with the Bill as originally drafted was that examinations in public were too discretionary. There is too much opportunity for them not to be held unless the Secretary of State directs that an examination in public should be held.
Amendment No. 185 provides basically that an examination in public should be held unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State. In other words, in trade union terms, it is contracting out rather than contracting in to examinations in public.
We were encouraged by the support given to the increased use of examinations in public and by the comments that the Minister made. Although the comments were supportive and there was a good

701
reception to the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lady Hollis, we believe that the objections that could be made to examinations in public are fairly trivial. Examinations in public ensure that planning has to come up to the highest quality. They give the planning procedures the authority and legitimacy that they deserve. The power of the Secretary of State to direct otherwise provides that in cases in which such examinations are not necessary the procedures can be streamlined.
It seems to us that this amendment strikes very much the right balance between a discretion to avoid unnecessary examinations in public and the normal presumption that examinations in public should be held. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 185A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I shall not be terribly alarmed if my amendment, Amendment No. 185A, is not called because I do not intend to press it. I seek information more than anything else. I had hoped to speak on this matter when it was raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Unfortunately, I was out of London at the time and did not return until the debate had finished. I wrote to the Minister outlining the position and included in my letter a fairly lengthy statement of the situation as I saw it on this part of Schedule 3.
I am happy to say that I received two very courteous letters from the Minister, one of which was lengthy and very detailed. Unfortunately, neither of the letters dealt with this part of the schedule. They related to another part of the schedule. Nevertheless I found them acceptable and interesting. I therefore proceeded to table the amendments.
It will be seen that Amendment No. 185A is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 185. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and myself seek much the same thing; namely, that the examination in public must be held rather than may be held. At the back of my attitude is the recollection that some time ago, when he was Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley announced that the south east of England was in need of upwards of half a million dwellings to meet the housing need. I forget the precise figure; it was perhaps 600,000. Much of the shortfall could be made up by means of infill in London and other towns and conurbations in the area but by no means all of it. Something of the order of half those 500,000 or 600,000 dwellings would have to be built somewhere in the counties of south east England, outside the green belt. That meant that the counties would be required to contribute in some way by providing land to ease the shortfall in housing.
The problem is that this part of the Bill, which changes the older law, up to a point makes the counties more or less judge and jury in their own case. In some respects the Bill is a Nimby's charter and the councils can say, "Not in my back yard"—or, as is sometimes said, "Not in my term of office". At all
702
events, as it stands the counties will have the whip hand in deciding whether or not land can be provided to meet housing need.
I do not believe that that is right or sensible. Let us look back to earlier days. I live in Hampstead Garden Suburb which was built about 90 years ago on a greenfield site in what was then the County of Middlesex. It is by no means certain that that land would have been available for housing under this Bill as it stands. The same could be said of Letchworth or Welwyn Garden City in the County of Hertfordshire. It is not at all certain that those developments could have gone ahead had the provisions of this part of the Bill been in operation.
I am not trying to express a generalised distrust of the county councils. I am merely suggesting that they are likely to put their own needs first and those of others second. In support of that belief I wish to quote part of a statement that I have received from the House Builders Federation. It is possible that the Minister has read the statement which states:
"Perhaps the Federation's concern about 'local choice' can best be illustrated by the position emerging in Hampshire where the structure plan review proposes a future housing requirement of 58,000 dwellings in the period 1991–2001. This is some 8,500 dwellings or 13% less than the current requirement for Hampshire set out in DOE Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 9".
The statement continues:
"Here, the County are exercising their 'local choice' to the extent that even indigenous housing needs will not be satisfied and opportunities for further investment in the County will be severely curtailed".
That is the view of the House Builders Federation in regard to Hampshire. It is unlikely that Hampshire will be able to help to meet the general shortfall in housing in the South-East if it persists in that attitude—or if it is permitted to persist in that attitude.
Amendment No. 185A has the same aim as Amendment No. 185. Amendment No. 185B sets out detailed provisions relating to the manner in which the examinations in public would be held. In particular it relates to the information which the inquiry would be obliged to provide to objectors after it was over.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about time wasting. I have written to him an extensive letter explaining the issues in respect of Amendment No. 205. The letter was dispatched on Friday and I am sure that he will find its contents helpful before the next stage of the Bill.
While listening to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I was reminded that during our debates on the Bill we have lurched from having faith in local authorities to not doing so. It is interesting to note that at one moment I am forced to say, "Please trust local authorities", while at the next I am being told not to trust them.
I promised to return to the House on Amendment No. 176, moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, proposing that the examination in public should be mandatory. Amendment No. 185 now moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, provides

703
that the EIP should be mandatory unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. We agree with the intention underlying this amendment. We agree that it would be preferable to place a duty on county planning authorities to hold an examination in public and to provide that any departure from that role must be authorised by the Secretary of State. In almost all cases an EIP will be necessary; dispensing with one will be very much the exception. We shall make that clear in guidance.
I should like to consider further the precise form which a new provision should take. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me a little more time to consider the wording on the understanding that I shall certainly bring forward an amendment at a later stage to place a duty on authorities to hold an EIP unless the Secretary of State agrees otherwise. There will an obligation on the local authorities to hold the examination in public, unless there is a determination by the Secretary of State that the matter may not be contentious and that it may be time wasting to hold an examination. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, would similarly make the holding of an examination in public mandatory. However, they are also intended to go further than that and to confer a right to be heard on objectors; make provision for the distribution of copies of the panel's report; and to give objectors to a structure plan a final right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I explained in Committee why we do not favour granting a right to be heard to those who raise objections to a draft structure plan. The planning authority must consider all written objections; but EIPs are conducted on the basis of a selective consideration of key issues and participants are invited to attend. To grant a general right to be heard would completely alter the nature of the EIP and turn it into a much more unwieldy and time-consuming event.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, seek to turn a structure plan EIP into the equivalent of an inquiry into objections to local plan proposals. But even with local plan inquiries, every objector is not entitled to receive a copy of the inspector's report and the authority's statement of decisions. Objectors do, however, receive notice of the availability of these documents for inspection and regulations provide for their sale at a reasonable charge.
We propose to cover the equivalent aspects for the new structure plan system under regulations. The report of the EIP panel would be published and made available for public inspection, as would the planning authority's statement of decisions on the panel's recommendations. If the authority wished to propose modifications to their proposals, these too would be published for the purpose of objection. Participants at the EIP and other objectors would be notified that the
704
relevant documents were available for inspection. In this way the public will be involved at each stage towards the plan's adoption.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, was worried about counties having the whip hand. We are saying that in future counties will not have the whip hand. Schedule 3 will require their structure plans to have regard to national policies and regional guidance. Through regional guidance the Secretary of State will continue to set housing provision figures as he does now. He will have reserve powers to ensure that they are met. Of course, counties will have local choice as regards where but not as regards how many.
The new system also provides for some or all of structure plan proposals to be called in for the Secretary of State's decision. It would be open to objectors who were unhappy with the planning authority's decision on the panel's recommendations to ask the Secretary of State to step in. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I have neglected one of the many helpful letters that the Minister has sent to me, I apologise. She kindly provided me with an explanation of government amendments, and Amendment No. 205 was described merely as being consequential on changes to Schedule 3 but she gave no further detail. I accept that the Minister must have written to me about the matter and that in the flood of paper I have overlooked it.
As regards Amendment No. 185, I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that the matter will be covered in planning policy guidance. That is probably so far as I can take it. If she decides that she wishes to raise the status of the provision that examinations in public shall be the norm rather than the exception, she will have our full support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 185A:
Page 96, line 11, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 12 and insert:
("shall cause an examination in public to be held for the purpose of considering objections to their proposals for the making, alteration, repeal or replacement of a structure plan.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for her comments, and shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 185A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 185B not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 97, line 18, at end insert:

"("(1A) A local planning authority may at any time with the approval of the Secretary of State prepare for their area or any part of thereof a plan to be known as a local subject plan and in this Act, save for this subsection and subsection (2) of this section, a local subject plan shall be deemed to be a local plan or, as appropriate, part of part II of the unitary development plan, for all purposes unless the context otherwise requires.

705

(1B) In a non-metropolitan county, a local subject plan relating to an area not wholly comprised in one district shall only be prepared by or with the consent of the county planning authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 186, 190, 191, 192 and 196 seek to patch up an unfortunate hole in the Bill's proposals for the development plan system. I have welcomed the Bill's intention to retain county structure plans and to make mandatory the preparation of district-wide local plans. However, the Bill makes no provision for carrying forward existing arrangements for the preparation of subject plans by local authorities.
At present there are approximately 40 subject plans. They usually have one or two functions. First, they deal with particularly controversial issues. Secondly, they tackle issues which cut across district and county boundaries.
I have no doubt that a full coverage of local plans will make the first of those functions largely redundant; for example, Humberside, a county known for intensive livestock rearing, can deal through a new structure or local plan and will not need to renew its subject plan.
However, the second function is much more difficult. Local and structure plans cannot cope easily with issues needing detailed policies which cut across boundaries; for example, a draft subject plan recently published by North Yorkshire County Council defines the detailed boundaries as the green belt around York. That involves no less than five separate district councils. It would be quite unrealistic to expect all those districts to come forward with their local plans at the same time to deal with the green belt, as the matter can only be dealt with by a subject plan.
An even more difficult area is the Mendip Hills where a subject plan has been prepared involving two county councils and four district councils to deal comprehensively with that area of outstanding natural beauty. Your Lordships can imagine the confusion if the separate parts of the plan were to be divided up. All the benefits of co-ordination would be lost.
In Committee I supported an amendment requiring the preparation of coastal zone plans. While acknowledging that there was a problem, the Government refused to accept those amendments. Retaining provision for subject plans would be an easy first step for the Government to take towards the proper planning of the coastline. I hope that my noble friend will accept that as a helpful suggestion.
I urge support for this simple amendment. It proposes nothing new but merely seeks to retain some of the best aspects of the existing development plan system. The amendment limits subject plans to cases where the Secretary of State considers them necessary. The effect would be to boost an already strengthened planning system, allowing it to deal with problems straddling county and district boundaries. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 186 and support the other amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord

706

Norrie. We discussed this matter in Committee under the slightly different heading of coastal zone planning. It is a very important subject and on that occasion we were honoured by the presence of the Secretary of State at the Bar of the House. Therefore, I assume that he is taking an interest in this subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has already told the House, this Bill does not provide for the continuation of local subject plans. We believe that that is a mistake. I have another example from Lincolnshire which is very worried about the proposals. I have a copy of a letter from Lincolnshire County Council to the East Midlands office of RSPB which states:
"It is now clear that the Government proposals in the recently published Planning and Compensation Bill will remove from County Councils the powers to prepare Local and Subject Plans such as those for the Lincolnshire Coast. A scenario could well develop therefore with a Lincolnshire Coast line from the Humber Bridge to Sutton Bridge involving at least five District Councils. All of them would have to co-ordinate voluntarily their coastal proposals within the context of the very generalised policy statements contained in the new 'streamlined' Structured Plans".
That letter was written after the county council had taken up the matter with the Department of the Environment and had been rather disappointed by the response.
I believe that last week the Nature Conservancy Council published a document on the problems of our estuaries. Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of that document. I merely quote from an article in last Sunday's Observer which gives some fairly startling facts which should worry us all. I am told that the Nature Conservancy Council is pressing the Government to introduce effective marine consultation areas, involving wildlife groups and commercial interests. Mr. Hornsby, the current director-general, told the Observer newspaper:
"Our estuaries are under extreme and increasing pressure from a whole variety of types of development".
I could continue on this subject at length. The UK has 15,000 kilometres of coastline and 48 counties and regions border the coast. There are approximately one-third of a million square kilometres of territorial waters. The number and variety of activities which take place at the coast reflect its economic value but are also an indication of the pressures on the coastal zone.
In 1989, about half of the 500 development and planning cases examined by RSPB staff affected the coast. Over the past 10 years more than three-quarters of development planning cases affecting internationally important wildlife sites were on the coast. The coastline of the UK is of vital importance for internationally significant bird populations and for recreation and economic growth. However, its management is confused by layers of bureaucracy and lack of strategic planning. Over 33 government departments, statutory bodies and agencies have responsibilities in coastal areas. Add to that local authorities, landowners, managers and coastal users and the scope for confusion becomes obvious.
This is a vitally important matter. Everybody understands the need to speed up the planning process

707
and we do not want to clog the system. However, we must restore the opportunity to deal with subject areas and I have particularly in mind coastal areas.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments would reintroduce the concept of the subject plan—the local plan addressed to a particular topic, such as the definition of the boundaries of a green belt, or development control policies for a particular area of countryside. Our 1989 White Paper The Future of Development Plans was clear on this issue. We said:
"There will be no general provision for separate subject plans in the new development plan system".
The Bill reflects that policy position.
This is not to deny that in some areas subject plans have served a useful purpose. But they have done so against a background of very patchy local plan coverage. If in a particular county there has been very little except the county structure plan, then a countryside subject plan may well have had a useful function.
Under the new system introduced by this Bill the situation will be quite different. We shall be requiring all planning authorities to prepare comprehensive, district-wide plans, setting out development control policies for the whole of their areas. Given comprehensive coverage, the case for subject plans becomes much more questionable. For instance, if a county structure plan sets out strategic policies for the countryside, cannot detailed development control policies to give effect to the county strategy be incorporated in each district local plan? Why is there a need for a separate countryside plan?
One of the major aims of our reform of the planning system is to simplify and to streamline. We want to see a development plan framework consisting of structure and local plans, supplemented only by minerals and waste plans, because of the special statutory responsibilities of the counties for these topics. Once we move beyond this framework, and start reintroducing subject plans which overlap with local plans, cross boundaries, and blur the relative responsibilities of county and district, we lose a great deal of the benefit of simplication which the Bill seeks to achieve.
To argue against subject plans solely on the basis of bureaucratic tidy-mindedness may not seem persuasive. However, it is important that the planning system operates in a way which is readily intelligible to those who need to use it from time to time but are not immersed in it. From their point of view, simplicity is an important criterion.
I understand the force of the argument that there are certain areas which cross administrative boundaries but need to be planned as a whole. Green belts are one example. Others might be areas of outstanding natural beauty, national forest areas, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross mentioned, heritage coastlines. Where such areas straddle county or district boundaries, it might be helpful as a means of achieving coherence and consistency in the treatment of the area if the county and district authorities concerned were to work together to produce a joint statement of
708
planning policy for the area. Such a statement would itself be non-statutory, but it would form the basis for policies in the relevant structure and local plans and would help to secure their consistency, which is the point being made here.
That sort of joint working by agreement is a possibility which may deserve further consideration in particular areas. It is an approach which would need to be used sparingly, and would need to be supplementary to the statutory development plan framework. But that, I believe, is as far as we should go. The Government are not persuaded that the notion of the formal subject plan should be reintroduced into the scheme of things. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her full explanation. I am still concerned that the problems being dealt with by subject plans will not receive the attention that they deserve. However, we shall have to see what happens. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 97, line 21, leave out from ("area") to end of line 23 and insert:
("(2A) The policies shall include policies in respect of—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

(b) the improvement of the physical environment; and

(c) the management of traffic.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 187 was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 192 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 100, line 6, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 174. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 100, line 49, after ("40(2),") insert ("or to any statement of conformity or non-conformity made available for inspection under section 46(4A),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 194, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195. These amendments concern the issues we were discussing a few minutes ago regarding the conformity between county structure plans and local plans. The Minister expressed the view that the Government's policy is not to give excessive prominence to either county structure or local plans, or indeed the reverse; they will treat both seriously. We agree with that.
Our concern is not to give precedence to either structure or district plans, but to ensure that where differences exist between them they are brought out into the open so that they can be inquired into and the public are aware that differences exist.
Amendment No. 194 provides that a statement of conformity or non-conformity between the two levels of a plan should be made available for inspection. Amendment No. 195 provides that the statement shall be made available for inspection,
"at such places as may be prescribed by regulations".
I do not believe that they affect the relative importance of the two plans. They provide that differences which should be in the open and of which the public should be aware are the subject of public inquiry and that the information is available for inspection. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is already a provision in the Bill which achieves the purpose sought by Amendment No. 195. Section 46(2) provides for the structure plan authority to supply the local plan authority with a statement of conformity or non-conformity of the local plan with the structure plan, and new Section 40 subsections (2) and (3) provide for the statement to be made available for inspection at places prescribed by regulation under Section 53.
We considered when drawing up the local plan provisions whether to provide for objections to the statement of conformity or non-conformity and for such objections to carry the right to consideration at a public local inquiry as proposed by Amendment No. 194. We decided that that was unnecessary. We expect people who consider that any aspect of a statement of conformity is incorrect to make an objection to the relevant policies or proposals in the plan on the grounds that it does not conform generally with the structure plan. Such an objection carries with it the right to be heard before an inspector at a public local inquiry under new Section 42(1). A right for an objector to a statement of conformity to be heard at inquiry as proposed by the amendment would duplicate this provision.
A person who objects to any aspect of a statement of non-conformity would presumably be doing so in support of the allegedly non-conforming proposals in the local plan. The new legislation enables us to require that representations in support of proposals be considered by the local planning authority and our code of practice already provides for representations to be considered at the discretion of the inspector. The statement of non-conformity is to be treated as an objection which would be discussed at the inquiry, and we would expect the aspects of alleged non-conformity to be fully examined. An inspector may take all representations in support of policies and proposals into account and he has discretion over whether to hear them at inquiry.
We consider these amendments to be unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it sounds all right. But the noble Viscount is picking out bits and pieces of the Bill from different places. As the whole Bill consists of amendments to a principal Act of 1990 it is extraordinarily difficult for us to map the 1990 Act against the Bill and against the new provisions which were brought in at Committee stage. All I can say is
710
that I am glad to hear that the Government are in support of the principle behind my amendment. We shall consider carefully the wording to which he has referred us. I hope that it will make it unnecessary for us to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 202:
Page 102, line 43, leave out ("provisions in") and insert ("—

(a) provisions in a structure plan or")

Page 102, line 46, at end insert:

("(b) a structure plan and a local plan are made by the same authority and the provisions of the two plans conflict.").

Page 103, line 21, leave out ("under section 39(4) to serve a copy") and insert ("to serve a copy under subsection (1) of section 46").
Page 103, line 22, leave out ("section 46") and insert ("subsection (2) of that section").
Page 104, line 30, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local plan or waste local").
Page 104, line 32, leave out ("that local minerals") and insert ("minerals local plan or waste local").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 104, line 34, at end insert:
("(2) In subsection (4) of that section at the end there is inserted "and Part III of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 203, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. These amendments deal with the transitional arrangements for development plans. They are important transitional provisions which honour our undertaking that work already carried out will not be wasted. They are in line with the policies we indicated we would follow in the White Paper on the future of development plans and during the Second Reading of the Bill.
I shall not go into detail unless the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, positively insists that I should. If he does not, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205:
Page 104, line 37, leave out ("287 of the principal") and insert ("284(1) (a) of the principal Act (validity of development plans etc.) "repeal", in both places where it occurs, is omitted.
30A. In section 287 of that").
Page 105, line 5, at end insert:
("(2) In paragraph 7(3) of that Schedule, in paragraph (a) —

(a) for sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) there is substituted—

"(i) of any policy contained in a structure plan which has been adopted or approved;

(ii) of any policy contained in proposals made available for inspection under section 33(2);" and

(b) for sub-paragraphs (v) to (vii) there is substituted—

711

"(v) of any policy contained in a minerals local plan or a waste local plan which has been adopted or approved;

(vi) of any policy contained in proposals for the making, alteration or replacement of a minerals local plan or a waste local plan which have been made available for inspection under section 40(2);

(vii) of any proposal contained in a local plan which was prepared by the county planning authority and continued in operation by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991;

(viii) of any proposal contained in proposals in respect of a local plan which have been prepared by the county planning authority and are adopted or approved by virtue of paragraph 37 of that Schedule or made available for inspection in pursuance of that paragraph;".

32A.—(1) In Schedule 2 to that Act (transitional provisions with respect to unitary development plans) —

(a) in Part I, paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, and

(b) in Part II, paragraphs 3 to 16 and 18,

are omitted.
(2) For paragraph 4 of Part I of that Schedule and paragraph 17 of Part II of that Schedule there is substituted in each case—

".—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—

(a) a local plan is in force in the area of a local planning authority;

(b) a unitary development plan is being prepared;

(c) the local planning authority who are preparing that plan have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the plan.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c);

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the plan mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a).

(3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a local plan in force as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a)."

32B.—(1) In Schedule 13 to that Act (blighted land) in paragraph 1 in Note (1) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan which have been made available for inspection under section 33(2);

(b) any proposed modifications to those proposals which have been published in accordance with regulations under section 53.

(2) In Note (2) to that paragraph for the words from "33(9)" to the end there is substituted "34".
(3) In Note (5) for "in force" there is substituted "in operation".
(4) After that Note there is inserted—
712

"(5A) In Note (5) the reference to a local plan in operation includes a reference to a minerals local plan, a waste local plan, which in either case is in operation, and to a local plan continued in operation by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991."

(5) In Note (7) to that paragraph for the words from "and all references" to the end there is substituted "and Notes (1) to (4) shall be omitted".
(6) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule in paragraph (a) for "in force" there is substituted "in operation".
(7) For Note (1) to paragraph 2 there is substituted—

"(1) In this paragraph the reference to a local plan in operation includes a reference to a minerals local plan, a waste local plan, which in either case is in operation, and to a local plan continued in operation by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and also includes—

(a) proposals for the making or alteration and replacement of any such plan where copies of the proposals have been made available for inspection under section 40(2) or by virtue of paragraph 37 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and

(b) any proposed modifications to those proposals which have been published in accordance with regulations under section 53."

(8) Notes (2) and (5) to that paragraph are omitted.
(9) In Note (3) to that paragraph "also" is omitted.
(10) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, in Note (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "13(3)" there is substituted "13(2)"; and

(b) in paragraph (b) "or under section 22" is omitted.

(11) In Note (2) to that paragraph "13(7) or" is omitted.
(12) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule, in Note (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "13(3)" there is substituted "13(2)";

(b) in paragraph (b) "or under section 22" is omitted.

(13) In Note (2) to that paragraph "13(7) or" is omitted.
32C. In Schedule 4 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990—

(a) in paragraph 1, in the Table, the entry relating to section 9(4) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 2 of that Schedule is omitted;

(b) paragraph 2 is omitted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 105, line 8, at end insert:
("PART III

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Interpretation
34. In this Part of this Schedule—

"commencement" means the commencement of Part I of this Schedule;

"the old law" means the principal Act in the form in which it was in force immediately before commencement;

"the new law" means the principal Act as amended by this Act;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

713

"winning and working of minerals", "depositing of mineral waste", "policies" in relation to such winning and working or depositing, and "waste policies" have the same meaning as they have under the new law.

Unitary development plans
35.—(1) Where a local planning authority have, under section 13(3) of the old law, made available copies of proposals for the making, alteration or replacement of a unitary development plan but the proposals are not adopted or approved before commencement—

(a) the proposals shall be treated on and after commencement as if made available under section 13(2) of the the new law; and

(b) any other step taken before commencement for the purpose of complying with any requirement of the old law with respect to such making, alteration or replacement may be treated on and after commencement as having been taken for the purpose of complying with any similar requirement imposed by or under the new law.

(2) Sub-paragraph (3) below applies where, at any time within the period of two years beginning with the date of commencement—

(a) a unitary development plan is in operation which by virtue of paragraph 4 of Part I or paragraph 17 of Part II of Schedule 2 to the old law includes a local plan (whether subject to alteration or otherwise);

(b) proposals are made for the alteration or replacement of the unitary development plan;

(c) the local planning authority who are making those proposals have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering an objection to the proposals.

(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (2) (c) above;

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it was included in the unitary development plan.

(4) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a plan included as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (a) above.
Structure plans
36.—(1) Where a local planning authority have, under section 32(3) of the old law, submitted to the Secretary of State copies of proposals for the alteration or repeal and replacement of a structure plan but the proposals are not approved before commencement—

(a) the submission of the proposals shall on and after commencement be treated for the purposes of the new law as the sending of the copy under section 33(2) (b) of that law; and

(b) any other step taken before commencement for the purpose of complying with any requirement of the old law with respect to such alteration or repeal and replacement may on and after commencement be treated as having been taken for the purpose of complying with any similar requirement imposed by or under Part II of the new law.

(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies the proposals may be adopted or approved under the new law as if they had been prepared after commencement.
Local plans
37. Where a local planning authority have made available under section 39(5) or 40(2) of the old law copies of proposals
714
for the making, alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan but the proposals are not adopted or approved before commencement, the proposals may after commencement be adopted or as the case may be, approved as if the old law were still in force.
38.—(1) A local plan which—

(a) immediately before commencement is in operation in the area of a local planning authority, or

(b) is brought into operation after commencement by virtue of paragraph 37 above,

(in this Schedule referred to as "a saved local plan") shall, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, continue in operation.
(2) Where a saved local plan—

(a) complies with section 36 of the new law and was prepared by the authority who are entitled to prepare the plan required by that section, or

(b) contains only those policies required or permitted to be included in a minerals local plan or a waste local plan in accordance with sections 36 to 38 of the new law and was made by the authority who are entitled to prepare a minerals local plan or, as the case may be, a waste local plan,

it shall be treated as if it were a local plan, a minerals local plan or, as the case may be, a waste local plan which had been adopted or, as the case may be, approved under the new law (and accordingly may be altered or replaced under the new law).
(3) In sub-paragraphs (4) to (8) below the references to saved local plans do not include a reference to saved local plans treated, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, as if adopted or approved under the new law.
(4) Any saved local plan shall have effect subject to a local plan, minerals local plan or waste local plan which is adopted or approved under the new law and shall not be treated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above (and accordingly may not be altered or replaced under the new law).
(5) Where the last of the plans, or the plan, required to be prepared for an area under sections 36 to 38 of the new law is prepared for that area—

(a) any saved local plan, and

(b) any old development plan,

shall cease to have effect in relation to that area.
(6) If the Secretary of State so directs, any specified provisions of a saved local plan shall continue in operation—

(a) for such period as may be specified or determined in accordance with the direction;

(b) in relation to the area or any specified part of the area to which the saved local plan relates.

(7) The Secretary of State may revoke any direction given under sub-paragraph (6) above.
(8) Before giving or revoking any such direction the Secretary of State shall consult any local planning authority for the area in which the plan is in operation.
(9) A saved local plan shall, while it continues in operation, be treated for the purposes of the new law, any other enactment relating to town and country planning, the Land Compensation 1961 and the Highways Act 1980 as being comprised in the development plan in respect of the area in question.
(10) In this paragraph—

"old development plan" has the same meaning as in Part III of Schedule 2 to the principal Act; and

"specified" means specified in the direction.

39.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies where after commencement—

(a) there is in operation in the area of a local planning authority a saved local plan which does not fall within paragraph 38(2) (a) above;

715

(b) proposals are made in pursuance of the new law for the making, alteration or replacement of a local plan for that area;

(c) the local planning authority who are making those proposals have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the proposals.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c) above;

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the saved local plan.

(3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in the saved local plan falling within sub-paragraph (1) (a) above.
Minerals and waste local plans
40.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies where after commencement—

(a) there is in operation in the area of a local planning authority a saved local plan which does not fall within paragraph 38(2) (b) above and which contains—

(i) any detailed policies for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; or

(ii) any waste policies;

(b) proposals are made in pursuance of the new law for the making, alteration or replacement of a minerals local plan or a waste local plan for that area;

(c) the local planning authority who are making those proposals have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the proposals.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c) above;

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the saved local plan.

(3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means any policy falling within sub-paragraph (1) (a) above the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in the saved local plan falling within that sub-paragraph.
Duty of structure plan authority to notify authorities responsible for saved local plans etc.
41.—(1) Where at any time after commencement any proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan are adopted or approved, the authority concerned shall—

(a) notify any local planning authority in their area that the proposals have been adopted or approved;

(b) supply that authority with a statement that the saved 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 saved local plan is not in general conformity with a structure plan shall specify the respects in which it is not in such conformity.
(3) Where at any time after commencement any proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan are
716
withdrawn, the authority concerned shall notify any authority who prepared any saved local plan which is in operation in their area that the proposals have been withdrawn.
(4) Nothing in this paragraph requires an authority to notify or supply a statement to themselves.
(5) The provisions of a saved local plan shall prevail for all purposes over any conflicting provisions in the relevant structure plan unless the saved local plan is one—

(a) stated under sub-paragraph (1) above not to be in general conformity with the structure plan; and

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

(6) Sub-paragraph (5) above is subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State with respect to conflict between plans.
Consultation
42. Any consultation undertaken before commencement for the purposes of any provision contained in or made under Part II of the old law shall be as effective for the purposes of any similar provision contained in or made under Part II of the new law as if undertaken after commencement.
The Isles of Scilly
43. An order under section 319 of the new law may make transitional provision in connection with any development plan in force in the Isles of Scilly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 31, line 14, at end insert:
("(3) If the person concerned causes a local inquiry or hearing to be cancelled after the date on which the Secretary of State notified his decision on the date of the opening of the inquiry or hearing, such an order may require the person concerned to pay the costs of preparing for that inquiry or hearing incurred by the other principal party and by any other persons who have given notice in writing to the Secretary of State of their intention to appear at the inquiry or hearing.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is necessary that this amendment be taken with Amendment No. 208. Should both amendments be carried, Amendment No. 207 would have been removed together with the rest of Clause 24. In any case, it is important that we consider the whole issue of Clause 24. It is an issue that aroused a good deal of controversy at Committee stage; that is, the issue of costs at public inquiries.
The Government's purpose in introducing Clause 24 was well explained by Ministers at Committee stage. In summary, they are seeking to provide that if the inquiry procedure is adopted unreasonably, there should be the possibility for costs of other parties to be awarded against those who behave unreasonably in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and others expressed the strongly felt concern of the Law Society that this was a provision which would make it difficult for smaller people to use their rights to appeal to a public inquiry.
Amendment No. 232 was unsatisfactory in all kinds of ways, and I am bound to say that the more I think about the matter, the more I am inclined to the view that the power to award costs against those who go to a public inquiry should be restricted as far as possible. There was talk of an amendment at this stage to replace the word "unreasonable" by the word "vexatious". On reflection, if that had been put forward, we would have supported it. If the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Stanley, want to

717
pursue the argument that Clause 24 should be taken out, I am less opposed to that point of view than I was. I shall have to listen very carefully to the arguments before advising my friends what to do.
However, the issue raised in Amendment No. 207 is different. There should be protection against people being dissuaded from going to appeal. Those who start on the process of appeal and who wait until the Secretary of State has set a date for it and then withdraw, are likely to be the developers. The people who lose out are likely to be the objectors and the local planning authority. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Stanley, will agree with me that the boot is on the other foot here, and that in this case what appears to be an extension of the power to award costs is a justifiable extension which should not be taken on the same footing as the other objections raised to Clause 24.
Therefore, I hope that the Government and other noble Lords who are concerned with the implications of this clause—it is a very difficult point on which to reach a firm and wholehearted conclusion—will agree with me that there is justification for the provisions in my Amendment No. 207. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I was interested by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced his amendment. He referred to mine and said that the effect of moving my amendment might be to delete his. The noble Lord the Deputy Speaker did not refer to that fact. I have always understood the situation to be that if the noble Lord's amendment is passed, my amendment, which seeks to undo it, cannot be called.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, of course it can.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I understand that that is incorrect, and that my amendment can be called. I do not oppose the noble Lord's amendment. It resembles an amendment to which he spoke in Committee. In fact, it appears to be near enough in the shape my noble friend the Minister said it should be as a prerequisite of her accepting it. I note the perverse reference in the previous amendment to the Secretary of State as an "it". That is as if the Secretary of State were the kind of person whom the noble Lord might refer to as "a chair" or "a spoke". I note that the reference has now been taken out of the amendment as though in anticipation that it was going to press forward into legislation.
I am glad to learn that even if the noble Lord's amendment is accepted today, I can continue and put to the House the question whether Clause 24 should be deleted from the Bill. The clause is unfair and it is likely to operate exclusively against a small builder or house owner wishing to extend his property. That is a matter which may seem simple; but it is just the sort of question where the reasonable requirements of the owner have to be balanced scrupulously against considerations of housing policy, aesthetics and the reasonable requirements of neighbours and the community.
718
The Government have found themselves in some difficulties over this clause. At Second Reading my noble friend said that the department would
"be publishing for consultation the criteria to be used in deciding whether someone's insistence on an inquiry or hearing is unreasonable".—[Official Report, 27/11/90; col. 908.]
It may be that we read too much into that in thinking that what was to be published for consultation was a list of criteria. What we have in fact is a consultation letter issued five weeks ago which says that it deals with
"the criteria for exercise of the discretionary power".
But it does not put forward any criteria at all.
The consultation paper gives as examples four cases where it might be considered unreasonable for a hearing to be asked for. The first two are similar. The first is where an application which has already been decided on appeal, following a public inquiry, is repeated in substantially the same form. The second is where an enforcement notice is appealed on the grounds that planning permission should have been given where only recently there has been an unsuccessful planning appeal for the very same permission. I have no wish to suggest that it is reasonable for the time of the inspectorate or the planning authorities and others to be taken up with oral hearings in either of these cases. These cases can surely be dealt with already under the existing powers because it is the appeal in each case which is unreasonable, not the manner in which it is to be heard.
I shall quote the third example in full. It is
"An enforcement notice appeal involving a comparatively minor material change of use, or minor building operations, when no appeal is made on 'legal grounds', there is little third party interest, and the appellant is professionally represented."
That is clearly designed to deter the small man from appealing, as is the fourth example, but I cannot see what criteria can justify it. Neither do I consider this to be a case where the fact that the appellant is professionally represented should have any bearing at all. I ask: what sort of law is it which would put a solicitor, for example, under a duty to his client to advise that if the client wishes to have an oral hearing he may do better to conduct his own case?
The fourth example is of a straightforward minor planning appeal—that is to say, a house extension, where there is no planning policy dispute, no third party interest and the appellant is again professionally represented. Again I ask: what are the criteria that could justify applying Clause 24 to such an appeal beyond the fact again that it is the small man who is likely to be caught? I have already indicated my feeling that housing extension applications should not be treated almost by definition as straightforward minor planning appeals. Is the fact that an appeal is considered straightforward and minor to preclude the individual house owner from his hearing? I do not see how that is to be justified.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I dwell a little longer on the consultation letter.

719
I do so now because the letter gives some idea of what the department understands Clause 24 to mean. I understand that the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision to ask for a hearing must be judged in the light of what the appellant thought and knew when he asked for the hearing. As I interpret the clause, what happens during the hearing cannot ex post facto have any bearing at all on whether the decision was reasonable although it may be relevant in establishing what was in the mind and to the knowledge of the appellant at the outset.
In paragraph 8 of the consultation letter—and here I explain what I have just been saying—I read that whether an appeal party has "unreasonably" requested the right "to be heard" in a particular case will only be apparent at the conclusion of the proceedings. It will then be possible to decide whether the party made,
"effective use of the opportunity to be heard".
Whether the party made effective use of the opportunity to be heard is totally irrelevant to the question whether the decision to ask for a hearing was reasonable. I hope that I carry my noble friend with me on this point. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has put his name to the amendment. In Committee he was prepared to support the principle behind Clause 24, but only where the request for an oral hearing was vexatious.
I sought to persuade the Committee that the concept of a vexatious request is unsatisfactory and unlikely to bite in the way intended. Neither I nor the Law Society, which share my views, wish to support vexatious appeals let alone vexatious and frivolous appeals. It is the vexatious appeals themselves, and not the manner in which they are brought, which should be struck at, and which are, I believe, as I have already sought to show, already likely to result in a costs order being made without the need for Clause 24.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also confessed to a fondness for the word "vexatious", and he has done so again this afternoon. On that occasion he said that he thought it unlikely that he would be able to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and myself into the Lobby should we decide to oppose the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill. His attitude was to seek to amend the clause and, as I understood him at the time and have sought to understand him since—I have to say that the report is not entirely clear—he felt that it was only in the case of appeals of the minor category that the appellant who asked for a hearing should be in jeopardy as to costs. I felt that we were not very far apart at the beginning of the debate in Committee and that the positions of the noble Lord and myself were drawing closer towards the end. He has indicated that he is coming further this way and I hope he has not gone back the other way after hearing what I have had to say.
I have not repeated lengthy arguments which can be found in the report of the Committee stage debate, but I hope that my noble friend will feel able to tell the House that she will take Clause 24 away, because it is
720
largely unnecessary. If there are instances where it may do a little good, in terms of the cost of running the planning inspectorate, nevertheless it will have done so at the cost of loss of rights enjoyed by the man in the street, and some diminution in natural justice.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the reason why I have decided to put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine to remove Clause 24 rather than argue whether the correct word is "unreasonable" or "vexatious", as I did at Committee stage (as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded me) is that, having read the report of those debates, I really do not see that the clause achieves anything at all. In particular the comment of my noble friend Lady Blatch at col. 914 of the Official Report particularly worries me. She said:
"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".—[Official Report, 4/2/91; col. 914.]
If the clause is not intended as a deterrent, why have it at all? Moreover, I believe that the problem of unreasonableness, if I may call it that, is already dealt with in Section 320 of the Town and Country Planning Act which I believe refers to Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972. Indeed, the problem of unreasonableness is dealt with in guidance contained in planning circular No. 2 of 1987. All in all, I think the Government should put this clause in the nearest litter bin.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Coleraine, and in so doing make an apology to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for not having heard the whole of what he said on his amendment, which I shall touch on subsequently.
With regard to Clause 24, I still feel that the points of substance that I made previously remain outstanding. At Committee stage we were told that the matter would be considered by the Minister and that she would come back and let the House know what she felt about it. It remains the case that this provision of costs is a threat to an appellant who would otherwise have a good case. It is something on which it is very difficult to be clear in terms of definition until after the event of the appeal. There is the conundrum that if the appellant wins on planning grounds, he can be penalised on costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, there is existing provision. I therefore wait with interest to hear what the Minister says about those points.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his Amendment No. 207. I did not hear everything he had to say, but I understand the intention behind the amendment is actively to discourage those people who use the appeals system without any intention of proceeding with it, and therefore cause a great deal of cost and trouble at public expense. I am sympathetic to the amendment if that is the sole intention behind it. Certainly the principle ought to be supported. I am not quite sure that I understand that the noble Lord's amendment

721
completely removes the possibility of the element of threat, but I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that when we discussed Clause 24 during the Committee stage considerable misgivings were expressed that the threat of a possible award, against an appellant, of the planning authority's inquiry costs would deter some appellants from requesting an inquiry or hearing when the circumstances of the appeal fully justified the request. Particular concern was expressed about deterring inexperienced or unrepresented appellants from asking to be "heard". Similar misgivings have been expressed to my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, by the Council on Tribunals, the Local Government and Planning Bar Association and the Law Society. At Committee stage, I undertook to consider most carefully, with my ministerial colleagues, all these representations, and to give a fully considered reply about the Government's intentions on Report.
On further consideration we recognise that the provisions of this clause may conceivably have some of the effects which critics of it have suggested. We accept that people who wish to exercise their right of appeal may feel unfairly deterred from asking, in some cases, to be heard. Accordingly, we have concluded that the right course is not to proceed with the clause in its present form.
Noble Lords will also recall that in Committee we undertook to consider further the drafting and substance of Amendment No. 232 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. His amendment would have provided costs to be awarded in appeal proceedings where inquiries or hearings are cancelled or curtailed because of the late withdrawal of an appeal or a late revision of evidence. We accepted the force of the arguments for enabling costs to be awarded in these circumstances and agreed to table a suitable amendment. Appeal parties may incur very considerable costs in preparing for an important inquiry. Those costs are wasted when the inquiry does not proceed. There is, at present, no provision in force in our planning legislation to enable the Secretary of State to order that "wasted" costs be recovered from the party whose action has resulted in cancellation of the inquiry. The noble Lord's proposals will remedy that unsatisfactory situation.
At first sight, Amendment No. 207 seems acceptable; but we need to scrutinise all its effects. For instance, the restriction of costs awards only to parties who have given written notice of their intention to appear at an inquiry or hearing may be an inappropriate limitation. This may have the effect in certain circumstances of ruling out, on a technicality, interested parties who may have incurred substantial wasted costs, but have not been advised that they are required to given written notice of their interest or have overlooked the need. We do not think such parties should be precluded from recovering abortive expenditure because of a procedural technicality. On
722
the understanding that we still accept the principle of Amendment No. 207, and will table an acceptable amendment, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
On Amendment No. 208, in the light of my undertaking that we shall not proceed with the clause in its present form I hope noble Lords will agree that Clause 24 should remain part of the Bill. We can then bring forward an amendment along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In that event, Clause 24 will stand alone with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There will therefore be a Clause 24 in the Bill but not as presently drafted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think we are all struggling to some extent, but very much in the same direction. I am personally grateful to the Minister for what she said about Amendment No. 207. I accept that she is right about the provision that the notice should be in writing. I think it may be necessary to put into my amendment something about "unreasonable" as well, which is not there at the moment; but perhaps I am muddying the water even further.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and his colleagues think, but the commitments that the Minister has given to a radical rethink of Clause 24 are very far reaching. It looks as though we may land up with a Clause 24 which consists of my amendment in a slightly different form and nothing else. In that case we would probably all be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 208:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment and I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that she does not propose to pursue the clause in its present form. She suggested that Clause 24 should stay in the Bill and undertook to bring forward at Third Reading a provision which would bring in the amendment just withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I do not for the moment see why the clause should not now be taken out of the Bill. What will come forward at Third Reading will be something entirely different from Clause 24 as it stands at the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may intervene now I think it will help the House. I believe that it is possible to take Clause 24 out of the Bill as it stands. It is possible to reconsider the wording of Amendment No. 207 and for me to bring forward in the name of the Government an amendment which will be consistent with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. At this moment I see nothing to preclude my putting a new Clause 24 into the Bill at Third Reading. That would be one way to proceed.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I feel sure that my noble friend is correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Planning compensation repeals: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 210 to 217:
Page 108, line 20, at end insert:
("Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (c.14)
2A. In Schedule 3 to the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (variation of fees) in paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (b) is omitted.
Post Office Act 1969 (c.48)
2B. In Schedule 9 to the Post Office Act 1969 (transitional provisions) in paragraph 27(7) for "Parts V and XII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990" there is substituted "Part XII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".").
Page 109, line 8, at end insert:
("10A. In section 90(3) (development with Government authorisation) for "Parts V and" there is substituted "Part".").
Page 110, line 16, at end insert:
("19A. In section 262(4) and (7) (a) (meaning of "statutory undertakers") "123" is omitted.
19B. In section 263(3) (meaning of "operational land") "123(3) and (4)" is omitted.").
Page 111, line 4, at end insert:
("27A. In section 315(2) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) the words from "and in relation" to "in respect of such land" are omitted.
27B. In section 318(5) (ecclesiastical property) for "112, 133 or 327" there is substituted "or 112".").
Page 111, line 12, leave out ("definition of "new development" is") and insert ("definitions of "new development" and "previous apportionment" are").
Page 111, line 13, at end insert:
("32A. In Schedule 1 (distribution of functions) in paragraph 16(1) "114" is omitted.").
Page 111, line 34, at end insert:
("36A. In section 32(4) of that Act (purchase notices) for "new development" there is substituted "development (other than any development specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 3 to the principal Act)".").
Page 112, line 1, at end insert:
("39A. In section 91(2) of that Act (interpretation) "new development" is omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 210 to 217, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 218 to 223, 293 to 301, 303 and 304. These are all further minor but necessary technical amendments which are consequential on the planning compensation repeals set out in Clause 25, which applies to England and Wales, and Clause 46, which applies to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Planning compensation repeals: minor and consequential amendments—Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 218 to 223:
Page 132, line 8, at end insert:
("Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (c.14)
2A. In Schedule 3 to the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (variation of fees) in paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (a) is omitted.
Post Office Act 1969 (c.48)
2B. In Schedule 9 to the Post Office Act 1969 (transitional provisions) in paragraph 27(7) for "Parts VII and XII of the
724
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972" there is substituted "Part XII of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972".").
Page 132, line 29, leave out paragraph 6.
Page 132, line 37, at end insert:
("8A. In section 37(2) (development with Government authorisation) for "Parts VII and" there is substituted "Part".
8B. 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;".").

Page 132, line 42, leave out paragraph 11.
Page 136, line 39, at end insert:
("19A. In section 179(2) (purchase notice on refusal or conditional grant of listed building consent) for "new development" there is substituted "development (other than any development specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act)"
19B. In section 231(3) (validity of orders etc.), paragraph (c) is omitted.").
Page 137, line 17, leave out ("definition of "new development" is") and insert ("definitions of "new development" and "previous apportionment-' are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Planning in England and Wales: minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 226 and 227:
Page 112, line 22, at end insert:
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
2A. In section 7(5) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 paragraph (a) (iii) is omitted.").
Page 112, line 26, leave out from ("171C") to end of line and insert ("173A, 187A, 187B, 196A to 196C and 324(1) (b) and (c) and (7).").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 and will speak to Amendments Nos. 229, 230, 232 to 236, 238, 239, 242, 244, 245 and 248 to 257. These are all essential drafting amendments to Schedule 6 to the Bill, consequential on provisions being introduced or changes made elsewhere in the Bill. For that reason I do not propose to spend any more time on them now, but if any noble Lord wishes to query any one of them I shall be happy to explain it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 112, line 26, at end insert:
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)
3A. In section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, in subsection (1) for paragraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted—

"(a) is executed for the purpose of securing the carrying out of works on land in the council's area in which the other person has an interest, or

(b) is executed for the purpose of regulating the use of or is otherwise connected with land in or outside the council's area in which the other person has an interest,

and which is neither executed for the purpose of facilitating nor connected with the development of the land in question."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 228 was discussed with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 229 and 230:
Page 112, line 33, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
("6.—(1) In section 5(1) for "300 and 324(1) (b) and (c) and (7)" there is substituted "and 300".
(2) In section 5(3)—

(a) for "sections 36 to 49, 50(6) to (9), 51" there is substituted "Part II, sections",

(b) for "64 to 72" there is substituted "65, 69 to 72",

(c) for "81" there is substituted "79",

(d) after "106" there is inserted "to 106B, 171C",

(e) after "173" there is inserted "173A",

(f) after "184" there is inserted "187A, 187B",

(g) for "215" there is substituted "214, 215",

(h) after "299" there is inserted "299A", and

(i) for "316(1) to (3) and 324(1) (a)" there is substituted "316, and 324(1) and (7)".").

Page 112, line 37, at end insert:
("7A. In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or" is omitted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 113, line 14, at end insert:
("13A. In section 174(6) "in writing" is omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Section 174 of the 1990 Act already provides for someone who occupies land under a written licence to have the right of appeal against an enforcement notice. In response to the concern expressed by noble Lords during the Committee stage of the Bill, we have decided that the right of appeal should be extended to those who occupy under an unwritten licence. This change would be effected by this small amendment to Section 174. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 232 to 236:
Page 115, line 4, leave out from ("omitted") to end of line 7 and insert:

("(b) in subsection (2) (a) for "or stop notice" there is substituted "stop notice or breach of condition notice", and

(c) in subsection (2) (b) after "stop notices" there is inserted "and breach of condition notices".").

Page 115, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 24 and insert:

("(a) in subsection (1) "an application referred to him under section 192(5) or" is omitted and for "applicant or appellant (as the case may be)" there is substituted "appellant",

(b) in subsection (2) for "an established use certificate on such a reference or" there is substituted "a certificate under section 191 or 192 on",

(c) in subsection (3) "application or" is omitted,

(cc) in subsection (4) for "established use certificates"").

Page 115, line 32, at end insert:
("Part XI
28A. Section 266(3) is omitted.").
Page 115, line 37, at end insert:
726

("(ab) in subsection (2) "(6) to (8)" is omitted;").

Page 115, line 39, leave out ("(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 116, line 6, at end insert:
("31A. In section 288, at the end of subsection (3) there is added—

"or within fourteen days of the date on which the applicant was served with notice of the order or decision whichever is the later".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 288 of the 1990 Act is concerned with appeals to the High Court against decisions of the Secretary of State, on the grounds that they are wrong in law or that the correct procedure has not been followed. At present, appeals must be brought within six weeks of the decision being taken, which is interpreted by the courts as being 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' period it must fail.
In Committee, I cited a case where some unfortunate person was not informed and fell outside the date, and therefore lost completely. It was admitted that it happened because of an error in the department of the local authority. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate expressed some sympathy, he said that it was far too long a period to allow, and that he might consider some amendment of a few days.
This revised amendment takes account of the debate by allowing 14 days to bring an appeal from service of the notice. It is fair to say that this is roughly the time on which people might be on holiday or recovering from a small illness. It also allows appellants to have time to consult legal advisers, which often takes quite a few days. So I hope that this amendment might meet with a rather more favourable response from the Government than my previous attempt. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when we previously considered this matter I had to indicate that I could not accept the previous amendment because of the length of time, as the noble Lord indicated, and I was also concerned that it would introduce uncertainty. That was because, if the time ran from the date of the notification, it might not be possible to ascertain when that was.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's objective of ensuring that an individual or a local authority, who may wish to challenge a decision in the courts, should have an adequate time to make up their mind without the fear of an administrative slip-up or postal delays cutting into that time. Accordingly, I should like to take the opportunity to consider this more carefully and to allow for wider consultation. An undertaking is given to do that. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am very grateful. I hope that what the noble and learned Lord

727
the Lord Advocate has said will produce the desired result and I am obliged to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 238 and 239:
Page 116, line 9, leave out ("296(2) (a)") and insert ("296, in subsection (1) (c) after "VII" there is inserted "except sections 196A and 196B".
(2) In subsection (2) (a) of that section").
Page 116, line 21, at end insert:
("Part XIV
34A. In section 306(2) (b) and (3) after "VII", in both places where it occurs, there is inserted "except sections 196A and 196B".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 116, line 28, leave out paragraph 36 and insert:
("36. For section 319 there is substituted—
"The Isles of Scilly.
319.—(1) This Act applies to the Isles of Scilly subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order direct.
(2) An order under this section may in particular provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of any functions exercisable by a local planning authority or mineral planning authority.
(3) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with that Council.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 240 was spoken to with Amendment No. 94, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me one technical question on the amendment. He asked me why the amendment does not say that the order shall provide. The amendment makes clear that planning law applies to the Scillies but, because of their special circumstances, enables the Secretary of State to make an order making such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as he may direct. Since the basic power to make such an order is properly expressed within the word "may", the subsidiary power relating to the designation of council functions is also expressed in that way. This is a standard form for such a provision. I said in reply to the noble Lord that the council has had these functions in the past, and the order-making power will be used to ensure that it continues to have them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 117, line 7, after ("(9)") insert ("for "in Part V of Schedule 16" there is substituted "of Parts III, VII and VIII" and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 117, line 7, at end insert:

("(4) In subsection (10) for "sections 324(2) and" there is substituted "section".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 244 and 246:
728
Page 117, line 15, at end insert:
("(3A) In paragraph 7(1) for "sections 70 and 71" there is substituted "section 70".").
Page 117, line 39, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 41 and insert ("body having the function of taking enforcement action in respect of the breach in question".").
Page 117, line 41, at end insert:
("(9) For paragraph 20(3) there is substituted—

"(3) In relation to land in the area of a joint planning board, a person entering into an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106 may identify the council of the county in which the land is situated as the authority by whom the obligation is enforceable".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 251 inclusive:
Page 118, line 2, at end insert:
("(da) in sub-paragraph (1) (d) for "and (8)" there is substituted "to (8A)"").
Page 118, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert:

("(da) for the entry relating to section 106 there is substituted—

"Sections 106 to 106B.",

(da) after the entry relating to section 190 there is inserted—

"Section 192.
Sections 196A to 196C.",

(dc) after the entry relating to section 211(4) there is inserted—

"Sections 214A to 214D.",

(dd) in the entry relating to section 285, "except subsections (5) and (6)" is omitted,").

Page 118, line 23, at end insert ("and

(f) for the entry relating to section 316 there is substituted—

"Sections 316 and 316A.").

Page 118, line 28, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert:

("(c) after the entry relating to section 166 there is inserted—

"Sections 171A to 171D."

(d) for the entry relating to section 187 there is substituted—

"Sections 187 to 187B".
(4) In Part III—

(a) for the first three entries there is substituted—

"Sections 109 to 112.",

(b) the entries relating to sections 312(2) and 324(4) are omitted, and

(c) for the entry relating to sections 327 and 328 there is substituted—

"Section 328."
(5) Parts IV and V are omitted.
(6) In Part VI—

(a) for the entries relating to sections 65 to 68 there is substituted—

"Section 65.",

(b) in the entry relating to section 71 for "and (2)" there is substituted "(2) and (2A)",

(c) for the entry relating to sections 290 and 291 there is substituted—

"Section 291.", and

(d) in the entry relating to section 296 for "sections 65 to 68" there is substituted "section 65".")

729
Page 118, leave out lines 34 to 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule II [Planning in Scotland: minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 252 to 257 inclusive:
Page 141, line 21, at end insert:
("23A. Section 214(3) is omitted.").
Page 141, line 25, at end insert:
("25A. In section 242(2) (b) for "sections 97" there is substituted "sections 91A, 91B, 97".").
Page 141, line 28, leave out ("subsection (2) (a) of").
Page 141, line 29, after ("land)") insert ("in subsection (1) (b), after "Part V" there is inserted "except sections 91A and 91B of this Act and in subsection 2(a)".
Page 142, line 25, after ("Part II") insert ("(i)").
Page 142, line 25, at end insert:
("(ii) after the entry relating to section 56 there is inserted—
"Sections 83A to 83D."

(iii) after the entry relating to section 87 there is inserted—

"Section 87AA.".

(iv) after the entry relating to sections 102 to 107 there is inserted—

"Section 155.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 257A:
After Clause 48, 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 or 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 enjoyment of the land is seriously affected by—

(a) the carrying out of works by—

(i) the authority for the construction or alteration of any public works, or

(ii) the authority for the construction or improvement of a highway, or

(b) the use of—

(i) any public works, or

(ii) a highway which the authority have constructed or improved,

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 this section requiring that authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with this section.
(2) Without prejudice to any wider meaning of the words "seriously affected" for the purposes of section 26 of this Act and section 246 of the Highways Act 1980, land is seriously affected for the purposes of this section if—

(a) the enjoyment of it is affected by any of the physical factors mentioned in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act as extended or limited, as the case may be, by subsections (5), (6) and (7) of that section or by interference with the drainage of, or natural flow of water to, the land, and

730

(b) the Lands Tribunal is satisfied that the land cannot continue to be occupied without material detriment to its enjoyment.

(3) 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 is not land which is seriously affected for the purposes of this section.

(4) Where a counter-notice has been served under subsection (3) the owner may require the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
(5) An objection—

(a) on ground (i) specified in subsection (3) shall not be upheld by the Lands Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded;

(b) on ground (ii) specified in subsection (3) shall be upheld by the Lands Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the land is seriously affected land for the purposes of this section.

(6) If the Lands Tribunal determines 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 for that part.
(7) Where no counter-notice has been served in time under subsection (3) or such a counter-notice 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.

(8) A notice to treat deemed to be served by virtue of subsection (7) shall not be capable of withdrawal.
(9) 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 (6).
(10) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "public works", "responsible authority" and "relevant date" have the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act (right to compensation) except that "public works" does not include a highway;

(b) "highway authority" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 246 of the Highways Act 1980.

(11) 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.
(12) Once a purchase notice has taken effect under subsection (7) 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

731
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.
(13) 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 (7)." ")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is really a return to Amendment No. 291 which I moved at the Committee stage, but withdrew. That amendment attempted to provide that where an interest in land is seriously affected by public works the owner can serve a notice on the appropriate authority requiring the purchase of that interest. There was provision for reference to the Lands Tribunal in the case of disputes.
The amendment was intended to build on powers already in the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Highways Act 1980, which are in any event being extended under Clause 48 of this Bill. These allow an authority to purchase land by agreement which "in their opinion" will be seriously affected. However, I am not happy just to leave the matter at that point so that the acquiring authority has total discretion as to whether they will purchase the land or not. I do not think that giving them that total discretion is necessarily fair or just. I am particularly concerned that possible financial I considerations might outweigh justice.
Therefore Amendment No. 291 sought to amend that position, but three objections were put forward on behalf of the Government by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. First, he referred to a lack of definition and the need for greater detail in specifying the naming of "serious injury" and "seriously affected", although I would point out that the latter term appears in Clause 48 of the Bill in any event.
Secondly, the objection was put that it could not simply be left to the Lands Tribunal to determine the point of principle and the caseload on the Tribunal could be substantial. Thirdly, the objection was put forward that the amendment as then drafted would apply both to the construction stage of works, which of course might be short lived, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, and to the period after the scheme of works had come into final use. It was felt to be inappropriate to require an authority to purchase on this basis, quite apart from possible financial consequences.
In consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, I addressed myself to those criticism s and the result is this amendment, which attempt; to overcome them. First, it sets out to define the term "seriously affected". In the context of the amendment as now drafted, the definition is deliberately limited to the physical factors which are those specified in the Land Compensation Act 1973. Your Lordships will know that this refers to dirt, dust, noise and various similar factors.
Secondly, it provides that the Lands Tribunal has to be satisfied that occupation cannot continue
732
without material detriment to the enjoyment of the land. In doing this, it ties in with Section 8 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, where the Lands Tribunal has the authority to determine just such provisions.
There is another point, which is that in subsection (5) of this amendment it is intended to put the burden of proof on the claimant rather than on the acquiring authority. It was felt that this was an important safeguard. Finally, it provides that the notification procedure cannot be implemented until after the expiry of one year from the date when works come into use. It also provides for a time limit —a window—during which the notice can be served by the claimant.
I believe there can be no substantial objection to this amendment. Apart from the wording and the technical points involved, it will apply to very few cases in practice and certainly I do not think it can be seen as imposing a major financial burden on acquiring authorities. Furthermore, if it is considered appropriate under Clause 48 of the Bill as it now stands to give a discretionary power for an acquiring authority to purchase land, it must be right for there to be a provision when the worst effects of public works in their final use can be assessed so that someone with an interest in the property concerned can insist upon the authority acquiring that also if it fulfils the criteria and satisfies the tests which are already provided for in statute.
The alternative is that the person who is affected —it may be a householder or a business, but there is no distinction between different categories of potential claimant—may be entitled to compensation but only for some of his loss. It cannot be right for a householder to be left with a home he cannot sell and an environment he did not choose, and indeed would not have chosen, while I feel that acquiring authorities are likely to be conservative in their implementation of the discretionary powers which are currently covered by Clause 48 because of financial reasons. Therefore my amendment seeks to put the whole matter on a footing which I believe is in line with existing legislation and is capable of being scrutinised by the Lands Tribunal as final arbiter.
In so doing, I am trying to ensure that the consequential costs of public works are not in some way exported to the private citizen and that there is a reduction in what I believe are a significant number of hidden subsidies by the private individual to acquiring authorities. I feel that this is a most important safeguard, which will apply only in a limited number of cases, and I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, argues once again that an owner of property which is seriously affected by public works should have the right to serve a notice requiring that the responsible authority purchase the land. As I indicated when the noble Earl moved a similar, though not identical, amendment in Committee, the Land Compensation Act already provides for owners of land to be compensated for any loss of value attributable to physical effects arising from the use of public works.

733
There is also an entitlement to noise insulation for properties affected by noise disturbance at or above the specified level. In addition to that, as he has mentioned, there exists a discretionary power under which the responsible authorities may acquire land by agreement if it is seriously affected by public development. Clauses 48 and 60 extend this power so that it becomes available to authorities at an earlier stage in their project than at present applies. Clearly the noble Earl remains of the view that these provisions do not yet provide an adequate safeguard for landowners and that the solution is to place authorities under an obligation to purchase seriously affected property if required to do so by the owner.
I readily admit that the noble Earl has sought to address one of the objections that I raised when we discussed the issue in Committee, namely, the absence of any definition of "serious affection". However, the definition he proposes does not seem to me to be sufficiently precise. The provision would still present the Lands Tribunal with an unreasonable task in terms of the volume of cases that it could be called upon to deal with and the nature of the determinations it would be required to make. It would not be sufficient merely to leave it to the Lands Tribunal to decide whether the land could continue to be occupied without material detriment to its enjoyment.
Furthermore, the right to serve the purchase notice would still apply, as I read subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, during the construction stage of a project. Yet, as I said in Committee, the adverse effects of construction work will be, by definition, temporary. It seems to me that to require authorities to purchase properties at that stage would be altogether unreasonable. As a remedy, it would be out of all proportion to the grievance temporarily experienced.
While I am in no doubt as to the strength of the noble Earl's feelings on the matter, I am afraid that I still cannot accept the principle that there should be an obligation on authorities to purchase properties affected by public development. It remains our clear view that the right approach is to leave authorities free to look carefully at the circumstances of each case and to use their discretion to acquire—as extended in the Bill—where there is a clear case for so doing. That, together with the right compensation for loss of value caused by public works offers a reasonable degree of protection to owners of land affected by public development. Although I have said that the noble Earl addressed at least one of the complaints that I made in Committee, I hope that with that explanation he will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It will not surprise him to learn that I am totally dissatisfied with it. I accept that provisions exist which give a right to compensation in the circumstances that he has outlined. That is common ground between us. However, in going on to suggest that the definition is inappropriate, he has not suggested an alternative definition. The definitions I have sought to attach to the amendment are those
734
already enshrined in statute. It is extraordinary that my amendment should be criticised for being devoid of definition when at least part of the wording exists in Clause 48.
If my amendment is incapable of definition on that ground, it is clear that there is something else in the Bill that is also incapable of accurate definition. However, I bow to the Minister's greater knowledge of legal matters, and I cannot pursue that point further. In moving the amendment, I pointed out that it had been my intention that it should not apply to the construction stage but should apply only after the works had come into use. I thought that the wording of the amendment made that point abundantly clear. I am surprised that the Minister should make the same criticism of my amendment as he did of the earlier one in Committee. Clearly, it would be churlish of me to seek the opinion of the House on an amendment which is highly technical, especially bearing in mind that the hour is marching on.
I shall reconsider the point. I must reserve my position on it. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate, as the Minister has said, to leave matters solely in the hands of the acquiring authority which will be acting as judge and jury in its own cause without there being any form of recourse for a complainant who can suffer serious injury, and in the case of the residential occupier, serious injury to his daily existence. I feel strongly that it is an issue with which the Government must come to terms. It does not have major resource implications. I am surprised at the Minister's response. As I said, it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House, although in other circumstances I might seek to do so. I reserve my position, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 49 [Advance payments of compensation and interest]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 57, line 18, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("£500").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved two amendments in Committee to try to persuade the Government that their present method of paying outstanding sums of compensation awards did not put the owner or occupier of land in the same position as he was before the compulsory purchase order. My noble and learned friend said that the amendments were unacceptable because they were too complicated to administer. So, I have done as my noble and learned friend suggested and made the period one year, which is the same as at present, and to cut the amount from £1,000 to £500. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not consider £500 too petty a sum to bother about, because that is not the case for farmers today, most of whom would consider £500 a most acceptable sum.
Only the day before yesterday my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made great play of the generosity of the increases in hill livestock payments to sheep farmers. Those payments are worth about 50p a ewe to me and

735
so in one year for the 1,000 ewes on which I am entitled to claim—that is the maximum—I would receive £200. That is less than £500. The Government say that that £200 is a generous sum. They must logically accept that £500 is even better and should be paid out when the compensation amount reaches that level. If my noble and learned friend disagrees he may want to encourage the Government to increase the hill livestock payments. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, tomorrow evening I have to address the Angus NFU when I have no doubt that the point on which my noble friend has concluded will be made yet again and probably at least as forcefully.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind your Lordships how the Bill's provisions in respect of interest payments will operate. Where a compulsory purchase claimant exercises his right to ask for an advance payment of compensation under the existing provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 he will in future also be entitled to be paid any interest which is due to him at that point. That entitlement will apply regardless of the actual amount of interest which has accrued. Thereafter, the claimant will be entitled to be paid, at annual intervals, any further interest which has became due, provided that the amount of interest stands at more than £1,000 or such other sum as the Secretary of State prescribes. If, however, the authority makes any further advance payment of compensation, it will again be required to pay off any outstanding interest at the same time, regardless of the actual amount involved.
Our reason for specifying both a minimum amount and a minimum interval for interest payments, other than those linked to an advance payment of compensation, is merely to ensure that the new procedure does not impose an unreasonable administrative burden on authorities. A requirement to make frequent payments of relatively small sums would carry a heavy administrative cost for authorities which I do not think would be defensible from the point of view of the cost-effective use of public resources.
As I said previously, it is a matter of judgment as to what the appropriate minimum amount of interest should be. However, we are generally satisfied that the £1,000 we propose represents a reasonable choice in terms of both fairness to claimants and the sensible use of public resources. The lower figure my noble friend suggests tilts the balance too far in the claimant's favour.
The £1,000 and annual interval were explicitly referred to in the department's consultation paper of 1989 and gave rise to no general disagreement. The Bill's provisions in respect of interest payments represent an important new safeguard for claimants. While my noble friend may not accept our conclusions, I hope that he will accept that we have made a considerable improvement and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must withdraw the amendment although I do not wish to. I did not think that my noble and learned friend's
736
answer was particularly good. I made an effort to ensure that his Civil Servants were not overburdened; it would happen every year, as it does under the Bill. The amount would simply drop from £1,000 to £500, the administrative costs are no greater.
I have to withdraw the amendment but I hope that when my noble and learned friend goes to Scotland tomorrow he will be asked—indeed I shall try to ensure that this happens —whether he takes the attitude that £500 is as good as £1,000. If so, will he do the same for Scottish hill farmers? With regret, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Certification of appropriate alternative development]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 258A:
Page 59, line 18, after ("but") insert ("if and so far as this is appropriate having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a revised version of the principle behind an earlier series of amendments moved at the Committee stage. The objective of these amendments was to alter the effect of certification procedures under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act. That provides that where land is compulsorily acquired the claimant may apply to the local planning authority for a certificate to ascertain what other developments or planning permissions might have been forthcoming but for the compulsory acquisition. This procedure was not available in certain circumstances but in many instances the situation was covered under Section 16 of the Act.
The reason for extending Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act is that there are often site-specific factors affecting possible alternative uses rather than general policy factors enshrined in the local development plan. The development plan itself may not be sufficiently up to date to give accurate current guidance in individual instances.
The Government moved their own Amendment No. 297 at the Committee stage and I warmly welcomed it. However it had one serious deficiency in the form of subsection (2) which is now in Clause 51, which amended subsection (4) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. This effectively provided that a planning authority could certify that planning permission would have been granted for a development of a specified type. That is in addition to the purpose for which the land was acquired. But the important point is that the permission must also certify that no other development would have been permitted. Bearing in mind the number of alternative types of development, the alternative uses that might be considered in any instance and the breadth of interpretation possible within, say, Class B.1—to quote one example of the Town and Country Planning Act use classes order—I believe that this is a recipe for gross unfairness and for a string of appeals to the Secretary of State. Therefore I feel that it is not acceptable to leave the Government's original

737
amendment in that form. It does not provide a perfect answer to the purpose behind the amendments that I intended to move.
The Government's reasons for objecting to my previous amendments related primarily to the conflict of interest which would arise between the contents of a Section 17 certificate and the development plan assumptions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate admitted that the risk was probably not great and, if anything, it was set to reduce. I agree; I do not believe that the risk is great.
Amendment No. 258A seeks to reconcile the problem by inserting the words printed in the Marshalled List so that a negative opinion is included in the certificate of alternative developments only if it is clearly appropriate. This may make matters marginally more difficult for valuers in terms of agreeing the appropriate value that arises from a possible differential basis of value. However, it should allay the conflict which concerns the Government. I think that it will greatly reduce the burden on the local planning authority which would be put in an impossible position as the Bill stands and it would reduce the burden on the Secretary of State in handling possible appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are concerned here with the provisions added to the Bill regarding the procedure for certifying what, if any, alternative development would have been permitted on land to be compulsorily acquired.
The main purpose of the new provisions is to remove the exclusion on the issue of a certificate in respect of land which is included within a development plan. Our grounds for making this change are that the designation shown on a development plan may not always provide a sufficiently precise or up-to-date indication of the planning status of an individual site for the purpose of establishing its value.
As I made clear when we discussed the matter in Committee, in extending the scope of the certification procedure to include land covered by development plans, we need to establish a basis for resolving any potential conflict between the content of a certificate and an assumption derived from a development plan. We have sought to achieve this by providing for the certificate not merely to specify what, if any, alternative development would have been permitted but also to make clear that permission would not have been granted for any development other than that specified. The contents of a certificate will thus override any contrary assumptions arising from a development plan.
The noble Earl expressed concern over the requirement that the certificate should exclude all development other than that specified. But it seems to us that this approach provides by far the most satisfactory means of resolving any conflict between a certificate and a development plan. The noble Earl's amendment would provide for the certificate to exclude development other than that specified only in cases where it is considered appropriate, having regard
738
to the development plan and other material considerations. However, such a formula would in my view leave matters far too vague and open-ended and thus cut right across what we seek to achieve— namely, a greater degree of precision as to the planning status of land to be compulsorily acquired. From what the noble Earl said, I believe that at one point he was prepared to accept that if his approach were to be adopted, it would make for greater difficulties for those who have responsibility for valuing. We wish to make this clear in order to eliminate unfairness and to give a degree of precision that will enable the task to be satisfactorily and clearly carried out.
I hope that the noble Earl will accept that the approach we have adopted in these provisions provides the best means of achieving the desired objective. Even if he does not care for my rejection of his amendment, I am grateful to him for what he said about the general improvement that he accepts we have introduced in these provisions.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. I fully accept that there must be a reasonably clearly defined basis on which to establish the planning use. However, with a central area redevelopment with a basket of possible uses there will be problems in insisting that the local planning authority must certify one use and also certify that all other uses are to be excluded. In practical planning terms, that is almost incapable of being achieved other than on a "suck-it-and-see" basis, "We'll stick that one in because it's the most likely use". I feel that an element of unfairness creeps in with the amendment which the Government have already made to the Bill. That is the issue I seek to address.
There is a problem and there will be a problem in the sense that there will be appeals. People will say, "I should have been allowed such-and-such a use and I shall appeal to the Secretary of State because it is not included on my certificate". I proposed the amendment as an attempt to improve and streamline the legislation, not to try to create difficulties nor to cut across a provision which is a cardinal tenet of government policy. I wish to make that clear.
I do not believe that we are at odds on the principle behind the legislation, it is purely a technical matter of how to deal with the provision. It is not particularly difficult for valuers to get to grips with alternative uses in the context of valuing according to a Section 17 certificate. It is often the case in valuation terms that to produce an open market value one must make one or other of a series of assumptions regarding planning. In my professional life I do it all the time. I may not be typical but I suspect I am. Therefore I do not see that this creates the problem that I suspect the noble and learned Lord is trying to proffer to the House. I shall reconsider this matter. I reserve my right to return with the provision at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Schedule 12 [Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 143, line 11, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I stand in for the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on this modest amendment which is an amendment to the welcome Amendment No. 287 accepted in Committee. That amendment was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
We are pressing this amendment today because we feel that a question of fairness is involved. Many development schemes take more than 10 years to complete. A motorway is but one example. If the scheme is not completed before the end of 10 years, it is unlikely that the authority will know whether land is surplus until that time. Therefore the landowner is open to the real danger of an abuse of the statutory power by the compulsory purchasing authority. There will even be a strong temptation for the purchasing authority to take just a little extra land in order to be safe. That may be by a process of—as children say —mistake on purpose. The purchasing authority may take such a step with a view to selling the land off afterwards and thereby helping to cover the cost of the project.
Where a scheme takes fewer than 10 years perhaps it takes six or eight—there will be a temptation to wait the final two years before applying for further planning permission in order not to have to pay the vendor a fair share of the additional value relating to new planning permission. That danger is made greater by the fact that many of the bodies which will have statutory powers in the future are not the old fashioned statutory undertakers but new PLCs. Those PLCs have shareholders pressing for a profit and a dividend. I believe the PLCs will regard this provision as a loophole in the legislation.
Long ago the private sector recognised that 21 years was a fair and reasonable time for deferred compensation. I find it hard to understand why the Government should take a different view. I remind the House that we are talking about compulsory purchase here. We are therefore talking about an unwilling seller. My argument is that the Government have to accept responsibility for being extra fair in that case. I believe that a period of 21 years is much more likely to provide a fair solution than 10 years. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment relates to the revised provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1961, under which a former owner of compulsorily purchased land can claim additional compensation in the event of its value being increased by a planning decision within 10 years of the acquisition. The noble Lord proposes to extend this 10 year period to 21 years.
As I indicated in response to a similar amendment in Committee, there is no simple basis for deciding over what period planning decisions should be taken into account for the purpose of establishing an
740
entitlement to additional compensation. Certainly we want to ensure that the provisions offer adequate protection for the interests of those whose land is compulsorily acquired. On the other hand, we do not think it would be sensible to allow the entitlement to additional compensation to become too detached in time from the actual acquisition of the land. A ten year period seems to us to strike a reasonable balance between these two considerations. It is of course double the amount of time allowed under the original 1961 Act provisions. By contrast, the 21 years advocated by the noble Lord would seem to go too far in separating the question of additional compensation from the actual acquisition of the land.
The noble Lord has argued that, where an interest is reserved against future development in the private sector, the period is usually 21 years. I am not sure I can agree with this assertion. It is our impression that, in so far as such arrangements operate within the private sector, the agreed period will vary from case to case but will not normally be as long as the noble Lord suggests. It has been asserted that 21 years is the maximum period allowed under the Land Compensation Act. I am afraid that I am not clear as to what is meant by this. I am not aware of any specified period in existing land compensation legislation which would be a relevant precedent for the purpose of these provisions.
I believe the noble Lord suggested that he felt that what he was asking for was fair. I shall advocate a provision that we suggest is also fair. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the approach we have adopted here is basically a fair one, and that he will not think it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that her reply disappointed me. I disagree on the issue of fairness. It remains for me to provide some evidence in writing to support the assertions that I have made. I hope that that may lead to a reconsideration of the matter at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 144, line 17, leave out ("the Land Compensation Act 1961") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment relating to Schedule 12 of the Bill, which reinstates the former provisions of Part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Provision is made for interest to be paid on outstanding amounts of additional compensation under Part IV at the rate prescribed under Section 32 of the 1961 Act. As the provision is already contained in the Act, however, there is no need to repeat the title of the Act: hence the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Home loss payments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 60, line 32, at beginning insert:

741
("(1) In section 29(1) (e) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling) after the words "Housing Act 1985" there shall be inserted "or, in the case of a housing association, under ground 6 of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 261, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 262. We return here to the issue of home loss payments for tenants as well as owner occupiers. We had an interesting and, in some ways, encouraging debate in Committee when I proposed a number of amendments which appeared to be defective. Perhaps I had not found the perfect form for those amendments. However, the principle I sought to achieve was that home loss payments should be available to tenants as well as to owner occupiers on the basis enunciated by the Minister when she said that the fundamental consideration was the distress and disruption caused to people when they were deprived of their home after they had lived in it for a long time. It appears to us that if the criterion is the period of time spent in the home, that should apply equally to tenants as to owner occupiers. Owner occupiers of course also obtain the value of the home. The home loss payment is an additional payment.
We also sought to update the provisions in the Bill. It provides at the moment for statutory tenants. The Housing Act 1988 is progressively replacing statutory tenancies by assured tenancies at different speeds in different parts of the country. That is the Government's intention. As no one in his right mind who has a statutory tenancy would choose to replace it with an assured tenancy—as an assured tenancy provides less security of tenure and less security against rent increases—we believed that those who were put in the position of having an assured tenancy should have protection. That is the intention of one part of Amendment No. 262.
There are a number of grounds whereby tenants of housing associations may lose their tenancies. There is a particular ground concerning permanent removal from their homes if the homes are declared unfit for human habitation. We did not believe that provision was covered by the Bill as drafted and we felt that it should be covered.
Finally, in the latter part of Amendment No. 262 we cover the question of spouses with rights of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. There appeared to be an imbalance in that the husband normally has the tenancy but the wife does not have the same written tenancy and therefore is not entitled to home loss payments in the same way as the husband would be.
Again, there was discussion of the matter in Committee. The Minister sought to persuade me that it was not a problem and she has been kind enough to write to me since then. However, I am still not convinced that the matter is entirely clear. I believe that it is desirable for her definitive position on this matter to be spelt out in the House and to be available in Hansard as a result.
We should like to find a way of securing that the
742
degree of home loss payment should be proportional to the length of time the tenant has been in the home, in the same way as it will be for owner occupiers. If I have not found a satisfactory way of achieving that objective I apologise to the House, but I shall certainly go on trying. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in relation to Amendment No. 261 I should first make clear that any housing association tenant who is displaced from his home because the property has been compulsorily purchased for purposes of public development, for example a road scheme, will receive a home loss payment on the same basis as any other tenant.
The noble Lord's amendment relates, however, to the position of registered housing association tenants who are compelled by the association itself to move to enable the property to be redeveloped. Whether or not the tenant in those circumstances receives a home loss payment currently depends on the nature of his tenancy. A tenant with an old-style secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 is entitled to payment, whereas a tenant with a new-style assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 is not.
As I explained to your Lordships in Committee, the difference in the position as between old- and new-style tenancies reflects the shift in our overall approach towards the voluntary housing movement. Our policy has been to avoid applying additional statutory provisions to assured tenancies granted by registered housing associations which are not part of the general assured tenancy regime (which also covers lettings by commercial landlords). However, I entirely accept that a housing association tenant with an assured tenancy who is displaced for redevelopment purposes ought to receive financial compensation on similar terms to those applying in respect of old-style tenancies. As I indicated in Committee, we consider that that requirement can best be met by way of the tenants' guarantee. That is the general framework of guidance, formulated by the Housing Corporation on a statutory basis, with which all registered housing associations are expected to comply in managing their properties.
We have asked the Housing Corporation to make provision in the tenants' guarantee for housing association tenants with assured tenancies who are displaced to be compensated on a similar basis as would apply if they came within the scope of the statutory home loss payment scheme. We have no reason to expect that the Housing Corporation will be unwilling to comply with that request.
The issue is being considered as part of a general review of the guarantee which we hope will have been concluded by the time the Bill concludes its passage through Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord can accept my undertaking in that respect and will not press Amendment No. 261.
Amendment No. 262 seeks to add to those people who already qualify for home loss payments a further three groups. The first group is statutory tenants within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977. As I said in Committee, it is not necessary to extend the home loss payment provisions expressly to that Act. Although the provisions refer to the Rent Act 1968, tenants

743
under the 1977 Act also qualify by virtue of the fact that the 1977 Act was a consolidation of the 1968 Act and other Acts. The link is provided by the Interptetation Act, as is usual where legislation has been revised or re-enacted. There is thus no need for the noble Lord's amendment.
The second group would be those occupying a dwelling under a contractual licence. In our view, there is no case for bringing licensees within the scope of the home loss payment scheme. We are talking here about people living in a dwelling under a casual or short-term arrangement—for example, a lodger, a paying guest, or a student in term-time digs. Such people have no legal interest in the property, they do not have security of tenure, and in general one would not expect that in their case loss of the accommodation would give rise to the sort of personal distress with which the home loss payment scheme is concerned. There is also, as I explained in Committee, the possibility of such persons leapfrogging relatively easily from one home to another, ahead of an authority which requires possession of those properties, simply in order to gain entitlement to a home loss payment on each occasion.
The third group to which Amendment No. 262 refers is deserted spouses with rights of occupation under tile Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. I have given a good deal of thought to this matter since the noble Lord first raised it in Committee and I have listened carefully to the arguments he has advanced this evening. I have to agree that there is an issue here which we ought to look into further. I cannot at this stage make any firm promises, but I am prepared to go away and consider the problem in consultation with colleagues, to see whether there is any scope for us to come forward with a suitable provision in another place which would meet the noble Lord's concern.
I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendments in view of the response I have given. I rest my case.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not in a court of law yet; and I am certainly not on trial! That answer is three-quarters satisfactory. What the Minister said about the request made to the Housing Corporation goes further than what she was able to say at Committee. She said then that she proposed to make a request to the corporation and she now tells us that she has made that request. She recognises the justice of the assured tenancies, which we are agreed nobody moves to from choice, as being recognised for home loss payments in the same way.
What is required is for the Housing Corporation to continue to provide funding to the housing association movement to pay those home loss payments to assured tenants as well as to secure tenants. That is an issue which will no doubt be dealt with at another time. Therefore I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 261.
In connection with Amendment No. 262 I am very satisfied with what the Minister said in connection
744
with the definition of statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977, and I shall not return to the matter again.
I am not really satisfied with what she said about contractual licence because I am not convinced that contractual licences are always short term, as she suggested. A number of cases have been drawn to my attention, particularly of elderly people who have been in their homes for a very long time and have nothing in writing. They could be retired people who have been in a tied home and the position has never been regularised. They will still run the risk of loss of their home without adequate compensation. That is a matter to which I may have to return at a later stage.
I am grateful for what the Minister said about the rights of spouses under the Matrimonial Homes Act and I look forward to seeing the amendment that is brought forward in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, if Amendment No. 263 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 264.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 61, leave out lines 3 to 11 and insert:

("30.—(1) In the case of a person who on the date of displacement is occupying, or is treated for the purposes of section 29 above as occupying, the dwelling, the amount of home loss payment shall be £5,000 and 10 per cent. of the market value of his interest in the dwelling in excess of £50,000 or, as the case may be, the interest in the dwelling vested in trustees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 263 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 265, 267, 268 and 269 in my own name, and also to Amendment No. 266 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I understand that we shall also be discussing Amendments Nos. 264 and 270 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
There is very little between my own amendment and the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross, in terms of what they seek to achieve. The Bill provides considerable improvements in the position of tenants in relation to their right to receive a home loss compensation payment. On the other hand, the compensation—the home loss payment—which tenants will receive has hardly changed in many cases since 1973. In Committee I did not feel that that was a point that my noble friend took on board. I hope that this evening she will say something to encourage me to believe that we shall get somewhere in this respect. She said:
"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 seems to us that the distress will normally be greater for those who have substantially invested in their homes". [Official Report, 4/2/91; col. 1081.]

745
That seems to me to be unkind. I wonder whether my noble friend has confused distress with financial loss. But I do not make that point.
I shall not worry your Lordships with details of figures, because I am trying in my amendments and the other amendments to deal with the principles involved. My amendments provide for home loss payments to be fixed partly by fixed payment and partly by a percentage of the value of the interest acquired. One point that I raised in Committee was that it is only with this new Bill that the home loss payment provisions applying to tenants have been separated from those applying to owner occupiers by the introduction of what seems to be a slightly irrelevant dividing line between the interests of an owner and those of others.
In Committee I drew attention to various types of tenancy in which there were anomalies; namely, between tenants who might fall on one side or the other of the dividing line. If home loss payments are to be dealt with in a sensible way we should try to return to the position in which the distinction is not made. In that respect I prefer my amendment to the noble Lord's amendment whereby the distinction to be introduced by this Bill is maintained.
There is one other way in which I am not altogether happy with the noble Lord's amendment. It is very easy to award payments based on the number of years of occupation. I think that it is not right to suggest that as a general rule the distress which is occasioned on the loss of a home is to be measured by the length of time that one has lived in it. This is a case where one should adopt the legal tag that equality is equity and provide a similar payment for distress for all who have suffered it. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my amendment is slightly different. I shall speak solely to Amendments Nos. 264 and 270 in my name. As was said in Committee by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, the Minister made much of the fact that this clause was in aid of compensating people for personal distress and inconvenience. I drew your Lordships' attention to the point that there is a wider issue involved. It is imperative to the future success of British business competing on the home, European and worldwide markets that development proposals, in particular for major infrastructure projects, should not be hindered. That can occur when home owners object to the proposals on grounds that they are being offered inadequate compensation payments to move house. Adequate payments can help to smooth out the anxieties and reluctance of some home owners toward a future development in their local vicinity.
I must however stress that the level of compensation payment must be sufficient to satisfy all relevant home owners as potential objectors and an appropriate level chosen to discourage them from formally opposing development proposals. I feel that that level should be 25 per cent. I urge my noble friend to appreciate that point.
As I told the Committee, France gives 20 per cent. It seems to me that in a typical British way we have selected the figure at 10 per cent. as the least that can
746
be given to appear to compensate for personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who are forced to move, as referred to in Committee by my noble friend. That does not address the problem of discouraging formal opposition to a move by an enraged householder. It takes only one dissatisfied owner to object to and delay in a most considerable manner such British developments as are vital to the future economic success of our country. I do not believe that the difference between 25 per cent. and 10 per cent. in cash terms will be vast. It is not as though the whole of the country was to have roads and railways run across it. It is only a selected area that would be affected.
I honestly believe that the principle that I am trying to voice is worthy of very serious consideration by my noble friend. When I move my amendments, provided that previous amendments are not agreed to, I hope that she will agree to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 266 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and his observations about the differences between Amendment No. 266 and his amendment, Amendment No. 263. I accept that both amendments are trying to do the same thing; namely, to bring the sliding scale into operation for tenants as well as for owner-occupiers. Therefore, in one sense I do not mind very much which of the two amendments is accepted, provided that the Government are in favour of the principle. From what the Minister said in Committee I think that they were in favour of it and that we can be reasonably relaxed about the form of words that is used.
The difficulty about my amendment—I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's amendment—is that by my amendment residence in previous homes counts only towards the minimum home loss payment and not when counting additional years. Therefore to that extent my amendment is the more modest. I hope that one of the two amendments, or at any rate the principle of a sliding scale for tenants, will be acceptable to the House.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I do not have very much to add to what has already been said. At the end of the day I hope that this House decides to give to tenants a more generous allocation in home loss payments. I supported the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I was specifically asked to do so by someone from the tenants' association, who drew the matter to my attention in the first place. I suspect that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is preferable and I certainly go along with it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, Amendments Nos. 264 and 270, would provide for the home loss payment for owner-occupiers to be set at 25 per cent. of the value of the property rather than at 10 per cent. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine would involve a substantial restructuring of the home loss

747
payments provisions. As I understand it, he proposes that the payments in all cases—owner-occupiers and tenanti—should be £5,000 plus 10 per cent. of the market value of the property above £50,000 without any upper limit.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Amendment No. 266, would provide for the home loss payment for non-owner-occupiers to be £1,500 multiplied by the number of complete years that claimant has occupied the property, subject to a maximum of £15,000.
Your Lordships will know that under our proposals owner-occupiers will receive 10 per cent. of the market value of their property, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000. The payment to tenants remains at £1,500 but the residence qualification for all claimants is reduced 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 do not think anyone denies that our proposals represent a substantial improvement on the previous scheme.
I start by emphasising once again that we are not concerned here with a simple black and white issue. As your Lordships are aware, the essential purpose of the home loss payment scheme is to provide some monetary compensation for the personal distress and inconvenience involved in the enforced loss of one's home. Since there is clearly no way in which personal distress can be objectively measured, whatever level of compensation is chosen must in the last resort be arbitrary. We can make the choice only on the basis of a judgment as to what is reasonable in all the circumstances—reasonable from the point of view of the claimant who is losing his home, but reasonable too in terms of the burden which the taxpayer or local chargepayer is expected to bear.
Forming such a judgment is a far from simple matter and I freely admit that we did not find it easy to reach a decision. But overall it seems to us that the approach we have adopted achieves the right balance between the two key considerations that I have mentioned. I would be very doubtful indeed as to whether that could be said of some of the various alternatives proposed by my noble friends. I have to say that the formula advocated by my noble friend Lord Coleraine is particularly open to objection in that it would seem to involve an almost limitless call on the public purse.
A number of your Lordships remain unhappy about the position of tenants under our proposals. I do not lightly dismiss these anxieties, but I would say this in response. We are dealing, as I have said, with the distress caused by the loss of a home and it seems to us that such distress will be considerably greater among those who have bought their property—perhaps making considerable sacrifice in order to do so—than among tenants. Whereas tenants frequently have to live with the possibility of being required to
748
move at some stage because the landlord requires possession of the property, the home owner normally expects to enjoy complete security of tenure. For him the enforced loss of his home at the hands of a statutory authority will generally come as a totally unforeseen blow.
Moreover, the owner-occupier who is displaced under statutory action is usually put to the trouble of finding an alternative property for himself, whereas a tenant can normally expect to be rehoused by the local housing authority—in many cases in accommodation of a superior standard to that which he has left.
On these grounds it seems to us right that the home loss payment for owner-occupiers should in general be higher than that for tenants. But let me also remind your Lordships that tenants stand to benefit from other aspects of our proposals. In particular, many more of them will not be eligible for a home loss payment as a result of the relaxation in the residence qualifications.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone proposes once again that the payment for owner-occupiers should be set at 25 per cent. of market value rather than the 10 per cent. that we propose. He has argued that to place the home loss payment scheme on a still more generous basis than we propose in this Bill would pay dividends in the form of a reduction in the extent to which major development proposals are resisted by those whose property stands to be acquired. Certainly, we wish to do all we reasonably can to minimise the cases in which people resist public development simply because they consider the terms of compensation to be unfair. Indeed, we hope that our proposals will yield important benefits in this respect. However, I would be very wary of putting too much emphasis on that aspect. There is no hard evidence as to how far the degree of resistance to public development is influenced by the terms on which compensation is available. After all, the people whose property is actually acquired for a public development are often only a very small proportion of the total number affected in some way by that development. But in any case it is our firm view that the crucial consideration in determining the level of compensation must be not what will prove effective in buying off resistance to projects, but rather what is fair as between the interests of the individual claimant and the community as a whole.
Despite what my noble friend has said about the French approach to land compensation, a comparison between the French system and our own is by no means straightforward. It is true that the French system provides for a general percentage supplement on top of market value for all claimants. This may in some cases be as high as 25 per cent., but only on the first 100,000 francs—that is £10,000. Otherwise, the percentage varies from case to case but is normally around 10 per cent. The French do not reimburse many of the incidental costs which are specifically covered by our provisions—for example, legal and surveying fees—and there is no provision for home loss or farm loss payments. So it is not at all clear that claimants do better in France than they do in this country.

749
My approach in responding to the various points which have been raised on the level of home loss payments is not to say that the Government's proposals are self-evidently right and the alternatives obviously wrong. These are undoubtedly difficult issues. However, I hope that your Lordships will accept that the provisions in the Bill represent a very substantial improvement on the terms of compensation offered to those who lose their homes and that they strike a reasonable balance between fairness to the claimant and a sensible use of public resources. I hope that on this basis noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press their amendments.
8 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank my noble friend for her answer to my amendments. The arguments seem plausible. Perhaps a figure halfway between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. might be an answer. However, that would be a matter for another place.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, my noble friend's reply was hardly nourishing. She has not answered the question of why compensation to tenants should be so little more than it was 18 years ago when the Act was originally passed.
She stated that tenants at some point must expect their leases to come to an end and the wicked landlord to shove them into the snow. Many tenancies end at a fixed time and the tenants have a perfectly good knowledge of when they will have to move. They can make their arrangements. Other tenancies have the protection of the law. I refer to assured tenancies or statutory tenancies. It cannot be said that those tenants can be chucked into the snow by the landlord. I did not find that part of her answer satisfying.
Nor did I find the answer satisfactory that an owner-occupier with his money will suffer more from being disturbed than the tenant. The owner-occupier by definition normally has the money with which to buy somewhere to which to move. The tenant is not in that position. He has to find another tenancy or go to the local authority for housing. I hope that the matter will be given further consideration and that it may be possible to produce a better provision in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 265 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 266.
[Amendments Nos. 265 to 269 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Home Loss Payments]:
[Amendment No. 270 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Amendments relating to land compensation]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 270A:
Page 152, line 17, at end insert:
("Further provision as to compensation for injurious affection
. After subsection (2) of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (further provision as to compensation for injurious affection) there is inserted—
"(2A) Where a person has a right to compensation for injurious affection under this section that compensation shall include compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the valuation of the land." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to the theme of Amendment No. 341 which I moved at Committee stage. I felt that it was submerged in a group of other amendments, and that it was proper to raise the matter again at this stage.
The amendment relates to losses to a business arising out of public works. In particular, it seeks to reverse the effect of the decision of this House in the case of Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) v. Birkenhead Corporation in 1975. The effect of the case was that although the claimant had no land taken, he had satisfied the requirements under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 enabling him to make a claim for the loss in the value of his interest in land. That was accepted and was perfectly justified.
However, the claim for the loss to the business operating from those premises was disallowed. It was recognised that there was no right of compensation for an admitted loss even though other losses relating to land value had been accepted. It was also admitted that it caused undue hardship.
At Committee stage the Minister objected to my previous amendment. It was lumped together with other amendments. I wish to clarify that the issue has nothing to do with the general loss of business that might be incurred by the general construction of a bypass. It relates to a specific instance. It ensures that where a claim for loss in the value of land is admitted and established under the limited terms of Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 the consequential losses should also be taken into account. I believe that any other approach is entirely artificial. Why should somebody receive compensation for loss in the value of the land but not receive compensation for losses to the business that is being conducted from it? That appears to be an anomaly. I wish to make it clear that Amendment No. 270A does not create a new category of claimant.
Claims under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 can be made only in a few cases where no land is taken but where a legal right has been interfered with. Why should the provision be limited to that, and that alone? Surely, if land is taken, the profits from a business form part and parcel of that claim. At present an anomalous situation exists because where land is taken one can claim for the loss of business, but if one merely has a right of access interfered with, one cannot. How can that be right? I believe that an indefensible hardship is being created and that the Government should consider the position most carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Earl was anxious that the point that he made in Committee had been lost. It may have been lost on everyone else but it was not lost on me. From the way in which he has again argued the point it is clear that he understands the issue causing anxiety.

751
The noble Earl argues once more that compensation for injurious affection under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 should take account of disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of the land. As he has explained, compensation claims can be made under Section 10 in cases where land is not taken but is, nevertheless, injuriously affected by the carrying out of public development. The provision is relevant mainly to business claimants.
The basis of compensation under Section 10 is the depreciation in the value of land due to the execution of the development. In the Argyle case, to which the noble Earl has referred, it was held that, where access to a motorcar showroom was permanently hindered by the reconstructed approach roads to the Mersey Tunnel, the compensation claimed under Section 10 could reasonably include loss of profitability in the business, in so far as it affected the value of the land on which the showroom stood. However, as the noble Earl has clearly said, actual loss of profits should not be taken into account. His amendment is designed to reverse the Argyle decision so that actual cash losses can be taken into account in an award of compensation under Section 10. I understand that while his amendment might expand the claim it does not introduce a new class of claim.
I regret to say that the Government are not persuaded that there is a case for changing the law in this respect. On balance it seems to us right that compensation in this context should relate to the value of the property concerned. If the owner of the business has been adversely affected by public development, that adverse effect will normally be reflected in a depreciation in the value of the property, including the business. Where such depreciation occurs, the owner can cliam compensation under Section 10.
A businessman affected by public development in this way will still of course be able to run his business. He may need to adjust his commercial strategy to take account of his changed situation and thus maintain his profits. But that is no different from what would be required in the event of, for example, the establishment of a rival business.
It is our view that Section 10, as it has been interpreted by the courts, provides a reasonable basis for the assessment of compensation in injurious affection cases. I know that the noble Earl will understand the argument. I cannot agree, as he would urge, that the basis for compensation in such cases should be further extended.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I appear to be having a bruising experience at the tongue of the noble and learned Lord. There is no disagreement between us on the extent of the provision, what it does and what it seeks to remedy. I felt that it was of limited application and accept that to some extent that cuts both ways. If it is of limited application, why legislate to put something right? On the other hand, one gross unfairness is one gross unfairness too many. That is why I return to the fray on this issue. I shall reconsider the situation because the Minister's reply is not entirely satisfactory. I recognise the point he makes
752
that someone can continue the business that they are running. While reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 270B:
Page 152, line 17, at end insert:
("Notice requiring entry
. After section 12 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (unauthorised entry) there is inserted—
"Notice requiring entry.
12A.—(1) Any person served with a notice to treat under section 5 of this Act (notice to treat, and untraced owners) shall be entitled at any time after the expiration of the period of one year from service of that notice and before it ceases for any reason to have effect to serve a counter-notice on the acquiring authority requiring the authority to take possession of any land included in the notice to treat and specified in the counter-notice, of which he is entitled to give them possession, on a date specified in the counter-notice being a date not earlier than the latest date on which the authority are entitled to withdraw the notice to treat under section 31 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (withdrawal of notice to treat).
(2) Unless the acquiring authority withdraw the notice to treat under section 31 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (withdrawal of notice to treat) the counter-notice shall take effect on the date specified in it and the authority shall be deemed to have entered on and taken possession of the land on that date as if they had served a notice of entry under section 11 of this Act (powers of entry).
(3) If the notice to treat is withdrawn as mentioned in subsection (2) the counter-notice shall be of no effect." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment relates to an amendment that I moved at an earlier stage. The purpose was to enable a claimant who had had a notice to treat served upon him under the provisions of a compulsory purchase order to serve a counter-notice on the authority requiring it to take possession of the land. The reason is that there may be a gap of months or years between the service of the notice to treat and entry by the acquiring authority. During debates at an earlier stage it was recognised by the Minister that the situation caused hardship. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade her of the merits of my amendment.
In the meantime a claimant is caught in a period of indecision where he can neither seek alternative premises nor make any medium or long-term plans. The previous amendment was objected to, although the inequity of the situation was recognised, principally because of the provision in the Government's Clause 46 (now Clause 53) that after three years the notice to treat will cease to have effect. Three years is a substantial period of uncertainty and is highly disruptive. In this respect I am concerned in particular about householders because they are most at risk. I fail to understand that it is reasonable to protect the public interest in this way by penalising a certain sector of society.
In order to obtain a compulsory purchase order an acquiring authority must in any event be satisfied and prove that the land is required. I cannot accept that an authority can merely change its mind three years after

753
serving a notice to treat and walk away from the natural consequences of that action. My amendment seeks to provide that after a certain period of time a claimant should require an authority to take possession of his land in order to introduce an element of certainty to the proceedings. It seeks to accommodate what I understood to be the Government's feelings and reservations about my original amendment. In addition, it seeks to provide the essential safeguard to claimants who must wait more than one year from the service of the notice to treat without entry being taken. That is an ample period.
I welcome the fact that a three-year rule has been introduced and I give the Government credit for that. Not everyone wishes to sell up as opposed to remaining in occupation for as long as possible. However, in other cases a severe hardship is caused by the acquiring authority not having taken possession. I know that it is contrary to the Government's philosophy to have the facility for somebody to put a requirement on the acquiring authority as opposed to it having full discretion in these matters. However, hardship must be avoided and, in all fairness, something must be done even if this amendment is not the best vehicle. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment is similar to that which the noble Earl moved in Committee except for the fact that the owner's right to require acquisition would be delayed until one year after the service of notice to treat. That would leave a period of two years in which the owner could take such action before the notice to treat would lapse by default by virtue of Clauses 53 or 62 of the Bill.
I do not want to give the impression that the Government are unsympathetic to the position of owners who have been served with notice to treat but who are uncertain and worried about when the acquiring authority will actually take possession of their property. On the contrary, we are sufficiently concerned to have introduced provisions, which put a three-year limit on the effectiveness of notice to treat if no constructive progress has been made by the authority in that time. The noble Earl accepted that. Indeed such a time limit was among the recommendations put forward by the RICS in its memorandum on land compensation published in 1989. We believe that it is a fair and reasonable timescale for both claimant and authority.
However, in making provision for claimants, we must take care to ensure that we are not burdening authorities with unnecessary bureaucracy and costly administrative responsibilities which, in financial terms, outweigh the perceived advantages to claimants. A right for owners to intervene and insist that the acquiring authority enter on to the land as and when he chose would, in our view, tip the balance too far against authorities. The co-ordination of public development is normally a complex and time-consuming process and it seems to us that to accept the noble Earl's proposal would mean adding a further layer of complication which it would be very difficult to justify.
754
The noble Earl has been extremely patient this evening. He has put his case very well and the Government are not without sympathy for it. However, in this instance we argue for a balance between both parties. I hope the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for putting it in such courteous terms, as she always does. After consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors I decided to retable this amendment in its present form. It is true that it was originally suggested that three years was probably a satisfactory period. I believe it was felt that that was the best that could be achieved at the time rather than what was necessarily considered to be fair, particularly to the claimant, in the circumstances.
This is a difficult question of balance. I shall consider the matter further. I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 153, line 28, at end insert:
("Disturbance payments
. Section 37(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for not raising this matter before. I had not appreciated the point until we discussed tenants' compensation in Committee.
If a claimant for compensation has a greater interest than a tenant for a year or from year to year, he must be served with a notice to treat. That being so, Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 will not apply. Those holding up to five-year tenancies under Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 are in such a position. There is a strong argument that they should be no worse off than a yearly tenant. The statutory means of achieving that is vague and extremely complicated. For a reason which I do not understand, agricultural interests were excluded from the provisions of Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. That enabled those without "compensationable" interest to be paid disturbance.
It is considered that while such an exclusion may have been justified under conditions prevailing in 1973, the increased number of short-term tenancies now becoming apparent require a change and the removal of Section 37(1) would be a step towards that.
I hope that my noble friend will say that I am correct to pose this problem. If I am and the Government will not accept this amendment, which I believe would make the position absolutely clear, will she say whether the Government have other ideas to deal with the problem?
There is an additional anxiety. On 12th February this year my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for agriculture published a consultation paper which, if accepted, would put all future tenants in the same category as those I have in mind as regards

755
this amendment. I realise that my noble friend cannot give me a specific answer to that point as she will say that that depends on what the Government eventually decide to do after consultation. However, perhaps she will assure me that representatives of her department will take a walk over to the Ministry of Agriculture to discuss the problems of these new tenants as regards compensation. Her department could be landed with some fairly burdensome problems if that does not take place. Perhaps wrongly, I feel that the Department of the Environment does not always deign to talk to other departments, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture. I beg to move.
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, it would appear that the reason why agricultural land was omitted from Section 37 was that disturbance compensation in respect of agricultural interests which would not otherwise be covered by Section 5 of the 1961 Act were already provided for under existing agricultural legislation.
In our view, provision for disturbance for tenant farmers displaced by compulsory purchase is adequately dealt with under agricultural legislation in those cases where it is not covered by the land compensation code.
I know that my noble friend is also concerned about the levels of compensation which might be payable to tenant farmers following the reform of agricultural tenancy law which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently published. I can assure my noble friend that the Department of the Environment will be keeping in close touch with the Ministry of Agriculture over these issues and that they will look carefully at any interaction between the statutory land compensation code and agricultural legislation. I hope my noble friend will agree that it would not be appropriate to address these matters in this Bill. If I promise my noble friend that I shall go walkies across to MAFF in his interests, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful for that answer which is exactly what I wanted to hear. I do not believe that short-term tenancies are covered by the land compensation code. However, if the Minister is prepared to take that walk to the Ministry of Agriculture, no doubt she will iron out the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 154, line 38, leave out paragraph 14 and insert:
("14.—(1) In Schedule 13 to that Act (blighted land) for paragraph 16 there is substituted—

"16. Land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by the Secretary of State if he has given written notice of the proposal, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the land in question, to the local planning authority".

(2) In paragraph 18 of that Schedule for "trunk road or special road" there is substituted "highway".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 273 to 278. These are essential drafting and
756
consequential amendments relating to the service of blight notices in respect of highway proposals by the Secretary of State. Also included are some minor amendments in respect of compensation for ecclesiastical property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 273 to 277:
Page 155, leave out line 30 and insert:

("(b) for "to be applied" there is substituted").

Page 155, line 32, at end insert ("and, in either case, shall be applied", and

(c) at the end of that section there is added—").

Page 156, line 24, leave out paragraph 27.
Page 156, line 26, leave out ("that") and insert ("the principal").
Page 156, line 39, leave out paragraph 30.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments relating to land compensation in Scotland]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 168, line 46, at end insert:
("15A.—(1) In section 181 of the 1972 Act (blighted land) for paragraph (h) of subsection (1) there is substituted—

"(h) is land comprised in the site of a road as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by the Secretary of State if he has given written notice of the proposal, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the land in question, to the planning authority;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 279:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
Consequential amendment of section 91A of Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
(". In section 91A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (waste disposal: restoration payments)—

(a) in subsection (4) (b) for "any term of a relevant agreement" there is substituted "any relevant obligation"; and

(b) for subsection (7) there is substituted—

"(7) For the purposes of this section a relevant obligation is—

(a) an obligation arising under an agreement made under—

(i) section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as originally enacted;

(ii) section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;

(b) a planning obligation entered into under section 106 of the Act of 1990, as substituted by section 12 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991;

(c) an obligation arising under or under an agreement made under any provision—

(i) corresponding to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as originally enacted or as substituted by the Act of 1991; and

(ii) for the time being in force in Northern Ireland."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Short title, commencement, etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 73, line 42, at end insert:
("(4A) Nothing in any provision of this Act affects the punishment for an offence committed before the provision comes into force.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment inserts a new subsection (4A) in Clause 66 of the Bill, so as to safeguard anyone who is convicted of an offence under the principal Act which he committed before any provision of the Bill, following its enactment, comes into force. This is the usual procedure where Parliament approves an increase in the maximum penalty for offences.
It would be inequitable if an increased maximum penalty provided by the Bill were imposed by the court for an offence committed before the new penalty takes effect. This amendment effectively retains as the maximum penalty the maximum applicable at the time the offence was committed, irrespective of the date of the conviction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 74, line 2, after ("Act") insert ("apart from section (Consequential amendment of section 91A of Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 282:
Page 174, line 21, at end insert:

("1976 c. 57.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

In section 7(5) paragraph (a) (in).").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 282, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 283 to 292, 302 and 305. These amendments to repeal a schedule are, as always, consequential on provisions in the Bill or in amendments which have already been discussed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 283 to 292:
Page 175, line 13, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or".").

Page 175, line 19, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 176(4) "in writing".").

Page 175, line 31, column 3, leave out (""such a reference or" (in subsection (2))").
Page 175, line 43, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 266(3).").

Page 175, line 47, column 3, leave out ("Section 285(2)") and insert ("In section 285, in subsection (2) "(6) to (8)" and subsections").
Page 176, line 35, leave out second ("and").
Page 176, line 38, at end insert:
758

("and in the entry relating to section 285 "except subsections (5) and (6)"; and in Part III, the entries relating to sections 312(2) and 324(4); and Parts IV and V."

Page 176, line 40, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 38(2) "within such period as may be so specified." In section 39(7) "in writing". Section 42(7).").

Page 176, line 50, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 36(5) "Subject to subsection (6)".").

Page 176, line 51, column 3, leave out ("3, paragraph 10") and insert ("2, paragraphs 3(2) and 35(1) (b).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 293 to 300:
Page 177, line 6, at end insert:

("1968 c. 14.

Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 7(b).").

Page 177, line 22, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 198(4) (a) "80, 81". In section 220(3) (a) "80, 81". In section 262(4) and (7) (a) "123". In section 263(3) "123(3) and (4)". Section 284(3) (c).").

Page 177, line 34, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 315(2), the words from "and in relation" to "in respect of such land".").

Page 177, 38, column, 3, leave our ("definition") and insert ("definitions").
Page 177, line 39, column 3, at end insert

("and "previous apportionment". In Schedule 1, in paragraph 16(1) "114".").

Page 177, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 16, in Parts III and VI, the entries relating to Schedule 12.").

Page 177, line 49, column 3, at end insert:

In section 91(2) "new development".").

Page 177, line 50, column 3, after ("Schedule 2") insert ("paragraphs 12(3) (a), 18, 24(3) (a) (i) and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 301 to 305:
Page 178, line 26, at end insert:

("1968 c. 14.

Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 7(a).").

Page 179, line 53, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 214(3).").

Page 180, line 22, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 180, line 23, column 3, at end insert

759

("and "previous apportionment".").

Page 181, line 18, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 3(a)") and insert ("in paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) (iii)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  JORDAN: ALLEGED TARGETS
  JORDAN: ALLEGED TARGETS
  RENT ARREARS
  RENT ARREARS
  REFUSE DERIVED FUEL PLANTS
  REFUSE DERIVED FUEL PLANTS
  HOMELESSNESS: LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
  HOMELESSNESS: LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: INTERPRETATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: INTERPRETATION
  ISRAEL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  ISRAEL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  TIN MAUNG WIN
  TIN MAUNG WIN
  EC DIRECTIVES
  EC DIRECTIVES