Sitting of 17 January 1991

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

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 24 January.

  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 24 January.

  STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Political Developments
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his talks with the constitutional parties about future political developments in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am continuing to explore, with the main constitutional parties, the possibility of formal talks encompassing all the issues that they consider relevant. My aim is to establish a basis for such talks that would safeguard everyone's essential interests, and I plan to have further exchanges in the near future to take matters forward.
    Mr. Mitchell: May I and, I am sure, the whole House join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the recent happy news of his engagement? May I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's skill and patience in trying to ensure that the talks with the constitutional parties about future political developments in Northern Ireland move ahead? Is he more optimistic now than he was last autumn that some progress may be made?
    Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I do not know whether there is any interaction between the two processes in which I have been involved. I remain firmly convinced that all those people with whom I have had talks are seriously committed to the discussions, on the basis that if formal talks can be
    962
    launched in a framework satisfactory to all, the process could make a major contribution to the peace, stability and good government of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. William Ross: On a day when the world is having the most vivid and terrible reminders about where claims to a neighbour's territory can lead, is the Secretary of State aware that we are happy that he is engaged in these talks, especially as the people of Northern Ireland have endured so much over the years because of similar claims being legitimised in the eyes of terrorists? May we express the hope that he will listen to wiser counsel than some of his predecessors have done?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman further understand that unionists are deeply disappointed that Dublin's intransigence blocked the progress that he was making to such a swift end last July? Is he aware that many people in the unionist community are worried that this is simply a spinning out of the talks until the next general election? Therefore, will he try to move the matter ahead as quickly as he can?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks and his welcome for the talks that are taking place. The approach that we have been pursuing in recent months has been dictated by the fact that political parties on both sides of the community divide in Northern Ireland want discussions to cover matters that must necessarily involve the Irish Government. Any talks intended to address all the relevant relationships must be set up on a basis with which all concerned are comfortable. It is not a question of one side or the other having preconditions or creating obstacles. Conflicting positions have yet to be reconciled.
    Mr. Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his engagement and also on the patience that he has demonstrated in pursuing these talks? I am sure that people in Northern Ireland will wish to join me in thanking him and wishing him all the best for both reasons. Has Dublin agreed to any conditions for beginning its involvement in discussions or talks on political developments in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and hope that they extend to the talks in which we are now engaged.
    I think that it is generally understood that there is a difference of view over the circumstances in which the north-south strand of any talks should start. That impasse has not yet been resolved, but I hope that it will be.

    Local Government
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the reform of local government.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We have no present plans to reform the general structure of local government in Northern Ireland. However, we remain ready to consider any proposals for transferring political power and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a basis that would be likely to prove widely acceptable and which guaranteed fair and equitable treatment for everyone in the local authority area.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he take this opportunity to clarify the role of the local government boundary commissioner, whose appointment was announced yesterday? There is some confusion in Northern Ireland. Is the boundary commissioner's role simply to amend the boundaries of existing wards or can he vary the number of wards within each district council; and is there any prospect of an increase or decrease in the number of Northern Ireland district councils before the next local government elections?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is for the local government commissioner—under statutes with which he is familiar and according to which he must operate—to hold consultations and then to make recommendations. He makes those recommendations within the legal structures that govern his appointment.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When examining the position of local government in Northern Ireland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the evidence that we on the mainland will also be examining the structure of local government? There may now be a possibility of removing some of the anomalies in this unitary Parliament, in the constitution and in the United Kingdom, and this may be the time to set about making such changes.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hear what my hon. Friends says and I acknowledge his consistent interest in these matters. He will be aware, however, that the structure and powers of local government in Northern Ireland are considerably different from those pertaining in Great Britain. The linkage that I think that my hon. Friend's question implied, therefore, does not necessarily hold.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that democracy in local government was dealt a great blow at the city hall in Belfast last week, when members of the minority party were refused the right to speak on substantive matters? Does he accept that the committee system continues to preclude them from participation and does he agree that that puts back the day when reorganisation—if it can be called that—can be contemplated? Does he further agree that any such reorganisation would be part of the ongoing inter-party negotiations that are now in progress under the directorship of the Secretary of State?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to be able to say that I bear no responsibility whatever for the behaviour of Belfast city councillors. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that certain people were prohibited from speaking, but it may be the case.
    If we are to give more power to local authorities, it must be done, as I said, on a basis that is widely acceptable and ensures fair and equitable treatment for all in the local council area. It is clear that that is not the case in all areas of the Province at present. The ability to make progress, as the hon. Gentleman implies, lies very much in the hands of individual councils.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the greatest reform that he could make to local government in Northern Ireland would be the removal of the mouthpieces of the Provisional IRA from our council chambers? Will the Government take steps to ban Sinn Fein from local government?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The views represented by Sinn Fein are not views that either the hon. Gentleman or I would wish
    964
    to endorse in any way, or to be associated with. About 10 per cent. of the electorate of Northern Ireland vote for Sinn Fein candidates. As for the activities relating to Sinn Fein, at least some are in the process of being considered in the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

    Tourism
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any proposals to increase the resources available to the Northern Ireland tourist board for the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland; and whether he will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased to announce that I have recently been able to allocate an extra £120,000 to the Northern Ireland tourist board. Together with the extra £800,000 allocated this financial year, the tourist board will have a budget of £4·72 million—almost £1 million above its original estimate. The board's proposals for increased marketing activity in the coming year are being considered.
    Mr. Trimble: I welcome the additional resources for the tourist board. Will the Minister encourage the tourist board unambiguously to promote Northern Ireland and not to shackle itself to the Irish tourist board—Bord Failte—which has declined and obstructed the carrying of Northern Ireland material on its information to such an extent that recently, when the Northern Ireland tourist board tried to place advertisements in Bord Failte material, it cancelled the advertisements, thereby costing the Northern Irish tourist board over £150,000? In the light of that failure to co-operate and that obstructive attitude, will the Minister encourage the Northern Ireland tourist board unambiguously to promote Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The Northern Ireland tourist board does unambiguously promote tourism in Northern Ireland and I think that it does so rather well. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that if tourists are enticed to the island of Ireland the chances are greater that they will come and enjoy the pleasures and beauties of the north. Therefore, there is a legitimate role of co-operation between the Northern Ireland tourist board and Bord Failte. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is an element of competition between the two boards and I have confidence that the Northern Ireland tourist board will continue to do as the hon. Gentleman asks and unambiguously promote tourism in the Province.
    Mr. Couchman: Notwithstanding the opinion of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will my hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board to see what areas of co-operation can be established between the two boards?
    Dr. Mawhinney: There are elements of co-operation and I am sure that that is something which the chairman of the tourist board keeps under review. What is unquestionably true is that Northern Ireland is one of the most beautiful parts, if the not the most beautiful part, of the United Kingdom and it would be a good start in promoting tourism if we could persuade every hon. Member to visit the Province as a tourist. I have no doubt

    965
    that, were they to do so, they would behave as other tourists do in Northern Ireland—they would want to come back and bring others with them.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with the Minister that there is great potential for further development of tourism in the north of Ireland. Does he agree that it can be enhanced by closer co-operation with the Republic, but that it can be diminished by the recent terrorist activity in the centre of Belfast? That will undoubtedly diminish the tourist trade and affect inward investment into the Province which will have consequential effects on unemployment in the coming months.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's point will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those activities damage the Province and its people and in that sense, as well as in others, they are to be condemned. However, the overwhelming majority of people who come to Northern Ireland as tourists say, almost in surprise and certainly with delight, that it was not as they expected it to be, that they are pleased they came and were not personally or not much personally affected by the security situation, that they enjoyed themselves and want to come back. That is the basis on which we must continue to build.

    Terrorism
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the performance of the security forces in the fight against terrorism.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The RUC, supported by the armed forces, continues to make progress towards the defeat of terrorism through the even-handed and energetic enforcement of the criminal law. Up to 31 October 1990, 322 people were charged with, and 348 convicted of, terrorist-related offences, including 65 and 28 for murder and attempted murder respectively. In the same period, the security forces recovered 197 weapons, almost 21,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 4,3001b of explosives.
    Mr. Ross: Allthough regiments that have an Irish connection do not normally serve in Northern Ireland, is the Minister aware of the intense pride of the people of Northern Ireland that some of those regiments are engaged in a far larger fight against state terrorism in the middle east? We wish our young men and women and all the forces of the United Kingdom well.
    Does the Minister understand that we also applaud the efforts and performance of individual members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, but are sadly aware that, despite the high quality of their performance, they have not yet managed to defeat the IRA? As the Minister said that their high performance is all that can be expected of them, where does he think that the failure to defeat the IRA lies, other than at political level? When does he expect his performance to match that of the security forces and lead to the defeat of those elements?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The whole House will want to associate itself with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. On this day in particular, it is appropriate to recognise the skill, courage and professionalism of not only our security forces in the Gulf, whom we wish well, but those who serve in Northern Ireland, whom we also
    966
    wish well. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are committed to a rigorous security policy, which sits alongside political, economic and social policies and policies on cross-community contact and community relations, the sum total of which will have the effect that he and I desire.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: In recognising that the House, and the people of Northern Ireland especially, owe a great debt to the security forces for their courage and resolution and for the great sacrifices that they have made in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister to explain why, when a deputation from my party visited the Chief Constable more than a month ago, he said that he was short of supplies and men? What supplies and men has the Chief Constable requested, and when will his requests go through the usual process to see whether they can be granted?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The Police Authority received from the Chief Constable a bid for additional manpower for the RUC. After careful consideration, the authority agreed to support his bid and recently asked the Secretary of State to approve additional manpower for the RUC. The authority's proposals are being carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern and anger in my constituency about the fatal shooting at Cullyhanna on the last Sunday of last year? Is he aware that tension is dangerously high as a result of that and other incidents? Will he explain why the Secretary of State refused to initiate a completely independent investigation into that incident and does he realise what damage has been done by that refusal?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I recognise the substance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question which he has reflected to me privately and on other occasions. I cannot accept, however, the latter part of his question. There have been conflicting reports of what happened. All the circumstances are being fully and independently investigated by senior detectives of the RUC. It would be wrong for me to comment on what happened. The police investigation will establish the facts impartially and objectively and a full report will be made to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that, if a report goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he decides not to prosecute, the fears of members of the community in Northern Ireland will still exist and will be enhanced when, eventually, many years later, the case goes to a coroner's court, where the people involved can make unsworn statements and cannot be examined on their recollections of what happened? Therefore, is not it necessary to have some form of independent perusal and arrangments to allay public anxiety about what happens on these occasions, and should not the basis of the DPP's decisions be made public, to gain confidence in the administration of the law and the actions of the security forces?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The investigation by senior detectives of the RUC will be full and independent. The facts will be determined and a report will be made to the DPP, who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an independent officer and is not subject to the decisions of Ministers.

    Security
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 22 November last year, there have been six deaths arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland, including five civilians and one full-time RUC reserve officer. The police and Army continue to make significant finds of arms and ammunition and have in recent weeks made several arrests.
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the Government are against linkage. Would not it be a good idea for the Minister to consider withdrawing British troops from Northern Ireland, particularly Scottish troops? Will he consider introducing an amnesty for all paramilitaries, whether Protestant or Catholic, to help the peace process?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has previously asked me a series of similar questions. I respect his motivation, but I profoundly disagree with those questions and I believe that the majority of hon. Members think likewise.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: May I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the announcement of his engagement? I am glad that he has been able to carry out his courtship under the eye of the special branch. For how many men has the Chief Constable asked?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and for his solicitude about circumstances with which he is familiar—I do not, of course, in any way refer to his personal behaviour. As for the second half of his question, the Chief Constable's request to the police authority was for 441 men.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that, notwithstanding the great courage of our security forces in Northern Ireland, they cannot do the job unless they are properly resourced in terms of manpower and equipment, any more than the forces in the Gulf can? Does he accept that the closure of vehicle checkpoints during the hours of darkness in my constituency has done much to alienate people on both sides of the community who recognise the need to have those checkpoints? Will he consider placing the checkpoints right on the frontier so that the citizens of Northern Ireland are not closed out at night? If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that that is not possible for security reasons, why can he claim that there is adequate co-operation from the Irish Republic on security measures against terrorism?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman, who is always constructive in his contributions to debates on security policy, knows the background to the closure in December of the six permanent vehicle checkpoints at night in Fermanagh, on my authority and on advice from the Chief Constable and from the General Officer Commanding. When the announcement was made, I said that we recognised the inconvenience that was caused to the local community and that the matter would be reviewed to see what we could do in response. That review is continuing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having again, in his final observation, contributed to the process.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the review consider the whole policy on whether there should be permanent vehicle checkpoints? There is considerable feeling that permanent vehicle checkpoints make readily accessible targets for terrorists and that it is unfair to put our men at risk in that way when it might be more advantageous to have the surprise of unusual vehicle checkpoints, although we accept that PVCPs may always be necessary for heavy traffic in certain places.
    Mr. Brooke: It goes without saying, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, that all aspects of security policy in Northern Ireland will be kept under constant review. The policy to which he referred has now existed for a decade. In the analysis of the policy, one should draw attention to the considerable diminution of fear in the community immediately adjacent to the checkpoints as a result of the policy. However, I repeat that the policy itself is kept under constant review.

    Exports (United States)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the value of exports of manufactured goods from Northern Ireland to the United States in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The value of manufactured goods exported to the United States through Northern Ireland in 1989 was £62·3 million. However, this is likely to be a significant underestimate as it does not take account of Northern Irish goods exported through ports in Great Britain.
    Mr. Colvin: May I place on record the House's congratulations to my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, especially as, while answering his first question, he is wearing another, absent Minister's hat? Is my hon. Friend aware that the lion's share of exports to the United States is by Short Brothers which, since being taken over by Bombadier, has immensely improved its performance, its productivity and its profitability? Does he acknowledge that the strength of the pound against the dollar, especially as aviation products are priced in dollars, is making it increasingly difficult for Short Brothers to bid successfully for new contracts? What can my hon. Friend do about that?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, is in the United States at the moment trying to increase exports to that country on behalf of Northern Ireland. Shorts makes sales and purchases in dollars. As a privately owned business, its foreign exchange management is a matter for its directors. Shorts has not sought any assistance from the Government for foreign exchange exposures. I take this opportunity to congratulate Shorts on its major contribution to the economy of Northern Ireland. It is a significant exporter; it has achieved well over £600 million in overseas sales in the past five years, which represents 60 per cent. of its total sales turnover.
    Mr. Mallon: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to Northern Ireland and to say that nobody could be more welcome than he is? Will he convey to the Secretary of State our congratulations on his engagement? We shall ensure together that we get him to the church on time.
    Will the Minister ensure that similar effort and investment is put into attracting inward investment from the United States, as has happened in the recent past? I hope that we shall all recognise the efforts made by the Minister with responsibility for commerce who, at present, is in the United States trying to obtain business for Northern Ireland. His efforts in that regard should be recorded in the House.
    Mr. Hanley: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    I wholly agree that inward investment is extremely important in reducing unemployment and in helping the healthy condition of the Northern Ireland economy. Clearly, activities such as those that I have seen at first hand in the past two weeks can do nothing to help build the Northern Ireland economy or to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Bellingham: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. He has ideal qualifications: he has a great sense of humour and he is also a very good mimic.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major achievements on the economic front over the past few months has been the growth in self-employment and in small businesses? What percentage of the work force is now employed in that sector? Will my hon. Friend also do everything possible to encourage the excellent work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit over the next few months?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend also for his kind comments. I could not be more willing to serve in Northern Ireland, which is a country full of people of very good humour, contrary to certain opinions. I am enjoying myself there tremendously.
    Just over 100,000 people are employed in manufacturing industry at the moment. I shall write to my hon. Friend with the precise figure for which he asked me.

    Irish Republic
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had with the Irish Government about the implications for Ireland of its relations with Europe post-1992 and following the construction of the channel tunnel.
    Mr. Brooke: The implications for the Government of the Republic of Ireland of their relations with Europe after 1992 are a matter for them. We and the Irish Government have regular contacts about matters of mutual interest arising from progress towards the single European market in 1992.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Single European Act and the construction of the channel tunnel pose challenges not only to the island of Ireland, north and south, but to us, in terms of our relations with both the Irish Government and Northern Ireland? They provide an opportunity for enhanced co-operation between north and south and between the
    970
    British and the Irish. Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that, unless we improve our infrastructure—especially by the further electrification of railway lines and the improvement of roads—it will not be possible for the island of Ireland to be anything other than a peripheral, rather than a core, part of Europe?
    Mr. Brooke: Our practical co-operation on internal market issues is already good. We are in close touch with the Irish Government about Interreg, a Commission initiative to encourage co-operation in border areas. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about infrastructure. On both sides of the water, the Government are addressing that—in terms of access to the ports in Northern Ireland, in terms of connections and communications with the south and also in terms of road and rail developments on this side of the water.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Given the importance of the channel tunnel to the whole of the United Kingdom, what steps has the Secretary of State taken to improve the direct routes between Northern Ireland and the channel tunnel, using the shortest sea route between Lame and Stranraer, in the south-west of Scotland?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. He will know that work is under way on the 15 km of the A8 on the way to Lame to provide a dual carriageway instead of a single carriageway. Matters concerning the road between Stranraer and the M6 are for the Scottish Development Department, but £45 million has been spent on continuing stretches and the question of a bypass round Dumfries is currently being addressed. There is no doubt at all about the importance that the Government attach to the question that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that, once the channel tunnel is completed, Ireland, north and south, will be the only part of the single market that does not have a land link with the rest of the Community? In effect, it will be the offshore island of the new Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that will intensify the common economic interests of both parts of the island and should therefore lead to intensified co-operation between both Governments on those interests?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is clearly right about large islands, although the Greek islands would be a close analogy. I have already agreed that practical co-operation in the economic sphere is going forward well. Whether that will have a read-across into the political sphere only time can tell. There is not an automatic read-across. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to listen to Northern Ireland questions.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State explore with the Dublin Government and other member countries of the EEC the possibility of building a tunnel for the short route between Scotland and Northern Ireland? Such a tunnel would be beneficial to not only Northern Ireland but the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Brooke: I am reasonably confident about the current arrangements, but I am always prepared to include on my agenda anything that the hon. Gentleman puts to me, however hypothetical.

    Education Order
    Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the workings of the Northern Ireland Education Order.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stott: The Minister of State will be aware that the Northern Ireland Education Order was not greeted with universal acclamation in the House or, indeed, in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister sure that he has convinced the teaching profession, the area education boards and, moreover, parents in Northern Ireland that the provisions contained in the order are in the best interests of educating the children of Northern Ireland in Northern Irish schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes. The only exceptions that I might be tempted to make are the leaders of education unions. I have gone some way in convincing them that it is a positive development.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister assure the House that his nominated bodies are doing everything possible to ensure that schools in Northern Ireland are prepared for curriculum change? Will schools and colleges which still need capital expenditure to provide science and technology accommodation receive funds to finance it?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes. First, a considerable programme of in-service training for teachers started in 1989–90 and will continue through next year. There will be days of exceptional school closures and extra resources will be made available to the education and library boards. On the capital aspects of education reform, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have made available an extra £135 million over and above already record levels of expenditure on education and that a sizeable proportion of that sum is being devoted, over a period, to precisely that which he seeks. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I again ask the House to listen to Northern Ireland questions. They are a rare opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to put their questions to Ministers.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest level of unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hanley: At 13 December 1990—the latest date for which figures are available—there were 95,570 unemployed claimants in the Province, representing 13·7 per cent. of the work force.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the scandalously high rate of unemployment is a reflection of the failure of the enterprise culture and the imposition of scandalously high interest rates, which, as the Minister knows, are deliberately designed to produce unemployment? Does he recognise that low unemployment is an
    972
    important component in resolving the conflict in Northern Ireland? What policies does he intend to introduce to bring about a reduction in unemployment?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree that a reduction in unemployment is important for bringing greater peace to the community of Northern Ireland. However, the figure of 95,570 which I just announced should be seen in comparison with the peak headline total of 135,000 as recently as September 1986.
    Mr. Stevens: In congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Front Bench, may I ask him what the Government are doing to reduce unemployment in the Province?
    Mr. Hanley: The Government are committed to continuing the fight against unemployment and have recently published their new economic development strategy for Northern Ireland called "Competing in the 1990s—The Key to Growth". The overall aim is to remove the obstacles that prevent industry growing and to improve the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy which will lead to stable long-term jobs.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my colleagues I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does he think that the upturn in unemployment has been caused most by the high inflation rate, high interest rates, the wrong time and level of entry into the ERM or Sinn Fein's economic campaign against Northern Ireland, through its armed wing, in blowing people out of work at the same time as screaming for more jobs?
    Mr. Hanley: The level of unemployment has been disappointing over the last two months, but I should add that the rise has not been as serious in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain where it has been faster. Whatever the reasons, we will be trying to reduce unemployment and to increase employment for the sake of all people in Northern Ireland.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that our troops know that they have the overwhelming support of the House not only in liberating Kuwait but in realising the promise of a newly effective United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that his views will be echoed throughout the House. I hope that that strong support will be sustained within and beyond the House in the difficult weeks ahead.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I take this opportunity of supporting the feeling expressed by the Prime Minister

    973
    earlier today that the current conflict was not wanted by those allied against Iraq and is, therefore, regretted? For the sake of our forces and their families, and for the sake of innocent civilians in Kuwait and in Iraq, people everywhere will hope that success in fulfilling the purposes of the United Nations is achieved as speedily as possible. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that Saddam Hussein can quickly prevent further death and destruction by fully and immediately complying with the United Nations resolutions, by laying down all Iraqi arms and by respecting international law?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for the way in which he expressed his view. I hope that at an early stage Saddam Hussein will do what he should have done a long time ago—make it clear that he is prepared to leave Kuwait fully, wholly and unconditionally and spare the world the conflict that is at present going on.
    Mr. Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the assessment by General Colin Powell of the United States joint chiefs of staff that 80 per cent. of the sorties against Iraq have been effective. Is not that a remarkable achievement and a great credit to the allied forces? Does not the pinpoint bombing that we have seen on the news illustrate that there will not be the civilian casualties in Iraq which some had feared? That is important, because our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our problem is not with the people of Iraq but with the dictator of Iraq who created the invasion of Kuwait. My hon. Friend is entirely right. I echo what he said about the precision bombing that we have seen thus far. I might add that much of that precision bombing is carried out at low level precisely to avoid civilian casualties, sometimes at risk to our pilots. I think that their bravery deserves acknowledgement.
    Mr. Ashdown: We all heard the news of last night's action with deep regret that this war had to be fought. Does the Prime Minister realise that in this House, and I believe in the nation, there is no mood of jingoism for war but a deep determination to see through a job that must be done, to support our forces and to back the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We entered this enterprise with reluctance, but we shall pursue it with persistence until the end.
    Mr. Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on the way in which he made his statement this morning and particularly on the way in which he answered the questions put to him by the press? Does he agree with the commentator on Radio 4 this morning who urged that we should not attempt through the many armchair generals who will commentate on this war to second-guess what the military are doing in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is already clear from what we have seen today that the degree of care in the planning by the allied high command has been very successful. I believe that the conduct of those military operations is in very satisfactory military hands.
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister recall that many of our hostages, who have now returned from Iraq, spoke of the friendliness and helpfulness of the ordinary Iraqi citizens during their period of entrapment? Will he confirm that this war is against Saddam Hussein and his hencemen, not against ordinary families in Iraq? Does he further agree that ordinary Iraqi nationals, living in this country, many of whom are refugees from the oppression of Saddam Hussein, should not be harassed or held accountable for the actions of the dictator?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is entirely true that there are a large number of Iraqi citizens in the United Kingdom who are here precisely because they have been persecuted by Saddam Hussein. I believe that their refuge here will be appreciated and understood by the British people.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have no quarrel whatsoever with ordinary Iraqi people. As I said a moment ago, it is the dictatorship of Iraq which we are opposing.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since President Bush this morning said that one of his war aims was to destroy the existing chemical and potential atomic war-making capacity of Iraq, will my right hon. Friend associate the United Kingdom with that war aim? Will he also confirm that, once those installations are destroyed, no British or European company will, in future, assist in their being replaced?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend may know, those installations have been attacked, but thus far we are not entirely sure with what success. I hope that that will become apparent later. Subsequently, I certainly hope that firms will take great care in any dealings they may have with those who may recreate that sort of facility.

    General Colin Powell
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has had a meeting with General Colin Powell of the United States joint chiefs of staff; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I met the chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff on 4 December. British commanders, of course, have been in regular touch with General Powell.
    Mr. Dalyell: If General Powell were to be instructed either to accept or to offer a call for a cease fire, would we have to wait until Kuwait was occupied by coalition forces? In the light of my letter of yesterday to him, could the Prime Minister clarify the differences between himself on the one hand and Secretary Cheney and General Powell on the other on the use and legal aspects of nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, the conflict can cease when it becomes clear beyond doubt that the Iraqis are moving out of Kuwait and we are certain that that is the case. That has been and will continue to be the position.

    975
    On the use of nuclear weapons, I think that I made it clear in the debate the other day that we did not envisage the use of nuclear weapons. To the best of our knowledge Iraq does not have a nuclear capacity. Under the non-proliferation treaty, which has been signed by the United States and ourselves, we would not therefore use them.
    Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the vital ingredients in the success of the military operation so far was General Powell's request, courageously supported on 9 November by President Bush and the British Cabinet, to double the number of troops and aircraft deployed to their present high levels? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all those responsible on both sides of the Atlantic, from commanders to backroom boys, on this remarkable feat of military logistics and preparedness?
    The Prime Minister: I would certainly be most happy to do that. When I was able to visit Dhahran and some of the military establishments a week or so ago, it was astonishing to see the way in which the sheer logistics of obtaining such a dramatic armada of weaponry, in terms of both land and air forces, had been achieved. It has been a remarkable logistical operation.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the significant achievements of General Powell has been to ensure that this is not just an American dispute with the Iraqi Government—he has also involved the Arab Governments? Should we not all like to pay tribute to the Saudi Arabian Government and the Kuwait Government in exile for agreeing to their aircraft flying into Iraq, in marked distinction to the French?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly believe that it is entirely welcome that there has been a multinational effort in terms of today's attack on Iraq. My understanding is that it was a four-nation attack in the first wave. But, as the right hon. Gentleman may not yet have heard, France joined in the attack at a later stage. I understand that some of her aircraft have suffered damage.

    Engagements
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sayeed: Although it is difficult to consider any matter other than the middle east today, will my right hon. Friend bend his mind to the conventional forces in Europe treaty that, just two months ago, seemed to offer so much hope for peace in the world? As all 22 signatories are required to ratify that treaty, does my right hon. Friend believe that that will happen, after the brutal repression in Latvia and Lithuania and the undermining of the treaty's spirit by some elements in the Soviet military?
    The Prime Minister: I very much hope that that treaty will be signed. Clearly, there are a number of serious problems that need to be resolved, particularly the Soviet Union's transfer of a large number of tanks from the army to the naval coastal command with the intention of
    976
    bypassing the treaty—which has the absurd effect of ensuring that the Soviet navy has more tanks than the British Army.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not it the case that Saddam Hussein must be held responsible not only for the present war and tragedy, but for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who lost their lives during a totally useless, futile war against Iran? Who is this criminal dictator to lecture us about the loss of innocent lives?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the praise of Conservative Members for the way in which he has handled the situation so far? Will he also accept that considerable congratulations should be given to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the SDP both of whom have unified behind the Government? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that those initials are very difficult to remember.
    I have been very pleased and heartened—but more importantly, our troops will have been pleased and heartened—to see the uniformity of support given to them by the House.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Following the decision of the Soviet Union earlier today to reject the call of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe for an international conference on the position in the Baltic, the first death in Latvia yesterday, the appearance of militia men with their black berets and President Gorbachev's attempt to extinguish a free press in the Soviet Union, does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to be even handed in our treatment of human rights abuses and the right of self-determination, it is now time to convene a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the position in the Baltic states? Does he agree with Boris Yeltsin who said that we are at the beginning of a mighty offensive against democracy?
    The Prime Minister: As I made clear to the House in Question Time earlier this week, I deeply deplore the actions in Vilnius and I very much regret the reports that a Latvian civilian has been killed by Soviet security guards. We have made our views crystal clear to the Soviet Union. The Soviets can be in no doubt about the way in which we view that and we have also made it clear that the continued health of the European Community will depend on the Soviet Union pursuing a path of reform, not of repression.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: The thoughts and prayers of many of my constituents will be with the sappers from Medway towns serving with our troops in the Gulf. Will my right hon. Friend seek to reassure them in their anxiety that the courage and superb professionalism of all our troops will contribute to a swift and satisfactory outcome to this conflict, which many of us had hoped would never happen?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that those qualities will contribute to a successful outcome. However, we should be under no illusions about the scale and potential might of the Iraqi forces and, while I am confident about the success, I cannot yet be confident about the speed of that success, and I think that we should prepare ourselves for that fact.

The Gulf
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the start of hostilities in the Gulf in the small hours of this morning.
Aircraft of the multinational force began attacks on military targets in Iraq from around midnight Greenwich mean time. Several hundred aircraft were involved in the action, including a substantial number of RAF aircraft. The action was taken under the authority of United Nations Security Council resolution 678 which authorises use of all necessary means, including force, after 15 January to bring about Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait.
The action was taken after extensive consultation with the principal Governments represented in the multinational force and following direct discussions between President Bush and myself over a period of weeks. It was taken only after exhaustive diplomatic efforts through the UN, the European Community, Arab Governments and others to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw peacefully.
The action is continuing. Attacks have been directed at Iraq's military capability, in particular airfields, aircraft, missile sites, nuclear and chemical facilities and other military targets. Reports so far received suggest that they have been successful. Allied aircraft losses have been low. I regret to inform the House that one RAF Tornado from later raids is reported missing.
The instructions issued to our pilots and those of other forces are to avoid causing civilian casualties so far as possible.
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.
As I explained in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, it is only with the greatest reluctance that we have come to the point of using force as authorised by the Security Council. We did so only after all peaceful means had failed and Saddam Hussein's intransigence left us no other course. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We hope very much for a speedy end to hostilities. That will come about when Saddam Hussein withdraws totally and unconditionally from Kuwait. Our military action will continue until he comes to his senses and does so.
Most of all, our thoughts go to the men and women of our forces and their families who wait anxiously at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They have our wholehearted support and our prayers for a safe return home.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement.
As the House and the country consider the current conditions in the Gulf region, does the Prime Minister agree that it is relevant and fair to remind ourselves that the first act of warfare which caused the Gulf crisis was taken by Saddam Hussein on 2 August when he invaded Kuwait?
For the reasons that I gave on Tuesday, I had hoped that the combined pressures of blockade, sanctions and military readiness could be employed longer to have maximum effect.
980
Our forces naturally have our complete support and I join the Prime Minister in his thoughts for the families of the men and women facing danger in the Gulf and in his desire that their loved ones come safe home.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the war aims of the allied forces in the Gulf are related directly to achieving the fulfilment of the United Nations purposes of upholding and implementing resolution 660 and of restoring international peace and security in the area? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the forces pursuing those purposes of the United Nations are guided by the dual aims of maximising the disabling of Iraqi military strength while minimising any harm to civilians?
I recognise that the conflict is but hours old, but will the Prime Minister, even at this stage, reaffirm that, after the conclusion of the conflict, prominence must be given to proceeding as quickly as possible to international activities through the United Nations to resolve the wider problems of justice, peace and stability throughout the region?
I welcome the fact that the Government are making provision for an early debate. Once again, just in the act of doing that we are demonstrating the superiority of democracy over any form of dictatorship.
The Prime Minister: I share the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first point. It was the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August which commenced the hostilities. As the House knows, that was conducted without cause and, after the invasion had taken place, repression was conducted without mercy. The aggression was Saddam Hussein's, not ours.
I share the complete support for the forces that the right hon. Gentleman expressed. I can confirm that our aims in the conflict are to uphold the United Nations resolutions—those and no others are the aims for which the British and other forces are fighting in the Gulf.
I also confirm that the instructions that have been given to all the allied pilots are to minimise civilian casualties wherever that is possible, and the targets that they have been instructed to attack are, without exception, military targets or targets of strategic importance.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked for our aims and policy at the conclusion of the conflict. I confirm that we will wish to return, as we have in the past, to the question of a peace conference to deal with the wider problems of Arab-Israel.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Prime Minister agree that in the days and weeks ahead, when internal communications in Iraq are likely to be seriously impaired, the work of the BBC's world service is likely to achieve unparalleled importance? Will he check today to ensure that that service is given every opportunity to speak the truth to the people of Iraq?
The Prime Minister: That action is in hand.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I say how reassuring it was that the Prime Minister laid out so clearly in his statement the limited aims of the operation?
We cannot, of course, rejoice in any loss of life on whatever side, but will the Prime Minister pass on our congratulations and admiration to our forces for their professionalism, skill and courage? The operations so far have clearly been a considerable success, but does the

981
Prime Minister agree that we must not underestimate the scale of the task that has still to be carried out or the dangers that are still to be confronted?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I share his views without reservation. Iraq has a substantial number of men under arms. They have sophisticated weapons and, in many cases, they have considerable hardened military experience. There is a great deal yet to be done before the matter is resolved.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister take it from me that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are with him in the heavy burden that he is carrying at this particular time? Is he aware that many hundreds of Ulstermen are out in the Gulf, side by side with all the service men from the rest of the United Kingdom who are standing shoulder to shoulder to defeat the aggressor? When the right hon. Gentleman sees Her Majesty the Queen this afternoon, will he invite her to call for a national day of prayer, that we might pray that the war will be over speedily and that Kuwait will be liberated?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the young men from Northern Ireland, the vast majority of whom are, I believe, serving with 7 Brigade, and have done so for some time with distinction. I shall be delighted to pass on the hon. Gentleman's kind words to their commanding officer. I shall certainly bear in mind his comments about my meeting with Her Majesty the Queen later today.
Mr. William Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that he enjoys the total support of Unionist party Members on these Benches today for the action that has, unfortunately, had to be taken in the Gulf? Is he further aware that he also enjoys the support of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, who are well aware that the action that we have been compelled to take in the Gulf is the lesser of the two evils that confronted us in that part of the world? Is the Prime Minister aware that we admire his statement today, because it said remarkably little, and will he follow a similar course of action when making further statements over the period of the hostilities, since least said is soonest mended, and the "need to know" should be paramount in his mind when any statement is being prepared?
The Prime Minister: In all that I say, I shall bear in mind first and foremost the need to guard the security and interests of our troops in the Gulf. That has been, and will continue to be, uppermost in my mind. As to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, he and his constituents in Northern Ireland understand the impact of terrorism better than most, and it is against a form of terrorism that our troops are fighting in the Gulf.
Mr. Michael Grylls: As it is likely that some British service men will be taken prisoner during the hostilities, will my right hon. Friend make it clear on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we expect any such prisoners to be treated according to international convention—because, in view of the Iraqi regime's appalling record of treating its people, we may feel some nervousness about that. Will my right hon. Friend make it
982
clear that, if the Iraqis do not treat prisoners according to international convention, their leaders will be held responsible after the hostilities?
The Prime Minister: We certainly expect any of our troops who are captured to be treated in the manner that prisoners of war should normally be treated. We made that absolutely clear to Iraq and we also held discussions with the International Red Cross about that matter.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Prime Minister referred to aims and said that there would be an end to military operations when Saddam Hussein withdraws from Northern Ireland—[Laughter.]
Mr. Tony Banks: And so he should.
Mr. Rees: Whatever you say, Mr. Speaker, say nothing. I meant to say, when Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait. Would the same apply if Saddam Hussein is driven out of Kuwait?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows precisely what are our aims under the Security Council resolutions. They are to ensure that Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait and returns to Iraq, and that a legitimate Government are returned to Kuwait. I assume that we shall conclude the existing conflict when that happens.
Mr. Keith Speed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that events in the Gulf and, alas, in the Soviet Union, mean that the prospects of an early and substantial peace dividend is now remote?
The Prime Minister: We very much regret what is happening in the Soviet Union and we shall have to continue examining the situation there to see what impact it has on our forces. Thus far, we have very little real information about what is happening in the Baltic states. We are seeking to obtain more, but without that information, it is difficult to make a proper judgment.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Despite the Prime Minister's assertion that he does not believe that Iraq has a nuclear capability and despite the assumption made by some of us yesterday that that was so, there are persistent press reports today that Iraq does have a nuclear capacity. It would obviously be disastrous if nuclear weapons were to be used in the middle east, so will the Prime Minister state categorically that under no circumstances would we use nuclear weapons—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—first, but that we will use every means in our power to deter the Iraqis from using such weapons, including the threat of retaliation?
The Prime Minister: As to whether Iraq has nuclear capacity, it is certainly the case that it is seeking to attain nuclear capacity. It is our information that it does not yet have nuclear capacity and, on that basis, the remarks that I made earlier about the non-proliferation treaty stand.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a most wise and unequivocal message of full support for our troops? Is he further aware that your Chaplain, Mr. Speaker, has arranged for a daily service of intercession at 1 o'clock in St. Margaret's while the crisis continues?
The Prime Minister: I certainly was aware of the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury and I welcome them unreservedly. Of course, as the House knows, the Archbishop has considerable military experience himself, being a holder of the military cross.
Ms. Clare Short: Will the Prime Minister tell us, as fully and as honestly as he can, what he knows about the level of Iraqi casualties and will he promise us that, throughout this war, we shall be told honestly about the suffering and killing of Iraqi people?
The Prime Minister: I must repeat what I said earlier. The instructions that have been given to our pilots are to minimise casualties and all the preliminary evidence is that that is the case. I have no clear evidence yet, nor will I be able to get it for some time, as to the level of casualties in Iraq, but to the extent that there may be any, either now or later, there can be no doubt in the hon. Lady's mind, in mine or in anybody else's, where the responsibility for that must lie.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Prime Minister congratulate our pilots on the enormously skilled implementation of their training in the raid last night? Will he remind those of our citizens who complain about the intrusion of forces training in their daily lives in times of peace that it is this training which gives our forces their leading edge and enables them to go in and win?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. It is that low flying, which is often such a frustration to people in this country, which is enabling us to minimise civilian casualties in Iraq at present.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, as someone who has regularly questioned low-flying activities in the Lake District, as have my constituents, ask the Prime Minister to relay to our pilots in the Gulf that they have the support, the hearts and the minds of people throughout the county of Cumbria, and we salute their courage and skill at this important time?
The Prime Minister: I will do so with great pleasure.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to welcome not only the courage displayed by the many people to whom he has already referred, but the exceptional courage which has been shown during the first few hours of this conflict by newsmen in places such as Baghdad and other parts of the middle east and by the many foreign citizens and British workers—many of whom are British Aerospace workers—who have remained in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia to provide the support facilities so badly needed by many different troops?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend makes his own point most eloquently and I agree with it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Prime Minister aware that at a news conference this morning a member of the democratic Iraqi opposition, in emotional tones, talked about the extra suffering that his people would now have to go through, and he blamed the United States for inflicting that suffering—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Mahon: He also told the news conference how distressed he was that there was so little feeling for the Iraqi people, who have lived under Saddam Hussein's cruelty for many years, and that the west had helped in that cruelty by allowing Saddam Hussein to buy his weaponry and to have export credits? Will the Prime Minister please—I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, (Ms. Short) said —tell the House honestly of all the civilian casualties as they happen?
The Prime Minister: I have already responded with all the information that I have about civilian casualties. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that. As for the gentleman she mentioned, I can only say that that member of the Iraqi opposition might dwell on the matter of those other members of the Iraqi opposition who have been murdered by Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend seen press reports that suggest that the BBC may have given its correspondents instructions to refer not to "our troops" but merely to "British troops", apparently in the interests of impartiality? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if those reports are true, it is deeply depressing that—even in a conflict of this sort—the BBC should be unable to distinguish between good and evil?
The Prime Minister: I believe that what the BBC is doing, in what has already been some remarkable reporting, is trying to keep a proper balance in that reporting—precisely because so much of the world listens to the BBC and because it is important to this country that they continue to do so and to believe what they hear.
Dr. John Gilbert: Was there anything encouraging in the reply that the Iraqi Government made to the Prime Minister's representations about the treatment of any prisoners of war who might fall into their hands?
The Prime Minister: I regret to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have received no positive response.
Mr. Paul Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our forces have no ambition whatever to topple Saddam Hussein from his position of power in Iraq and that the aim of the conflict is simply to remove his forces from Kuwait?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know the terms of the United Nations resolutions; I set them out earlier. Those are our aims.
Mr. Peter Shore: While our armed forces can be confident that they are fighting in a just and, indeed, noble cause—and while they will enjoy the overwhelming support of the British people—can the Prime Minister tell us what is being done to pierce the walls of silence that separate the Iraqi people from the truth, not only about their position but about the hideous role to which Saddam Hussein has brought them?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. This is a just cause and I think that that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world.
We have been trying to penetrate the fog of misunderstanding that exists in Iraq over a period of months, not least by means of broadcasts but also in other

985
fashions. In a society dominated as Iraq has been for so long, it is terribly difficult to get that message through; I hope, however, that it will be understood very shortly and that the people of Iraq will realise that the way in which they have been led and mistreated by their own dictator in recent years is wholly unacceptable. Let us pray that he is soon gone.
Mr. Roger Gale: Let me join my right hon. Friend in congratulating those responsible for the extremely courageous reporting that is coming out of Baghdad in particular. It is of great interest and comfort to the families of our troops out there.
As well as pledging total backing for our troops in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend confirm that total support will be given, not only during but after the conflict, to the wives, children and families of our service men out there?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that firm assurance.
Mr. James Lamond: May I ask the Prime Minister not to allow the fact that the first action of a United Nations operating with the new, full-hearted support that it has found has ended in this dreadful tragedy of war to dissuade him from giving equally strong and full-hearted support to the UN's other proposals to deal with difficulties not only in the Gulf area but elsewhere in the middle east and in the world? Can we count on that?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in my speech the other day, many people throughout the world will have been very pleased about the growing authority of the United Nations over recent years. That certainly embraces my view. As for Arab-Israel, I made it clear earlier that we would continue to pursue a peace conference once the present conflict was ended.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the events of the past 24 hours and the past five and a half months, we should be grateful for the strength and determination of the United States in the cause of freedom?
The Prime Minister: I very strongly agree with my hon. Friend's view. We have 35,000 troops and an enormous amount of aircraft and armour there, but the United States has a far greater amount and is paying a substantial price to ensure freedom in Kuwait.
Mr. Jim Sillars: May I refer the Prime Minister to the penultimate paragraph of his statement, in which he said that military action will continue until Saddam Hussein withdraws unconditionally from Kuwait? Given that we are now at war and that casualties and disruptions are part and parcel of that, is he really saying that, if Iraq announced at any time its willingness to accept and implement the United Nations resolutions, but rquired a short time to gather people together to leave peacefully, that would not be acceptable?
The Prime Minister: I did not say that that would not be acceptable. I have made it clear that the war cannot end until we know that Saddam Hussein is out of Kuwait or it is clear beyond doubt that he is going to get out of Kuwait. We need to know exactly what he means if such an offer is made, but we would wish to examine it most carefully.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in answer to those of our constituents whose sincere and genuine views lead them towards pacifism or a belief that the continuation of sanctions would be the best way to proceed, it is necessary to say simply that sometimes a better world cannot be hoped for or prayed for but has to be fought for?
The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. Many people, for religious and other reasons, have a genuine and mortal hatred of war. I understand that—none of us likes it. For some people, it is a hatred that they are unable to overcome. We must continue to explain to them, to borrow the words of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that this is a just war by any count.
Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Prime Minister notice that, in the course of the night, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that he had not been told that the attack was about to take place? As this is supposed to be a United Nations operation, can the Prime Minister tell the House what role he sees for the Security Council in monitoring the operation? Everybody knows that, when the bloodshed ends, there will be a peace conference that will have to meet all the problems.
On the question of casualties, the right hon. Gentleman must have stayed up through the night watching the bombing of Baghdad as the greatest aerial bombardment in the history of air warfare was launched, which we watched in person on our televisions. Did he not feel that, when the commentator said that it was like a firework display on 4 July while human beings were being killed by that bombardment, such a comment ran contrary to the spirit of what the Prime Minister said about minimising the casualties on both sides?
The Prime Minister: The attacks and military action that the right hon. Gentleman saw through the night were on military establishments for a military purpose to achieve the liberation of Kuwait. It operated under the authority of the United Nations, freely given by the United Nations, and there was no specific need to refer back to the Secretary-General.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the way in which he has conducted himself and for his dignity and restraint, which reflect well on this country? Does he share my concern that most of the news coming out of the Gulf is from nearly 400 United States correspondents, while the reports from British correspondents, including the BBC, are coming from only a handful who are having to pool their reports? We need British news about British service men and women, from British correspondents. Will the Prime Minister please see what can be done about that?
The Prime Minister: We went to some trouble to ensure that there were appropriate visas so that British reporters were able to be in the Gulf area during this conflict. I must tell the House that we are concerned also about the safety of British correspondents there and we have made it perfectly clear that we do not expect them to stay in areas of great danger to themselves.
Mr. John Fraser: Will the Prime Minister recognise that, as well as achieving the objective of the United Nations of freeing Kuwait, it is important to

987
preserve political stability in the area and the advance to freedom in other countries? Will he be ever mindful of the effect of an extended conflict on the stability of countries such as Jordan and other Arab countries? Will he undertake to work for a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible moment and for the minimisation of casualties?
The Prime Minister: There is no way in which, at the conclusion of the conflict, the status quo ante will immediately reappear. One of the matters that I was able to discuss in my recent visit to the Gulf was precisely what might happen at the end of the conflict. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are already thinking, consulting and liaising with our allies about a proper security structure to ensure that this dreadful conflict does not recur.
Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House's admiration of the courage and skill of our pilots knows no bounds and that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of crewmen who are missing and of those who will not return from this conflict?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He expresses sentiments which the whole House will share.
Mr. Tony Banks: As the Prime Minister has reminded us several times that this war is being pursued in the light of United Nations resolutions, when can we expect some briefings and statements from the United Nations rather than from General Powell and President Bush? Does he intend to ask for the reconvening of the Security Council and the Assembly so that there can be broader discussion of what is going on in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister: There is no need to reconvene the United Nations Security Council. The resolutions and the authority are clear. The United Nations is not directly involved in the conflict; its member states are, but under the authority of the United Nations.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the ability of our forces in the Gulf to perform the tasks asked of them depends not only on their courage but on the quality of the equipment with which they are supplied? Will he confirm that the British defence industry has performed unstintingly all the tasks that have been asked of it, and more, in these difficult times? Will he ensure that in future our troops will never be asked to undertake tasks for which they are not supplied with the best equipment available? Is that the policy of his Government?
The Prime Minister: Our troops most certainly have the best equipment available. My hon. Friend would be pleased to know precisely what the troops think about the excellent way in which the Challenger tank is performing in the desert. They have excellent equipment and that equipment is in excellent hands with our troops in the Gulf.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On this more sombre day, when the Prime Minister has expressed his reluctance to have taken military action and his willingness to consider the possibility of Iraq deciding to withdraw from Kuwait, does he accept that it is necessary to have absolute clarity on the war aims of the United Nations
988
coalition? Will he reflect on his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in which he said that he assumed that, if the forces physically went into Kuwait, they would stop at the border? If we are to look for Saddam Hussein or for those of influence in Iraq who may be more peacefully minded and prepared to accept an end to the conflict by withdrawing from Kuwait, will he make it clear that it is not part of the war aims of the coalition to invade and occupy Iraq?
The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that that is not our aim. Our aim is to enforce the United Nations resolutions. That, and only that, is the aim for which the allied troops are in the Gulf.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept my commendation to the decision takers of the United Nations force for having taken advantage of the great benefits of the principle of surprise and attacked straight away, which will save the lives of friend and foe alike by bringing this conflict to an earlier conclusion than would otherwise be the case?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a distinguished war record and a distinguished military record. His commendation will mean more to the commanders than mine, and I will pass it on.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Prime Minister recognise that those of us who oppose going to war at this stage, who are not pacifists but who are simply saying, once again, that it is wrong to go to war until all approaches have been exhausted, are not showing any lack of support for our troops? Of course we want them to have the medical and food supplies that they require. That is not an issue in this conflict.
Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the best thing that we can do for our troops is to bring a speedy end to the conflict—not just to defeat Saddam Hussein in Kuwait but to bring about peace and justice in the middle east? I am extremely disappointed that the Prime Minister's war aims seem to be so limited. We do not think that there will be a satisfactory end to the conflict if it merely ends in the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If this is a democracy, if this is part of what we are talking about, if other opinions are to be heard—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course this is a democracy, but the hon. Lady must take account of the other Opposition Members who wish to participate.
Mrs. Fyfe: I just want to finish on this point. Is Monday's debate to be yet another Adjournment debate or will the Government make a clear statement of the position?
The Prime Minister: The latter point will be discussed between the usual channels in the usual way and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a statement in due course. All of us are seeking peace and justice in the middle east, in Kuwait and beyond, but I fear that, for Iraq and Kuwait, peace and justice require the action that we are taking and the defeat of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the maintenance of the confidence and morale of our armed forces in the middle east crucially depends on this country's calm, courageous, steadfast leadership, all characteristics which he has exemplified perfectly during the past few days and, indeed, since he took office? Will my right hon. Friend explain to Saddam Hussein that the only way in which a ceasefire can take place is if he withdraws from Kuwait?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He sets out the absolute precondition for a settlement and I agree with him.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Prime Minister accept my regard for the professionalism, training and expertise of all our forces, whom I had the opportunity to meet in the Gulf just before Christmas? They have now been committed to action and I hope that they will come through safely. I shall understand if the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty in answering my next question: what is the current attitude of Jordan and Iran to what is happening?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly pass the first half of the hon. Gentleman's remarks on to the commander in the middle east. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not respond directly to his second question.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the action of the Governments and armed forces of our country, the United States of America and the Arab allies has been bold and effective, thus lending new and awesome consequence to the implementation of United Nations resolutions, which have been made possible by the new peace of detente between the great powers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of this worthy enterprise will lead to greatly enhanced peace, freedom and stability not only in the middle east but in the world in general?
The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that the action taken on this occasion will in future deter any aggressor who may feel that he can march into a small adjacent and peaceful country. I think that we all hope that the United Nations action on this occasion will guarantee that no such future conflicts need arise.
Mr. John Evans: As the military action launched against Iraq last night was in pursuance of United Nations resolution 678 and as the Secretary-General was not consulted before the attack, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that the Secretary-General will be involved in determining whether the terms of that resolution have been met?
The Prime Minister: As I explained some moments ago, there was no need to consult the Secretary-General because the Security Council had given the necessary authority for the attack to take place.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the aerial onslaught has been so professional thus far is that the United States, the United Kingdom and others regularly practise and work together, at all levels up to Ministers? That has made it possible for us to carry out an action that could not otherwise have been conducted. The low-flying
990
exercises that go on throughout the United Kingdom, in which United States pilots, RAF pilots and others are involved, have brought about such an operation. We should be grateful for the good and professional way in which the pilots have conducted themselves now and in the past.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There has been such close consultation in NATO for many years.
Mr. John P. Smith: I welcome the Prime Minister's message of support to the families of soldiers in the Gulf and the measures taken by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in offering special facilities to obtain information about what is happening. However, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that, when there are casualties on our side, after military considerations have been taken into mind, it is the families who are notified first, so that they do not have to hear about such casualties through the media?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises a most important question. It will be our invariable practice to ensure that the families are made aware of any casualties before they are made public. They should hear about them not from a third source but from the Ministry of Defence. That will be our intention.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the RAF pilots who have shown superb skill and bravery in what they have done? They in their turn owe an enormous amount to the ground crews and to the maintenance and repair people, including those from RAF Stafford, who give them such superb back-up.
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that. In my visit to the Gulf, I took the opportunity precisely to meet those back-up crews.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: If, God forbid, our forces suffer heavy casualties in this appalling war, it may mean, in terms of the counselling of the families and of the advice given to their loved ones, that the fine people employed by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association may be overwhelmed by the demand.
What contingency plans have the Government made to call on the professional services of social workers and others employed by social work departments and by social services departments? Do not the tragic events at Lockerbie show the way ahead for the application of professional counselling services for those who have suffered tragic bereavement? What are the Government doing for the provision of such counselling services?
The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence will be in close contact with the appropriate services. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.
Mr. Tim Devlin: As yet, the promised strike against Israel has not taken place. Will my right hon. Friend say what the allies' reaction would be if such an attack or any other incursion into other neighbouring territories took place?
The Prime Minister: The allies have repeatedly made it clear that they would take a very … If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should prefer to put it a different way. I hope

991
very much that there is no attack on Israel. There is no justification for it and, if such an attack were to occur, the allies would be absolutely justified in responding most severely and most swiftly.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the Prime Minister aware that in order to keep Israel out of the war, which would have broken up the Arab aspects of the alliance, the United States gave a commitment to Israel that it would not agree to a peace conference which could have discussed the Palestinian issue and others and could have avoided the war? Is it not clear—[Interruption.] History will prove me right. Is it not clear what a malign role Israel plays in the middle eastern tragedy?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not right. He says that history will prove him right. That sort of history, as Henry Ford said, is bunk.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. Friend and the whole House spare a moment to think of the continuing plight of our three hostages being held in the Lebanon? For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government have no territorial ambitions in the Gulf and no intention of seeking long-term military bases there?
The Prime Minister: I am certainly content to make that point clear. I would add that in no sense have our hostages in the Lebanon been forgotten. They are of great concern to us and the subject of constant interest and activity on the part of the Foreign Office, which seeks to secure their release. We very much hope that they will be home.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: May I press the Prime Minister further on the important question whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations will have any part in determining whether the terms of United Nations resolutions 660 and 678 are fully met?
The Prime Minister: The Secretary-General is the servant of the Security Council. The Security Council has made its position clear. The allied forces are operating under the authority given to them.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happened last night was a great credit to British and allied planning? Will he confirm that the fact that Scud missiles in Iraq have been knocked out makes it unlikely that the Iraqis will be able to make an attack on Israel and that that means that Saddam Hussein will not be able to divide the allies and split off the Arabs, which is clearly his intention?
The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I very much hope that no such attack takes place. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I can make no comment on the effectiveness of the attack on the Scud missiles.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Given that so much blood is now to be spilt following the actions of Saddam Hussein and over his desire to gain control of the oil reserves of Kuwait, has the Prime Minister had any discussions with President Bush or King Fahd about some control of the oil markets of the world, to prevent people from profiteering in the current crisis?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
Mr. Ian Taylor: As this is a just war, being fought to carry out United Nations resolutions, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome if those nations which, for whatever reason, cannot take part in the military action themselves, would now reaffirm their support for what happened last night and give moral and, it is to be hoped, practical support in the way that they consider most appropriate—including financial support?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's addendum is equally important. I hope that nations that have made no material contribution may reconsider—if they have not yet done so—the possibility of making a financial contribution towards dealing with the difficulties faced not least by the front-line states in the Gulf area, which face such economic disruption as a result of the whole affair.
Mr. George Galloway: Is the Prime Minister aware that every one of the news correspondents based in Baghdad and broadcasting throughout the night said that they did not see a single aeroplane—so high were the aeroplanes flying that were dropping the ordnance on the streets of Baghdad? Does he not realise that the concepts of pinpoint bombing, surgical strikes and quick and clean bombing actions are a fantasy of the armchair strategists in their sandpits in the television studios.
In so far as Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, does it not follow that his own people are by definition his victims, just as much as the hostages and the people of Kuwait? Does it not give the Prime Minister a moment's pause for thought that those are the very people who, as we speak, are being dragged dead and mutilated out of the rubble of the centre of Baghdad?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may speak for himself, but he speaks for no one else.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I notice that several hon. Members were not previously rising but now are doing so. I shall call only those who have been rising and then we must move on.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Has my right hon. Friend heard that CND has set up a chatline via British Telecom? Does he agree that it would be unlikely to be allowed to do so in Baghdad? Does he further agree that, while people may be certain of their moral superiority, there is room for a certain humility if they remember that the freedoms that they so take for granted have been bought with the lives of successive generations of British and other service men?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point most eloquently.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Prime Minister accept that, although no one wants this war, now that it has come we must get it over with as speedily as possible and with the minimum loss of life? In that connection, does the Prime Minister consider that UN forces yet have command of the air?
The Prime Minister: It is far too early to make that judgment. From all that one can see and all the evidence that we have, the first 24 hours have been extremely successful from the allied point of view. I must reiterate to the House most passionately that there is a great deal yet to be done before we can be certain how the course of the

993
conflict will be run. We cannot yet say that there is command of the air. The operation has begun remarkably well and we must hope and pray that it continues equally well.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The whole House will agree that possibly the bravest people in the conflict are the families who have to stay behind and worry about their loved ones. In areas such as mine, where we have a naval and an Army base, support groups are already being set up. May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will ensure that people who are isolated, perhaps in areas that do not normally have bases, are given full support during these difficult days? I am sure that the whole House is concerned about those people and the lonely wait they have.
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, it is often hard to wait and wonder. The units of the men involved will keep in close touch with people in those circumstances. The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it expects that to be done on a wide basis and sensitively.
Mr. John McAllion: The Prime Minister has said that we will not use nuclear weapons. However, last night President Bush told the American people that this war would not be another Vietnam and that this time the American military would not fight with one hand tied behind its back. Is not that not a clear indication from the President that the green light has been given to the American military to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary? As part of his extensive consultations with the President, was the Prime Minister consulted on that matter? Did he agree to give the American military a free hand to use whatever weapons it thinks necessary?
The Prime Minister: There was nothing in President Bush's remarks that remotely approximated to the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman has drawn from them.
Sir Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great contribution has been made by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Red Cross and the national health service in making provision for emergency treatment in this country?
The Prime Minister: Yes, the national health service has been remarkably co-operative and has made substantial provision. We all hope that that provision will not be necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear yesterday, to the extent that extra expenditure is required for that purpose, it will be made available.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the precipitate abandonment of sanctions and the onslaught of this bloody conflict, will the Government learn some lessons? For example, the arms and ammunition used against our service men will have been sold to Iraq by western nations. Indeed, components for the manufacture of arms have been sold from this nation. Will the Government make serious efforts to develop an arms embargo to curtail the wretched trade in arms throughout the rest of the world and make sure that the opportunity for conflicts such as this is limited? Or do the Government intend to put profit before peace?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is ill informed. We have had strict control of arms sales to Iraq for a considerable number of years. As to sanctions and their abandonment, they have not been abandoned, but have been added to by the military force now operating. There was no abandonment. Even if there had been total abandonment, it would not have been precipitated; it would have been inevitable because of the way Saddam Hussein has been behaving.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, the battle having been started, it would be wise and desirable if public discussion on the tactical details and public comment on what is happening were kept to the minimum?
The Prime Minister: It is self-evidently in the interests of a successful outcome to the conflict that we are all responsible about what we say on tactical matters.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is not it noticeable by the House that the debate has revolved around the fact that we are in the Gulf to support United Nations resolution 678? Is not that resolution the 12th in a line of resolutions going back to 2 August? Therefore, it is appropriate that all the action should be under the United Nations. Can the Prime Minister reaffirm again that we have Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti airplanes in the sky and nail the lie that this is somehow a British-American operation?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I can certainly confirm that. I would add that we have French aircraft in the skies as well.
Mr. Dennis Canavan:: Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from those euphoric warmongers who naively imagine that last night's air raids guarantee a quick and conclusive military victory? Does not the US army war college report—until recently a secret document—which concludes that air raids alone will not be able to drive the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and goes on to predict a long and bloody ground battle, with many casualties on both sides, reinforce the case for calling a halt now to hostilities and starting genuine peace negotiations which have not even been tried yet?
The Prime Minister: I have made it clear twice already this afternoon that there is much more to be done. That must be self-evident to everyone. The whole purpose of the way in which the campaign is being conducted is to minimise civilian casualties. I have also made that clear. What will happen as the conflict continues, it is impossible yet to say. More has to be done. How it will fall out, we cannot yet know. What I am confident about is, first, that our forces will continue to operate with the professionalism that we have seen in the last 24 hours, and, secondly, that we will continue to have in the forefront of our minds the safety and security of our troops and our firm intention to minimise civilian casualties.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Prime Minister accept that the Ulster Unionists and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland respect his resolute leadership during the Gulf crisis? Will he also accept that the conflict could be helped to an early conclusion if all the nations that up to date have withheld their full support for the United Nations would now come behind it and fully support the troops in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Prime Minister accepted with approval the word "just" to describe the war. Will he explain where the justice is for the Kuwaiti people caught between the violence of Saddam Hussein and allied bombing, fearful that they will be ground into the earth, while the Emir and the royal family are living in safety and luxury?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is mistaken. The Kuwaiti people are actually caught under the oppression of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1940 and in 1967, the Soviet Union used the preoccupation of the world with events of this kind to send the Red Army into the Baltic states and into Hungary? Is not there a grave danger of history repeating itself? Will the Prime Minister take up as a matter of urgency the invitation given yesterday by Mr. Tamara Ringa of the Latvian Popular Front and the foreign secretary of the Lithuanian Parliament to send observers from Britain to the Parliaments of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius?
The Prime Minister: As I made clear to the House earlier, we take an extremely serious view, which is well known to the Soviet Union, of the events in Vilnius. We are examining what is happening to determine what else we may be able to do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As this American-led war continues—[HON. MEMBERS: "UN war"]—Americanled war, to protect American oil interests—and as the number of British casualties arising from it increases, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any plans to requisition private hospitals and to use the royal yacht Britannia as a hospital ship?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's tasteless intervention overlooks the fact that we have had an American and British-led peace in this country for 40 years—from which he has benefited.
Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the recess, I wrote to him to say that the Iraqi Assembly wanted to send a peace mission to this country to brief Members of all parties? I received no acknowledgement from his office apart from a curt note from his private secretary. Why the rush to war? Why can he not reply on this basic issue? Is not peace important? Is it the case that he is really the puppet of the President of the United States?
The Prime Minister: It is justice that is important in the Gulf region. The hon. Gentleman may have his own views about the nature of the regime; I have mine. I believe that Saddam Hussein and his regime are thoroughly evil. It is entirely right for the United Nations to give the authority that it has and I am delighted that it has the overwhelming support of this country, even though I regret that it does not have the support of the hon. Gentleman as well.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Was this war really necessary in terms of United Nations resolution 678, as sanctions have not been given a full chance to operate?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it was necessary—absolutely, totally and completely necessary. If the hon. Gentleman does not think so, he is in a minority.
Mr. Dave Nellist: How do the Prime Minister's instruction to British pilots, reported this afternoon, to minimise civilian casualties square with what President George Bush said at 2 am? He said that, unlike Vietnam, American forces in this war
"would not fight with one arm tied behind their backs".
Since that war cost 57,000 American lives and 2 million Vietnamese lives, the right hon. Gentleman should, instead of defending cheap oil, stable monarchies and American strategic interests, call a ceasefire. Before the land war develops and tens or hundreds of thousands of young men and women lose their lives, the right hon. Gentleman should call a ceasefire and bring the troops home.
The Prime Minister: American pilots have had the same operational instructions as British pilots to minimise casualties. Those instructions come from their commander-in-chief, President Bush.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, throughout the United States, western Europe and the entire Arab world, millions of people are opposed to this war? They are appalled that, already, in the first 12 hours of war, more explosives have been dropped on Iraq than were dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. How many deaths do there have to be before the oil interests of the United States and western Europe are satisfied, or is the Prime Minister prepared to go back now to the United Nations to seek an early end to this war and a ceasefire, so that negotiations can take place on all the problems of the region?
The Prime Minister: How much longer would the hon. Gentleman have let the people of Kuwait suffer under the oppression that they have had? How much longer? The Security Council resolutions are entirely clear and we shall prosecute them until they are fully met.

Business of the House
4.34 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on the Gulf.
Motions relating to the membership of the Health and Social Security Committees.
TUESDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill.
Motions relating to the establishment of European Standing Committees.
WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill.
Motions on the Scottish housing support grant orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Debate on economic and monetary union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 25 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Ports Bill.
The House will also wish to be aware that, in view of the business we have before us, the Government do not propose to move the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords] today. I shall announce the revised arrangements for the debate on another occasion. I am authorised to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means proposes to defer consideration of the opposed private business put clown for 7 o'clock today.
[Debate on Wednesday 23 January:
Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order
Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order
Housing Revenue Account General Fund
Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order
Opposition Prayer (EDM 290).]
Dr. John Cunningham: I believe that everyone in the House will welcome the Government's decision to hold another debate on Monday on the serious position in the Gulf. Is the Leader of the House able to give us any more information yet about the nature of that debate? Will he give us an assurance that the Government have not ruled out the possibility of another statement in the House tomorrow so that we can all continue to be properly informed about developments in the Gulf?
Given the explicit threat from Iraq, repeated on more than one occasion, that this war will be waged "elsewhere", is there not an urgent need to review the security arrangements in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster and the House? Can the Leader of the House confirm that there has been an urgent look at security arrangements and that there will soon be proposals to heighten the level of security, not just for Members but for everyone who works in the Palace and all those who visit us daily?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the revenue support grant orders, which will form part of the several statements to follow, will soon be debated fully by the House so that, although we have statements now, we will have proper time to debate the orders when they are finally made?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has approached these matters and his welcome for Monday's debate. The motion for the debate and the speakers are under consideration. I hope that the motion will be tabled on the Order Paper tomorrow.
As to his question about another statement tomorrow, and statements generally, I simply do not know what the position will be tomorrow. In general terms, I hope that it is clear from the decision we took about Monday's debate that we are not only keeping the House fully informed about developments in the Gulf, but are also giving opportunities for full debates. Clearly, I can therefore given the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that he seeks.
I can confirm that there has been an urgent review of security. I know from discussions that I have had with Members from both sides of the House that they are concerned about security. A number of steps are being taken to tighten security arrangements in the present circumstances, and the position will be continuously under review. One such step will be the wearing of passes for everyone within the precincts of the House—that will include Members, except when they are in the Chamber. Similar consultations are under way with regard to the other place.
Orders regarding matters to be raised shortly in further statements will be laid in the normal way. I can confirm that there will be a debate on those orders and I hope that that debate will take place in the reasonably near future.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the many questions put to the Prime Minister during the earlier statement, I appeal to hon. Members to confine their questions to the Leader of the House to the business next week and not to raise wider issues.
Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will know of the wide interest in the House in receiving as much information as possible about the events in the Gulf, next week and beyond. He will be aware of the limited opportunities that Members have to receive information on television. The existing television rooms may be wholly inadequate to accommodate all hon. Members who want to be kept abreast of the news. Has my right hon. Friend any information about additional television facilities to cater for colleagues who want to watch what is going on?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that there has been interest in this matter, and my hon. Friend has already raised it with me. Today and tomorrow Committee Room 13 will he available as an additional television viewing room for Members, and next week this additional facility will be provided in Conference Room J on the lower ground floor secretaries' area.
Mr. James Wallace: May I thank the Leader of the House for saying that there will be regular reports and statements and a debate next week on the Gulf?
As regards the other vital foreign affairs issue, the Baltic states, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary be prepared to make statements on that important issue, not least because, answering a private notice question yesterday, he said that one of the reasons for not referring the matter to the Security Council at this stage was that

999
there was still a possibility of a conference on security and co-operation in Europe. Now that that has been rejected by the Soviets, may we look forward to a statement on the Baltic states as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: It is clear that there will be considerable pressure on the business of the House in current circumstances, and we must bear that in mind. But the fact that the Foreign Secretary answered a private notice question yesterday was a clear sign that he is anxious to keep the House informed on these issues, and we will have to judge the situation day by day. I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.
Mr. James Hill: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for giving me foreknowledge of the fact that he was going to defer today's important debate on the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. I fully understand his reasons: I know that President Bush and the Prime Minister deserve priority, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me adequate warning, through his Department, so that I can instruct everyone again and we can defeat this miserable Bill.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's understanding of today's postponement, which is in the interests of the House. This is primarily a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to ensure that he receives adequate notice of when the Bill will next come to the House.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to Welsh Questions next week? As he knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) passed away and his funeral is to be held on Monday afternoon. Twenty-seven questions have been tabled, 15 of them by Labour Members, 13 of whom intend to attend the funeral in Neath. Would it be possible to change the time of Welsh Questions, following which there is a serious debate? Could Welsh Questions be transferred to another day next week, or could some other arrangement be made, since not only Labour Members but the Minister of State and Tory Members representing Welsh constituencies will attend the funeral?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacGregor: I should like to express my deep regret at the death of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and my sincere condolences to his widow and family. I am not sure what is possible within the rules of the House, but I understand why the matter has been raised and I shall look at it straight away.
Mr. Peter Fry: May I point out to the Leader of the House, further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that there is a danger of the continuing deterioration in eastern Europe being overlooked in the Gulf crisis? It is a question not only of the Baltic states but of the threatened disruption of Yugoslavia, and the continuing difficulties of Romania and Bulgaria. May we before too long have a debate on eastern Europe so that these important matters can be discussed?
Mr. MacGregor: We are all extremely conscious of the seriousness of all these matters—it is merely a question of when we debate them. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Would the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the Government's contingency plans for conscription, and ask him to clear up the rumour that the Ministry of Defence has placed an order with the Glasgow firm Collins to provide 2 million conscription applications and ration books?
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will find that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was clear on this point on Tuesday.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: Would it be possible to broaden the housing debate next week to include two subjects causing great concern in Croydon? The first is the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by the council, and the second the position of the homeless. The problem is that bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Croydon is costing the community charge payer vast sums of money; secondly, as a result of the legislation on homelessness, huge numbers of undeserving cases are jumping the queue into council houses and genuine cases are having to wait. Could these subjects be included?
Mr. MacGregor: I quite understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of many people in Croydon about these matters, but not by the widest stretch of the imagination, in respect of the business of the House for next week, could I extend Croydon to Scotland. I suggest that there may be other ways in which to raise these legitimate matters.
Miss Kate Hoey: May I welcome the increased television facilities in the House which the Leader of the House has announced? Many of us feel less informed in this House than are the vast majority of the population who can watch BBC and ITV. Given the extremely good coverage by Cable News Network, would it be possible to have it installed in the House? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a special attempt to get it, in the next few days if possible.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall look at the matter that the hon. Lady has raised.
Mr. Bob Dunn: The Leader of the House will know that many Members on both sides are concerned not only about events in the Baltic states but about the destruction of the growing democratic movements in the so-called former autonomous republics of the Soviet empire. Will he bear in mind the point made by hon. Members on both sides about the need for an early statement or debate, as and when appropriate, on the dissolution and anarchy within the Soviet empire?
Mr. MacGregor: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot add to what I said earlier, but his point adds weight to those that others have made.
Mr. William Ross: Has the Leader of the House looked at early-day motion 299, one of the few ever signed by more than half the Members of this House?
[That, in the opinion of this House, paragraph (2) of the third Resolution of this House of 19th July 1983, which

1001
provides that resettlement grants for former Members should not be payable to a person who has attained the age of 65 years before the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament should no longer have effect, and that the following new provision should be made: (a) That the resettlement grant should not be payable, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, to any person who has attained the age of 65 years at the dissolution of the preceeding Parliament; but That (b) regardless of age, a person who has completed a total of 20 years' service as a Member of this House becomes eligible for the grant when it becomes payable under the first paragraph of the third Resolution of 19th July 1983, irrespective of whether that service was continuous, subject to paragraph (3) of the said Resolution.]
When was the last time that happened? What is the right hon. Gentleman's view of the sentiment expressed in that motion?
Mr. MacGregor: I could not have missed early-day motion 299 given the number of signatories to it. The position on the issue raised in it is fairly clear: it has been looked at by the Top Salaries Review Body on more than one occasion and the arrangements that we have are those recommended by thhe TSRB. I do not want to go into detail now, but. I do not think it will be possible to debate the matter next week. I have today tabled on the Order Paper notice of the introduction of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill, which we shall debate before too long. The resettlement grant issue in early-day motion 299 is, however, quite separate from that Bill—it is a distinct issue. The arrangements in the Bill do not apply to the way in which the resettlement grant is operated. Nevertheless, it may be possible for some hon. Members to raise tangentially on that occasion the issues that concern them in early-day motion 299.
Mr. George Foulkes: Without detracting in any way front the importance of Monday's debate, will the Leader of the House try to find a date for a debate on famine in Africa where thousands of people are dying today so that we can consider putting the same kind of determination, energy and money into solving that problem that has gone into the Gulf?
Mr. MacGregor: As I said the other day, the Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that matter and that is why we had a statement just before the House rose for Christmas. The hon. Gentleman will understand the pressures on the business of the House next week, which means that I cannot promise anything in Government time, but there are other ways in which the subject can be raised when the Government will be happy to respond.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House allow an early debate next week on the coal mining industry because of the uncertainty that is hanging over it as a result of the statement made by Mr. Baker, the chief executive of National Power? Long-term waste disposal by British Coal in my constituency necessitates a private Bill in the House and if there is doubt, or if there are to be changes to the mining industry, there could be substantial consequences for my constituents. Such a
1002
debate is needed urgently because that Bill is due to start its passage in the other place by the end of this month. We need an early debate on the future of the mining industry.
Mr. MacGregor: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. Clearly, there will be no opportunity to debate the matter next week, but if he wishes to develop the points that he has made today other opportunities are available to him in the House.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House extend Monday's debate beyond 10 o'clock so that Mr. Speaker is not put in the invidious position whereby if the same Privy Councillors who have risen on each of the three previous occasions rise on Monday no time will be left for Back Benchers?
Mr. MacGregor: There was a great deal of agreement that last week's arrangements were the right ones, hut, as I have already said, the arrangements for Monday's debate are under consideration.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the announcement of motions on Monday on the Health and Social Services Select Committees and on Wednesday on the European Standing Committees, but what was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's self-appointed task during the Christmas recess to consider the question of the Northern Ireland Select Committee? Let democracy be returned to Northern Ireland as well as to Kuwait.
Mr. MacGregor: I have to confine myself to the business for next week. The motion concerning the European Standing Committees is on Tuesday. Those are two urgent matters which it is important that the House resolves quickly.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why are we to have an early bath tonight with the censoring of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill and the disappearance of private business? If the House had dealt with that business, it would have been able to deal with any emergency in the Gulf.
Mr. MacGregor: It is for the convenience of the House. It is clear that this afternoon's statements will continue for some considerable time and we then have an important debate on the Ibbs report on which we must take the views of the House and that will take up a great deal of today's parliamentary time. Therefore, it was thought to be for the convenience of Members generally to arrange business in this way.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the Leader of the House aware that some aspects of security in this place seem to be working extremely well? Is he aware that as I came through New Palace Yard this morning I was stopped by a policeman who had never seen me before in my 25 years here and found it somewhat incredible that I was a Member of Parliament?
Mr. MacGregor: I had better not comment further on that.
Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the speed of events in the Gulf, and the predictability of Gulf debates mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), would not it be better if we arranged a daily statement, or one every two days, on the situation in the Gulf so that responsible Ministers

1003
could come to the Dispatch Box, more Members could ask questions about what is going on and more information could be more readily imparted to hon. Members rather than us hearing the opinions of the same Members?
Mr. MacGregor: No, it is much better to judge when statements or debates should take place as and when the need arises. I should have thought the amount of time that the House has given to the Gulf since we returned from the Christmas recess is a clear measure of our willingness to debate the matter frequently. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition when he said in his opening question to the Prime Minister earlier today that that very fact demonstrates the superiority of democracy.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House agree that we are closing down for the weekend when we are at war and would it not be a good idea to have a two-hour debate on Saturday and Sunday? The Halifax Evening Courier nightly carries pictures of young men and women, and anxious desperate relatives. Would not they have something to focus on if the House were sitting? These are grave times. Surely to sit for a couple of hours on Saturday and Sunday would be the right thing to do to keep informed those who are so desperately worried about what is happening when there could be an escalation of the fighting and many casualties over the weekend.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already emphasised our commitment to keeping the House fully informed, but on some of the matters to which the hon. Lady refers there are many other ways of giving that infomation. It does not always have to be done through the House. It is much better to judge when the House should deal with such matters as and when the need arises.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is right and proper that statements and debates on the Gulf war take precedence over other business, but I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will impose the 10-minute limit on speeches on Monday.
May I urge the Leader of the House to give serious consideration to an early debate within the next week or so on the recommendations made by the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha tragedy? I should have thought that that report needs to be debated in the near future because of the serious concern felt by all the families of the men and women employed on rigs and production platforms. They deserve nothing less than an early debate in the House of Commons.
Mr. MacGregor: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, but we must debate many pressing matters in the coming weeks in addition to the debates which usually take place at this time of year. All that has to be fitted in with the need to report on the Gulf as and when the need arises. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the business of the House is under heavy pressure and I cannot promise him a debate on that in the near future.
Sir Peter Emery: The motions relating to the European Standing Committees do not appear in today's Order Book nor in the Order Book that I have just obtained from the Table Office. When will those appear and how will they differ from the orders that the House passed before Christmas?
Mr. MacGregor: They have been on the Order Paper. There are not only the orders that I have laid, but there are amendments to them. I have seen them on the Order Paper, but if they are not there today I shall make sure that they are there tomorrow.

Local Government Finance (England)
4.58 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make a statement about the local government finance settlement for 1991–92.
On 31 October, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced the Government's proposals for next year's finance settlement. As the House will know, since then I announced that the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of the structure and finance of local government. We are looking both at longer-term changes and at changes that we might implement in the short term. My statement today deals with the changes that we can make for next year, but announces first our decisions following consultation on the finance settlement for 1991–92.
I have considered carefully all the representations that we received on the proposed finance settlement from the associations and from individual authorities. My hon. Friends the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible have reported to me on the meetings that they held with a number of authorities.
My predecessor's proposals envisaged that it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £39 billion in aggregate. That is an increase of 19 per cent. over the corresponding figure for 1990–91—a very substantial increase. It follows an increase of 10 per cent. for this year over last year, and takes account of the fact that local authority spending has grown substantially in the last three years. I am satisfied that £39 billion is fully sufficient for local authorities' services, taking account of all the pressures that local authorities face, as well as the scope for saving and what the country can afford.
I considered the representations that were made about the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments. My right hon. Friend had proposed a number of improvements for 1991–92, and with those improvements in place, I am satisfied with the method for calculating SSAs for 1991–92.
My right hon. Friend proposed that aggregate external finance—that is, central support from grants and from business rates—should be set at £26·05 billion—an increase of 12·8 per cent. on this year's settlement. I considered very carefully the argument for providing a greater level of support from national taxation to reduce the burden on community charge payers generally, but I concluded that in the present circumstances—notably those in the middle east—no further increase can be afforded in the amount of AEF beyond the increase of nearly £3 billion already proposed. So I confirm today that figure for the increase in aggregate external finance.
I am therefore fixing AEF and its distribution on the basis described in the consultation paper that was issued on 31 October. I have placed in the Vote Office, and have sent to local authorities, exemplifications showing the final standard spending assessments and grant entitlements for each authority that will follow from the settlement. The formal reports will be laid before the House shortly and debated in the normal way.
When we moved from rates to the community charge, the Government were concerned to protect many of those whose bills rose significantly as a result of the changes. We
1006
therefore introduced some transitional relief to protect those former rate payers, and elderly or disabled people even if they did not pay rates.
My predecessor announced in July improvements to the transitional relief arrangements that would take effect in April. The Government have reviewed the impact of those arrangements, and we have decided that they are no longer adequate for the present circumstances. We intend to replace them from April with a community charge reduction scheme that will reflect the improvements already announced but provide considerably more help.
The new scheme is designed to help those whose bills have increased significantly over what they paid in rates. It will continue to limit increases over rates. This year, the limit is £3 a week. The limit next year will be £2 a week, as previously proposed—but unlike the transitional relief scheme, the new scheme will be based not on notional charges but on actual community charges after allowing for the unwinding of the safety net. Sadly, in many areas local authorities increased their spending by much more than we had provided for in the settlement, and almost all actual charges were higher than those notional charges.
As I shall explain, the new scheme will provide help for many of those in sheltered housing who largely did not qualify for transitional relief. The new scheme will reduce the amount paid in charges by £1·7 billion—of which £1·2 billion is new money—compared with £350 million of transitional relief this year. The number of people receiving help will go up from about 7 million this year to more than 18 million next year, which, as the House will realise, represents more than half of all those liable to pay the community charge.
The House will be aware that many people who lived in sheltered accommodation were ill-served by the old scheme. No matter how many people live in a sheltered housing scheme, in many cases they shared an entitlement to transitional relief as if there were only two people living there. Under my new scheme, most individuals or couples in such accommodation will be able to qualify for a reduction in their own right. Within the new scheme, that will provide about £150 million of help for these people. I know that that change will be warmly welcomed.
I also propose that my new scheme will give more help to people who previously benefited from charitable rate relief. It will require local authorities to take account of charitable relief granted under the General Rate Act 1967 when calculating the assumed rates bill. Among those who will benefit will be clergymen who live in church accommodation and elderly people who live in almshouses or other accommodation provided by a charity. Further details have been sent to local authorities today. Copies of the letter are in the Vote Office.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a separate announcement on the wider public expenditure and financing implications of the new scheme.
By adding the new scheme to the increase in AEF announced by my predecessor, the Government will be providing more than £4·25 billion extra support for England alone towards community charges next year than has been given this year. In addition, there is help from community charge benefit, which is paid to about 10 million people and is running at nearly £2 billion this year.
Given the extensive help available from relief and benefits, it is not surprising that the community charge that people actually pay on average is much less than the figures that local authorities have announced as their

1007
charges. This year, although the headline average charge was £357, the average amount payable was only about £280. Next year, provided that local authorities budget in line with the realistic provision that we have made, it is within their power to ensure that the average amount actually paid is less than £300.
It is of the utmost importance that that additional Government help should go to the benefit of charge payers, not to finance higher spending. In October, my right hon. Friend announced the criteria that he was minded to adopt in using his powers to cap excessive budgets, or excessive increases in budgets between years. I should make it clear to the House and to local authorities that I stand firmly by the intentions that he then announced. Let nobody think that the additional support means that authorities can relax their efforts to control spending.
The finance settlement I have announced and the new community charge reduction scheme reflect the Government's commitment to financing local government. It will now be for local authorities to provide the services that their charge payers want, at a price that their charge payers can afford.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement leaves the fundamentals of the poll tax completely unchanged, and ensures that the average poll tax fixed for the coming year will be not the £380 that he and his predecessors specified but well over £400 per person? It is presumably because that is so that his statement has been made so late on a day that has been dominated by momentous events elsewhere.
Does the Secretary of State accept that disappointment at his statement will be felt all the more keenly because of the expectations that he aroused? During the Tory leadership contest, he gave the impression that he would act immediately to relieve local government and poll tax payers alike of the burdens of the poll tax. His statement today shows that, while he may have laboured mightly, when he came to deliver, it turned out to be just a phantom pregnancy.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his statement will come as a special blow to local government? Surely, from the Secretary of State's earlier statements, local government had a right to expect that he would tackle the obvious flaws in calculating standard spending assessments, and the basic inadequacy of the revenue support grant, which unfortunately he has now confirmed will rise by only £183 million, or 1·9 per cent., over the figure for the current year. It is the inadequacy of that figure which lies at the heart of the poll tax catastrophe.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, when he talks about £3 billion of new money, £2 billion of it comes from business rate payers, and only a tiny proportion from the revenue support grants? That is the battle that he should have fought and won; that is the battle that he has apparently ducked. What can he say to local authorities which are caught between inadequate revenue support grant and the threat of capping, with budgets which are now in deep disarray and which must now inflict deep and damaging cuts in services already stretched to breaking point? Does he recognise that those
1008
problems have been made more difficult, from an administrative point of view, by the delay in confirming the level of revenue support grant?
How can he adhere to the ridiculous assumption that 100 per cent. of the poll tax will be collected, when low levels of collection are now widely admitted and alone will add large sums to poll tax bills this year?
The additional money for transitional relief is welcome, notwithstanding the fact that it is a further admission that the poll tax is basically flawed and unworkable. It is the third such scheme to be announced in 15 months and, if the Secretary of State persists in asserting that the original scheme benefited 7 million people, he must not be surprised if we are sceptical about the figures which he produces today.
Welcome though the extent of the scheme may be, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise—and how many of his hon. Friends recognise—that it retains many of the flaws of the original scheme? What use is it to those people who move house, or who live in large households, as both categories are excluded? Why has nothing been done to help student nurses or non-working wives? When it comes to paying for the new scheme, what bad news does the Chancellor have up his sleeve when he makes his statement on the subject?
How does the Secretary of State expect local authorities to cope administratively with the change in the rules, which will require the liability of every potential taxpayer to be recalculated, in the few weeks available to them?
If the statement is disappointing in dealing with short-term issues, it is equally depressing in respect of long-term solutions. Quite contrary to the easy assumptions about getting rid of the poll tax, it is now clear that no solution to the problem of poll tax is in sight. If the Secretary of State were Archimedes, he would still be wallowing in his bath.
The truth is that no real relief from the poll tax is on offer, either now or in the future. What we need now is not a community charge reduction scheme but a community charge abolition scheme. If we are to be rescued from the poll tax nightmare, we shall need a Labour Government to do the job.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will realise that the fact that my statement has been delayed is in no way of my making. It is the consequence of the important statement that the Prime Minister made today, and I am sure that everyone in the House fully understands that.
The hon. Gentleman has missed the essence and the mood of what we have been saying on this matter, and in a wider context, recently. He knows perfectly well that there are steps one can take in the short term, but that others require legislation and can only be taken in the long term. He would have shown a great deal more confidence in his alternatives to the community charge if he had been prepared to come and talk about them, as opposed to cowering behind the anonymity of his proposals. We have already begun an interesting consultative process with other political parties, which have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to talk about the issue.
It is characteristic of the Labour party that it is prepared to make a lot of noise without any substance whatsoever in what it has to say. Nothing shows more clearly the reality of the hon. Gentleman's position than his dismissal of my announcement today as though it was

1009
of no consequence. The fact that £1·2 billion of extra money was made available to deal with these problems is apparently a matter of no consequence for the Opposition. The whole House, and a wider constituency outside it, will have regard to that profligate attitude to public expenditure from the Opposition.
When he considers the fundamental issue of whether we have been concerned to help or not, the hon. Gentleman should realise that total Government additional support has risen by 12·8 per cent. over the announcements that we have made. It is perfectly true that that figure is a composite of Government support and the unified business rate, but both are within the gift of Government to determine, and it is quite right that they should be regarded as part of a package in the overall settlement.
The standard spending assessments of local authorities are up by 19·4 per cent. for England, so the idea that we have had no regard to the requirements and needs of local authorities simply stands up to no examination whatsoever.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has revealed his own lack of confidence in his proposals and, by his failure to produce any criticisms, proved how right we are in what we have said today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are two more statements after this and that the Secretary of State specifically said in his statement that the formal reports will be laid before the House shortly and will be debatable. I ask Members to ask questions on matters of substance, and not on general matters appertaining to this important issue.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr.Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to hear the point before I can rule.
Mr. Douglas: We know that you are under a lot of pressure, Mr. Speaker, but it would be very helpful if you could give us some idea of the time that you are likely to allot to the statements. I do not think that this is an unfair suggestion.
Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Member has asked me, I imagine that it will be about half an hour each.
Sir Hugh Rossi: May I assure my right hon. Friend that, irrespective of what the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has just said, his statement will be warmly welcomed by the hard-pressed and the oppressed charge payers of the London borough of Haringey, especially the statement that additional relief will be attached to actual, rather than notional, charge.
However, without wishing to diminish the Government's generosity in making £1·2 billion available, the Government's subvention is not enough. More than anything else, financial discipline is required from the local authorities concerned. Therefore, why has the London borough of Haringey been allowed not to produce its accounts for audit for the past five years, when an Act of Parliament requires it to do so within six months if it is not
1010
to act illegally? Why has no action been taken to assert financial discipline upon that local authority and other similar local authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He will realise that the Government's capping powers have protected his borough from the worst ravages of increasing expenditure. However, as he says, in many circumstances that can never be enough to meet the ambitions of some of the charge payers concerned. He raises a most serious matter by drawing our attention to the fact that there is a lacuna in the accounting arrangements. In the Department, we treat that extremely seriously, and my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, South (Mr. Portillo), will be writing to my hon. Friend tomorrow.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, now that he has admitted that about 18 million people need some help to pay a flat rate charge, he has shown up the inadequacy of the poll tax as a basic tax for local government? While we welcome some of the changes that he has made, some of which reflect upon him and his predecessors—the changes to help people in sheltered housing schemes and affecting churches, for example —why did he reject the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum collection, which the Audit Commission has backed within the past few days?
We shall continue to try to persuade the Secretary of State that a local income tax would be much fairer. Will he now admit, however, that the misery of income tax—I mean the misery of poll tax—[Laughter.] I can tell hon. Members that the misery of income tax is nowhere near as bad as the misery of poll tax. Will the Secretary of State admit that that misery will be with the people of this country until after the next general election?
Mr. Heseltine: I had the privilege of listening to the hon. Gentleman expound at length on the miseries of local income tax when he came to see me earlier this week: it was one of the helpful parts of the consultation process that is now under way.
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the 20 per cent. element. It is necessary to make a judgment in such circumstances. Primary legislation would have been required to deal with the matter, which would have taken considerable time, pre-empted the review on which we have embarked and denied the principle of general universality on which the community charge is based. Moreover, it would not, in our view, have addressed the most urgent need—the need to protect those whose payments were affected the most adversely by the community charge proposals. That had arisen because Labour and, sadly, some Liberal authorities had such profligate expenditure patterns.
Mr. Robin Squire: Given the rumours of a cut in the previously announced figure, my right hon. Friend deserves sincere congratulations not only on producing an increase of over £1,000 million, but on directing it especially towards those whose payments under the old rating system have risen the most—and, of course, those in sheltered housing. Will he redouble his efforts—particularly in the light of today's world news, which obviously overshadows his statement—to make it crystal clear to any local authority contemplating large

1011
increases that such increases will flow directly from that authority's decisions, and are in no way a result of the generous settlement that he announced today?
Mr. Heseltine: Anyone who studies the figures will realise that there is a political alternative. It is plain that, by and large, on average, Labour authorities charge a great deal more than do Conservative authorities. Under pressure from my hon. Friend, I will make it my business to reveal the political impact of the community charge, depending on which party is in control.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: May I remind the Secretary of State that one reason for that is the fact that it is easier to get a child under pre-school age admitted to a nursery in a Labour authority than it is in any Tory authority in the country? That has to be paid for.
Can the right hon. Gentleman name a single problem or anomaly among those that he claims to have corrected today—or claims that his predecessor corrected—that was not raised during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988? There can be none, because the Government were warned of them all. The Secretary of State knows that; will he admit it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how the measures announced today will increase local government accountability, which is supposed to be at the heart of the poll tax? Where is the element of accountability in the maintaining of a flat-rate tax controlled by central Government, irrespective of ability to pay?
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman had followed what I said carefully enough, he would have realised that the new community charge reduction scheme does not affect the difference between this year's charge and next year's. If local authorities increase their charges, that will flow through to the charge payer, maintaining the principle of accountability.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about the provision of education justifying increased expenditure in Labour authorities. What the hon. Gentleman must consider is whether the standards of service in inner-city schools and on inner-city housing estates justify the levels of expenditure with which they are often associated.
Miss Emma Nicholson: The speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rested on the central platform that there would have to be a recalculation of each person's payment, and that the system was therefore inoperable. Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that such calculations are undertaken with the use of enormously sophisticated computer software and hardware, and that district councils have already invested in that equipment —which will more than cope, in nanoseconds, with the modest extra calculation that will be needed?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We tried to have regard to local government computer software programmes and to confine the changes that we have made to those likely to have the least effect on, in particular, the costs that will result. It is not always possible to guarantee that 100 per cent., but we have borne it very much in mind.
Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents need an adequate police force and an adequate fire service, manned to Home Office standards, but cannot have them? Will the money be provided for those standards to be reached? Is he aware that my constituents need nursery schools—and are asking for them—and that they need more home helps and meals on wheels? Judging by the pre-run budget that it has just been given, my local authority will have to impose a massive increase in poll tax, and it still has to find £6 million to pay for cuts made last year and the year before.
Mr. Heseltine: If the standard spending assessment for the hon. Gentleman's local authority has risen by 20 per cent. in a year, that must reflect the fact that the Government anticipate a wider range of services. There is always a limit to the extra money that can be provided within the constraints of public expenditure.
The police authorities are subject to the same rules as other authorities; when their budgets have been fixed, it will be a question of discussing the effect of the capping regimes in the light of those budgets. It is for the police —as it is for every body that provides a public service—to ensure that they are providing value for money within the limits of the cash made available to them. Not all police expenditure is about bobbies on the beat; as the Audit Commission revealed, there are areas of potential economy in many of the services that the police provide, and it is in the interests of good policing as much as in those of the taxpayer for those economies to be pursued.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Undoubtedly, the measures announced by my right hon. Friend will be welcomed everywhere by the millions who will gain from them. Let me, however, raise an anomaly which is not merely financial but moral—the position of those who must pay the charge from the wages of their spouses. To my knowledge, those are the only people with no incomes who have to pay 100 per cent. This is not just a question of money; it is a moral issue, especially as our party—and, I trust, the whole House—is pro-family.
I hope that, in the long term, we shall be able to separate local and national finance-raising and local and national powers, and that we can end the continual battle between local and national Government. It is doing nothing for democracy.
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend, who is a considerable authority on the subject, will know that the more acute problems will be dealt with by the safety net of the community welfare programmes, which will help couples on lower incomes. Dealing with the principle of payment by the spouse with no individual income, however, would have required the introduction of a relief that could have benefited the spouses of extremely wealthy people. We therefore felt that it was not a priority.
Mr. William Ross: I hesitate to intervene on what seems, on the face of it, to be solely an English debate. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that although Northern Ireland retains the rating system, it bears a relationship to the rateable valuation of an area in the north of England. What will be the basis for future local government finance in Northern Ireland, now

1013
that the old basis has disappeared? Can we look forward to a common system of local government finance throughout the United Kingdom in the long term?
Mr. Heseltine: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that I am not in a position to answer that question, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will attend to it with expedition.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend realise just how dramatic an effect the help that he is providing will have on many people in high-charging Labour authorities, especially in the north, now that charges are to become actual rather than notional? I welcome the fact that the community charge is becoming even less of a flat-rate system.
Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that many Conservative Members would like his long-term review to reduce bills dramatically—if not by half—through the transfer of the costs of the bulk of education?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be fully aware that I have heard his views on this subject before, but that in no way discounts the value of his contributions. His suggestion must be seen in the context of the review that we are conducting.
Mr. David Clelland: The Secretary of State must be aware that it will be widely recognised throughout the country that his announcement is a further vain attempt to buy votes for the Tory party using public money. It appears from his statement that he does not want to buy any votes from Newcastle upon Tyne. Contrary to his final comments, the people of Newcastle will not be able to enjoy the services that charge payers want and are faced with a £12·5 million reduction in budget as a result of his financial regime. That means the closure of homes and schools and cuts in services for which people are crying out. Will he confirm that the assumed personal community charge of £411·52 quoted in his document ignores the £1 million reduction in SSA which the document also announces, and that that means a further £5 increase in the community charge? Will he also confirm that it ignores the increase that will be necessary to allow for non-payment which could take the community charge in Newcastle to as much as £435 with an attendant reduction in services? How can that possibly be fair or even sensible?
Mr. Heseltine: There is always a demand for more services, but there is also a demand for people to pay lower bills to the central or local authority and a balance must be struck. The balance cannot be struck by licensing people not to pay the legitimate bills sent to them. I cannot accept the implication in what the hon. Gentleman said that somehow we must budget to assume that we will not collect the bills.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept from one who maintains close liaison with local government throughout the country that the additional £1·2 billion that he announced today will be more than welcome? I am gratified that he has listened to my representations on behalf of those who live in low-rated accommodation, many of whom in my
1014
constituency and throughout the north of England will have substantial reductions of £100 or £150 in their community charge bills next year.
While I welcome all that my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him to do nothing to encourage the profligate Cleveland county council to go on spending money in the way that it does, such as repainting its red fire engines with a new colour? Will my right hon. Friend encourage Cleveland county council to take on board the proposal that I put to it earlier this week—that it engages Sir John Harvey-Jones to do a management audit and save the people of Cleveland the millions of pounds that are being wasted now?
Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's interest and knowledge in the subject and I listened carefully to what he said. I greatly regret the fact that the community charge in Cleveland is £421; its citizens would have been better served if it had been lower. I should be the first to recognise that my hon. Friend is right that the scheme that we have announced today will lead to a significant reduction in the bills of some charge payers. I am thinking of people living in areas where the rateable values and the sums paid under the rates were low, but where there have been significant increases as a result of the change to the community charge. In many cases, such people can expect significant reductions in their bills.
Mr. John Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and I are perplexed by his generosity as it affects Lambeth? A year ago the average rate per head in Lambeth was £275. This year, the poll tax, as capped, is £522 per head and next year, under his forecast, it will be £546 per head. Does he realise that we would be twice as well off if we returned to the rates?
Mr. Heseltine: The London borough of Lambeth would be twice as well off it if turned itself into a Conservative-controlled authority.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome much of what he had to say. I shall go away and read the small print. Is he aware that many local authorities such as mine—Kirklees—are increasing their community charge by huge amounts and blaming it on the Government for lack of funds and grants? Will he please emphasise today to the House and the people outside the increase in money that they are to receive?
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend will join me and my colleagues in putting over that important case. The SSAs of Kirklees have been increased by 19 per cent. during the year which is a dramatic increase. It shows that there is an ability to provide an attractive range of services at the sort of figures that the Government have suggested will flow from the community charge. It must be an important part of my responsibility—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me—to make much of the fact that the Government are now providing some £4 billion more in support of local government and its services than they did last year.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State recall that many of his hon. Friends campaigned for the poll tax on the basis that it simplified local government expenditure and made it easier to

1015
understand? Does he believe that they were correct? How far do his proposals today make it simpler, and does he accept that the only thing that is simpler for my constituents to understand is the widespread hardship that has been caused, particularly to the married woman who has no income of her own and to young people on low incomes, many of whom are having to move from one set of accommodation to another fairly frequently and need their poll tax registration done regularly and their rebates varied? That is causing a major administrative burden for local authorities.
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman tells many of his constituents that their bills will go down next year, he will find that they understand, even if he does not.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will welcome the changes made to the transitional relief? In the light of their wish to be able to reach for their calculators to find out how it will affect them, when and how will he make available simple exemplifications? Hereford and Worcester county council is one of the lowest recipients of grant. Is he aware that there is a grievance in respect of the funding of its police authority, which is in the vanguard of obeying Home Office instructions to civilianise and, as a consequence, finds itself penalised on its SSA and therefore further deprived of grant? Will he reconsider that anomaly?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend should know that we will look at all these matters in the context of the budget-setting arrangements that must take place before we can reach reasonable judgments about the questions that he is putting to me. That applies particularly to the capping of authorities. The best that I can do to help my hon. Friend on the first part of his question is to say that, although we cannot produce examples of the consequences of our scheme until we know the budgets that have been set by the local authorities, we can produce examples in hypothetical circumstances from which I am sure my hon. Friend will be able to draw his own conclusions.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the size of the fire service and police service is set by the Home Office. Is he aware that recently the chief constable of West Yorkshire said that next year there will be 500 fewer bobbies on the beat because of the lack of funds? Given his answer a short time ago about the efficiency of police authorities, is he saying that the chief constable of West Yorkshire is running an inefficient force? Does he still consider this to be a Tory tax?
Mr. Heseltine: I would make no such suggestion to the chief constable of any of the police authorities. However, as I said, police authorities have a responsibility to use their money effectively like all others—
Mr. William O'Brien: On police officers.
Mr. Heseltine: Yes, the hon. Gentleman has made my point. It is incumbent on the authorities to look at their other expenditure to see what economies there can be. When they have set their budgets, all those factors will be taken into account in any discussions that we have.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I believe that my right hon. Friend's statement today will be read across London with interest and, no doubt when it is digested, it will be approved because of its basic fairness. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that it is essential for local government finance to retain the principles of accountability and that everyone of adult age should pay a share of the cost? When he goes into his wider review, he may find that he will not need to make too many more changes to gain approval from the British public.
Mr. Heseltine: I am tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, but the substance of the advice that I get on this matter is—how can I put it?—confused.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement that the scheme will continue to support charges that are higher than they were under the rates is questionable? Charges in parts of London are two or three times as high as the rates. As his party is the party of the family, will he take into account the disruptive effects of the poll tax on family life and get rid of this unjust and unworkable tax?
Mr. Heseltine: I wish that the Labour party would come and talk to me about its ideas for a workable alternative. I am sure that they are as coherent and viable as the Liberal party's. If it can do so, why cannot the Labour party? The essence of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that the community charge is significantly higher than the rates. I have introduced this scheme precisely to address that issue.
Mr. Graham Riddick: My right hon. Friend's new community charge reduction scheme will receive a warm welcome from thousands, if not millions, of people who live in low rateable value houses in the north of England. It will help many pensioners as well as other people. Will he join me in condemning my local Labour council, Kirklees, which is failing local residents by trying to levy as high a community charge as possible to score party political points against the Government?
Mr. Heseltine: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen the virtues of the scheme so clearly and quickly. I strongly commend it. It appears that Kirklees is causing more trouble in the north than even I had realised. I am sure that he will join my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) in launching a formidable attack on it.
Mr. John Evans: I wish to raise several issues about the settlement for St. Helens, but in view of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I shall concentrate on only one. Is the Secretary of State aware that the regional burns unit at Whiston hospital in St. Helens and Knowsley health authority has been designated to receive casualties from the Gulf? Is he aware that it could cause the social services and housing departments of St. Helens authority —a capped authority—considerable problems if it is required to provide housing for the families of service men who are incarcerated in that hospital? Will he give an undertaking that if such a situation arises he will ensure that the authority's additional costs will be met in full by the Department?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that none of us wants to see the circumstances that he described. He knows full well that if emergencies arise,

1017
they will be dealt with properly and that we shall consider their consequences. It would be wrong to hypothesise such consequences today.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My local authority believes that the all-ages social index gives far too much to profligate authorities such as Blackburn, Burnley and Preston. Nevertheless, my constituents will be delighted that the extra money will go not to spendthrift local authorities such as Lancashire county council, but directly to charge payers, helping especially those in sheltered housing and in previously low-rated authorities. It will apply to the actual charge rather than the notional charge, which took a dickens of a lot of explaining to anybody.
Mr. Heseltine: I congratulate my hon. Friend on moving with the speed of light to the heart of the matter. I hope that she will repeat her comments loudly, clearly and often in Lancashire, because the message will then be widely understood and welcomed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not there something radically wrong when on 12 successive occasions Ministers have had to come to the House of Commons to announce major changes to the poll tax? Is not there something wrong when the two constituencies that I represent, wholly or in part—Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire—[Interruption.] Is not there something wrong when the two local authorities that I represent—Bolsover and North-
East Derbyshire—have total revenue support grant of £66 million compared with £188 million for Westminster? If we had the same standard spending assessment as Westminster, calculated on the same basis, we would not have the poll tax and we would be giving people money back.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that Bolsover receives £133 of safety netting. I hope that he explains to his constituents the benefits that the Government have bestowed on them, not in any way as a result of the articulate representations of their Member of Parliament.
Mr. Jim Lester: I commend my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to all the representations that have been made and for making help available where it is most needed. Many councils resent the carrying over of debts from the current year. I have considerable sympathy for those who cannot pay, who could be helped if councils were given more freedom to arrange methods of payment for them, but I condemn those who will not pay.
Mr. Heseltine: I have joined my hon. Friend many times in condemning members of local authorities or charge payers who refuse to pay. I deplore, without reservation, hon. Members who encourage non-payment, which can only have the effect of increasing the charges of those who keep within the law. I very much support my hon. Friend's comments on that. The debts of the previous period must be collected. If people continue to delay payment, there must never come a time when councils stop pursuing payment.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the representative of the other half of North-East Derbyshire—the bigger half—may I point out to the Minister that pages 1 to 13 of the document show the standard spending assessment broken down into revenue support, poll tax
1018
and the business rate? It would help hon. Members to compare the grants for authorities if the figures were shown as percentages, for which I asked in a parliamentary question on last year's figures. It was produced, but placed in the Library. Could the figures be made readily available, perhaps in Hansard or in some document that could be collected from the Letter Board? We could than see that some of the figures that we have been given are not as precise or exact as is suggested.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman was obviously able to obtain the information that he required. I do not know whether other hon. Members wished to obtain the same information, but doubtless he could have made it available to them if they did. As it is apparent that the information is available, we appear to be being as helpful as is necessary in the circumstances. As part of a deal, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could be helpful by paying his poll tax.
Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but to encourage accountability between different councils, particularly shire county councils, will he urgently—I have twice asked for this in the House and have been assured that it will be produced —publish a table of the full-time equivalent staff of different shire counties to enable us to know which are employing too many staff and, as a result, setting bills that are too high?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I was last in the Department, we had a joint manpower watch report which gave us detailed information. I have not checked on how it is proceeding, but, spurred on by my hon. Friend, I shall do so with dispatch.
Mr. Tony Banks: Why does not the Secretary of State concede that, with the latest change, the Government have made a complete pig's ear of local authority finance? At successive stages, we warned the Government that that would be so. Were it not for the ghoulish shadow of Finchley lady, I am sure that the Government would abolish the poll tax altogether.
It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to work on calculations that local authorities will achieve 100 per cent. collection. The borough of Newham has managed to achieve about 58 per cent. and hopes to achieve about 75 per cent. Thousands of poor Newham people are being taken through the courts by Newham borough council —people who need pay only 20 per cent.—because the Secretary of State says that debts should be collected. Is he aware of the extreme hardship that the poll tax is causing in inner-city areas of London? Does he feel any shame or place any responsibility on his own head for the misery of people being dragged through the courts in Newham and elsewhere?
Mr. Heseltine: I am tired of being lectured about the problems of the poor by a party that consists of many members who refused to pay the poll tax in the first place. If I may be frank, everyone understands that the poorest people were protected by the changes in the community charge, either by the direct benefit or by the uprating of their benefits. There were difficulties because certain local authorities—usually Labour controlled—set the community charge above the level that the Government had deemed necessary. It was that increase that the poor found difficult to pay.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: May I give credit where credit is due and thank my right hon. Friend for acting to protect 18 million people. Does he agree that, if local authorities—many of which, I am afraid, are Labour controlled—followed his inspiration, they could start by protecting many of our constituents? I have no doubt that many of our constituents still do not fully appreciate that they are suffering at the hands of local authorities. Those local authorities use the Government as an excuse. My right hon. Friend's action today has demonstrated otherwise. As long as local authorities such as mine continue to contribute £5,000 to funding Labour women's conferences in towns, there is no excuse for an excessive community charge.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend gave a classic example of just how profligate local Labour authorities can be in their disregard of those who pay the bills. As the figures in front of me show, by and large Labour authorities cause higher community charges. That unfailing generalisation flows out of their actions. It is fundamentally important that, rather than just clamouring for endless extra expenditure, the Labour party should try to get that deal to their charge payers.
Mr. James Pawsey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing substantial added funding, which will be widely welcomed by community charge payers in Warwickshire. But—this is an important but—the SSA mechanism continues to be blunt, despite the ingenious ideas from my right hon. Friend's officials. Will he therefore give an undertaking that, where real injustice has been faced by a local authority, additional funding will be made available to it to underwrite that injustice?
Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has given attention to the SSAs. I have today announced the closing of the options for the settlement which we are discussing. I am the first to recognise that all these matters include an element of judgment. If my hon. Friend wishes to continue discussions with us about the SSAs for the following year, of course we will listen with the same care as we did this year.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall have to draw questions to a halt and close the exchanges at 6 o'clock. I ask hon. Members to ask brief questions.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his welcome statement gives the most benefit to those in the lowest rated properties, including pensioners and those who are disabled and on benefit? Will he have another look at the categories of disabled people to include the most severely disabled who are registered with the Department of Employment?
Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. The help which we have given has been targeted as best we can within the confines of the legislation and the powers available to us. Many people in the categories that my hon. Friend defined will be helped, but I should be irresponsible if I were to promise to go further in this settlement.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the extra money that he makes
1020
available. He is entirely right to direct it at those who have had the largest increase in their payments to local government. However, I wish that I could be so congratulatory about his announcement about the SSAs. I understand the difficulty that he faces for the current year. Does he accept, however, that the present formula creates considerable injustices and discrepancies between authorities? It cannot be right that there is a difference of over 25 per cent. in the SSAs for the Hambleton and Ryedale districts in my constituency, yet, by any practical judgment, their needs are precisely the same.
Mr. Heseltine: I know how my hon. Friend feels on this matter. He has talked at length to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment. If I represented his constituents, I should probably argue his case. If he sat in my seat, he would know that the one characteristic of all SSAs is that all local authorities feel that SSAs disadvantage them and they believe that they should be adjusted, usually to give more benefit to the local authority arguing the case.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the thousands of people who live in small terraced houses in my constituency and who feel that they were cheated by the previous transitional arrangements. My question concerns the payment of aggregate external finance funding. My right hon. Friend's Department recently produced a scheme to end-load rather than front-load the payment of this money to councils. Although it has been modified, it still has a distinct disadvantage, particularly for those efficient councils that collect their community charge. Will my right hon. Friend look again at that point?
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot look at that matter again in the year to come. I recognise that there has been a change which local authorities will not find as comfortable as they would have liked because the scheme that we introduced for the present year was more generous, to reflect the fact that this was a transitional year. We have now reverted to a more orthodox distribution pattern. Of course, local authorities or my hon. Friend and other colleagues may make representations, and we can look at the matter in the longer term, but I should be irresponsible if I suggested that I can reopen it for the next settlement.
Mr. James Paice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed changes to the standard charges announced by his predecessor will remain? That will end the blatant exploitation of the standard charge system by many local authorities. Will he look again at the de minimis rule for the smaller authorities with regard to charge capping? Many have been among the worst in terms of increasing their expenditure but, because their expenditure is less than £15 million, they are escaping his capping powers.
Mr. Heseltine: I am afraid that I must disappoint my hon. Friend on his latter point about the de minimis rule. I cannot keep open the settlement with which we are now dealing. I am fully aware of this flexibility in the present arrangements, but expenditure by the authorities concerned amounts to only 15 per cent. of total local government expenditure. We decided that we would leave that outside the rigours of the capping regime. Many of the councillors concerned are up for election this year. I hope that those who want to deliver the best value for money

1021
will have a clear regard for those people on whose votes their re-election is determined. I can confirm that the SSA arrangements which we have made will be those that are in place for this settlement.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement does not release local authorities from their duty to restrain their spending and ensure that this year's community charge is collected? In both respects, the local authorities in my constituency have a sound record. Should not my right hon. Friend be congratulated on the way in which he has sensibly targeted the extra money which he obtained for this year, but is he aware from questions asked by several of my hon. Friends that there is ample scope for further reform in the SSA system and in the structure and incidence of the community charge?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for reform in the system of local government finance. I have never known a period in British history when there was not scope for reform. It exists as much today as in the past. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the duty to collect and the duty to contain expenditure.
I referred to the 18 million people who will receive benefit under the new regime. It is fair to say that a significant number of people will not receive benefit and therefore will have to face any unnecessarily large increases in the community charge that authorities decide to impose. I dare say that those people will decide to react with whatever force they can in the circumstances.
Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for the assistance that he has targeted towards those on transitional relief, putting it on a factual basis? Does he accept that there is a continuing feeling among shire districts that the settlement has been skewed against them once more? For example, in Bromsgrove, the settlement reduction this year offsets the reduction in the safety net contribution. The position is made worse for Conservative council candidates by the publication, yet again, of a purely notional figure in annexe B which cannot be achieved.
Mr. Heseltine: In his observations, my hon. Friend may want to take into account the fact that the shire districts have the highest increase in standard spending assessment as a result of these proposals. If one introduces a safety net temporarily and then phases it out, there will be consequences. The alternative is to leave it there and, therefore, to leave in place an anomaly in the system which was never intended.
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am one of the few hon. Members of this House who do not have a GCE in mathematics, so I ask my hon. Friend for help. Can he confirm that my figures are right? Will a couple in Hyndburn, who paid rates of £180 two years ago and have this year paid £630 in community charge, pay next year under the settlement £404 in total, even if the county council does as it has threatened and increases the community charge to £400 a head? If that is so, that is good news and will be welcomed by the people in Hyndburn.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not put my signature to his calculations. However, in using a broad brush, he must be in the right ball-park.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: In briefing himself on the facts of the community charges levied this year, has my right hon. Friend noted that if one strips out the pluses and minuses of the safety net, and the levies and contributions that individuals have paid, which distort the relative community charges between councils, one will find that there is a difference of £107 between the community charge levied by the average Labour council and that levied by the average Conservative council?
Mr. Heseltine: As so often, my hon. Friend is ahead of the field. He seems to be striking a chord that is not far away from the figures that I should expect to hear. It is one of those curiosities that I have in front of me the figure for Conservative counties and districts, and for those with a combination of control, which, after taking away the safety net, is £317 on average. The equivalent figure for Labour is £408.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the improved community charge scheme which will give assistance to those who live in houses with a low rateable value, especially in areas such as mine in which the district council insists on spending 35 per cent. above its SSA. However, may I raise the problem of people who live in permanent caravans on what are primarily non-residential caravan sites, where it is difficult to calculate the rateable value? Under the present scheme, they do not receive transitional allowance. They are entitled to the allowance by virtue of their income, but the problem is that they live in a primarily non-residential caravan scheme and do not, therefore, receive the transitional allowance.
Mr. Heseltine: Frankly, I do not have the answer to my hon. Friend's question, but I will write to him with the details.
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the second time today on which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has risen at the end. If he has a question, I will call him, although I said that I would bring the questions to an end at 6 pm. I do not know whether he heard me.
Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am quite willing to sit to the end and not to rise every time so that others may get in first. I see nothing wrong with that.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are few Ministers who could take office and, within seven weeks, get £1·2 billion out of the Treasury? That is a remarkable achievement. How can my right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities will not use the extra benefit—which will go, supposedly, to the poll tax payer—to increase their own spending? That is the great worry and I am not reassured by what my right hon. Friend said that that will not happen.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's first observations, although I am not sure that they will be welcomed in all parts of the Government. If we think about our announcement today, we realise that the money is going to individuals and is not directed to helping levels of expenditure. For far and away the bulk of authorities,

1023
the levels of expenditure are subject to the capping regimes which will not be affected by the new grants that we have described today.
Mr. David Blunkett: If a Labour Secretary of State had made the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has made this afternoon, which involves gerrymandering poll tax bills to save seats, there would have been an outcry from the press and from the Tory party. The money, which is welcome, should be used to meet need and to protect services.
I hope that the Secretary of State can confirm that total standard spending will be up by only 7·1 per cent.—TSS is crucial for the year-on-year comparison. From where is the new money coming? Is it coming from inside the Department and from cuts elsewhere, in the light of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a week last Sunday about public expenditure curtailment, or is it coming from other departmental cuts in other budgets? In the statement, it was said that the revenue support grant will remain at 1·9 per cent. up. The statement is not about revenue support; it is a smokescreen for the failure of the poll tax.
I have two simple questions for the Secretary of State. First, would not it be cheaper to bring back the rates rather than to try to compare poll tax bills with the rates and then to find extra money to try to bring them into a comparative position? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the scheme announced this afternoon? What is the basis of the new scheme? Will he confirm that his statement about 18 million beneficiaries may turn out to be nonsense, not simply because anyone who moves—the Audit Commission says that 40 per cent. of people in inner-city areas move in any one year—will no longer be entitled to the relief, but because we need to
1024
know whether the Secretary of State has invented a new notional poll tax? Is he inventing a new notional figure by which he will compare the old rates with his new figure? Is not it a fact that if authorities exceed that new notional figure—which we have yet to see—individuals will be disqualified from entitlement to the full relief that has been announced today?
Mr. Heseltine: There is no point in trying to argue with the hon. Gentleman about whether we substitute a wholly different system for the community charge this year. He and I know that those options are not within the wildest dreams of parliamentary possibility. The only issue is what we should do about the settlement this year, which we have explained.
The House will have understood clearly what I announced in my new regime. It is clear that people who live in houses that were of low rateable value will take the figures that they paid under the last year of the rates as the base point. They will receive a relief which will limit their maximum payment to £104—£2 a week more. They will then add the difference between this year's community charge and next year's community charge, which will be the maximum that they can pay. In other words, the basis of the relief scheme focuses on the actual level of the community charge in the current year.
Mr. Gould: The notional level.
Mr. Heseltine: No, it focuses on the actual charge this year—not on the charge that will be set—when compared with the last year of the rates as adjusted for the safety net. In that case, one will find that a significant number of people will get a grant to reduce the level of community charge that they pay next year as a consequence of what we have introduced. The best advice that is available to me is that something in the ball-park of 18 million people will be beneficiaries from what I have announced today.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
6.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement setting out my decisions on local government finance in Wales for 1991–92.
Before I do so, I want to pay a tribute to the late hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman). He was a long-serving and much-loved Member of the House, and his dedication to his constituency and to the country of Wales generally is well known. For six and a half years he had been Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee and had presided over most of its sittings. I believe that his wise and firm guidance of that Committee's deliberations played a large part in making its sittings both pleasant and effective. He will be greatly missed, and the House will wish to join me in sending sincere condolences to his widow and children.
As the House is already aware, the Government are undertaking a thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the community charge. In Wales, I have already had a very useful meeting with Welsh local authority associations, and I look forward to further discussions on these matters, including consultations with the Opposition parties in coming weeks. I have also looked at changes which can be made in the next financial year, and my statement today will explain my decisions.
The three reports that set out the final terms of the settlement will be laid before the House next Monday. I have today placed details of the settlement in the Library and I have arranged for essential data to be sent to every local authority in Wales.
The settlement allows for a level of total standard spending by Welsh authorities of £2,433 million—an increase of 14·9 per cent. on last year's figure and an increase of 8 per cent. on the aggregate of Welsh local authority budgets in 1990–91. Aggregate external finance in support of that level of spending will be £1,936·1 million —an increase of 11·2 per cent., or £196 million. Within that, the total of revenue support grant is £1,236·5 million, the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account is £525 million, and the total of specific grants within the AEF settlement is £174·6 million.
The settlement is an excellent one for Welsh local authorities. The increase in total standard spending means that local authorities in Wales are set to spend on average more than £1,100 for each and every Welsh charge payer in 1991–92 and gives authorities every opportunity to maintain services and to develop them where appropriate. It provides an increase of 8 per cent. on budgets for the current year—which were set too high—which is 2 per cent. ahead of the level of inflation forecast for 1991–92. In addition, efficiency savings, including those identified by the Audit Commission, can release additional resources for service development and can also result in an improved delivery of services. I commend to the House the work of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts and individual councils. The work that they have done to achieve the savings and better value for money is to be applauded.
Charge payers will expect their councils to set their budgets and community charges in line with the settlement. They know that expenditure increases that exceed this will mean higher charges than necessary.
1026
Similarly, charge payers will expect those councils whose spending falls below their standard spending assessment not to increase their spending by more than the amount for which I have allowed.
I must now explain to the House the implications of the settlement for Welsh charge payers. I am pleased to say that, for two reasons, Welsh charge payers will particularly benefit. First, it is good news for Welsh charge payers, because it means that the community charge for standard spending in 1991–92 will be £228—£4 less than the average charge in Wales in 1990–91. That is eminently achievable and means that, where authorities spend in line with the settlement, 80 per cent. of the cost of local authority services will be met by external finance and only 20 per cent. by Welsh charge payers. However, that figure of 20 per cent. takes no account of reductions in community charges made possible by direct Government assistance to charge payers.
The second reason why this is an excellent settlement for Welsh charge payers is that I am able today to announce a new community charge reduction scheme in Wales and a substantial increase in the sum available for reducing charges. For 1991–92, the amount available will increase from £20 million under the old transitional relief scheme to £62 million under the new scheme. Reductions in charges will benefit directly the residents of specified community areas and will be calculated by reference to the actual community charges set in 1990–91, rather than the notional charges used under the old transitional relief scheme.
The effect of that, together with the substantial additional resources that I am making available, will be significantly to increase the amount of help available to those who received help this year, and also to reduce the charges of the residents of many communities who received no relief this year. In overall terms, I expect the number of charge payers benefiting from reduced charges under the scheme to increase from 750,000 in 1990–91 to 1·4 million in 1991–92. In other words, 67 per cent. of Welsh charge payers, or two in every three, will receive assistance with their charges next year.
The average charge in Wales after the reductions should be about £200, and there is in addition community charge benefit to provide further assistance for those who qualify. When benefits and the new community charge reduction scheme are taken into account, Welsh charge payers should meet no more than 15 per cent. of the cost of local government services—provided always that authorities spend in line with my plans. It is of the greatest importance that this additional help from the Government should go to the benefit of charge payers, and should not be used as a cloak for higher spending.
Let me deal now with non-domestic rates. The rates contribution that Welsh businesses will make towards the cost of local government will be increased by the September retail prices index. I propose to set the multiplier—the Welsh poundage—at 40·8 this year, an increase of 10·9 per cent., as in England. Thus, Welsh businesses should again meet only about 20 per cent. of the cost of local government services in Wales.
My announcement is about revenue spending by Welsh local authorities in 1991–92, but I should inform the House that I also propose to increase the level of support for capital investment by £18 million and I shall announce my proposals on the distribution of these additional resources shortly.

1027
Welsh local authorities are now considering their budgets for 1991–92. I have listened to the representations of the Welsh local authority associations, and have decided not to announce criteria now for community charge capping. But I have also made absolutely clear to every local authority in Wales that, if they budget excessively, they must expect me to act to protect the interests of their charge payers. It is of particular importance that councils do not regard my announcement today as an excuse for additional spending. Welsh charge payers and I will expect authorities to set charges which enable charge payers fully to enjoy the additional assistance that I have announced.
This is an excellent settlement, and charge payers have every reason to expect their councils to set their budgets and community charges in line with it. They should expect to receive community charge bills that reflect the full benefit of the additional resources that I have provided and to pay an average community charge of around £200. I commend the settlement to the House.
Mr. Barry Jones: We shall miss the strong and honest voice of the late Donald Coleman. All of us appreciated the sincere remarks of the Secretary of State about our late colleague, who was a magnificent Member of Parliament. Only very recently, he was seen guarding his constituents' interests vigorously and well in the Chamber. Everyone will agree that Donald Coleman loved the town of Neath, its hinterland and its valley. He wished only to make a better life for his constituents, and we were witness to his fine attempts to do that. Neath could have had no better Member of Parliament.
Turning to the community charge reduction scheme —for that is what it is now called—if the unjust poll tax must remain in Wales, I broadly welcome the improvements. Will the new scheme now operate all over Wales? I emphasise that, at present, many communities do not share in transitional relief. For example, will any community in Alyn and Deeside receive benefit from the scheme? At present, no community does. The Secretary of State is merely tinkering. It is only a minor change. The only reform would be abolition.
The Secretary of State made a reference to charge capping. He tries to skirt the issue. Does he intend to apply caps? If so, why does not he announce the criteria? He could confirm now that the English criteria would be used. On the eve of the match, I may as well tell him that he is kicking for touch. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking local authorities to make the choice between cutting services and being capped? Surely he cannot be asking for teacher redundancies. Surely he does not seriously propose any implication of, say, the closure of rural schools.
Can the Secretary of State explain a paradox in his statement? At the beginning, he praised local authorities for their efforts to improve efficiency, yet he finished by accusing them of profligacy and waste. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name one local authority in Wales which has acted irresponsibly.
On capital announcements, does the Secretary of State realise that, for the Welsh districts, capital expenditure is an absolute disaster? I put it to him that, compared to the average for the past three years, investment plans for housing are down in real terms by one quarter. The shortfall is £75 million. Consequently, the extra and
1028
welcome £18 million of which he boasts must be insufficient, bearing in mind homelessness and the housing crisis throughout Wales.
Will the Secretary of State identify for us in the House tonight the precise cash provided for care in the community? He boasts of extra capital. Is it earmarked for community care? I want to give him a warning. Will not the increase in the business rate above the rate of inflation add to the problems of business in Wales in the increasingly serious recession?
The statement is basically all about the poll tax. When Wales has a new Government, Labour will abolish the poll tax. We say that the poll tax must be abolished. It is unjust and it is despised throughout Wales.
Mr. Hunt: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's peroration in a moment. First, I am grateful for his broad welcome of the new scheme that I have announced this evening. Secondly, on the coverage of the community charge reduction scheme, 67 per cent. of Welsh charge payers in over 600 communities out of 865 will benefit. In 1991, 35 per cent. of charge payers are covered in 320 communities. I may attract some criticism from behind me now, because I can reveal that, whereas no communities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Alyn and Deeside have benefited until now, under the changes that I have announced today, nine of his communities will benefit, and the average reduction in community charge bills will be £24.
Mr.Barry Jones: I thank the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying, "Thank you," so gracefully.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was that the announcement is only a minor change. More than trebling the amount from £20 million to £62 million can hardly be described as a minor change.
The hon. Gentleman's fourth point was that I was kicking for touch. He drew a shady analogy with an important match that will take place on Saturday. I do not expect our side—the great Welsh Rugby Union side—to be kicking for touch on Saturday. It will be kicking for goal and scoring tries. I rest on what I have said already about charge capping.
The hon. Gentleman's next point was that I had accused local authorities of profligacy and waste. If he reads Hansard carefully, he will see that I did not use those words. I paid tribute to local authorities in Wales for the enthusiastic way in which they embraced the efficiency initiative and continue to do so. However, I said that I felt that their spending plans this year were too high. I hope that they can contain their spending plans within the limits of what I believe to be a good settlement.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has looked at the overall figures on capital. I announced that assumed growth expenditure would increase to £528 million capital, an increase of £53 million, or 11·2 per cent., over 1990–91. It is a good package, which will enable local authorities to bring forward significant capital investment. It is a total investment of almost £240 per adult in 1991–92, whereas it was £200 in 1990–91 and £156 in England. He really should look at the overall figures.
We have made it clear that we recognise that some are disappointed that we had to delay community care. However, we are preparing actively. In many areas, the

1029
Welsh Office is pioneering with local authorities a great many new initiatives in community care. We are preparing for community care.
The hon. Gentleman's eighth point was about businesses. I merely confirmed the previous provisional announcement. The increase of 10·9 per cent. is exactly the same as the increase in England.
I shall now deal with the hon. Gentleman's peroration. He said that we should abolish the community charge or poll tax. I wish that we could engage in constructive, positive discussions about what should take place under our present review of the community charge. If I recall correctly, the Labour party has come forward with 60 separate schemes to replace the community charge in the past few years. I should like the opportunity to discuss just one with them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back:-Bench Members, I remind them that there will be a debate on this matter. I ask them to keep their questions reasonably brief.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I echo the tribute paid to our late colleague, Donald Coleman. It is difficult for any of us to envisage the Welsh Grand Committee without his chairmanship.
In so far as this miserable system can be improved, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment have gone a long way to improving it. There must be something rather screwy about a system of local government finance in which two thirds of those liable to pay receive some rebate. However, a great many community charge payers in my constituency will live to bless what my right hon. Friends have achieved.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales makes the same deduction as I do from the Labour party's constant half-promises that it will abolish the poll tax. I take that as a clear sign that it has given up all hope of winning the next general election. It knows perfectly well that, if it came to power, it would take a long time to put an alternative system of local government finance in place.
My right hon. Friend was wise not to give any criteria for capping. There is no reason to anticipate that there will be any capping of local authorities in Wales if they continue to respond as they have to the leadership of my right hon. Friend. Does the settlement include any provision for the cost of the Towyn floods and its impact on community charge payers in Colwyn in the next financial year?
Mr. Hunt: 1 thank my hon. Friend for some of the points which he has made. I certainly intend that the review which we are conducting should be thorough and wide-ranging. As my right hon. Friend has said many times, we are prepared to consider the wide spectrum without preconditions. I also thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the new scheme. To cover 67 per cent. is a substantial increase, and it will mean that 13 of his communities will benefit, with average relief of £25 per community charge payer.
If I may jump to the point which my hon. Friend made about Towyn, as he knows, I have on several occasions visited the area. We have announced a number of schemes which we believe will be of positive help to the
1030
communities there, particularly when we are taking the important step of looking to the longer-term enhancement of security for flood protection and to the revival of the communities. I know my hon. Friend's views. What we have announced is by no means the end of the picture.
Mr. Alex Carlile: May I add my tribute to those already given to Donald Coleman, the late Member for Neath? He was a man hewn from a rich seam of warmth, kindness, strength and determination, and we shall miss him.
While we must welcome any mitigation of the rigours of the poll tax, is it not right that the reductions referred to in the statement depend upon a bizarre difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and most of the public in Wales? For these reductions to take place, is it not inevitable that local authorities will be forced to close village schools, to hand over public sector retirement homes to the private secctor where they will be less well run, and to put off schemes which would enable those coming into community care to be properly looked after by the social services?
Having said that, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's offer to consult the other political parties on the review of the poll tax. If he is persuaded that it would be fairer to have in Wales a tax based on ability to pay, like local income tax, which is the only scheme which my party has put forward over a quarter of a century, will we have that scheme in Wales even if his colleague in England does not agree?
Mr. Hunt: Montgomeryshire will get a 15·7 per cent. increase in its standard spending assessment in the settlement announced today. In Powys, the increase is 12·9 per cent. We believe that the increases should be more than enough to accommodate the priorities in any local authority spending plans. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's area of Montgomeryshire, 35 out of 45 communities will receive help under the new scheme, and the average payment will be £14 per recipient.
The hon. and learned Gentleman kindly referred to consultation. I look forward to hearing from him. I am not prepared to say now what my conclusions will be when I have not yet had the welcome opportunity of listening to him.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I note that he estimates that next year's community charge will be as low as £228. My constituents in Cardiff, North have been the hardest hit in Wales by the two local left-wing councils setting community charges of almost £100 more than necessary. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those constituents deserve a reduction because of the way in which they have been treated? Even though he has not yet set the criteria for capping, may I look forward to him being tougher than his predecessor on those councils?
Mr. Hunt: The standard spending assessment for Cardiff will increase by 22·3 per cent. I believe that that is fair. As my hon. Friend will know, in Wales the distribution of the settlement is approved by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. That is a great asset in Wales, and I shall never cease to pay tribute to the local authorities which enabled us to bring it about. Within the overall distribution, Cardiff will get a 22·3 per cent. increase and South Glamorgan will get 13·2

1031
per cent. I hope that the new scheme will be welcomed in Cardiff. Under the existing transitional relief scheme, two communities benefit; under the new scheme, 17 communities will benefit, with an average reduction of £41 per person in the next financial year. As to capping, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the enormous burden faced by Swansea city council because of the need to demolish and rebuild about 900 PRC houses in Portmead, Blaenymaes and Clase. Given that the fault does not lie with the city council, is wholly unprecedented and will have great repercussions on its budget, will the Secretary of State undertake to consider sympathetically providing additional finance for the city council?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman knows what we have already said about this. Swansea has had a fair allocation of resources. It is for the city council to set its own priorities. I have always said that I look forward to meeting Swansea city council on some occasion; no doubt it will consider what points it wishes to raise with me.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I acknowlege the additional assistance which my right hon. Friend has gained for community charge payers in Wales, but does he agree that it is totally illogical that we should have a different transitional relief system in Wales from that in England? Does he agree that the system in England is fairer because it focuses help on individuals rather than on giving blanket assistance to everyone within a council area?
Mr. Hunt: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said in his complaints on behalf of his constituents over the application of the transitional relief scheme in Wales. I hope that his constituents will recognise that he has played a part in the way in which I have extended the scheme. Whereas three communities in his constituency benefit this year, that number will rise to 17 in the next financial year, the average reduction being £26.
My hon. Friend has constantly maintained that we should have the English system in Wales. The circumstances are not appropriate for the operation of the English scheme in Wales. The Welsh scheme was introduced after full consultation and with support originally from the local authorities because it is such a simple system. Whereas the English system is very complicated, as I know well, with a substantial amount paid in administration, the Welsh scheme has the beauty of feeding help straight through to the community charge payer with very little administrative cost.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I associate myself and my party with the remarks on the late Donald Coleman? We send our condolences to his widow and family. He made a great contribution to the House, to politics in Wales and to the work in his constituency.
The Secretary of State should be made aware that Gwynedd county council takes very little comfort from his statement today, because it has made an assessment that, based on the provisional figures that he has already announced, it will need to increase its poll tax by £40 in the county alone next year in order to maintain a standstill
1032
budget. The increase which he has announced is not on the actual budget for this year but on the notional budget that he set for the council.
The problem is that, in order simply to maintain services, the council will have to raise the poll tax by £40. Will the Secretary of State respond to that? Will he also acknowledge that, if the council has to do that, the blame will not lie with Gwynedd or any of the districts but with the Welsh Office?
We also welcome the talks that will lead to the abolition of the poll tax in Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any faith in that tax in the long term?
Mr. Hunt: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's last question, but I believe that he was asking me to give the conclusions of the review before he and his colleagues have had a chance to see me. I do not believe that that would be right. I look forward to the discussions we shall have of their views on the future of local government finance. I should also welcome any of their comments about local government structure and functions.
I strongly believe that the increase of 8 per cent. over actual budgets—we are not talking about notional budgets—is a good settlement, despite the hon. Gentleman's attempts to throw it into doubt. In England, the increase is almost 1 per cent. lower. My announcement is not only a recognition of the more responsible local government spending that we have had in Wales, but an incentive to all local authorities to spend sensibly and to do so within the settlement I have announced.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has admitted today that the Government have had to rectify the errors they made with the community charge when they got the balance wrong to start with between gainers and losers. Does he intend to improve things further by increasing to 100 per cent. the percentage of community charge payers who will gain? If he did so, he would be unique in the annals of economics for introducing a system in which there were no losers but only gainers.
Mr. Hunt: I do not think that anyone, not even the Labour party, could bring in a system in which all were gainers. We must have a system of local government finance in which the settlement fairly reflects the spending needs of localities and local authorities, while spreading the burden in a proper way. That is why I greatly welcome the signs from the Welsh nationalist party and the Liberal Democrats of their willingness to discuss the future of local government finance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with all his influence in his party, will recommend the same course of action.
Mr. Win Griffiths: In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the Government are putting more money into local government finance, if only to sweeten the bitter pill of injustice caused by the introduction of the poll tax.
In this year's settlement, the Secretary of State has increased the number of communities that will benefit from the transitional relief scheme. Nevertheless, does he recognise that there are still many disabled people who will suffer unfairly because of the way in which the poll tax operates and because they do not live in those communities that now stand to benefit? I have sent a

1033
detailed letter about this today to the right hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to a brief reply now and a more detailed one later.
Mr. Hunt: I have not yet seen the hon. Gentleman's letter, so I hope that he will allow me to consider it carefully; then perhaps we can have a word about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has advocated the English scheme and I recognise that we would then be able to select specific groups of people and individuals for benefit. However, the administrative costs of that would he considerable; that is why we have decided to keep the fundamental basis of the old transitional relief scheme—we are continuing it under the community charge reduction scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, by more than trebling the amount of benefit, we are giving real relief to Welsh community charge payers for next year. I am grateful for the welcome that that has received from both sides of the House.
Mr. John P. Smith: I also pay tribute to Donald Coleman, who was loved and respected not only by his constituents who he represented so well for 25 years, but by the people of Barry in my constituency, which was his home town.
As a result of this afternoon's statement, will the Vale of Glamorgan borough council be able to reverse its decision of last week not to provide planned and much-needed accommodation for homeless families in the area? The number of homeless has doubled while the right hon. Gentleman's Government have been in office.
Mr. Hunt: I recognise and endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about our late colleague.
The Vale of Glamorgan will receive a 17·1 per cent. increase in its SSA, which should be more than enough to cope with all reasonable expenditure damands. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the announcements that we have already made for special allocations for the homeless. I recognise that we have a problem, particularly in the city of Cardiff, which requires remedies, many of which we have already announced.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the scale of reliefs that he has been forced to announce today is a confession of the hardship that he and his Government have imposed on the Welsh people in the past 12 months? Does he also recognise that calling a budget increase of 2 per cent. over inflation generous fails to recognise the cost structure of local authorities? At best, the right hon. Gentleman has made a standstill announcement, but it is not even that when one considers the problems of homelessness and care in the community. The right hon. Gentleman has also announced that the business rate will increase at double the projected rate of inflation. Surely he appreciates that, at a time when bankruptcies are soaring in Wales, that announcement is the death sentence for many small businesses.
Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that. The announcement—it had already been made on a provisional basis, but I confirmed it today—will not produce that effect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his words. I hope that he will recognise that, given its ingredients, this is a fair settlement.
On occasion, the Labour party has criticised us for failing to increase the revenue support grant under the new system. Today's announcement will mean that the revenue support grant will rise by 2·8 per cent. in real terms between 1990–91 and 1991–92. The right hon. Gentleman played a part in the previous Labour Government, and in their final three years of office there was a reduction of 4 per cent., 8 per cent., and 4 per cent. respectively in rate support grant.
Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State now accept that the people of Wales are thoroughly fed up with his poll tax, which has operated for the past two years?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is ruling nothing out and ruling nothing in. Therefore, does he regret the statements of the past 12 months that have poured scorn on the Labour party's fair rating system? Many of his right hon. and hon. Friends believe that that is a proper alternative to his poll tax. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants the Labour party to engage in talks with him about a new local government financial system, he should be aware that we shall do so on the basis of two conditions. First, the poll tax should be abolished and, secondly, a finely worked out rating system, which the Labour party has agreed to, should be the basis for a new local government financial system.
Mr. Hunt: I really wish that the hon. Gentleman would live in the real world. He seeks to set preconditions for consultations that have already been welcomed by the Welsh nationalist party and the Liberal Democrats. I wish that he would follow their approach.
Mr. Alun Michael: Who brought the poll tax in?
Mr. Hunt: It is no good trying to shout me down. I have already said that I am willing to enter into discussions, and that my precondition is to rule nothing in and to rule nothing out. If that is not a fair basis on which to have a grown-up discussion, I do not know what is. The sooner the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) reconsiders the whole position, the better. When he criticises me for having poured scorn on previous schemes put forward by the Labour party, I hope that he will sympathise with me, because almost every time we had a debate, the Labour party put forward a different scheme. I am still catching up with its last announcement. It would be far better for Labour Members to come to see me without preconditions and get the best possible deal for the people of Wales.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)
6.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Scottish local government finance.
In the context of the additional Government expenditure which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has just announced, I have secured for Scotland the full formula consequential resources. Those amount to £140 million and I propose to make the following increases in expenditure in local government.
First, I shall introduce in Scotland in April, in succession to the transitional relief scheme, a new community charge reduction scheme, payable on a similar basis to that adopted by my right hon. Friend, but allowing for the earlier introduction of the community charge in Scotland from 1989. The new scheme will be effective in Scotland from 1 April 1990. In the calculation of the amounts of relief payable I shall substitute the actual community charge level that was payable in 1989–90 for the assumed charges that have previously applied. That, together with the changes that we have already made to the scheme, will give substantial benefits to many of those who had to face the biggest increase in burdens at the time of the transition from domestic rates. It will cost an estimated further £65 million next year, with more than I million charge payers benefiting.
Secondly, I shall increase the contribution I make to reducing business rates in Scotland. The House knows of the very large excess burden that is faced by Scottish businesses and in my recent announcement on business rates I expressed the wish that more could be done this year. Now I am able to say that I can do more. I propose to take a substantial further step immediately by increasing my contribution in 1991–92 from the £58 million just announced to £100 million. That comes on top of the £80 million reduction which I have secured in the current year, and will mean an average 8·6 per cent. reduction in business rate bills below what they otherwise would have been. I shall announce the detailed poundages as soon as possible. I can, however, say that the level of industrial derating will be reduced to 30 per cent.
Thirdly, I propose to use the balance of £33 million to assist capital programmes. In the public expenditure settlement I announced last month, £25 million was transferred from the resources I had available for my block programmes to help with revenue support grant and therefore benefit community charge payers. As a result, local authority capital programmes have been hard pressed. I am glad therefore to be able to strengthen those resources in this announcement. I shall announce details in due course.
The package which I have announced today is a very substantial one and will give considerable benefits to community charge payers, to business ratepayers and to local authorities in Scotland.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Any form of relief is welcome. However, there is an atmosphere of muddle and dither, make and mend, about today's announcement. The impression is that the Secretary of State is being dragged along by his English counterpart and the drive for reform is being fuelled by electoral fear.
1036
I welcome wholeheartedly the decision to base calculations for the community charge reduction scheme on actual poll tax figures in the relevant year. Does the Secretary of State remember that the Opposition have demanded such change month after month, year by year, and met with a prejudiced refusal on the ground that to abandon the make believe of notional figures would be to endorse excessive expenditure? The about-turn is mightily overdue. Why did it take so long?
Will it still be true that almost no one between the ages of 18 and 60 who has not previously been a ratepayer will benefit from the new scheme? Will people who have changed their addresses since 1989–90, and who are disqualified under the transitional relief scheme for that reason, benefit from the new arrangements? Has the Secretary of State discussed the appalling administrative complexities of what is, in effect, mark 3 of the transitional relief scheme with the unfortunate local authorities and does the cost include their administrative charges? As he knows, no applicant can be in receipt of both transitional relief and housing benefit. If someone qualifies for transitional relief, his housing benefit will be reduced accordingly. Will that apply to the new scheme, and, if so, what is the net cost to the scheme after allowing for savings from housing benefit?
Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a healthy and understandable cynicism about his claim that the new scheme is worth an additional £65 million? Does he remember his predecessor's proud boast that transitional relief for 1989–90 would be worth £30 million to the poll tax payer when, at the end of the day, only £10 million was dispersed?
Did not the Secretary of State consider taking the recipients of income support out of the poll tax system? They are, after all, the most financially vulnerable groups in our community. At a cost of just over £40 million, the Secretary of State could have abolished many of the administrative problems that have bedevilled the scheme.
I am astonished by the speed of the Secretary of State's retreat on the business rates. Only on Tuesday he announced a £58 million subvention and now, on Thursday, that is being increased to £100 million. Would it not be good to think that the hard-pressed poll tax payer could look forward to the same speed of response? While the Secretary of State may have got the full formula consequential resources, in England the total sum has gone to help the poll tax payer, but in Scotland it has been split three ways. Will he confirm that if the £140 million had been committed exclusively to the poll tax, individual bills in the coming year would have been reduced, on average, by £40?
I am anything but impressed by the capital programme. Will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that the £33 million to which he referred is borrowing consent, not cash? Is it not true that the total capital allocation in 1990–91 was £457 million—I hope that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) knew that—and the provisional figure, which is all we have had, for 1991–92, at £468 million, represents a substantial cut in real terms? There is, in effect, a good deal of sleight of hand here, and the truth is that the resources will still be cruelly inadequate.
As all hon. Members know, poll tax payers will face substantial increases next year because of Government policy. Today's desperate juggling with the figures does

1037
not remove the fact that it is an unjust system that ought to go. What is required, and what Scotland would like, is a community charge abolition scheme.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began his comments by referring to muddle and dither. I can only assume that he had in mind the 60 or more different variations that the Labour party advanced for funding local government, culminating in the absurdity of the roof tax. However, I am grateful for the welcome he gave our decision to base the scheme on actual, rather than notional, figures, which will be welcome now, particularly in the context of the anticipated increases being considered by many local authorities. Such increases are unwise and unnecessary, given the generous settlement of 10·4 per cent. announced for next year, when inflation is anticipated to be 6 per cent. or less. Basing the scheme on actual figures will be welcomed by hard-pressed community charge payers, to whom the benefits of the scheme will flow. The elderly and those eligible for qualification above the £104 figure will benefit from the elimination of the difference between the notional and actual levels as a result of the new scheme.
As for discussions with local authorities, the scheme has been announced at short notice. My officials are in touch with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are interested in discussing the implications with them and have made it clear that we will pay reasonable administrative costs.
Housing benefit savings are essentially a matter for the Department of Social Security, which I am sure will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about the cost estimate. We have the experience of the original transitional relief scheme and the enhanced scheme. Therefore, in estimating an increase in the number of beneficiaries from 550,000 under the enhanced scheme to more than 1 million under this scheme, we are speaking on a more authoritative basis.
Far from our having executed a retreat on business rates, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I regard what we have done as a major advance. It is the Government who at long last have tackled the problems and unfairnesses faced by businesses in Scotland as a result of the high spending policies of local authorities there under which businesses were chiefly regarded as a milch cow. We have dealt with that problem and stopped the increases taking place. Year by year we are bringing in new resources to bring down the business rate in Scotland to come in line with the uniform business rate south of the border. That will be widely welcomed in Scotland.
As for the quick increase on the figure that I recently announced for business rates, of course the increase has been announced because new resources have been made available. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Garscadden would have given the same priority to businesses. I believe that the three components of this package will be widely welcomed in Scotland and will be of great benefit to community charge payers, local authorities and businesses.
Mr. David Lambie: I am afraid that I cannot congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement tonight. The people of Scotland will be
1038
angry that he has not proposed the abolition of the poll tax. We have suffered it a year longer than have the English and we want it abolished.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Cunninghame district council has been in correspondence with the Scottish Office and drawn its attention to the financial problems that the council faces fixing its poll tax following the successful appeal by a large chemical installation against the level set in the last two property revaluations in Scotland? Will he confirm that Cunninghame district council will be compensated for its loss of income under this announcement? If not, will he be prepared to meet a deputation consisting of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and me to discuss this matter before a final decision is taken? He refused to do so last time.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman complains about the fact that the community charge has been in force in Scotland for a year longer than south of the border, forgetting that we in Scotland have benefited from the abolition of domestic rates for a year longer too. The transitional relief scheme, the enhanced scheme and this community charge reduction scheme will also benefit Scotland—and from a year earlier than south of the border. The hon. Gentleman also knows that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for local government has agreed to meet him and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to discuss this matter.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on the support that he has given to Scottish business. Once again, Scotland is not the guinea pig but the trail blazer.
All the political calls for the abolition of what the Opposition call the poll tax but what is really the community charge are a fraud because of their pretence that if it were abolished no one would have to pay anything. It is socialist authorities that squander the most money and it is fraudulent to pretend that abolishing the community charge would mean ordinary people pay nothing.
Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party is keen on spending money, not so keen on clarifying how it intends to raise it. The Opposition should encourage people to pay the community charge, without which local authorities cannot be effectively funded.
I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's remarks supporting the changes for business rate payers. Last year we were able to reduce business rates by 6·25 per cent. and as a result of today's announcement the reduction this year will be another 8·6 per cent. That will be widely welcomed in Scotland and it will benefit the Scottish economy and assist the creation of jobs.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is welcome as far as it goes? Using the device of transitional relief is fraught with difficulties because the scheme has become so complicated as to be unworkable. It would have been much more satisfactory had he considered delivering some relief in the form of an across-the-board reduction or of the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum contribution.

1039
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problem facing local authorities in Scotland as a result of the haemorrhage of finance due to non-payment. In the short term they will find that difficult to cope with.
The business rates announcement is the most welcome part of the package. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will manage to do something to reconcile the big differences that still obtain in rate poundages in Scotland, and that he will find some way of helping small businesses within the relief that he has announced.
Some areas in Scotland have suffered swingeing increases in water rates and charges. I hope that there is scope within this statement to deal with that.
Mr. Lang: Water charges are not covered by these provisions.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the business rates reductions that I am introducing. They will benefit small businesses as much as large. The result of applying the percentage reduction across the board will be that high-paying local authority areas will pay less in pounds and pence than low-paying ones. I made it clear in my statement early this week that I would welcome further views and opinions on how to develop the scheme in future.
As for the across-the-board reduction for all community charge payers, we could not be sure that it would not seep into higher expenditure by local authorities. The advantage of this scheme is that resources go directly to community charge payers—a major benefit.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend's statement will be particularly welcome to those who have been on transitional relief, and the new reduction scheme is a good one. The 8·6 per cent. reduction in the business community contribution is also welcome. I also thank him for the positive and constructive way in which he and his colleagues have responded to suggestions on reforming, not abolishing, the community charge. That positive attitude has helped to elicit proposals, including my own, which I hope will be understood one day by those who cannot yet fathom them.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. Taking into account the previous year during which we restricted the increase in business rates to the rate of inflation, the benefit to Scottish business now amounts to £272 million—a large sum.
I wish that the Labour party would play a more constructive role in the review of the community charge and would help us consider the options so that we can introduce a system that will benefit local authority funding in Scotland and those who contribute to it.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State recall that Conservatives used to say that Governments had no money of their own: they just had other people's money? If that is true, are not the hard pressed poll tax payers facing massive increases next year being bribed with their own money? Is it not true that nothing will prevent councils being caught in a pincer movement between cuts in central funding and the non-payment campaign irresponsibly organised by the Scottish National party? Does the right lion gentleman
1040
realise that my council is faced with the prospect of cutting the fire service and being unable to build a new school at a time when charges for local authority services are rising? How does the statement help with that?
Mr. Lang: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who, along with the rest of his party, continually urges us to contribute more taxpayers' money to local authority funding and then complains when we do. We are doing it in such a way as to benefit those who pay for local authorities, not those who decide on their spending policies.
I can only agree that it is highly irresponsible of any political party to encourage non-payment. Not only does it lead individuals—usually those least able to defend themselves and look after their interests—into financial difficulty and legal trouble; it undermines local authorities' capacity to deliver local services effectively.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State calm himself a little? For those of us who have been—[Interruption.] I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, in response to the assertion made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and you know perfectly well that the assertion that he made and has just repeated is completely false.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear anything.
Mr. Douglas: I know that you did not, Mr. Speaker, but I repeat that that assertion is completely false. I shall try to continue on a serious matter.
Those who have heard the three statements on the poll tax this afternoon will be utterly amazed at the air of unreality that surrounded them. Three Ministers supported the concept of the poll tax and gave the impression that everything was in order when in fact there was almost no support for them among Back Benchers.
Local authority finance is in a parlous state, and the Secretary of State knows it because he has met COSLA. He knows that it is not a case of the Scottish National party organising non-payment. The vast majority of those who are not paying cannot pay, and the reality is that the poll tax should be abolished. The Secretary of State is simply juggling the figures. He is taking money from people on an income-related basis and transferring it to a head tax.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have questions, please? This is not a debate.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State face reality and consider abolishing the poll tax and replacing it with a local income tax which is related to ability to pay? That is the only solution to the crisis that is facing local authorities.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about an air of unreality. If he wants to look for an air of unreality, he need look no further than his own party and his party colleagues who seem to think that local authority services can continue to be paid for without members of the public contributing to their cost. That is the height of irresponsibility and the height of unreality. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to be taken seriously in debates on this matter when he bases his attitude on such postures.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State understand that not least among the many

1041
shortcomings of the poll tax is the fact that it has proved to be uncollectable by the methods which are allowed for in the legislation? Is he aware that Tayside regional council has set up an in-house advice system to give advice to those who genuinely cannot pay without resort to warrant sales and sheriff officers? I understand that that is costing the council about £250,000. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an allowance in the settlement for that expenditure? If not, does that mean that he prefers sheriff officers and warrant sales to the negotiated settlement of outstanding debts?
Mr. Lang: Substantial allowances have been made in the funding of local authorities to take account of the cost of community charge administration. I do not believe that it is as uncollectable as the hon. Gentleman implies. The signs are that the collection of rates will run at something over 90 per cent. of budgeted sums and that local authorities, by adapting their expenditure profiles by a relatively small proportion, need not expect to increase the burden on those who have paid to cover those who have not. But it is important that local authorities use the powers available to them to collect the community charge. Not to do so is in breach of their statutory obligation.
Mr. David Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the additional help for businesses, but is he aware that the eight constituencies with the highest unemployment in Scotland in December were all in Glasgow, which has only 11 constituencies? When will the right hon. Gentleman give enough money to Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council to enable them to do something to reduce the scandalously high unemployment in the city? When will he realise that Glasgow is a special case requiring special measures?
Mr. Lang: It is the high-spending authorities covering Glasgow that have led to so much unemployment and the loss of so many businesses from Glasgow. I worked for nearly 20 years in Glasgow and I saw businesses driven out of the city by high rates. The rescue that we have mounted will save businesses in Glasgow and throughout Scotland from the depredations of local authorities over the years. No longer will local authorities be able to treat them as they did in the past as an easy source of funds. Now the business community will be protected by the uniform business rate that we are introducing and today is a major step in that direction.
Mr. James Wallace: Since the Government's Green Paper in 1986 on the reform of local government finance there has been a suggestion that special arrangements would be made for businesses in Orkney and Shetland where the oil terminals dominate local government finance. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State's predecessor and other Scottish Office Ministers have reassured me that that is being discussed between Government and council officials. When will some colour be given to those bold proposals made back in 1986?
Mr. Lang: Orkney and Shetland always seem to be a special case on every occasion and in every respect. I shall need to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I am sorry that I do not have those facts at my fingertips tonight.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Secretary of State know the percentages that have been collected in Scotland? It is false to say that 90 per cent. has been collected. Up until last month 63 per cent. had not been collected in Strathclyde alone—a total of £285 million. The only way in which the local authorities will be able to compensate for that loss is by cutting the services, for which there has been no provision. The authority is still suffering from last year when £47 million remained uncollected. Obviously the people of Scotland, and in particular the people of Glasgow and Strathclyde, do not want the sort of chicken-feed handout that the Government are offering them. They want a fair system based on the ability to pay. Today's fraudulent statement, dangling a carrot possibly for the next election, is nonsense. The Government have said that they will review it and it is time that they came up with new plans.
Mr. Lang: If anybody is misleading the House on the collection rates, it could be the hon. Gentleman. I am not suggesting that he is; he may have misunderstood the figure that he quoted. The collection rate this year is running at broadly the same level as it was at the same time last year. On the basis of last year's figures, it now seems that the total collected will exceed 90 per cent. of the amounts budgeted. In some parts of Scotland it will be around 95 per cent. or more. Therefore, it is possible to collect the charge and to run local authority budgets without imposing additional budgets next year on those who have contributed their share.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on the business rate, the capital programme and the fact that his figures are based on actual poll tax payment. I also welcome the Secretary of State to the world of reality which he entered like his colleagues earlier, when he called the community charge the poll tax. We welcome that revelation from the Secretary of State. I ask the Secretary of State again if he will consider abolishing the 20 per cent. rule because it costs more to collect than it is worth. The Secretary of State said that he would give details of the capital programme, but before he does so will he specifically consider the allocation of funds for a new high school in Rutherglen?
Mr. Lang: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has started the bidding under the capital component of the announcement. I welcome his thanks for the business rate changes and I am grateful that those are widely welcomed throughout the House. The abolition of the 20 per cent. rule is one factor for consideration in the broader and more fundamental review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I and other colleagues in Government are undertaking. It is not something that we felt able to contemplate tonight. The £140 million package of what the Labour party is pleased to call new money that I have been able to announce tonight will, I believe, be a welcome way of using the resources for the benefit of Scotland.
Mrs. Ray Michie: What will be the consequences to the poll tax payer in Argyll and Bute following the recent severe storms which resulted in extensive damage? I know that the Secretary of State has triggered the Bellwin scheme, and I am grateful for that, but it is a restrictive scheme which is barely worth the

1043
paper that it is written on. Will the Government or the poll tax payer finance the cost of, for example, repairing the extensive damage to sea walls in Rothesay and Dunoon? In addition, many recreation areas vital to the tourist industry have literally disappeared—for example, the Shinty pitch at Tighnabruaich, which is very important to it. Can the Secretary of State give some advice, please?
Mr. Lang: My advice is that those concerned should find a flat field somewhere else and build a new pitch. I appreciate the difficulties that the storms created for some communities, particularly on Bute and on the Ayrshire coast—but in other parts of Scotland as well, including Dumfries and Galloway.
I was glad to be able to trigger the Bellwin scheme at an early date, so that local authorities know that there is a capacity to provide assistance. Once the cost of the measures has been calculated, it will be easier to assess the amount of assistance for which applicants will be eligible. The trigger point is obviously lower in the case of small district councils than in large regions. The scheme exists to help in the event of catastrophe.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities to produce long-term or even short-term financial plans when there is such a hotch-potch of revenue support grant settlements? The whole system of local government revenue, including the continued existence of the poll tax, is supposed to be under reveiw—if we are to believe the Prime Minister, who recently reiterated that in respect of the poll tax review, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. When will the Secretary of State get it into his skull that the majority of Scots want to see the poll tax kicked out along with all the Tory politicians—the Secretary of State included—who were responsible for foisting it upon the people of Scotland?
Mr. Lang: Local authorities' long-term planning need not be affected by my announcement today, because the benefit of the community charge reduction scheme will pass through to community charge payers and will not directly affect local authorities themselves, other than in the administration—and they are already administering the earlier two schemes.
Long-term planning by local authorities would be considerably advanced if Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) set a better example to their constituents and to everyone else in Scotland by paying their own share towards local government finance.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State plan to mitigate the effects of the high water charges that some local authorities will have to introduce due to factors outside their control? It is largely Community directives that lead to those higher charges, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that most people on lower incomes do not receive any particular help in meeting them.
Mr. Lang: Recently, we made changes to water charges in order to create greater transparency, so that the costs incurred by local authorities would relate more closely to the charges made. I am sure that that is a fairer system, though I acknowledge that it produced a substantial
1044
increase for payers in some local authority areas. That system is not directly affected by my announcement. However, when I made my public expenditure statement last December, I announced a substantial increase in capital expenditure on water and sewerage.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As to the economic and other problems that bedevil Inverclyde district council, I hope that when councillor Harry Mulholland and his colleagues meet the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), they will receive a sympathetic hearing.
The Secretary of State mentioned certain poll tax relief provisions. I remind him of the discrepancy between Scottish and English merchant seamen. It is disgraceful that Scottish merchant seamen can find themselves paying the poll tax, whereas their English comrades are given exemption. Why is the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), so unsympathetic to their case, and why are community charge registration officers so unwilling to advise them on their rights of appeal? Incidentally, the appeals procedure in Scotland is much more cumbersome than that which obtains in England. South of the border, such cases are heard by an appeals tribunal, but in Scotland an appellant must apply to the sheriff court. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that that disgraceful state of affairs will come to an end in the near future?
Mr. Lang: It is significant that when arrangements in Scotland are the same as in England, Scottish Opposition Members complain that the Government are not taking account of the special, traditional differences between the two countries—but where differences apply, the same hon. Members argue that they should not exist. The law and the policy are basically the same. It is essentially a matter for the registration officer, and I anticipate that once the scheme has settled down and more examples are available of how registration officers have reacted to certain situations, the hon. Gentleman's complaint will be seen to be unjustified.
The meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to take place tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is a sympathetic individual, and I am sure that the delegation will receive a fair hearing.
Mr. George Foulkes: Why has the Secretary of State not given special consideration to Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley district, which has the highest unemployment of any travel-to-work area in mainland Britain and only a small number of firms contributing to the business rate? The right hon. Gentleman should surely give that area special consideration when making his allocations.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his regional allocation will take account of an early start to the A77? In view of the delay in beginning that project, will the right hon. Gentleman give Strathclyde region a kick up the behind?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman referred to the high unemployment rate in his constituency. He shares that travel-to-work area with me and my constituency, and that is almost all that the hon. Gentleman and I have in common. Businesses there will benefit from the substantial

1045
cash input for business rate reductions that I announced. Community charge payers eligible for benefit under the reduction scheme, and who were eligible under the earlier schemes, will also benefit substantially from my announcement tonight.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the delay in starting work on the A77 is not of the Government's making but is the fault of Strathclyde regional council, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with that authority.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. David Martin

Mr. Ron Davies

Mr. Peter Viggers

BILLS PRESENTED
  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Secretary Waldegrave, Mr. David Mellor, and Mr. Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the National Research Development Corporation and the National Enterprise Board in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and for the subsequent dissolution of the Corporation and Board; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
  MINISTERIAL AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES
  Mr. John MacGregor, supported by Mr. David Mellor, presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to the pensions payable to or in respect of persons who have held the office of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Speaker of the House of Commons or Lord Chancellor; to relate the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of the Lord Chief Justice; to provide for the making of grants to persons ceasing to hold ministerial and certain other offices and the payment of an allowance to persons holding those offices who are members of the House of Lords; to make new provision for determining the Exchequer contributions to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund; and to extend the purposes for which payments can be made under section 4(1) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  House of Commons (Services)
  7.28 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Report to the House of Commons Commission on House of Commons Services (House of Commons Paper No. 38).
  This may seem a distracting day on which to consider the management of the House of Commons, but perhaps there is a certain symbolic value, because at the very time that our country has been compelled to go to war, we nevertheless attend to the needs of democracy in our determination to ensure full democratic debate on this and other issues, and that our democracy is well and efficiently served.
  Before examining the background to the Ibbs report and the detail of what is proposed, I want to place on record the gratitude of the House of Commons Commission for the enormous effort put into the report's preparation by Sir Robin Ibbs himself and by the efficient team of officers and civil servants who worked with him, and to the staff of the House, who co-operated so readily with him.
  The Commission decided in late April last year to invite Sir Robin Ibbs to lead a team to undertake a review of management and decision-taking responsibilities for services to the House. The team's report was ready for consideration by the Commission by mid-October. It is short, concise and clear. It is based upon a great deal of information, and draws on interviews with more than 80 individuals, yet it is readable and to the point.
  The report's recommendations provide a framework for action, but leave the Commission to fill in the details. Most important, the report seems to reflect, with considerable accuracy, the worries which hon. Members have about the way in which services are managed. Its recommendations are, accordingly, realistic, and in most respects they are likely to find favour with hon. Members on both sides of the House. If hon. Members care to look at the summary of recommendations, or at the report in more detail, I think that they will find that, in his aims and his attempts to improve the quality of services and decision-making procedures, Sir Robin and the committee have identified faults about which they are concerned.
  The present administrative arrangements derive their authority from the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. That was based largely upon the recommendations in a report to the then Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, by a Committee of Members, chaired by Mr. Arthur Bottomley, who is now Lord Bottomley. At that time he was the hon. Member for Teesside.
  The Bottomley proposals were concerned, first, to preserve the traditional independence of Departments of the House, to ensure that all the principal officers retained their direct access to Mr. Speaker and their ability to give entirely independent advice to all other hon. Members. The result was the creation of a federal administrative structure, albeit dedicated to the creation of a common service for the House.
  The second, and the most important, feature of the Bottomley proposals was the existence of the principle that hon. Members should control their own services. Therefore, under the 1978 Act, the House of Commons Commission was established to act both as the employer of

  1047
  permanent staff of the House, and as the body responsible for the preparation and presentation of the estimates required to meet the costs of the House of Commons.
  Having served on the Commission since it was created, I am tempted to think that it is the Commission's quiet efficiency that has led to the fact that 37 per cent. of hon. Members claim that they know nothing at all about it, and 13 per cent. have never even heard of it, according to the Ibbs report. Surely that demonstrates the quiet competence with which the Commission goes about its work—there may be other reasons, in which case they will emerge during the debate.
  The Commission has two important features which are not as widely appreciated as I think they should be. The Commission does not have a built-in Government majority. It is chaired very effectively by you, Mr. Speaker, and your political independence is assured. It also consists of the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and three other hon. Members appointed by the House. From the beginning it was accepted that these three would represent, respectively, the Government and official Opposition Back Benches and the other parties in the House. Therefore, the Commission includes only two hon. Members from the Government side and three from the Opposition. As a result the Government cannot, even if they would seek to do so, control the Commission's decisions.
  Secondly, in financial matters—with which the Commission is largely concerned—that independence from Government is of crucial importance because, almost alone among the public service votes, estimates for the administration of the House are presented to Parliament not by the Chief Secretary but by you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Commission. This would be of little significance if the Commission were not genuinely free from Executive control, but because it is, over the years it has been able to increase staff levels, where necessary, to meet the increased demands of hon. Members for services from the House Departments.
  The Commission has refused to be drawn into the formal constraints of the Government's cash limit system, and has judged the need for staff increases on the merits of each case.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there any guarantee that at some future date the Commission will not be cash-limited? Is anything about that written into its articles of association or founding documents?
  Mr. Beith: The fact that the Commission is not in the cash-limiting system preserves the Commission's right to present its own estimates to the House. That right will be preserved even, as I shall explain later, in respect of those functions which the Commission will acquire if the recommendations in the report are carried out—functions which are now carried out by Government. Although the financial arrangements for those services which relate to the building will be different, the Commission will still preserve the right to present its own estimates.
  The Commission has been able to contribute directly to addressing the balance of advantage between Parliament and the Executive. It is very much to the credit of successive Leaders of the House that they have, in my
  1048
  experience, always supported the Commission's independence and have backed it in resisting pressure from successive Chief Secretaries to reinstate Treasury control over the expenditure of the House. It is especially remarkable considering the ministerial experience of the previous four Leaders of the House—all of whom have served as Treasury Ministers—which is an argument for gamekeepers turning poachers.
  Nevertheless, there are certain important constraints on the Commission's freedom of action. First, we are required by statute to ensure that the pay, grading and conditions of service for staff of the House are kept "broadly in line" with those in the home civil service. Secondly, the Commission does not seek financial provisions for entirely new services which have not been approved by the House. Far and away the most important constraint is the limited range of services for which the Commission is responsible. That is the source of much of the confusion to which I referred earlier and the reason why so many hon. Members do not know what the Commission does. The Commission has not been responsible for maintaining the building in which we work, as that has been the responsibility of Government, in the form of the Property Services Agency —which is now Property Holdings. The Commission is, therefore, responsible for less than half the expenditure on House of Commons services. The Ibbs report seeks to address that constraint in particular.
  The conclusion of the report which has attracted the most attention is the "almost universal dissatisfaction" among hon. Members about accommodation. The report recommends that responsibility for the House of Commons part of the parliamentary works budget should therefore be transferred to the Commission—probably with effect from the beginning of the financial year starting in April 1992.
  In practice, it seems likely that for the time being the day-to-day provision of parliamentary works services will continue to be done by the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office. It is important to emphasise that the criticisms of the accommodation services, which are detailed in the Ibbs report, are criticisms of the decision-making system, not of the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office. Like so many other servants of the House, the PWO staff give loyal service to Parliament, despite the ambiguity of their present status, in which they seek to serve the House and the wishes of hon. Members and of those in another place, but are employed by and directly responsible to the Secretary of State, not to the House.
  Mr. John Garrett: Does the hon. Gentleman construe the proposal that the House of Commons Commission should take responsibility for the votes for the premises to include the change that the staff of the House of Commons would be protected under health and safety legislation and food hygiene legislation, which does not apply on these premises at present because they are under Crown immunity?
  Mr. Beith: That is not a direct consequence of the proposals in the report. The question is rather more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggests, which is why I hesitate to give an off-the-cuff answer. The legal definitions on which the Commission has sought advice are very complex. The Commission sought to act on the same basis as it would have acted upon had we been fully

  1049
  subject to that legislation. The hon. Gentleman raises a proper matter, which is actively and often considered by the Commission.
  As a result of the proposed transfer of responsibilities for the buildings and accommodation services, the report recommends the appointment of a director of works and supporting staff in the Serjeant at Arms' Department. The expectation is that the director of works would provide similar services for the other place.
  The transfer of responsibility for the works programme will involve a significant increase in the financial responsibilities of the House of Commons Commission. From the beginning of the Ibbs inquiry, the Commission has recognised that that may require a more formal arrangement with the Treasury.
  Annex F of the report sets out a possible basis for agreement with the Treasury in respect of the works budget alone. That does not affect any of the existing arrangements about the rest of our expenditure. It will involve agreement between the Commission and Ministers about the long-term rolling programme for expenditure on buildings and accommodation services, and about the size of the annual estimate for the works vote. However, the Commission will remain free to submit what it regards as an appropriate estimate to the House, and it will be for the House to resolve any disagreement that might arise with the Treasury. Treasury Ministers have now agreed that the responsibility for the works budget should be transferred on that basis. It seems unlikely that, in practice, any disagreements will arise between the Commission and the Treasury which cannot be resolved before the annual estimates are published.
  In addition to the works budget, the Ibbs report proposes that the Commission should take full responsibility for all other House of Commons expenditure, apart from hon. Members' salaries and allowances. The other main item will be the cost of printing and publication of House papers and the provision of stationery and office equipment, which is currently met by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on "allied service" terms. In addition, it is proposed that the Commission should assume responsibility for the Commons component in the grants in aid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British American Parliamentary Group and the History of Parliament Trust, and for the cost of publicity services provided by the Central Office of Information.
  The second major, far-reaching recommendation in the Ibbs report flows from the conclusion that the House lacked most of the financial management tools that are now common throughout the private sector and the public service. The report refers to the
  "absence of readily usable, comprehensive cost information",
  and concludes in paragraph 17:
  "At a time when the need to demonstrate cost-consciousness is widely accepted, not least by Parliamentary Committees, arrangements in the House, far from setting a standard for others to follow, are a complex anachronism. A complete overhaul of financial systems is an inescapable necessity."
  The report therefore proposes the introduction of a comprehensive financial management system in the development of an enhanced corporate management role for the Board of Management. House Departments will in future be expected to budget more effectively, to seek to
  1050
  meet performance targets and indicators and to report regularly to the Commission and the House on their success or otherwise in meeting the objectives set for them.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Did the inquiry find that previous Governments had been mistaken in regard to the allocation of funds, especially for accommodation? Is that why the accommodation that Members require has not been provided, and is it why the central complaint in the report relates to the lack of such accommodation?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman—who is very knowledgeable about such matters, because of his Committee service—must draw his own conclusions about the effectiveness with which the report deals with that complaint. His view, however, is echoed by many other hon. Members, especially those who have been in the House for a long time. Implicit in the report is a belief that it would have been much better had the maintenance, improvement and extension of our buildings been the subject of a proper system of management and control run by the House itself, with the House determining its priorities and ensuring that they could be met over a period.
  To cope with the more demanding financial regime, the report proposes the appointment of a new director of finance to head the reorganised Finance and Administration Department, and the introduction of improved financial information and management systems in all Departments of the House. At the same time, the National Audit Office will be invited to take a much closer interest in the financial administration of the House.
  The main initiative for the appointment of Sir Robin Ibbs to lead the inquiry came from the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). During his short but productive tenure, the right hon. and learned Gentleman became acutely aware of the difficulties involved in improving facilities and services for Members in the face of the multitude of decision-making bodies in the House. I recall discussing with him, for example, the request often put to us for a créche or day care facility for the children of staff. Let me leave aside for the moment the arguments for and against that proposal; the number and complexity of the bodies involved in assessing such a proposal is mind-boggling.
  The former Leader of the House met many such requests, and was under sustained and increasing pressure from Back-Benchers on both sides of the House for better accommodation and services. He was made only too aware of the lack of a central focus for decisions. The effect of the Ibbs proposals will be to establish the House of Commons Commission as just such a focus, although it is important to emphasise that the Commission will not be acting on its own.
  Valuable work is at present undertaken on our behalf by the Services Committee and, in particular, by the Sub-Committees of that Committee. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) carry especially heavy responsibility on behalf of the House, both advising on Members' needs for services and, not infrequently, giving what amount to directives to the Departments of the House and others responsible for providing those services.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Ibbs report recommends the replacement of the Services Committee by four free-standing Committees, plus one rather important Finance and Services Committee. It is proposed that the membership and chairmanship of the two groups should be interlocking, and that they should make recommendations to the Commission.
  What are the distinct advantages of that system, as opposed to any modifications of the present one? The absence of comment on the work of the Services Committee, much of which is done by word of mouth, is testament to its present efficiency, and I cannot for the moment see any benefit in the Ibbs proposals.
  Mr. Beith: The key disadvantage of the present system is the lack of any clear focus of responsibility on determining priorities and assessing how recommendations can be acted on, how requests can be met, how funds can be found and what costs can be reasonably incurred. I do not think that the House can advocate procedures for others to ensure that costs are provided efficiently and cost-effectively and then not adopt such procedures itself.
  In many instances, the wishes and ambitions that are expressed through the Committees—particularly the Services Committee—cannot be met by those Committees, which may not be part of any mechanism whereby such requests can be dealt with. No one starting afresh would set up such a system to ensure that money was spent well and wisely on the provision of services for Members.
  The Committees to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred—the freestanding Committees that would replace the Services Committee Sub-Committees—are designed principally to represent the interests of Members, as consumers of the services provided for the House. In addition, a new Finance and Services Committee, on which each of the new "consumer" Committees will be represented, will act as a filter for financial advice to the House of Commons Commission. The Commission has felt the need for a more effective filter for such advice, although it is advised very effectively on demands for specific services.
  Mr. James Wallace: In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend pointed out that the present Commission has an interesting party balance: at least the minority parties are represented, as my hon. Friend is now eloquently showing. Will the new proposals give a proper place to the interests of minority parties?
  Mr. Beith: Naturally, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter. It was certainly considered when Sir Robin and his team talked to Members in the House and prepared their reports. In those discussions, it was felt—I shall continue to express this view on the Commission—that minority parties must be represented, certainly on the Finance and Services Committee, and perhaps providing a Chairman for one of the specialist Committees. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be noted.
  What is important is that, ultimately, one body—the Commission—will carry responsibility for decisions about services and the allocation of resources to them. At present, responsibilities are so widely diffused that it is often impossible to know who is answerable for what. I suggest that any hon. Member who doubts that should attend Monday's Question Time and note the amazing overlap of responsibility between myself answering on
  1052
  behalf of the Commission, the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who replies on behalf of the Catering Sub-Committee from time to time.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: If there is to be a sharper focus on costs, what is likely to be the impact on catering losses? I understand that there is a true loss of £2·5 million, which works out at about £100 a week per Member while the House is sitting.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the House catering services are a major facility, although they are used primarily not by Members but by their staff and the staff of the House. It is important that those services are provided cost-effectively, and that the extent of any subsidy that is thought appropriate—as is often the case in many commercial and industrial concerns—is fully understood and properly accounted for.
  Hon. Members may know that the Commission has recently received a separate report from outside consultants on the management of the Refreshment Department. That report was placed in the Library. The Commission is to consider representations from Members and staff on that review. The Commission has a continuing concern to ensure that the catering services are efficiently and cost-effectively provided. It is our view that the structures proposed under the Ibbs report will provide the most effective framework within which that can be done. The report does not address itself to all the questions that have to be considered in restructuring the management of the refreshment services, but it provides the best overall framework within which it can be done.
  The Ibbs reforms will place responsibility for the Refreshment Department, as for other services, squarely on the shoulders of the Commission. But the new Select Committees will have a vital role in advising the Commission about how the services of the Refreshment Department, and other Departments of the House, should be organised to meet Members' needs.
  The overall aim of the Ibbs report is to produce a single, coherent structure responsible for funding services for the House, and greater efficiency and accountability in the delivery of services. I believe that its implementation will assist the process of democracy by ensuring that the facilities Members need to represent their constituents and to bring the Executive to account can be provided efficiently and cost-effectively. The Commission looks forward to considering the views of hon. Members on the various aspects of the report, which we commend to the House.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has given us a most helpful introduction to this debate by explaining, as a member of the Commission, how he sees the implications of the Ibbs report. It is a welcome document. As the hon. Member said, it is necessary for things to be changed. I see it as a natural progression in the management of the affairs of the House from former days, when it was a royal palace where Parliament was present on sufferance, through to the proposal under which Parliament will have control of its own domain.
  I remember, when I first came to the House, that one of the first steps in this direction was the setting up by the late Dick Crossman of the Services Committee in 1965 or 1966.

  1053
  All I remember is that I was a member of that Committee for a number of years in the 1960s. It is right to make this further move, partly because of the massive growth in the cost of Parliament to public funds, and it is right to have it under what appears to be more sensible control.
  During his introductory speech, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did not say how big the Commission should be. I hesitate to become involved in this, but I wonder whether only six members will be enough when one considers all its new, large and important functions. It might be better in the future if it were rather larger.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out the result of the MORI poll, which demonstrated the view of virtually all hon. Members that the accommodation in the building is abysmal. I know that those who have to deal with accommodation do a heroic job in spreading around among a number of demanding people a very limited amount of accommodation. You and I, Mr. Speaker, in previous incarnations have had some experience of dealing with the demands—they can be extremely bad-tempered—for accommodation. It is absurd to expect hon. Members to work, as they do, in corridors, cubbyholes or cleaning cupboards, particularly with the new pressures that have been placed upon them over the years.
  I welcome what is being done to improve that situation. I have not been to look at the new office premises that have been constructed across the road, because I do not particularly want the inconvenience of crossing the road to get to my office. However, I hope that the Commission or whoever deals with these matters will not go mad. It is easy for authorities to go mad in supplying what is said to be adequate accommodation.
  I remember about 25 years ago going to visit one of the office buildings adjoining the Capitol building in Washington just after it had been built. I was taken into one of the new offices by a friend of mine, who was a distinguished Republican Member of the House of Representatives from California. He was the ranking Republican on the maritime committee and the second ranking Republican on the foreign relations committee.
  He showed a number of us the absurd bank of safes that had been constructed. He said that the committees received some confidential documents but we were looking at a massive bank of safes in a fairly large room alongside his office. He ferreted in his pocket and produced some combinations, opened the doors and invited us in to see that the safe space was too large for his needs. We all went in and found that all he kept there were two bottles of whisky and one bottle of gin.
  I hope that that sort of thing will not happen here. I hope that there will be some sensible prudence in ensuring that hon. Members have acceptable office accommodation.
  I want to draw my principal point to the attention of the Commission and the Government. I want to put down a marker on behalf of a number of groups referred to in annex D to the Ibbs report, to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred. Those groups are the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the History of Parliament Trust and the British American Parliamentary Group, of which I am the honorary secretary. Those four bodies are currently grant-aided bodies in Parliament, sponsored and directly paid for by the Treasury.
  1054
  A year or two ago—I forget exactly when—the Treasury proposed a change in the system of support for those bodies. It suggested that the support should be shifted to the budget of Parliament. The executive committees of those four groups came to the conclusion that that was not a good thing. We had a meeting with the Treasury and, after discussions, it was agreed about a year ago that it was better to leave the funding with the Treasury and allow it to continue to sponsor the four groups.
  Immediately after that, we had the Ibbs report, which in annex D seems to suggest again that the costs be transferred from the Treasury to the House of Commons Commission. Since the publication of the report, those four groups have had a meeting, at which I presided, to discuss the report. All four groups took an open-minded approach to whether it would be sensible to move the support and funding from the Treasury to the Commission. There are strong arguments both ways.
  However, two of the executive committees that I know well—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive, of which I am a member, and the British American Parliamentary group—have not yet discussed in detail the decision about which way we should move. Although Ibbs has recommended that, I hope that the Commission and the Government will not embrace it but will, please, engage in discussions with representatives of the four groups to try to reach agreement, which should not prove too difficult.
  There are several problems. For instance, all the groups have substantial membership from the House of Lords. Therefore, joint funding from the House of Lords and the House of Commons would be a problem. That problem could be overcome, but it would arise if we moved to obtaining funding from the Commission's budget.
  The groups receive grant from the Treasury, which leaves them to manage their own affairs. If we changed to support from the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission, if there were to be one, would it lead to a loss of autonomy? Would it mean that ultimate responsibility for the management of the groups passed to, perhaps, the Clerk's Department or the new reinvigorated Services Committee? Here, again, a further problem arises with arrangements for accommodation and staffing.
  Those problems must be resolved, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will agree to discussions with the four groups to try to work out the most sensible and reasonable solution to what is not too serious a problem. However, we do not want the problem pre-empted by decisions being taken without discussion.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: I find the Ibbs report disappointing, although it is a useful start to a discussion on these important issues.
  It is true that the terms of reference of the Ibbs team were restricted, but the report is superficial and fails to follow through its own logic. Its most culpable fault is that it is too deferential to the established order.
  The central feature of House of Commons services is that they are well administered. Hon. Members get all the service we could possibly ask for from the Clerk's Department, the Library, the Refreshment Department

  1055
  and the Department of the Serjeant at Arms. The House is well administered but poorly managed, due to an amateurish House of Commons which has never sought to improve the services of the House.
  Sir Edmund Compton's report on the same subject in 1974 got much closer to the central issue. Its key passage states:
  "My assessment of Members' requirements of service from the staff of the House is that the time has come for a significant shift of activity from procedural services to administrative and management services—that is, to develop the organisation and staffing of the services that support and assist Members in their life and work in the House."
  That led Sir Edmund to the inescapable conclusion that the services of the House had to have a chief executive. That still seems to be true, and to be the logical conclusion of the findings of the Ibbs report. It is dismissed by the Ibbs report in a single line.
  We may not have to look too far to find out why the Ibbs team did not take up the possibility of a chief executive. The Compton report's recommendation produced an irate response from the then Clerk of the House, who wrote a furious memorandum to the Bottomley committee, which considered the report, claiming that what happened in the Chamber was of paramount importance, that it dwarfed all else in the service of the House and that that made him the senior officer of the House. He suggested that all Departments report to him.
  It is true that, as accounting officer, the Clerk is the senior officer of the House and, nowadays, de facto chief executive, but in recent years the Treasury has greatly enlarged the role of all accounting officers. In 1866, when they were invented, their job simply was to sign the accounts as correct, but nowadays the Treasury memorandum on the duty of an accounting officer requires an accounting officer to ensure that all managers under his command—his or her command; there is one female permanent secretary—should have objectives, performance measures and management information systems.
  The Clerk of the House, with all his heavy and complex procedural duties in direct service of the House, as well as running a complicated Department of his own, cannot fulfil those terms of reference. He cannot act as a managing director of an institution that costs more than £130 million a year to run.
  Worse still, the Ibbs report proposes that ultimate responsibility for management should continue to be shared between you, Mr. Speaker, who would handle non-financial matters, which I suppose includes labour relations of 1,000 members of staff, and the Clerk, who would handle financial matters. You, Mr. Speaker, know best. I know that you cannot intervene in this debate, but you will agree that you are in no position to act as chief executive, bearing in mind all your many representational duties and the fact that, since the televising of the House, you have become a substantial international figure. With all the demands on your time, it is ridiculous to require you, with the Clerk of the House, to act as the managing director of an institution which costs more than £130 million a year to run.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given way. I assure him that I have not consulted the Clerk or you, Mr. Speaker, on what I am about to say. Is it not
  1056
  possible that the former Clerk may have been over-egging, but justifiably egging, the pudding? Although a chief executive may be more efficient in dealing with technical matters and the matters of importance that my hon. Friend mentioned, is it not vital that services be oriented to the demands of the Chamber and what happens here, not to the administrative convenience of a chief executive? Therefore, the priorities of serving the House must be related to the services required by Members, as seen by the Clerk and by Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Garrett: No, my hon. Friend is quite wrong. He confuses the Chamber with the House.
  Mr. Spearing: It all happens here.
  Mr. Garrett: It does not all happen here. It happens in Committees, in our constituency case work and in the way in which we relate to the communities that we represent. The Chamber is no longer necessarily the focal point of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend may think that, and when he makes his speech he can explain why he thinks so. I referred to the Compton report, which said that the procedural demands of the House should no longer be paramount—a conclusion with which I agree.
  Most of the Ibbs report is taken up with describing the chaos of the accounting systems. There is no costing, no planning and no budgetary control and its analysis of the antiquated systems that we operate is very useful. The Ibbs report is right to propose that all House of Commons services should be brought under the control of the Commission.
  It is ridiculous, for example, that we do not have control of this building. It points out that the costs of the House are covered by seven votes, for which responsibility is distributed among five accounting officers. Those seven votes cover our expenditures, but not all the accounting officers are in the service of the House.
  That still leaves Members' pay and allowances with the Treasury. It is wrong that the Executive should impose conditions of service on the legislature; only a supine legislature would allow that. All the costs, including Members' pay and allowances, should come under the control of the Commission.
  Mr. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should express the present position a little more clearly. The Top Salaries Review Body makes recommendations about Members' pay and allowances, and the House determines whether those or other recommendations should be acted upon, sometimes in defiance of the Government's wishes. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about whether it would be appropriate to bring that duty within the Commission's responsibility, but there is another view—that it is better for the recommendations to come from an outside body and have them determined on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Garrett: I am familiar with that argument, but, more often than not, the amount of money given to Members of Parliament in, for example, allowances is determined by the Government and is not determined often enough by the House.
  The Ibbs report creates the position of director of finance—which is necessary—but makes him adviser to the Clerk. If accounting and budgeting matters are so bad, I believe that the director should be independent.

  1057
  Ibbs also creates a director of works with, I am glad to see, a direct labour organisation—which is also necessary—but makes him report to the Serjeant at Arms; so an Officer with a proposed annual spend of £35 million and a backlog of work involving no less than £220 million will report to an Officer of the House whose spend is £3 million. I believe that that director should be independent, too.
  There is a great silence at the centre of the Ibbs report—the Comptroller and Auditor General is missing. There is no doubt that, since the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House. He is an expert on financial control. Why is he not therefore on the Board of Management? The reason is that the Treasury has never accepted him as an Officer of the House and would strongly resist any such formal appointment.
  The top structure for the management of the services of the House should be six departmental heads and should include a director of finance, a director of works and the Comptroller and Auditor General—all under a chief executive reporting to the Commission. I do not think that, with a chief executive charged to improve the services of the House, it would have taken the 30 years it took to establish the need for and location of a new parliamentary building. After all, it took only 15 years to build the entire Palace of Westminster.
  If I understand the Ibbs report correctly—perhaps someone will explain to me if I am wrong—a further weakness is that it proposes the abolition of the Services Select Committee, although it appears to recreate it as a Finance and Services Select Committee. The proposed new Committee is a management body, preparing estimates, advising the Commission and carrying tasks out on its behalf. It is not a Select Committee, holding hearings, examining witnesses and producing reports and recommendations for change and improvements on behalf of the House—it would not be empowered to do so.
  We know from the Ibbs recommendation that the proposed Committee should move away from a process of taking evidence. It would be there to serve, not prod, management. The House would thereby lose its only machinery for advocacy in these matters. In my view, the distinction between the providers and the users of services—us, through the Services Committee—should be clear, with the users being empowered to produce reports on the services required for Members, based on the examination of evidence put before them.
  The Ibbs report also took the MORI survey of Members' opinions at face value, without looking into services that Members need but did not have sufficient knowledge to articulate that need or were not asked about. The poll showed that Members cared most about accommodation and catering. Both those problems are largely dictated by the size and age of the Palace of Westminster, and, until new buildings are available, they will have to be lived with. However, there is no reason why the people who work in this place should be under Crown immunity from health and safety and food hygiene regulations. There is no reason why those regulations cannot be made to apply to the staff of the House.
  For someone trying to do a professional job as a Member of Parliament, another issue, which was missed by Ibbs, looms much larger—the primitive state of the information technology available to Members. Information technology services here are pathetic, and
  1058
  there have been several reports on this matter. The Government have always refused to upgrade our office equipment or even to discuss it.
  The only information technology we have is a telephone line and the annunciator system, which is 30 years old and costs nearly £200,000 a year to maintain. Each box costs £1,000 because it is obsolete and has to be converted from a 425-line television set. Not long ago, a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment had the temerity to say that no replacement was necessary.
  Worse still, the new building across the road is not cabled for the information technology services that we need. We need a properly cabled parliamentary estate so that we each have work stations provided by the House for word processing, for paging, for electronic mail, for accessing the Library and for a clean feed from the Chamber, as other legislatures in France, Germany, Canada and the United States have. Every attempt by the Services Committee to improve our information technology equipment has been refused by junior Ministers at the Department of the Environment, which is an abuse of Parliament.
  The Ibbs report left far too much power with the Treasury. It frequently referred to the oversight of the Treasury and to arrangements for making applications for funding to the Treasury. There is a serious defect in arrangements that allow the Executive to control and ration expenditure which makes the legislature effective.
  There is no evidence that the House would be profligate but for Treasury control. The House of Commons Commission has a reputation for miserliness. Look how it recently refused funding to enable Select Committees to take evidence in Europe. The Commission should be trusted to produce a plan for the development of services and directly present all the estimates for what we need to the House for its approval and its works should be scrutinised by the Services Committee.
  The real problem is that Leaders of the House are not, on the whole, defenders of and advocates for the services that support the House, but are primarily concerned to defend the interests of the Executive. Perhaps the new Leader of the House will be different, but I very much doubt it. We should establish our own unilateral declaration of independence and have a Commission that is responsible for all our costs, puts them to the House and lets the House vote on them.
  8.16 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: To a large extent, what the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said in both parts of his speech was music to my ears. I shall not be tempted to follow him in the earlier part of his speech, except to say that he reinforced a conclusion which I reached many years ago—virtually all political problems are boundary problems. The moment the boundary is moved, all hell breaks loose.
  I could not help but profoundly concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments on information technology. I was a member of a Committee which went to Canada many years ago and produced the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I was also a member of the Committee which produced the subsequent report which said that it was time we began to look towards the 21st century with equipment comparable to that available to our colleagues in Canada and, more recently, in Canberra.

  1059
  That is essential. Whether we go back to the original Services Committee or whether we accept the Ibbs proposals, this must be a high priority in our thinking.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) used an interesting phrase when discussing the history of the House of Commons Commission. He referred to the balance of advantage between Parliament and the Executive. I share the view that the responsibility of the House for its expenditure should be total, detailed and visible, and that we should be responsible for it and no one else. The dilemma arises for a simple, fundamental reason—after every general election, whichever party is returned to power, the Executive is, as it were, carved out of this place by caesarean section, which creates a fundamental dilemma. Once that has happened, there is a marked change in the general character of this place. I do not see how that will be easily remedied or altered. However, we must accept that that does take place and that the basic responsibility of the House of Commons for the control of the expenditure of the nation is in a rather unsatisfactory state.
  If, as has been implied this evening, the efficiency of that control demands that we as a parliamentary body and as a legislature should decide which instruments and information we need, no part of the Executive should have any say in that. If we should be extravagant or wasteful in providing ourselves with expenditure, we alone should be answerable to the nation for that extravagance. As the hon. Member for Norwich, South has said, we should not be able to blame a junior Minister for acting in between what we want and for applying his ruling to the Treasury.
  We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for his useful and comprehensive survey of the Ibbs report. The report is long overdue; it will be much discussed and there will be many views about it. I merely conclude that, in my experience of this place, a change in the procedures of the House is the only event that requires a longer gestation period than that of the elephant. It is very slow.
  I support the main recommendations of the Ibbs report because we must move quite fundamentally. The House must take a stronger grip on its own affairs. Whether we accept the new structure proposed by Ibbs or some other structure that will eventually evolve, it must, in the words of the Ibbs report,
  "respond adequately to Members' needs and to determine priorities between them."
  I want to turn now to such a priority and I want to begin by declaring an unusual interest. It is not a personal or financial interest, but an interest in a subject that I believe to be a fundamental necessity for the House. I have the honour at present to be the president of the parliamentary and scientific committee and the chairman of the principal organisation about which I shall speak —the parliamentary office of science and technology. That is the technical limit of my interest which I felt that I should declare. It is entirely altruistic.
  There is more than palpably today a fundamental need in all modern democratic legislatures for scientific information of the highest quality, relevance and objectivity. I can give two examples which may be of interest to the House. The Gulf war suggests to us that all modern weaponry is fundamentally dependent upon the most advanced science. The House has to decide, at least
  1060
  in principle, on the weaponry with which our armed forces are equipped and whether that weaponry is appropriate and cost-efficient. It will interest the House to know that one of the current projects of the parliamentary office of science and technology is on the inter-relationship between defence, and civil science and technology. That report has yet to appear, but we are working on it.
  On the political side, I refer to the political impact of all the scientific work on DNA—deoxyribonucleic acid. In that context, the parliamentary office of science and technology is in the process of producing a report on research in the national health service. However, I can probably illustrate the political significance of that rather more vividly than those dry titles might suggest by referring hon. Members to an article that appeared in the most recent issue of New Scientist and referred to a gentleman by the name of John Moore. I wonder whether many hon. Members have heard of a Mr. John Moore —apart from our own colleague. We shall hear a great deal more about him because the case that is described in the magazine is fascinating and will have far-reaching effects on public and political life.
  It is an extraordinary story. Mr. John Moore had an oversized spleen, which grew from 0·5 kg to 6 kg. When doctors took it out of his body, they discovered that he had produced a unique type of white blood cell. Given modern technology, scientists decided that that unique type of blood cell would probably be very effective against many other diseases and possibly even against cancer. Using modern technology, the scientists have taken that blood cell and reproduced it on a large scale. Two companies are now selling it.
  The sale of that commodity—if I may call it that—has aroused immense interest in the United States and the case has even reached the Supreme Court because Mr. John Moore thinks that it belongs to him and the scientists think that it belongs to them. Naturally, the public think that it should belong to them. This is precisely the type of problem and dilemma that scientific research, not least in biology, will present to us. It is interesting that a senior legal analyst at the United States office of technology assessment—to which I will refer in a moment—said:
  "Few people have thought through all the arguments and the many different ways of interpreting existing laws."
  I want to give the House a brief history of the parliamentary office of science and technology. We have based it unashamedly on the American example, as I have said many times. We first discovered the American office in the early 1970s. A number of us visited the office in 1986 and we made a recommendation to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), that our legislature needed a similar office. She was sympathetic, but reluctant to do anything other than suggest that the parliamentary and scientific committee should take full responsibility for the development of such an organisation.
  We said, "Right, we accept that challenge" and there was only one way in which to do that. We had to go outside both Houses of Parliament to the rest of the country and seek financial support from industry and from foundations such as Nuffield, Leverhulme, Wellcome, the Royal Society and the British Association, all of which were generous. We received surprisingly generous support from Members of both Houses—although proportionately that support was small—and we even received some support from universities and polytechnics. As I am sure

  1061
  you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, POST has, as a result, produced 20 briefing papers on a wide variety of subjects and only yesterday it produced its first major report, which I have here, entitled "Technologies for Teaching", which is a subject of great current interest.
  We have also introduced the concept of the Westminster Fellow. Young scientists of some experience attach themselves to both Houses of Parliament, under the umbrella of POST, for a brief period and are financed by POST. We reached the position where we proved that such an organisation could work, that it was required and that Members of Parliament found it of great interest—and not only Members of Parliament. We have had requests for papers from as far afield as the United States and Australia as they are regarded as being of considerable quality.
  I was instructed to explore the possibility of some form of central funding of a service for Parliament by Parliament itself. I wrote to the then Leader of the House, who is now Secretary of State for Energy, and asked him what he thought he could do about this proposal. His successor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), replied and gently equivocated. He said, "Not now. We do not think that the time has come."
  I was then instructed to write to the Commission, as the Leader of the House had also suggested. I was told, "Not now. Everything is in the melting pot. Sir Robin Ibbs is doing an inquiry. Why don't you write to Sir Robin Ibbs?" I wrote to him and he sent me a polite letter saying, "This is not a matter for me." So it goes round and round. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke about the great diversity of responsibility and that was shown in this instance. Improved arrangements for considering the provision of new services are most certainly required.
  Where do we stand now'? Our Parliament is well known to be a long way behind the United States legislature, which is the prime example of a legislature with an advanced technology assessment facility. That organisation employs a staff of 200 for technology assessment alone, with a budget of $20 million. I have never argued that we should even begin to approach that level. It is not required and it would not be appropriate; it would be extravagant in relation to our national resources. I would not dream of making such a case. But what about Denmark? The Danish Parliament has a technology assessment staff of 11 and spends 10 million to 12 million krona per annum. France has a staff of six and spends 6 million francs per annum. Germany spends DM2 million on its parliamentary assessment facilities. The Netherlands —a much smaller country than the United Kingdom—has a staff of nine and spends £1·5 million. The European Parliament—one of the most recent to embark on this path —has a modest staff of five and spends about 500,000 ecus, which is equivalent to £350,000 to £400,000.
  It is interesting to note that all the technology assessment organisations to which I have referred are properly funded by the Parliaments that they serve. Ours is not. Those of us who believe that such facilities are necessary find it difficult to imagine going back to all the organisations which said, "We think that this is a good idea. We shall support it on an experimental basis and, if Parliament likes it, Parliament must fund it," and say, "Parliament likes the service. We find the reports and service that POST now supplies to Select Committees and
  1062
  other bodies valuable, but you—private industry and the foundations—must go on paying for it." That is illogical and, in my judgment, we should change it.
  I come to my final comparison. Japan has decided that its Parliament must have an organisation of technology assessment. I hate to think what the funding for that will be. It will certainly be on a very generous scale—not surprisingly as the Government science budget is now running at about 780,000 million yen per annum, which I believe is equivalent to about £3 billion. According to the latest figures, total research and development expenditure in Japan amounts to about £32 billion.
  My plea is simple and fundamental. The parliamentary office of science and technology is not just another peripheral committee. It is an organisation established by the oldest all-party committee of both Houses—the parliamentary and scientific committee, which was 50 years old last year—to supply both Houses of Parliament with a basic information service. POST has operated on an experimental basis for nearly two years with the support of the country. It needs to be firmly established on a long-term basis. It needs to be properly funded by Parliament as the basic information service for Parliament. That needs to be done as soon as possible. By that, I mean not tomorrow or next year, but now.
  8.32 pm
  Ms. Joan Walley: When I first joined the House of Commons (Services) Committee, I had certain illusions about what I could achieve by attending its meetings, held once every eight weeks or whenever the Committee decided to meet, and the meetings of the Catering Sub-Committee, the only Sub-Committee of which I was a full member, which met whenever the Chairman thought it appropriate—often, it seemed, determined by the number of wine tastings that needed to be held rather than by the need to deal with real issues concerning food. I thought that I could do something to change the way in which the House was run. I have been under that illusion ever since I was elected to this place.
  I am still committed and determined to ensure that, even if the Ibbs report is not the answer to everything, we treat it at least as the best starting point that we have had for a good many years. I have the distinct impression that the Committees on which I have served provide us with little more than a history lesson. One goes along only to be told, "This matter was raised back in 1950", or, "We thought of having a new office block then." When the managing director of ICL in my constituency came to the House for a meeting, he burst out laughing when he saw the annunciator screens. We are constantly told that people have tried but failed miserably to get anything done to change the way in which this place works. That is simply because there has never been the political will to do anything about it. Quite apart from anything else, that is one of the main reasons why we have so few women in the House. As was said earlier, one has to be almost mad to work in this place.
  We need decent working conditions not only for Members of Parliament who are elected to serve democracy but for their staff and all those behind the scenes—those who run the Library so efficiently, those in the Fees Office who deal with our expenses so well and those in the Refreshment Department who do their best to

  1063
  provide food. I am not advancing an elitist argument and saying that we should do something for Members of Parliament alone. I am talking about all the people who work here. Hon. Members almost live here, as well as working here. Sometimes, I have been here for 17 hours at a stretch. I have taken the one bed available, perhaps to get three or four hours' kip before coming to the Dispatch Box. Often, I have had to get into that bed when it has just been vacated by another lady Member who was about to come to the Chamber for a debate. That is an absurd way of going about our business.
  I am not being sensationalist in suggesting that we should consider the number of premature deaths among hon. Members—even during my short time in this place. If we are serious about the House and about democracy, we must take all those points on board.
  The way in which the House is run is nonsensical. We are all elected to represent our areas, and we may have 70,000 constituents or more. We do not have the tools to do our job. No authority—other than one cash-starved by central Government—and no private company would expect its managing director or its employees to do their job, with all the targets that they must achieve, in such conditions. Like everyone else, hon. Members want to do a good job. We want to serve our constituents well. To do that, we need the tools. That applies not only to us but, for example, to the Refreshment Department staff. They need changing rooms and somewhere to which they can go and have a break. At the moment, they sometimes have to go to the ladies' toilet because there is nowhere else.
  We also need somewhere to meet our constituents. It is all very well having banqueting rooms that one can book for a prestigious do at £15 or £20 a head. But what about the pensioners who legitimately want to lobby their Members of Parliament? Where is one to take them? One cannot even give them a cup of tea. It is no good saying, "The building is too small; we can't do anything about it." We have been waiting for the new building for years and the plans may be put back again. What difference will the extension of the Jubilee line make to the new building programme? We have nowhere to bring pensioners, school children and those who legitimately wish to lobby their Members of Parliament as part of the democratic process.
  What do we need to do our job properly? What do the staff need? We need an office. I do not want to share with four other hon. Members and their researchers an office in which I have to climb over bags and bins and piles of paper to get to my desk and where there is not even room to sit at my desk. I do not want my research staff to work in such cluttered conditions. When someone comes to this place and goes beyond the lovely, well-appointed state rooms for which the House is so special they find a different story. I am often told off for raising questions about lights that do not work on the stairs behind the corridor, but if my colleagues break their wrists or injure themselves in other ways when walking down unlit corridors or over threadbare carpets there is no possibility of compensation and no one has responsibility.
  If there is no way in which the Serjeant at Arms, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Commission, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Services Committee or the Clerks can get the lamp changed, the matter should be brought to the Floor of the House. I note
  1064
  the almost superficial way in which the Ibbs report refers to that. We raise matters on the Floor of the House and in questions only when we have failed to get anything done because the system does not work.
  We need to have our offices and all the stairways properly cleaned. Every time I go into the Tea Room I am aware that we cannot even sort out who is responsible for what. The Catering Sub-Committee is responsible for cleaning one part of it. The PSA and someone else at the Department of the Environment is responsible for cleaning other parts.
  Mr. Tony Banks: For not cleaning it.
  Ms. Walley: My hon. Friend is right.
  The areas where we eat food would be closed by environmental health officers if they were in any other public place in the country. The Ibbs report does not properly address that issue. The problem relates to Crown immunity as much as anything else. I have raised the matter in the Chamber on numerous occasions. The previous Leader of the House said that he was aware of the problems that result from Crown immunity, but I have seen no progress in having it removed.
  I am mindful that when it was proposed to remove Crown immunity from hospital kitchens an enormous amount of work had to be done and new equipment brought in simply to comply with basic standards set by the legislation passed in this very Chamber. Yet we cannot even look after our own interests. There is a double standard. We simply cannot provide decent and safe conditions for not only Members but all the staff of the House and the members of the public who come here on many occasions.
  I could go on at length but I am mindful of the time. In view of the large number of premature deaths among Members of Parliament, we should consider our working hours. Some people might say that it was not within the terms of reference of the Ibbs report to consider working hours, but it should have dealt with the matter. The way in which the House is run and its management is to be handed over to a Finance and Services Committee which will have executive powers. The hours during which the House operates and the way in which Committees and the business of the House are run will have a direct bearing on its work. It is high time that we reviewed the demands that are made on us. We often sit continuously for many hours. That must be urgently reviewed. Everyone who has a job to do in the House must have proper working hours.
  I cannot stress strongly enough our lack of concern about healthy eating and meeting basic food regulations in the House. It is not on anyone's agenda and I do not see it on the agenda of the Ibbs report. Nor is it strategically placed on the agenda of the Touche Ross report which can be found in the Library. The report was published partly in consultation with the Ibbs committee. Linkage seems to be the word at the moment and there is linkage between the two reports.
  I can almost see hon. Members saying to each other, "I hope she will not talk about healthy eating again." I have raised the need for healthy food many times in the Catering Sub-Committee. I feel like a previous Prime Minister who, when asked what he had achieved in this place, said that he had set up cats' eyes. Sometimes the only thing that I feel that I have achieved is to introduce

  1065
  fresh salads in the Tea Room. Yet quiche is still served off hotplates. Proper attention is not paid to refrigeration. We do not have proper advice about the environmental health standards which apply in every other workplace in the country.
  The House should not be treated differently and people should not be ridiculed for raising serious issues such as I have raised. As we have seen in the other place, serious problems of food poisoning and salmonella can result. We should not have to wait for such problems to arise before something is done.
  No one seems to be responsible for cleaning in the House and it seems that no one has ever wanted to have the responsibility. I wonder whether the Ibbs report can even begin to introduce integrated management of the House. If the proposals for a new Committee are accepted, the Commission or the executive officers with responsibility for formulating the new system of management must take an integrated approach. They must make sure that the Committee has properly set out terms of reference. It should not consider the purely financial or accounting aspects of issues. It must consider how the House can comply with all the health and safety at work regulations and be a place in which people can work and members of the public can visit us in safety, as they rightly wish to do.
  I could relate many occasions when we have spent hours talking about whether we should hang 79 portraits in the Harcourt Room rather than dealing with basic matters of food hygiene. However, to do so would not take the debate any further. I simply stress that we must do something about Crown immunity. I heard the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) say that it is too complicated an issue to go into. However, we have removed Crown immunity from hospital kitchens and incinerators. We have made headway in the prison service, as my hon. Friends will testify. I see no reason why the Palace of Westminster, where the legislation of this country is passed, should be exempt from the basic safety procedures and health and safety at work requirements which govern every other place in the country. I hope that something constructive can come from the report.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. I recognise the intensity of feeling of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). Having served with her for some time on the Catering Sub-Committee, I know full well her commitment and sense of purpose in these matters. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not pursue her line of argument. However, some of my remarks will impinge on what she said.
  I express my thanks to Sir Robin Ibbs and his team for the way in which they conducted their inquiry, listened to the many representations made and discussed their findings with those who had made them before the report was published.
  I also pay my compliments to the House of Commons Commission for the way in which it has worked. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it is not the highest-profile body in the House, but it has had to do a tremendous amount of work since it was set up. Those charged with that authority have a substantial burden. I give a broad welcome to the findings of the Ibbs report.
  1066
  There is no doubt that the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will bear close reading by the management side—what I would call the professional side or administration—rather than the Members of the House. He made some good observations which may be a little astringent in the light of what Ibbs set out, but they are nevertheless worthy of attention.
  I read the Ibbs report as a member of the House of Commons (Services) Committee since 1979, who has served on the Library Sub-Committee, the Catering Sub-Committee, the New Building Sub-Committee and the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in the intervening years. It is a terrible catechism. The Ibbs Committee listened to my observations about the necessity of having larger sub-committees or larger committees studying the various sectors. There is a need to ensure that the hon. Members selected to serve have a substantial interest in the committee, or there will be a low attendance and the committee will not achieve the level of debate which is essential to proper decisions. I know full well the difficulty of securing a quorum when there are other pressures in the House. It is frustrating not to have the extent of attendance at a Select Committee meeting to enable it to discuss in the depth which one would like the problems on the agenda for the day.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that the abolition of Select Committees was not a good thing. Select Committees and the Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have worked best in my experience when they have been in deliberative rather than investigative mode. That is not to say that they cannot switch into investigative mode when it is appropriate. We have achieved our best work when discussing matters in conjunction with the professionals of the House. If necessary, we have set up the procedure in such a way so as to examine the professionals of the House and other witnesses, and reported accordingly.
  That is the way in which we have progressed in respect of the Library. With the team work which has been built up as a consequence we have been able to sustain the high level of services offered by the Library to which tribute is rightly paid in the report. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich, South for his reference to the quality of service provided by the Library and accept it on behalf of the Library staff, who will be heartened by that recognition.
  I like the concept of the new structure because I think that it will more accurately define the area of work with which we are involved. The five sub-committee structure has been woolly and inconclusive, indeterminate and generally speaking not satisfactory. Sir Robin Ibbs makes the point in his report that at the main Services Committee the only people able to contribute are the Members of the sub-committee who have an awareness of the issues involved. That means that for the most part the Services Committee is irrelevant. Therefore, it would be appropriate to increase the size of the sub-committees, or turn them into committees, with a head committee to co-ordinate and gather together the input of the other committees. To that extent, it is a tight operation which is capable of delivering service well from the point of view of hon. Members.
  On the financial side, that would also have the effect of imposing on the other sectors the disciplines that we have used in the Library for some time, whereby we use the financial estimates of the Librarian as a mechanism for

  1067
  studying priorities and the effectiveness of policy over the preceding year and for looking forward to the forthcoming year. It has been an effective mechanism for scrutiny.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) spoke about the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. I am attracted to the concept whereby the Executive is even more separated from Parliament. The recommendation by Sir Robin Ibbs that the House of Commons Commission takes on board full responsibility is to be welcomed.
  Reference has been made to the phase 1 Parliament street building. It may be frustrating to hon. Members, and it is certainly frustrating to me as I have been involved since its inception, that it has taken nearly eight years to get to the present stage. It is a miracle that it ever happened at all. We worked very hard under the able chairmanship of the late John Silkin to pull together the details, to get the proposal through the House, to wrap it all up and get it out to contract, but the dead hand of Treasury kept interfering and we had to cut back on this and that. Admittedly, we will have new accommodation, but it will not have the facility for information technology, the facility for document transfer between the two buildings or the subway concept, which would have been superseded by the Jubilee line changes anyway. Those points had to be trimmed back. The building is coming, but it is a miracle. I look forward enormously to the opening of the new research library which will be there.
  I welcome the Ibbs report broadly, but I want to put down some markers. The first relates to the Refreshment Department, which has been mentioned in the debate. It is particularly frustrating. We are all, as consumers of food, enormously expert. We have a range of differing tastes, requirements and shapes. The subject of the Refreshment Department is fraught with difficulties.
  I joined the Catering Sub-Committee before it had been restructured, when the interest payment on the overdraft was greater than the entire turnover for the year. It was a shambles. We had misunderstandings, as was indicated earlier in the debate; it was felt that the entire subsidy related to 600 Members when the Department actually feeds 3,500 people every day. It is a very difficult area in which to work. The Ibbs report has not taken on board that nicety.
  When we started in 1979—I say "we" because I joined the Sub-Committee at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), under whose able chairmanship it has been transformed over the last 11 years—we could get nothing done to improve facilities for staff, for catering, for equipment or for hon. Members. The Property Services Agency always said that that was impossible and that we did not have the money. Things were restructured and changes made in 1980. The staff element was taken on board and the Refreshment Department is now subject to a vote in the House as though it was any other works canteen. We were then free to adopt a trading policy that would develop certain resources. Armed with those resources we were able to go to the Parliamentary Works Officer, the PSA and the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment and say, "We have money from our surplus to be able to do this work. Where is yours?"
  1068
  As a consequence of the restructuring, we have been able to undertake many changes. We forget what some of them were and some have never been seen or understood. Consider, for example, the £1 million or so that was spent on ventilation of the main kitchens. Ten years ago those kitchens were places where even galley slaves should not have worked—they were awful. Now they are a lot better. They are not the best, but goodness gracious me, improvements have been made. We have also improved the Tea Room, but I accept that there are still improvements to be made.
  The frustrating thing is that we have been unable to achieve the improvement, that we want and for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has been pressing for the past 10 years—improvements in the changing and rest room facilities for the staff. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, those facilities are still a disaster area. We must resolve that problem.
  I am worried about the reference in the Ibbs report to this year's accounts and the £300,000 trading surplus. The inference is that, somehow or other, that surplus should go to the Commission because it could then carry the finance for the entire Palace of Westminster. If that happened, the emphasis of representations from Members to the Catering Sub-Committee would be for price reductions in services or for pegging the price of a cup of tea so that the surplus was reduced and we did not have to pass the money on. If that money was passed on, we might no longer be able to deploy it to good effect in the Refreshment Department. It might be used to sort out requirements in other parts of the House; after all, we are part of a system of conflicting requirements.
  Ms. Walley: Although I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, does he agree that it is extremely important that the full accounting procedures of the Catering Sub-Committee should be published in more detail than at present?
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not disagree. There is no reason why we should not have full accounting procedures for the Refreshment Department and for them to be published in whatever detail seems appropriate.
  I am worried about the attitude of Members serving on the Catering Sub-Committee. If it was felt that any trading surplus could not be deployed for the benefit of the Refreshment Department, problems might arise. It is tempting to try to take that trading surplus because we obtain a good income from, for example, the kiosk. That was a marketing initiative developed to hold down prices for Members in the Members' Dining Room and for the Press Gallery.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned banqueting facilities. In 1980 we put up the price of the banqueting facilities—we almost doubled them and added in our own birthdays—to get a major contribution to the price that we needed to charge Members and staff for the services that we offered and that they could not avoid consuming.
  I am worried that we may throw away the banqueting facility and other marketing initiatives which generate funds that can be properly and usefully deployed towards improvements and the provision of better standards of service and facilities for people employed for long hours in this place. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House

  1069
  and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who represents the Commission, should take account of that important point.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was right to mention what I consider to be the curious inclusion of "parliamentary bodies" in the Ibbs report. Their presence is anomalous and there is no rhyme or reason for their inclusion except perhaps that the Treasury was interested in divesting itself of responsibility.
  Mr. Anderson: I understand that the genesis of this proposal was a Treasury afterthought. It was a tidying operation undertaken by someone who did not know how such bodies operate, but who thought that their inclusion made a tidier administrative arrangement.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point and it is interesting to have that confirmation. It could only have been a tidying up exercise as it is singularly inappropriate for the grant in aid to such bodies as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British American Parliamentary Group and the History of Parliament Trust to be so included. They do not represent services provided to Members but are things that Members do while they are here. The purpose of the Ibbs report and our debate tonight should be the business of providing facilities and services to Members, and operating the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, it is totally anomalous to waste time even thinking about such groups. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will recognise the powerful point that I hope I have made.
  I must stop now because I have spoken for longer than I meant to—I apologise. There is an opportunity to make changes that could be helpful to the Palace of Westminster and Parliament, so we should get on with the job.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) reminded us that we have gradually taken over aspects of the royal palace. We owe a debt to people such as Charlie Pannell and Arthur Bottomley, who has already been mentioned. I foresee my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) coming within that tradition. They are right to goad us and enliven our debates as they do.
  I am a little worried about a number of issues, and will rapidly outline them in staccato fashion. Has the relationship between the Lords and the Commons, particularly in respect of the building, been satisfactorily determined by the proposals? It is not within our powers. It is morally right and necessary that, if we do not come within the health and safety at work regulations and the provisions for food safety for a good reason, we parallel them as far as practically possible. Nothing else can be acceptable, and that must be achieved within a certain timetable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned our staff. Why is there still no creche in the Palace of Westminster? I do not understand why, and perhaps the Lord President will tell us why when he winds up. If there is room for a television control room and other facilities, surely we can provide a creche, because the lack
  1070
  of one affects our staff more than us. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Crown Agents building which is almost opposite the Victoria Tower. I am not sure of that magnificent building's future, but it might be useful for a number of different purposes.
  I am glad to see you, Mr. Speaker, back in the Chair, and I shall revert to the point I made when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, who —I am sorry to say—is not present. As he rightly said, it would be intolerable for the Clerk or the Speaker to have to spend a lot of time on administrative matters—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is entering the Chamber on cue. I do not know the amount of time they spend on such issues, and I would not be so impertinent as to ask, but, with the ever-widening responsibilities of you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerk, I guess that it is happening more often. Decisions are often passed up, and we must, to a degree, protect you from that. To an extent, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—he is fundamentally right. However, the final judgments of priorities and how things work must be related to the prime Officers of the House—Mr. Speaker and the Clerk. They must advise Members on priorities or make decisions when Members devolve responsibility to the Commission or those Officers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was wrong when he responded to my intervention. I said that it all happens here in the Chamber; my hon. Friend said that it did not. It may not happen, through the usual channels or in relation to people of influence, but it happens here de jure. My hon. Friend mentioned the powers of the various services committees and subcommittees. The powers that they have, or might not have in future—and which I wish them to retain—are determined by motions on the Order Paper discussed on the Floor of the Chamber.
  All sorts of measures go through late at night or at about 3.30 pm at the beginning of public business that deserve examination. They should take place here, and if they do not happen here in fact, they happen de jure. This debate is an example. The Floor of this Chamber is the hub of a many-spoked wheel and the Standing Orders correspond to the ball-bearings in the hub. It must be for the House and its Officers to make the final decisions on priorities to do with services, which provide us with the means of proper debate and decision.
  All this may mean some comprehensive financial organisation—but there are dangers, such as those mentioned in connection with the Refreshment Department. And what about Hansard? Is it to be run as a service to Members or as a service to democracy? If the latter, how far should it be subsidised? I remember after the war being able to pick up Hansard on bookstalls for half a crown—quite a lot then. Nowadays one probably could not find it on a bookstall and it would certainly cost much more than half a crown, but with the televising of the House, Hansard will be important. All our papers, such as Command Papers, which are technically papers of the House, are also public papers, so we are paying not just for the House but for democracy.
  Despite what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, Ibbs will turn the five Committees into consumer relations Committees instead of Select Committees of this House, armed with all their powers—
  Mr. John Garrett: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend agrees—as, I believe, does the Leader of the House. The Committee may have the powers to investigate and advise the Commission as at present, but their importance should not be diminished, and I am a little uneasy about the future suggested for them.
  The services of the House are vital for us to do our democratic job. All too easily, we take for granted the enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes in the offices of all our chief Officers and Departments, and of our staff, who perhaps serve us most and are therefore the most deserving. I hope to hear about a creche from the Leader of the House.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to be here for the opening speeches.
  I welcome this report. When the questionnaire arrived on my desk last summer, I fell on it with cries of joy. At long last, I thought, someone had realised that there are some problems with this place and with the way it works. I filled it in with great relish and gusto.
  I had to ask myself what the House of Commons Commission was, because I did not know. No one told me. One of the first things that I learned when I entered this place was that no one tells anyone anything. One has to ask, especially in the Tea Room, where one might hope to find an answer. It seemed to me that these problems arose because no one was responsible for telling anyone anything.
  I also had to ask myself what on earth the Services Committee was and how it interacted with the Commission. I found some answers, believe it or not, in the report by Sir Robin Ibbs.
  There seems to be no chain of command in the various services. To find out something, Members first have to find out which office deals with it, and then find their way to that office. They then have to discover who in that office can deal with their problem. The trouble is, they do not know who that is. When I first came here, I knew only one Clerk both by sight and by name, and that only because he was a member of the Chelsea reel club.
  When I first arrived, I was given a book with the splendid title, "Manual of Procedure in the Public Business". I was told to take it away and read it, but I am afraid that Jeffrey Archer got in my way.
  For example, I know that the Librarian is called Dr. David Menhennet. He must be an efficient man, because the Library is one of the best-run services in the House. I have sometimes thought that I would like to send Dr. Menhennet a Christmas card to compliment him and his staff on the wonderful job they do, but I have been inhibited from doing so, because I do not know who Dr. Menhennet is or what he looks like.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is the hon. Gentleman's fault.
  Mr. Summerson: Let me develop the point.
  There seems to be a great divide between Members and those who supply the services. For example, if the hon. Gentleman goes to the far end of the Tea Room at lunch time, he will be glared at by any number of people who
  1072
  reckon it is their territory. Could he put his hand on his heart and say that he knows who they are, from which Department they come and what job they do?
  Mr. Banks: Yes.
  Mr. Summerson: The hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have.
  Mr. Banks: Yes, and I will stay here longer than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Summerson: Under the heading "Findings" paragraph (d) says:
  "The mechanisms for getting things done are not sufficiently clearly understood or used. Many Members seem ignorant of the routes that are available for solving problems or achieving change within the House."
  I was grateful for those lines.
  I move swiftly to the subject of offices. Offices in this place can be summed up in one word—disgraceful. When one first arrives in the House, the allocation system seems strange. I was told that, not only was there a large and formidable lady in the Serjeant at Arms' Department to be propitiated, but having propitiated her, I then had to propitiate a Whip of my own party, and I did not know whom to go to first.
  I would like a fax of my own. One would think that in these days that was not too much to ask, but my office is so small that I have nowhere to put one. Two days ago, I had to send a fax to someone in Saudi Arabia on behalf of a constituent. I had to go to the post office in Central Lobby and send my fax. I was presented with a bill for £9·20 and I then had to return to my office and fill in a form in order to recover the cost from the Fees Office.
  I have many more points to make, but unfortunately time is running out. I just want to touch on catering. The catering staff do a good job in difficult circumstances. To give one example, I was in the Tea Room just before lunch time when I saw the lettuce arriving. The lettuce arrived in a yellow plastic bucket half full of water. The lettuce was plucked out of the bucket and deposited in a bowl. When I took some out to put on my plate, I found that everything else was swimming in half an inch of water. I do not blame the staff: that was entirely due to the disgraceful kitchen facilities in this place.
  I approve the report and its conclusions. This place is a museum, and that is how it should be in future. We need a brand new facility, and we should leave this place to the Americans and the Japanese.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I love following the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). I am surprised that he did not add as one of his demands at the end of his speech a request for a tape so that he could mime to it in the Chamber. If he wants to turn this place into a museum, there will always be a treasured place for him in it, resembling as he does Mr. Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary private secretary.
  There is an atmosphere of surrealism in having this debate while all hell is breaking loose in the Gulf. If this debate does not convince Saddam Hussein that we have all taken leave of our collective senses and frighten the life out of him, I do not know what will. But I do not think that we should be in any way critical of the fact that we are having such a debate. It is not an escape from reality, rather a way of making the point that we need resources in

  1073
  this place to enable us to do our job efficiently and to represent the people who send us here.
  There is something very therapeutic about having a good whinge, but we must go further. I was struck by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who said that the problem has existed for far too long and that it is time to stop talking and do something about it. I did not fall on the MORI opinion poll with glee and delight, as did the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I do not know what he does for thrills, but filling in MORI opinion polls does not get me too worked up or excited, and perhaps it was remiss of me not to complete that questionnaire. However, when I saw the results, I realised that was unnecessary, because my right hon. and hon. Friends adequately represented my own views. It did not need an opinion poll to discover that 66 per cent. of Members of Parliament think that the accommodation available for them and the staff in this place is absolutely appalling. We know that is true, because we experience it on a day-to-day basis.
  We are not asking for luxury suites, only for single offices in which we can work with a couple of staff, and perhaps hold meetings with one or two constituents at a time and talk privately about their personal matters and complaints. It is impossible to achieve privacy in this building. We are not asking for the moon when we make a request to be provided with single offices.
  I share an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the shadow Arts Minister. In that one room, he accommodates a small army of assistants, and thanks to a generous £100,000 grant from Paul Hamlyn, my hon. Friend has the la test in super technology. I sometimes find it impossible to find a place at my own desk. The office looks rather like the Pentagon's headquarters for the Gulf action group, with all the lights flickering on and off.
  I attempted to find out how I could obtain a single office, and did all the things that it says in the Ibbs report. I went to the Whips, and asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) what I should do to obtain one. I did not get very far. Finally, I said to him, "Ray, I will give you a hundred quid if you will let me have an office of my own." He looked at me with total disdain. I am not sure whether he did so because he was totally offended by my suggestion, or because he thought that the amount offered was ridiculously small. In any event, that cannot be the right way to go about securing a facility that should be the right of every Member of Parliament.
  A new building is to be available shortly, but it will not be enough. It does not offer enough space to meet our requirements, although it is a handsome building and I commend the architects. That profession usually talks only about the need to construct new shapes, but that building is entirely in sympathy with those that surround it, and I commend the Services Committee, architects and builders concerned.
  There is a vacant building available not a hundred miles from here, on the other side of the river, called County hall. Given that the preposterous proposal to turn it into a luxury hotel has hit the deck, is it not time to re-examine the possibility of using that building for our offices? The Services Committee considered that proposal in the past, but there was no chance of it being adopted because of the total opposition by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when she was Prime Minister. Thankfully, we have thrown off that particular burden,
  1074
  and as that right hon. Lady is no longer Prime Minister, perhaps we can reconsider the prospect of using County hall, which could be connected to this place by an underwater travelator. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) laughs. I know that the members of my Front Bench can walk on water, but the rest of us would need to use a travelator.
  Mr. Spearing: Or a ferry.
  Mr. Banks: Except that I cannot see how we could use a ferry when we have only eight minutes to reach the Lobby. My hon. Friend is a cyclist and much healthier than I am, and he could probably manage that—but I do not fancy my chances.
  I also think it is ludicrous that all Members of Parliament should be given the same research and secretarial allowances—which I agree are too small anyway—when they have disparate work loads. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and myself represent constituencies that weigh the votes for the Labour party, and consequently work ourselves to death. I am sure that that is true also of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, though they do not weigh the votes for the Labour party in his constituency. In any event, we weigh our constituents' problems. It is preposterous that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South get the same accommodation as someone who has nothing like the range or degree of problems that we have in Newham.
  Every constituency should be examined and banded, and there should be a different way of paying allowances which takes into consideration the problems that hon. Members have within their constituencies—problems that need resources, space and staff to tackle them efficiently. That would not be for the greater glorification of the individual Member of Parliament, but to provide a service adequate to deal with constituents' problems, which is what they expect from their Members of Parliament.
  I must sit down now because the Front Bench have demanded it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a loyal member of the party and I always obey the Front Bench. I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that there is a feeling afoot that the Front Benches of the Government in office and of the Government in waiting do not want Back Benchers to operate efficiently because they become a nuisance for the Government. They deliberately deprive us of the resources that we all know we desperately need. The time for whingeing is over. Now is the time for action, and I invite my hon. Friend to go to the Dispatch Box and to tell us what the next Labour Government will do.
  9.25 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: This has certainly been a lively and amusing debate and has been mainly to the point. We cannot say that about all the debates which take place in this Chamber. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for setting out clearly the background findings and recommendations of the Ibbs report at the beginning of the debate. Like him, I am a member of the Commission; I thought that I had better get that on the record at the outset.
  Because of the very serious events in the Gulf, these matters may hardly be at the forefront of many hon. Members' minds, and of even fewer of our constituents' minds. However, they are relevant to us and to the people

  1075
  that we come here to represent. As most hon. Members know, the remit of the report concerns the management and decision-making structure for the services of the House, rather than the services themselves. That is what we asked Sir Robin Ibbs and his colleagues to consider. We thought that, if we got the decision-making process right, it was more likely, although not guaranteed, that we would get the services we need.
  Within that narrow but important remit, the report contains a number of specific recommendations, and I hope that the House will support them all. I supported the review at all stages, and I expressed my thanks to Sir Robin and his team.
  When the former Leader of the House—the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe)—approached me, I readily agreed that Sir Robin should be asked to conduct the inquiry. He was ably assisted by Donald Limon, John Collins, Diana Goldsworthy and John Woods. I know that they found that the House was full of interesting and well-informed people; I suspect that they found that one or two of them were Members of Parliament.
  For some time, it has been evident, certainly to me—it has become more evident since I became shadow Leader of the House—that there has not been a coherent approach to the management of services and the problems that we face in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, the House is not an aggressive legislature. I regret to say that, but it is true, and I have to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that, if he wants the things that he is talking about, the first step is to elect a Government willing to concede more powers to the House of Commons. That is not easy to achieve, but it would certainly be one of my principal objectives.
  Mr. Jopling: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the setting up of the departmental Select Committees as we know them has given more power to the House of Commons in the second half of the 20th century than anything else?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am a supporter of departmental Select Committees, but I do not really regard the House as having reached the 20th century. We seem to have missed it out, and we shall be lucky if we make it into the 21st, judging by the way in which we conduct our affairs.
  The Ibbs remit did not include making us more effective as Members of Parliament. That would have been an impossible task for some, but in any event it is a job that we must do for ourselves. If we do not challenge and scrutinise the Executive as effectively as we should, we ourselves should give thought to how we approach those activities.
  The recommendations in the report are, however, a useful first step towards the development of a more coherent approach to the management of our affairs. I certainly believe that no proposal for reforming the House can progress without first addressing the need for an improved administrative framework and decision-making process. Whatever changes we want—and I share the aspirations of many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, Conservative Members—we shall never get to first base without an effective decision-making process.
  1076
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke of the role played by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. Let me say again how important his role was, and how important the role of the present Leader of the House will be, in seeing the proposals through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked Sir Robin Ibbs to conduct this review, and his support and guidance as Leader of the House and a member of the Commission was unfailing.
  The findings of the report, explored by a number of hon. Members, are a graphic illustration of the everyday problems and frustrations that face Members, Officers and staff who work in the Palace of Westminster. I have always recognised that it is a great privilege to be an elected Member of Parliament, but it is no big deal to have to work in the conditions available to us here. The MORI employees who carried out the research that provided some of the back-up for the report must have been wryly amused at some of the things that they discovered here. I found the research itself very useful, but I suspect that the researchers—with the exception of Bob Worcester, who knows this place very well—may have been not only amused but amazed by some of what they found and some of what Members tell them. The list is, of course, familiar to most of us.
  At present, Members have no clear understanding of how the policy for services is decided. That is hardly surprising when, as we have heard, responsibilities have been divided between the Select Committee on House of Commons Services, the Leader of the House and the Commission itself. Members, particularly new Members, do not understand the mechanisms for getting things done. That favours what might be termed "those in the know" —and to be in the know in this place usually means having to spend an awfully long time here. The MORI work dramatically illustrates the point: only 14 per cent. of Members with three years' service or less described the House as a good or fairly good place in which to work. The figure rises to 50 per cent. in the case of Members with more than 20 years' service.
  Although theoretically I belong to the group of those "in the know", with more than 20 years' service, I share the views of the group of newer Members who find this place inadequate, to say the least. The confusion felt by new Members is particularly familiar to me, because my party won a series of important by-elections last year, and since then I have often been called on for advice by my new colleagues and found them bemused—frequently dazed —by the arcane nature of the House's operations.
  The umbrella role for the Commission proposed by the Ibbs report will, in my view, result in a better co-ordinated policy for improving services. I remind the House that we have many excellent and loyal staff here at Westminster. The report makes that clear when it says:
  "There is a reservoir of goodwill among staff, derived from a strong desire to serve Members, which could be directed to greater advantage."
  The truth is that, although we have many excellent people, they too are frustrated by their inability to give a more efficient and effective service to Members.
  When I first came here in June 1970, I was given the distinct impression by some people—I do not intend to name them, and they have all retired now—that this place was not really run for the benefit and convenience of

  1077
  Members. It seemed to have an entirely different purpose in their minds. Fortunately, little of that attitude remains today.
  The proposed transfer to the Commission of responsibility for the Parliamentary Works Office may have profound effects upon the industrial staff in the House. In that regard, bearing in mind the good will to which I have referred, consultation with those people through their trade unions and existing machinery will be of obvious importance and significance if we are to achieve the acceptance of the changes that will be essential to their success.
  In addressing the attempt to co-ordinate policy for services, it is also important to ensure that it is backed up by requisite increases in funds available to the Commission. I agreed with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South in what I took to be a privileged preview of his imminent book. I look forward to reading the other chapters when he eventually publishes it.
  However, I disagreed with him on one important thing —financial control. Central to the report is a clear statement that, if a disagreement arises with the Treasury over the budget, in the last resort it should be resolved by the House. We have argued and fought long and hard in the Commission on behalf of our colleagues to get that agreed by the Treasury, and I think that it is very important. It is set out in annexe F of the report, and it ensures that, in the last resort, if there is no agreement, hon. Members can decide on expenditure.
  The Ibbs report suggests that there can be no confidence in the financial management systems of the House as they presently exist. Hon. Members have little confidence that the sums spent are appropriate to the needs of the House or that they are well spent. The report's proposals to reform the Board of Management to provide it with an enhanced corporate management role and to appoint a director of finance are important to the delivery of better services. The report's recommendations, which I touched upon earlier, are an important first step—only a first step—to undertaking the gamut of wider reforms needed to make the House an effective national legislature for the 21st century. Even after these reforms, the House of Commons will remain, to quote Sir Robin, a "complex anachronism".
  I share the view of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) that this building will never be adequate to provide the services and facilities that a modern legislature requires. I hope that cross-party consensus on these issues will give us the sort of springboard we need to come to grips in a sustained and prolonged way with the need for wider reform of practices, services and procedures in the House.
  The Ibbs report has already kindled debate among Members, particularly Opposition Members but generally throughout all parties, and in the national press on the need for fundamental reform. I recognise that there may be potential conflicts between the role of historic and senior Officers of the House and the new management proposals set out in the report, and the Commission will need to address them.
  Hon. Members referred to the lack of a properly co-ordinated information technology service to members. The computer Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services, which I have the honour to
  1078
  chair, produced a report that made excellent recommendations. It was a unanimous report, and I hope that we shall soon have an opportunity to approve it. I ask the Leader of the House to find time for that, so that, at last, we can begin to tackle that job.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said, our constituents—who may be elderly and may have travelled for hours to get here—sometimes must queue for hours in the rain or freezing cold. I know that we are addressing that, but it is long overdue. We must address other issues, such as the lack of child care facilities for staff and Members and having to pay to telephone the institutions of the European Community, whereas its members can call us at the expense of their own Parliament.
  As the research in the Ibbs report shows, accommodation is the issue that exercises most Members. Their responses are particularly disturbing. Almost 60 per cent. of Members describe the House as a fairly poor place in which to work. Conditions for our staff are even worse. Accommodation is unacceptable and would be seen as such in almost any other institution in the country. Few Members cannot tell at least one horrendous anecdote.
  We have the problem of a historic, evocative, architecturally magnificent building, which, internally, will never be adequate to fulfil the increasing demands that are being placed on it. The make-do-and-mend job of buildings here and buildings there will not resolve the problem. I was attracted by what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, and we should reconsider that.
  I commend the Ibbs report as a positive approach to the problems and as a good first step. I hope that it will be quickly implemented.
  9.42 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): This is mainly an opportunity for colleagues who are not Members of the Commission to express their views on the Ibbs report, so I have agreed to be brief.
  I welcome the debate. The fact that I have arranged it so soon after the publication of the report shows the importance that I attach to the subject and my desire to get on with implementing the report in the light of the general reaction of the House to it.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has outlined the history. It is no criticism of previous reforms of the House to say that it is now necessary to bring our arrangements into line with the needs of the 1990s, both in terms of achieving a modern management structure and of ensuring—here I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd)—that we take advantage of modern facilities to ensure the best practicable service to Members and that we, as Members, carry out our services in the best way for the public at large.
  That is the general purpose of the report, but there are two particular reasons why it is important that we give priority to implementing it. First, many hon. Members, and certainly we as a Government, have been urging industry, commerce, the professions and many others to modernise their systems and practices and have frequently legislated to that effect. It must be right that we put our own house in order in the same way.

  1079
  Several detailed comments on issues, frustrations and dissatisfactions have been expressed. I share several of them, particularly about accommodation. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the report is on decision-making processes, management structures and financial disciplines, not the detailed issues that the Committees will have to deal with. I agree with the hon. Member that we must get those right first.
  I shall preface my second point by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on gamekeepers turned poachers. I am not sure that his remarks were entirely apt, given the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that the parliamentary bodies might be better if they were still under the control of the Treasury, which is more cost-conscious and tightfisted, rather than the House of Commons. It is important that we carry out our role as leader by fully recognising our responsibilities to the House. That also means that we should all be responsible in our approach. That is why I say with some diffidence, speaking as a former Chief Secretary, that my second point is that one of the Government's hallmarks has been to insist throughout our period in office that we should constantly strive to ensure value for taxpayers' money and to insist on cost effectiveness in our expenditure programmes.
  At the same time, Parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the departmental Select Committees—not always consistently —insists that Departments and other public bodies conform to high standards of financial management and that they discharge their responsibility for spending taxpayers' money by putting strong emphasis on the need to obtain good value for money. That is what we are practising in the Ibbs' approach to the "next steps" programme in the civil service. It is right that we in the House should be prepared to practise what we preach. The Ibbs report gives us an appropriate blueprint.
  That is the background and it is why I should like to join with those who congratulated and thanked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on the part that he played in grasping the issue as Leader of the House. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the Ibbs committee was set up mainly because of my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative. As I was not a member of the Commission at the time, I believe that it is in order for me to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the Commission on taking on board so readily the need to make improvements and on carrying the initiative forward so fast. My right hon. and learned Friend asked me to apologise to the House for unavoidably not being able to be here, but he was specifically anxious to join me in paying a warm tribute to Sir Robin Ibbs and his team, who have done an admirable job not only in getting to the heart of the problems but in presenting their conclusions and recommendations so straightforwardly.
  Some hon. Members expressed criticism of the Ibbs report. Of course, it is not a perfect answer, but the general view is that it is a considerable advance. We must bear in mind that Sir Robin Ibbs is a knowledgeable business man with experience in several major companies of the kind of
  1080
  work which he undertook for us. In the short time available, I should like to comment on some points and indicate the way in which we should go forward.
  First, in taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), the new structure which is outlined is a much better one in enabling us to make a clear and proper distinction between the policy-making bodies and committees and the executive bodies of the House. I take brief issue—I fear that I must be brief because of the time—with the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who criticised some of the new Services Committee approaches. It is important to recognise that the new Finance and Services Committee will also be a consumer committee in the sense that it will represent Members of the House in making policy recommendations and so on. It has a representational and policy-making role.
  I welcome the recommended changes for the Committee structure. The shift from being semi-administrative bodies to more policy-oriented bodies is right, because it separates Members' responsibility for decisions about what services should be provided from heads of Departments' responsibilities for carrying out those decisions. This will provide much needed clarity and a more effective and responsive decision-making structure.
  Secondly, I share Sir Robin Ibbs' conviction that appointing the financial director to install sound financial systems and management and, in time, a single House of Commons budget under the Commission's control is fundamental to improving the House's administration. Although the timetable proposed by Sir Robin Ibbs is challenging, I am sure that all involved will do their best to achieve it. This will provide the Commission with the necessary information to reach sensible decisions and, by bringing together responsibility for resources and responsibility for expenditure, will give the Commission the authority that it needs to exercise fully its role for managing the services of the House. That is an important change.
  I am sorry that I do not have time to deal with all matters, but I want to commend statements in the report about accommodation. Of course, we all have our criticisms of accommodation—
  Mr. John Garrett rose
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not have time to go into the hon. Gentleman's point now—[Interruption.] I do not think so. Accommodation was seen in many ways to be the key to many complaints in the House. It is important to concentrate on what the report said about it. Of course, we all know the constraints and the difficulties under which people have had to operate. The important point is that the House cannot take informed and responsible decisions about accommodation unless it is responsible for the works programme and its funding. The importance of parliamentary works is well taken in the Ibbs report.
  The approach that Sir Robin suggests, involving the development of a 10 to 15-year rolling programme on which expenditure provision and estimates will be based, will assist the House to order its priorities and demonstrate value for money. If will provide the opportunity to avoid any unreasonable peaks of expenditure and, through the agreement of expenditure programme estimates with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will allow the House to give full regard, as it should, to the general public

  1081
  expenditure climate in any year. Annex F is an important step forward. I have, of course, discussed the matter with the Chief Secretary and I can confirm, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, that the Government accept annex F as the basis for taking this forward.
  Many of our accommodation problems will take time and they are immense. The problems of space and of the availability of space are a key part of them. To be sure of getting the right results, it is vital that there should be a proper long-term plan and that, once funding is obtained, we stick to it. The House will have to acquire professional competence to reach sensible decisions about what is needed and that is where the appointment of a works director is so important.
  Mr. John Garrett: Controlled by the Government?
  Mr. MacGregor: Under the control of the House.
  In the last minute, I want to refer briefly to how I see matters being taken forward. I have already shown my clear support for the proposals in general and the agreement of the Government as a whole to them. There is, of course, a great deal of detail still to be sorted out, which the Commission will have to do, and a number of the comments made tonight are helpful. We will certainly take them on board and take into account the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
  There has been a general suggestion of a desire to get on now with the thrust of the report. Two of the first crucial moves will be the recruitment and appointment of the director of finance and of the director of works. Following that, I want the changes in the Committee structure put in place as soon as possible. Subject to the constraints of the parliamentary timetable, I hope that we can get agreement to the changes to the relevant Standing Orders towards the end of the current Session of Parliament so that the new arrangements will be ready for the 1991–92 Session.
  I want to tell the House briefly that the recommendations in the report are now also being considered in another place. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has informed me that there is little doubt that the other place will wish to co-operate with us in any proposals that we seek to implement.
  The report comes at a time when there is much change in the management structures of many different organisations—change frequently brought about, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out, by the possibilities of new technology. There is an increasing feeling among hon. Members, which I share, that services for visitors, for Members and for members of staff need to be substantially updated and improved. It is right that we should be getting the House into the right shape, operationally, organisationally and physically, for all the tasks that it will have to perform in the 1990s and beyond. This report and its proposals provide an excellent vehicle for doing just that.
  It is worth remembering that the ideas in the report stem largely from the views put forward by many who work in the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland. The changes will be a great improvement. If they work—I believe that they can—they will benefit everyone. The sense of the House has been a desire to get on with the changes in the management systems so that we
  1082
  can achieve the improvements that we seek. In that sense, I welcome our debate and I hope that we can get on with the implementation of the report.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer some of the points that the Leader of the House was unable to fit into his remarks and to speak on behalf of the Commission.
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) pointed to reservations about whether the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other groups that are now funded from the Treasury should continue to be funded in that way or transferred to the House. There was some anxiety about such a change. My feeling is that, in principle, it is desirable for a body representing Parliament to be funded by Parliament rather than by the Executive and that the particular status of the House, with its freedom from cash limits, might, in some cases, be to the advantage of those bodies. However, I recognise that it is a matter of legitimate concern to long-established bodies and the Commission is not trying to push them around. It would be very willing to continue the discussions that are already taking place on that and to proceed only on the basis of a great deal of further discussion where necessary.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who has had a long interest in these matters, revealed himself to be—as we all knew he was—a re-advocate of the Compton report of 1974. The proposals in that report were rejected, in important respects, by hon. Members at the time in the form of the Bottomley commission; in particular, the proposal for a chief executive was rejected then. Interestingly, it has now been rejected not by Members of Parliament, but by an outside man with business experience and by his team. They came to the conclusion that, although such a proposal might have been appropriate in a body primarily responsible for delivering services to the community, such as a Government Department or a business, it was not appropriate for the House with its particular responsibility for legislation, and for supervising and questioning the Government. He regarded the federal management structure as more appropriate. He reached that conclusion only after examining the way in which the House operated, and his comments on the matter are bound to be influential.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) supported the main Ibbs recommendations for the same reasons as I did—that the House, not the Government, should be in control of the services that it needs. His interest in technology assessment is well known and often argued. I think that he could advance his case better were responsibility more clearly focused. In the end, it will be for the House to decide whether the facilities that he wants should be funded by the House, on the scale that he and other hon. Members recommend. The proposals in the Ibbs report provide a much better mechanism for giving advice to the Commission on such matters than is currently available to it.
  I welcome the zeal and enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and I hope that they will not be blunted by experience of the long-established institutions and traditions of this place. Such zeal and enthusiasm could be channelled more effectively under a system whereby it was clear who was

  1083
  responsible for getting something done. I take seriously what the hon. Lady said about working conditions, hygiene, cleaning and environmental health.
  I did not say that Crown immunity was too complicated a subject with which to deal; I merely said that it was too complicated a subject for me to give an off-the-cuff explanation of precisely how the brief summary that we were given was inaccurate and misleading. Although the matter is complicated, it is important and should be dealt with. With other members of the Commission, I continue to seek further consideration of it and to ensure that, in any case, we act in accordance with the restrictions to which we would be subject if we did not have certain elements of Crown immunity.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has much experience of the advisory committee approach from his work on the Library Sub-Committee. I was very interested in his comments and in his support for the Ibbs proposals on the basis of his long experience of our committee structure. His comments about the Refreshment Department will certainly be taken seriously when we consider the Touche Ross report on the future of that Department.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the participation of another place. That matter is still under discussion and must clearly depend on decisions made in the other place. He referred to stationery and to the massive increases in the price of House of Commons papers in which the general public are interested. That is something over which, at the moment, we have no control. One of the merits of the proposals is that in future these matters will have to be decided by the House. We will still have to have regard to cost considerations. They will not disappear. The cost of printing will not evaporate when it becomes the responsibility of the House. But at least it will be a matter for the House to decide in a way which has not been possible hitherto—as is the case with some of the other matters discussed.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South also made a more general point about Committees. Their importance will continue, but the subject Select Committees should not attempt to manage. A hopeless confusion of minds and responsibilities will be created if Committees of hon. Members who seek better services become, whether by accident or design, a feature of management. That will mean that managers will not take responsibility; they will not be encouraged to exercise responsibility and will not develop their ability to do so.
  1084
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) kindly owned up to being one of those who do not know much about these things. He illustrated well the frustrations that many Members feel which the proposals go some way to address.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made me think that I had better get my diving suit ready for travelling on the underwater travelator that he has in mind. The issues that he raised ranged more widely than the subject of the Ibbs report.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made clear his support for the proposals on behalf of the Opposition. He talked about his own experiences with new by-election victors. I won a by-election in 1973. My seat was one of a series of by-election gains made by my party, the result of which was the increasing overcrowding of a very small room which we shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith)—another of the by-election victors. I am sure that the House can imagine the increasing compression that occurred in the small broom cupboard that had been found to accommodate us.
  The Leader of the House expressed the Government's support for the proposals. I am grateful for the way in which he and his predecessor have pursued the matter and supported what is, without question, a shift in responsibility from the Executive to the House.
  This has been a useful debate.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to say what is the next step?
  Mr. Beith: The Leader of the House has gone most of the way to explaining what needs to be done and has given a timetable for implementation. Many of the proposals on the management side will be pursued by an implementation officer from among the senior staff of the House. Arrangements are being made to appoint them, as has been said this evening.
  The debate has been helpful in giving the proposals a fair wind and I hope that they will go ahead.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report to the House of Commons Commission on House of Commons Services (House of Commons Paper No. 38).

  CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Ian Stewart be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Homelessness
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to take this opportunity further to draw the attention of the House to a subject which had a poignant topicality just before Christmas because of its biblical connotations—homelessness. After Christmas the problem has not gone away and I feel that it should be kept before us.
  The genesis of my desire to bring homelessness to the attention of the House was a question to the Minister for Housing and Planning about the statistics of homelessness. The issue raised in my question was never resolved. No one knows how many homeless people there are in Britain. The official statistics published for the Department of the Environment record only homeless households which apply to and are accepted by local authorities. Many do not qualify to be accepted, including people without children and under retirement age. Non-priority groups are at least as great in numbers as priority groups, so one can double the official statistics of 120,000 homeless households. That is the figure for 1989. If one accepts that two thirds of homeless families have dependent children and that the average household consists of three people, it becomes clear that the official statistics involve approximately 300,000 people. If one adds in those who are not accepted by local authorities, the figure rises to 500,000. That is the number of people who became homeless in 1989.
  The problem is growing. Ten years ago the official figure was 53,000. The average annual rate of increase in homelessness acceptances between 1976 and 1988—again according to Department of the Environment statistics—was 8 per cent. for London but 16 per cent. for other metropolitan districts. Two conclusions can be drawn: first, the curve is upwards and, secondly, homelessness is a national problem. We should remember that those are only the official statistics recorded by the Department of the Environment.
  I wish to consider who are the homeless people, where they are, why they are homeless and the cost of keeping them without homes. I shall then examine some of the initiatives taken and conclude by suggesting other initiatives that might be effective. The homeless are generally people on low income or no income. They are vulnerable groups such as the migrant unemployed who move to the cities for work but are unable to find homes and people who suffer from discrimination in the private rented sector such as families with small children, pregnant women, single parents and ethnic minorities. Many such people can be found in the official statistics, but many others cannot. The unofficial statistics include victims of the present system of welfare benefits such as 16 to 17-year-olds who do not qualify for benefits. Young people receive benefits on a sliding scale based on age, but, of course, rents are not based on a sliding scale.
  The unofficial figures also include people of all ages who are in a Catch 22 situation. They cannot afford the deposit on accommodation because benefits are no longer paid in advance and it is difficult to claim benefits if one has no address. Let us not forget the social inadequates, not least the pitiful cohort of mentally disturbed who are discharged on to the streets without proper support. Huge numbers of
  1086
  these latter groups do not show up in the official statistics. There is also the phenomenon of the 1980s, and particularly the late 1980s, the mortgage defaulters whose number has quintupled over the past 10 years from approximately 20,000 to over 100,000 per annum. That is who they are.
  Where are they? Those who are fortunate to be provided with accommodation are, in large numbers, in temporary accommodation of various kinds, such as hostels, short-life properties, mobile homes, bed-and-breakfast accommodation and, perhaps the most fortunate, in properties leased by local authorities from the private sector. That is the private sector leasing group to which I shall refer as PSL. I shall address further remarks to the bed-and-breakfast and PSL groups. Those not provided for find shelter either in overcrowded circumstances in the homes of family or friends, frequently dossing on floors—they include large numbers not counted in the official statistics—or, as we see if we go not far from the Chamber, they live rough on the streets.
  Why are those people homeless? The simple answer is that there is a lack of accommodation for rent at a price which they can afford. One feature which most of them have in common is that they cannot contemplate purchasing accommodation. The statistics for rented accommodation as a proportion of the total housing stock are interesting. In 1981 there were 6.6 million public sector rented units; in 1990 there were only 5·5 million. In the private sector in 1981 there were 2·4 million rented units; in 1990 there were only 1·7 million. Admittedly, there has been a small rise in the housing association rented sector, from 456,000 in 1981 to 642,000 in 1990, but it is pitifully small and not enough to bridge the gap.
  The most important contributing factor has been the huge number of council homes taken out of the stock under the right-to-buy legislation and the fact that councils have been prevented from using most of their capital receipts to build new council houses. National Economic Development Office statistics show that in 1980 council new starts were 41,000, complemented by 15,000 housing association new starts; in 1990 the total has gone down to 24,000, composed of 8,000 council new starts and 16,000 housing association new starts. The figures show a small but inadequate increase in housing association provision. The projections for 1992 are even more gloomy—a pitiful 3,000 new starts in the council sector and 2,000 in the housing association sector.
  There is a cost in all this homelessness. First, there is a monetary cost. The Department of the Environment calculation for keeping a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as compared with building a new council house shows that in London the cost of a new build is £7,400 while the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is £11,315 per family. In other metropolitan districts, such as Knowsley, South, the difference is even more significant; the cost of a new build on average is £3,200 while the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is £9,490. Those are the Department's own statistics at 1988 prices.
  Only this month the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a reputable body, produced figures for the net cost per head of population of keeping people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It went up from 83p in 1988–89 to £1·50 in 1989–90, an increase of 80 per cent. The same set of statistics shows that the total net expenditure on homelessness in 1989–90 was equivalent to

  1087
  £2·79 per head of population or, if translated into the cost per charge payer, £3·79. Some estimates suggest that the cost per charge payer could rise to £24 in London. All bets are off on this, of course, while the poll tax is still in the massage parlour.
  I have listed the monetary costs of homelessness, but there is also a human cost. I recommend to the House two documents—"A Crying Shame", which concentrates mainly on the effects of homelessness on children and has been produced by the London Boroughs Association, and "Homeless Families and their Health", which was produced jointly by the Health Visitors Association and a committee of the British Medical Association. There is also much anecdotal evidence of damage to physical and mental health caused by homelessness and the dangers posed to the safety of children when in temporary accommodation. There is also evidence of a drift into crime and prostitution, both male and female, among young people caught in the homelessness trap. People who have no accommodation or live in inadequate accommodation often become victims of crime. Those human costs are also translated into further monetary costs when one calculates the demands that they produce on the welfare services and the health service.
  There have been a number of Government initiatives. The document produced by Shelter, "No New Homes", tabulates 10 such initiatives from 1986 through to 1993. Credit must be given to the Government for those initiatives, but, welcome though they are, unfortunately they are often inadequate. The Government's own welfare benefit system as now structured compounds the problem. A series of discreet initiatives do not add up to an adequate and coherent policy on homelessness.
  The estate action scheme was never adequate in scale and represented, not new money, but money top-sliced from the reduced housing investment programmes. It was also subject to task force criteria which did not necessarily meet local housing needs.
  In December the autumn statement included a seemingly generous statement from the Minister for Housing and Planning of £81 million to housing associations to provide hostel and long-term accommodation in London. That money will have some effect, but only in London.
  Private sector leasing was first limited by the Government to 10 years and then to three years. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 resulted in those leasing arrangements being set against borrowing approvals. In October 1990 the hon. Member for Worcestershire South (Mr. Spicer), then Minister for Housing and Planning, announced changes in the amount of subsidy to local authorities with the result that local authorities now tend to opt for bed-and-breakfast accommodation that attracts a higher subsidy. Outside London such accommodation does not attract a higher subsidy and any differences in costs must be passed on by the local authorities in higher rentals or on to the hard-pressed poll tax payer.
  I have suggested that private sector leasing is preferable to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and in many ways it is, as the problems associated with bed-and-breakfast accommodation are well-known. However, at least monitoring procedures exist for such accommodation. No
  1088
  such procedures operate for private sector leasing, but it should be remembered that short-term leasing of that sort still represents temporary accommodation and that it varies tremendously in quality. Guidelines and systems must be introduced to ensure the enforcement of quality.
  What should be done? First, there should be a significant change in attitude. We must recognise that homelessness is a national problem and not one that merely affects London. It should also be recognised that recent initiatives have been ad hoc and marginal in their effect. There is also a need to face up to the scale of the problem and a serious attempt should be made to assess it. Local authorities should be allowed to play their proper role in co-operation with, and complementary to, other agencies in solving that problem. If we consider those implications, we see that a number of positive measures can be taken.
  The code of guidance on homelessness should be strengthened in a number of ways on which I do not have the time to elaborate. We should extend the priority groups, and in particular strengthen provision for children. The code should be made statutory. We should not allow local authorities to be deemed to have discharged their responsibilities by providing temporary accommodation of various sorts. There should be a further look at the welfare benefit system to eliminate some of the anomalies that I mentioned earlier.
  More money must be allocated to the local authorities and housing associations, not top-sliced, as hitherto, so that the limited initiatives taken so far can be taken further. The restrictions on private sector leasing, apart from those on quality control, should be revoked.
  There are also a number of initiatives to be considered that need not cost money. We could freeze the rents-into-mortgages scheme until it can be seen that the crisis of homelessness is on the way to being solved. We could have a mortgages-into-rents scheme rather than let people lose their homes. The sale of council houses on the open market could be restricted where it can be shown that there is a problem of homelessness in the district. Most importantly, the embargo preventing local authorities from using more of the £7·3 billion capital receipts that have accrued since the right-to-buy legislation was introduced should be lifted. That extra money could be used for a crash programme, including using local authority new stocks, bringing back into use the thousands of voids in the public sector that need renovation before they can be occupied and purchasing similar voids, in whatever condition, in the private sector.
  I make a special plea for a step that could be taken without any cost, and for which I understand there are moves afoot elsewhere: the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It contains nothing that is not covered by some other Act. Its repeal would mean that those who, at present, suffer the tragedy of being homeless and living rough on the streets would not be classed as outside the law and subject to the harassment that that entails.
  The crisis of homelessness can be solved with an injection of money—that is necessary. But how much could be achieved with just a change of attitude and a little imagination? In the words of the document produced by the London Boroughs Association, which addresses itself particularly to the plight of homeless children, "It is a crying shame."
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on his success in obtaining an opportunity so early in his parliamentary career to raise this important subject on the Adjournment of the House. I am only sorry that he resorted to the use of such misleading statistics and tendentious arguments. In the time available, I shall try to set the record straight on the Government's housing objectives and point to the considerable resources that we are devoting to housing over the next few years.
  First and foremost, the Government are committed to ensuring that decent housing is within the reach of all families. The need to reduce homelessness underlies all our housing policy. It is good news that the total housing stock has risen by almost 2 million units since 1979—a fact conveniently and completely ignored by the hon. Gentleman in his selective reference to the reduction in the size of the rented sector. The ratio of homes to people has never been higher. Not only on Merseyside but across the country there is no overall housing shortage.
  Most people want to own their own homes, and our policies, notably the right to buy, introduced in the face of consistent resistance from some local authorities, have brought home ownership within the reach of more people than ever before. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he favours the expansion of home ownership, but his opposition to the rents-to-mortgages scheme, still at an embryonic stage, suggests that he shares the hostility to it which is so widespread in his party.
  We recognise that in some parts of the country there is a need for additional subsidised housing where people cannot afford to buy or cannot find private rented accommodation. This need not mean building more council houses. There are alternative ways of increasing provision of low-cost housing. Instead of relying on local authorities as the sole monopoly provider, we have encouraged them to play an enabling role through sponsorship or housing association schemes and by promoting locally the expansion of the private rented sector.
  Housing associations are now the main providers of new subsidised housing. We have reformed housing associations finance to allow the maximum use of private money to supplement public funds. The resources available to the Housing Corporation have been increased from £1·1 billion this year to over £2 billion by 1993–94. These measures will permit a sustained increase in output of subsidised housing by housing associations from 21,000 units last year to about 40,000 by 1993–94.
  It is also important to ensure that this substantial increase in output is directed to the areas of greatest need. In 1989 we carried out a review of the method used to allocate Housing Corporation resources between regions.
  The total housing public expenditure programme remains very large. Public expenditure on housing next year, including local authorities' self-financed expenditure from receipts, will amount to more than £8 billion. Of this, £3 billion will be available for local authority housing capital investment. The mechanism for regional allocation of resources, the general needs index, has been revised, allowing improved targeting on areas with homelessness pressures. Another £3·5 billion will go on subsidising current expenditure, including rent rebates. The remaining
  1090
  £ 1·5 billion goes to finance new house building by housing associations. This represents a very substantial public investment in housing, and is in addition to the £7 billion a year in tax relief to owner-occupiers.
  The Government are frequently attacked for the decline in the overall size of the rented housing stock, in particular for the effects of allowing council tenants to buy their own houses. The crucial factor, however, is the total number of lettings to new tenants, which has remained relatively stable at about 500,000 per year. This is because there has been an increase in the rate of turnover of lettings, particularly in the private sector. In spite of sales of over 1 million council homes, total annual council lettings have fallen by only about 50,000 a year. It should also be recognised that many of those who bought their council houses would in any case have remained as tenants for many years.
  Deregulation is also helping to slow down the decline of the private rented sector. Since we expanded the business expansion scheme in 1988 to cover companies specialising in residential lettings, about £550 million of new money has been raised from the private sector, which will provide about 10,000 houses. Housing benefit is, of couse, available, generally up to market rent levels, to assist those who have difficulty in meeting their full housing costs.
  The hon. Member suggested that we should allow local authorities to spend more of their capital receipts from right-to-buy sales to finance new provision. This proposal, which we hear frequently, is based on a misunderstanding. The Government must regulate gross public expenditure, including spending from receipts, in the interests of managing the national economy. If authorities were allowed to use more of their receipts, the Government would have to reduce the total of new borrowing approvals and capital grants correspondingly to maintain the same level of total expenditure. This would mean that the pattern of expenditure would be determined mainly by where receipts happened to have arisen, and not necessarily in areas of greatest need.
  The new rules that we have introduced require authorities to set aside part of their receipts for debt redemption, and the new power to take availability of receipts into account in making capital allocations means that about three quarters of authorities' total capital spending power derives from allocations made in accordance with assessed need, compared with only one third under the former system. So we are providing for more investment by the authorities that actually need it. Overall, we have reviewed housing policy, and we have taken steps to increase the supply of low-cost housing.
  It is important to distinguish between those who are literally homeless—sleeping rough on the street without a roof over their head—and the larger number who are accepted as homeless by local authorities under the statutory provisions.
  The most serious and acute symptom of homelessness is people sleeping rough, particularly in London. The Government are taking positive steps to deal with that. During the next three years, £96 million will be available to provide short-term direct access hostels for people on the streets and longer-term accommodation for people in existing hostels.
  That initiative has been given a valuable impetus by the secondment to my Department of Nick Hardwick,

  1091
  director of Centrepoint Soho, a leading voluntary body dealing with young homeless people who come to London from all parts of the United Kingdom.
  The problem is at its worst in central London, so that is where we are concentrating initially. It is hard to be precise about numbers, but there are estimated to be between 2,000 and 3,000 people sleeping on London's streets, out of a total of about 5,000 throughout the country. In due course, we will consider how the initiative could be extended to other areas.
  I have spent some time dealing with the initiatives that we are taking to reduce the number of people sleeping rough in London, but I must stress, since the hon. Member focused his remarks on this, that we are equally concerned to relieve the pressures that local authorities face in assisting homeless families who apply to them for help.
  We are taking action on a number of fronts—to improve local management; to minimise the use of unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast hotels by allocating funds to bring empty accommodation back into use; to improve advice services aimed at preventing homelessness; and to ensure that a more efficient and consistent homelessness service is offered by local authorities.
  Those measures will help all those people who are seeking better accommodation, regardless of whether they fall within the definition of statutory homeless. My Department would certainly take issue with the hon. Gentleman's claim that the official homeless figures understate the nature of the problem. If anything, the reverse is true, as many of the people who are in that category are adequately housed at present.
  I regret that the hon. Gentleman quoted, quite unquestioningly, some of the misleading statistics provided recently by CIPFA and Shelter about the relative cost of new building and the cost of bed and breakfast. CIPFA has acknowledged that some of the recently publicised figures that it produced were wrong.
  The Government's review of the homelessness legislation was published in November 1989. It concluded that the legislation was doing the job intended by Parliament. But it recognised that there was room for improved management of stock and handling of homelessness by local authorities.
  Unfortunately, many local authorities, including Knowsley, still have a poor record of making proper use of their housing resources. There are about 100,000 empty local authority dwellings—about 2·4 per cent. of the total stock. In Knowsley, the figure is 5·3 per cent. We are therefore encouraging better management by the introduction of mandatory performance indicators which will allow tenants to assess how good a job the authority is doing as a landlord.
  1092
  Even with the optimum use of stock, there are some areas where authorities need additional resources to help them to meet their statutory obligations. We are therefore making available considerable sums in the worst pressed areas in London and the south-east. Our prime objective is to reduce the use of bed-and-breakfast hotels for families. Priority is being given to schemes to bring empty local authority and housing association properties back into use.
  Additional allocations of £300 million are being made over this year and next—£227 million will go to local authorities and £73 million to housing associations. So far, approval has been given to schemes totalling £157 million, which should provide around 7,500 additional lettings. We are looking for a similar level of output from the resources available next year. Part of the additional homelessness allocation will also go in support of cash incentive grants to encourage better-off tenants to move into owner-occupation.
  We are also funding a national homelessness advice service co-ordinated through citizens advice bureaux, with technical support from Shelter and the Shelter Housing Aid Centre. We have expanded support to individual projects run by the voluntary sector which provide practical advice and assistance to help single homeless find temporary and permanent accommodation. This year, £2 million will be made available, about half of which will go to the advice service.
  This has been something of a whistle-stop tour of the main initiatives that we are taking forward to help relieve and reduce homelessness. As I have explained, the most difficult area of all is that of rough sleeping. It is our aim that assistance should be available to anyone willing to take advantage of it so that, eventually, no one need sleep without a roof over his head.
  We are also deeply concerned about the increasing number of households accepted as homeless by local authorities and the number of families forced to live in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have responded positively by allocating £300 million in additional resources to increase the supply of permanent housing and thus reduce authorities' need to use unsatisfactory temporary accommodation.
  In addition, we have recognised the importance of helping those at risk before they actually become homeless by funding the national homelessness advice service, and we have assisted young and single homeless people to find temporary and permanent accommodation through increased funding of practical voluntary sector projects.
  In total, those initiatives add up to a significant package of both housing and human resources that should have a positive impact in assisting those in greatest housing need.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Disability
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to make it a road traffic offence for able-bodied motorists to park in bays designated for special use by disabled people which are situated either on public highways or car parks serving public buildings.

  Mr. Chope
  It is already an offence for an able-bodied person to use a parking place reserved for an orange badge holder on the public highway or in a local authority off-street car park which has been designated by an Order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The offence carries a maximum penalty of £400.

  My Department has no jurisdiction over spaces in private car parks reserved for disabled people. It is for individual operators of these car parks to take whatever steps they consider necessary to see that these spaces are not misused.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Civil Aviation Authority to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that my hon. Friend has proposed such an exhibition, which I warmly welcome.

  "Vital Transport Statistics 1990"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report "Vital Travel Statistics 1990" prepared for Transport 2000 in December 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hong Kong
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instigate a study of the work of the independent commission against corruption in Hong Kong; and if he will bring forward proposals to create a similar body to monitor corruption in local Government.

  Mr. Key
  We consider the existing powers and responsibilities of the Audit Commission and local authority auditors to be adequate.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of departmental circular 1990/21 on local authority responsibilities for public 542
  access to information under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, as amended by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, have been printed; and to which individuals and organisations it has been distributed.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 5,500 copies of the circular have been printed. Copies have been distributed to all local authorities at county and district level and to local authority associations in England and Wales.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future use of County hall, London, SE1.

  Mr. Key
  Following my answer to the hon. Member on 23 November 1990 at column 226, we announced on 6 December the reopening of the public inquiry on 15 January 1991. The inquiry is in progress.

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

  Mr. Yeo
  Liverpool's housing investment programme allocations since 1979–80 are as follows. The percentage changes reflect 1990–91 as the base year for real term calculations.

  Actual allocation £ million

  Percentage change in real terms

  1979–80

  42·430

  —

  1980–81

  47·172

  -6·125

  1981–82

  39·788

  -23·079

  1982–83

  49·337

  +15·774

  1983–84

  41·853

  -18·918

  1984–85

  38·499

  -12·460

  1985–86

  31·000

  -23·636

  1986–87

  27·500

  -14·222

  1987–88

  24·800

  -14·476

  1988–89

  19·653

  -26·144

  1989–90

  15·240

  -27·101

  1990–91

  27·677

  +68·155

  1991–92

  23·400

  -20·238

  The actual allocations exclude the £24·267 million Liverpool have received from the estate action programme since 1988–89.

  Since 1981 authorities have also been able to spend substantial resources generated through the right to buy programme.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the housing investment programme for Liverpool in the light of that city's commitments under the defective housing legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have no plans to review Liverpool's housing investment programme allocation. We have taken account of the city's commitments under the housing defects legislation in determining the allocation.

  "Greening the Machinery of Government"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Evironment when he received a copy of the report "Greening the Machinery of Government"; and whether he intends to make any response to the proposals contained in the report.

  Mr. Baldry
  The director of Friends of the Earth wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 December enclosing a copy of the report. He will reply to the letter shortly.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is ready to issue a response to the Countryside Commission's policy statement on areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is grateful to the Countryside Commission for revising and updating their policy statement on AONBs and for the opportunity it gives the Government to restate our policies towards the protection and promotion of these valuable areas. Copies of the full text of our response to the Commission's statement have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  AONBs are an important element in this Government's commitment to protect the countryside—for the sake of its beauty, for its diversity of landscape and the wealth of its natural resources, and for its ecological, agricultural and recreational value. The Commission's statement is an important step forward in the protection and enhancement of the countryside and we look forward to seeing it positively applied by all involved.

  The formal recognition of the national importance of the natural beauty of an area conferred by AONB designation should be reflected by local authorities in their preparation of structure and local plans and in the exercise of their development control functions. We support the Commission's proposals for statements of intent further to clarify the role and purpose of designation for new AONBs and for management plans to be prepared for existing areas.

  We also endorse the Commission's proposals for joint advisory committees and for the appointment of officers to co-ordinate and promote local policies towards each AONB. Following the Government's very generous increase in the commission's grant-in-aid for 1991–92 announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement, we expect to see its programme to appoint AONB officers in 1991–92 expanded and plans for future years brought forward.

  Buying Agency
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the future of the Buying agency, the Liverpool-based public procurement agency.

  Sir George Young
  Following last summer's announcement of the closure of the Crown Suppliers contract furnishing division, we have reviewed the prospects for the Buying agency and concluded that it should become a "next steps" agency as soon as practicable after 1 April 1991.

DEFENCE

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice or guidance he intends to give to the forces about the use of irradiated food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date the Ministry of Defence has not knowingly procured food treated by ionising radiation. Of the classes of food which, under the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1990, may now be irradiated we do not envisage large scale procurement of such products, given the current high cost involved in processing food in such a way. However, if we were to purchase permitted irradiated foods, we would follow the requirements detailed in the Food Labelling (Amendment) (Irradiated Food) Regulations 1990.

  Armed Forces (Equipment and Manpower)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will impose a moratorium for the time being on any further rundown in equipment or manpower for the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are continuing to refine the detail of the broad proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July. In doing so we are mindful of the need to sustain both the effectiveness and morale of British forces in the Gulf.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current approximate daily cost of British involvement in the Gulf area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 16 January the approximate full daily operating cost of our forces in the Gulf area was estimated to be £3·6 million per day.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Meteorological Office has assessed the possible environmental impacts of oil wells in Kuwait being set alight during any hostilities in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Meteorological Office has produced a note for the Government on the possible environmental impacts of burning oil wells in Kuwait. I am placing a copy of this note in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be taking forward further work on this subject.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 30 November,Official Report, column 537, if he has any further information on decisions taken by the Supreme Soviet on methods of destruction of chemical weapons; and whether the United Kingdom offered the Soviet Union any technical assistance in the matter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the subject of chemical weapons destruction is still under discussion within the Supreme Soviet with no final decision having yet been made on the nature and location of chemical weapons destruction facilities.
  545
  The United States-Soviet bilateral agreement signed on 1 June 1990 allows for exchange of destruction technology between the State parties. In the past the United Kingdom has described to the Soviet Union the methods that we have used to destroy our chemical weapons.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to date of British involvement in Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total full operating cost to 16 January of the United Kingdom's military involvement in the Gulf is estimated to be in excess of £900 million.

  Medical Reservists
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the response to his call up of medical reservists; how many of those who volunteered were accepted and how many compulsory call out notices were issued; how many reservists compulsorily called up did not respond and what action is being taken against them; what are the skills of those who have volunteered or been called up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am pleased to be able to report that the call-out of medical reservists was successful and that the requirement was met in full. In the case of the Army, 894 vacancies were filled by volunteers. Compulsory call-out notices were sent to a further 408 medical personnel, and 126 personnel were compulsorily called out.

  A total of 94 Army reservists failed to respond to the call-out notice. We are still investigating the reasons. Some will have been ill or out of the country. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that legal action may be brought against the few who cannot provide an adequate explanation of their failure to attend.

  The Army reservists are medical specialists with a variety of skills, including surgeons, doctors, anaesthetists, dentists, nurses, physiotherapists and medical technicians.

  Turning to the RAF, I am also pleased to say that the compulsory call-out of No. 4626 aeromedical evacuation squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force was successful. Call-out notices were issued to all squadron personnel who all responded and made themselves available at their unit. The squadron comprises doctors, nurses, medical assistants and support staff.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Offices, Essex
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what employment offices he has plans to close in Essex; and if he will give in each case grounds.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each civil defence region(a) the name of the current chief regional scientific adviser, (b) the date of appointment of the current chief regional scientific adviser, (c) the age of the current chief regional scientific adviser, (d) the employment of the current chief regional scientific adviser at the time of his appointment as chief regional scientific adviser and (e) the amounts paid to each chief regional scientific adviser in each of the last five years in the form of salary, retainer and expenses.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office has responsibility for appointing a chief regional scientific adviser (CRSA) for the nine home defence regions in England and Wales. The Scottish Home and Health Department and Northern Ireland Office have similar responsibilities for their own home defence regions.

  CRSAs are not paid either a salary or a retainer as part of their civil defence duties. They are paid expenses as professional lecturing fees together with costs for travel and subsistence in the course of civil defence activities.

  A table giving the details requested for each of the CRSAs in England and Wales has been placed in the Library.

  Satellites
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future ownership and use of the Marco Polo satellite.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  British Sky Broadcasting operates five television channels on DBS frequencies via the Marco Polo satellite, which it owns. Under the terms of an agreement to be entered into between the Independent Television Commission and BSkyB, the DBS programme contract originally entered into between the Independent Broadcasting Authority and British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd. would be allowed to run until 30 December 1992. From 30 June 1991 the ITC would be able to withdraw all or any or part of any of the DBS channels for use by domestic satellite licensees appointed by it under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990. BSkyB would make capacity on the Marco Polo satellites available to such licensees until the end of 1992 and beyond.

  Child Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the considered policy of Her Majesty's Government to admit child refugees from Eritrea and elsewhere who have no means of supporting themselves in Britain; what representations he has received from London local authorities about the cost of their support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All applications for asylum in the United Kingdom from individuals claiming to be refugees are assessed against the criteria of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. Age is no bar to qualifications for refugee status and applications from children are considered individually on their merits. Child applicants, like adult asylum seekers, may remain here while their
  547
  applications are determined. With regard to representations made by London local authorities, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 17 December 1990 at column 62.

  Mr. Michael Thynne
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects the Parole Board to carry out the review of the life sentence passed upon Mr. Michael Thynne, currently detained in Her Majesty's prison, Bristol.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mr. Thynne's case will be referred to the local review committee at the prison where he is then detained in February 1992 as the first stage of a further review by the Parole Board.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether proposals for changes to the magistrates courts system will extend beyond administrative improvements to existing arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have not yet reached decisions on the reorganisation proposals in the report of the scrutiny of magistrates courts. We are still considering the views expressed by interested bodies in the light of the assessment by independent consultants last year of the costs of implementation.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that savings obtained through the cash limiting of the magistrates courts in England and Wales will not reduce the efficiency of the magistrates courts system or prolong judicial processes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are consulting the representative bodies of the magistrates courts service and the local authority associations about the mechanics of cash limiting current grant. The proposals underpinning the consultations envisage the allocation of grant to magistrates' courts committee areas by a formula based on variables including the number of weighted cases completed in those areas and which is intended not only to reflect the different needs of different committees in providing a standard level of service but also to create incentives for the more effective and efficient management of court business without interfering with the courts' independent judicial functions.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chief constables of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumbria, South Yorkshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire about the effects of plans to cap the community charge in their areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chief constables of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumbria, South Yorkshire and West Midlands, and the deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire, wrote to the then Home Secretary before Christmas about their financial concerns. My noble friend 548
  Lord Ferrers met the chief constable of West Midlands among other members of a delegation from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 18 December to discuss these issues.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report (a) the total number of breath tests conducted by each of the police forces in England and Wales during the period covering the recent festive season and (b) the number which proved positive.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The official breath test statistics for 1990 will not be available until later this year. The Association of Chief Police Officers has, however, collected provisional figures for the number of screening breath tests, along with the positive results, carried out in each police force area between 19 December 1990 and 1 January 1991. These are given in the table:

  Police force area

  Number of breath tests

  Total positive breath tests

  Avon and Somerset

  754

  113

  Bedfordshire

  962

  54

  Cambridgeshire

  1,600

  47

  Cheshire

  1,032

  106

  City of London

  98

  10

  Cleveland

  794

  52

  Cumbria

  611

  56

  Derbyshire

  818

  67

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,830

  152

  Dorset

  527

  47

  Durham

  750

  72

  Dyfed Powys

  612

  52

  Essex

  3,107

  148

  Gloucestershire

  383

  59

  Greater Manchester

  5,799

  425

  Gwent

  1,319

  53

  Hampshire

  1,762

  164

  Hertfordshire

  613

  74

  Humberside

  1,168

  95

  Kent

  2,101

  134

  Lancashire

  1,764

  131

  Leicestershire

  1,413

  86

  Lincolnshire

  1,294

  50

  Merseyside

  697

  149

  Metropolitan Police

  18,075

  838

  Norfolk

  2,992

  53

  Northamptonshire

  1,097

  50

  Northumbria

  470

  157

  North Wales

  2,235

  87

  North Yorkshire

  925

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  3,462

  114

  South Wales

  1,395

  150

  South Yorkshire

  1,271

  133

  Staffordshire

  947

  98

  Suffolk

  1,235

  51

  Surrey

  1,411

  81

  Sussex

  1,100

  95

  Thames Valley

  4,620

  199

  Warwickshire

  527

  50

  West Mercia

  891

  100

  West Midlands

  2,254

  304

  West Yorkshire

  1,493

  230

  Wiltshire

  975

  60

  Total

  79,183

  5,297

  Broadcasting (Programme Information)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the chair and members of the Independent Television Commission
  549
  regarding the intention of the television and radio franchise holders to charge newspapers for programme information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has not held any discussions with the chairman or members of the Independent Television Commission on this issue. The use of programme information is a matter for commercial arrangements between broadcasters and those who wish to publish the information. The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes provision for adjudication by the copyright tribunal if a publisher considers that the fee being charged by the broadcaster is unreasonable.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Efficiency
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North dated 18 December 1990,Official Report, column 132, if he will show the efficiency in terms of gross value added per annual labour unit of agriculture and all other major sectors of industry in Britain.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on gross value added per head in other sectors of industry in the United Kingdom is contained in pages 10–37 of the "Business Monitor: Report on the Census of Production—Summary Volume, 1988", available in the Library of the House. These estimates are not fully comparable with those for agriculture contained in my reply of 18 December: they relate to total numbers employed whereas, for agriculture, the denominator is annual labour units (reflecting full time worker equivalents). Furthermore, comparisons between sectors should be interpreted cautiously because of the differing degrees of support and protection embodied in the value added of each sector and because of different deployments of labour and capital.

  Food Safety
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to local authorities about the operation of the new food safety regulations which implement the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  Under section 40 of the Food Safety Act Ministers may issue codes of practice for local authorities on the enforcement of the Act and regulations made under it. Seven codes of practice on a range of enforcement aspects were issued to come into operation on 1 January 1991. Copies of the codes have been placed in the Library of the House. Further codes are in preparation.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the outcome of his examination of the relationship between the new committees on microbiological safety of food and the existing committees in the food area.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. I have concluded a change in the terms of references is required in order to take account of the new committees. Consequently the revised terms of reference for the Food Advisory Committee are:"To assess the risk to humans of chemicals which are used or occur in or on food and to advise Ministers on the exercise
  550
  of powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 relating to the labelling, composition and chemical safety of food. In exercising its functions the Food Advisory Committee will take the advice and work of the Committee on Toxicity and other relevant advisory committees into account."

  In addition, the Steering Group for Food Surveillance is to be renamed the Steering Group on Chemical Aspects of Food Surveillance and its revised terms of reference are:
  "to identify through surveillance the need for action to ensure the chemical safety and nutritional adequacy of food".

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Fisheries Council meeting, held on 19 and 20 December 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom secured a good package consistent with conservation at the December Council.

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of when irradiated food will be on sale in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since the possibility of licensing under the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1991 was introduced only on 1 January it is too early for any meaningful estimate to be made.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of farmers who have received payment under the set-aside scheme for(a) tourist facilities, (b) football ptiches, (c) golf courses, (d) game reserves and (e) nature reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the following breakdown of set-aside undertakings under the non-agricultural use option may be of assistance:

  Total number of undertakings relating to land set aside under the non-agricultural use option in England in the first two years of the scheme

  Number

  Per cent.

  Horse-based activities (including livery stables, riding schools, stud farms, etc)

  536

  (76)

  Golf courses

  46

  (7)

  Game cover for commercial shoots

  32

  (5)

  Sports grounds

  24

  (3)

  Recreational facilities (including camping sites, nature trails, etc)

  15

  (2)

  Other

  54

  (7)

  Total

  707

  (100)

  Note: Set-aside entrants may enter more than one non-agricultural use option.

  Veterinary Investigations Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his plans following his review of the veterinary investigations service; and if he will make a statement.
  551
  Mr. Gummer
  The review has been a very thorough one and its implications needed to be considered in detail. Those considerations are now in their final stages and I expect to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Milk Imports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the dates when China, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the USSR restricted imports of milk; if he will list the quantities of milk imported from the United Kingdom for the full year prior to the restriction being imposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The dates when the countries in question restricted imports of milk and milk products from the United Kingdom were:

  Date

  China

  1precise date unknown

  Egypt

  1 July 1990

  Jordan

  229 July 1990

  Syria

  329 August 1990

  Tunisia

  20 January 1990

  Turkey

  25 May 1990

  USSR

  10 April 1990

  1 Notification received 30 October 1990.

  2 Notification received 3 September 1990.

  3 Notification received 14 January 1991.

  The quantities of milk and milk products imported from the United Kingdom for the previous full year (1989) were, in tonnes:

  Milk, cream and other milk products (other than butter or cheese)

  Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk

  Cheese and curd

  China

  2,718

  —

  —

  Egypt

  1,334

  175

  141

  Jordan

  550

  34

  26

  Syria

  —

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  118

  2

  39

  USSR

  —

  1

  —

  We have been in frequent contact with all the countries which have imposed restrictions. Both the European Community and the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) have clearly stated that milk and milk products present no risk from BSE.

  With the help of these bodies we shall continue to make every effort to have these unjustified restrictions lifted.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to set a final date for the notification of milk quota transfers in England and Wales in 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  Following consultations with the industry and in exercise of powers provided by the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations I have decided that milk quota transfers notified after 22 April will have no effect on the calculation of supplementary levy liability for 1990–91, even if they are notified as having occurred during that year.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities of(a) grain and (b) butter were held in intervention stores in (i) Humberside and (ii) Lincolnshire at the latest available date and the equivalent date one year ago.

  Mr. Curry
  Since the question concerns matters which are the direct responsibility of the chief executive of the Intervention Board, I am asking him to write directly to the hon. Member.

  Wildlife and Landscape Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates and locations of(a) national and (b) regional training courses on wildlife and landscape conservation that have been held for Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  National and regional training courses on landscape and wildlife conservation held in 1990 for Agricultural Development and Advisory Service advisers were as follows:

  Location

  Date

  National courses

  Worcestershire

  February

  London

  March

  Shropshire

  June

  Shropshire

  September

  Shropshire

  September

  Shropshire

  November

  Regional courses

  Yorkshire

  May

  Yorkshire

  May

  Worcestershire

  May

  Warwickshire

  June

  Warwickshire

  June

  Somerset

  June

  West Sussex

  July

  Dyfed

  September

  Cambridgeshire

  November

  This programme of training courses proved sufficient in practice to ensure that all ADAS officers received appropriate training in landscape and wildlife conservation. For this reason two of the proposed regional training courses referred to in an earlier answer to the hon. Member did not take place.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North dated 23 November 1990,Official Report, column 217, if he will show the total expenditure on State education in actual and 1989 prices, in 1961, 1970, 1980 and 1989, showing the per cent. increase at 1989 prices; and the amount spent on teachers' salaries and related costs in each case, in actual 1989 prices and in per cent. terms, and also the per cent. increase in each case since 1980.

  Mr. Eggar
  Data for 1961 are not readily available. The earliest year for which data are available on a comparable
  553
  basis is 1968–69. The data for that and the subsequent years on total education spending, and on spending on school teachers' salaries in England, are as follows:

  Total education spending

  Cash terms

  1989–90 prices

  Increase over previous year

  Increase since 1980

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1968–69

  2·1

  15·2

  —

  —

  1970–71

  2·6

  16·5

  9

  —

  1980–81

  12·9

  21·9

  33

  —

  1988–89

  22·0

  23·4

  7

  7

  1989–90

  24·1

  24·1

  3

  10

  Teachers' salaries

  Cash terms

  1989–90 prices

  Increase over previous year

  Increase since 1980

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1968–69

  0·5

  3·7

  —

  —

  1970–71

  0·6

  4·1

  11

  —

  1980–81

  3·7

  6·3

  54

  —

  1988–89

  6·6

  7·0

  11

  11

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  Notes to tables:

  1. The total education spending figures are drawn from the education tables of the relevant Public Expenditure White Papers.

  2. The figures for spending on teachers' salaries are drawn from local authority spending returns. Data for 1989–90 are not yet available. Spending on teachers' salaries includes on-costs such as superannuation. No account is taken of changes in teacher numbers over the period shown.

  3. The columns headed "increase over previous year" show the increase in spending at 1989–90 prices over the previous year.

  4. The figures at 1989–90 prices have been calculated using latest GDP deflators.

  Iraqi Students
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) pursuant to his reply of 14 January, if he will give a breakdown of the courses taken by the 900 Iraqi postgraduate students who attended British universities during 1986–87;

  (2) how many students from Iraq are enrolled on postgraduate courses at British universities and colleges of higher education during the current university year; and if he will give a breakdown of the courses they are attending.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Under-fives
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1990,Official Report, columns 491–92, when he expects the information for 1990 on the percentage of under-fives in nursery schools, nursery classes and infant classes by local education authority in England to be available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested for January 1990 is given in the following table:554

  Percentage of under fives in maintained nursery and primary schools in rank order in each local education authority—January 1990

  All under Fives

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Primary classes

  South Tyneside

  94

  21

  37

  36

  Walsall

  91

  11

  46

  34

  North Tyneside

  91

  6

  50

  35

  Salford

  87

  15

  38

  34

  Liverpool

  86

  4

  46

  36

  Sandwell

  76

  2

  42

  32

  Cleveland

  75

  1

  54

  20

  Knowsley1

  74

  —

  42

  31

  Tameside

  74

  5

  35

  33

  Doncaster1

  74

  —

  41

  33

  Wolverhampton

  72

  12

  45

  15

  Durham

  71

  17

  23

  31

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  70

  9

  31

  30

  Manchester

  70

  4

  51

  16

  Hounslow1

  70

  —

  66

  3

  Barking1

  69

  —

  35

  34

  Wakefield

  69

  6

  42

  22

  Solihull1

  69

  —

  35

  35

  Bolton

  68

  7

  30

  31

  Sunderland

  68

  12

  24

  32

  Barnsley

  67

  3

  47

  17

  Haringey

  67

  4

  34

  28

  Gateshead

  67

  1

  33

  32

  Oldham1

  67

  —

  34

  33

  St. Helens

  65

  2

  31

  32

  Sefton

  65

  4

  28

  33

  Bury

  63

  3

  26

  33

  Birmingham

  63

  8

  24

  31

  Northumberland

  63

  2

  28

  32

  Sheffield

  62

  6

  39

  18

  Rochdale

  62

  14

  17

  31

  Calderdale1

  61

  —

  28

  32

  Merton1

  60

  —

  40

  21

  Leeds

  60

  2

  40

  19

  Derbyshire

  60

  7

  31

  22

  Ealing

  60

  7

  28

  26

  Nottinghamshire

  58

  2

  46

  10

  Brent

  57

  4

  28

  26

  Bradford

  57

  3

  32

  21

  Kingston upon Thames

  57

  7

  24

  26

  Coventry

  57

  5

  20

  32

  Wirral

  57

  3

  21

  33

  Kirklees

  57

  6

  32

  20

  Wigan

  57

  2

  23

  32

  Humberside

  56

  5

  30

  22

  Rotherham

  56

  5

  35

  16

  Cumbria

  56

  7

  16

  33

  Newham

  55

  13

  41

  1

  Cheshire

  54

  3

  18

  32

  Barnet

  54

  7

  22

  25

  Northamptonshire

  54

  4

  16

  33

  Hillingdon

  51

  2

  47

  2

  Enfield1

  50

  —

  20

  30

  Dudley

  49

  4

  30

  16

  Warwickshire

  49

  6

  11

  32

  Inner London

  49

  7

  29

  13

  Avon

  48

  7

  10

  31

  Staffordshire

  48

  7

  15

  26

  Lancashire

  48

  9

  8

  31

  North Yorkshire

  48

  2

  18

  28

  Stockport

  48

  11

  6

  31

  Hertfordshire

  47

  6

  23

  17

  Waltham Forest

  47

  5

  30

  12

  Cornwall3

  45

  1

  13

  31

  Cambridgeshire

  45

  4

  7

  33

  Richmond upon Thames

  45

  2

  17

  26

  Harrow1

  45

  —

  16

  29

  Isle of Wight1

  43

  —

  7

  36

  Havering1

  39

  —

  4

  35

  Leicestershire

  38

  0

  22

  16

  Bedfordshire

  38

  8

  23

  7

  East Sussex

  38

  2

  6

  30

  555

  All under Fives

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Primary classes

  Dorset1

  38

  —

  6

  33

  Croydon

  35

  5

  2

  28

  Norfolk

  34

  2

  3

  28

  Shropshire

  34

  2

  11

  22

  Somerset1

  33

  —

  1

  33

  Lincolnshire

  32

  2

  6

  23

  Suffolk

  31

  1

  15

  15

  Sutton

  31

  6

  25

  0

  Gloucestershire1

  31

  —

  —

  31

  Bexley

  30

  3

  12

  14

  Trafford1

  30

  —

  22

  7

  Devon

  28

  1

  10

  16

  Redbridge1

  27

  —

  13

  14

  Berkshire

  26

  10

  15

  1

  Surrey

  24

  2

  9

  13

  Hereford & Worcester1

  22

  —

  7

  15

  Hampshire

  21

  1

  4

  16

  Essex

  21

  1

  5

  15

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  3

  7

  9

  Wiltshire1

  18

  —

  3

  16

  Oxfordshire

  18

  6

  9

  4

  Kent

  17

  0

  5

  12

  Bromley1

  17

  —

  2

  15

  West Sussex

  10

  3

  1

  6

  ENGLAND

  46

  4

  21

  22

  Note:—

  1 Have no Nursery Schools

  2 Have no Nursery Schools or Nursery Classes

  3 Includes Isles of Scilly

  Special Schools
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of pupils belonging to each local education authority attending special schools maintained by other local education authorities in January 1989 and 1990.

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

  The number of pupils belonging to local education authorities attending special schools maintained by other local education authorities as recorded on returns made to the Department of Education

  January 1989

  January 1990

  City of London

  6

  5

  Camden

  125

  123

  Greenwich

  119

  115

  Hackney

  222

  213

  Hammersmith

  103

  100

  Islington

  167

  149

  Kensington

  208

  196

  Lambeth

  273

  240

  Lewisham

  195

  194

  Southwark

  237

  236

  Tower Hamlet

  114

  111

  Wandsworth

  206

  181

  Westminster

  161

  151

  Barking

  32

  31

  Barnet

  77

  89

  Bexley

  81

  75

  Brent

  76

  74

  Bromley

  34

  25

  Croydon

  56

  55

  Ealing

  71

  74

  Enfield

  117

  101

  Haringey

  92

  91

  Harrow

  52

  46

  Havering

  47

  47

  Hillingdon

  43

  42

  Hounslow

  25

  26

  556

  January 1989

  January 1990

  Kingston

  18

  17

  Merton

  78

  64

  Newham

  59

  61

  Redbridge

  61

  74

  Richmond

  36

  35

  Sutton

  52

  49

  Waltham Forest

  23

  19

  Birmingham

  42

  30

  Coventry

  18

  18

  Dudley

  71

  72

  Sandwell

  76

  74

  Solihull

  40

  38

  Walsall

  20

  23

  Wolverhampton

  11

  13

  Knowsley

  38

  23

  Liverpool

  35

  26

  St. Helens

  33

  33

  Sefton

  25

  22

  Wirral

  28

  20

  Bolton

  77

  64

  Bury

  77

  75

  Manchester

  48

  47

  Oldham

  20

  23

  Rochdale

  45

  61

  Salford

  33

  25

  Stockport

  55

  41

  Tameside

  78

  76

  Trafford

  34

  37

  Wigan

  41

  31

  Barnsley

  27

  18

  Doncaster

  16

  8

  Rotherham

  44

  39

  Sheffield

  7

  5

  Bradford

  20

  47

  Calderdale

  23

  25

  Kirklees

  47

  46

  Leeds

  15

  20

  Wakefield

  63

  32

  Gateshead

  21

  29

  Newcastle

  26

  17

  North Tyne

  31

  30

  South Tyne

  27

  32

  Sunderland

  15

  12

  Avon

  34

  21

  Bedfordshire

  30

  21

  Berkshire

  62

  65

  Buckinghamshire

  83

  84

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  13

  Cheshire

  108

  85

  Cleveland

  16

  18

  Cornwall

  18

  18

  Cumbria

  12

  10

  Derbyshire

  61

  46

  Devon

  13

  9

  Dorset

  10

  12

  Durham

  68

  65

  East Sussex

  57

  46

  Essex

  166

  205

  Gloucestershire

  16

  12

  Hampshire

  100

  86

  Hereford and Worcester

  32

  18

  Hertfordshire

  82

  63

  Humberside

  43

  38

  Isle of Wight

  3

  6

  Kent

  74

  56

  Lancashire

  110

  100

  Leicestershire

  22

  27

  Lincolnshire

  26

  31

  Norfolk

  22

  20

  North Yorkshire

  70

  58

  Northamptonshire

  47

  36

  557

  January 1989

  January 1990

  Northumberland

  31

  42

  Nottinghamshire

  43

  33

  Oxfordshire

  19

  17

  Shropshire

  30

  28

  Somerset

  21

  13

  Staffordshire

  58

  49

  Suffolk

  30

  35

  Surrey

  103

  67

  Warwickshire

  84

  79

  West Sussex

  33

  32

  Wiltshire

  36

  43

THE ARTS

  London Arts Board
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he expects to announce the chairman for the London Arts Board; and if he will make a statement on the future of the London Arts Board.

  Income tax, NICS, and indirect taxes as multiples of average earnings, 1990–91

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·50

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  24·04

  43·28

  62·53

  101·91

  163·49

  286·65

  409·81

  532·97

  779·29

  1,148·77

  2,380·37

  NICS

  10·64

  17 56

  24·49

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  VAT

  —

  11·65

  15·60

  24·22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17·22

  21·50

  30·85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  34·68

  89·71

  124·12

  185·26

  191·77

  314·93

  438·09

  561·25

  807·57

  1,177·05

  2,408·65

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  15·6

  18·7

  20·3

  22·1

  26·5

  31·0

  33·3

  34·6

  36·2

  37·3

  38·7

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·1

  5·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·5

  7·0

  6·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  22·5

  38·8

  40·4

  40·1

  31·1

  34·1

  35·6

  36·4

  37·5

  38·2

  39·2

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  15·77

  35·01

  54·26

  92·75

  150·26

  273·42

  396·58

  519·74

  766·06

  1,135·54

  2,367·14

  NICS

  10·64

  17·56

  24·49

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  VAT

  —

  10·77

  15·07

  24·53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19·07

  23·36

  32·81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  26·41

  82·41

  117·18

  178·37

  178·54

  301·70

  424·86

  548·02

  794·34

  1,163·82

  2,395·42

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  10·2

  15·2

  17·6

  20·1

  24·4

  29·6

  32·2

  33·8

  35·5

  36·9

  38·4

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·7

  4·9

  5·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·3

  7·6

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  17·1

  35·8

  38·1

  38·6

  29·0

  32·7

  34·5

  35·6

  36·8

  37·8

  38·9

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1·32

  20·57

  39·81

  78·30

  116·79

  203·55

  313·75

  436·91

  683·23

  1,052·71

  2,284·31

  NICS

  7·42

  14·34

  21·27

  35·13

  47·23

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  VAT

  —

  12·27

  16·93

  26·27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  21·97

  25·81

  33·49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  8·74

  69·15

  103·82

  173·19

  164·02

  260·11

  370·31

  493·47

  739·79

  1,109·27

  2,340·87

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0·9

  8·9

  12·9

  17·0

  19·0

  22·0

  25·5

  28·4

  31·7

  34·2

  37·1

  NICS

  4·8

  6·2

  6·9

  7·6

  7·7

  6·1

  4·6

  3·7

  2·6

  1·8

  0·9

  VAT

  —

  5·3

  5·5

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  558
  Mr. Tim Renton
  I expect to receive proposals concerning the London Arts Board from the Arts Council in due course.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report up-to-date figures, using 1990–91 prices, but otherwise on the same basis as those provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) of 10 January 1989, Official Report, columns 624–47.

  Mr. Maude
  Updated figures for 1990–91 are given in the table. For earlier years, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 5 July 1990 jat column 699. The figures given in that reply at 1988–89 prices may be converted to 1990–91 prices in line with the Autumn Statement forecast by multiplying by a factor of 1·19.
  559

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·50

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Other indirect

  —

  9·5

  8·4

  7·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  5·7

  29·9

  33·7

  37·6

  26·7

  28·1

  30·1

  32·1

  34·3

  36·0

  38·0

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1·27

  20·51

  39·76

  78·25

  135·76

  258·92

  382·08

  505·24

  751·56

  1,121·04

  2,352·64

  NICS

  10·64

  17·56

  24·49

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  VAT

  —

  10·58

  15·45

  26·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·55

  21·99

  29·54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  11·91

  67·20

  101·69

  162·23

  164·04

  287·20

  410·36

  533·52

  779·84

  1,149·32

  2,380·92

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0·8

  8·9

  12·9

  17·0

  22·0

  28·0

  31·0

  32·9

  34·8

  36·4

  38·2

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·6

  5·0

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·0

  7·1

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  7·7

  29·1

  33·0

  35·2

  26·6

  31·1

  33·3

  34·7

  36·1

  37·3

  38·7

  Notes to tables

  (1) Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax relief other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted rate. The figures for NI contributions are financial year averages.

  (2) From 1990–91 husbands and wives will be taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years the table therefore shows income tax and National Insurance Contributions paid by a married couple in 1990–91 as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  (3) In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowances, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  (4) Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are estimated to be £307·90 per week in 1990–91, using the Government Actuary Department's assumption of 10 per cent. growth over 1989–90 as published in the 1990 autumn statement.

  (5) The estimates of indirect taxes are derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, and are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between the estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Football League clubs took advantage of the Inland Revenue's amnesty on illegal payments to players; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  There was no such amnesty.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the Bank of England inquiry into developments both before and after the announcement of Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism on 5 October.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have nothing to add to the answer that my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor gave to the hon. Gentleman on 23 October 1990 at column 196. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that the decision to join the ERM was prematurely disclosed, he should declare it to the appropriate authorities.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the public expenditure planning total for 1991–92.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales have today announced increases in central Government expenditure on a new scheme for community charge reduction and other forms of support for local authorities of some £1·1 billion in 1991–92, net of savings on community charge benefit.

  The £1·1 billion net increase in central Government support for local authorities will be added to next year's public expenditure planning total. There will, however, be no change in projected local authority expenditure as a result of this switch in financing, and therefore no increase in total public expenditure as measured by general government expenditure (GGE). Local authority expenditure will continue moreover to be subject to capping.

  On financing, the Government's strategy remains to balance the budget over the medium term. The decisions announced today do not alter that policy and will be taken into account in framing the Budget proposals.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Management Training (Czechoslovakia)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the sector reconnaisance mission on management training to Czechoslovakia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have today placed copies in the Library.

  Educational Projects (Czechoslovakia)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cash value of the know-how fund for educational projects in Czechoslovakia; and whether he will list those United Kingdom organisations who have been awarded contracts under it, giving the purpose and duration of each project and its pound sterling value.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Expenditure under the know-how fund for Czechoslovakia in 1990–91 is estimated at £2 million. Projects designed to transfer know-how to Czechoslovakia are listed below by sector, including the name of the United Kingdom organisation responsible for project implementation.

  FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MACROECONOMIC ADVICE

  Title: Assistance for Privatisation
  Description: A team of privatisation advisers will undertake a six month assignment to advise the Czechoslovak Privatisation Agency.

  Contract: Ernst & Young, Shroders and Denton Hall.

  Status: September 1990-March 1991.

  Cost: £450,000.

  Title: Banking Training
  Description: A visit to assess the training needs of the Czechoslovak banking sector.

  Contract: Grayson-Bennett Associates.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £12,000.

  Title: Banking Training
  Description: A programme of six two week seminars for senior managers of various banks in Czechoslovakia. Contract: Grayson-Bennett Associates.

  Status: January to May 1991.

  Cost: £70,000.

  Title: Assistance to the Ceskoslovenska Obchodnoi Banka
  Description: Two consultants will work alongside bank staff as part of a team finalising the evaluation of an integrated software package.

  Contract: IDOM.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £14,500.

  Title: Assistance to the Komercni Banka
  Description: The placement of ten Czechoslovak bankers, selected by the Komercni Banka, with British clearing banks, mainly in their documentary credits departments in order to obtain practical, working experience of international commercial banking business.

  Contract: Chartered Institute of Bankers.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £35,000.

  Title: Assistance to the Investicni Banka
  Description: Barclays Bank to provide a three day training course to two employees of the Investicni Banka in the issue of Certificates of Deposit.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £900.

  562
  Title: Accountancy Training
  Description: The placement of eight Czechoslovak accountants selected by the Ministry of Finance with British accountancy firms.

  Contract: Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £13,000.

  Title: Workshops on Tax Structure and Public Finance
  Description: A programme of workshops to examine tax requirements and procedures resulting from the changes in Czechoslovakia. In addition there will be inward and outward visits by researchers and the provision of computer equipment.

  Contract: Institute of Fiscal Studies.

  Status: September 1990 to September 1992.

  Cost: £25,000.

  Title: Insurance Sector
  Description: To help establish a new insurance company.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £140,700.

  Title: Advice to the Federal Minister of Economy and the Chairman of the State Bank
  Description: The payment of air fares for up to fifteen visits per year to Prague by Mr. Stanley Rudcenko, Vice President and Chief Economist at the Bankers Trust and one of an informal group of advisers to the Chairman of the State Bank and Federal Ministry of Economy.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £6,000.

  Title: Secondment to the Federal Ministry of Economy
  Description: The secondment of Dr. Drabek of the World Bank to act as a Principal Economic adviser to both the Ministry of Economy and the Czech Ministry of Strategic Planning.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £50,000.

  Title: Economics for Senior Officials
  Description: A programme of lectures and seminars to introduce senior Czechoslovak officials to market economics, and in particular the contemporary economic issues affecting government policy.

  Contract: Birbeck College.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £9,500.

  Title: Support for World Bank Structural Adjustment Mission
  Description: Covering the costs of two United Kingdom experts taking part in a World Bank mission looking at the social safety net in Czechoslovakia as a precursor to a major structural adjustment loan.

  Status: January 1991.

  Cost: £20,000.

  EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

  Title: Development of Employment Services in Slovakia
  Description: A short visit by two Employment Service officials to Slovakia to ascertain needs in the employment sector.

  Contract: Department of Employment.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £3,000.

  Title: Training for Employment Services Managers
  Description: The Employment Service are to provide a number of courses for the Czechoslovak equivalent of Jobcentre managers.

  Contract: Department of Employment.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £53,000.

  563
  Title: Training and Retraining of Adults
  Description: Up to ten Czechoslovak officials will visit the United Kingdom for two weeks to look at adult training facilities and policy.

  Contract: Department of Employment.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £39,300.

  Title: Development of Employment Services
  Description: A visit by United Kingdom Employment Service officials to Czechoslovakia to look at existing arrangements for dealing with unemployment and a return visit by officials from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to discuss with institutions in the United Kingdom the handling of unemployment issues.

  Contract: Department of Employment.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £19,600.

  Title: Secondment to the Prime Minister's Office
  Description: The Department of Employment have seconded an official to the Czechoslovak Prime Minister's to advise on the employment and other implications of the economic reform programme.

  Contract: Department of Employment.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £50,000.

  Title: Secondment to Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
  Description: An official will be seconded to the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for a nine month period to co-ordinate and develop the programme of assistance in the labour field under KHF auspices.

  Contract: Department of Employment.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £20,000.

  MANAGEMENT TRAINING

  Title: Management Training in the Telecommunications Sector
  Description: The training of ten senior executives in the Czechoslovak Federal Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.

  Contract: British Telecom.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £58,800.

  Title: Management Training in the Construction Sector
  Description: A pilot management training course for the construction sector.

  Contract: Intrinsic Marketing.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £57,950.

  ENVIRONMENT

  Title: Study of Environmental Problems of North Bohemia
  Description: A programme of visits by environmental scientists aimed at producing a report for the Czechoslovak government to better understand the environmental problems of north Bohemia and to develop a realistic programme for their solution, including sources of finance.

  Contract: Department of the Environment.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £12,000.

  Title: Establishment of an Industry and Conservation Association in Bratislava
  Description: A programme of visits and consultancy advice aimed at improving the handling of environmental problems in the local political economy by developing partnerships between industry, environmental NGO's and local government.

  Contract: Nature Conservancy Council.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £28,000.

  EDUCATION AND ELT

  Title: Prince of Wales Scholarships
  Description: Two Czechoslovak students will be sponsored to attend courses at Atlantic College, Wales.
  564

  Status: The two students took up their courses in October 1990.

  Cost: £9,300.

  Title: Book Sector Study
  Description: A study to consider all factors relevant to educational book development which will form the basis for a more detailed book development programme to be linked to an IBRD contribution to this sector.

  Contract: International Book Development.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £44,500.

  Title: English Language Teaching In-Service Seminar
  Description: A two week seminar in Bratislava to prepare teachers for the introduction of new English teaching materials and methodology.

  Contract: British Council.Status: Completed.

  Cost: £10,500.

  Title: Russian Teachers' Conversion Course
  Description: The British Council are to organise a three month intensive teacher training/conversion course for Czech and Slovak teachers of Russian to prepare them for English teaching duties in state primary and secondary schools.

  Contract: Bell Educational Trust.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £195,000.

  Title: English Language Training for the State Bank.
  Description: A three-month intensive course in general and specialised English for senior staff of the Czechoslovak State Bank

  Contract: Regent school.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £65,000.

  OTHER PROJECTS

  Title: Data Envelopment Analysis Programme
  Description: The London School of Economics ran a short computer programming course based at the Ecole Polytechnique de Brno. A computer has been installed at the Polytechnique to enable them to undertake further courses.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £10,000.

  POLITICAL PROJECTS

  Title: Anglo-Czechoslovak Law Seminar
  Description: Four Czechoslovak lawyers attended a seminar in London organised by the Anglo-Czechoslovak Law Association.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £2,000.

  Title: Training for personnel of Czechoslovak TV
  Description: VISNEWS have arranged a short visit for personnel from Czechoslovak TV News to enable them to see how news coverage is approached in Britain and to look at United Kingdom equipment and production techniques.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £5,000.

  Title: Media Training for Czechoslovak Radio
  Description: A group of journalists from Czechoslovak Radio undertook a two day training session with an individual consultant looking at ways of improving presentation and content.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £200.

  Title: Legal Education
  Description: The Jan Hus Foundation is to advise Czechoslovak Universities on the reform of their system of legal education.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £5,000.

  565
  Title: Broadcasting Training
  Description: The BBC World Service is to provide a six week course for Czechoslovak broadcasters on the methods and techniques of broadcasting and journalism in a plural society.

  Status: To start February 1991.

  Cost: £250,000.

  CZECHOSLOVAKIA, HUNGARY AND POLAND

  Title: Assistance for Environmental NGOs
  Description: A programme of visits, exchanges and consultancy advice aimed at strengthening the network of environmental NGOs in all three countries.

  Contract: Ecological Studies Institute.

  Status: Under way.

  Cost: £125,000 over two years.

ENERGY

  Power Failures, Fast Midlands
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he next expects to meet the chair of the East Midlands Electricity Consumer Committee to discuss the blizzard of 8 December 1990 and the number of supply interruptions and the rate of reconnections;

  (2) when he next expects to meet the chairman of the East Midlands Electricity Company to discuss the impact of the 8 December 1990 blizzard and the response thereto.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet either at present. My Department monitored the situation throughout the restoration of supplies. The East Midlands Electricity Consumer Committee has not requested a meeting.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) 12 December,Official Report, column 397, he will set out the definition of civil spent nuclear fuel as used in the context of international nuclear safeguards to which he makes reference.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The expression "civil spent nuclear fuel" used in my answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 12 December 1990 at column 397 referred to irradiated fuel arising from the operation of reactors in the United Kingdom civil nuclear industry and irradiated fuel from overseas, stored in the United Kingdom before reprocessing.

  Kuwaiti Oilfields
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies have been conducted by his Department or consultants to his Department on the effects of the mining or bombing of the Kuwaiti oilfields, in terms of(a) oil resource depletion, (b) the stability of crude oil prices and (c) environmental pollution, including effects on global warming.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has not carried out any detailed studies on the possible effects of the mining or bombing of the Kuwaiti oilfields for oil resource depletion or the stability of crude oil prices. However, it seems unlikely that there would be any significant short term consequences for oil supplies, bearing in mind that crude from Kuwait is not at present available to world markets.

  The Meteorological Office has conducted a preliminary study into the environmental effects. This concludes that
  566
  even in the worst case scenario the effects on global warming would be almost negligible. Arrangements have been made for a copy of their note to be placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the gross provision for the Welsh Development Agency in every year since 1979 and the provision intended for 1991–92; expressed at 1990–91 price levels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Gross Mainstream Provision

  (£ million

  Cask

  1990–91 Prices1

  1979–80

  35·1

  76·0

  1980–81

  65·7

  120·2

  1981–82

  54·4

  90·8

  1982–83

  62·4

  97·2

  1983–84

  61·9

  92·2

  1984–85

  70·0

  99·2

  1985–86

  63·5

  85·4

  1986–87

  72·0

  93·6

  1987–88

  98·6

  121·5

  1988–89

  115·1

  132·2

  1989–90

  133·4

  144·1

  1990–91

  150·0

  150·0

  21991–92

  160·0

  150·9

  1 Adjusted using latest GDP deflator.

  2 Planned budget provision.

  In addition to the mainstream budgets shown above the Agency was provided with special resources to help mitigate the effects of the steel closures in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The resources involved are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Cash

  27·5

  22·3

  33·7

  13·8

  6·0

  1990–91 prices1

  59·6

  40·8

  56·3

  21·5

  8·9

  1 Adjusted using latest GDP deflator.

  The Laurels, Bronllys
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the amount spent by Powys health authority on refitting The Laurels, Bronllys, as office accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. This is a matter for Powys health authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes an urgent review concerning the teaching of maths and the teaching of science, after the age of 14 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We intend to review the structure of the attainment targets for both maths and science for pupils of all ages in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Educationa and Science.

  School Subjects
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the introduction of a more feasible range of subjects for pupils after the age of 14 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We intend to make a statement shortly.

  Reading Standards
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessments he has made in each of the years since 1980 of reading standards in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what policies he has followed to increase the standard of reading in local education authority schools in Wales;

  (3) what action he has taken in each of the local education authorities in Wales to encourage improved standards in reading; if he will list the measurements and assessments he has made of reading standards in Wales in each of the years since 1980; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what initiatives he will take to improve reading standards in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to him on 10 July 1990.

  An assessment of reading standards is carried out as part of all Her Majesty's inspectors inspections of primary schools and, since 1983, I have arranged for all reports to be published. In addition to these reports, which recently have numbered around 40 per year, the assessment and performance unit (APU) published the results of their survey into language performance of pupils in 1981 and 1982. These assessments have been further supplemented throughout the period by Her Majesty's inspectorate (England and Wales) discussion and advisory papers in the "Curriculum Matters" series and "Aspects of Primary Education". Her Majesty's inspectorate Wales also published its own report "Aspects of Reading in English in the Junior Schools" in February 1989.

  The teaching of English as a core foundation subject within the national curriculum was introduced into primary schools (pupils aged 5 to 7) from September 1989. Development of pupils' reading skills forms an essential element of the national curriculum programmes of study for English and sets out clear standards for achievement. As from this summer term, the individual achievement of all seven-year-old pupils will, for the first time, be assessed by law.

  Since April 1989 the Welsh Office has grant funded the appointment of additional specialist English advisers with the WJEC and in each of the local education authorities to support classroom teachers to introduce the national curriculum requirements for English and also from September 1989, Welsh.

  A summary of the latest Her Majesty's inspectorate Wales findings on reading standards is being made available to all directors of education and chairpersons of education committees in Wales. I have asked that high priority be given to the follow-up of all reports of schools with less than satisfactory performance as noted in Her Majesty's inspectorate inspections, the local education authorities own monitoring procedures or the national
  568
  curriculum assessment arrangements. I have asked Her Majesty's inspectorate to continue to report to me regularly on reading standards.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate is organising a conference in July which will be attended by headteachers of primary schools, senior staff, advisers, advisory teachers and teacher trainers. Reading will be featured as part of the conference.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the standard of reading at the age of seven years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest available evidence, based on a comprehensive programme of Her Majesty's inspectorate school inspections over the past 18 months, shows that the teaching of reading in about 83 per cent. of primary schools in Wales is good or satisfactory. I am still very concerned about the 17 per cent. that are not satisfactory. I am therefore, asking local education authorities to give high priority to following up reports on schools with less than satisfactory performance, and I will be receiving regular reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate on reading standards.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lithuania
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will convene a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the use of force by the Soviet armed forces in Lithuania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. We do not believe that raising this matter in the UN Security Council at this stage would contribute to a resolution of the present crisis. We can best help by working bilaterally and with our partners and allies to persuade the Soviet authorities to cease the use of force and return to negotiation with the elected authorities of Lithuania and the other Baltic states. We have raised the Baltic states in the current CSCE meetings at Vienna and Valletta, and are considering how best to pursue the matter further within the CSCE framework.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to impose economic sanctions and to withdraw technological aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics until the Soviet troops are withdrawn from Lithuania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on 16 January. The EC has decided not to implement its economic assistance to the Soviet Union if the situation which prevails in Lithuania is prolonged in any way or extended to the other Baltic states.

  Test Ban Treaty Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom delegation to the partial test ban treaty amendment conference being held at the United Nations
  569
  in New York from 7 to 18 January; and if he will indicate the status of all civil servants and diplomats participant in the conference.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom delegation to the PTBTAC consists of the deputy head and one member of the United Kingdom delegation to the conference on disarmament in Geneva and two members of the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations in New York.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments to date at the partial test ban treaty amendment conference being held at the United Nations in New York from 7 to 18 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The partial test ban treaty amendment conference has been an opportunity for informed and responsible discussion of the issues surrounding nuclear testing. We hope that a consensus outcome will be possible.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals have been submitted by the United Kingdom delegation to the partial test ban treaty amendment conference being held at the United Nations in New York from 7 to 18 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom delegation has played a full part in the partial test ban treaty amendment conference general debate. No proposals have been submitted by the United Kingdom to the conference.

  Advisory Companies
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public relations, public affairs, advertising and marketing companies are retained to advise him; on what basis they are each appointed; what is the cost, tenure and purpose of their appointment in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeks the advice of a wide range of groups on presentational aspects of policy. Most advice given is on an informal and unpaid basis. Austin Knight Advertising UK Ltd., however, is retained by the Overseas Development Administration to advertise vacancies for overseas personnel. Their contract started on 1 June 1988 and expires on 31 March 1991. The contract was awarded following a competitive tendering exercise. The ODA does not pay a fee to Austin Knight but pays only for the advertising space.

  EC Audiovisual Support Fund
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will join the European support fund for the co-production and distribution of creative cinematographic and audiovisual works.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government believe that it is for the film industry to decide which European initiatives best serve its interest. We are about to consult industry on the structure of the European co-production fund which was announced by the Government last year. Possible options include using part of this fund for a contribution to EURIMAGES.

PRIME MINISTER

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised with the Saudi Arabian Government during his recent visit the issue of British citizens missing since the tunnel disaster of 2 July 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The British embassy in Riyadh remain closely in touch with the Saudi authorities who are continuing their investigations to try to trace the three British pilgrims still missing. We have provided finger prints of two of the pilgrims for comparison with those taken of victims before burial.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister by how much the budget for the Department of Social Security will be decreased and the budget of the Department of the Environment will be increased for 1991–92 in respect of(a) hostels, (b) housing and community charge benefit subsidy and (c) care in the community.

  The Prime Minister
  For the 1991–92 financial year there will be no transfer of funds between the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment in respect of care in the community; but in drawing up the proposed local government financial settlement for England for that year full account was taken of some £16·35 million in respect of hostels. Similarly, the effect of the £86 million reduction in direct subsidy for housing benefit and community charge benefit in 1991–92 was fully taken into account in drawing up the proposed local government financial settlements for that year.

  Nuclear Arms
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now reconsider Her Majesty's Government's refusal to commit the United Kingdom to negotiate a complete ban on nuclear tests and to accept annual mini-reviews on the progress of effective reduction of nuclear weapons, as proposed by Mexico and other non-aligned nations at the review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  We have made clear that we support a comprehensive test ban as a long-term goal to be reached on a step-by-step basis. Because our security will depend for the foreseeable future on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons, we have a continuing need to test our nuclear weapons to ensure they remain effective and up-to-date. We believe that the conference on disarmament at Geneva provides the most appropriate forum for discussion of progress on nuclear testing issues.

  European Community
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what treaty amendments beyond those in the conclusions of the Rome European Councils are being considered by Her Majesty's Government for submission to the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have already tabled draft treaty amendments on EMU. My right hon.
  571
  Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his speech to the House on 6 December to a number of areas in which the Government would seek improvements in the treaties in the context of the inter-governmental conference on political union. All these are covered by the conclusions of the Rome European Councils.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of the allies towards Iraq should the present regime be militarily defeated in the event of war.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 15 January at column 814. I have nothing further to add.

  Public Records Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the findings of the report on the future of the Public Records Office prepared by the civil service efficiency unit published in December 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has received the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the Public Record Office. The report has not yet been published. I understand that the Lord Chancellor intends to make a statement very shortly.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list in full the military objectives of the allies if war occurs in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's objectives since the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 have been and remain those of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  Advertising
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister whose responsibility it is to ensure that departmental Ministers observe Government conventions on the use of paid publicity and advertising; what process of scrutiny is currently in operation; and by what process departmental Ministers are held to account for the actions of their Departments in this regard.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: It is the responsibility of individual Ministers to ensure that the conventions on Government publicity and advertising are observed by their Department. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Departments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans next to meet Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to discuss security in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Security matters will be discussed at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. I expect this to take place shortly.

  UDR Four
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of the case of Winston Allen, Noel Bell, James Hegan and Neill Latimer, known as the UDR Four.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Last Thursday the hon. Gentleman presented my right hon. Friend with a dossier regarding these cases. It is being carefully examined.

  Empty Council Housing
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent figure for empty local authority housing for up to six months, 12 months and over one year, respectively; if he will list the local authorities concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised that at 30 November 1990 they had 1,955 unoccupied dwellings of which 1,176 had been unoccupied for up to six months; 292 had been unoccupied for between six and 12 months and 487 had been unoccupied for more than 12 months. Those figures exclude unoccupied properties which are not available for letting.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference.

  Mr. Brooke
  The last meeting of the conference took place on 30 November. Matters discussed included the prospects for political talks, security co-operation and economic and social topics. The joint statement issued after the conference was placed in the Library.

  Housing Repossessions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many writs were lodged before the courts for the repossession of houses in the latest year for which figures are available; how many repossessions occurred over that same period, together with comparable figures for 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Exact information is not available but it is believed that approximately 700 orders to repossess either domestic or commercial mortgaged properties were issued in 1990 compared with about 200 in 1982.

  It should also be remembered that orders do not always lead to actual repossession, and therefore the total number of repossessions is not known.

  Power Station Emissions
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent present energy policy in Northern Ireland is intended to enable European Community directives on emissions from power stations to be complied with.

  Mr. Hanley
  Existing power stations in Northern Ireland will be contributing to the United Kingdom programme, announced on 20 December 1990, for
  573
  achieving the cuts in emissions required by the Large Combustion Plants Directive. As for future power stations, they will have to comply with separate limits given in the directive.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding Sunday trading.

  Mr. Hanley
  Apart from the hon. Member raising the matter in the House on 10 May, no representations have been received in recent years regarding Sunday trading in Northern Ireland.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest figure for the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland; and what proposals he has to reduce that level.

  Mr. Hanley
  At 13 December 1990 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were 95,570 unemployed claimants in the Province. The Government's economic development strategy for Northern Ireland aims to improve the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy and thereby bring about increased profitability and employment.

  Government
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in creating institutional and political structures of government in the Province which would command broad public support.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am continuing to seek agreement among the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland on a basis for talks which would address all key relationships to everyone's satisfaction.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to announce an appointment in the regional orthopaedic unit at Musgrave Park hospital of a specialist combining treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is the responsibility of the Eastern health and social services board to decide on the requirement for orthopaedic consultants at Musgrave Park hospital and for the Department of Health and Social Services to approve the appointment. No submission for approval to the appointment of a consultant combining treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has yet been received in the Department.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his response to the most recent representations he has had from Colin Wallace.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Wallace's most recent letter to my right hon. Friend was replied to on 16 August 1990.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding there is for the film industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Support for the film industry in Northern Ireland is provided on the same basis as support to industry generally. In addition modest levels of financial assistance are provided by the Arts Council for Northern Ireland and through the business sponsorship incentive scheme administered by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts (ABSA) on behalf of the Department of Education.

  Elderly People
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if any extra resources are being made available specifically for the elderly within the budget of the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  Health and social services boards in Northern Ireland will have resources of £830 million available to them in 1991–92, an increase of almost £84 million on the current year. Individual allocations will be announced shortly and it will be for the Eastern board to determine the distribution of resources across the various programmes of care, including the elderly.

  Further Education
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when decisions will be made regarding further education in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The closing date for responses to the Government's consultative document, "Signposts for the 90s—A Review of Further Education", was 31 December 1990. The views received are being carefully considered and an announcement on the way forward will be made in the early summer.

  Security
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown).

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland tourist board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Northern Ireland tourist board is being restructured and strengthened to enable it to implement the strategy for tourism introduced in 1989 for achieving sustained growth of tourism to and within Northern Ireland.

  Irish Republic
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
  575
  Mr. Brooke
  I expect to discuss political matters, security co-operation and economic and social topics among others at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of three and four-year-olds have a full-time nursery place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Eight per cent.

  Fallen Animals
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the burial of fallen animals.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am aware of the problems associated with the disposal of fallen animals and I am very concerned about the particular difficulties arising from the cessation of collection services by the two major rendering

  Member

  Period of Appointment

  Length of Service

  The Duke of Abercorn (Chairman)

  Since inception on 14 June 1989 to 13 June 1992

  14 June 1989 to date

  Mr. J. B. McGuckian (Deputy Chairman)

  Mrs. M. Spence

  Mr. J. Carson, CBE

  Dr. B. Feeney

  Mr. J. Fitzpatrick

  Dr. R. B. Henderson, CBE

  Mr. F. Cobain

  1 August 1989 to 13 June 1992

  1 August 1989 to date

  Mr. D. Moreland, CBE

  Since inception on 14 June 1989 to 13 June 1992

  14 June 1989 until resignation on 31 March 1990

  Mr. G. R. Irwin

  1 May 1990 to 13 June 1992

  1 May 1990 to date

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all Government-appointed nominees to the Northern Ireland Fire Authority since its formation, giving the year of appointment and the length of service in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Name

  Year of appointment

  Length of service

  Mr. F. Proctor

  1973

  14½ years

  Mr. F. McGibbon

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. J. Stewart

  1973

  16 years

  Mr. T. R. Gildea

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. C. J. Boomer

  1977

  5 years

  Mr. W. H. Jeffrey

  1977

  4 years

  Mr. W. T. Annon

  1981

  2 years

  Mr. J. Burchill

  1981

  1 year

  Mr. J. Foster

  1982

  3 years

  Mr. A. C. Walker

  1982

  6 months

  Mr. A. Cairns

  1984

  1 year

  Mr. W. Morrison

  1983

  2 years

  Mr. H. Smyth

  1985

  3 years

  Mr. J. Parkes

  1985

  1½ year

  Mrs. M. Clarke

  1985

  1½ year

  Mr. H. Montgomery

  1989

  1 year

  576
  plants. I have had useful discussions with one of the rendering plants who are considering providing a disposal service.

  I will be meeting next week representatives of district councils in Northern Ireland led by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) to discuss the general question of disposal of fallen animals.

  Government Appointees
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all Government-appointed nominees to the board of Laganside corporation since its formation, giving the year of appointment and the length of service in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The following members have been appointed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to serve on the board of Laganside Corporation since its inception on the 14 June 1989:

  Name

  Year of appointment

  Length of service

  Mr. J. Walker

  1989

  1 year

  Mr. A. E. S. Barr

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. J. Higgins

  1973

  5 years

  Mr. E. McVeigh

  1973

  8 years

  Mr. N. R. Wilson

  1973

  1 year

  Mr. A. C. McFarland

  1975

  15 years

  Mr. A. N. Creswell

  1979

  2 years

  Mr. S. R. Cameron

  1977

  1 year

  Mr. I. Hunter

  1979

  10 years

  Mr. J. Scott

  1981

  4 years

  Mr. S. Semple

  1981

  8 years

  Mr. T. P. Benson

  1985

  5 years

  Mrs. J. Baird

  1989

  1 year

  Mr. A. Kane

  1989

  1 year

  Mr. A. Keery

  1989

  1 year

  Mr. T. V. Clarke

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. F. Guckian

  1973

  11/2 years

  Mr. R. Price

  1973

  4 years

  Miss C. MacMahon

  1973

  12 years

  Mr. J. Crosby

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. J. J. Cole

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. J. Woods

  1973

  4 years

  Mr. D. Connolly

  1973

  17 years

  Mr. B. Flannery

  1975

  10 years

  Mrs. M. Craig

  1977

  13 years

  Mr. F. Gilligan

  1977

  13 years

  577

  Name

  Year of appointment

  Length of service

  Mr. J. G. Grindle

  1977

  3 months

  Mr. J. Hanna

  1977

  21/2 years

  Mr. P. McCartan

  1981

  8 months

  Mr. J. A. Cathcart

  1973

  91/2 years

  Dr. F. Pinkerton

  1977

  4 years

  Mrs. D. Gharbaoui

  1978

  3 years

  Mrs. R. Forster

  1981

  8 months

  Mr. J. E. Dowling

  1982

  3 years

  Mr. P. Devlin

  1981

  5 months

  Mr. J. Hall

  1983

  2½ years

  Mr. R. W. Hamilton

  1982

  2 years

  Mr. E. Haughey

  1984

  5 years

  Mr. L. Hasson

  1985

  5 years

  Mr. W. Keys

  1985

  5 years

  Mr. L. Thompson

  1985

  5 years

  Mr. K. Spence

  1985

  4 years

  Mrs. E. McMichael

  1989

  1 year

  Mrs. J. Neill

  1989

  1 year

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all Government-appointed nominees to each health and social services board since its formation, giving the year of appointment and the length of service in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year of appointment

  Length of service to 1991

  Eastern Board

  Mr. N. G. D. Ferguson

  11988

  3 years

  Mrs. B. M. McLaughlin

  1988

  3 years

  Sir Edward Archdale

  1989

  2 years

  Alderman J. S. D. Gilmore

  21989

  2 years

  J. Walker

  21989

  2 years

  A. Maginness

  1989

  2 years

  S. I. G. Adamson

  1989

  2 years

  T. M. Campbell

  1989

  2 years

  Alderman F. R. Kane JP

  31989

  2 years

  J. J. Ritchie

  1981

  10 years

  G. Morrison

  1989

  2 years

  C. Braniff

  1989

  2 years

  Dr. D. Burrows

  1988

  3 years

  Dr. J. R. Hayes

  1982

  9 years

  Dr. W. P. McMillin

  1981

  10 years

  Dr. J. B. White

  1988

  3 years

  Mrs. A. T. Colgan

  1988

  3 years

  Mrs. A. R. Bagnall

  1988

  3 years

  Mr. J. Black

  1990

  1 year

  Mr. T. I. O'Rourke

  1989

  2 years

  Professor A. H. G. Love

  1981

  10 years

  Professor I. C. Benington

  1989

  2 years

  Professor R. G. Shanks

  1982

  9 years

  Mr. J. J. Eccles

  1984

  7 years

  Mr. D. G. G. Moloney

  1984

  7 years

  Mr. J. T. Poldermans

  1984

  7 years

  Mrs. D. E. Field

  1986

  5 years

  Mr. J. C. Morton

  1982

  9 years

  R. Blaney

  1986

  5 years

  Miss E. Irwin

  1983

  8 years

  Northern Board

  Mr. R. J. Hanna (Chairman)

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. B. M. Smyth

  1984

  7 years

  Mr. R. Stinson

  1988

  3 years

  Mr. W. Brownless

  1989

  2 years

  Alderman R. McComb

  1985

  6 years

  Mr. S. C. Dickson

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. W. H. King

  1979

  12 years

  Mr. R. J. K. Loughrin

  1990

  1 year

  Mr. J. W. Fulton

  1988

  3 years

  Mr. P. J. Sweeney

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. M. O'Cleary

  1985

  6 years

  578

  Year of appointment

  Length of service to 1991

  Alderman Mrs. B. J. Gilliland

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. R. P. Agarwala

  1988

  3 years

  Dr. B. A. Sims

  1983

  8 years

  Dr. B. G. Patterson

  1986

  5 years

  Dr. R. E. Henderson

  1983

  8 years

  Mrs. L. R. McCausland

  1986

  5 years

  Mr. J. Currie

  1980

  11 years

  Dr. J. G. Swanton

  1986

  5 years

  Mr. M. E. H. Connolly

  1982

  9 years

  Professor W. Thompson

  1985

  6 years

  Mr. D. J. Clement

  1987

  4 years

  Lady J. P. Brett

  1984

  7 years

  Ms. M. E. Fiddis

  1984

  7 years

  Mrs. E. F. Glover

  1988

  3 years

  Mr. J. JD. McMullan

  1984

  7 years

  Mr. J. R. McGuigan

  1986

  5 years

  Southern Board

  Mr. J. D. Thompson

  41986

  5 years

  Mr. D. J. Ryan

  1988

  3 years

  Mr. J. A. Doogan

  1989

  2 years

  Mrs. J. Baird

  1989

  2 years

  Alderman S. Cairns

  51989

  2 years

  Mr. S. McKavanagh

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. K. Maginnis MP

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. T. D. Kennedy

  1985

  6 years

  Mr. J. V. McCart

  61985

  6 years

  Mr. W. J. H. Graham

  1987

  4 years

  Dr. B. T. McNamee

  1982

  9 years

  Dr. D. E. Dorman

  1984

  7 years

  Dr. R. B. Flood

  71986

  5 years

  Miss R. A. Calvert

  1984

  7 years

  Mrs. E. Steele

  1982

  9 years

  Mr. W. S. Vaughan

  1982

  9 years

  Mr. J. H. Fairleigh

  1981

  10 years

  Professor R. W. Stout

  1982

  9 years

  Mrs. E. McCabe

  1988

  3 years

  Mrs. A. McNutt

  1986

  5 years

  W. F. Gillespie

  1990

  1 year

  P. Quinn

  1990

  1 year

  Mr. T. Moore

  1986

  5 years

  Mr. M. G. Toal

  1986

  5 years

  Western Board

  Mr. R. G. Toland

  41984

  7 years

  A. C. V. Maltby

  1982

  9 years

  Mr. D. F. McQuillan

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. C. O. McClaughry

  1985

  6 years

  Mr. R. Cartwright

  1985

  6 years

  Mrs. A. Courtney

  1985

  6 years

  Alderman J. R. Guy

  1985

  6 years

  Mr. J. McNickle

  1980

  11 years

  Mr. D. C. D. Anderson

  1989

  2 years

  Mr. J. J. O'Kane

  1983

  8 years

  Dr. J. G. McElroy

  1989

  2 years

  B. St. J. McCartie

  1986

  5 years

  Mr. P. T. Darcy

  1990

  1 year

  Mrs. I. McGowan

  1982

  9 years

  Mr. N. W. Bell

  1986

  5 years

  Professor Jennifer R. P. Boore

  1984

  7 years

  Mr. G. W. Odling-Smee

  1982

  9 years

  Mr. W. S. Donaghey

  1984

  7 years

  Mr. K. Cradden

  1986

  5 years

  Mr. F. G. Hughes

  1987

  4 years

  Mr. A. Reid

  1988

  3 years

  Mrs. M. R. Cooper

  1989

  2 years

  1 Chairman from 1989.

  2 Previous service: 1985–87.

  3 Previous service: 1975–82 and 1985–87.

  4 Chairman from 1990.

  5 Previous service: 1977–88.

  6 Previous service: 1977–84.

  7 Previous service: 1972–81.

  579
  The details for board membership from 1972, when the present boards were established, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of homeless persons in Scotland aged 16 and 17 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information held centrally does not enable such an estimate to be made. Information based on the number of applications received by local authorities under the homelessness legislation for all age groups was given in a reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart on 1 November 1990 at columns 714–15.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number of civil penalties imposed in 1989–90 by each community charge registration officer in Scotland in respect of non-return of annual statutory poll tax forms;

  (2) if he will list the numbers per thousand liable poll tax payers of civil penalties imposed in 1989–90 by each community charge registration officer in Scotland in respect of non-return of annual statutory inquiry forms.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many amendments were made during 1990 to each poll tax register in each registration area in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Electoral Rolls
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all parliamentary constituencies in Scotland which will have fewer electors registered in the electoral rolls coming into effect in February 1991 than the number of electors registered for 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information will not be available until the registers are completed in February. I shall write to the hon. Member in due course and place a copy of the information in the Library.

  Wheelchair Access
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the capital sums spent by each local authority in Scotland on(a) improving access to public buildings by people in wheelchairs, (b) improving access to public roads and footpaths by lowering kerb heights and (c) improving access to specially adapted public toilets for use by people in wheelchairs for the most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  Housing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his approval of a grant by Scottish Homes for the LINK housing scheme at Melrose.

  Mr. Lang
  I have not yet received any application from Scottish Homes to approve payment of grant in respect of the proposed project by LINK housing.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has required an environmental impact assessment of the proposed forestry plantation at Glen Dye, Grampian region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The woodland grant scheme application for Glen Dye was submitted to the Forestry Commission before the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 came into force.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage change in the population of Scotland during(a) the 1970s and (b) the 1980s.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The published estimates show that the population of Scotland fell by 0·1 per cent. between 30 June 1969 and 30 June 1979, and by 2·2 per cent. between 30 June 1979 and 30 June 1989, the most recent date for which information is available.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will express the Scottish unemployment rate as a percentage of the United Kingdom unemployment rate for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  A comparison of Scottish and United Kingdom seasonally adjusted annual average unemployment rates in the period since 1979 is set out in the table. The latest position (December 1990) is such that Scotland's unemployment rate is closer to the United Kingdom average in absolute terms (1·5 percentage points) than it was at any time since January 1979.

  Unemployment rates1

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  Scottish rate as a percentage of United Kingdom rate

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1979

  5·7

  4·0

  142·5

  1980

  7·0

  5·1

  137·3

  1981

  9·9

  8·1

  122·2

  1982

  11·3

  9·5

  118·9

  1983

  12·3

  10·5

  117·1

  1984

  12·6

  10·7

  117·8

  1985

  12·9

  10·9

  118·3

  1986

  13·3

  11·1

  119·8

  1987

  13·0

  10·0

  130·0

  1988

  11·2

  8·1

  138·3

  1989

  9·3

  6·3

  147·6

  21990

  8·0

  5·8

  137·9

  2December

  8·0

  6·5

  123·1

  1Rates expressed as a percentage of the workforce.

  2 Provisional.

  Private Landlords (Grants)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and value of housing authority grants made to private landlords under sections 24 to 26 of the Local Government Act 1988 for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will provide a breakdown of the total cost of such grants to individual local authorities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1989–90, Scottish local authorities applied for and received consent from my right hon. and learned Friend to make section 24 grants on four occasions, in each case to housing associations. The authorities concerned and the amounts were:

  Local authority

  Amount £

  Shetland Islands council

  24,000

  Lochaber district council

  7,000

  North-East Fife district council

  43,000

  Perth and Kinross district council

  25,000

  No consents were applied for in 1988–89.

  Pollution Control
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether grant aid is available under the farm and conservation grant scheme to cover the costs incurred as a result of reinforcement of the electricity supply due to the installation of new pollution control equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision or upgrading of electricity supply as such is not eligible for grant under the farm and conservation grant scheme, as the hon. Member will know from the reply to a similar question put by him to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 3 December.

  There was, however, one exceptional instance some 12 months ago when the Scottish Office allowed grant on the installation of a discrete three-phase electricity supply to power farm waste handling equipment. In that case the provision of a new supply was cheaper and more efficient than the conversion of individual pumps (which are themselves eligible for grant), to run on the existing supply.

  Glasgow City Technology Academy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent from public funds on the proposed city technology academy in Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: Information on the total expenditure incurred is not available and depends in part on negotiations between the GTA and its professional advisers.

HEALTH

  The Gulf
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have been earmarked for personnel suffering injuries in a possible war in the Gulf in the area health authorities for(a) Sunderland, (b) Durham and (c) Hartlepool; and what assessment has been made on the consequential effects upon local waiting lists.
  582
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Wythenshawe and Withington hospitals, the Manchester Royal infirmary and Stockport infirmary are included in contingency plans for the treatment of air-lifted casualties to the United Kingdom in the event of international conflict in the Gulf; what effect this emergency use of hospitals will have on local patients; if extra resources are being or will be made available to the hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current number of closed beds in national health service hospitals in the Greater London area; and how many are now available for casualties arising from a war with Iraq;

  (2) if he will identify the national health service hospitals, number of wards and number of beds in Greater London earmarked for possible casualties in the event of a war with Iraq;

  (3) how many beds currently closed in Newham health district have been earmarked for use by casualties in the event of war with Iraq; and who will pay for such beds being brought back into use in such circumstances.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has, by region, to ensure that the contingency plans for the national health service dealing with casualties of the Gulf crisis in the event of war have no adverse effect on existing waiting lists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The reception of Gulf casualties will inevitably increase the emergency workload of the National Health Service. We are confident that the health authorities can deal adequately with the increased emergency workload, though some non-emergency admissions may need to be deferred. We do not expect this to be a long term affect and we hope to restore normal level of service as soon as possible.

  Health authorities' plans for dealing with casualties from hostilities in the Gulf involve hospitals throughout the NHS. It is for health authorities to allocate cases to particular hospitals and information on which hospitals are being used is not available centrally.

  As my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, we will provide extra money to meet the full costs of any Gulf casualties. We have told health authorities that they should spend what is necessary and we are giving guidance on how to account for and reclaim Gulf costs. This means that health authorities will be able to continue to use all the money in their normal allocations for their normal workload.

  The Department does not routinely collect information on bed closures, as this is not a good indicator of levels of service in the NHS.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra resources will be made available to health authorities dealing with casualties of the Gulf crisis in the event of war.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources he is making available to the national health service in the event of war with Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Health authorities will be given extra money to cover the full cost of treating any casualties from war in the Gulf. We are sending health authorities guidance on how to account for this.
  583
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, by region, the number of national health service beds to be made available in proposals to deal with casualties of the Gulf crisis in the event of war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We would make available such beds as are needed. Our plans envisage that all 14 regions, and at regional discretion a number of hospitals within each region, should share in the treatment of casualties.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received on the likely number of casualties to be handled by the national health service arising from a war with Iraq.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Casualty estimates are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private hospitals have(a) offered assistance and (b) been earmarked to receive casualties in the event of war with Iraq.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities will take whatever action they think appropriate, including using private hospitals, to ensure that any Gulf casualties can be treated quickly and effectively.

  Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the impact on the public of the new contract for general dental practitioners.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The new contract for general dental practitioners means better all-round care for patients, including preventive treatment, under national health service arrangements. Patients now also receive more information about their dental care and the choices open to them. Forty-one per cent. of the population are exempt from dental changes. At present, those patients who are not exempt are charged a fixed proportion (75 per cent.) of the fee paid to the dentist for the treatment given. I have no plans to increase the proportional charge in the foreseeable future.

  Food Safety
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the terms of reference of the advisory committee and steering group on the microbiological safety of food.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The terms of reference of the advisory committee are:"To assess the risk to humans of micro-organisms which are used or occur in or on food and to advise Ministers on the exercise of powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 relating to the microbiological safety of food."

  The terms of reference of the steering group are:
  "To identify through surveillance the need for action to ensure the microbiological safety of food."

  General Practitioners (Additional Payments)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to using enumeration districts instead of wards when calculating the Jarman 8 index of deprivation to calculate additional payments to general practitioners in areas of deprivation.
  584
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Using enumeration districts instead of wards as the basis for calculating these payments has been suggested to us by general practitioners and others, but it would raise practical problems, for example of sample size, that would require careful consideration. Such a change would be made only if we could be satisfied that it would achieve better targeting of resources.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the use of the Jarman 8 index of deprivation when calculating additional payments to general practitioners in areas of deprivation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of letters on the use of the Jarman index from general practitioners, hon. Members and various interested groups. Although the representations welcome the introduction of deprivation payments they make a number of comments and criticisms which we are studying carefully.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of people in the London borough of Newham waiting for hospital treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  March

  March

  Decrease

  1989

  1990

  Number

  Per cent.

  Total number of list

  1,122

  871

  251

  -22

  Number waiting over one year

  345

  136

  209

  -60

  Note: Excludes self-deferred cases.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the health districts in England and Wales with standardised death rates from coronary heart disease more than 30 per cent. higher than the national average for women;

  (2) if he will list the health districts in England and Wales with standardised death rates from coronary heart disease more than 25 per cent. higher than the national average for men.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures are as follows:

  Coronary heart disease standardised mortality rate (all ages)

  District health authority

  SMR

  Males

  North Manchester

  137

  Dewsbury

  136

  Wigan

  133

  Bradford

  130

  South West Durham

  130

  Sunderland

  130

  Scunthorpe

  129

  Burnley/Pendle

  128

  Bury

  127

  Hartlepool

  127

  Durham

  126

  Oldham

  126

  Barnsley

  126

  585

  District health authority

  SMR

  Females

  Sunderland

  147

  Barnsley

  145

  South West Durham

  143

  South Tees

  141

  Wigan

  140

  Dewsbury

  140

  Hartlepool

  137

  West Lancashire

  136

  Bradford

  134

  Durham

  134

  Oldham

  133

  North West Durham

  133

  Burnley/Pendle

  133

  Rochdale

  132

  Warrington

  131

  Pontefract

  131

  Bury

  131

  Source:

  Public Health Common Data Set 1990 (Based on data for years 1985–1989).

  Surgery Buildings
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, under the cost rent scheme, value added tax on the cost of a site, required under the new EEC regulation to be paid on the cost of the site on completion of a surgery building, even when value added tax was not payable when the site was actually purchased before the operation of the EEC regulation, will be calculated as included in the total cost to be covered by the scheme, as if the new regulation had been in force when the land was actually purchased before commencement of the building.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. We plan to amend the statement of fees and allowances payable to general medical practitioners to allow any VAT liability on site costs to be fully taken into account in assessing the total cost to be covered by the cost rent scheme.

  HIV (Diets)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications his Department has received from Anita McDonald concerning the interpretation of her research relating to the cost of diets for people with AIDS or HIV infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no such communications.

  Deprivation Index
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the impact of altering the banding arrangements to include wards with Jarman scores of 10 or over.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of wards (1981 boundaries) which have a Jarman score of 10 or more in England is 1,954. If deprivation payments were to be made at the level (10 or more) the cost would have to be met by reducing other fees and allowances within the remuneration system to ensure that the average net income incurred by general practitioners did not exceed the level recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body and accepted by the Government. If the payment rate for 586
  the band 30–39 was extended down to 10, some £60 million at January 1991 rates would have to be found by reducing other fees and allowance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been awarded crisis loans due to a period of compulsory unpaid holidays under paragraph 4161 of the social fund manual(a) in 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90 by (i) amount paid and (ii) length of time awarded.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what level the limit above which occupational pension is deducted from unemployment benefit would have to be raised in order to restore its April 1981 value as a proportion of average earnings; and whether he will increase it accordingly.

  Mr. Jack
  Against a background in which occupational pensions have been rising, we have no plans to increase the limit; but had it been raised in line with earnings increases since 1981, it would now be £76 at an annual cost of £14 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage fall over the period since the end of April 1987 in the real value of the incomes of persons then receiving supplementary benefit and now receiving income support with transitional protection, assuming that they have no disregarded income.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 20 November at column 108.

  Disabled People (Extra Costs)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the table in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports which supports the statements of Ministers in Standing Committee E that the average extra costs of people who are not independently mobile are less than half of the average extra costs of those who are unable or virtually unable to walk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not contained in the tables published in the OPCS reports but is derived from a detailed analysis of the survey data. That analysis indicates that those people already in receipt of mobility allowance had extra costs, on average, of some £13 per week; the group of people who are not independently mobile, whom we expect to receive the new lower rate mobility component, had extra costs, on average, of £6 per week.

  Family Credit
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families employed in farming have been receiving family credit for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  587
  Mr. Jack
  Separate information about people employed in farming is not available. The total number of people in "farming, fisheries and related occupations", which would include all categories of farming, is as follows:

  At 30 April

  Number

  1989

  10,320

  1990

  11,240

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether employees who pay national insurance are eligible for unemployment benefit during compulsory unpaid holidays.

  Mr. Jack
  Under regulation 7 (1)(h) of the Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit Regulations 1983, unemployment benefit cannot be paid while an employee is on a holiday which is recognised or customary in his employment. The only exceptions are

  1. where the employee has been laid off work for an indefinite period which started more than a week before the holiday, or

  2. where the employee has used up his whole year's holiday entitlement between the previous 1 March and the date of the holiday.

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Column 4

  Column 5

  UR date

  Value of CHB + CDI £

  ARV at April 1990 prices over the period £

  RV at April 1990 prices at UR date £

  Value as a percentage of AGWE £

  November 1979

  11·10

  21·31

  23·05

  9·7

  November 1980

  12·25

  20·91

  22·06

  9·1

  November 1981

  12·95

  20·15

  20·82

  8·7

  November 1982

  13·80

  20·50

  20·88

  8·6

  November 1983

  14·10

  19·94

  20·35

  8·2

  November 1984

  14·50

  19·36

  19·94

  7·7

  November 1985

  15·05

  19·44

  19·63

  7·5

  July 1986

  15·15

  19·12

  19·44

  7·2

  April 1987

  15·30

  18·64

  18·80

  6·8

  April 1988

  15·65

  17·99

  18·50

  6·4

  April 1989

  16·20

  17·27

  17·73

  6·0

  April 1990

  1690

  —

  16·90

  5·7

  Abbreviations:

  UR =Uprating.

  CHB =Child benefit.

  CDI =Child dependency increase.

  ARV =Average real value.

  RV =Real value.

  AGWE=Average gross weekly earnings.

  Notes:

  Column 1: Uprating dates refer to the child dependency increases. For all but the first date they are also the uprating dates for child benefit.

  Column 2: The rate of child benefit plus child dependency increase is the same for a widow or an invalidity pensioner.

  Column 3: The average real value (using the general index of retail prices) of the amounts in column 2 over the period between the urprating dates in column 1.

  Column 4: The real value at April 1990 prices (using the general index of retail prices) of the amounts in column 2 at date of uprating in column 1.

  Column 5: The value of the amount in column 2 as a percentage of average gross weekly earnings. The source of the earnings is the new earnings survey and the estimates used up to November 1982 are those for adults aged over 21 in full-time employment whose earnings are unaffected by absence. From November 1983 the source remains the new earnings survey but in respect of all full-time workers on adult rates of pay whose earnings are unaffected by absence.

  The differential between the present combined weekly rate of child benefit and child dependency increase and that payable in 1979 expressed in terms of April 1990 prices has been caused by the method by which child dependency increases are uprated. Both the child benefit
  588
  It is for the independent adjudicating authorities to decide whether a particular holiday is recognised or customary.

  Children (Benefits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the percentage increase will be in April in the combined value of child dependency increase and child benefit payable to a widow or invalidity pensioner for the first child and each subsequent child in the family.

  Mr. Jack
  The total amount payable to a widow or invalidity pensioner by way of child benefit and child dependency increase will be increased by 6·2 per cent. from £16·90 to £17·95 per child from April.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the combined value of child dependency increase and child benefit for the child of a widow or invalidity pensioner at current and April 1991 prices and as a percentage of average earnings, in November 1979 and at each subsequent uprating date; and what was the reason for any fall in real value since November 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The values of child dependency increase and child benefit for the child of a widow or invalidity pensioner at current and April 1990 prices (the latest April figure available) and as percentage of average earnings are shown in the table.

  legislation and that governing the uprating of benefits provide for the rate of child benefit to be taken into account when determining the levels of child dependency increases of benefits. The method of doing this is to

  589
  calculate what the child dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied, and then to deduct any cash increase in child benefit.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), of 20 December 1990,Official Report, column 318, if he will publish in the Official Report his response to the National Children's Bureau concerning its report into child poverty conducted by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw for publication by UNICEF.

  Mr. Jack
  The response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is as follows:Thank you for your letter of 7 December enclosing a copy of the report on "Child Poverty and Deprivation in the UK". The Prime Minister has also asked me to thank you for your letter to him dated 11 December. I would like to comment on some aspects of the report which fall within the remit of my Department.
  I read the report with considerable interest, and can assure you that the Government fully agrees with the conclusion that "a key determinant of children's lives is the state of the economy." That is why we have pursued policies aimed at creating a competitive and thriving economy—because we believe that is the best way of helping all the people of this country.
  I was also pleased to see that the author recognises the danger of attempting to define a "poverty line", with poor people on one side and people who are not poor on the other. As you know, we have often drawn attention to the fact that
  590
  no Government in this country—irrespective of political persuasion—has ever accepted that a single "poverty line" can be drawn.
  As the author of your report demonstrates, a line fixed at, or around, the benefit level has the paradoxical effect of increasing the number of "poor" people whenever the benefits are increased. I was therefore rather surprised to see him dismiss one "poverty line" on grounds of "intuition" in favour of another equally arbitrary one at 110 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level.
  I think the report is rather disingenuous in stating that "only" 45 per cent. of the increase in numbers with incomes below this level are accounted for by real increases in benefit levels. Looked at another way, the report is confirming precisely what we have always argued—that a very substantial proportion (nearly half) of the increase in numbers is attributable to real increases.
  I would not dispute that unemployment also played a part in increasing the numbers receiving benefit—but unemployment has virtually halved since the period in question; and the Government has responded to another factor which has also undoubtedly come into play—namely, the growth in lone parenthood, to which we have responded by developing a comprehensive strategy including proposals for enforcement and collection of child maintenance, benefit improvements for lone parents, and better work incentives.
  I was also disappointed to notice that the report, in commenting on the growth in numbers of children living in households with incomes below the average, or below half average, has ignored the very significant growth in average income itself. Any statement about the numbers living on incomes below a proportion of the average is simply incomplete without any reference to the overall growth in the average—which rose by some 23 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. Indeed, a careful examination of tables B3 of Households Below Average Income will demonstrate that between 1979 and 1987 the proportion of children below half average income (1979 level expressed in real terms) actually fell.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Anti-dumping Measures
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many items or products are subject to EC anti-dumping duties, import quotas, secret or otherwise, or price maintenance agreements, including those concluded as a result of anti-dumping investigations; and if he will list the products and items concerned, together with an estimate of the effect on the price of these products.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At 31 December 1990 definitive anti-dumping remedies were in force on a total of 56 products imported into the European Community from certain exporting countries. A further 5 products are currently subject to provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by the Commission pending a definitive decision by the Council of Ministers. I have placed in the Library of the House a list of all remedies in force on 31 December. This shows not only duties but undertakings given by exporters to observe minimum price levels.

  All products requiring an individual licence for import into the United Kingdom are listed in the open general import licence of 4 December 1987, as amended, which is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The great majority of products subject to quantitative restrictions are textile and clothing products covered by the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. In addition the United Kingdom maintains quotas on bananas from the dollar area and on a variety of products from the remaining state trading countries. I have placed in the Library of the House notice to importers No. 2291 of 3 January which sets out the 1991 quota levels for restricted textiles and Notice to Importers No. 2293 of the same date which gives the provisional 1991 arrangements for the state trading area.

  In addition a number of products are subject under Community regulations to surveillance licensing. This does not amount to a quantitative restriction but can allow voluntary restraint arrangements negotiated or accepted by the Commission to be monitored. Such arrangements cover certain textile and clothing products imported from Egypt, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey, most types of footwear from Korea and Taiwan and certain iron and steel products from (in 1990) Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Brazil. (This in addition to the United Kingdom quota on iron and steel products from the USSR). Iron and steel products from all sources are subject to surveillance licensing so that a check can be made on the prices at which the products are traded.

  There are no official restrictions on the import of motor vehicles but an inter-industry voluntary restraint arrangement limits the share of the United Kingdom market taken by exports from Japan.

  Anti-dumping remedies are designed to raise the price of dumped products by an amount which reflects either the dumping margin or the margin of injury suffered by EC industry whichever is the lower. The rates of anti-dumping duty applied to each product at the point of import are contained in the list I have placed in the Library. Whether the full effect is felt at retail level will depend on the extent to which margins are adjusted after the point of import.

  The exact effect of quota restrictions is very difficult to estimate but those set at levels that effectively restrict trade can be expected to raise prices to the consumer. A number
  592
  of academic studies have attempted to estimate the price effects in the main sectors. Professor Silberston of Imperial College for instance estimated in 1989 that the ending of the multi-fibre arrangement would lead to a fall of 8 per cent. in average import prices of clothing. In a 1988 study of the cars VRA Professor Alistair Smith of Sussex university estimated that it raised the price of Japanese cars in the United Kingdom by 7·5 per cent. There are no studies covering the whole of the United Kingdom's current restrictions. Estimates are particularly difficult to make where the situation can change from year to year or even more rapidly and earlier studies relating to eastern Europe are now out of date.

  Ford Vehicles (Export)
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has been notified of any significant increase in motor vehicle exports from the Dagenham plant of the Ford Motor Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I was personally notified by the chairman and chief executive of Ford at the start of the export programme from Dagenham. I have written congratulating both management and work force at Dagenham on their behalf.

  Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to investigate the allegations of price rigging and fixing of odds on racecourses and greyhound tracks.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 14 January 1991 at col.353.

  Recycling
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer on 26 November,Official Report, columns 276–77, on the importance his Department places on providing outlets for recycled materials in order to achieve the Government's recycling targets, what is his Department's advice to those companies developing markets for refined refuse derived fuels; how they will be helped by current derogation arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department's advice to all manufacturers of refuse-derived fuel (rdf) would be to work closely with potential users to ensure that the product meets their requirements on, amongst other things, calorific value and burn and emission characteristics. I understand that those companies engaged in developing rdf are already doing this to a large extent, but my department has available two schemes of financial assistance (ETIS, the environmental technology innovation scheme—and DEMOS, DTI's environmental management options scheme) which may be used to aid that process.

  The matter of derogation arrangements is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  DAF/Leyland
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has about the numbers of jobs shed by DAF/Leyland in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Holland.

  Mr. Leigh
  Leyland DAF's total employment in the United Kingdom fell from 6,997 at the end of 1989 to 6,471 at the end of 1990. Of this 526 net reduction, 120 jobs were not lost but transferred out of Leyland DAF with the sale of part of the company's business to VDL group. I have no information on the company's employment figures in the Netherlands.

  Exports to Brazil
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will extend Export Credits Guarantee Department cover to British machine manufacturers exporting to Brazil;

  (2) if he will take steps to enable British knitting machine manufacturers to offer extended credit terms of up to five years, with low rates of interest on supplies of such machines to Brazil.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ECGD cover for export contracts in Brazil on credit terms of up to five years is currently suspended. Brazil is in arrears on debts which have already been rescheduled. These arrears must be settled and an IMF economic programme implemented before .ECGD can consider restoring extended credit arrangements.

  If and when ECGD is able to resume medium cover, finance will be made available by United Kingdom banks at interest rates permitted under the OECD consensus arrangements.

  Terrorism (Insurance)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to issue guidelines to insurance companies about damage resulting from Iraqi terrorist acts in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Association of British Insurers has issued a statement on this matter. Their guidelines deal with the impact of possible Iraqi terrorist action on existing policies. I am arranging for a copy of the ABI's statement to be placed in the Library.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Land Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what process of consultation with land users is followed when church land is sold for development.

  Mr. Alison
  The consultation procedure depends on the category of Church land to be sold. In the case of glebe land, the relevant diocesan board of finance is the owner and, under the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976, they are legally required to notify the incumbent (or, if the 594
  living is vacant, the churchwardens) who may make representations to the Commissioners. It would also be usual for the board to consult tenants, though they are not required by the measure to do so.

  The local planning authority will follow its own consultation procedures in relation to any application for planning permission.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much land has been sold by the Lincoln Diocese Board in each of the latest three available years; and how much was raised by the sales.

  Mr. Alison
  Details of glebe sales in Lincoln diocese for 1988–90 are:

  Acres

  Proceeds (£)

  1988

  429

  794,874

  1989

  558

  1,349,604

  1990

  433

  1,641,834

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much land has been sold by the Church Commissioners in each of the three latest available years; how much was raised in each of the three years by sales; and how much was reinvested in land.

  Mr. Alison
  Sales and purchases of agricultural land for 1987–89 are shown in the following table. They reflect the Commissioners' stated policy of releasing capital for reinvestment in other sectors, through sales of vacant farms as opportunities arise.

  Acres sold

  Net sale proceeds £ million

  Acres purchased

  Net cost of purchases £

  1987

  835

  4·2

  Nil

  Nil

  1988

  3,121

  11·9

  65

  147,000

  1989

  4,791

  16·1

  14

  9,000

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have received from residents and allotment holders about the sale of church land on the Boulthness Glebe in Lincoln; and what action they propose to take to meet representatives of the allotment holders and local councillors to discuss the sale.

  Mr. Alison
  I believe that the property that the hon. Member has in mind is at Boultham. The Commissioners have not received any representations about the sale of church land there and have no plans to meet allotment holders or local councillors.

  I understand, however, that the Lincoln diocesan board of finance has submitted a planning application for residential development of part of the glebe land and the creation of a wildlife habitat on the remainder. The board will forward any consequent sale proposals to the Commissioners, whose consent is required under the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Air Transport: Denied Boarding Compensation
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will list those civil aviation matters discussed at the meeting of the European Council of Transport Ministers held on 17th–18th December indicating agreements reached and action decided upon, with particular reference to proposals and progress relating to denied boarding compensation.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Council of Ministers, meeting on 17th December, agreed regulations on air cargo liberalisation and denied boarding compensation. It also discussed a proposal for a quick acting "cease and desist" mechanism in the event of predatory behaviour by airlines. The Commission reported to the council on progress in negotiations on air transport with Norway and Sweden.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply, indicating real progress at last which he has helped to bring about. Perhaps he can help the House a little further. Can he say something about the mechanism proposed for swift action should the airlines themselves seem to take predatory action?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The council discussed the Commission's proposal for a quick acting "cease and desist" mechanism to stop a predatory practice while it investigates it to a short timetable. There is still work to be done on the proposal but in any event formal agreement could not be reached since the European Parliament had not given its opinion. The Government regard this proposal as a vital safeguard in a liberal aviation market.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House will be extremely pleased at the progress that was made at the last ministerial transport council, notably in the field of aviation and most particularly in relation to denied boarding compensation? Is he further aware of the other side of that equation; namely, that "no-shows" occasion the airlines a considerable amount of potential loss, which in itself leads to overbooking? Do the Government have any plans whatsoever to deal with penalties arising from no-shows or do they believe that the present situation must continue to obtain?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is an important point. I understand that the Commission
1250
considered the problem of overbooking but found it impractical to do anything that would not have reduced the ability of passengers to switch bookings; and fares would have been likely to increase. The regulation as adopted should encourage airlines to sort out the problem for themselves.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real answer is that the airlines themselves do not wish to do anything about either no-shows or overbooking and give as the reason that if one did that and others did not they would lose most valuable custom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may well be the case. Therefore, we welcome the regulation that has been achieved. It will provide compensation levels ranging from £52.50 to £210, depending on the length of the journey and the delay. Of course, airlines are free to offer higher levels.

Unemployment: Statistics
3.10 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest monthly increase in people unemployed, what is the percentage unemployed, and how long the number has been rising.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in the month to December seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom increased by 80,400 to 6.5 per cent. of the workforce. Unemployment has been increasing in the United Kingdom since March 1990.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those sad statistics. Is he aware that that latest monthly increase is the fifth worst in the history of recorded unemployment? Bearing in mind that unemployment has been rising for nearly a year and is forecast to rise over the coming year to around 2.5 million, will he inform the House whether that policy of unemployment is in fact an incomes policy in disguise? If so, does he agree that it would be better to have an honest incomes policy, more fairly shared, in which the burden did not fall mainly on the unemployed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's reading of the scenario. The figures must be seen in context. They do not detract from the Government's longer-term achievements in improving the performance of the labour market leading to increased employment, which is at a record level. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would it not be more honest of the Government to concede that no government can solve the problems of unemployment in this country while our relative unit wage costs are so much out of line with those of other countries in the European Community, whether or not we are in the exchange rate mechanism? Can he tell the House what plans the Government have to deal with that problem?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Lord said. It is important that wage increases should be contained. Having said that, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. Unemployment is rising in most major industrialised countries, including the USA, Japan, Canada, Italy and France and, in the USA and Canada for instance, at a much steeper rate than in this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend's Question is directed to figures relating to the unemployed? The figures given by the noble Viscount and provided by his department relate to people unemployed and in receipt of benefit. Is the Minister further aware that the working party set up under the auspices of the Bank of England reported that an additional 600,000 people are unemployed and ineligible for benefit? Therefore, the total number of people now unemployed—that is, in the real sense as distinct from the fiddled qualifications imposed by the Government—is almost 2.5 million.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is more useful to the House and to the country at large if the figures are consistent month to month. The seasonally adjusted unemployment series of figures gives a comparable assessment of trends over time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, how many of the 80,000-plus people referred to by the Minister are from the manufacturing sector? Is it not the case that one of the most sinister aspects of the increase in unemployment is the continued reduction of our manufacturing base which is vital to our economic success?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the number that the noble Lord seeks is 13,000. Of course, the number employed in manufacturing industries is higher than in June 1987. During the past three years manufacturing output has grown faster than GDP, although I must confess that we are expecting slower growth during the next couple of years.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures and comparisons that he has given bring no succour or comfort to the British people who are unemployed? Is he further aware that many of the long-term unemployed are skilled craftsmen? With a little training their knowledge and skills might be suitable for other industries. Would it not be worthwhile for the Government to examine the proposition of using in other industries some of the skilled, long-term unemployed who are of great value to our nation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as regards the flow of people in and out of unemployment, many unemployed skilled people find work quickly. Approximately 300,000 per month leave the count. More than 25 per cent. of unemployed people leave within the first month and 56 per cent. leave within the first three months. It is a dynamic economy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a disappointing growth in unemployment in the South East as well as in the manufacturing sector to which my noble friend
1252
referred? What are the Government doing specifically about that problem? Many people in the South East have been persuaded to buy their own houses but with the growth of unemployment they will have great difficulty in retaining them. What specifically do the Government intend to do about that new area of unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is a fact that the regional pattern of the latest figures shows a larger increase in the South East than, for instance, in the North. However, I must remind the noble Baroness that during the past year the unemployment service has helped more than 1.5 million people to find work. In April last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a five-point job help package which is now in place.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not now crystal clear that the main cause of rapidly increasing unemployment is high interest rates? As the Minister has said, unemployment has been increasing since March of last year. Is it not now manifest that the Government's single weapon of high interest rates is failing? Are the Government so bankrupt of ideas that they fail to take into consideration any of the many suggestions put forward from this side of the House?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no; of course they take into consideration many ideas both from the opposite side of the House and from outside. That does not necessarily mean that those ideas are correct. The Government are, of course, committed to a substantial reduction in inflation during 1990–91 and they are working towards that.

Psychiatric Aftercare
3.19 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have consulted local authorities and directors of social services about the practical implementation from April 1991 of the care programme for all patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, yes. We consulted social service directors, local authority associations, health authority managers and NHS professionals.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in view of the fact that more than 180,000 such patients were discharged in 1987–88, the vast majority of whom were discharged within one month of admission, can the Minister give the House the results of those consultations and say how the Government intend to deal with a vast number of people?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the care programme proposals were broadly welcomed by the local authorities. Their views were taken into account when drawing up the care programme guidance which was issued last September. Clearly they must have been

1253
aware of the figures quoted by my noble friend at that point and no specific obstacles to their implementation were raised in the course of the consultation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind the Government's £20.2 million specific grant for mental illness and the local authorities' estimate that in order to provide residential and day care facilities, they need about £75 million per annum, how is the programme to be funded by local authorities? Is the department to make a specific grant to local authorities or will funds be transferred from health authorities to local authorities? Did the noble Baroness discuss funding when she had consultations with the local authorities associations?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the care programme approach has been reinforced by the new specific mental illness revenue grant and the authorisation of increased capital expenditure. That was certainly designed to meet the needs of discharged patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, where are the funds to come from for local authorities, bearing in mind the restraints on their public expenditure programmes, charge capping, and so on?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the funds will come from the normal source—the taxpayer.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the widespread public perception that in any circumstances there will be a critical shortfall in the number of community psychiatric nurses or social workers required for effective aftercare? Will the Government consider consulting with local authorities on the options for a crash programme of recruitment and training of such workers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the key elements of the care programme approach are, as the noble Lord well knows, as follows; systematic arrangements for assessing the health and social care needs of patients to be discharged and the appointment of a key worker to ensure that the appropriate services are provided. Clearly the numbers of people necessary to implement that approach have been taken into account.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the necessary and proper number of hospital social workers will be in post by the date stated in the Question? Does she not agree that the advice and help of hospital social workers is essential before those patients are discharged? If there are no hospital social workers, then that help will not be available.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is important; and care has been taken to ensure that adequate arrangements have been made after assessment for the discharge of patients.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does not one of the practical problems arise when the placement in the community breaks down and the psychiatric patients drift into homelessness and perhaps prison? Is the Minister content that the lines of communication between prison, social services and health departments are adequate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, every care has and is being taken to ensure that the community care programme approach works because it is important that it should do so. If the noble Baroness wishes to have a specific answer on the problem of homelessness, I should be delighted to reply to questions which she may table.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when the Minister speaks of every care being taken, will she ensure that care is taken to discharge such persons from psychiatric hospitals at the rate at which they can be cared for in the community? As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, too many patients are ending up in prison and on the streets. Surely there is a case for reviewing the speed of discharge of those patients from hospitals.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, behind the whole policy is the need to have adequate arrangements, whether they be housing arrangements, the catering for social care needs and so on, before patients are discharged.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the Government accept that the release of all these people into the community without adequate arrangements being previously made is becoming a major matter for concern to the electorate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the programme which we are discussing is to be implemented from April 1991. Therefore, we have held consultations and have made whatever arrangements may be necessary for the implementation in April 1991. We hope very much that the arrangements will mean that that approach to community care for discharged mentally ill patients is quite adequate.

Civil Aviation: South-East Runway Capacity
3.25 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to secure the construction of an additional runway for the use of civil aircraft in the South East of England.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have acted on the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on the need, in around 2005, for new runway capacity to serve the South East and the identification of airports where its provision may be feasible in air traffic control terms. We have established a working group to examine the wider implications of such development. The group has its first meeting on 1st February. We have initiated also a written consultation to ensure that the group has access to a wide range of views.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he give any indication to your Lordships as to when it is likely that a firm decision will be taken? Is he aware of the urgency of the matter because by 2005 British civil aviation undoubtedly will be in great difficulties through lack of adequate facilities in the South East and will lose

1255
traffic to Europe? Can my noble friend give some indication that the Government realise that this is a very urgent and important matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not able to give any indication of how long the group's work will take. Inevitably that will depend on the progress which it makes. It has a lot to do. We are fully seized of the need to press ahead but we have had to give careful thought to the group's terms of reference and membership and to consider the requests from the various bodies involved. There is no point in starting off on the wrong foot. We should simply lose time later.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall his generous response to my suggestion to him a couple of weeks ago that a representative or spokesman of general aviation should be included on any advisory body regarding a new runway? Has he made such an appointment? Does he not agree that the presence of an informed spokesman is far superior to any written submissions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, unfortunately it was not possible to accommodate all those who sought places on the group. We were not able to offer individual representation to the general or business aviation community. However, the Business Aircraft Users Association Ltd. and the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association Ltd. have access to the group via their membership of the British Air Transport Association.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the responses to the public consultation, which I believe closes on 31st May, will be treated as input into the working group, will there be an opportunity for parliamentary or further public consultation on the working group's report, or will that be left to a public inquiry when a project is determined?
Secondly, the Secretary of State made quite clear when he replied to the CAA's original advice that the Government still adhere to the view that there should not be a second runway at either Stansted or Gatwick and that the working group is to consider only the eight sites designated by the CAA. Therefore, could consideration be given to the position of the Marinair project for a Thames Estuary airport? I make it quite clear that I am in no way tied to that project but it seems that that may alleviate some of the environmental problems.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in reply to the first of the noble Lord's questions, the report will be published. I am quite certain that there will be ample opportunity for parliamentary input into the findings of that report. It is almost certain that the results of the report will lead on to some form of recommendations for development which will need a public inquiry.
As regards Marinair, for the purposes of the CAA study we ruled out the development of an entirely new South East airport because we believed it to be unrealistic; in other words, a green field site. We were not convinced that there were grounds for regarding
1256
Marinair differently. However, there remains the possibility of something being added later to the working group's remit should proposals emerge which offer a practical way forward.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the purchase by the British Airports Authority of Southampton-Eastleigh Airport, on the one hand, and the recommendations by the CAA in its document CAP570 regarding runway capacity in the South East, on the other, are incompatible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. I do not agree with my noble friend's suggestion. The use of the runway at either Southampton or Bournemouth is one of the proposals to be considered by the working party. Regarding the ownership of Southampton Airport, that is not a matter under consideration at the moment. It is true that BAA has run Southampton Airport for some time.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the working group was set up there was widespread disappointment among aviation interests, which believed that this was a method of preventing the Government from reaching any decision? Is he further aware that the rate of progress of work as designated by the working group means that it will be several years before we reach any further conclusion? Could the Government give any indication as to whether they intend to take a decision before 2005?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the main I answered that question when replying to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The CAA identified the need for an additional runway somewhere in the South East around the year 2005. It is a difficult and sensitive matter to say from where that extra capacity should come. Most people agree that it is necessary but nobody wants it in their own backyard.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is quite wrong in suggesting that the CAA advice excludes either Gatwick or Stansted? On the contrary, both are dealt with very carefully in the review. Most opinion feels that it is right to complete Gatwick Airport, which was planned as a two-runway airport from its foundation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that he specifically excluded a second runway at either Stansted or Gatwick. As I said, the need for a new runway to serve the South East has been confirmed. We cannot ignore that. Equally, we shall not ignore the environmental and other considerations which led to the views taken in 1985. The terms of reference of the working group are specifically directed to have regard to those views.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how far is the working group charged with considering the infrastructure on the ground? I am aware that the Chief Whip is indicating that the Statement is ready, but I would be glad if I could complete my question. Is the Minister aware that on the rail link to Stansted, which as yet is

1257
incomplete but shortly to be completed, the cost of a single ticket is to be £8 and at that price many people will find it unattractive to use that airport?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the latter part of the noble Lord's question strays from the Question on the Order Paper. However, the whole purpose of the working group is to look at the considerations which the Civil Aviation Authority did not look at. The CAA looked at the air traffic control considerations. The purpose of this working group is to look at such matters as environmental considerations, ground infrastructure, access etc.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have now spent 26 minutes on Question Time. The House is urgently awaiting the Statement that my noble friend the Leader of the House is about to make. The business announcement must come first.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill will be adjourned at 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during the adjournment a Prayer to annul the Social Security Income Support (General and Transitional) Amendment Regulations 1990 will be taken.

The Gulf War
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the initiation of hostilities in the Gulf in the small hours of this morning. The Statement is as follows:
"Aircraft of the multinational force began attacks on military targets in Iraq from around midnight Greenwich mean time. Several hundred aircraft were involved in the action, including a substantial number of RAF aircraft. The action was taken under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 678 which authorises use of all necessary means, including force, after 15th January to bring about Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait.
"The action was taken after extensive consultation with the principal governments represented in the multinational force and following direct discussion between President Bush and myself over a period of weeks. It was taken only after exhaustive diplomatic efforts through the UN, the EC, Arab governments and others to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw peacefully.
"The action is continuing. Attacks have been directed at Iraq's military capability, in particular airfields, aircraft, missile sites, nuclear and chemical facilities and other military targets. Reports so far received suggest that they have been successful. Allied aircraft losses have been low. I regret to inform the House that one RAF Tornado from
1258
later raids is reported missing. The instructions issued to our pilots and those of other forces are to avoid causing civilian casualties so far as possible.
"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.
"Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, it is only with the greatest reluctance that we have come to the point of using force as authorised by the Security Council. We did so only after all peaceful means had failed and Saddam Hussein's intransigence left us no other course. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We hope very much for a speedy end to hostilities. That will come about when Saddam Hussein withdraws totally and unconditionally from Kuwait. Our military action will continue until he comes to his senses and does so.
"Most of all, Mr. Speaker, our thoughts go to the men and women of our forces and their families who wait anxiously at home. They have our whole-hearted support and our prayers for their safe return."
3.38 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of the Prime Minister. While everyone regrets the need for war, it is clear beyond doubt that the responsibility for this crisis rests squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein, who triggered off the conflict when he invaded Kuwait on 2nd August. It is for him to decide now whether he is prepared to observe the United Nations resolutions and withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait, thus preventing further loss of life. As the Prime Minister says, action was taken under Resolution 678 and it is important to repeat that it was not taken until several efforts had been made to seek a solution by diplomatic means.
We welcome the information that the United Nations forces have thus far achieved what appears to be maximum success without great loss and that care has been taken to concentrate on military targets. We also note with regret the report that one British Tornado is missing.
We fully support the objectives listed in the Statement. We hope that the United Nations coalition's military aims can be achieved swiftly, that casualties among the forces can be kept low and that the concentration on military targets referred to in the Statement will also minimise casualties among the Iraqi civilian population.
Finally, as the Statement says, our thoughts are in the main with our forces and with their families here at home. They have our full and unqualified support. We know that they will do all they can to bring this war to an early end.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for keeping us informed even though he and the Prime

1259
Minister do so with appropriate caution and necessary imprecision. Following our debate on Tuesday, I do not think that any further political words can help at this stage. Our thoughts are with our troops and their families; our hopes are for a speedy United Nations success and our sympathy is with all the victims.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks. Clearly, what has happened is the responsibility of Saddam Hussein who attacked a country without provocation. The action which has been taken has occurred only after great diplomatic efforts to avoid a conflict. It is of course too early to assess exactly how effective has been the action taken. But it is certainly true that the forces deployed have been urged to take all possible measures to minimise casualties among civilians and to concentrate on military targets. I share with noble Lords their good wishes to the families of those who are taking this action in the Gulf on behalf of the international community and on our behalf.
Lord Carver: My Lords, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers I wish to add a few words. Many of us have admired the skill, resolution and patience with which the Government, headed by a most impressive trio, have handled affairs within the past few weeks. We congratulate them on the way in which they have done so. That handling must have given great confidence to the soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Gulf to whom we should pay tribute for the patience and resolution with which they have faced a long period of anxious waiting—indeed, it has been a period of anxious waiting—also for their families. We would like to add to the tributes paid to the Armed Forces in the Gulf and to the skill that they have already displayed. Our thoughts are with them and their families.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for the tribute which he has paid to our Armed Forces. This conflict has not been entered into lightly. The noble and gallant Lord is so right to emphasise what great care was taken and what great efforts were made to try to avoid conflict at all. The responsibility for it, as I have said, rests on the shoulders of one man.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, we are grateful for the Statement. From these Benches we are also grateful for the fact that two or three days ago Cardinal Basil Hume and my noble friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury were called to 10 Downing Street to be privy to some of the possible developments. We, and all Members of your Lordships' House, are concerned that we be of good courage and pursue resolutely our objective so that we may bring about a speedy end to the conflict. I am sure that throughout the country we shall be saying prayers for the servicemen of many nations who are gathered in the Gulf and especially for our own and their families. Our prayers will also be offered for the 40 chaplains who are with the forces and seeking to do their duty as the men around them are under fire.
I wish to reassure your Lordships that clergy, ministers and their people in the parishes throughout
1260
this country will be standing by to help all those who suffer because of the trauma of war. We must support the distressed and help the afflicted and of course, no one would ever doubt that in this House. But I pray that we may look forward to the healing, bridge-building and peace-making which must be done with as much resolution as we are rightly applying to the completion of our task. I do not in any way suggest that there are grounds for shallow optimism. We would not want that. We want to be realistic. We must look forward to the end of this conflict and the work that has to be done afterwards.
The words of my noble friend the most reverend Primate are so recent in this House that they hardly need repeating. I pray that Her Majesty's Government, in doing everything to contain this conflict, will also avoid, as the most reverend Primate said, the bombing of any of the holy places of Islam. We must all take opportunities to be alongside moslem people in this country. Indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford is taking great trouble over this matter in his own diocese. I hope that we shall do our utmost to avoid any way in which this conflict may be interpreted as holy war, as Saddam Hussein wants to interpret it. From these Benches we shall try to do our duty and do what noble Lords expect of us in our pastoral care of people.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that all of us will join the right reverend Prelate in his prayers for a speedy end to this conflict. We shall also be praying for all those chaplains who are with our forces in the Gulf at the present time. Clearly, the right reverend Prelate is right in saying that when this is all over and after Saddam Hussein has withdrawn, there will be a big job of peace-making still to be carried out. We all heed the remarks of the most reverend Primate made the other day. I am quite sure that all those engaged on the allied side will heed his remarks about the holy places. None of us here and none of our forces wishes to turn this conflict into anything like a holy war.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on consideration I believe that everyone in this House and in the country will accept that, whatever the differences of opinion as to the causes of this war, this is a tragic day in the history not only of this country but of humanity. Every one of us sends our best wishes to our fellow citizens serving in the Gulf, our sympathy to their families and also to the people of Iraq who are likely to suffer most.
As regards that part of the Statement made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House in which he laid down the war aims, if Saddam Hussein and his forces are either driven out of Kuwait or withdraw from that country, is it intended that at that moment hostilities will be brought to an end?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we have always made it absolutely plain that this action is being taken in order to carry out the UN resolutions. When that mandate, given to the allies by the United Nations has been carried out, there will be no need for further hostilities. Clearly, we all heed what the noble Lord

1261
has said about his sympathy for the people of Iraq. One does have sympathy for them at this time because the conflict is none of their doing.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, on behalf of the Social Democrats, we would like to congratulate the Government for their short and succinct Statement and echo the remarks made by the other speakers. We, and I hope everyone in this House, will say prayers for our boys and girls who are now fighting in the Gulf.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there is nothing that I can add in reply to the noble Earl except to thank him, as I have thanked other noble Lords, for the comments which have been made. I am sure that they will be greatly appreciated by our forces.

Shard Bridge Bill
3.50 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill which originated in this House in the last Session of Parliament but did not receive the Royal Assent shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to introduce the said Bill in the present Session and the petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill shall be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 5 o'clock on 22nd January next with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent concerned stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the last Session of Parliament;
That the proceedings on the Bill shall in the present Session be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the Bill passed in the last Session of Parliament, and that no new fees shall be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
Lord. Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the New Roads and Street Works Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 5,

Schedule 1,

1262

Clause 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 24 and 25,

Clause 7,

Clause 26,

Clauses 8 and 9,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Clause 10,

Clause 29,

Clause 11,

Clauses 30 and 31,

Clause 12,

Clause 32,

Clause 13,

Clause 33,

Clause 14,

Clause 34,

Clause 15,

Clause 35,

Clause 16,

Clauses 36 and 37,

Clause 17,

Clause 39,

Clause 18,

Clause 40,

Clauses 19 to 21,

Clause 38,

Clauses 22 and 23,

Clauses 41 and 42,

Clause 99,

Clause 43,

Clause 100,

Clause 44,

Schedule 3,

Clause 101,

Clause 45,

Clause 102,

Clause 46,

Clause 103,

Clause 47,

Clause 104,

Clause 48,

Clause 105,

Clause 49,

Clause 106,

Clause 50,

Clause 107,

Clause 51,

Clause 108,

Clause 52,

Clause 109,

Clause 53,

Clause 110,

Clause 54,

Clause 111,

Clause 55,

Clause 112,

Clause 56,

Schedule 4,

Clause 113,

Schedule 6,

Clause 57,

Clause 114,

Clause 58,

1263

Clause 115,

Clause 59,

Clause 116,

Clause 60,

Clause 117,

Clause 61,

Clause 118,

Clause 62,

Clause 119,

Clause 63,

Clause 120,

Clause 64,

Clause 121,

Clause 65,

Clause 122,

Clause 66,

Clause 123,

Clause 67,

Clause 124,

Clause 68,

Clause 125,

Clause 69,

Clause 126,

Clause 70,

Clause 127,

Clause 71,

Clause 128,

Clause 72,

Clause 129,

Clause 73,

Clause 130,

Clause 74,

Clause 131,

Clause 75,

Clause 132,

Clause 76,

Clause 133,

Clause 77,

Clause 134,

Clause 78,

Clause 135,

Clause 79,

Clause 136,

Clause 80,

Clause 137,

Clause 81,

Clause 138,

Clause 82,

Clause 139,

Clause 83,

Clause 140,

Clause 84,

Clause 141,

Clause 85,

Clause 142,

Clause 86,

Clause 143,

Clause 87,

Clause 144,

Clause 88,

Clause 145,

Clause 89,

Clause 146,

1264

Clause 90,

Clause 147,

Clause 91,

Clause 148,

Clause 92,

Clause 149,

Clause 93,

Clause 150,

Clause 94,

Schedule 5,

Clause 151,

Schedule 7,

Clause 95,

Clause 152,

Clause 96,

Clause 153,

Clause 97,

Clause 154,

Clause 98,

Clause 155,

Clauses 156 to 158,

Schedule 8,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 159 to 161.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
3.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with great regret I have to tell the House that it is not the view of myself and my colleagues that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. The Bill has had a substantial history over a long period of time. It is largely based on a report of March 1989. It is no secret that the Bill was ready for its parliamentary passage in the 1989–90 Session but was withdrawn because of the pressure of parliamentary business. It came before the House for First Reading only in late November of last year and was given its Second Reading in December. Almost within days—certainly within a very few weeks of the first publication of a Bill of 121 pages—we were faced with two blocks of government amendments. They now number 208, covering 87 pages.
I wish to put it to the House that this is not the same Bill that we debated at Second Reading. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House that we should have a Second Reading about a totally different Bill and that we should be asked to go into Committee with this number of government amendments to their own Bill. It is not a matter of this House acting as a revising Chamber. The Bill comes before your Lordships before it goes to another place. It is surely the responsibility of the Government to make up their

1265
mind what they want in their own Bill and then print that Bill, have it debated at Second Reading and have it go through parliamentary procedures.
As matters stand, to a considerable extent we wasted our time at Second Reading. We wasted the time, which is unforgiveable, of all those who have the responsibility outside the House of looking at the Bill from a professional point of view in order to help us to improve it. Above all, we are wasting the time of Parliament by making it impossible for us to give proper consideration to the Bill. I suggest that the proper procedure would be for the Government not to pursue this Motion today. They should take back the Bill and put in their own amendments so that they have a Bill of which they are proud and which represents their considered view. They could then bring it before the House for First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and later stages.
If the Government will do that I shall give an undertaking that the Opposition will give the Bill the fullest, most careful and sympathetic consideration. It is a Bill with which we largely agree. Large parts of the Bill are uncontroversial. In the interests of proper legislation and in the interests of the prerogatives of this House the proper course is for the Government to take back the Bill and to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I apologise unreservedly for the number of government amendments that have come forward since the Bill was originally printed. Secondly, I must inform the House of the action I have taken since those amendments came forward. It must be said that many of those amendments are technical, drafting amendments which simply put right the text of the Bill. At the time the number of amendments was known a final date was given on the amendments coming forward, which was well before Christmas. At every stage the text of the amendments, qualifying notes to the amendments and Notes on Clauses were sent to the noble Lord and his colleagues, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and her colleagues and to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and his colleagues, as well as to my own colleagues. All noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading were notified in detail about those amendments.
In view of the action taken and in view of the large number of amendments which have subsequently come forward from noble Lords, I commend the Motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I listened, as I always do, with care and respect to the noble Baroness who is very experienced in this field. We feel deeply dismayed that the Government have once again placed the House in a most difficult position. As noble Lords in all parts of the House realise, we have a great deal of experience of important Bills coming before this House on which large volumes of amendments are submitted at a very late stage. This is one of the worst cases, if not the worst, that I have come across. Eighty-seven pages of new amendments have been tabled at this stage.
1266
I should like to put some questions to the noble Baroness. As my noble friend reminded her, the Bill has been with the Government for well over 12 months. Why has there been this delay in changing the Bill? What is the reason? Can she explain why the Government have taken 12 months to make up their minds that changes of this dimension must be made? The noble Baroness told the House—it is a common enough ministerial comment—that the amendments are in the main technical. We know that many of them are technical. But what are the great issues of principle involved in the changes? The House will want to know that before it can agree to go into Committee.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have had the closest contact on this Bill—written and verbal contact—with colleagues on all sides of the House and all that contact on these amendments was made well before Christmas. No amendment has come forward since then. It would have been common courtesy to have at least told me well before this moment of the grievance that has been harboured by noble Lords opposite. An open invitation to my office, to me and to my officials was extended to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to all other noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate. I have had long and detailed correspondence with them on many of these amendments. As to qualifying the amendments, in addition to sending the amendments, the Notes on Clauses and qualifying notes, I also sent a list categorising the nature of the amendments and setting out whether they were technical amendments, whether they sought substantially to change the text or whether they dealt with only minor issues.
Having apologised unreservedly for the number of amendments, I believe that I have taken a number of steps which make it possible for the Bill to be discussed today. Therefore. I commend the Motion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the House will note that in nothing that I said did I accuse the Minister of discourtesy. Not a single gesture or word did I use which accused her of discourtesy. She is absolutely right in saying that, once the Bill had been published and had received its Second Reading, she took every measure possible to inform my colleagues and I, and colleagues in other parts of the House, about the nature of the amendments and indeed to apologise for the number of amendments. However, that does not resolve the question.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness should feel that it is a discourtesy on our part to raise the matter now. We are not doing it on our own behalf; we are doing it on behalf of all those people in the country who are vitally interested in this Bill and are concerned that Parliament should give it proper consideration. It is one thing to inform the Official Opposition and to inform other opposition parties about the nature of amendments but quite another to allow all those in the planning profession, those involved in agriculture and with land ownership and those involved in the law—many important legal matters are involved in the Bill—to prepare amendments and to express their concerns on a Bill which does not represent the Government's thinking. It is on their behalf that I

1267
confirm that it would be wrong for the Government to pursue the matter now and that it would be right for them to present a Bill which represents their thinking. I make one last appeal to the Minister. I ask her not only on behalf of Parliament and this House but also on behalf of all those to whom we are responsible to think again and to consider taking back the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of what has been said by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, I think that we should bear in mind that we are concerned with whether we should proceed with the first day's business on the Bill. The Government have set a modest target which so far as I understand it extends to Clause 16. Moreover, of the 109 amendments which have been set down, the great bulk of them have been tabled either by the Opposition or by noble Lords on the Back Benches on this side of the House. We have had since mid-December to consider what we want to do with the first 16 clauses of the Bill; we have decided and we know what we want to achieve. In the circumstances, I suggest that we get on and deal with the first day's proceedings on the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE In the Chair.]
4 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Assessment of Environmental Effects
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (2) below establishing standards, objectives or requirements regarding the assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment of any project, plan, programme or policy as defined in subsection (4) below prior to the relevant approval or consent under the provisions of the principal Act, and to ensure the implementation of any obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties or international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party, relating to environmental assessment, or in relation to any relevant enactments.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations made under this subsection may—

(a) make provision for the assessment of the effects on the environment of any project, plan, programme or policy as required by any relevant obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties or international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party, and/or as the Secretary of State considers necessary;

(b) specify which projects, plans, programmes or policies shall be submitted to environmental assessment;

(c) establish criteria and/or thresholds regarding the application of 2(a) and (b) above;

(d) establish minimum requirements and standards for environmental assessments, including information concerning environmental effects submitted to the relevant authority.

(3) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain an Office of Environmental Assessment to—

(a) monitor and review the quality of all environmental assessments under the Town and Country Planning Acts, including information concerning environmental effects submitted to the relevant authority;

(b) require the relevant authority to ensure the adequate fulfilment of the requirements of this section.

(4) In this section—
1268
"project" means a development project;
"plan" means a local authority Structure, Local or Unitary Development Plan;
"programme" means a series or group of projects;
"policy" means any policy prepared by a relevant authority for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Acts;
"environmental assessment" is the process of assessing the likely significant effects of a project, plan, programme or policy on the environment prior to the relevant approval or consent.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I make no apology for explaining the shortcomings of the present system of environmental assessment in some detail. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that the Government have missed a great opportunity in this Bill to move environmental assessment forward in an imaginative way. The proposed new clause, which is supported by Members on both sides of the Committee, would go a long way towards putting improvements in place.
Given the fact that the Government announced last September that there would be a "green minister" in each department, surely they must recognise the need to place the environment at the head of all decision-making. The best way to achieve that aim would be to improve environmental assessment across the board. We need consistent implementation, quality control and monitoring of EA across all sectors, from transport to forestry and from town and country planning to energy and agriculture. Such consistency is surely lacking at present, especially in the forestry and agricultural sphere. Indeed, implementation is decidedly limited. Ideally, we should have an independent agency to oversee the whole process. Such a system is successfully in place in the Netherlands and it is desperately needed here. However, the Bill addresses only the town and country planning system. Therefore we must confine ourselves to that aspect for the time being.
What then would the proposed new clause achieve? First, it would place EA firmly into primary legislation for the first time. Such a system as EA should, I believe, be implemented through more robust means than the very limited secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1972, as is currently the case. However, more important is the fact that primary legislation would remove a strait-jacket which currently bedevils the application of EA.
Before I continue, I think that it is worth recalling the words of my noble friend in responding to the debate on Second Reading. She said:
"Existing regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 fully implement the directive and require environmental assessments for projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. We consider that the procedures are generally working satisfactorily".—[Official Report, 27/11/90; col. 942.]
I believe I can show the Committee that in reality my noble friend's statement needs considerable qualification.
Under the European Communities Act 1972, regulations can be made only to implement directives strictly to the letter. The EA directive has two annexes specifying which projects may be subjected to EA,

1269
either on a mandatory or on a discretionary basis. But if a type of project does not appear in the list, EA cannot be made a requirement—even if it may have very significant effects upon the environment. That is the strait-jacket to which I referred.
The likelihood of significant environmental effects should, strictly speaking, be the test of whether EA is required. In fact, that is very much the spirit of the directive. However, implementation under the European Communities Act means that there are some projects which, even though they may have significant effects on the environment, are escaping the proper scrutiny which EA can bring.
Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples of the types of projects which are escaping the net. One type of project which has been omitted from the directive is that which concerns drinking water treatment plants. Waste water treatment plants are included in one of the annexes, but not drinking water plants. That is clearly an omission, but a series of applications in and around the Peak District National Park over the past few years have illustrated only too well that such developments are likely to have significant environmental effects, especially where sited in or close to sensitive environments such as national parks.
Such developments include the siting of covered reservoirs, lagoons, buildings, pipelines and service roads in open countryside. The Peak Park Joint Planning Board, not surprisingly, wanted EAs carried out on such proposals, but the Secretary of State ruled that EAs could not be required under the EC directive and the regulations. Of course they could not be; but if the Secretary of State had powers in primary legislation to make regulations to require EA where he considered it necessary, that would not be a problem. Indeed, it would provide just the flexibility that is needed. That is what the proposed new clause would achieve. I should add that we are not concerned only with drinking water treatment plants. The same is true of freshwater fish farms, golf courses, some leisure complexes and no doubt other types of development which are yet to come to light. The proposed new clause would provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to tackle such anomalies as and when they arise.
We should not have to wait for amendments to the directive every time a problem occurs. That course of action may take years. After all, that is why the directive makes specific provision under Article 13 to allow member states to apply EA more widely or stringently than the directive. However, we are unable to take advantage of Article 13 in this country because the Secretary of State has no powers under the present regulations to allow us to do so. It requires a specific power in primary legislation to allow him to make the appropriate regulations, which would go beyond the provisions of the directive.
Perhaps I may now move on to deal with the need to extend EA beyond projects to plans, programmes and policies. I shall not detain the Committee for too long on this issue as I have made the argument on numerous occasions during the passage of the
1270
Environmental Protection Bill last year and on Second Reading. The proposed new clause would allow the Secretary of State to require EA for local authority forward plans or where he considers such an assessment to be necessary. Again, that is a discretionary power, but it is at the plan, programme and policy level that the likely siting of projects is determined. Therefore, there is every reason why such plans should be assessed for their environmental implications at the earliest stage.
Finally, I return to quality control. I know that my noble friend will say that her department has research in hand concerning the issue, but, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we need significant proposals if we are to secure truly effective quality control and monitoring. Within the town and country planning system, and, indeed, outside it, many environmental statements are of very poor quality. While some are improving, I have to say that it is because of pressure from environmental organisations and not as a result of guidance from the Department of the Environment. It is interesting to note that a study last year by Manchester University showed that only one quarter of environmental statements sampled could be considered satisfactory. That is a terrible indictment. There clearly needs to be a system which ensures that the methods of assessment and the documentation come up to scratch.
The amendment would establish an office of environmental assessment to oversee the system under the Town and Country Planning Acts. It need not be a quango. It could be a small unit of officials within the Department of the Environment charged with overseeing and reviewing the EA procedures. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's reaction to such a suggestion.
In summary, I see three main objectives of the new clause. The first is to place EA firmly in primary legislation and to close the loophole through which some projects are slipping. The second is to establish a small unit within the Department of the Environment to improve quality control. The third is to allow EA to be extended beyond projects to plans and programmes. I believe that I have shown that one would be hard put to say that the present regulations implement the directive fully. It is clear that EAs are not required for all projects likely to have a significant effect upon the environment. The current regulations prevent that. Neither does the evidence suggest that the procedures are working satisfactorily. That is why I am moving the amendment, which would give EA the priority that it deserves. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Norrie has with his usual care and thoroughness explained the reasons for this important new clause, which I warmly support. It may be relevant to mention that it has been inspired by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It is welcomed—I discovered this only this afternoon in a document that it sent to me, and may have sent to other Members of the Committee—by the Association of County Councils, which says:
"The principal need which the Association perceives therefore is for a new Statutory Body to make regulations

1271
requiring environmental assessment quite independently of the specific obligation imposed upon the United Kingdom Government by the Directive".
Two points arise on that statement. The first is that the association does not make clear what kind of new statutory body is required, but I agree with my noble friend that it does not need to be a new quango. It is something which should inevitably be part of the policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment and guided by his department. That is why it is said in the new clause that that should be the case.
Another point that arises out of that statement is that the association says that there should be an assessment,
"quite independently of the specific obligation imposed upon the UK Government by the Directive".
As I read the new clause, that is just what can be done. Subsection (1) is the relevant subsection. It provides that the Secretary of State in making regulations will establish standards and ensure the implementation of the obligation. But of course his standards can be independent of that obligation. The question then arises of who is to have the responsibility for making the environmental assessment referred to.
I must confess—I hope that it does not embarrass my noble friend or any Members of the Committee if I say this—that I have always been doubtful about requiring those who apply for planning permission for development to make their own environmental assessment because it will often be one-sided and incomplete. The right body to make the environmental assessment is the local planning authority, but it should do so in the light of the guidance laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with the policy that he evolves. That is the right way to do it. That is what can be done under the new clause. That is all that I need add.
I should, however, like to invite the Committee's attention to one or two of the provisions. In doing so, I point out that the new clause goes a long way towards fulfilling the objectives outlined so ably yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when opening our debate on the environment. The method is different from the one he proposed, but it could potentially cover all the environmental factors which he and other noble Lords mentioned in our interesting debate yesterday.
If we look at the provisions of subsection (2) we find that they are wide, especially when we come to subsection (2) (d), which provides that regulations may:
"establish minimum requirements and standards for environmental assessments, including information concerning environmental effects submitted to the relevant authorities".
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic answer.
We have tabled the amendment at the start of the Bill because it should have that prominence. Admittedly, the first few clauses are concerned largely with the enforcement of a somewhat different matter from that covered by the first amendment, but I am sure that my noble friend has tabled it in the correct
1272
place. It is an overriding and important question. I hope that it will have plenty of support from both sides of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: We support the amendment. It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of environmental assessment which has got off to a slow start. The idea was first mooted in the Community in 1975. A proposal was made in 1980. In 1981, the idea was still being resisted strongly by the Government, although by that time Members of both sides of both Houses had begun to believe that it was a good thing. However, the Council went ahead and in 1985 the directive was issued, but with a three-year time lapse during which countries could implement it to their own satisfaction. I regret to say that the United Kingdom took until the very last day of the three years before the directive finally came into force in July 1988.
It is a success story, because since then we have all come to recognise the value of environmental assessment. In November 1989, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Patten, made an excellent speech to the 75th anniversary conference of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I should like to quote a little from his speech. He was launching an advisory booklet, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be interested to see, although I am afraid I have been unable to obtain a copy. It is called Environmental Assessment— A Guide to the Procedures. Mr. Patten said:
"The real key to the success of environmental assessment will lie in the way in which it influences the very character of development proposals. Ideally developers should have the environmental implications of their projects in mind from the earliest days of preparing the scheme".
This seems to indicate that the Secretary of State at that time thought it right that developers should produce their own environmental assessments and submit them with their planning applications for the criticism or otherwise of the local authority. I am sure that that is the best way to go about it. He goes on to say:
"An environmental assessment which is prepared after the project has been designed can only be second best, even if adjustments are made to reduce any damage which might otherwise be done".
It is clear from that where the Secretary of State saw the production of the assessment in relation to the development. The rest of that speech, which was very long, reflects an appreciation of the values of environmental assessments. Clearly, it is time that this was reflected in primary legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, pointed out, we are handicapped in the proper application of environmental assessment until we have it in primary legislation. He mentioned Article 13 of the directive which says:
"The provisions of this Directive shall not affect the right of Member States to lay down stricter rules regarding scope and procedure when assessing environmental effects".
However, as he said, we cannot make those rules while we rely on regulations. The amendment is therefore within the terms of the directive and would give substance to the Secretary of State's speech which I have just quoted.

1273
The second part of the amendment is seen as essential by most of those directly involved with environmental protection. The Nature Conservancy Council and its successor body which takes over on 1st April are both very much in support of the need for a body to collate, assess and advise on environmental assessment. They are concerned that at the moment they are only consulted on 60 to 70 per cent. of environmental statements. That is quite outside the spirit of the whole exercise. We are glad to support the amendment and hope that the Minister will look kindly upon it.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish to add my support for the amendment. There has been a full debate and most of the briefs with which we have been supplied have been fully quoted. However, the present situation is obviously unsatisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, quoted from the brief that he received from the Association of County Councils and I wish to quote an earlier extract: "Our member authorities—" that is the local county councils—
"tell us from time to time of circumstances where it would clearly be logical for the local planning authority to demand an environmental assessment from an applicant, but where this is not possible because the development in question falls outside the strict terms of the legislation. When we [the ACC] ask Central Government to extend the Environmental Assessment Regulations to embrace additional categories of development, we are told that this cannot be done within the terms of the present primary legislation".
I know that a review is taking place at the moment and I suspect that we may be given that reply by the Minister. I hope that that will not be the end of it because this is an opportunity to write the requirement into legislation. I have very carefully read the amendment put forward by the CPRE and believe that it covers the position adequately although I know that the ACC has slightly different views. It does not set up a great bureaucratic body, as has been clearly pointed out.
I hope that the Government will be able to take the matter on board or at least give us the assurance that if they are not entirely satisfied, they will come back on Report with a provision that we can write into the Bill. It is wrong and unsatisfactory at the moment and this amendment is supported on all sides of the Committee.
The Duke of Atholl: I wish to ask either the movers or the Government a question about the amendment. Since it would precede Clause I, does it apply to Scotland as well as England and Wales or only to England and Wales?
Lord Nathan: I support the amendment and all that has been said about the desirability of incorporating provisions concerning environmental assessments into primary legislation, precisely for the reasons laid out for us by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
I refer to the formulation of the environmental statements and the poor quality to which reference has been made in so many cases. Some months ago a group of public spirited people got together with a view to forming the Institute of Environmental Assessment. They asked me to be chairman. In that context I have learned something of the practical
1274
problems that have been confronted. One of the difficulties is that there is no clear statement—apart from the excellent pamphlet to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred—about the criteria, the methodology to be applied in the formulation of environmental assessments. Some assistance needs to be secured on that.
It must be remembered that these environmental statements in the ordinary course and particularly the extension of the application of environmental assessment as adopted and proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, are dealt with at least in the first instance by local authorities. As the position is, they do not receive a large number of planning applications with environmental statements. They do not have the experience and manpower to assess them.
In the short time during which the institute has been in existence we have found that it seems to fill the need felt by local authorities to have somebody to guide them on environmental statements which are presented to them, both as to the methodology that has been adopted and the quality of what is presented to them. We should remember that in many cases a local authority may have received only a couple of environmental statements during its existence and so the officers do not possess the experience to handle the situation.
It seems to me necessary that there should be a body that provides authoritative advice on the methodology in principle and also on whether the methodology applied to an environmental statement is appropriate and complete. I suggest that it is rather absurd that this should be done by an institute funded by public spirited private people rather than by government with whom the responsibility primarily lies. As has been mentioned, the Netherlands environmental assessment body has been commissioned and I have had the benefit of meeting and discussing the matter with its chairman and secretary general. There is no doubt that such a body serves a useful purpose.
It strikes me that in the case of this amendment, which I support both in practice and in principle, the Minister may feel that the idea of extending at this time environmental assessments to plans goes beyond the idea of environmental assessment in the directive. Perhaps we ought to restrict ourselves to getting environmental assessment procedures right in the context of the present requirement rather than extending it to plans and so on, although in the end that would be good. If that is so, it would be helpful if the Minister could say—as I hope she will—"Yes, we agree to the proposals set out in the amendment but we think that we should hold steady on that point".
The other matter concerns funding; there is always difficulty on proposals which involve further government expenditure. It seems to me that if the Minister feels that this is a sticking point, it would be well worth proceeding with the amendment on the basis of the developers paying the cost of the body and the advice which they receive from it, as suggested in

1275
the amendment. It is in respect of those matters that I support the amendment and I shall be extremely interested to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Renton: Is this a good moment for me to answer a question put by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl? The answer is that, as tabled, the amendment does not apply to Scotland, but by one or two consequential amendments to Clause 55 that could be arranged.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: First, I should like to say that I have tremendous sympathy with the thoughts of those who have brought forward this amendment. It is right and proper that all developments should be considered very sympathetically from the environmental point of view. We all have to live and see the environment, so it is one of the most essential considerations.
When planning authorities meet, they have a wide range of aspects that they have to consider in reaching their decisions. It is not just the environmental issues. As one of our friends in the other House said recently, you cannot put a ring-fence around all these issues. We have to consider homelessness and the need for houses, business, population changes and changing demographic structures in local communities. All these matters have to be considered by the planning authorities; and we know that they already consider environmental aspects, which is right and proper. But it would not be right to put this amendment into the Bill. I am sure that the Minister already makes it quite clear to planning authorities that environmental issues are important and have to be considered.
From my experience I know that environmental issues play a very important part in the decisions of planning authorities. They have the planning process to go through and all those concerned with the environment have the opportunity to voice their thoughts when these matters are considered in relation to local plans.
This amendment will not have a great impact on the environment. It will have a much greater impact on the cost of development. It will be another process to slow up development. When we had the Second Reading of this Bill, many noble Lords said that its importance was that it speeded up the planning process; yet in the first clause something is being brought forward which will slow up the process. Therefore, although I sympathise very much with the thoughts behind this amendment I cannot support it. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will not accept it because the Bill as it stands is the right and proper way to proceed.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend who has just spoken rose I thought that, in the terms of 1066 and all That, we were in the process of agreeing that environmental impact assessments, especially for projects, was a phenomenon that had, so to speak, come to its time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we have been creeping along on this for the past 15 years. There is no question about that. My noble
1276
friend Lord Wade says that planning authorities should consider environmental issues, but how on earth are they to do that unless they have the information upon which to carry out that task? I readily accept that they do this to the best of their ability at the moment, but it is only to the best of their ability.
I should like to see a scheme whereby there is a minimum sum for a project to attract an environmental impact assessment and that that should be statutory in primary legislation—almost certainly in this Bill. But where I find myself parting company with this amendment is in regard to plans and policy. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, would be the first to admit that the normal way of giving instructions from central government to local planning departments is by means of guidance and I do not think that we have yet reached a point where we can depart from that very necessary and very well-understood way of operating.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend has perhaps overlooked the fact that there is a European directive requiring us to have something of that kind in our law. If that is so, is it not right that we should have something on the lines of this amendment which would enable it to become part of the law, with the Secretary of State issuing regulations in accordance with national policy?
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may give a small example of why we need the amendment. The directive as originally translated made an error. In relation to fish farming it referred only to salmon and not to trout. That was an error in translation but because that is how the directive came to us we are unable at the moment to change our own regulations in order to encompass trout farming when the National Rivers Authority, and any other body connected with the subject, requests that trout farms should be brought under the other legislation. We cannot do that as matters stand. That is just a small example of why we need primary legislation.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure whether those words were addressed to me. Certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was looking at me directly when she spoke. As I have already made clear to the Committee, I have absolutely no problem in attracting environmental impact assessments to projects, whether they are fish farming projects or any other projects, as long as they need planning consent in the first place; but I should need to know quite a lot more about the effects of the European directive and the subsidiary legislation under the Treaty of Rome to understand whether it is possible to divorce the project and programme parts of the amendment from the policy and plan parts of the amendment. However, I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to settle that question to the Committee's satisfaction.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My noble friend asked me how it is possible to have an assessment without knowing the standards. My reply is that one of the systems for which I certainly have great respect is the electoral process. It may be that in some areas of the

1277
country, run by a certain type of authority representing a particular group of people, there are different ideas about the environment from those in other parts of the country. That is a right and proper system to have. The environment in a particular area will be decided by the people who live in it and those whom they elect as representatives. They will produce the sort of environment that is wanted. The position will not be the same everywhere, and that is right and proper. In some areas there will be different priorities and housing, business or shopping may be considered more important, while in other areas the feeling is different. It is right that people should be able to adapt to what is wanted in certain areas rather than have standards which are not right for everybody.
Lord Renton: Is my noble friend saying that a local planning authority, because it thinks that people in the area want it, can do something which is contrary to good environmental standards and, indeed, is in bread of what are rapidly becoming internationally accepted standards? Surely that would be very bad.
Baroness Blatch: It might be convenient for me to respond now to the comments that have been made. I start by congratulating my noble friends on tabling this new clause in such a way that we have started this Committee stage with an important debate on environmental issues. Environmental assessment is becoming a vital decision-making tool, designed to ensure that essential environmental information is in mind when decisions are made which are likely to have significant environmental effects. The Government have welcomed this development; we implemented the European directive on the subject more speedily and more fully than most other Community member states, and it remains a policy priority to ensure that these provisions operate, and should operate, effectively.
This new clause seeks to address a number of issues that have arisen since the regulations were made in 1988 under the powers provided by the European Communities Act 1972 for implementing Community obligations. The first such issue is the argument that the 1972 Act in some way inhibits proper provision for environmental impact assessment. I do not agree. The EC directive requires EIA for a very wide range of projects. It is true that some types of development which could have significant environmental effects are not mentioned in the directive, but they are few and far between. The custom is already growing for developers to provide environmental statements even when EIA is not formally required.
Many Members of the Committee have mentioned the need to require EIA for projects which are approved by the private Bill procedure. The Government have already accepted in principle the Joint Select Committee's recommendation that the Chamber's standing orders for private business should be amended to require EIA in appropriate cases. My department has been working with the Chamber authorities on the details. I understand that the Lord Chairman will be tabling an appropriate amendment to standing orders shortly.
1278
My noble friend Lord Norrie was concerned about installations and projects which are not covered by the directive. He gave the example of the treatment of drinking water in the Peak District Park. Wherever environmental impact assessment does not apply, the planning authority involved must still take all material considerations into account.
It has also been suggested that we are not fully meeting our international obligations with our present provisions. That is not so. The various EIA regulations fully implement the EC directive. The European Commission, which looks at member states' implementing provisions with a highly critical eye, accepts this. It has sought changes to the legislation of some other member states (including states with good environmental reputations like the Netherlands), but not of our legislation.
It is true that the Commission has queried the application of the directive in a number of individual cases, but in all of them we can show that we are abiding by the directive's letter and spirit. If it could be shown that we had failed to implement the directive in any particular way, Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act provides all the powers necessary to put the matter right.
There are suggestions that our legislation is insufficient to enable us to meet other existing or prospective international obligations relating to EIA. It is true that the European Commission is considering proposals for amending the existing directive. Should such amendments be adopted, the 1972 Act would enable their implementation. The only other international obligations which may arise in the immediate future are those under the convention on EIA in a transboundary context on which negotiations under the aegis of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe are almost complete. I am advised that no legislation going beyond existing provisions would be necessary to meet the obligations arising under this convention.
Another set of arguments relates to the inadequacy of some environmental statements provided under the present regulations. To deal with this the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to establish minimum requirements and standards and would require him to establish an office of environmental assessment which would have to check all statements and see to it that those standards were complied with. This would be a recipe for wasteful duplication and delay. The delay would be caused by the mere fact of environmental statements having to be considered by a body separate from the decision-maker. The EIA office's work on assessing the document would involve similar analysis to that which planning officers already undertake. The country is not so well endowed with qualified staff as to be able to afford such duplication.
Of even more concern is the fact that if an environmental statement is only held to be valid if it complies with some statutory criteria, this would encourage litigation about the content of the statement. This would both add to delays and divert attention from the real issue, which is whether the

1279
proposal to which the environmental statement relates should go ahead. For these reasons we do not believe that the proposal in the new clause would work.
We do, of course, acknowledge that some environmental statements are inadequate. My noble friend Lord Norrie referred to the research which has been and is still being carried out at the environmental impact assessment centre at Manchester University. Although the research that my noble friend referred to was based on a small sample of cases, current research is likely to show that there is some inadequacy in this area.
However, in our view it is possible to secure improved quality without the review office proposed in the new clause. Our aim is that it should be generally recognised that authorities will not allow themselves to be fobbed off with inadequate or biased statements and that thorough, accurate and well balanced environmental statements will help them to come to a quick and well-informed conclusion about a proposal. In part it is for responsible developers and their consultants to set high standards. They will, I hope, be aided by the recently established Institute of Environmental Assessment and by the proposed association of environmental consultants. The Government can help by giving advice on good practice in the preparation of environmental statements. In that connection I have managed to obtain a copy of the document to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred. I understand that there is a plentiful supply of copies of the document at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I further understand that a reprint has already been ordered. Therefore, it will continue to be widely available. The White Paper, This Common Inheritance, indicated our intention to issue such guidance following some studies. We hope to be able to commission those studies soon.
The case for the new clause also reflects current interest in the possibility of extending the use of EIA, which currently applies to decisions about proposed development projects and to decisions about policies, plans and programmes. It is suggested that the enactment of the clause will make this extension easier to achieve. But this is by no means certain. Discussion of ways of taking environmental considerations into account in policy-making is still at an early stage. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made that point.
The White Paper foreshadowed studies leading to the issue of guidance to Government departments. This work is well in hand. Also in hand are discussions within the European Community where the Commission is considering the possibility of a directive on the subject. In addition, the UN Economic Commission for Europe has established a task force on the application of EIA principles to policies, plans and programmes. My department is taking a full part in all these discussions. What has become clear so far is that the existing EIA procedures are not well adapted for application to decisions of this kind.
1280
Decisions on policies, plans and programmes are much less clear-cut—I believe my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made that point—than decisions on projects and are often made in the context of much less formal procedures. At present it is simply impossible to say what statutory provisions, if any, will be needed. It is premature to make this provision.
I have noted that the new clause now before us is a revision of the one originally tabled by my noble friends which they were advised was too wide in scope for inclusion in this Bill. The revised clause is therefore necessarily limited to decisions made within the planning system. But EIA does of course go much wider, as the original clause recognised. Even if I were in a position to accept the principle of the clause, I would doubt the value of a provision limited to planning cases.
As I said at the start, the Government regard EIA as an important development, and one that we wish to see furthered. We share many of the objectives which it is argued this clause would achieve, but the clause itself would give rise to tangible disadvantages in the form of greater delay and bureaucracy.
I shall certainly study most carefully all that has been said in the debate. My door is open, as always, for any discussions that need to take place between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. However, I hope that I have said enough to persuade my noble friends that we are tackling the problems which the new clause would address. I hope they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norrie: I thank the Minister for her lengthy reply. I, too, wish to study in detail what she has said. Will my noble friend spare time for further discussions before the next stage of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I gave a direct invitation for discussions. However, I must add that it goes without saying that such discussions are offered without prejudice or commitment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("General duty of enforcement
. A local planning authority shall exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 is simplicity in itself. It needs no explanation. One has only to read the two lines of the amendment to realise that it is unimpeachable. However, the question is whether it is necessary—I am sure it is desirable—because we should not insert into statutes unnecessary clauses.
I should like to make a confession to the Committee. There was a committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman, which recommended that especially when you have rather detailed provisions in a Bill the intention of Parliament should be made clear by a general statement. Here we have a number of

1281
detailed provisions. I think there are 11 applying to England and Wales and about the same number relating to Scotland, although just here at this moment we are referring to England and Wales. Those 11 clauses refer to enforcement.
If it were clearly stated at the outset, as Amendment No. 2 says, that,
"A local planning authority shall exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area",
that would be a pointer to the intended effect of the more detailed provisions that follow. The matter is so simple, so plain, that I do not think I need say any more than that. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: This is a most important amendment, and it underpins all of the Bill's welcome proposals to simplify and strengthen the enforcement of planning control. It is now widely recognised that there are problems with the current enforcement procedures. However, I suggest that these cannot all be put down to administrative or technical difficulties of the kind that this Bill is intended to reduce. Too often it is the reluctance of local authorities to take action, even when the necessary enforcement procedures are readily available, that brings the planning system into disrepute. No matter how gross the breach of planning control or how clear the evidence of abuse, there is no compulsion on a local authority to take any action, and too many authorities turn a blind eye to breaches of control.
I should like to give the Committee two examples of the problem that this amendment would reduce. Planning permission for limestone extraction at Coolscar Quarry in the Yorkshire Dales National Park was given on the express condition that its special limestone should be supplied principally to one company. Planning permission in such a sensitive site was only granted on the basis of this condition.
However, although it became clear in 1988 that the limestone being removed from the site was not being supplied to the company specified, enforcement action was not taken to enforce the conditions. Since enforcement action has not been taken, a quarry that would not have been given permission to supply ordinary stone has been able to do so in the heart of one our National Parks.
A second example concerns a dwelling known as Fallbrook House, granted planning permission in the green belt by Kirklees Metropolitan Council in 1981. Permission was only granted on condition that the dwelling was occupied by someone engaged in agriculture. In fact, a substantial dwelling was erected with bur bedrooms, a swimming pool, and a gymnasium set in landscaped gardens but no agricultural activity was carried out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the noble Lord suggesting that no agricultural worker should be allowed to have a swimming pool or substantial grounds?
Lord Norrie: Not at all. But I think this may be going over the top. When considering an application to have the special condition removed, the Minister of Agriculture stated:
1282
"This type of property is far more luxurious than any farm worker could afford."
That probably answers the question from the noble Lord. Despite the absence of agricultural activity and the luxurious nature of the property, no enforcement action has been taken by the authority to ensure that the agricultural condition was met. The result is a substantial house in the green belt which would not otherwise have been given permission.
These are just two examples among the many problems that are being experienced across the country. My noble friend, who kindly wrote to me following the Second Reading, indicated in her letter that the Government did not think that the case for compulsory enforcement had been made out. However, she also appreciated that a problem exists. This amendment places a general duty on local authorities to take enforcement action. This is not an onerous task, but it will ensure that those authorities that are failing to meet up to the public standards expected of them actually toe the line. The ombudsman and the courts should take firm action against those who do not.
I urge my noble friend when she replies to accept this amendment as providing the balance between discretionary powers and compulsory enforcement that the Government desire. I am aware that the local authorities are keen to see a breach of planning controls made a criminal offence, and I have a great deal of sympathy with their intentions. However, setting aside the merits of the case for criminalisation, they must accept that greater powers to local authorities should also mean that they undertake to fulfil their enforcement obligations more fully.
This amendment would strengthen the backbone of local authorities in resisting the often subtle breaches of the planning system that can cause so much damage to our countryside. The creeping industrialisation of agricultural holdings, the improvement of barns and stables to desirable residences, and the growth of unauthorised activities alongside approved developments are all examples of problems being faced today across the countryside.
A duty to enforce planning controls would resist these trends. Importantly it would in the long run deter them from ever occurring, and thereby ease the workload on local authorities. It would encourage high standards all round, maximise the benefits of the Bill's other reforms to the enforcement provisions, and provide the boost in public confidence that the planning system urgently needs. I commend this amendment to the Committee.
Lord Airedale: We were told that this amendment was unimpeachable. I do not know about that. It does not even make up its mind whether a local planning authority is singular or plural.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We support this amendment. The Bill, following the Carnwath report, rightly seeks to make the planning process fairer, simpler, more predictable and more reputable, and that is why this clause, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, is so important. It seeks to achieve precisely that. It would make planning less whimsical, less arbitrary,

1283
because people would know that planning controls were being enforced. Carnwath, after all, has reminded us that a third of applicants were aware that they were committing a breach of planning law before being told so by the local authority, and that a half went ahead because they knew that planning permission would be refused.
This clause is the point at which the planning system and the legal system interact. As has already been said, local authorities would still retain their full discretion about planning judgments, especially with the additional tools of certificates of lawful use—one of the clauses in the Bill —and, if the amendment is agreed, with retrospective planning permission. Therefore, planning discretion would be retained, but what this amendment would do would be to seek to end discretion on legal grounds. That is that all would come within the law, and that it should apply equally to all.
The ombudsman has recognised—and Carnwath in his report has quoted him as saying—that the public should not be denied the protection of effective planning, whatever pressures local authorities are under. It is not an unacceptable imposition on local government. Already such a clause applies to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 regarding nuisances. It already applies to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning litter.
It says, in other words, that local authorities retain proper discretion on planning controls and planning matters, but once that decision has been taken, the law should apply fairly to all. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said, if that is known, planning controls will stick, it will reinforce the standing of the local plan, it should reduce breaches of planning control, and help to restore to planning a proper integrity. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The effect of this amendment would be to place a general duty, as has been said, upon all planning authorities to exercise their development control powers, including their enforcement powers in Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, so as to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area.
While the Government sympathise with the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled, we have concluded that it is unnecessary to impose on planning authorities any general duty of enforcement. The regime for enforcing planning control has traditionally, since 1948, been flexible and at the discretion of each local planning authority, subject to Ministerial guidance on planning control policy. We think this common-sense approach should be maintained. Its great advantage is that it enables each planning authority to tailor their response to a breach of control to suit the particular circumstances. Many suspected breaches of control are settled quite informally, by discussion between the owner or occupier of the land and the planning authority's enforcement officer, without a formal report to the planning committee.
1284
The development control system is complicated because it caters for an enormous range of development of land, and allows a reasonable degree of freedom (for example, by way of the permitted development rights provided in the General Development Order) for owners and occupiers of land to carry out small-scale development without the need to obtain planning permission.
If there is doubt whether planning permission is needed, it is usually resolved satisfactorily by discussion between the landowner or occupier and the planning authority. If an impasse is reached and unacceptable development is carried out, effective enforcement powers, which are being greatly strengthened by this Bill, are available to the planning authority.
In the Government's view, the present enforcement regime achieves a reasonable balance between the desirability of fostering acceptable development (even if it has been carried out without prior planning permission and has to be authorised retrospectively) and the need to maintain firm control over development which is plainly unacceptable. We think this is the most satisfactory approach, subject to the amendments that we are inviting the Committee to approve in Clauses 1 to 11 for England and Wales and Clauses 27 to 36 for Scotland.
We think that by using the words,
"so as to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area,"
the amendment would alter the balance of the present enforcement regime by creating a presumption that the planning authority should always consider taking enforcement action whenever a breach of planning control occurs, however minor or technical the breach might be in practice. That would impair the flexibility of the system. Some planning authorities might come under great pressure to take formal enforcement action even when discussion would resolve a planning control problem satisfactorily. It is important to remember that, on average, planning authorities now resolve 19 out of 20 practical enforcement problems without the need for formal enforcement action. Therefore, we should not interfere with that successful approach.
We appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled and we shall be issuing ministerial policy guidance about taking enforcement action following enactment of this Bill. We think that is the better approach rather than to impose a new and potentially onerous burden on all planning authorities. The issue here is flexibility of discretion for local planning authorities, with the firmness to act where it is appropriate to act, versus the rigidity of compulsion in every case.
I hope that with that explanation my noble friends will feel able not to press their amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her to comment on the amendment as it stands to ensure compliance with planning control, not enforcement; in other words, the

1285
comments the Minister made about negotiations are entirely covered by the wording of the amendment. No one is seeking legal enforcement if it can be done by prior negotiation. What it does rule out is the possibility to turn a blind eye where this is regarded as improper by many members of the public.
Baroness Blatch: If this amendment finds it way on to the statute book "compliance" will mean compliance in every sense to the letter and will automatically invoke the full weight of this measure.
Lord Renton: This is an extraordinary situation. We spend weeks and weeks trying to get a planning law which meets the needs of the nation, and we have elaborate procedures for planning controls to be imposed by local planning authorities. Then what happens? My noble friend has made it perfectly clear that there is discretion and flexibility. Some people are made to obey the law; others are not. What is the purpose of Parliament?
However, I have no wish to create a situation which is either burdensome or bureaucratic. I was hoping merely to clarify the law. I also hoped there would be more respect for it in the way some branches of the public service, namely local authorities, carried out their duties to comply with the law and get others to do so. But if we want to continue with the present nonsensical situation, so be it. I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Planning contravention notices]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 1, after ("may") insert:
("(a) require the person who is carrying out or has carried out the operations, or as the case may be is using the land for the purpose in question to carry out such steps as the authority may specify, or cease such activities as it considers it ought to cease, to secure compliance with planning control; or").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 3 I am pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, my noble friend Lady Castle and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, have agreed to have their Amendments (Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 and No. 12 respectively) grouped with this amendment. If I may, I shall speak to those amendments as well, because the intention behind all of them is similar.
All of us are aware—if we had not been aware before, the District Planning Officers' Society will have made sure we are aware by now—of the extent to which the planning process is still being flouted in many parts of the country by a small minority of persistent offenders who put planning law to scorn by using its weaknesses to erect buildings, demolish buildings, use land which should not be used for a purpose or in general to do things which are not in accordance with planning law, ought not to be within the planning law and they know are not in accordance with planning law.
I am sure that other noble Lords who have seen the evidence placed before them by the planning officers most affected by this flouting of the law—I say "most affected", but I suppose the neighbours are most
1286
affected and the planning officers have to try to deal with it—will want to give more graphic examples than I think it is appropriate for me to give. But there is no doubt that the law at present can be avoided for a number of years. Examples have been given of avoidance for periods of up to 10 or 15 years by those who are determined to do so and who use all the excuses available to them under existing planning legislation.
This Bill goes some way to dealing with that problem. It introduces in its early clauses the whole concept of planning contravention notices and makes provision for enforcement of conditions and injunctions restraining breaches of planning control. It provides that breach of an injunction restraining a breach of planning control shall itself be an offence. Those on the ground and those round the country who are concerned on a daily basis with the enforcement of planning law do not accept that the Government have gone far enough; indeed, they do not accept that the Carnwath Report went far enough in this matter. What they say—and I think there is strong argument in support of it—is that the breach of planning control itself, not the breach of the injunction, ought to be the offence. In that way we could get much more quickly to the offence and make sure something was done about it and that either the breach of planning law was not pursued or that the nuisance was removed at the very earliest stage, rather than wait for all the injunction procedures.
There are a number of ways of doing that. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has tabled four amendments which involve introducing four new clauses into the Bill. Her amendments do indeed achieve the objective which she wants to achieve; in other words, they achieve what I want as well, which is that a person who initiates or carries out development so as to constitute a breach of planning control shall be guilty of an offence.
I suggest there are two difficulties about them and that my amendment is preferable in two respects. The first is that to my mind the noble Baroness's amendment sits somewhat uneasily beside Clauses 1 to 3, which provide an alternative method of enforcement. I do not think it right to leave the Government's proposal for enforcement alongside four new clauses providing an alternative method without indicating which of the two is preferable. The second one is more important. What is provided under the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, would be that unpleasant word "criminalisation". In other words, what happens is that the breach of planning control becomes a criminal offence and the offender is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000.
I feel that we should always be chary of adding new offences to the criminal law. So far as possible we ought to look for civil remedies if they can be effectively introduced and enforced rather than add to the already long list of criminal offences. Therefore Amendment No. 3 proposes to introduce right at the outset into the Government's proposals, without taking away anything from them, the possibility that

1287
a local planning authority in a planning contravention notice may require the person who is carrying out the operations to cease such activities that the authority considers should cease in order to secure compliance with planning control. In other words, the effect of the breach of planning control comes home immediately to the offender. It can be dealt with immediately using the penalties and procedures already envisaged by the Government with their proposals in the Bill.
This is a difficult matter and I am not convinced that we yet have all the aspects of it right. Indeed, I feel sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and my noble friend Lady Castle, will put forward an eloquent case for their own amendments. However, we must always seek some effective way —more effective than that which the Government have found so far—to deal with persistent and flagrant offenders who have made a monkey of planning laws in many parts of the country for a number of years now.
I believe that we all have the same aim. Together I hope that we shall find a way out of this mess and will be able to secure effective control of breaches of planning law. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The Committee will not be surprised to hear that I prefer my amendments to those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was interested to hear his remarks. He draws attention to the fact that it is a most delicate matter to assess exactly the wording that is required and not for one moment did I anticipate that the Government would insert the number of clauses that I suggest. It is a delicate matter and that is why I air this issue today. I believe that only the Government are in a position to determine the exact balance to be achieved.
Amendment No. 12 is an amendment supported by the Association of District Councils and the District Planning Officers' Society, although it has been tabled in my name. I am delighted that today I am supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross. That amendment was not my first amendment. The first amendment tabled in my name was Amendment No. 19, which reflected my sentiments in my own words. There are differences between the two amendments, Amendments Nos. 12 and 19. For that reason I considered that they should both be tabled and remain on the Marshalled List to enable us to consider the relevant points.
For example, in the ADC amendment the broad question of development is covered whereas my amendment, Amendment No. 19, is more limited and covers only buildings. That is one of the points to be considered. Amendment No. 19 covers the point about written confirmation if permission is not required. One of the matters raised in the Carnwath Report concerns the difficulties encountered by magistrates. Since 1971 I have been a magistrate and know that magistrates have decided many much more difficult matters. I do not accept the argument that magistrates are incapable of considering these matters. However, it is a fact that they might enter
1288
what is described in the report as a grey area. If so, that grey area could surely be clarified by the planning authority should it be applied to and asked for clarification.
Let me give the Committee an example. Most people know that they can add a percentage (I think it is now 25 per cent.) to their house as permitted development. But that 25 per cent. is calculated as 25 per cent. from the date of 1948. Many people do not appreciate that someone might have added something in the 1950s and another person added more in the 1960s. Not for one moment do I propose that we should criminalise a situation in which those people have got into difficulty without realising it. However if those same people had applied to the council and asked whether something was permitted development and had received back written confirmation that it was permitted development, they would not be at risk.
I have been in a situation in which I have had to apply to the council in the area in which I live to ask whether or not something was a permitted development. I was not sure because it was a grey area. I believe that there must be an obligation on councils to give fairly rapid replies. On no account should there be a system which would hold up matters for a long time.
In that respect also some councils deal with only a small number of planning permissions. Westminster deals with 6,000 applications a year, which clearly is a major problem for that council. In a recent conversation with an enforcement officer at Westminster Council I heard that, as the situation now stands, one can put up a six-storey building which is in breach of planning control but not against the law in any way. However, if one were to put a sign on that building, that would be illegal. That officer cited cases in which a sign had been put on a building and it had taken between a year and 18 months before the case eventually came to court. The offence was proved. The maximum penalty available, which is difficult to obtain, is £400. The people who had put up the sign said that they had done quite well because they had made a million pounds out of the sign in the time in which it was up.
It is quite absurd to have a penalty that is too small. That is why my amendment suggests a penalty which I believe will be a deterrent. It is a figure that is quoted elsewhere in relation to these matters, so it is not out of line.
But why should a sign on a building be illegal while it is not illegal to put up a six-storey building? That is a nonsense. There are all kinds of buildings, including top floors and extensions, all around the City of Westminster and in Oxfordshire, which have gone up and not come down. People apply for retrospective planning permission, and even those who have supported or would have supported the original type of application find themselves confronted with something that has been built quite contrary to a permitted plan or any permission. Then, retrospectively, a planning authority which considers the matter is not allowed to take into account the fact that the building has already been constructed. It has to treat

1289
the application as though the site were bare and unused and must judge the application quite impartially.
That is why one of my amendments asks that council committees considering planning applications should be able to take into account as an adverse condition—this is not the matter of criminalisation but or e of the other amendments—the fact that someone has proceeded with his development prior to receiving any planning permission. It must be appreciated that at the moment people say, "I should like to put that building up but I do not think I shall get planning permission". As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned, one-third of such people (I think I am quoting the right figures) know that they should have planning permission and half of that one-third know that probably they would not receive it. My advice to any of those people would be to go ahead and build it. If the structure is up, it will probably never come down. If it does, it will probably have taken so long and gained so much that one will not really be in a bad way. Such people are flagrant in their behaviour because they know that there is no enforcement and that they will get away with it—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to rephrase her comment. She appeared almost to counsel people in favour of law breaking. Perhaps she would care to rephrase her advice by saying that she recognises that unless the law is improved they may get away with it. That is not quite the same as advising them to go ahead.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps my Australian phraseology is not quite right. However, as the law stands there is nothing illegal and nothing to stop people behaving in that way. Those who are blatant enough to go ahead appear to get away with it. Other people resent that and wonder why they should be bound to take others into consideration. When their planning application is considered their neighbours must be consulted. They may wonder why they should have that penalty placed upon them when others ignore the system and get away with it. That is the public's resentment at the present time.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it would be unfortunate if such actions became major criminal offences. I do not suggest that. I suggest that it should be discretionary and that local authorities should have the right to take action. After all, in cases of speeding usually the driver who is travelling at one mile an hour over the limit is pulled up and cautioned by the police but not brought before the magistrates. One must be deliberately and visibly speeding before one appears in a magistrates' court. Therefore, there is a discretion in bringing prosecutions.
The Carnwath Report makes several clear points. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to page 44, the heading of which is so appropriate for me. It is "Lack of Teeth". Chapter 4.1 states:
"There is widespread complaint that the penalties extracted for breaches of planning control are insufficient to offer a real deterrent to unlawful action".
1290
That is true. The report makes a further interesting point on page 53. It states:
"The position of the Association of District Councils, whose members bear the brunt of responsibility for enforcement, has changed during the course of this review".
The report goes on to state that the association was not originally in favour, and so forth. However, the important point is:
"the Committee stressed 'that this would provide a right to prosecute and not an obligation; local planning authorities should have the discretion to prosecute where necessary'".
The paragraph concluded that, unfortunately, the report from the ADC would not be available in time for the publication of the Carnwath Report. That is an important point. If the ADC report had been available, Carnwath might have been impressed by the arguments which have come out strongly and clearly in favour of making the actions a criminal offence and the report may have concluded differently. I support the report's statement that in terms of public perception of the system the symbolic effect of making the actions a criminal offence carries considerable weight.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will appreciate that I am trying to make the point that too many people think in the way that I described. That is the problem. I hope that other Members of the Committee will listen to the arguments that will be made. It is a serious matter and I hope that my noble friend will deal with it in that way.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I find myself in the ironic position of joining forces with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and adding my name to Amendment No. 12. It is only 20 years since she and I were engaged in a battle to the death for the Blackburn seat. I was the sitting Labour MP and she was an extremely vivacious Conservative candidate. I could not help thinking that it was a funny old world.
I join in this erudite debate not because I am a planning expert but because I am one of the sufferers to whom all this elaborate legislation is intended to bring relief. I am at the receiving end of the activities of the determined minority of people who flagrantly defy the planning obligations of which they are well aware. There has been more than one such person in the beautiful area in which I live.
I shall not name names but there exists a notorious case. In this area of outstanding natural beauty a man is repeating—and getting away with it—the breaches of planning duty that he has got away with in other parts of the neighbourhood. My attention was first drawn to the matter when travelling clown a narrow country lane which enters a wood full of deer. I saw the most remarkable contraption in the form of a stone manorial-type entrance to a building which he claims is a barn. It gives access onto an already narrow and winding road which the authority has no intention of widening. We certainly do not want it to do so because it is part of the lovely, endemic, unspoilt character of the area. The eyesore is blazened every night with searchlights. Heaven knows what is supposed to be inside the barn, but if there are cows they will never get a moment's sleep.

1291
All of us who love this beautiful part of the Chiltern Hills, including those on the parish council, contacted the planning officer immediately. I have had much correspondence and many telephone conversations with this excellent man. He tells me, "Mrs. Castle, we are powerless. We are as furious as you about the activities of this man. He should have applied for planning permission even though it is an agricultural building because it is near a road and an improvement of access must be made". He applied for permission after the building and the monstrous entrance had been erected. Now a mobile home has appeared on the site. The local council knows perfectly well that to take action will take months, money, an extra levy on our wretched poll tax and the time of officers. Even then it may not succeed. I might tell Members of the Committee that this gentleman is an addict and makes a laughing stock of the authority. He takes legal advice and is told exactly what he can get away with under the current law.
When I knew that the Bill was beginning its progress through this Chamber I said, "This is my chance to lend my voice to try to have effective action taken at last for the sake of the people who are at the sharp end of the problem". Ought not we to listen to them? They have the job of meeting the fury of the local residents. They have the job of trying to enforce an inadequate law full of loopholes.
They are asking us to support Amendment No. 12. In fact, they drafted it. Why should we not listen to the planning officers of the district authorities? They care passionately about the beauties of our local areas and they want to defend them. However, they have their hands tied behind their backs by the inadequacies of the current law.
I do not believe that those inadequacies will be remedied in this respect by any amendment other than Amendment No. 12. I am astonished when it is said that we should not criminalise people. Last year I received a letter from the Department of the Environment saying that it had been decided to list my modest cottage because it is built in the traditional Chiltern flint and brick. It is an old hill farm cottage still with its old tiles. The department said that it was an excellent specimen of the traditional building of the area and so it had been decided to list it. However, I had the right to appeal. I wrote back and said, "Appeal? I am saying whoopee! I want to tie the hands of any philistine who may succeed to the place when I am dead. Please let me know what is involved and what are my duties." I was sent a list and I read with interest the following words:
"It is an offence to demolish, alter or extend a listed building without listed building consent".
The penalty can be a fine of unlimited amount or up to 12 months' imprisonment or both. I did not feel criminalised but I felt protected. What is the difference between applying that kind of attitude to a beautiful building and to the desecration of a beautiful part of a rural area?
I know that the penalties under these provisions are being altered in Schedule 2. Rather typically, instead
1292
of strengthening the protection against the flagrant violator of our planning intentions, the Government start to weaken the penalties for those who violate the listed building provisions. That is typical. However, that does not alter the fact that in amendments to Schedule 2 there is a repetition of the words that "it shall be an offence" and that the owner of the listed building "shall" do what he is told or "shall" suffer those penalties. That is quite right too. The word "shall" should be used also against people who are driving our district planning officers mad; people who are cocking a snook at us all and are laughing at the law makers—with every right to do so.
Our amendment still uses the word "may". We are still not being as tough in that case as we are with people who violate the listed building controls. We are saying "may". I have some well-meaning neighbours who, I am sure, have constructed a building without permission. I shall not tell on them, but one must discriminate.
Planning officers merely want a permissive power. They know who are the persistent culprits. I hope that the Committee this afternoon will send a message to those people: "This is the end of the road for you. You are not going to get away with it any more. We know who you are and if you move again, you will be committing an offence". We may then begin to have some effective planning law.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: We have heard a very powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, with which I cannot compete. I put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, because I was asked to do so by my local planning officer and I was sent a booklet which other Members of the Committee may have received.
I draw attention to what I believe is another typical breach of planning law; namely, the creation of caravan parks. For example, a man buys land fairly cheaply and then applies for permission to build a beautiful house in an area of outstanding natural beauty. That permission is refused. He then splits up the land into small pieces and starts to sell them off. Before long, mobile homes are put on to the land. There is a vivid description on the last page of the booklet of what has happened. I believe that that took place in Kent. It is still going on.
I must admit that having put my name to Amendment No. 12, I rather prefer Amendment No. 19 because that amendment states:
"It shall be an offence to construct buildings, to alter buildings or to change the use of land".
That is rather important and would cover the case of a man who wishes to split up the land and sell it off in small pieces. Why should that not be an offence? As the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, quite rightly said, if we who live in areas of considerable beauty in this country wish to build on to our houses, that must be done in a sympathetic style to that which already exists there. If it is stone, then stone must be used. If the building has a slate roof, the owner must go to

1293
great expense to obtain Welsh slates. And yet, one can look down the road and see that a house has been constructed, and it is then claimed that it is a barn. There was such a case in the newspapers the other day. I believe that the gentleman in question is in fact losing that case, thank goodness! However, that is hideous. Of course people living in that area have become very annoyed and the planning officer has become totally frustrated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, mentioned for sale boards. I must confess that I am an ex-estate agent. Actually, I was a chartered surveyor but every time I rose to my feet in the other place, Dennis Skinner would say, "another bloody estate agent". After the third occasion, I put my hand on his shoulder and said, "Actually, Dennis, I am a chartered surveyor". He said, "That's what I said, another bloody estate agent". After that, I gave up.
It is now an offence to have more than one for sale board on a property, as I understand it. That law is being obviously flouted. I am constantly seeing properties which have three or four boards and nobody seems to be doing anything about that. One prosecution was taken up earlier on and nothing has happened since. I accept totally that this Bill toughens up enforcement procedures which I very much welcome. However, I am worried that the authorities do not have sufficient enforcement officers to do the work. That is one of the problems.
The biggest way of getting round the law is to say that the property is to be an agricultural cottage. That is nonsense. We should be very careful indeed before giving planning consents to someone for a cottage for an agricultural worker or somebody who is retiring. I have some sympathy with that, but what happens when the retired farmer dies or the cottage is no longer required? Enormous pressure is put upon the planning authority to lift that clause. If it is not lifted then the place remains empty. Somebody then comes along and does such ridiculous things to the property that in the end the planning officer must recommend to the committee that permission may as well be given. I know that that happens time after time. That is a flagrant abuse.
I do not believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is good enough because that refers to enforcement procedures and there will be no criminal offence. As I understand the position, if one goes against tree preservation orders and trees are pulled down—and not enough people are prosecuted in that respect—then that is a criminal offence and one can be fined or sent to prison. A farmer in Kent was sent to prison for that flagrant abuse. However, if one puts up a building, the enforcement notice procedure must be followed and that may take many months or even years. Therefore, we should grab this opportunity, deal with this flagrant abuse and write something into the Bill to make such abuse a criminal offence.
Lord Brightman: I should like to address Amendment No. 12 which I am disposed to support. I prefer it to Amendment No. 19 because it is more comprehensive. Amendment No. 12 provides that,
1294
"A person who initiates or carries out development so as to constitute a breach of planning control shall be guilty of an offence".
The Committee may feel that a person who deliberately flouts the planning law ought on that account to be liable to prosecution. Though I appreciate the objections adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I am not inclined to accept those objections.
I invite the Committee to read paragraph 23(1) of the report by the District Planning Officers' Society, which states that making unauthorised development an immediately punishable offence would be a strong added deterrent to those who seek deliberately to flout the planning laws and make others suffer by their actions.
We have all heard dreadful stories of developers who deliberately defy planning controls. Such an act is a wrong against the public; it is therefore an act against which the public ought, in my opinion, to be protected by the criminal law. I invite the Committee to support Amendment No. 12.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was not present at the Second Reading debate. I could not be in the House and did not take part. But I have been listening to this debate with great interest. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, I too have been a sufferer both in the area where I live in Scotland and in London. I have suffered also as a councillor on a council other than the one which was the local planning authority when the decisions of the planning authority were breached and the district council would not do anything about it. I was the receiver of complaints.
I was glad to hear both my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicate that these were probing amendments. It is an important issue but also a difficult one. The reason why it is difficult was brought out by my noble friend Lady Gardner when she pointed out that it is possible to be caught out by a mistake when, for example, altering a house without planning permission. One may not realise that planning permission is needed.
I have known many examples of people caught by an innocent mistake. It is only fair that one should have two bites at the cherry; that initially it should not be a criminal offence. The breach is first dealt with by the planning system and then, if one offends against an injunction, it becomes a criminal offence. That means one is brought to realise what one has done before going wrong.
To make breaching the planning law an automatic offence is too fierce and also very unfair on a number of people. That does not mean that the kind of example that I have known in Westminster recently is not something we want to stop. It is monstrous and should not be possible. But there is another way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that one should hesitate before creating an extra criminal offence. One should be quite sure that it is the right and only way.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will read extremely carefully what has been said. She may then

1295
say that the Government will look harder at what is in the Bill and see whether there is a better way. I hope that none of the amendments will be pressed this evening, and that out of all the arguments will come a better solution.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 1 implements Recommendation No. 2 of the Carnwath Report substantially along the lines recommended in the report, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The new contravention notice will enable planning authorities, when they suspect—that is an important word —a breach of control on land in their area to obtain information about it; and, if practicable, to secure co-operation from the person responsible for the suspected breach without recourse to any formal enforcement action. It is meant to be a fairly informal preliminary process, in advance of any decision as to whether formal enforcement action is expedient in the circumstances.
Amendment No. 3 would take the contravention notice process into the realm of formal enforcement action by enabling the planning authority to require remedial steps to be taken. There are a number of objections to this proposal. First, it would fundamentally alter the essentially preliminary nature of the contravention notice. We think that that would greatly reduce the likelihood that the recipient of the notice would be willing to discuss matters with the planning authority. Secondly, by requiring it to be remedied, it appears to prejudge the question whether what is taking place on the land amounts to unlawful development. There is no right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a planning contravention notice so the recipient has no opportunity to contest the planning authority's suspicion that a breach of planning control may have occurred. We therefore think that a remedial requirement would be unacceptable as part of this procedure.
Thirdly, if the recipient of the contravention notice carried out the requirements specified in the notice as a result of the new paragraph (a) and it was subsequently found that no breach of planning control had occurred, it would be reasonable to expect the recipient of the notice to be entitled to seek financial compensation from the planning authority for any loss he had incurred. We are extremely reluctant to complicate what is intended to be a relatively straightforward and informal process with provisions for the payment of compensation when it is found that no unlawful development has taken place.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner. I listened to the debate very carefully, and I promise my noble friend Lady Carnegy that I shall certainly read with great interest during the period between now and Report stage all that has been said to these amendments. First, it needs to be said that, when the Carnwath Report was being compiled, evidence was taken from the Association of District Councils. I believe my noble friend misquoted when she mentioned the Association of District Councils. In fact it was the District Planning Officers' Society
1296
which produced the report to which my noble friend referred. But, even if there is another report from the ADC about which I do not know, the ADC was nevertheless consulted. If Members of the Committee will turn to page 92 of the report they will see that not only the ADC but also the District Planning Officers' Society were consulted. Whether Professor Carnwath changed his mind in the light of that information I am not able to say.
Many of the examples given were very serious. I am tempted to ask why planning officers who were asking for these matters to be made criminal offences were not taking the very action to which the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, referred. It is not powers and more law that are required. It is for planning officers to use the powers that are at their disposal.
I can almost hear my noble friend Lord Renton saying, "A moment ago we fought off an amendment that would require local planning officers to use the powers at their disposal". But we should continue to have regard to the very people who unwittingly, innocently, inoffensively do something very minor to their house. Someone may install in the wall at the side of his house a window for which he was not aware he needed planning permission. When it is reported by a neighbour or found out by one means or another a planning officer may go along and have a quiet word with the householder. The planning officer could invite him to apply for proper planning permission, to cease the practice or to remedy the situation. All that informal process is possible without making the offence automatically a criminal one.
The amendment would introduce a new Section 171E into the 1990 Act making it an offence for a person to initiate or carry out development constituting a breach of planning control. There would be a maximum summary penalty of £20,000 and provision that the court shall, in determining the amount of any fine, have regard to any financial benefit accruing or likely to accrue from the offence. A person charged with this offence would be specifically prohibited from raising in his defence to any prosecution the contention that planning permission should be granted for the development in breach of planning control.
These are heavy-handed provisions. They would fundamentally alter the present balance of the development control system and remove its essential flexibility. For the first time it would immediately become a criminal offence to carry out any development, however trivial or minor, in breach of planning control. We understand my noble friend's reason for tabling this amendment. It clearly represents the views of many members of planning committees in some district councils and representatives of professional planning officers in those councils. They consider that it is essential to make this fundamental change.
I expect that we have all seen the report of the District Planning Officers' Society to which I referred a moment ago, making unauthorised development an offence. The report cogently states the arguments in favour of this amendment and supports them with

1297
some case studies illustrating the shortcomings of the present enforcement system. We also understand the seriousness with which the amendment has been supported. We certainly do not condone breaches of control or excuse a developer's behaviour in those case studies. But we think that the District Planning Officers' Society has not demonstrated the need for so fundamental a change.
I remind Members of the Committee that, after thorough and independent examination, Mr. Robert Carnwath QC recommended against criminalisation in his report Enforcing Planning Control. Members of the Committee will judge for themselves the strength of the opposing arguments. The Government's view is that, as with the positive recommendations made in his report, Mr. Carnwath's negative recommendation on this issue should be accepted. We are strengthened in this view by the knowledge that other professional bodies whose opinions we respect as much as those of the District Planning Officers' Society do not support criminalisation.
For example, we understand that the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Law Society and the Local Government and Planning Bar Association, all oppose criminalisation. Their views are based on their members' experience of the practical operation of planning control throughout the country.
We cannot accept that even the most minor building operation, change of use or technical breach of planning control, should be open to prosecution in the magistrates' courts. Frankly, it is no use for the planning officers' society to say that planning authorities would be careful to limit prosecutions to the most serious and clear-cut offences. The fact is that any development carried out in breach of planning control would be a criminal offence in every case. Some planning authorities might choose to set an example by prosecuting minor or trivial offences. There appears to be nothing in the amendment to prevent the bringing of a private prosecution.
Do we really want to set neighbours against each other it the magistrates' courts over such matters as a window put in the wrong place in the side of a house or a boundary wall which has been built too high? Do we want to see a prosecution for setting up an innocuous business in somebody's home? In the 'presentation of this amendment by my noble friend I detected her desire to have some flexibility in these matters. It is possible that we can discuss flexibility further.
Magistrates' courts would have to decide whether a breach of planning control had occurred. That would involve them in a highly complex and legalistic area of legislation. The present enforcement system is careful to avoid giving this jurisdiction to magistrates. Instead, whether a breach of planning control has occurred is usually decided on an enforcement appeal to the Secretary of State where a planning inspector can take a decision consistent with judicial authority and case law. If that decision is defective, an appeal to the High Court can be made under Section 289 of the 1990 Act. That system ensures a degree of consistency
1298
in decisions of this kind which I suspect that magistrates' courts would find difficult to achieve. We should not forget the problems that the courts had with a similar jurisdiction before it was transferred to the Secretary of State by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
Although the Government cannot accept this amendment, the enforcement provisions in Clauses 1 to 11 and 27 to 36 of the Bill are evidence of our determination positively to strengthen and improve the present enforcement system so that criminalisation in every case is not necessary. For some breaches of control the new injunctions provided in England and Wales by Clause 3 will provide the most effective remedy. For other cases where an activity must be halted at once the improved stop notice provisions in Clause 9 will provide the means. When a planning condition is ignored, the breach of condition notice procedure contained in Clause 2 will be immediately available. When anyone refuses to carry out the requirements of an enforcement notice or ignores the prohibition in a stop notice, the exceptional summary maximum penalties in Clauses 8 and 9 signal clearly to the courts that Parliament regards these as potentially most serious offences.
I appreciate that my noble friend's amendment will not detract from the new powers that we are proposing for planning authorities. Criminalisation would be an addition to our proposals. There is a vital distinction between my noble friend's and the Government's approach on this issue. We prefer to give planning authorities a selective remedy for each enforcement problem based on the practical experience of planning control which Mr. Carnwath has distilled in his report. Instead of approaching planning control on the basis that whenever a breach occurs the person involved is a potential criminal, we prefer to give planning authorities a complete and effective enforcement tool kit from which they can choose the right tool to deal with the particular breach of control.
It is a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to the enormous range of planning control issues which local authorities face. I hope that my noble friend is persuaded that the Government's carefully considered and comprehensive approach deserves her support. In our view similar arguments apply to Amendment No. 19. While I understand my noble friend's intention regarding Amendment No. 20, in the Government's view its effect is entirely unsatisfactory and illogical. It is a fundamental principle of our land law that anything lawful may be done on land. It is a fact of life that lawful development may benefit some neighbours and disadvantage others. But subject to their having a remedy under the general law such as for breach of covenant or nuisance, those neighbours have no claims against the owner.
The amendment appears to change that but only for retrospective permission. That is an illogical distinction. Whether or not the application is retrospective the planning authority should follow the same consideration process. If as a result of that process a decision on planning merits is acceptable for the development whether proposed or already carried

1299
out, no question of compensating neighbours of the development should arise under planning law. We regret that we cannot accept Amendment No. 21 because it would require planning authorities to take into account, in determining retrospective planning applications, a matter which is not a material planning consideration; namely, the mere fact that the application was not made before the development was carried out.
Section 70 of the 1990 Act specifies the considerations which the planning authority has to take into account when determining whether to grant planning permission. These are the provisions of the development plan so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material considerations which are construed as meaning any other material planning considerations. We see no good reason why the fact of retrospection should be a material consideration. It is not directly relevant to the decision on planning merits. It would be particularly harsh to take account of retrospection where someone genuinely did not realise that planning permission was required or that they had been professionally advised that planning permission was not needed and had acted on that advice. In that respect, we should bear in mind that some development without planning permission proves acceptable and should not be penalised. With that rather lengthy explanation, I hope that Members of the Committee will be able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to clarify that point because I think we are at cross-purposes. I quoted from the Carnwath Report and not from that of the District Planning Officers' Society. I referred the noble Baroness to page 53 which discusses paragraph 2.3. That concerns the position of the Association of District Councils. When my noble friend thought I was referring simply to the district planning officers, that was not so. Mr. Carnwath was saying that unfortunately the report from the Association of District Councils was not available in time for him to take it into consideration.
It is the Association of District Councils in addition to the District Planning Officers' Society that now feels so strongly. I discussed these matters with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It is concerned with making these matters a criminal offence for everyone no matter how minor. That is the most sensitive issue. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend has said. I hope that there will be some point of compromise regarding the persons referred to throughout this debate who are flagrantly going ahead and doing what they wish without any thought. There should be consideration of that. I do not understand the point the noble Baroness was making in reply to Amendment No. 21. Her answer did not make sense to me. It seemed to contradict what had been said on the other matters.
I shall study her answers very carefully. I warn her, however, that I shall probably come back to the matter at the next stage. A number of noble Lords telephoned me today to say that, because they felt so
1300
strongly about the matter, they would have made a point of coming to vote had the intention been to call a Division. I assured them that I did not want them to travel long distances to do that when I felt that the issue had to be considered in much more detail. From that point of view I am happy to leave the issues raised by my amendments until the next stage.
6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to do exactly that. I hope she will not yet throw in the towel. At the meeting with the Minister perhaps some way can be devised by which those who flagrantly breach planning can be prosecuted. No one wants to pick up the minnows. There must be a way in which they can be protected. Someone who has innocently done something should not be prosecuted. But I am convinced that the threat of prosecution and serious fines would stop these people doing what they are doing.
I recognise at once that the Government have gone a long way to improve enforcement procedures but such people could still spin them out. I have been told by my noble friend Lord Tordoff that a case involving a caravan site has been with the Minister for two years. The case has still not been decided. Such cases make people furious. If someone is told straight away that the matter will go to court there is a chance of stopping most of these flagrant breaches. I am not satisfied by the reply and I hope that more can be done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Three distinct points of view have been expressed in this debate: one was mine—I think I was probably on my own in that regard. Another was the point of view eloquently expressed by noble Lords whose names are attached to Amendment No. 12 and indeed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman; and the third was the Government's point of view. They cannot all be right. I ask whether any of them is right.
I do not think that we have yet got to the bottom of the matter. We have not solved the problem of the difference between flagrant offenders and unwitting offenders. It is not solved by including the word "knowingly". I suggest to the Minister that ignorance of the law is no excuse. To say that something was done "unwittingly" is not a suitable defence for a breach of the law. I do not think "flagrantly" works because it does not mean anything very much. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, nodding. Therefore I do not think that anything about the offender should bring down the increased penalties which I believe all of us—at any rate all those who put down amendments—are convinced are necessary.
My noble friend Lady Hollis has just suggested that the nature of the offence should be considered and that the word "irreversible" ought to be brought into the provision. Perhaps we should be looking for a way of providing more rapid penalties for breaches which are irreversible rather than looking at the nature of the person committing the offence. That matter should be looked at between now and the next stage of the Bill.

1301
I am certainly not satisfied that the Government's procedures are good enough. Nor am I satisfied that it is wrong to do what we do in Amendment No. 3, which is to jump straight from the planning contravention notice to the power to cause the wrong to be put right. The procedure proposed by the Government of forcing the planning authority to go through the additional stage of an injunction and making breach of the injunction the only offence will slow matters down and will make it impossible to have effective; enforcement in serious cases. I do not think that the arguments used against my amendment were on the whole satisfactory. I understand the point that the planning contravention notice is meant to be of a preliminary nature, but there are occasions in planning law and in contravention of planning controls when there is no time for investigations of a preliminary nature. Something will have to be done and some way will have to be found to put that right.
On the basis that we do not yet have the ideal solution, and bearing in mind that there is a printing error in my amendment—there is an additional "it" in the penultimate line—I think it right to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. It is a matter on which I should 'very much like to talk to ministers and to the department before we reach the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has added his name, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7 in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch, which is among the other amendments grouped with this amendment. I say at the outset that the amendments tabled in my name have been so tabled with the assistance and briefing of the Law Society of England.
With this amendment we are still dealing with planning contravention notices. What is proposed to be the new Section 171C(4) of the principal Act provide; that the planning contravention notice may give notice of a time and place at which a person on whom the notice is served may come and talk to the planning authority and make representations about the notice which will be considered by the authority. Why is it permissive and not mandatory? The Carnwath Report suggested that it should be a mandatory part of a planning contravention notice.
At Second Reading my noble friend the Minister described the intentions behind the new planning contravention notice in the following way:
"the new planning contravention notice … is meant to encourage developers and authorities to talk to each other in the early stages of the process; so that instead of formal enforcement action having to be taken when communications fail, there is a real prospect of initiating discussion which results in agreement on how land is to be developed".— [Official Report, 27/11/90; col. 907.]
I should have thought that that was a clear reason for making the provision mandatory.
The Law Society takes the view that if a local planning authority initiates a planning contravention notice procedure, it should be obliged to pursue that procedure to its logical end and to offer a meeting with the person on whom the notice is served so that the person may make formal representations. The planning contravention notice procedure is designed to prevent what is at present a somewhat cumbersome enforcement procedure. It seems illogical for this provision to give the planning authority discretion as opposed to a duty.
The Law Society has been concerned about the penalty provisions provided for planning contravention notices. It believes that it would be a good idea for there to be some form of daily penalty. It is therefore with some interest that I shall listen to what my noble friend says when she moves Amendment No. 7.
I am neither a criminal lawyer nor practised in magistrates' court proceedings but I ask my noble friend whether Amendment No. 7 would allow a planning authority, every day after the expiration of 14 days, to serve a separate summons in order to produce a daily penalty by some back-door way. If that is not the effect, what is the effect intended to be? If that is the intended effect, it seems to me to be a very cumbersome procedure.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether there is some theoretical failing in the procedures. I see from the proposed new Section 171E(2) that it will be a defence for a person who is charged with an offence, in the case of a failure to provide information, to say that information which he did not hold at a certain time,
"was not reasonably accessible to him".
There are possible difficulties here because it may be that, during the 14 days allowed, the person on whom the notice is served will not have the required information. Let us suppose, for example, that he obtains it 14 days later when the authority is about to initiate proceedings against him. In such circumstances he would have committed an offence because he would not have any time or leeway under the provision in which to inform the authority that he has the required information. Such a situation would arise when the person did not obtain the information until almost immediately before the authority took proceedings against him.
I turn now to Amendment No. 8, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I understand that if Amendment No. 7 is successful, he will not be able to move his amendment. However, his amendment is a good one, or at least it would have been a good one. If the government amendment is accepted, it is all the more important that the 14-day period to which it refers should be extended to 28 days at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I support the spirit behind my noble friend's amendment. A 14-day period in which to obtain information is quite unsatisfactory and insufficient. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: There are two amendments tabled in my name in this grouping; namely,

1303
Amendments Nos. 8 and 11. For the convenience of the Committee I shall deal first with Amendment No. 8. As my noble friend said, Clause 1 introduces the concept of planning contravention notices, by means of which local planning authorities may oblige owners and occupiers of land to inform them about the uses of the land where it appears to the local planning authority that there may have been a breach of planning control.
As the clause stands, if a person fails to comply with the notice within 14 days he will be guilty of an offence and a penalty at level 3 will apply. As has been said, 14 days seems to me to be very severe. For example, people may be away on holiday—not that farmers have holidays, but I believe that other people do these days. The amendment would allow the period of 28 days in which to comply with the request. I should tell my noble friend that I understand that Amendment No. 7 refers to a 14-day period. However, I remind her that there is a precedent for 28 days, in that the enforcement notices requiring a breach of planning control to be remedied provide for a period of 28 days.
I should like now to speak to Amendment No. 11. Again, as the clause stands, a person charged with failing to comply with a planning contravention notice can plead that he took all reasonable measures to comply with the requirement or that the information required was not reasonably accessible to him. However, there is no defence available to him if he could not reasonably have been expected to respond to the requirement. For example, a person who is seriously ill may be taken to hospital just before the notice is served. The amendment provides that such a person may plead that he had a reasonable excuse. There is a precedent for this in Section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which seems to be engraved upon my soul and which provides that you must clear snares every day unless a reasonable excuse can be given for not doing so.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to express my support for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I also have in this grouping an amendment concerning Clause 27 which applies the same arguments to the Scottish section of the Bill. We have received representations from the Law Society of Scotland in the matter. The society considers that it is proper that those who receive planning contravention notices should be told when and where they can either offer to rectify the contravention or make representations about it. The content should not be left to the discretion of the planning authority as this could easily result in bindings contrary to what we would all consider to be natural justice; in other words, the unjustified imposition of controls without due process of law being observed. I know that there are always arguments about the words "may" and "shall", but in this case it is not the delaying form of words used in Committee in another place; it is a genuine attempt to improve the law. I support this group of amendments.
Lord Airedale: My only concern is with Amendment No. 5. In subsection (4) we have the
1304
contrast between the words "may" in line 1 and "shall" in the penultimate line, although they are both dealing with the same thing. The penultimate line reads:
"The authority shall give him an opportunity to make … representations at that time and place".
Those words refer back to "a time and place" in line 2 of the subsection. What sense is there in having a contrast between the words "may" and "shall" in two parts of the same subsection when they both refer to the same matter? I believe that the draftsman has nodded off for once and that he meant to use the same word in both cases. It would have been better to have inserted the word "shall" in line 1 so as to bring it into line with the wording at the end of the subsection.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine makes minor changes to the provisions of subsection (4) in the new Section 171C of the 1990 Act. I shall set aside the specific question which has just been asked because I believe that my noble friend will probably wish to say something on the detailed text of the amendment.
Amendment No. 12A would make it obligatory for the planning authority, whenever it serves a contravention notice, to give the recipient notification of a time and place at which the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection will be considered by the authority. That is not what we intend in the contravention notice procedure. Its purpose is to provide planning authorities with a reasonable measure of flexibility in deciding how the recipient of a contravention notice should be required to respond to it. It may not always be appropriate for the planning authority to require a response from the recipient of a notice in the terms for which subsection (4) provides. For example, the recipient may already have made a planning application (as in paragraph (a) of subsection (4)) which the authority has refused; and the purpose of the notice is to obtain an essential item of information to enable the authority to consider whether enforcement action is expedient. We prefer to leave such matters to the planning authority's discretion in each case, because it is best placed to decide how a recipient of a notice should be required to respond to it.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 13, which are government amendments, are designed to improve the offence provisions in the new Section 171 D of the 1990 Act and the new Section 83D of the 1972 Scottish Act so that the planning authority will be able to prosecute more effectively in the court of summary jurisdiction for any failure to comply with a requirement of the new planning contravention notice. The revised subsection (1) has broadly the same effect as the existing subsection (1) as far as the end of paragraph (a) of the subsection. That creates an offence where the person upon whom the new planning contravention notice has been served fails to comply with any requirement of the notice after the end of the 14-day period starting with the day upon which the planning authority served the notice upon that person.
In answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, Amendment No. 7 allows the

1305
planning authority to charge for the day or days upon which the failure to comply continues. That gives the authority an essential flexibility to take account of the day, or days, upon which an offence is committed. It is not intended to create a separate offence on each day of the period on which the failure continues which can be separately charged.
The new subsection (1A) provides that the planning authority, when it lays an information in the court for an offence under subsection (1), may charge that the offence occurred on a particular day, or during any longer period of time it may select, in which the alleged non-compliance with the planning contravention notice Las continued. Subsection (1A) also provides that, following conviction of a first offence under subsection (1), a person may be convicted of a second offence, or subsequent offences, under that subsection by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence. I commend these two amendments to the Committee.
My noble friend's first amendment, Amendment No. 8, would extend from 14 days to 28 days the period within which the recipient of the new planning contravention notice must comply with any requirement of the notice if he is not to be liable to prosecution for an offence under Section 171D(1). We appreciate that a 14-day period is a relatively short period for this purpose. It was chosen because it is recommended by Mr. Robert Carnwath in his report. We have taken the view all along that this is a package of measures, and we have been as faithful to the report as possible.
I have to say that, while I understand my noble friend's reasons for proposing a longer period, it would build into this new contravention notice procedure the kind of delay that we are determined to avoid. Once a planning authority suspects that a breach of planning control is taking place, it is imperative that it is enabled to investigate it quickly and efficiently before deciding what formal enforcement action (if any) is expedient. Possible delay should not be part of that procedure from the very moment at which it starts to operate.
My noble friend's second amendment (Amendment No. 11) would add a new defence for a person prosecuted for failing to comply with a requirement of a planning contravention notice; namely, that the person prosecuted,
"had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirements",
of the notice. That would be in addition to the defence provisions already provided by Section 171D(2). Those provisions are that the person charged took all reasonable measures to comply with the requirement of the notice; or that he failed to provide the required information because it was not reasonably accessible to him.
We believe that the defence provisions already in new Section 171D(2) are apt and reasonable in the circumstances of this new offence. A defence provision based on a "reasonable excuse" for failing to comply with the notice would open the door to the raising of ingenious and plausible excuses which are more
1306
suitable to a plea in mitigation of the offence rather than a defence against conviction. The amendment, if accepted, would signal to the magistrates' courts that the offence was a trivial matter. I hope that it will not be pressed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before other noble Lords respond to the amendments they have tabled, perhaps I may ask the Minister's views on Amendments Nos. 10 and 16 which are not grouped with these amendments but which, nonetheless, if Amendment No. 7 is accepted would be cut across and obviated. Amendments Nos. 10 and 16 have the simplicity of introducing the "cab meter" principle of fines, given the clear nature of the offence. It would mean that for subsequent offences it would not be necessary to return to the magistrates' court for a retrial but merely for the application of the penalty. In that context, does the Minister care to comment on Amendments Nos. 10 and 16?
Baroness Blatch: It was always my desire to take Amendments Nos. 10 and 16 with the others. It was not my choice not to do so. The noble Baroness is of course right. There is a linkage. The amendments are not being discussed at the moment, but I am happy to respond to them if it is the Committee's wish that I do SO.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is.
Lord Airedale: Has the Minister said anything about "may" and "shall" which are the sole topics of Amendment No. 5?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is querying an amendment tabled by someone else. It is not a government amendment. Nevertheless in the course of speaking to the amendments I said that it may be possible that planning permission had been received. The "shall" referred to a different aspect of the matter altogether. "May" and "shall" are appropriate. They are not inconsistent one with the other.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, Amendments Nos. 10 and 16 are related to government Amendment No. 7. We appreciate why Amendment No. 10 has been tabled. It is clearly necessary, when a person has already been convicted for the offence for which the new Section 171D provides, that the conviction for any subsequent offence should have regard to each day on which that second or subsequent offence is committed. We think, however, that the Government's amendment (Amendment No. 7) effectively achieves the result which the noble Lord seeks to achieve by his amendment. The Government's amendment enables any second or subsequent offence to be charged
"by reference to any day or longer period of time".
That means that the planning authority, in laying an information in the magistrates' court in relation to this offence, will be able to charge in respect of the day or days on which the offence was committed, following a previous conviction.
The same considerations apply to Amendment No. 16 to Clause 2. We propose a corresponding amendment which will achieve the same results.
Lord Coleraine: Is my noble friend saying that each day will be a separate offence?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It can be.
Baroness Blatch: The flexibility exists so that it could be.
Lord Monson: With regard to Amendment No. 8, will the Minister confirm that if a person is on holiday, as instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, a planning contravention notice cannot be served upon him? Must the notice be served in person or is it necessary merely to send it through the post? It makes a great deal of difference. If it is to be served in person, the Minister's reply answers the point. If it is merely to be sent through the post, when someone may be away, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, still has a good case.
Baroness Blatch: I was expecting to be caught out long before this. I am sure that this will not be the first time. I cannot say what happens if it is not possible to find the person within the 14 days. However it looks as though I may well have an answer before I sit down. I am advised that the practical answer is that the person who cannot comply through illness should notify the planning authority, which will be able to exercise discretion whether to prosecute in those cases. We would not expect an authority to prosecute someone who is genuinely unable to reply through sickness, being on holiday or being unavailable within the 14 days.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My noble friend Lord Coleraine may wish to conclude, but perhaps I might say just two things about the two amendments to which I spoke. My noble friend's last remark confuses me. If that is her attitude, I do not know why she does not accept the 28 days. I am not the least bit happy with the philosophy that the Committee must slavishly follow the report. If that is the case, I suggest that we all go home.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me now that I have the benefit of advice on the point of when a person is unobtainable. We say that where the person is obtainable there should be a speedy reaction to the problem. There are clearly occasions when someone may be unobtainable. It may be for days, weeks or even months. Action could not be taken until the person was available to be pursued. I do not believe that it is confusing. The firmness and speediness of the action is catered for in the Bill. The flexibility to defer if the person is unobtainable also exists.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I shall have to read the Bill to see where it says that. My other point relates to Amendment No. 11 and the reasonable defence. I cannot understand why that reasonable defence is not appropriate in the Bill when it is appropriate in other Acts of Parliament. Are we going to now take it out of other Acts of Parliament? I cannot see the difference. However I shall look carefully at my noble friend's remarks and decide what to do when we reach Report.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for answering the textual criticisms made by the noble
1308
Lord, Lord Airedale, especially after having suggested that I do so. I should have been in grave difficulty in doing as well as the noble Baroness did.
I am not happy with the reply that we received on Amendment No. 5, but I shall read what my noble friend said. She suggested that Carnwath was to be taken as one bundle, or that was the effect of her remark. In Amendment No. 5 she is departing from what Carnwath recommended, which was that it should be obligatory on the planning authority to include this provision in the notices.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to pressures of natural justice. I should not go so far as to suggest that natural justice comes into the matter at all but it is desirable that the provisions should be mandatory because anyone who does not find himself presented with the opportunity to address the planning authority will feel that he has been denied justice. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I must point out that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call either Amendment No. 8 or Amendment No. 10.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 16, leave out from ("If") to end of line 25 and insert ("at any time after the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which a planning contravention notice has been served on any person, he has not complied with any requirement of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(1A) An offence under subsection (1) may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under that subsection by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Planning contravention notices]:
[Amendment No. 12A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 32, line 28, leave out from ("If") to end of line 37 and insert ("at any time after the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which a planning contravention notice has been served on any person, he has not complied with any requirement of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(1A) An offence under subsection (1) of this section may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under that subsection by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Enforcement of conditions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14
Page 4, line 37, at end insert:
("6A) If a magistrates' court is satisfied that a person responsible is in breach of a notice under subsection (6) above, the court may make an order requiring the person to comply with the notice within a time specified in the order.").
The noble Lord said: I listened with great interest to the Minister saying a few moments ago that she treated the Carnwath Report as a package and that the Government sought to implement the package so far as possible. Amendment No. 14 introduces a Carnwath recommendation which the Government have not proposed. I assume therefore that on mature consideration the Government will wish to accept our amendment. In it we strengthen the breach of condition notice so that we can give magistrates the power to order those who contravene a planning condition to comply with the breach of condition notice. The analogy that we use is the abatement of noise procedure in Part III of the Public Health Act 1936. That will be fresh in the memories of Members of the Committee who took part in the debates on the Environmental Protection Bill.
In his review, Mr. Carnwath took the view that magistrates should have the power to reinforce the breach of condition notice. As the clause stands, magistrates only have the power to impose penalties for non-compliance with a notice. We believe that it is important that there should be the power to enforce the conditions rather than the cruder power of imposing penalties of non-compliance. In the light of the Minister's earlier statements, I hope that she will see fit t D agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): The noble Baroness will not see fit and I regret that neither will I. While we appreciate that Amendment No. 14 is based on a suggestion in the Carnwath Report, we have concluded that it is not necessary to include in Section 187A an order-making power for the magistrates' court on the lines of the amendment. If someone continues, in breach of a breach of condition notice, he can be prosecuted for a second and any subsequent offence until he complies with the notice. In an extreme case of non-compliance, the planning authority could seek an injunction in the High Court or county court using its new power in Clause 3 of the Bill.
We also think that it would be unsatisfactory to create what would amount to a dual jurisdiction for enforcing the breach of condition notice which would be likely to result if the magistrates' court had the power to make an order. Any such order might in practice conflict with the requirement specified by the planning authority in the breach of condition notice.
On balance, we think it best to maintain the normal approach to enforcement offences where the court's jurisdiction is kept to the imposition of a penalty which the court considers appropriate to the gravity of the offence. We believe that it would be very unsatisfactory for the court to issue an order in addition to the breach of condition notice itself. It
1310
would bring the court directly into the enforcement process, instead of leaving enforcement to the planning authority which knows the details of the planning permission it has granted and what is needed to secure compliance with it. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel that he can
withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have some sympathy with the argument that it is for the planning authority to be responsible for enforcement and for the court to be responsible for penalties. Certainly I do not propose to press the amendment solely on those general grounds. I find it a little strange that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate suggests that the conditions imposed by the magistrates' court should differ from or be in conflict with the conditions imposed by the local planning authority. I should have thought it would be easy for that authority to make it clear to the court what conditions are required to be imposed. It would be quite an exceptional case if the magistrates were unable or unwilling to follow the guidance given to them by the local planning authority in terms of the conditions.
In the amendment we sought a short cut to avoid a to-ing and fro-ing between the courts, the planning authority and the person infringing planning conditions. I should still have thought that our procedure was simpler than the repetitive offence which is proposed by the Government. However, I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must point out that if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 16.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 47 and insert:
("(8A) An offence under subsection (8) may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under that subsection by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the two government Amendments No. 15 for England and Wales and No. 17 for Scotland is to improve the offence provisions in the new Section 187A of the 1990 Act and the new Section 87AA of the Scottish 1972 Act so that the planning authority will be able to prosecute more effectively in the court of summary jurisdiction where the person responsible is in breach of the new breach of condition notice.
These amendments closely follow the approach which the Committee has already considered in corresponding amendments to the offence provisions in Clauses 1 and 27. The new subsection (8A), removes any doubt that the planning authority, when it lays an information in the court for an offence under subsection (8), may charge that the offence occurred

1311
on a particular day or during any longer period of time for which the person responsible has allegedly breached the notice.
Subsection (8A) also provides that, following conviction of a first offence under subsection (8), a person may be convicted of a second offence or subsequent offences under that subsection by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence. These amendments are necessary to enable planning authorities to prosecute effectively for a breach of the new notice. In view of what was said earlier during previous debates, I am sure that this will be welcome. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Enforcement of conditions]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 34, line 6, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 10 and insert: ("(8A) An offence under subsection (8) of this section may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under that subsection by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Injunctions restraining breaches of planning control]:
[Amendments Nos. 17A to 17F not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert:
("Undertaking in damages: public interest.
187C. Where a local planning authority applies for an interlocutory injunction in pursuance of proceedings under section 187B above the court shall only require the authority to give an undertaking in damages where the defendant shows that it is in the public interest for the court to require such an undertaking.").
The noble Lord said: A contested action for an injunction can take some time to be heard. In the meantime, the damaging operation or use can continue until the case is finally dealt with unless the applicant has obtained an interlocutory injunction to stop the operation or use pending trial.
However, in the vast majority of cases a court will require an applicant for an interlocutory injunction to give an undertaking that if it grants the application he will pay the defendant damages if the main action fails. This could be loss of profits etc. over a year that in some cases could exceed £1 million. Thus councils are wary of taking action, because through no fault of theirs the case may fail at trial and they would be liable for substantial damages. At present courts do not require undertakings from the Crown where proceedings are brought to enforce the law. Recently this principle has been extended to local authorities, but very cautiously.
This amendment would not bar a court from requiring an undertaking in every case. There may be cases where the public interest requires an authority to compensate someone against whom it brings proceedings for an injunction. But the burden should be on the defendant to show that an undertaking is really necessary. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I regret that we cannot accept this amendment. I understand that the present practice in regard to the grant of an interlocutory injunction is to give the court a discretion when to require an undertaking from the party to whom an injunction is granted. An undertaking can be required even in a case where the defendant is not present; for example, on an ex parte application. This procedure enables the court to strike what it regards as the fair balance between the interest of the plaintiff and the interest of the defendant, depending on the circumstances of each case, when judgment is given.
This amendment would fetter the discretion of the court and remove the court's discretion to protect a defendant's interest on an ex parte application. It would also reverse the present burden of proof in injunctive proceedings which is on the plaintiff to show why an undertaking should not be given.
I appreciate why the noble Lord is concerned to protect the interest of the local planning authority in injunctive proceedings by this amendment. On reflection, I hope he may conclude that the effect of the amendment is to go too far in that direction and to expose the defendant to an unfair risk. It is important that this new injunctive procedure in the planning Bill should be seen to operate fairly and should not, unlike other similar procedures, fetter the court's discretion in these matters. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to pursue this amendment. I am a little sorry about the response, although I half expected it. I think that we are both delving into legal matters about which I am not experienced and I suspect that he is not either. This is an attempt to encourage local authorities not to be put off and to take out injunctions where it is necessary that they should do so. Having been involved with a local authority, I can remember so often getting legal advice saying "We may not do this" and "We should not proceed on that". I think it is one of the reasons why they would never proceed, if they could possibly avoid it, with compulsory purchase orders. But I have to accept that reply, and no doubt my advisers will take a look at it and see whether it is worth while coming back again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Bledisloe: Am I in order in inquiring of the Minister whether there is a drafting error in subsection (2) of the new section? Subsection (1) provides that a

1313
local authority can make an application for an injunction when it thinks it appropriate to do so. Subsection (2) provides that on an application,
"the court may grant such an injunction as they think appropriate for the purpose of restraining the breach".
I believe I am right in saying that a court is singular and surely, nonetheless, what is intended is that it should be at the court's discretion as to what it thinks is appropriate and not at the local planning authority's. At the moment, the "they" applies to the local planning authority, and I should be fairly horrified to think that the court had to grant an injunction which the local planning authority thought was appropriate. I hope that I have spoken slowly enough to receive an answer to that unfair and unworried question.
Viscount Astor: We believe that the clause is correct, but we shall look at it and take counsel's advice.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Ammdments Nos. 18A to 21 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 4 [Time limits on enforcement action]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or purported to take").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 deals with time limits on enforcement actions and it seeks to insert a new Section 171B into the principal Act. There are four subsections. Under the first of the two subsections, breaches of certain planning controls are made free from enforcement action after the end of a period of four years, and by subsection (3) other breaches of planning control are free of enforcement action after 10 years.
It is when we come to subsection (4) that a query arises. Subsection (4) provides that the preceding subsections do not prevent:
"(b) making further enforcement action in respect of any breach c f planning control if, during the period of four years ending with that action being taken, the local planning authority have taken or purported to take enforcement action in respect of that breach".
The point of my amendment, which is to strike out "or purported to take", is to find out what these words are supposed to mean and if they are meaningless to persuade my noble friend that they should be removed from the Bill.
To go back to the new Section 171A, this states in subsection (2):
"For the purposes of this Act—

(a) the issue of an enforcement notice … or

(b) the service of a breach of condition notice …

constitutes taking enforcement action".
That seems to me to be perfectly clear. I do not see how you can have the purported issue of a purported enforcement notice or the purported service of a breach of condition notice. These words should be removed from the Bill and I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The purpose of including the words which the amendment proposes to omit is to deal with
1314
the situation where the planning authority has issued an enforcement notice but it has proved to be invalid for some reason. For example, the result of an enforcement appeal to the Secretary of State may be that the notice is quashed because it proves to be fundamentally defective. In these circumstances, we think it is appropriate for the planning authority to have a further opportunity to issue a notice which is not defective or deficient in any respect.
We propose in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) that there should be a period of four years, running from the date on which purported enforcement action was taken, during which the planning authority would be able to take further enforcement action in respect of the same breach of planning control.
We think that this is a necessary safeguard, which should be included in the time-limits provisions, to enable planning authorities to take enforcement action in the circumstances I have described. Without a provision on these lines, a planning authority could be prevented from taking enforcement action by a deficiency in the first notice it issues. I hope therefore that my noble friend will accept that the words he wishes to omit should remain in subsection (4)(b) of new Section 171B.
Lord Coleraine: I shall consider what my noble friend has said with my advisers before deciding what to do with the measure. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("(5) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, after consulting such persons as appear to it to be concerned, issue regulations specifying the circumstances in which operations are to be regarded as substantially completed.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. The point of Amendment No. 23 is to discover what the words "substantially completed" may mean. Clause 172 of the recodified Act refers to all breaches of planning control as being immune after four years from the date of the breach. In this Bill there is a useful separation between a change of use, for which an instant breach is clear cut, and a development which may occur over a period of time. In the latter case the phrase "substantially completed" applies. I believe that local authorities would find it helpful if the Secretary of State were to issue guidance after appropriate consultation. Will the Minister indicate whether that will follow? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I drafted Amendment No. 23 which has been ably moved by my noble friend. I should make it clear that the use of the word "it" with reference to the Secretary of State is deliberate. This implies no disrespect to Mr. Michael Heseltine who is an old friend of mine. However, I believe the time has come when we should make a deliberate attempt to remove sexist language from our legislation. That is the intention of the amendment.
There are a number of alternative ways of achieving that objective. It has been suggested that we should

1315
use the words "he or she" on every occasion. I believe that would be extremely clumsy. The other alternative is to use the words s(he) or s/he. I do not find that alternative very attractive either. Whenever possible we use the plural rather than the singular in order to avoid sexist language in our writing. I hope that we have got away from using sexist language in our informal language as far as possible.
I suggest that there is a good precedent to be found in a number of states in the United States of America where the word "it" is used when referring to the Secretary of State. As is frequently pointed out, the Secretary of State is an office and not a particular person. When Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education, it was not incongruous to refer to the Secretary of State as "he" or "him". No one thought that that was peculiar as one was referring not to an individual but to an office of state.
It is also the case that in legislation the word "person" is used to refer not only to an individual but also to an organisation or a company. That organisation or company is referred to as "him" or "he". We are just as far away from rational thinking when we use the word "person" when referring to the Secretary of State or any other individual. If we wish to abolish sexist language from legislation, it seems that the word "it" is a logical and rational term to use when referring to a person or to a Secretary of State. That may seem a strange innovation to the Committee, but I believe it would rapidly become accepted and would cause no difficulty whatever. It would free us from the quite unnecessary and damaging charge of sexism in our language.
Viscount Astor: I understand that the word "it" is an attempt to use non-sexist language. However, I am sure the noble Lord knows that this is unnecessary because the provisions of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 state that:
"unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender include the feminine",
that is, the masculine embraces the feminine.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what I am objecting to and that is why we are introducing this provision.
Viscount Astor: First, I must say that I am delighted, being of the masculine gender, to be able to embrace the feminine. The reference to "substantially completed"—that is, substantially completed by the end of the four-year "immunity" period following the date on which the operations started—is taken directly from the recommendation in the Carnwath Report on which the revised provisions for statutory time limits on enforcement action by the planning authority are based. We think this is a reasonable approach, bearing in mind the variety of circumstances with which planning authorities will be dealing. The question whether particular operations have been substantially completed will be—as is usual in planning jurisdiction—"a matter of fact and degree" for planning authorities, and the Secretary of State on appeal, to decide.
1316
We appreciate the noble Lord's wish to help planning authorities by having a more precise definition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State; but we seriously doubt whether any such regulations could satisfactorily define what is meant by "substantially completed". If it would be helpful, we would be prepared to consider issuing guidance in a DoE and Welsh Office circular, following enactment of the Bill, about the intention of these provisions, giving some indication of what is meant by the words "substantially completed". We would consult interested organisations, including the local authorities' associations, about any such guidance. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press for a regulation-making power on this point as we see immense practical difficulties in that approach.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful response which we welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Enforcement notices]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert:

("(1) Where it appears to the local planning authority that there has been a breach of planning control they may—

(a) issue a notice (in this Act referred to as an "enforcement notice") or

(b) grant planning permission, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit.

(2) Where an enforcement notice is issued it shall be served —")

The noble Baroness said: This is a rather more substantial amendment. The concern of the Bill throughout—this was also the theme of the Carnwath Report—is to bring all development activity, including desirable activity, within the framework of planning law. For all such activity the proposers must seek and obtain authorisation. At the moment the only tool that planning authorities can use is the enforcement procedure. That was designed to regulate the undesirable and unacceptable. Now local authorities have to use it for acceptable but unauthorised activities. We do not have any other method of progress.
We seek a mode of bringing within the planning framework those who are law abiding enough to seek both planning permission and pay fees. It seems sensible therefore to introduce a non-punitive way of making the planning system apply fairly to all. That is a move that Carnwath desires. The amendment covers not only an enforcement notice but also retrospective planning permission. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As we understand it, this amendment is intended to provide planning authorities with two alternative procedures for dealing with what appears to them to be a breach of control. While we can appreciate why authorities might, in some

1317
circumstances, be willing to proceed at once to grant planning permission for the breach of control, there appear to be two serious objections to this proposal.
First, by granting permission, they would effectively be pre-judging the important question whether, in fact and in law, a breach of planning control had actually taken place. In effect, they would be by-passing the appeal provisions in Section 174 of the 1990 Act, which enable the recipient of an enforcement notice to appeal to the Secretary of State against it, on the ground that what is alleged in the notice does not constitute a breach of control. We think the appeal provisions are an essential safeguard in the enforcement process; and it would be unfair to the recipient of a planning permission, granted by virtue of the proposed subsection (1)(b), in the proposed amendment, to be deprived of the opportunity of arguing that no planning permission was in fact needed. This would be particularly so in the case where the authority decided to impose onerous conditions on its grant of planning permission and later sought to enforce those conditions.
Secondly, the amendment appears to assume that the planning authority would always be able to identify the breach of control correctly. However, as the Committee will know, it is sometimes very difficult to be sure about exactly what is taking place unlawfully on any particular site, especially if it takes place behind closed doors. We think this would be too haphazard a foundation on which to base any grant of planning permission. For avoidance of doubt, I must distinguish this from the "deemed planning application" in Section 177 of the 1990 Act. That procedure is different from what is proposed in the amendment because the "deemed application" arises directly from the allegation made by the planning authority in the enforcement notice.
We think that what is proposed in the amendment is bound to result in unfairness to recipients of a grant of planning permission in these circumstances; and we seriously doubt whether planning authorities would be able to grant well-founded planning permissions of this kind. And, even if we are mistaken in this, there appears to be no requirement for the recipient of the permission to implement it. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I find this a slightly curious reversal of roles. We are asking for a more relaxed attitude and the Minister is pressing for a more stringent attitude. There is a point of substance here. All we have is a somewhat punitive way of controlling things that, as I say, may be desirable but for which, so far, planning permission has not been sought. I think that there is a point of substance here. With the permission of the Committee I should like to withdraw the amendment, but we may wish to return to it at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8 p.m.
1318
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Security
7.1 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a Statement about security. A number of steps are being taken to tighten arrangements in the present circumstances, and the situation will be continuously under review. My right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council announced in another place earlier this afternoon that one of these steps would be the wearing of passes by everyone within the precincts of the House, including Members except when in Chamber.
In the light of the decision of another place, I believe it is right for me as Leader of your Lordships' House to take the same step; that is that everyone within the precincts of this House, including ourselves, except when we are in this Chamber, should wear a photographic security pass.
I should stress to your Lordships that this is a temporary measure during the present emergency. It has of course been agreed through the usual channels; but it is without prejudice to any decisions on security ultimately to be taken through the Administration and Offices Committees. I should tell the House that I have asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the Clerk of the Parliaments and Black Rod to ensure that their staff comply with this decision.
I now come to the mechanics. Most of your Lordships will already have a photographic pass. If you do not have one, the Pass Office will remain open late tonight, and will be open tomorrow and on Monday, to issue new passes. The police manning all entry points into the Palace will from tomorrow morning be checking the passes of all those who come in and issuing pass holders with clear plastic slips to which will be attached either a chain (so that the pass can be worn around one's neck) or a lapel clip.
I need hardly repeat that I devoutly hope that the need for this measure will recede very quickly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for announcing these measures, which we certainly support and which we hope the whole House will support. In these sad days it is important that security in the Palace of Westminster be maintained at the maximum. We recognise that this may be only a temporary measure which, in the course of time, if things go the way we all want, will be relaxed.
I understand that the mechanics will be subject to all sorts of instructions from Black Rod and others. Perhaps the noble Lord could just tell us whether we are required to wear these photographic passes—of course we all have passes in our pockets when we come in. Shall we have to show these passes, as it were, on the outside rather than showing them when we are requested to?

1319
What will happen to spouses when they come here, because spouses also have their own passes? Will they be required to wear them on the outside of their dress, or suit, rather than carrying them in their pockets or bag? Maybe these are purely questions of mechanics, but we should all be interested if the noble Lord the Leader of the House can help us on this. Obviously we accept what has happened, and we on our side will do everything we can to co-operate with the noble Lord in what he is proposing.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to say briefly that of course we understand and accept the need for these regulations, and we shall comply with them in every way. The details of how, when and where we wear the passes can no doubt be dealt with through the usual channels.
Lord Waddington; My Lords, it clearly would be convenient if people, when they approach the precincts, actually have the passes in a place where they can readily be seen by the people who are going to check them, but the requirement is that they should have these passes. That is the requirement. I understand that spouses have passes now, and it certainly would be correct if spouses who now have these passes do, from now on, have them in their possession and available for checking on their arrival at the Palace of Westminster.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on that point, can my noble friend say whether spouses who do not possess a pass should apply for them, and how and when?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, certainly I would urge spouses who do not already have passes to apply for them. I mentioned to your Lordships that the Pass Office would be open tonight, all day tomorrow and on Monday and thereafter so that there should be ample opportunity for spouses to obtain the passes. Obviously it will take a day or two for the new system to be run in—I fully understand that—but we must make it as easy as possible for all those who are going to have the responsibility for checking. That might mean that people carrying out their duty are not known to us at this time and do not know the Members of this House in the way the regular staff do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord and I do not mean to be unco-operative, I just want to try to understand what the Statement means. If we are going to be issued with clear plastic slips to which will be attached either a chain so that the pass can be worn around one's neck or a lapel clip, does this mean that Members of this House will be, in a sense, obliged to actually make use of these plastic slips and wear the pass round the neck, or in their lapels, so that it can be seen instead of having it in the side pocket?
It is really quite important because we have to send out some sort of notice to everybody. I am sure that Black Rod will be sending out notices to this effect, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could
1320
possibly answer this point. If it is too detailed for him, I am happy to say that we shall co-operate in every way.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think the requirement should be that people should wear them, but nobody is going to criticise anybody who has forgotten to put it round his neck and then produces it immediately he is asked to do so. I think that really is the right answer to that particular point.
Lord Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, while I welcome anything that tightens security, may I ask the Leader of the House to consider the danger of people, including Peers, walking out of the Palace of Westminster with these passes round their necks and making themselves vulnerable targets on the streets outside?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an important point. Nobody is encouraging people to wander round the streets of London wearing these passes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like everyone else, I am in entire sympathy with these provisions. I should like to ask for clarification about the procedure for our occasional guests.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Statement I have made tonight does not actually affect guests. Noble Lords will be responsible for their guests, who will have to be checked as they are at the present time. I think it would be unrealistic to suggest that every time anybody wanted to bring a guest into the Palace of Westminster he, or she, should be provided with the sort of pass I am talking about.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there is one other point that I did not raise. When people ask to visit the House as guests and to hear the debates, what are we to do about them?
Lord Waddington; My Lords, this is not covered in the Statement. Obviously discussions are going on as to how we may be able to deal with a number of security matters. Obviously one of those involves access to the Galleries in this House and the other place. However, I do not think that I should go into that tonight. I am really confining myself to this question of passes to help your Lordships so that we can get the new system run in as quickly as possible over the weekend.

Income Support (General and Transitional) Amendment Regulations 1990
7.10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990, No. 2324] be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I owe an apology to anyone in this House whom I may have inconvenienced by putting this matter on the Order Paper before Christmas and then taking it off again. I did so because the report of the Joint Committee on

1321
Statutory Instruments was not available, and since the report has in the event turned out to be an extremely helpful one, it was worth waiting to get it. Perhaps one lesson to be learnt from this is that we should not debate these regulations—and this should be remembered by all parties—until the report of the Joint Committee is available. But I shall say, before my noble kinsman says it for me, I entirely understand that when I say "all parties", that means me too.
Another point arises from that. It is a pity that sometimes regulations under the negative procedure come into force before the expiration of praying time. I originally chose the earlier date in order to do it before the regulations came into force. It is a mistake that thy should be in force before the House has the opportunity to consider them.
I hasten to assure your Lordships there is no question whatever of dividing the House. I am raising this mater in order to refer to some small points, to which I hope it is possible the Government may pay attention, and to raise some fairly big general questions of principle which seem to me to arise from these regulations and which we shall have to consider in future.
These regulations provide for those who have been unemployed for two years and have been refused other offers of help to be sent on Restart courses. If they refuse to go on these courses, they are to lose 40 per cent. of their income support. These regulations have also been considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and they have had some misgivings which are worth taking seriously. The advisory committee recommended exception for good cause. To that the Government have responded, but they have responded to it by the rather unfortunate method of choosing to define "good cause" by total enumeration. Everyone who has ever had to listen to excuses knows you cannot define good cause by total enumeration.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn further attention to the drafting of these good cause provisions. In Regulation 3(5)(a) (i) they have drawn attention to the use of the word "may" rather than "might". This is not just a linguistic error because it has the effect of changing the meaning of the regulation. It refers to people providing assistance to someone whose life may have been endangered. For example, it does not cover the situation where people are called by an alarm on the ground that someone's life is in danger but the alarm turns out not to be justified. When rescuers come in good faith they should not be penalised if in the end they turn out not to be needed.
It is also apparently the case that people who attend court as witnesses when not actually under subpoena do not have this allowed as a good cause for not attending a Restart course. I understand there is precedent for that provision, but in a parliament which is not entirely bound by precedent when making law, that does not necessarily make it any better. This is something which I think ought to cause us some anxiety.
There are a number of good causes that all of us can think of which are not specified here. For example, if you are robbed of all your money on the way to the Restart course and you end up telling the story to the police instead of attending the course, that does not appear to be allowed as a good cause, and in regulations drafted without any provision for amelioration by an adjudication officer that seems to me to be unfortunate.
There is the further point that the disqualification is to happen instantly; there is not going to be a suspension of disqualification from benefit until the matter is considered by an adjudication officer. This was something to which the Social Security Advisory Committee drew attention in paragraph 24 of its report. As they said, 40 per cent. is a substantial cut in the income of a person on income support. Deprivations have been known to be made in error and to be reversed on appeal. Would it not be better, as the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended, to defer disqualification until an adjudication officer has had the ability to consider it?
I should also like to press my noble kinsman quite closely on the question of duration of deprivation of benefit. I understand the Secretary of State says it is not to be above five weeks. In paragraph 28 of its report the Social Security Advisory Committee seems to think that it could, under the empowering legislation, legitimately last for 26 weeks. First, I should like to know how long it will last; secondly, how long it may last; and, thirdly, whether an adjudication officer can review the length of time during which it lasts.
Another ground for misgiving about the regulations is the effect on the Restart scheme. If my noble kinsman has looked at the pamphlet which was written by Anthea Zeman for the Centre for Policy Studies, he might find some quite serious arguments against the course the Government have employed. Anthea Zeman said:
"The more closely Restart works with training and industry, the clearer it becomes that it is useless to induce people into work or training when they are not in a state in which employers and tutors would want them".
The Secretary of State recommends Restart on the grounds that for someone who has been unemployed it builds his confidence and motivation. I am not entirely convinced that a 40 per cent. disentitlement to benefit achieves that effect. The bigger questions are ones of principle where to some extent there is a conflict of right and right. I accept what the Social Security Advisory Committee say: this is not an entirely new departure; it has already been done for Restart interviews; but since we are part of a sovereign parliament and not a court of common law, the fact that it has been done before does not necessarily mean we should accept its remit.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Frank Field in the notion of an implied contract between the state and the unemployed. The unemployed should look for work and the state are bound to maintain, encourage and help them in doing so. I do not think I can bring myself to the point of arguing that the able-bodied and

1323
able-minded have a right to live indefinitely off the state without trying to get themselves employed, so the use of an inducement to get them to go on the Restart course is not necessarily improper. The use of the financial penalty is not necessarily improper. But if that is one principle, it is not the only one.
Last summer, in the course of the passage of the Social Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked me to state my priorities. I said my top priority was that nobody in this country should be reduced to starvation. In this business it is very tempting to have more than one top priority, but when I said that was my top priority I meant it. How does this measure up to that test?
I know that it is not a total disentitlement to benefit. It is a 40 per cent. disentitlement to benefit, which leaves those concerned with £22 a week. I am not certain that I can accept that as subsistence level, particularly since we have to consider the effect that it may have on the social fund entitlement; for example, whether it will put them at the back of the social fund queue.
We should consider that not everybody who has been unemployed for two years—those are the people with whom we are dealing—is necessarily entirely reasonable. Such an experience does not encourage reasonableness. So even if one says that it is reasonable that those people should go on a Restart course, it does not follow that they will all do so. We have to consider what will happen to those who do not. If 40 per cent. disentitlement is imposed on them, what will they do? I do not accept that they can live on £22 a week.
What are their options? They may turn to crime. I understand that to keep someone in one of Her Majesty's prisons costs the state £15,000 a year. I do not believe that that is a good option.
They may beg, of course. On 11th December, when we debated the vagrancy Acts, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that all the social security provisions which were available nowadays were designed to make begging unnecessary. That is a good objective. I do not know how this measure stands up to it. It should also be remembered that begging is something to which there are two parties. It is not exactly a market, but there is a supply as well as a demand. For many people a readiness to give to beggars depends in part on whether one believes that there is a fully adequate social security provision available for them without it. For my part, if this measure goes through I shall be more ready to give to beggars than I was before. Does that meet the test of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers?
The third possibility is that they starve. That is not acceptable. So far as I know no one has starved in public in this country since 1649 and it is not time to start again.
We have here a conflict between right and right. The Utopian solution would be to raise the level of benefit above subsistence level. A partial disentitlement could then happen without people being lowered below subsistence level. I know what the Treasury
1324
would say to such a proposal and I am not certain that I could argue it down. I said that it was the Utopian solution.
Since it is Utopian, we might consider the further alternative of using the carrot instead of the stick and that there might be a small extra benefit perhaps for those who attend such courses. I should like the Government to consider whether that might be a better possibility.
I should like them also to tell the House something about the circumstances in which they feel entitled to disentitle people to benefit. They have done it rather a lot recently. There were the 16 and 17 year-olds and there were the students. Now there are those who do not go on Restart courses. Next it will be single parents who do not name the child's father. How many more times will the Government act in this way?
I believe that they should spell out the general circumstances in which they feel that disentitlement is in order and the principles under which they think it is justified. I ask my noble kinsman that question and should like to know the answer. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990, No. 2324] be annulled.—(Earl Russell.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, who has performed a service in drawing our attention to these regulations. I have very little to add to the powerful arguments that he presented. When I read the regulations, I could not help but wonder if they were not yet another step along the road toward the American system of Workfare.
I think it is fair to ask whether coercion is the best way to make a success of Restart. There is a curious omission in paragraph 4, which is the "good cause" paragraph. It completely omits as a good cause for non-attendance on a Restart course the fact that one is engaged in a job search or preparation course run by another agency. It might be a course which is much more appropriate than a Restart course. I should like the Minister to give his comments on that point when he replies.
Let us consider the response of the Secretary of State to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It says on page 1 in paragraph 4:
"The Restart course assesses a person's skills and experience, builds his confidence and motivation, and points him in a direction best able to lead him back to work".
When I read that passage I could not help but wonder how it squared with the report of the psychological service which found that nearly 20 per cent. of participants thought that their course had been of no use or of limited use in helping them to gain employment. Reporting in February this year, the OPCS found that one third of those who had attended a Restart course thought that it was "poor". I cannot help but feel that the Government would be better employed in improving the content and quality of Restart courses rather than in introducing these coercive regulations.

1325
On a slightly broader note, I point out that the aims of Restart as set out on page 13 of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee are to:
"identify individual needs; create a desire to change; identify and overcome barriers to change; give people confidence to act; present the options for the way forward; and introduce action planning".
When I read that I wondered whether Mr. Major, Mr. Hurd and Mr. Heseltine had perhaps recently been on a Restart course.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to defective drafting. I was struck by several remarks in the departmental memorandum in response to the letter sent by the joint committee on 5th December. There is the matter of the printer's error which has been corrected by an erratum slip. I wondered whether anyone any longer proof-reads regulations. There is, for instance, the question of "may" or "might". The department admits that on reflection a different wording would have been preferable and says that an amendment will be made at a suitable opportunity.
Then there is the use of the word "protection", which, as the advisory committee pointed out, was introduced into the regulation without previously having been mentioned. Again the department has to admit that the words which were included in an earlier draft had inadvertently not been deleted. It says that:
"This oversight is however regretted and the offending words will be deleted at the next suitable opportunity".
It seems to me that there has been some fairly careless drafting in some extremely important regulations.
I said that I would be brief and so I conclude. These regulations do nothing to encourage unemployed people to believe that Restart will help them. I fear that they are just another example of the exercise of power by coercion rather than persuasion which sadly has become the hallmark of the Government's policy.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, his case has been extremely well marshalled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have little to add. I have been approached by those in the social services about this matter of the withdrawal of income support from people who refuse to go on a Restart course.
As is my custom, I go round the Restart courses in my diocese. On one occasion I was ushered into a room in which were waiting some 20 or 30 long-term unemployed people. I discovered that among these were some who could sadly be called unemployable. If they were about 18 years of age and had been unemployed for two years they suffered from a sense of lack of self-worth. Many were very often chain smokers and overweight. But there were also some whom one would have to describe as inadequate, as well as others who had mental illness. Very often they had dependants and responsibilities. There were single parent; too, fathers or mothers. Therefore, the operation of this blanket scheme is unfair and unworkable because it is impossible to carry out the suggested changes outlined within five days. Furthermore, when people attend courses reluctantly and without commitment they spoil them for others.
1326
When they have to leave dependent children it costs more to put those children into care than to allow the parents to stay at home to look after them.
I am in no way advocating that spongers, to use an ugly word, should be supported. We do not want them in our society. We want appropriate ways of getting them on to the staircase towards work if possible. There is an adjudication service, but I advocate that the whole system should be turned on its head. Instead of having the blanket scheme whereby those who refuse to attend a Restart course are immediately deprived of 40 per cent. of their income, I should prefer to see the long-term unemployed interviewed and adjudicated before the deprivation is made. Often those in question are fairly helpless as regards filling in forms and fighting back on their own behalf. It is important to know where the adjudicators are to be placed. Will the people in Worcester be subject to adjudicators in Blackpool? We need a local element in the adjudication of a person's situation and needs.
My experience shows that the system envisaged in the Act is too much of a blanket system and takes no account of the individual's needs and inadequacies. I should prefer to see the system turned on its head; that is, the adjudication taking place before the recommendation to the Restart course. That would be more successful, more relevant and more appropriate. I hope that the matter can be reconsidered by the Government because it affects those at the bottom of the heap in our society. Someone has to speak for them and, therefore, I have stayed to speak on their behalf tonight.
7.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the regulations are directed towards those who have been employed for more than two years. In reply to the right reverend Prelate, I stress that the mentally ill and single parents are not required to be available for employment as a condition of entitlement to benefit. Therefore, their failure to attend a course does not subject them to the sanction. They would only volunteer to attend a Restart course so the sanction does not apply.
The regulations amend the Income Support (General) Regulations and the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations to provide that in certain circumstances where a person has been notified of a Restart course and failed to attend or to complete the course he or she will suffer a reduction in their income support applicable amount. Up to now attendance at Restart courses has been voluntary.
It is normally at a Restart interview that an individual will be identified as able to benefit from such a course and invited to attend. Most courses are full-time and last for one week. A typical course will contain 10 to 15 people. I am pleased to note that the right reverend Prelate has taken the trouble to visit courses and bring us the benefit of his experience.
Courses are designed to help those hardest hit by unemployment. They aim to build confidence and restore motivation, identify strengths and skills and

1327
provide guidance to the individual on how to set out a plan of action to get back into work. The expectation is not that a person should leave a course and go straight into employment, although it is encouraging when that happens. Rather it is designed to put a person back on the road to finding work. For many that will mean undergoing a period of training, while others will join a Jobclub. Restart is not seen as training.
Since their introduction in July 1986 Restart courses have helped 190,000 unemployed people and the programme is being expanded and improved. Experience has shown that many claimants start the course with low, even negative expectations but complete it having received practical and realistic help which leaves them with a far more positive outlook. I cannot comment on the survey mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He said that 20 per cent. were dissatisfied with the courses, implying that 80 per cent. were satisfied. However, it is significant that our recent survey found that 90 per cent. of those who completed a course felt more confident about finding work, while 86 per cent. found that it helped them to decide what steps they should take to find work. The Restart programme has a proven record of success.
The Restart courses are professionally run. The course model was designed by psychologists in conjunction with organisations experienced in helping unemployed people. Courses are delivered by tutors according to a detailed contract specification agreed with and monitored by the employment service. Tutors are not employees of the employment service but receive a tutor's guide setting out the standards of service expected of them. A careful selection process is undertaken at the Restart interview stage and only those claimants who are deemed to be likely to benefit from a Restart course will actually be referred to one. The regulations provide that those who have been out of work for at least two years will be subject to the benefit sanction if they fail to attend or to complete the course. After two years a person should have attended at least three Restart interviews at which he or she will have received expert advice and counselling. Where the sanction is applied it is 40 per cent. and in some cases 20 per cent. of personal income support for each week in which there is a failure to attend. Since most Restart courses last for a week the sanction will usually be for one week only. The figure of 40 per cent. is well established within income support. The most that a person can lose from current benefit rates is £14·70 a week. Our aim has been to apply what we believe to be a sufficient sanction for non-attendance on a Restart course without very good reason.
I turn to paragraph 4 of the regulations. I should like to assure the House that we have taken every step to ensure that someone with good grounds for failing to attend the course will be exempted from the sanction. For that reason a number of circumstances have been written into the regulations guaranteeing exemption for those who, for instance, may be ill, caring for a member of the family, encountering severe travelling difficulties or attending an emergency. As
1328
my noble kinsman Lord Russell will know, a domestic emergency is included; that would cover the case mentioned by him. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what would happen if the claimant wished to secure work through a different course. Claimants will be referred to the Restart course on a mandatory basis only if they decline all other offers from the employment service. Therefore, the case that the noble Lord had in mind does not apply.
Those are the circumstances which we believe any good employer would accept as giving an employee good reason for non-attendance at work.
The Government welcome the acceptance by a majority of the Social Security Advisory Committee of the principle of requiring selected longer-term unemployed persons to attend a Restart course. As my noble kinsman said, the committee made three recommendations in its report: first, that no suspension of benefit be made pending an adjudication officer's decision; secondly, that an adjudication officer be allowed discretion, through a good cause provision, to exempt anyone from the sanction; thirdly, that the adjudication officer be given discretion in the fixing of the period during which the sanction is to apply. While we are grateful to the committee for its report, we are unable to accept those recommendations.
Occasions when the benefit is reduced on the basis of a partial suspension of benefit rather than an adjudication officer's decision will be rare. That is because we have built into the regulations a period of time to allow for the adjudication process. There may be odd occasions when it is necessary for an administrative decision to be made partially withholding benefit. That fits in with current practice in other areas of income support administration and is essential in our view to prevent loss to the taxpayer.
Perhaps I may explain again the point about the adjudication officer in a little more detail. Sanction for failure to attend or complete a Restart course has a built-in delay but does not take effect until a fortnight or so after non-attendance. That allows the adjudication officer time to reach a decision as to whether the sanction applies. If the sanction is not applied in the week which the regulations specify, it cannot be applied at all.
As regards the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the physical situation of the adjudication officer, decisions will obviously be made by adjudication officers in the DSS local offices. The right reverend Prelate will know that there are some 400 local offices throughout the country so that there is always one relatively proximate to the individual involved. Therefore, that adjudication officer will have local knowledge.
I have already explained that the regulations cover a wide range of circumstances, which we feel certain will cover those with a genuine reason for not attending or failing to complete a course. We wish to stress the unity of the Restart course. Failure to attend part of the course undermines the value of the entire course. For that reason it is appropriate to maintain

1329
the sanction on a week-by-week basis; in other words, failure to attend in a week or any part of a week brings about a sanction for a week. Income support is a weekly benefit and there would be serious administrative complications in trying to apply sanctions for a period less than a full week.
My noble kinsman pressed me on the question of duration. I repeat that it lasts for one week in each week that there is a failure to attend or complete a Restart course. Courses are usually for one week and cannot be longer than five weeks.
I now turn to a point made by both my noble kinsman and the right reverend Prelate. They both sought for the carrot approach rather than the stick approach. We feel that financial inducement to encourage attendance may lead to unwanted side effects. We do not feel that it would be fair on claimants with more recent work experience who volunteered for a course. Further, some claimants may decline other offers of help from the employment service simply to gain a place on the Restart course.
On the general question of entitlement raised by my noble kinsman, perhaps I may give another example; namely, an unemployed man on income support who, without good cause, neglects to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of employment. The amount of benefit to which he is entitled is reduced. The amount of deduction is 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the personal allowance. I do not believe that it would be fair to the taxpayer or the contributory benefit fund if that were not the case. I have no qualms about that.
The Government are convinced that these regulations will assist in improving the prospects of the long-term unemployed and can only be to their ultimate advantage. I commend them to the House.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. I take up only a few points from it. I recognise that the mentally ill are not required to attend such courses. However, that can only apply to the mentally ill if diagnosed. Not everyone is diagnosed. Even among those who may not be diagnosed there is a wide variation in levels of mental good health, particularly among those who have been subjected to the rather trying experience of two years' unemployment. I accept the truth of what my noble kinsman says but am not entirely sure of its adequacy.
On the subject of duration, I am glad to hear about the restriction to one week. However, I notice the word "usually" for one week only. I am not quite clear as to what is the significance of that word "usually".
Lord Henley: My Lords, usually the course lasts for one week, which is why I said "usually" one week. As I said, the course could last up to five weeks.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is my noble kinsman giving a firm undertaking that the disentitlement lasts no longer than the course for which the person failed to turn up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the disentitlement lasts for each course which he refuses to undertake.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that slightly allays misgivings. I hope that it will not be used in the way in which the French Government used to use conscription. A person was conscripted. If he was a pacifist, he refused and was imprisoned. He was released and then immediately called up again. I hope that no such idea is in the Government's mind.
On the subject of good cause, my noble kinsman listed examples and said "for instance". However, my point about the good cause provision is that it does not allow him to say "for instance". It is those good causes and no others. Perhaps I may take an example in my own memory. One night I was about to take my wife out to dinner and somebody was run over immediately in front of me. I spent one hour and a half with my coat under his head keeping his cut head out of the road and waiting to tell the story to the police. When I got home I convinced my wife that I had good cause for being an hour and a half late. However, I could not have convinced an adjudication officer under these provisions.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman is quite wrong because paragraph 4(h) makes the exception:
"the claimant was providing assistance in response to an emergency".
I should have thought that that was exactly what my noble kinsman would have been doing by putting his coat under the head of the poor chap who had been run over by a car.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have read that provision a good many times. I am glad to hear how my noble kinsman reads it. I must admit that my understanding is that that provision is confined to members of professional rescue services and would have applied only to the ambulance service and police.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are all reasonable people and I hope that this provision will not be interpreted in a strictly legalistic manner, as the courts might do. The words there are perfectly straightforward and do not seem to imply that it must be in response to an official emergency. Paragraph 4(f), which refers to the claimant being involved in the manning or launching of a lifeboat or the performance of a duty as a part-time fireman, is very specific but the case which the noble Earl puts forward is surely one where the claimant is providing assistance in response to an emergency.
Earl Russell: My Lords, what is being illustrated by what is rapidly degenerating into a Punch and Judy show is that, by trying to define good cause by this process of total enumeration, the Government have let themselves in for a good deal of litigation which I fear may be rather expensive. I believe that that is rather unwise of them.
My main anxiety is on the question of disentitlement. I accept what my noble kinsman says regarding the case for a sanction. But I shall ask him one question, and something follows from the answer. Does he accept that £22 a week is a subsistence level? If he says yes, I should like to see that case justified with figures. If he says no, I should like to hear him argue even for unreasonable behaviour that people

1331
should be reduced below subsistence level, because I for my part cannot do it. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8 p.m.]

Planning and Compensation Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 46, leave out ("on the owner and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. They are very modest amendments but quite important when speaking about enforcement. If they were accepted I believe that they would be a positive help. Amendment No. 25 seeks to remove a difficulty frequently encountered in enforcement; namely, that the courts have tended to take a very strict view of the service requirements of an enforcement notice. Even minor errors on the face of a notice have stopped enforcement action. One of the difficulties most frequently encountered is a specification which is properly described as "owner, occupier or interested person". That difficulty is most commonly experienced in leasehold areas such as Greater Manchester where the recipient of a request for information is often confused as to who is the legal owner.
For example, it is quite common for a long leaseholder to describe the freehold owner of the reversion as the owner. It would be helpful therefore if this clause made it clear that it was unnecessary for the owner etc. to be identified in the notice so long as the requirements as to service were satisfied. The notice should not be invalidated by a misdescription of this kind. There is a problem here. It is similar to the situation of the drivers of vehicles when they are stopped. There needs to be a little flexibility and responsibility. These are helpful amendments. They suggest a solution to this little problem. I hope that the amendments are acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It may be helpful if I remind the Committee about the present approach to service of a copy of an enforcement notice on an owner of the land specified in the notice and of the provisions for appeal to the Secretary of State against a notice.
It is a fundamental and long-standing requirement that a copy of an enforcement notice be served on the owner and the occupier of the land. The owner and occupier, assuming that they are not the same person, will almost always be the people with the main interest in the land. Section 174 of the 1990 Act enables,
"A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates",
to appeal against it to the Secretary of State. So that the owners of the land may be alerted to the possible
1332
need to appeal against a notice, we think it would be surprising if the planning authority were not required to serve a copy of the notice on the owner without any qualification about the practicability of service. However, this ground of appeal is subject to the discretionary provisions in Section 176(5) of the 1990 Act (which are not being amended by the Bill) enabling the Secretary of State to disregard the failure to serve a required person with a copy of an enforcement notice if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure. So defective service may not prove fatal to an enforcement notice.
We naturally recognise that planning authorities sometimes have difficulty in establishing the identity and whereabouts of the owner of a parcel of land. This is especially so in cases where the owner is living abroad and appears not to have left the management of the land in an agent's hands. But Section 329 of the Act already provides various ways in which a notice or document may be served on a required person. For example, it may be left at the person's,
"usual or last known place of abode"
or it may be sent by recorded delivery to that address. In the last resort, if the owner's name cannot be ascertained, Section 329(2) of the 1990 Act provides for the notice to be served by affixing it conspicuously to some object on the land. In our view, these provisions achieve a reasonable balance between the need to inform owners that an enforcement notice has been issued and the need to avoid imposing too onerous a service obligation on the planning authority. We would be reluctant to alter this balance without convincing evidence that it is seriously hampering planning authorities in taking enforcement action.
On Amendment No. 26, we appreciate why the noble Baroness would like to include a statutory provision on the lines of the proposed subsection (2A) in Section 173 of the 1990 Act so that a notice could not be invalid because of a failure to serve a copy of it on the owner of the land when all the other service requirements have been satisfied. But we think this would go too far in the direction of relaxing the present requirement. I have already mentioned that it is a ground of appeal to the Secretary of State that a notice was not correctly served. And I understand that when an appeal is made on this ground it is quite usual for the Secretary of State or a planning inspector not to quash an enforcement notice because it is found that the failure to serve a copy on a required person has not substantially prejudiced that person. Again, these provisions achieve a careful balance between opposing interests and we would be reluctant to alter it, especially as the Carnwath Report has not recommended any change in this respect. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for that lengthy reply, read at great speed. There is certainly no doubt that it will have to be read to be understood properly. As usual, the matter is infinitely more complicated than one imagined. I shall discuss the

1333
issue with my noble friend and decide whether it is worth returning at a later stage with another proposal. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments- Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("removing or alleviating any") and insert ("restoring or minimising any loss or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I hope that it will be convenient to the Committee to consider also Amendment No. 27C. Amendment No. 27A appears to be just a drafting amendment but it is one which may be of considerable help in interpreting the Act when it is passed. The amendment seeks to remove the words "removing or alleviating any" and to insert the words, "restoring or minimising any loss or". I am advised by the Law Society of Scotland, whose representatives spend a great deal of time in the courts, that the wording suggested would be easier to interpret than the words "removing or alleviating any". Those words are not easy to understand. The amendment is not changing the sense of the subject at all but: merely making it easier to understand and providing a more straightforward definition. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord did not press very hard for the change in Amendments Nos. 27A and 27C. We think the proposed reference to "restoring or minimising any loss" is no real improvement on the existing words which were introduced in 1981. The expression "removing or alleviating any injury to amenity" is now well known and we see no justification for the proposed change. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed by that answer. The amendment was suggested by the Law Society. I am sure that it did not put the amendment forward lightly. It must have found certair ambiguities when trying to define "removing or alleviating". I did not press the matter hard because I thought the case was obvious. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows whether there has been discussion of the matter before the courts. The amendment is not important enough to press but it seems to my layman's mind a reasonable amendment. Until the Lord Advocate has time to reconsider it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 27B:
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This is a "may" and "shall" amendment. It seeks to render it mandatory on a planning authority to withdraw a notice which serves no useful purpose. There is no reason why an enforcement notice which serves no useful purpose should be withdrawn only at the discretion of the planning authority. It is surely in the interests of clarity for all concerned that planning authorities
1334
should be obliged to withdraw notices that no longer serve the purpose they were intended to. It would be a help to those involved in the planning procedure if the matter were made compulsory. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 27B and 27D pose yet again the arguments about rigidity versus flexibility. We would prefer to leave the planning authority with discretion about whether to withdraw an enforcement notice if it no longer serves any useful purpose. That power can be exercised only after the prior notification process specified in subsection (5). The discretion will enable the planning authority to make its decision in the light of representations to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Can the Minister give us an example of a case where a local planning authority will wish to retain a notice when it serves no useful purpose?
Baroness Blatch: I do not wish to spend my time giving examples. All I am saying is that if there is any occasion when a planning authority can usefully use discretion, it is better to have discretion. Where it is appropriate the planning authority will exercise its power accordingly.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sorry that the noble Baroness is again unable to help us. I cannot understand why there should be discretion. There is either a case or there is not a case for a notice. If there is no case for a notice, it should be withdrawn. If the time has passed for the notice to be valid, it should be withdrawn.
This seems to be the old story of the words being in the Bill and of everyone being afraid of the possible repercussions if they are changed. If notices are no longer valid, why should not the person involved be told that a notice has been withdrawn? I hope that the noble Baroness will feel aggrieved about the matter and will take it back to her department. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Enforcement notices]:
[Amendments Nos. 27C and 27D not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 8, after ("For") insert ("section 174(1) (persons entitled to appeal), and").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 34. I understand that the amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 31 A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
With these amendments we are concerned with the range of people who are entitled to appeal against an enforcement notice. In England at any rate the principal Act gives a right of appeal to a person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates—in other words, a relevant occupier. The amendments

1335
suggest that that is an inadequate definition for a number of reasons. We suggest that the alternative ought to be persons,
"whose interests are materially affected by the notice".
It is important that those who have an interest in the land should have a right to appeal, but under the legislation if people do not have an interest in the land but have a material interest that ought to give them the right to appeal.
For example, there are those who could be prosecuted for failing to comply with a notice. That group of people can go further than those who have an interest in the land. There are those who can be prosecuted when an appeal is withdrawn. There again, they do not have an interest in the land but they could be materially affected and ought to have a right to appeal. Where the interest in the land is with the husband or with one spouse, there could be the other spouse's interest. That would be covered by the phrase "materially affected" but is not covered by the phrase "interest in the land". There is also a whole group of people who occupy land by virtue of an unwritten licence—it is sometimes called a bare licence. They could certainly be affected by the decision on an enforcement notice. They ought to have the right to appeal.
When we are seeking to tidy up the legislation we should make the enforcement procedures as comprehensible as possible. At the same time we ought to see to it that they are fair. The present provision, with the wider implications which it brings of interest in land, is not adequately reflected by the old definition of an interest in the land. I suggest that the wording I have proposed is superior and I hope that the Government will feel sympathetic to it. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: What worries me about the noble Lord's amendment is that it will widen the net to a large extent. The people with the interests to which he is referring cannot be defined. Anyone might claim to have an interest in an enforcement notice. I am interested in the bare licensee—the occupier—to whom the noble Lord referred. The rights of an occupier without a licence in writing have over the years tended to be diminished. The occupier is quite often a caravan occupier. In the past the law was more favourable in this regard than it is now. The Law Society has records of a council member who represented someone who occupied land in this way for 19 years without any licence in writing. In that case it was able to persuade the court to hear him. I daresay that the issue of interest in land came up. It is a difficult concept.
People who have to deal with enforcement notices are not able to deal satisfactorily with the definition of interest in land, which is extremely complicated. We feel that the best way out of this difficulty is to restore the law to what it was at one time in the past and allow an occupier to have the right, notwithstanding that his licence to occupy is not in writing.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment Nos. 28, 30 and 34 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh
1336
of Haringey, would vary the provisions of the present subsection (1) of Section 174 of the 1990 Act and provisions of the Scottish Act which confer the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice on,
"a person having an interest in the land",
to which the notice relates or "a relevant occupier", whether or not a copy of the notice has been served on him. A "relevant occupier" is defined as a person who on the date on which the enforcement notice is issued occupies the related land by virtue of a licence in writing and continues so to occupy the land when the appeal is brought. The amendments would confer the right of appeal on a person on whom a notice is served or any other persons whose interests are "materially affected" by the notice, thus extending the right of appeal, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine said, beyond the scope of the present provisions in Section 174(1).
Because the effect of an enforcement notice will be suspended by submitting a valid appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, it is important that the scope of the right of appeal is carefully defined so as to include anyone who has an interest in the land which he should be able to safeguard by submitting an appeal. We think that the present provisions of Section 174(1) achieve this aim. In particular they have included, since they were last amended in 1984, a person who occupies the land by virtue of a written licence; in other words, someone who is lawfully on the land.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 30 and 34 would be to confer the appeal right on,
"any other persons whose interests are materially affected by a notice".
The expression appears to include people who have no interest in the land; for example, squatters or trespassers. We do not think that this would be acceptable. The lawful owner or occupier of land should not be put at risk that someone who has no right to occupy the land is enabled to appeal against an enforcement notice.
Amendment No. 31A tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine would remove the reference to occupation of the land by virtue of a licence in writing. We think that that would result in the same problems of extending the right of appeal unwarrantably which I have already mentioned. Although I understand that the Law Society has suggested this amendment, I regret that we cannot accept it. Again, it would mean that someone who has no right to be on the land could have the right of appeal. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Coleraine: My noble friend has drawn the distinction between someone who has the right to occupy the land by virtue of a licence in writing and a squatter. However, there is the intermediate stage where someone is occupying the land in question with permission but without any licence in writing. Such a person may not be able to obtain a licence. For example, a person may be trying to obtain a squatter's title, which is not the same as occupying the land as a

1337
squatter. In such circumstances the person will not want to go to the owner and disclose the fact that he needs a licence in writing.
There is a category of occupier where the person is a licensee who has permission but who does not have the relevant licence. Such a person should be protected in the way suggested by the amendment. However, I have heard what my noble friend has said. I shall take her thoughts away with me and consider them with the aid of my advisers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should make clear at once that I do not intend to press these amendments. However, I am quite dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. When she says that my wording could give rights of appeal to squatters, she has a case and it is possible that the "materially affected" wording which I use in the amendments is inadequate. Nevertheless, I gave four specific examples where someone who does not have an interest in the land and who is not a relevant occupier according to the terms of the legislation still has an interest which ought to be protected by a right to appeal.
Perhaps I may repeat those four cases and invite the Minister to respond to them to see whether we receive a more satisfactory answer than we have received thus far. I shall repeat them slowly so that the Minister can obtain advice upon them if necessary. The first example is the case of those who can be prosecuted for failing to comply with an enforcement notice. Surely such people should have a right to appeal. What proposals do the Government have to protect them?
The second case concerns those who would be exposed to prosecution when an appeal by a person qualified to do so is withdrawn at a stage when the period for compliance with the notice has expired. Those people are affected and could be exposed to prosecution even though they do not have an interest in the land.
Thirdly, there is the case where there is a wife's interest which is not an interest in the land but an interest through her husband's interest in the land; or, indeed, it could be a husband's interest through his wife's interest in the land. There again, there could be a material interest which ought to be protected but which does not appear to be protected under the existing wording. Without going into issues such as the position of squatters, I believe that the latter interest ought to be protected. The fourth case is that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I refer to the interest of those with an unwritten licence. In my view the Committee is entitled to specific answers to those four points of which notice was given at least 10 minutes ago.
Baroness Blatch: I think that that was a rather fast 10 minutes; in fact, I do not think that such notice was given 10 minutes ago. However, many interesting points have been raised about specific categories. I believe that some of them would extend the scope wider than the Government would wish but, as with other amendments which we have discussed today, I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said and
1338
consider his remarks between now and the Report stage. Perhaps we could meet during that time to discuss these issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that we could make progress in the matter and that it would be in the interests of better legislation if we did so. I add the issue of criminalisation to the list of those matters which will undoubtedly grow and which I shall want to discuss with Ministers before the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 12, after ("(a)") insert ("where a planning application has been submitted for the development within 28 days of the enforcement notice being served").
The noble Baroness said: Appeals against enforcement notices are frequently used as a means of delay because an appeal immediately suspends enforcement action. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, which supports this amendment, points out that 80 per cent. of enforcement notices are appealed against compared with 32 per cent. in respect of planning applications. Of that 80 per cent., 40 per cent. are ultimately withdrawn. There is obviously a great waste of the time of the local authority and of the Department of the Environment. That fact was confirmed by the Chief Planning Inspector in her report for 1986–87—what a comfort it is to be able to say "her" report rather than "his" report.
In 1987–88 the Department of the Environment estimated that the cost of enforcement appeal work was £2.3 million. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that more decisions are made on the basis of a planning application rather than an enforcement appeal. That must be in the interests of the planning system in the long run; it should also reduce the appeal workload. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: We believe that this proposal would be difficult to operate satisfactorily in practice. The present right of appeal on planning grounds against an enforcement notice has operated satisfactorily since its introduction in 1960. An enforcement notice appeal also includes what is called a "deemed planning application", to which the noble Baroness referred, so that if planning permission is to be granted in the appeal decision it is granted on the basis of a planning application submitted to the Secretary of State instead of being submitted to the planning authority. A fee is payable to the Secretary of State for this application on the same basis as a planning application fee would be payable to the local authority for the development involved in the appeal. These provisions are logical and usually operate satisfactorily.
If an appellant who wishes to submit an appeal on ground (a) also had to submit a planning application to the local authority within the proposed 28-day time limit, it would be most confusing for everyone

1339
concerned with the appeal. Presumably the planning authority would be processing this application at the same time as my department was processing the appeal. The planning authority's decision might be given during the appeal process or it might not. In either event, the appellant would have to deal with both sets of proceedings simultaneously and would presumably want the appeal to be delayed if there was any chance that the planning authority would grant permission for the development. Any such delay is most unsatisfactory in any enforcement appeal. It is much better in practice for the question of a grant of planning permission to be dealt with as part and parcel of the enforcement appeal process, as at present. There is no disadvantage to the planning authority in the present procedure: it is always asked for its counter-representations to any appeal on ground (a) so that its views on whether permission ought to be granted for the development in the notice are taken into account in the appeal decision.
We are remedying that unsatisfactory situation by the provisions which are included in Clause 6(3). Subsection (3) inserts a new subsection (5A) in Section 177 of the 1990 Act. That new subsection (5A) effectively provides that, where an appeal is made on ground (a) and no "deemed planning application" fee is paid by the appellant within a specified period, the appeal on ground (a) and the deemed application are to lapse at the end of that period. We intend that period to be 28 days, coincidentally the same period of time as in the amendment. We believe that that remedy, which was recommended in the Carnwath Report, is a more effective and satisfactory means of dealing with that minor difficulty than the amendment would be. I hope the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I find it difficult to understand why the Minister believes that the present situation is in any way satisfactory. However, I should like to consider what she said about new subsection (5A). I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31A not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 26, at end insert:
("(4C) Where in accordance with subsection (4A) above an order is made that an enforcement notice shall have effect, then if on final determination of the proceedings the enforcement notice is quashed, compensation may be awarded to the appellant for any damage or loss that has been incurred as a result of the said order." ").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment, but I am glad to be able to deal with it shortly at this stage. Under Section 289 of the 1990 Act, either the planning authority or the appellant may appeal on a point of law to the High Court in an enforcement notice appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. The Government's proposal is that where there is such an appeal to the High Court the court should have power to order the enforcement notice to be of no effect, to have effect, or to have
1340
partial effect pending a final determination of the proceedings and any subsequent re-hearing and determination by the Secretary of State.
The amendment proposes that should the High Court make an order that an enforcement notice should take effect, and should the appeal succeed and the enforcement notice be shown to be a nullity, then the appellant who will have been wrongly deprived of the use of his land, and possibly of his livelihood, during what may be a long period, should be compensated for the loss suffered during that period of deprivation. It is a simple matter of fairness. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As some of your Lordships will have noticed, this is a complex situation which needs further examination because it also involves the proposed order-making powers of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It requires consultation with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and so at this stage I am unable to accept Amendment No. 32. I can consult my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and perhaps even my noble friend between now and Report stage and report back.
Lord Coleraine: I should feel much happier were my noble friend able to indicate some general sympathy with what I propose in the amendment. Since I tabled the amendment I have become aware that it is, in a sense, defective in that the present procedures are not that the High Court may order the enforcement notice to take effect, but that, owing to a preceding amendment to the Bill, which will no doubt be passed, the onus is now on the appellant to apply to the High Court for the enforcement notice to be not enforced.
I can understand the reason for that, but it creates a certain hiatus between the date upon which the enforcement notice comes into force under the Government's proposals, and—
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether I may intervene. I may be able to help my noble friend. I have a long explanation in response to the amendment. We have sympathy with the principle being pursued by the amendment. I propose to give my noble friend the full text of what would have been my response to discuss with his advisers. That may save time this evening. There would then be an opportunity to understand the technical difficulties and why we should like to meet the principle that is of concern to my noble friend.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for her offer. I should say just one thing about the position created by the Bill, which is that the provisions of Clause 6(2) are that the enforcement notice is to be of no effect until the appeal is withdrawn or:
"the expiry of the period within which a further appeal may be brought against the decision of the Secretary of State".
I am sure that when my noble friend considers the general tenor of the amendment, she will take account of the fact that as things stand at the moment, as I read the Bill, the appellant will be criminalised between the date upon which the enforcement notice comes into effect under the new clause and the date when the appellant can appeal to the High Court, which will be later, and the date upon which that appeal is heard by

1341
the High Court, which will be considerably later. I am sure that my noble friend will take that point into account when she considers the whole picture. In view of her kind offer which I gratefully accept, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 had been withdrawn from the Marshaled List.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Offence where enforcement notice not complied with]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 11, line 7, leave out second ("the").
The noble Lord said: I am absolutely determined to amend the Bill. If I am not allowed to have the amendment, I promise the Government that at some time which will not be specified my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx will appear on these Benches late in the evening and the Government will be defeated. If the Government will not accept the amendment, that threat will take effect from midnight Greenwich meantime, and at any time thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In the face of that appalling threat, I give the noble Lord the clearest and most unequivocal of undertakings that the correction will be made when the Bill is next printed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall speak to "storm in' Norman" and call off the strike.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, line 15, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a considerable grouping of amendments. Perhaps I can begin with Amendments Nos. 38 and 43 which add the words:
"for east period of 24 hours during which the breach continues",
respectively subsections (2) (b) and (5) (b) of the new Section 179 for which Clause 8 provides. The amendments are similar to Amendment No. 10 which the noble Lord tabled to Clause 1 which provided for the contravention notice offence to apply to each period of 24 hours for which the failure continues.
We accept that the provisions of subsections (2) and (5) of Section 179 as they appear in the Bill are not entirely satisfactory. We consider that the Government's amendments to Clauses 8 and 33—that is Amendments Nos. 36, 42, 47 and 48—will result in fully effective offence provisions, ensuring that any offence under Section 179 may be charged by reference to any day or subsequent period of time. Where the
1342
offence continues, a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction.
Similarly, we think that this approach is preferable to the approach suggested in Amendment No. 37 by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I hope that the Committee will accept that the Government's approach will provide for an effective further offence following a first offence.
Government Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 are to aspects of the enforcement notice offence provisions in the new Section 179. Amendment No. 39 is to subsection (3) which provides a defence for an owner of land who is prosecuted for the offence of being in breach of the requirements of an enforcement notice.
As now drafted, this defence requires the person prosecuted,
"to show that he did everything in his power to secure compliance with the notice".
We have concluded, on further consideration of this defence, that the words "everything in his power" impose too onerous a burden on the prosecuted person. The amendment therefore proposes to omit the words, "in his power" and to insert the words,
"he could be expected to do".
Amendment No. 47A which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has tabled, helpfully makes a parallel provision for the Scottish Clause 33. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that we welcome and accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 40 is to subsection (4) of the new Section 179 which provides for an offence where someone,
"who is the occupier of or has an interest in"
the enforcement notice land carries on any activity which is required by notice to cease. This amendment is to omit the words,
"is the occupier of or has"
and to insert
"has control of or".
As now drafted, the reference in subsection (4) to the occupier of the enforcement notice land is not sufficiently wide in its scope to cater for the situation where someone who is responsible for the management of land—for example, a land agent who does not himself occupy the land—is nevertheless in control of any activity taking place on the land. The words to be inserted are intended to comprise occupiers of land, as distinct from owners, and anyone else who, as a matter of fact, has control over the land.
Amendment No. 41 is also to subsection (4) of the new Section 179 of the 1990 Act. As now drafted, subsection (4) requires that the person concerned,
"must not carry on any activity which is required by the [enforcement] notice to cease".
This wording is not sufficiently wide in its scope to cater for the situation where a person does not carry on the activity himself but causes or permits his agent to do so. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if, in such

1343
circumstances, the planning authority were unable to prosecute that person. This amendment therefore adds the words,
"or cause or permit such an activity to be carried on"
at the end of subsection (4) so that the scope of the offence under this subsection is much more satisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may also have picked up, although he has not put down an amendment, the comparable amendment has not been made to Clause 33. However, I indicate to him that a parallel amendment will be made to Clause 33 at Report.
Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 bear on the amount of the penalty. The first amendment would enable the court to decide that a higher penalty should be imposed for any subsequent offence. We appreciate that the amendments are intended to provide for the penalty to be imposed on a person convicted of an enforcement notice offence to be calculated in such a way that a person convicted loses any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him as a result of the offence. While I understand what is proposed, nevertheless I consider it would be wrong to fetter the court's discretion to impose whatever financial penalty seems appropriate in a particular case.
I appreciate that the Carnwath Report recommended as part of Recommendation No. 13(i) that provision should be made for the prosecution's estimates of any financial benefit to be binding on the court unless disproved. Nevertheless, we do not think that in imposing an appropriate penalty on a convicted person the court should be bound by these provisions. Notwithstanding that, it clearly has wide powers to impose a greater penalty in the event of a second or further conviction. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In my intervention on this group, I wish to speak only to Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46. As will be evident, Amendments Nos. 38 and 43 will fall when the Government's amendments are carried. We are in favour of the government amendments which clear matters up concerning persistent, continuing offences, in just the same way as the earlier amendments did. We are grateful for that.
I am not happy with the replies of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on my Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46. The replies were to a speech that I had not yet made, but that is the way in which the groupings work. The noble and learned Lord rests his case on the need to leave the courts free to impose such penalties as they think fit. The difficulty has been that in the past penalties for infringements of planning law have commonly been too low. They have made planning law a laughing stock and made it possible and justifiable for people to continue to breach planning laws and get away with it financially, even though they may be convicted.
Amendment No. 44 provides that the courts should impose greater penalties on continuing offences. I
1344
should have thought that the Government's amendments already tended in that direction and that the Government would have welcomed this clear indication in primary legislation that continuing offences were worse than an initial offence. They ought to be penalised accordingly.
On the important issue of making the punishment fit the financial benefit of the crime, rather than using the vague words, "have regard to" we should say "include in the amount of the penalty the financial benefit which would accrue". Again, this may be a restriction on the flexibility of the courts but I should have thought it was an entirely desirable restriction working only in the direction of improved enforcement. The Government, in line with their thinking, ought to have welcomed it.
Finally, Amendment No. 46 refers to the way in which the calculation should be made of the financial benefit due which has to be calculated. Here again, surely the onus must be on the applicant, the person who is being fined for non-compliance, to disprove other estimates of his financial benefit, otherwise he will simply put up absurd estimates. A great deal of court and public time and therefore public expense will be wasted on trying to disprove his assertions. It must be for him—or perhaps I should say "it", but I assume that these non-compliers are largely men so I think that we can abandon anti-sexism so far as to say that the bulk of breaches of planning law will be incurred by men. It is for the offender to disprove the case made by independent and objective authority. I hope that the Government will reconsider these three amendments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: May I reply briefly to the noble Lord? If he looks at Amendment No. 46, I think he will appreciate the burden which it might impose upon somebody to bring these proceedings. Someone who understands perfectly well that what is being done in breach of the planning law nevertheless may have little or no idea of what might be the value of the hotel built or the amount of profit which it might be making but that would effectively have to be considered. It is a much better idea to leave the matter in relation to the provision that we have in the Bill, that where there is an amount of a fine to be determined the court shall have regard to the financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue. It seems likely that that allows far greater flexibility than the provision which the noble Lord proposes would allow.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before we leave this matter, I should remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that these are recommendations made by the Carnwath Report. If this is part of the package, may we be given specific reasons why we are departing from the package?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I cannot call Amendment No. 38 as it has been pre-empted.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("in his power") and insert ("he could be expected to do").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("is the occupier of or has") and insert ("has control of or").
Page 11, line 27, at end insert ("or cause or permit such an activity to be carried on").
Page 11, line 31, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 34 and insert:
("(5A) An offence under subsection (2) or (5) may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a persor may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under the subsection in question by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Offence where enforcement notice not complied with]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 39, line 34, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 38.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("in his power") and insert ("he could be expected to do").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not a matter of material concern, but Amendment No. 43 was ruled out by Amendment No. 42; Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 were not. I think that I should be given the chance not to move them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 40 line 4, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 7 and insert:
("(5A) An offence under subsection (2) or (5) of this section may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under the subsection in question by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence. ').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Stop notices]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("four years") and insert ("twelve months").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment I see that I am knocking against the Carnwath package, but on a previous occasion I was asking the Government why they wine departing from it. Clause 9 deals with stop notices and subsection (5), which is to form part of Section 183 of the principal Act, provides that,
1346
"A stop notice shall not prohibit the carrying out of any activity if the activity has been carried out … for a period of more than four years ending with the service of the notice".
I know that the finding of the Carnwath Report was based on the difficulty that some local authorities may have in discovering whether a change of use has taken place. But the view was put by the Law Society in reply to the consultation paper, and I still think that there is some force in it, that if a local authority feels that the unlawful use activity is important enough to have a stop notice imposed upon it, it should be able to impose a stop notice within a year and not wait for the full four years to expire before serving the stop notice. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The period of four years to which the noble Lord objects was a recommendation in the Carnwath Report. In view of the way in which I have quietly set aside an earlier recommendation of the Carnwath Report, that may not be the most compelling of reasons. Nevertheless we think this one is justified as a means of enabling a stop notice to prohibit an activity which is causing serious environmental harm. What is considered especially useful is the case where the use of land intensifies suddenly, perhaps after a considerable period in which it was not harmful.
The period of one year, which the noble Lord prefers, has been shown by the experience of the present provisions which are restricted to one year to be too short in some cases. It is for that reason that the period of time has been lengthened to four years. In these circumstances I consider against the background of the existing provision that what is proposed in the Bill is appropriate.
Lord Coleraine: It seems to me that probably there are cases where four years would be appropriate and there are certainly cases where, as my learned and noble friend has said, the use intensifies and it is only after a year or two that it becomes unacceptable. I shall take this amendment away and consider with my advisers whether there is some way in which we can provide one period for one case and a different period for another. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, leave out lines 36 to 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 53. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has said, we are now on the issue of stop notices, which are the most powerful instruments available to local authorities. They are there to deal with particularly severe cases where enforcement is necessary. They are provided with no grounds for appeal and the fines for breaching a stop notice can be unlimited. There can be no doubt that we and the Government treat stop notices with the utmost seriousness.
So it is very difficult to understand why in this clause, and in new subsection (3)(a) the Government should provide that the date of implementation of a

1347
stop notice must be not earlier than three days after the date when the notice is served. After all, in three days a determined miscreant can do a good deal of damage.
When I referred earlier to the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Hollis that we should look at particular kinds of offence which are irreversible, three days is quite long enough to do irreversible damage which no implementation of a stop notice could ever put right and for which no fine, however unlimited, would be appropriate. It does not have to be enforced in every case; there is no reason why a local authority should make every stop notice enforceable immediately. But we ought to have the possibility that a stop notice which is used only in the last resort can take effect immediately in order, for example, that a building shall not be demolished, trees shall not be cut down or irreparable damage shall not be done to a building or to land by development which can never be undone.
I cannot believe that the Government, having provided for stop notices in this way, having provided that stop notices shall not have the right of appeal, having provided that there shall be unlimited fines, can be serious about stop notices unless they at least make it possible in extreme circumstances for them to have immediate effect. I do not believe that the public would understand what a stop notice means if it says not "stop", but "stop in three days from now".
That cannot be in accordance with a common understanding of what proper enforcement of planning law should constitute. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: On Amendment No. 50, we share the noble Lord's wish to enable the planning authority to bring a stop notice into effect before the three—day waiting period for which the present Section 184(3) of the 1990 Act provides. Where we differ from him is in preferring not to go as far as his amendment proposes by giving the planning authority complete discretion in bringing any stop notice into force on whatever date it wishes.
As the noble Lord appreciates, a stop notice is draconian in its effect and there is no appeal against it to the Secretary of State. If a person contravenes, or causes or permits a contravention of, a stop notice, there is an immediate offence, under Section 187 of the 1990 Act, for which we propose, later in Clause 9, to increase the maximum summary penalty to £20,000. Because of the severity of these provisions, we think there must be safeguards to ensure that a stop notice is only brought into force earlier than three days after it is served on someone when there are special circumstances to justify an earlier date.
The noble Lord stopped short of referring to special reasons. However, we allow for special reasons for specifying an earlier date. The noble Lord laid stress on the test of irreversibility. That seems to me to be just such a special circumstance where it might be appropriate for a local authority to impose a stop notice earlier than the three-day period.
1348
The Government's amendment to section 184(3) of the 1990 Act closely follows Recommendation No. 10(III) in the Carnwath Report, where Mr. Carnwath was clearly concerned that the planning authority should have discretion to bring a stop notice into force immediately, but subject to what he called "special reasons justifying it".
With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will accept that a safeguard on these lines is essential for any recipient of a stop notice. I hope he will appreciate that what concerns him is provided for, but the provision in the Bill is not so draconian as what he would achieve by his amendment.
Amendment No. 53 is similar to previous amendments that the noble Lord tabled in Clauses 1, 2 and 8 to apply the offence provisions of those clauses to each period of 24 hours for which a failure or contravention continues. As with the previous government amendments to the offence provisions in Clauses 1, 2 and 8, we think that government Amendments Nos. 51 and 54 will result in fully effective provisions applying in the case where a second, or subsequent, stop notice offence occurs, so that the recipient can be prosecuted and convicted by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that reply. I recognise that the paragraph which we propose to remove provides for special reasons. However, if one provides for special reasons, one always raises the argument about what constitutes a special reason. If there is no appeal, there could be some difficulty if a local planning authority is conscientious about not using stop notices except in the most extreme circumstances; it may find that all those extreme circumstances give rise to special reasons. What occasions have no special reasons? One could find people applying for judicial review on the grounds that a given local authority has always cited special reasons when applying for stop notices. It is difficult to judge whether a stop notice is being used as a last resort and whether a degree of flexibility is being maintained. I appreciate the arguments that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has advanced. This is not a matter on which I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee. The noble and learned Lord is quite right to say that the provisions of Amendment No. 53 are already dealt with by government amendments on similar lines. I should have pointed that out myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 51, I should remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 53, standing in his name, if Amendment No. 51 is agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 51
Page 13, line 13, leave out from ("offence") to ("References") in line 17 and insert:
("(1A) An offence under this section may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person

1349
may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.
(1B)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In replying to the previous amendments, I have already made some reference to Amendments Nos. 51 and 54. The drafting of these amendments closely follows the approach which the Committee has already considered in corresponding amendments to the offence provisions in Clauses 1, 2, 8, 27, 28 and 33 of the Bill. In each case, the new subsection removes any doubt that the planning authority, when it lays an information in the court for a stop notice offence, may charge that the offence occurred on a particular day, or during any longer period of time during which the person prosecuted has allegedly contravened the prohibition in a stop notice. The new subsection also provides that, following conviction of a first offence, a person may be convicted of a second offence, or subsequent offences, by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Stop notices]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 41, line 17, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 20 and insert:
("() An offence under this section may be charged by reference to any day or longer period of time and a person may be convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section by reference to any period of time following the preceding conviction for such an offence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Certificate of lawful use or development]:
[Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 14, line 8, after ("contravention") insert ("of").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 55, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 66, 67 and 67A to 67F. Amendment No. 64 stands in my name. Amendment No. 67 stands in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, while Amendments Nos. 67A to 67F stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
Amendments Nos. 55, 64 and 67 correct textual errors in the published Bill. Amendment No. 55, in Clause 10, on page 14 at line 8, is to insert the word "of" after "contravention" in that line. No amendment is needed in the corresponding Scottish provision, in Clause 35, which has been printed correctly.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 67 are in Clause 10, on page 15 at line 3; and in Clause 35, on page 43 at line 20. They correct a mistaken reference, in each case, to
1350
the provisions of Section 35(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The correct reference is to Section 36(2)(a).
Amendment No. 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would insert a new subsection, after subsection (3), in new Section 193 of the 1990 Act, which specifies supplementary provisions applicable to the new procedure for applying to the local planning authority for a certificate of lawfulness of existing or proposed use or development, in new Sections 191 and 192.
The purpose of this amendment is to apply the provisions, in Sections 78 and 79 of the 1990 Act, for an appeal to the Secretary of State against a planning authority's decision on a planning application, to the planning authority's determination on the new application for a certificate. We think there is no need for this amendment because provision is made elsewhere in the Bill for the present "established use" certificate appeal procedures (which are in Sections 195 and 196 of the 1990 Act) to be applied, with suitable modifications, to decisions on applications for the new certificate of lawful use or development. This is achieved by the provisions of paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 6 to the Bill. (on page 99, at lines 9 to 26 inclusive). We accept the noble Lord's premise that a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is necessary, and it has been duly provided. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 67A, 67C, 67D and 67E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to Clause 35 seek to remove any doubt about who may make the regulations which will be necessary to operate the new certification procedure and to provide that any regulations made be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, the existing Section 273 of the 1972 Act in Scotland, which is concerned with regulations and orders made under that Act, quite clearly provides that it is the Secretary of State who may make regulations, and the proposed insertions aimed at clarifying this are not necessary.
As to Amendment No. 67B, while the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may feel that Clause 35 as drafted gives planning authorities too free a hand in such matters, I would assure him that the provision is in similar terms to that which it replaces—paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to the 1972 Act—and that there is no evidence to suggest after all this time that the existing arrangements give rise to problems of the kind envisaged by the Law Society of Scotland.
As to the suggestion in Amendment No. 67F of an extra subsection requiring regulations to be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, I can again assure the noble Lord that Section 273 of the 1972 Act provides in subsection (2) for this safeguard, and therefore that this addition is not necessary. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by my explanation and that he will not press these amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Whether I am reassured or not, I am impressed by the reasons given. It appears as though the question of the Secretary of State making regulations is covered well enough. The planning authorities have been in existence for some time under the previous Acts and there has been little friction. As the noble Baroness said, this is something about which the Law Society was concerned. I can hardly believe that it was concerned about something unless it had some experience of it.
While I am willing to withdraw the amendments on this occasion, I am sure that the noble Baroness will realise that I shall need to consult with some members of the Law Society about the full statement she made in her speech. I speak about Amendments Nos. 67A, 67B, and 67C to 67F. Parliamentary procedure is always a hoary old question. We wanted powers in order that the Secretary of State's decisions or proposals could be challenged in the House. However, the matter is too big to go into without having advice from others. In the meantime, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation at this point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord rose rather briskly and I had not said that the noble Baroness had moved at page 14, line 8, after ("contravention") insert ("of").
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the noble Baroness because she has supplied us with a great deal of information. I cannot say that I understand it all. I am sure that she spent the whole of Christmas studying this Bill. It is extremely complicated. It amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which itself was a measure that brought all the previous Acts together. Therefore, I found it complicated.
The noble Baroness sent us a brief on, I think, 6th January. This is where we are changing established use certificates to certificates of lawful use. I think there are going to be people who have an established use certificate who will have, I think, six months or a year to apply for the alternative. It says on the brief, and I think I picked it up in what the noble Baroness said, that in any case someone who wished to appeal from a local planning authority when in fact they were not given the certificate of lawful use could appeal under a different section. They could appeal against it on the amending ground (d) at Section 174(2) of the 1990 Act.
I am not going to complicate matters, but I think the noble Baroness covered the ground about which I was worried. It seemed to me wrong that a right of appeal possibly from a change from this particular form of certificate to another form of certificate might leave some people high and dry, which would not be right. However, I am reassured—and I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness said—that if necessary there can be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. That still holds, and therefore I accept totally what the noble Baroness reported to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 14, line 24, after ("lawfulness") insert ("either").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 60 and 62. These amendments are clustered together. Obviously, the point of Clause 10 is that it retrospectively validates an activity, and we think it would be useful for local authorities to have discretion as to whether they should date it from the date of application or the date of determination in those rare circumstances where there is a change in situation between those two events: for example, the passing of a general development order. This is a modest change but a useful addition to discretion. We hope that the Minister agrees to it. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The effect of these two amendments would be to give the local planning authority the discretion to base their determination on whether to grant one of the new certificates on the circumstances either at the time when the application is made or at the time of their determination. We think these amendments should not be made in subsection (4) because they will introduce too much uncertainty into the decision-making process for the new certificate. The onus of providing the authority with relevant information to justify the grant of a certificate is firmly placed upon the applicant by the present provisions of subsection (4). We think the applicant should have to do this by reference to the status of the land and the activities then taking place on it when he submits his application. If, as these two amendments propose, the planning authority could also consider the matter in relation to the circumstances of the land at the later date of its determination, it would be bound to seek further information from the applicant about any change which might have taken place in the meantime.
We think it is essential to have only one date for this purpose, in the interests of all concerned with the application, and that it should be the application date. If the circumstances on the land change in the meantime, it will be up to the applicant to decide whether he wishes to pursue his application, bearing in mind that he may obtain an outdated certificate if the original application does not reflect the current circumstances.
We think that the same objections apply to Amendment No. 60.
Amendment No. 62 would add the words indicated in the next paragraph—paragraph (d)—of subsection (5) of the new Section 191, so that the amended paragraph would provide as follows:
"(d) specify the date of the application for, or, as the case may be, the determination of the certificate",
The amendment follows from one of the noble Lord's earlier amendments (Amendment No. 57) to subsection (4) of Section 191, where he sought to introduce a reference to the time of the planning

1353
authority's determination of an application for a certificate, as an alternative to the circumstances of the land al the time of the application.
I have explained in response to the earlier amendment why we do not think this alternative date would be satisfactory in practice. It follows that this amendment would also be unsatisfactory for the same reasons.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 14, line 28, after ("shall") insert ("except in the circumstances specified in subsection (4A) below").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to brigade Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 together, and we hope that the Government can accept this pair. Under the old Section 52, now the new Section 106 under the 1990 Act, a local authority and a developer may mutually agree planning gain as part of development, subject to any of the provisions of Clause 12: for example, open space or the provision of a creche. But such planning gain may occasionally be vitiated by an adjacent building, or adjacent activity, of a third party which had not hitherto been brought within the planning process, possibly because it was literally invisible; it might be behind a screening wall. That activity might be time-expired and that third party might be seeking a lawful use certificate which, if it were granted, would nullify the planning gain. These two amendments will protect the local authority in that situation so that the greater public interest—that is, the planning gain—is not undermined by a lawful use certificate of an adjacent third party. Therefore, we hope that the Minister can give local authorities that additional protection. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Before I respond to this amendment, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Baroness is including Amendment No. 63 in the group of amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am very happy to do so. That amendment would offer compensation where the established or lawful use is other than on grounds of being time-expired.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. Amendment No. 61, which goes with Amendment No. 59 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, an amendment to subsection (4), would insert a new subsection (4A) in Section 191 of the 1990 Act. The amendment would create an exception to the requirement for the planning authority to issue a lawful development certificate where the circumstances would otherwise justify it. The planning authority would be enabled, by virtue of this new subsection (4A) to refuse the certificate under
1354
subsection (4) where it is or would be in breach of any undertaking or other non-contractual undertaking falling within Section 106 of the 1990 Act.
We understand the reasons why the noble Lord tabled the amendment. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if the grant of a lawful development certificate could override the terms of an agreement or undertaking under Section 106 of the 1990 Act. If that were so, it would certainly be desirable to remedy the problem. But there is no suggestion in the new Section 191 that that might happen. The two procedures will operate quite separately.
If a certificate is granted for an activity which is prevented or restricted by an agreement under Section 106, the grant of that certificate will not authorise the prevented or restricted activity and the agreement will remain enforceable between the parties to it regardless of the existence of a new certificate. If the agreement under Section 106 is between the planning authority and another party who has not been concerned with the application for a certificate under Section 191, the authority may still enforce the terms of that agreement against the other party or against the successors in title to that other party.
For those reasons, we see no need to insert the proposed subsection (4A) in the new Section 191. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the matter further.
Turning to Amendment No. 63, this amendment is directly consequential on Amendment No. 61. I have explained the reasons why we cannot accept Amendment No. 61. It follows that if the proposed new subsection (4A) is not inserted in new Section 191, new subsections (5A) and (5B), would be inappropriate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. The legal advice that she is offering to the House differs from the legal advice that we have received in terms of whether, for example, a Section 106 agreement between two parties can or cannot be overridden by a lawful use certificate with a third party.
If the legal advice which the Minister has had is correct, that meets our problem. However, we have received different advice. Perhaps this matter can be considered further between now and Report stage. If in any sense the advice that she has received needs to be corrected, then I am sure that we both recognise that we have a problem on our hands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 15, line 3, leave out ("35") and insert ("36").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 15, line 40, at end insert:
("(1A) An application for a certificate under section 191 or 192 of this Act shall be accompanied by such fee as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe, after consultation with such persons representative of local planning authorities as appear to it to be concerned.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to discover how serious the Government are about their intention to ensure that fees for planning work should gradually rise to meet the costs of the planning service.
Within the past few weeks this Chamber has debated orders which provide for a substantial increase in fees—a 20 per cent. increase in some planning fees, I believe. In moving those orders, the Minister said that the Government looked forward to a time when the cost of the planning service would very largely be covered by fees, although that time was some way off.
It does not appear to be the case that there is adequate provision for fees for applications for certificates of lawful use and lawful development under Sections 191 or 192 of the principal Act. With this amendment we seek to find out the Government's intentions. Clearly applications for certificates of lawful use and development cost local planning authorities considerable amounts of money. If the Government are serious about covering costs with fees, surely they ought to provide for fees for those applications as well as for other types of planning applications. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am horrified by the proposal and totally opposed to the introduction of planning fees. It is wrong to say that people with an existing use certificate, through no fault of their own and as a result of legislation passed through this House, must now obtain a lawful use certificate and pay a fee for doing so. That is totally wrong, and I hope that the Government are not intending to impose a fee upon them.
Baroness Blatch: We accept that planning authorities should be enabled to charge a fee for the administrative cost involved in dealing with applications for the new certificates. On 8th January my department circulated a consultation paper canvassing proposals about how the new certificates would be brought into operation if Clause 10 were enacted. The consultation paper has been sent to all the associations representing local authorities, the professional and amenity bodies interested in planning control and many other bodies. We shall consider their responses most carefully. I have also sent a copy of the consultation paper to the noble Lord and other Members participating in this debate. A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House. I shall be glad to consider any comments made by Members of the Committee.
One of the proposals in the consultation paper is for a system of charges which applicants for a certificate would have to pay at the time that they made their application to the planning authority. We propose that the charges should be set at a level intended to cover the overall administrative cost of the service. We welcome comments on this proposal. We do not believe that an additional regulation-making power is needed for this purpose because there is already a suitable power in Section 303 of the 1990 Act. Section 303(1) enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make such provision as he thinks fit for
1356
a payment of a fee of the prescribed amount to a local planning authority in respect of an application to them under the planning Acts for any permission, consent, approval, determination or certificate. This power is currently used to prescribe planning application fees. We appreciate that the noble Lord might prefer to see a statutory obligation to consult local planning authorities' representatives included in the new Section 193 but we do not think that this is essential. My department is careful to consult not just the local authorities' associations but a wide range of other interested organisations about the new planning and enforcement proposals. There is no need for a statutory obligation in this matter. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am disappointed with that response. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants to carry out his suggestion. He appears to be going into market forces. Let us suppose that I have had the use of some land since before 1964 and I have an existing use certificate. If the Government introduced legislation under the Bill obliging me now to obtain a lawful use certificate in order to carry on what I have been doing for the past 30 years, it cannot be right or equitable to impose a fee for that. I realise that the matter has been submitted for consultation; but that imposition would be totally wrong and the Committee should not accept it.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that Members of the Committee will respond and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will wish to do so vigorously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I hope that he understands that I sought to obtain a clearer idea of the Government's intentions rather than to pursue an argument in favour of higher fees. I do not and never have supported the view that planning fees should cover all the costs of a planning service. However, that was the Government's view and there appeared to be a gap in their provisions about which I sought to find out more.
I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the consultation document. This is a curious way of producing legislation. Consultation documents have been issued between Second Reading and the Committee stage with such timing that the responses cannot be considered by Parliament. Instead, the Minister merely gives a holding answer by saying that although the Bill is before Parliament, the Government do not propose to take a view on the matter until they have the results of the consultation documents. Surely a consultation document should go out and the consultation period should be completed before the Bill is published. The results should be available to Parliament when it is making up its mind as to whether the Government's proposals are correct. As I said earlier, it is not a question of this Bill being brought forward in a great hurry. It has been in preparation for nearly two years. There is no good reason why that consultation should not have taken place and the results made available in time for the matter to be considered in Committee with the advantage of the full responses to the consultation.

1357
Although we are grateful for being given copies of the consultation document, I suggest that that is not adequate for those concerned with planning laws—local authority associations, professionals and representatives of individuals affected by planning law. It is the job of Members of Parliament and noble Lords to look at amendments and legislation which have been prepared with the best available information from those expert in the field as to what are the likely effects.
The result of this curious timing presented to us is that we do not have an opportunity to consider adequately what should be the fees. I believe that that is a quite unsatisfactory response to a probing amendment and we may well have to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Certificate of lawful use or development]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 43, line 20, leave out ("35") and insert ("36").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 67A to 67F not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Rights of entry
(" .—(1) After section 91 of the 1972 Act there is inserted
"Rights of entry for enforcement purposes Right to enter without warrant.
91A.—(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by a planning authority may at any reasonable hour enter any land—

(a) to ascertain whether there is or has been any breach of planning control on the land;

(b) to determine whether any of the powers conferred on a planning authority by sections 84 to 91 or 100 of this Act should be exercised;

(c) to determine how any such power should be exercised;

(d) to ascertain whether there has been compliance with any requirement imposed as a result of any such power having been exercised,

if there are reasonable grounds for entering the land then for the purpose in question.
(2) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable hour enter any la ad to determine whether an enforcement notice should be issued in respect of the land.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not so authorise any person without consulting the planning authority.
(4) Admission to any building used as a dwelling-house shall not be demanded as of right by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the building.
Right to enter under warrant.
91B.—(1) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace on information on oath—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for entering any land for any of the purposes mentioned in section 91A(1) or (2) of this Act; and

(b) that—

(i) admission to the land has been refused, or a refusal is reasonably apprehended; or

(ii) the case is one of urgency,

the justice may issue a warrant authorising any person duly authorised in writing to enter the land.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) (i) of this section admission to land shall be regarded as having been refused if no reply is received to a request for admission within a reasonable period.
(3) A warrant authorises entry on one occasion only and that entry must be—

(a) within one month from the date of the issue of the warrant; and

(b) at a reasonable hour, unless the case is one of urgency.

Rights of entry: supplementary provisions.
91C.—(1) A person authorised to enter any land in pursuance of a right of entry conferred under or by virtue of section 91A or 91B of this Act (referred to in this section as "a right of entry"—

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering;

(b) may take with him such other persons as may be necessary; and

(c) on leaving the land shall, if the owner or occupier is not then present, leave it as effectively secured against trespassers as he found it.

(2) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of a right of entry shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3) If any land is damaged in the exercise of a right of entry, compensation in respect of that damage may be recovered by any person interested in the land from the person who gave the written authority for the entry.
(4) If any person who enters any land, in exercise of a right of entry, discloses to any person any information obtained by him while on the land as to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the disclosure is made by a person in the course of performing his duty in connection with the purpose for which he was authorised to enter the land.
(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (4) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both."").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment inserts a new clause for Scotland which parallels the provisions in Clause 11 for England and Wales. It replaces the existing Clause 36 of the Bill which in due course will be withdrawn. It is intended to simplify the drafting of the right of entry provisions.
The clause gives effect to recommendation No. 1 in the Carnwath Report; namely, that what is now Section 265 of the 1972 Act should be amended to allow entry on any land at all reasonable hours on production of appropriate authority for the purpose of investigating any alleged breach on that land or on

1359
immediately adjoining land for determining the nature of any remedial action or generally for the purpose of the exercise of the authority's enforcement functions.
We believe that this clause provides adequate powers to enable authorities to discharge their enforcement functions efficiently on the basis of reliable information. It also —and this is very important—provides adequate and necessary safeguards for the citizen who rightly resents bureaucratic snooping into his private life.
I shall speak also to Amendment No. 132, which makes changes to the Bill that are consequential upon the withdrawal of Clause 36 and the insertion of the new clause to which I have just made reference.
A fairly substantial number of amendments have been grouped together and perhaps I could turn to Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. They make minor but significant changes which I regret we cannot accept. Nobody should have to submit to intrusion on his or his family's privacy without adequate safeguards. If we accepted Amendment No. 69, that would limit those safeguards to the situation where no other use, apart from dwelling-house use, is taking place in the building.
We take the view that the safeguards should apply equally when part of a building is being used as a dwelling house. We do not consider that in practice that will be a serious obstacle to planning authorities in gaining entry to buildings for enforcement purposes even where, for example, there is a flat in an office block which is the only dwelling in use.
While we appreciate that Amendment No. 70 appears to assume that there would be a person in the building who had been authorised by the occupier to allow an authorised officer to enter it for enforcement purposes, I am bound to say that I do not understand who is likely to be such an authorised person. In any event, I consider that it should always be to the occupier of the building that the notice of intended entry should be given and not just any authorised person.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 71. We are reluctant to omit the words suggested by the amendment at subsection 196B, paragraph 9(b) (ii),
"the case is one of urgency".
The Carnworth Report recommended that the rights of entry provisions should be modelled on those provisions in Section 95 of the Building Act 1984. Section 95(4) of that Act includes a specific reference to the situation where the case is one of urgency. In that sense the new power is already precedented by the Act to which Mr. Carnworth referred. It will have been used by local authorities for the purposes of the 1984 Act. Accordingly it would seem apt to retain that provision.
I turn to Amendment No. 72, which I assume my noble friend Lord Stanley will be moving. That would also modify the right of entry on to land for enforcement purposes. It would require an authorised person, in the case of land which is used for
1360
agricultural purposes, to consult the Ministry of Agriculture before entering any such land to ascertain whether any order is in force under either the Animal Health Act 1981 or the Plant Health Act 1967 in respect of that land.
I entirely accept that the farming community and the NFU are rightly concerned to ensure that everything possible is done to minimise the risk of spreading communicable disease to animals or plants by anyone who is authorised to enter agricultural land for enforcement purposes. Amendment No. 72 has been carefully considered. Our conclusion is that it is not necessary. We can achieve my noble friend's laudable purpose by an alternative means.
If the present provisions of Clause 11 are enacted, we intend to issue a circular to all planning authorities giving guidance about how right of entry should be exercised when any agricultural land is involved. We shall advise authorities that before any authorised person intends to enter agricultural land they should consult the divisional officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the comparable officer in Scotland, regarding whether any restrictions relating to animal or plant health are in force. Planning authorities will be advised that any such restrictions must be complied with at all times, and that any failure to observe them may result in serious damage to livestock or crops. We believe that that administrative procedure will provide the very safeguard that my noble friend rightly seeks.
His second amendment would add the words "or property" after "land" in the first line of paragraph (c) of subsection 196C. Again I sympathise with my noble friend's intentions. However, our conclusion is that this amendment too is unnecessary. The need for the provision of compensation arises because, where damage is caused in the proper exercise of a statutory power, a claim for damages in deed or tort could be defeated by the defence of the statutory authority. While damage might be caused to land which includes buildings in the proper exercise of a right of entry, we believe it improbable that damage to other property, would be so caused. Thus there is a need for a statutory provision for compensation for damage to land when a claim in common law might be defeated by a defence of statutory authority. In the case of damage to other property where a claim at common law could be expected to succeed, we believe that there is no need.
While I understand my noble friend's concern in tabling these amendments, I hope, in view of what I have indicated, that in due course he will consider that there is no need to press them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In dealing with my Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has sought to suggest that we are proposing to extend the right of entry in an unacceptable way which would be in conflict with civil liberties. He should refer to the Carnwath Report before suggesting that. He would then realise how modest and sensible our amendments are. In his report Mr. Carnwath said that local authorities should be given rights of access to,

1361
"any land, at all reasonable hours on production of appropriate authority, for the purposes of investigating any alleged breach on that land or on immediately adjoining land, for determining the nature of any remedial action, or generally for the purpose of the exercise of the authority's enforcement functions".
That is a very wide-ranging right of entry. I am not surprised that the Government shied away from implementing that in full and in the words used by Mr. Carnwath. We are not suggesting that the Government should. We are not suggesting that there should be a breach of civil liberties, which we believe is implied in Mr. Carnwath's suggestions.
However, there is the possibility, even for dwelling houses, of an inadequate right of entry. Our very modest Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 seek to improve the provision. Amendment No. 69 introduces the word "solely" after the word "used" in line 35. The purpose of that is to deal with the cases not so much where there is a small non-residential use in a dwelling house, but largely where there is a small dwelling use in a commercial or industrial property. There may be a caretaker's flat in an industrial building with an unauthorised use. There may be a minor dwelling application to a building which is far more importantly something else.
A caretaker's flat in an industrial unit should not make it possible for the right of entry to be restricted after 24 hours. We entirely agree with and support the 24-hour restriction for genuine residential use. We do not think that it should be extended to these mixed uses. If the Government intend to resist that amendment, I hope that, in replying, they will recognise that it is incumbent on them to find a way of dealing with minor residential use in basically non-residential property.
Amendment No. 70 deals with the question of an authorised person as opposed to an occupier. That is where my example of a mixed development, say, of a residential flat or an industrial unit comes into play. One could well have the need to gain access through a security guard who would not be an occupier but an authorised person. I suggest to the Government that that another case which they will have to think about again. They will have to consider whether the provisions of Clause 11, as drafted at present, are adequate for the purpose.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 71, which deals with the requirement for showing urgency to obtain a justice of the peace warrant. In the past, through interpretation of the law, the urgency provision has been very severely restricted by reasonable grounds. The justices of the peace have been very reluctant to grant warrants on the basis of urgency when objectively, I suggest, planning authorities have good reason to know that unauthorised use is continuing and could cause irreversible damage. These are modest amendments and they do not go anything like so far as, for example, the powers of environmental health officers. I am not suggesting that they should. I suggest that the provisions in the clause as presently drafted are inadequate and that the Government
1362
should think again. I particularly put to the noble Lord the Lord Advocate the cases of the mixed uses and of the security guards.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank my noble and learned friend for his comments on my amendments. As concerns Amendment No. 72, I am as reasonably happy as any reasonable farmer at 9.45 p.m. My noble and learned friend has the right message there. I am only slightly worried about what will happen if this does not take place. However, that is a technical point.
I am not so sure about my noble and learned friend's answer to my Amendment No. 73. I am not a lawyer and I do not really understand tort. It is not a minor point. Many local planning authority officers are not agriculturally minded and are quite unaware of the damage they can cause, particularly to livestock if they are kept intensively, and indeed to young plants and seeds. I wonder whether it might be right to issue the same kind of guidance to local planning authority officers as my noble and learned friend suggested in his reply to Amendment No. 72.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says about the small flat in a large building. However, his amendment would mean that someone who lived in a flat above a corner shop would similarly be deprived of the 24 hours' notice protection. I should be happy to look at the point again but I have considerable difficulty in seeing how the provision could be drafted so as not to take away the protection of the 24 hours' notice of someone who lives over the corner shop in contradistinction to someone who might occupy the caretaker's flat in what is otherwise a large building. I give no undertaking or make no promise but I shall look at the matter.
I have difficulty in understanding what an authorised person is. It would have to be someone who is authorised. I find it difficult to believe that even a security guard would be advised that he is authorised to receive notice on behalf of his employer or the occupier from the local planning authority. I do not see what "authorisation" means in this context other than a specific authorisation to receive that item of information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord is compounding my fears. If a notice can be avoided simply by the occupier not being present and having a security guard or a caretaker who is not necessarily in occupation, the clause as drafted is even weaker than I thought it was. If his response is to say that it is wrong to have the person there with authority to control exit from or entrance to the building and that he cannot be served with the notice or cannot be forced to give access, the provisions in Clause 11 seem easy to get round. I am really worried by what the noble and learned Lord is now saying.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I suggest that the noble Lord reads what I say and considers it carefully. The security guard would have to be given a specific authorisation. I find it difficult to believe that someone employing a caretaker or concierge would say, "By the

1363
way, if someone comes from the local authority and seeks to give you notice, you are authorised to accept it". The matter of authorisation has to be specific. The noble Lord may shake his head but one cannot conjure up an authorisation from nowhere. The obvious person to whom it should be given in relation to the dwelling house is the occupier.
I invite my noble friend Lord Stanley to consider what I had to say in relation to property. Where there is a right of entry onto land, it may be that where damage is caused there would be the opportunity to plead statutory authority. However, I do not consider that such a defence or line would be open if property rather than the land itself were damaged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Rights of entry for enforcement purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Meaning of "development"
. After section 55(3) (b) of the principal Act (meaning of "development" and "new development") there is inserted—
"(c) The use of land for the purposes of breeding or rearing fish or shellfish and the use for those purposes of any building occupied together with land so used is not development for the purposes of agriculture".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to bring under planning control fish farming activities which are currently defined as "permitted developments". But in a broader sense it is a probing amendment designed to elicit from the Government their policy on the relationship of planning with fish farming which is at present in a considerable muddle. Certainly the Agriculture Select Committee in another place in its report on fish farming last year said that this relationship needed to be clarified. I believe that to be right.
Perhaps I may deal with the three different kinds of fish farms in succession and mention the problems which I believe need to be solved. First, there are the marine fish farms in our coastal waters and estuaries. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that these are outside the jurisdiction of planning authorities. They come under the Crown Estate Commissioners. However, the commissioners have two conflicting interests. In a sense they are both gamekeepers and poachers. Members of the Committee may remember that that was the fundamental reason put forward by the Government for splitting the water authorities and the NRA. It was said that the old water authorities were in fact both gamekeepers and poachers. The same situation applies to the Crown Estate Commissioners. They have a responsibility to control the coastal waters, but they also have to maximise development and the income which they receive from licences. Therefore, they are naturally biased in favour of development. It seems to me that another authority should authorise fish farms in coastal waters.
There is another problem at present in Scotland where there are fish farms at sea. For example, a planning authority may find that the road leading to a fish farm has become damaged because of use by heavy lorries and that it needs to be repaired. However, no provision has been made for such reparation. The authority is responsible for the repair of such damage, but it has no say in the siting or licensing of the fish farm which is causing the problem.
In my view it would be most desirable that these marine fish farms should be brought under the ordinary planning law and the control of local authorities. The proposal that the control of marine fish farming should be transferred from the Crown Estate Commissioners to local planning authorities has, I am advised, the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and of the Atlantic Salmon Trust.
I should point out that fish farms of all kinds sometimes give rise to serious landscape and environmental problems. That fact was pointed out in the evidence from the NCC and the Countryside Commission for Scotland to the Agriculture Select Committee of another place. They expressed considerable anxiety over the lack of attention paid to conservation and landscape objectives in fish farm applications by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
So much for marine fish farms, I should now like to say a word about those on land. In its contribution to the White Paper the NRA said:
"Fish farms, too, have given rise to concerns about water quality. Many of these could be reduced if such developments were brought into the planning control framework. It would also be of considerable assistance if planning applications were made concurrent with applications for water abstraction and discharge consent, so that a full picture of the environmental consequences of such developments could be assessed simultaneously".
That is solid good sense; but the issue of fish farms was not specifically addressed in the White Paper.
In its submission to the Agriculture Select Committee of another place, the NRA pointed out that there were clear advantages to fish farmers and other river users if the NRA were able to comment at the planning stage of fish farm development. It said:
"There is no current requirement for this nor for NRA advice to be acted upon… The requirements or otherwise for fish farm units to be the subject of planning control have been and continue to be ambiguous. The NFU, in a fact sheet on the subject, suggest most fish farming structures require planning permission although they refer to certain 'permitted development rights'. In practice, because fish farming has often been deemed 'agricultural', developments may escape planning control. These include large scale (up to 500 tonne/annum) fish cage production units.
What the NRA said should be taken seriously. I hope that the Government will be able to modify matters to meet the valid points it puts forward.
The third category of course is fish farms in inland waters such as lakes. There is great uncertainty as to whether such structures constitute development and so come under the planning mechanism. I understand that the Association of County Councils has addressed itself to two of those problems: to the question of marine fish farms, where it suggests that

1365
planning controls should extend to one mile offshore for all purposes, not merely for fish farms. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may move an amendment later in that context. The association also suggested that there should be an amendment after Clause 18 to make it clear that fish farms in inland waters constitute development. Again, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may be moving such an amendment.
The matter needs clearing up. In view of the impact that fish farms have on the environment generally, it is important that all categories should be brought under the planning mechanism. I move the amendment jointly with the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has asked me to say that unfortunately because of the late hour she has had to leave, but that had she been here she would have spoken because she feels strongly about the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the amendment. I shall ask him three brief questions. First, I cannot see how a local planning authority will control the effluent from a fish farm any better than the NRA. Moreover, because of the controls on fish farms now, it is doubtful that any new ones will be built. Finally, the buildings for fish farms are extremely small and normally underground. Perhaps the noble Lord will deal with that when he replies.
10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I confirm that it is my intention to move two amendments later in the Bill at the request of the Association of County Councils whose brief I have here. Apparently it does not think that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, should be supported. I do not understand the reasons—no doubt it will tell me later—because the amendment seems to be totally on a par with what I have in mind.
One of my first adjournment debates in the other place raised the question of fish farming because I was very much in favour of the idea. It seemed to me natural that we should do all we could in food production to make use of an obvious source which is successful particularly in the Far East. It is now big business. In Scotland it is a major industry. But it causes problems with effluent, as we know. There are also problems with the Crown Estate Commissioners, who not only grant or give the consent but who control the situation. I know from meetings I have had with the NCC in its existing state and with people involved in environmental matters that everyone feels the problem should be faced by the Government and action taken. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has a close relationship with the NRA, and, as he said, it causes the NRA problems.
I always hesitate to speak on anything which refers more to Scotland than anywhere else, but that is where this business is. My Scottish colleagues do not necessarily agree with all I say on the subject, but I think there is no question that in the Bill we ought to
1366
make some advance on the matter. It seems to be an opportunity to obtain some control and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, my noble friend Lady David would have wished to be here to support the amendment. She is particularly concerned with coastal fish farms, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said, through an extraordinary historical anomaly are under the control of the Crown Estate Commissioner. They are supposed to work closely with the Nature Conservancy Council in the control of fish farms and a special advisory committee has been set up to advise them. However, I am told that the Crown Estate Commissioners frequently completely ignore the advice of that committee and go against the opinions of the Nature Conservancy Council.
It can only be an historical accident; there can be no rational justification for fish farms being under the control of the Crown Estate Commissioners. If we started from scratch, we should certainly not do it that way. We should put them under the control of the relevant local authorities. As I understand it, both the Association of County Councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have indicated their willingness to take on these responsibilities. Thus I can see no difficulty in removing the anomaly or in the Government accepting the amendment and doing what ought to have been done many years ago.
Lord Moran: With the Committee's permission, perhaps I may briefly answer the two questions put to me, the first by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I do not believe there is any conflict between the interests of the local authorities and the NRA. The point that the NRA made is that at the moment there is no requirement for it to be consulted at the planning stage. If it was, when it discusses discharges and effluent it could often propose a sensible solution that would not damage the rivers and would be in the interests of the fish farmer concerned. That would be a great advance.
As concerns the Association of County Councils, like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I was mystified when I received its brief that it did not support my amendment. However, the brief continued with four admirable paragraphs with which I totally agreed. I pointed out that I agreed with every word and therefore I did not see why it should not support me. However, I should pursue that anomaly with the association.
Viscount Astor: As noble Lords know, last year the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee made an in-depth study of fish farming in the United Kingdom. The point about the noble Lord's amendment is that it would alter the long-standing definition of "agriculture". The Select Committee recommended that in England and Wales existing permitted development rights for fish farming operations should be removed from national parks, but not elsewhere. It expressed the view that buildings associated with fish farming should be treated in the same way as buildings associated with other agricultural users.

1367
The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee and will amend Part VI of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1980 so that operations associated with fish farming in national parks in England will require specific planning permission before they can take place. No convincing case has been made for changes in England and Wales outside national parks. There are no permitted development rights for fish farming in Scotland. The fish farming industry in England and Wales is much smaller and the Agriculture Select Committee noted that there has been little controversial development.
If I may turn to other matters that the noble Lord raised, there was the point about the NRA. It has some power over fish farms, but obviously not planning power, because fish farms are subject to the control provisions of the Water Act 1989, and it is an offence to discharge any polluting matter into inland ground estuarial or coastal waters without authorisation. The discharge of fish farm effluent into these waters must be consented to by the NRA, which has wide powers to attach appropriate conditions to consents for the purpose of protecting the quality of the receiving waters. Fish farms also obtain an abstraction licence from the NRA under the Water Resources Act 1963 for the abstraction of more than 20 cubic metres of water per day.
Going back to some of the other points that the noble Lord raised with regard to marine development and fish farms, the planning control generally ends at the low water mark. The important point about the Crown Estate Commissioners is that they are answerable to ministers, they have access to independent and expert advice and they have a fairly large department now, which I have been to see. I believe that there are over 200 people in Edinburgh now. They also have an advisory committee. The Government will keep the activities and procedures of the advisory committee under review to ensure its effectiveness. When it comes to granting licences, it consults local opinion, local landlords and other local interested bodies.
The important point is that local authorities do not have special expertise about conditions at sea. They have no expertise at all in this matter. This is very different from development on land. Existing consultation arrangements enable the Crown Estates Commissioners to take proper account of environmental considerations. I believe that I have answered most of the noble Lord's points.
Lord Ross of Newport: There is a desperate need for people on this side of the Committee to get together before Report stage, because this is a clean Bill for the Crown Estate Commissioners. They are in the same position as local authorities, giving themselves planning consent for land and then selling it for a large amount of money. I have to tell noble Lords that in the NGOs the role of the Crown Estate Commissioners, particularly in Scotland, is not at all highly regarded. People do not believe that they are
1368
doing their job at all properly, and I do not think it is right that they should be both the seller and the buyer in the same field. The positions ought to be separated.
I have also been told—I am not a fisherman, but the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is—that the Test, which has a lot of trout farms on it, now has very few wild trout. I do not know whether that is right, but the river has certainly been polluted. We must look at the situation in greater detail if we mean what we say about Her Majesty's Inspector of Pollution and the NRA. I agree that they may have some rights. However, the procedure will have to be toughened up considerably.
It would be much better to follow the planning application procedure before someone starts such a project, rather than risk ruining such a project when it is already operating. If someone wishes to set up a fish farm, it would be much better for him to follow the proper procedures rather than be penalised after he has raised the finance and invested capital in the project. I believe the present procedure goes about things in the wrong way. I am sure we shall have to return to this measure later in the Bill.
Lord Moran: I, too, think that we shall have to give more thought to this matter and probably return to it at a later stage. I was disappointed in the Minister's remarks as I think that changes are urgently required. The Minister referred to planning controls being extended only to fish farming in the national parks. The National Rivers Authority was disappointed that the Government, in their response to the report of the Agriculture Committee of another place in December, agreed with the committee that the planning controls should operate only in the national parks. I do not believe that there are many fish farms in national parks. The NRA would certainly like the controls to operate nationally. Having said that, I do not wish to press the amendment at this late hour. I hope that the Government will give more thought to the matter between now and Report, as we certainly shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 74A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Agricultural and forestry buildings
.—After section 59(3) of the principal Act (development orders) there is inserted—
"(4) No development order may grant planning permission for the erection of a building or the formation of a private way for the purposes of agriculture or forestry." ").
The noble Lord said: I understand that Amendment No. 74A is to be discussed with Amendment No. 109. The latter amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. Amendment No. 74A places a toe, and only a toe, into the very deep water of the extension of planning controls to agriculture and forestry. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is still in the Committee. I am sure that he will seek to bite that toe, even if he cannot reach any larger part of my anatomy.
I wish to start by saying that I can well anticipate what the Government will say on the issue of primary

1369
legislation and general development orders. I am aware that for many years government have taken the view that the extent of the coverage of general development orders should not be a matter for primary legislation. They believe there ought to be the flexibility for government to make changes by amendments to general development orders. Even if the cause is entirely worthy—and I am not convinced that the Government will think this cause is entirely worthy—they believe it should not be included in primary legislation.
I disagree totally with that view. I believe that the issue of what should be covered by planning legislation is a matter for primary legislation, if anything is. It should be a matter for us in Parliament to consider. We should be concerned with the fact that a large part of land in this country outside urban areas is farmland or forestry land. It has been tacitly excluded from planning controls by executive action in general development orders.
I shall not venture into the territory of agricultural or forestry operations. However, I believe that there is a particular abuse which is extremely widespread. It concerns the use of a general development order to allow farm buildings to be constructed which would never be allowed to be constructed under any rational system of planning control. In many cases those buildings are not farm buildings. We have all seen post-modernist barns, cowsheds with pediments, turkey sheds with double glazing and elaborate drives with crazy paving leading up to so-called farm buildings. Such things can be seen all over the country and it is totally impossible for planning authorities to challenge the claim that such buildings are farm buildings even though it is obvious to the naked eye that if there is a farm use at all of such buildings it is only for a temporary period. It is obvious that such a ploy is a way of evading proper planning legislation.
If we could find a way other than changes in development orders of controlling this abuse of planning legislation, this avoidance of planning legislation, I assure the Committee that we would do so. However, planning officers around the country who are charged with this responsibility have discovered that there is no way of doing it. The only way of doing it is what we propose in this amendment, which is to bring farm buildings and farm roads out of the exemption provided by general development orders and into the planning procedures of this country.
After all, why should farming be so different from any other form of economic activity? In every other form of economic activity it is accepted that planning laws, except in enterprise zones, should control the development of the buildings because that develop-ment affects other people. Farms affect other people just as much as anything else. Farms are not, or ought not to be, aside from the rest of the world. We are all concerned with our rural landscape. We are all concerned with the way in which our countryside is used and the way in which our countryside has buildings on it.
The way in which the farming community has abused the freedom from planning control of farm buildings ought not to be accepted. This is the proper Bill in which the matter should be put right, and the only way to do it is to prohibit the general development order from this quite unreasonable, unwarranted and outdated exemption. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I suppose that I have got to reply to that passionate inveigling against me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I know that it is 10.15 in the evening but it really was, if I may say so, a flight of imagination as to what farmers do or do not do. Having said that, and having replied to the way in which he put the amendment, my rational answer to his amendment is that, as I understand it, the Government are proposing a system of prior notification, and I really do not see that there is any need for the further control that the noble Lord's amendment suggests. As he is only putting his toe in the water on this, I too shall only just put my little toe in at this stage, but I do not like it much.
Lord Ross of Newport: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as a former member of the NFU and as somebody who farmed and who now lives in the countryside not so far away from him, that we see very large agricultural buildings, and I sometimes wonder. I know that the grants are now being substantially reduced, but they went up because there were substantial grants to be had to build them. No doubt the Minister will remind us that there are in existence now planning controls for larger farm buildings over, I think, 5,000 square feet, and I believe that silos also now come under planning law. Perhaps we could get confirmation of that.
I am concerned on behalf of the CPRE. They want to make it clear that they support an amendment giving the Government discretionary power to extend planning controls over agricultural and forestry operations. They envisage that power being used to bring only the most major agricultural operations under control, and to extend planning control over all afforestation above a threshold size to be defined by the Secretary of State. I think that that is even more important. Such controls would enable the public to comment on, and local authorities to prevent or modify, proposals which could have a lasting and damaging effect on the environment.
I make it clear that the amendment that comes from the CPRE does not support planning controls over all agricultural operations, and nor would I want to do so. But there is irrefutable evidence of the damage caused to the countryside by major agricultural and forestry operations, and there is public recognition of the need to change. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to these two amendments, which have unfortunately come on at 20 past 10 at night. I think that this is too important a subject to discuss now and one that we ought to be able to debate at much greater length.
Viscount Astor: Our view is that the planning system should continue to recognise the special

1371
operational needs of agriculture and forestry businesses. The relationship between fanning and forestry land use is unique, as recognised from the inception of the modern town and country planning system over 40 years ago.
However, that is not to say that we regard any change in the current planning system as it affects agriculture and forestry as out of the question. The fact is that we have shown we are prepared to introduce new controls where we are convinced that they are justified. For instance, two or three years ago we introduced new restrictions on the erection of buildings for livestock close to other residential property.
Last autumn we published a consultation paper on planning and control over agriculture and forestry buildings. That paper invited views on the proposition that all farm and forestry buildings should be subject to prior notification —essentially the same notification scheme as already operates in our national parks. It would enable local planning authorities to control the siting, design and external appearance of farm buildings erected under the general development order. The paper also invited views on the question whether farm and forestry roads should be included in any new notification agreements and on the treatment of extensions and alterations to farm buildings. It also proposed to increase the minimum area of agricultural land attracting permitted development rights under the general development order, with special provision for genuine units below the new higher threshold.
The period for responses to that consultation paper has only just expired and we are still in the process of analysing the several hundred responses we received. It is too early to say what final decisions we want to take in the light of the consultation exercise.
The point I am making today is that we are prepared to consider change where there is evidence that it is needed and, should we be persuaded, the powers already exist which would enable us to require specific planning applications for agricultural and foresty buildings and roads.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made clear we consider that this type of development should not be the subject of an amendment like this and should be clearly set out in primary legislation and be subject to full parliamentary debate. The Government do not want a power which will enable the definition of "development" to be amended which will lack that degree of scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also made a point on farm buildings and mentioned various abuses. I think that the strengthened enforcement provisions in the Bill should very much help that situation. However, that is a separate argument from this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned the question of planning permission for large buildings. I think that buildings larger than 5,000 square feet, or higher than 12 metres, are subject to full planning controls at the moment. We are not convinced at this
1372
stage that there is a need to withdraw permitted development rights for agriculture. Nor are we convinced of the need to extend planning control to agricultural and forestry operations, even on a selective basis. There are, in our view, particular difficulties about using the relatively inflexible mechanism of the planning system to control activities which are necessary in the course of the day-to-day operation of a business. The need for efficient and flexible agricultural and forestry industries remains very important. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I might ask whether the noble Viscount began by saying that he thought this should be subject to primary legislation? This is primary legislation, is it not?
Viscount Astor: The point I was trying to make was that it should not be something just tacked on by an amendment in this way but should be subject to full parliamentary debate in a separate Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is digging an even bigger hole for himself. First, he misunderstands the relationship between the develop-ment order and primary legislation. Secondly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, he said that the only proper primary legislation is that which is put forward by the Government, and that amendments put forward in Parliament are not acceptable as primary legislation.
Viscount Astor: I must correct the noble Lord. I certainly did not mean to say that. I am sorry if he misunderstood me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the effect of what was said. I cannot say that I am surprised by the general tone of the Government's reaction to this amendment. However I am bound to say that there are more misstatements and misunderstandings in that short reply than I have known for some time in a government response.
Let me start again from the beginning. The noble Viscount claims that, because the exemption from planning control of agricultural operations started over 40 years ago, somehow that ought to continue. Perhaps I may remind him that the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was introduced at a time when we had a desperate need to increase agricultural production in order to feed the population because of the food shortages in this country in the post-war period. The position is reversed now. The difficulty is to find ways to reduce agricultural production without throwing too many farmers on the scrap-heap. It is a very different situation and there is no reason for the same exemptions that applied in 1947 to be applied now.
The noble Viscount said that the Government are consulting on this matter. Apart from the objection which I raised earlier to consultation taking place while the Bill is before Parliament so that there is no opportunity for the results of the consultation to be considered by Parliament, the fact is that the consultation is on a very limited basis. It is only about

1373
prior notification of development of agricultural land. It is not about proper planning control. Notification is by no means the same thing as planning control.
The amendments which are proposed about the size of agricultural units do not affect the size of agricultural buildings. Reference has already been made to the very large agricultural buildings that can be built on small and large agricultural units. If the scope of the consultation had been rather wider we might have taken it more seriously. But clearly it is only a pinprick at the edge of the abuse of planning controls that is now available to the agricultural community.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to rise. He said that this measure does not apply to agricultural buildings. But, yes, any agricultural building of 474 square metres comes under planning control. I think that that is the figure. I am sure that the noble Lord realises that, does he not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the noble Lord will find that it comes under the notification procedures and not under planning control. As I said, that is a very inadequate substitute for proper control.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to get to my feet again but I do not think that the noble Lord is right. I certainly had to apply for planning permission for the last building that I put up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I yield to the noble Lord's personal experience. No doubt we can talk about this matter at another time and in another place.
Lord Ross of Newport: Surely the point that is being made is that one has to obtain planning permission for a building of 5,000 square feet or above, or so we were told. The fact is that one can erect any number of additional buildings which are, say, 4,500 square feet and continue to add. That is the problem, although the noble Viscount says that it is not so. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that what is worrying many noble Lords, and incidentally other people in the rural community as well, including farmers, is that one now finds huge almost industrial buildings in the heart of the countryside. That is what upsets me. I am sorry but it is true. I can take the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and show them to him at any time.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to have to speak yet again. I had exactly the same problem. If one adds to a building one has to go again to the planning authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us leave on one side the property of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and not exercise any right of entry. The fundamental issue remains. If it is not proper in a Bill on the enforcement of planning laws to deal with the abuse whereby a large part of land outside urban areas is exempt from planning laws, it is difficult to understand where it would be proper. My amendment is a modest one. It does not cover agricultural forestry operations as a whole. It covers only buildings and roads. It only covers them because it is necessary to deal with widespread abuse.
1374
As I said, I am not surprised by the Government's reaction nor by that of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of understanding of the need to make our planning laws effective not only in terms of enforcement but also in terms of their coverage. I suggest that this Bill is the right place to do that. It is only because of the time of night that I refrain from seeking the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may clarify a point that I made earlier. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes primary legislation. Our objection was to the proposal in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, which proposed action by way of development order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. As is now clear, my amendment uses primary legislation to restrict the general development order rather than the reverse. That was why I exclaimed in surprise when the noble Viscount made his comment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Rights of entry for enforcement purposes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: For the reasons that I indicated when moving Amendment No. 68, which inserts a new clause, it would be inappropriate if Clause 36 were to stand part of the Bill. I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question.
Clause 36 negatived.
Clause 12 [Planning obligations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 19, line 17, leave out ("or otherwise") and insert ("with the authority").
The noble Lord said: I understand that my amendment is to be taken with Government Amendments Nos. 76, 77, 79, 80 and 82. The Committee will forgive me if I do not comment on those amendments until they have been properly introduced from the Government Front Bench.
Amendment No. 75 is one of the two or three most important amendments to the Bill. It received considerable attention on Second Reading. We feel strongly about the matter and are sorry that the timetable is such that it arises at 10.30 at night rather than at a time when more Members are available to consider it.
Planning agreements—Section 52 agreements as they were; Section 106 agreements as they have been since the consolidation Act of 1990—have been an important part of planning legislation for a number of years. I am aware that some people believe that they can be subject to abuse. I am also aware of accusations made against local planning authorities of selling planning permission and seeking to obtain irrelevant planning gains and financial contributions to local authority services in return for granting planning

1375
permission which they would not otherwise have granted. Sometimes that can be entirely benign; for example, when provision is made for social housing in a scheme which would otherwise provide only luxury housing. There the proper concern of a planning authority is for the balance of housing in a particular area. But sometimes it can be malign, in the sense that a local authority can give permission for a retail or industrial development on the basis of the provision of car parking facilities, which may or may not be socially desirable or in the interests of the retail development, let alone the wider community.
What is common about all the planning agreements is that they are between the potential developer and the local authority. The Bill now introduces a completely new provision. It is that developers seeking planning permission can make unilateral undertakings without the agreement of the local authority. Those undertakings can be taken into account in later decisions. For example, they can be taken into account by the Secretary of State in considering an appeal. That means that the Secretary of State is able to second-guess the local authority about its own planning priorities. He is able to judge not only whether the local planning authority has been right or wrong in its interpretation of planning law or of the public interest for a particular development but also the local planning authority's wider concerns which would otherwise have been expressed in Section 52 or Section 106 agreement.
That means that in these proposals we have substantial extension of the Secretary of State's power. That means that he now has the power to revoke or modify agreements which have been freely entered into between local authorities and developers. Those are not impositions upon developers but have been agreed between the local authority and the developer. Some people sometimes say that they are impositions by the developers upon the local authority. That means that the negotiating position of the local authority in dealing with developers will be reduced. The negotiating procedure will be prolonged because the uncertainty will exist at the end of the day as to whether the Secretary of State, in considering an appeal, will consider a unilateral undertaking and not simply an undertaking made as part of an agreement between the developer and the local planning authority.
The second implication is that local authorities may be required to enforce unilateral undertakings to which they have not been a party and which they may never have wanted. I cannot see how it can be right for local planning authorities to be put in that position. All the emphasis today has been upon enforcement. Surely enforcement is of the planning policy of the local planning authority and of the law, not of a unilateral undertaking which may go completely counter to the interests of the community as expressed by the local planning authority.
My third objection is that those unilateral undertakings would be most unlikely to take full account of the land use issues in the same way as
1376
would a voluntary agreement between a local planning authority and a developer. After all, a planning authority must have local knowledge, expertise and accountability to enable it to reach an agreement. That must be the considered view which is put in the end to the Secretary of State at an appeal. However, a unilateral undertaking would have to be enforced and paid for by a local authority because it could involve all sorts of additional expenditure in terms of additional road network, access and other local authority services such as refuse collection and so on. All those agreements will be imposed upon local authorities as a result of something in which they had no part and which they had no wish to see imposed.
Whatever may be the import of the government amendments in this group, the concept of unilateral undertakings as additional to the existing concept of planning agreements is a most undesirable addition to planning law. It will do enormous damage to the ability of local authorities to plan sensibly for their communities and to plan the services which are needed for their communities. I feel most strongly that this is an excrescence on the face of a Bill which in many ways is very welcome. I am sorry to find that the Government are proceeding with this addition to what is in many ways an excellent Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: One must agree that there is a fundamental difference between the noble Lords opposite and the Government. Amendment No. 75 is effectively a wrecking amendment. It will remove from Clause 12 one of the main reforms that the Government are seeking to introduce enabling a planning obligation to be created by an undertaking as well as by agreement with the local planning authority. The Government believe that this is a well chosen and well considered reform. It was the subject of full public consultation in 1989 and it was supported by the majority of respondents who commented.
I want to emphasise that the Government see creating an obligation by an undertaking as an alternative to doing so by agreement, not as a replacement. It is an additional weapon in the armoury of a developer faced with a recalcitrant local authority which holds out for excessive and unreasonable gain, and which therefore refuses or even fails to determine a planning application. Plainly developers and authorities would prefer to reach agreement if they possibly can rather than going to the expense and delay of an appeal. But where only an appeal can break the deadlock, an undertaking may help to resolve matters.
It may assist the Committee if I explain the background to the undertaking's provision and how we expect it to work. At present, if there is a planning objection to a development proposal, which only a planning agreement can remedy, but the local authority is unwilling to reach such an agreement, the developer is stuck. He may go to appeal, and the inspector may decide that he is minded to grant permission subject to completion of an agreement. But if the local authority is still unwilling to make such an agreement, the developer is no further forward.

1377
Enabling the developer to create an obligation by means of an undertaking is a way through this impasse. Such an undertaking, where relevant to the proposed development, will be a material considera-tion on appeal, and the inspector will therefore take account of it in determining that appeal. Undertakings will, we expect, be couched in terms promising to do or not to do certain things once planning permission is granted. Once the grant of permission is issued, the developer will be bound.
I should finally clear up some misconceptions about planning obligations created by an undertaking. First, to enter into an obligation someone must have an interest in the land concerned. A developer will not be able to bind himself to do what he manifestly cannot do. Secondly, a developer cannot, by means of an undertaking, bind the local planning authority, or anyone else for that matter, directly to do anything.
I have endeavoured to clarify as best I can what is a verb tricky subject. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 76, 77, 79, 80 and 82 are drafting amendments. They establish that only the local planning authority which is identified in the deed (see the new subsection 106(7) in Clause 12), may enforce a planning obligation. This clarifies the position in the shire counties where there are two local planning authorities; the county council and the district council. They are technical amendments designed to avoid any ambiguity.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may say briefly that I give a cautious welcome to the Government's proposal. There are cases where this provision could work very well indeed; on the other hand, it can be abused. We shall have to be very careful. On the whole it has something to be said for it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I support what the Minister has just said. The purpose of the Bill, as agreed by this Chamber, is to make the planning system a more efficient system. This is one of the most important ways that the Bill achieves that. It allows the current planning agreements to continue as well as allowing unilateral undertakings. It will make it more efficient without any loss of control by the local authorities, or indeed by the Secretary of State.
I should like to take up a moment of the Committee's time explaining why it is so important that the efficiency of our planning system is improved. The Government laid down an objective that 80 per cent. of planning applications should be decided within an eight-week period. In 1979 it had been around 60 per cent. During the period 1982–86 it improved to around 70 per cent. Over the past three years that achievement rate has declined, and today it is as low as 46 per cent. Only 46 per cent. of planning applications are decided within the target eight-week period.
The Department of the Environment in its speed of handling planning appeals has as bad a record. The Government set a target of 17 weeks as the average time to process and decide a planning appeal. In the
1378
third quarter of last year the average time taken to decide a planning inquiry was no less than 39 weeks, which is 22 weeks longer than the Government's target. That was also during the time of the downturn in the economy. Who should doubt the fact that there is a need to examine any means by which the planning system can be made a little more efficient and quicker? Research undertaken by Reading university and which has been vetted (the department has a copy) demonstrates that for every one week that planning decisions in this country are delayed there is extra cost in the region of £35 million to £4O million. Therefore, a 22-week delay over what the department thinks is the right target imposes a huge and unnecessary burden on this country and its development industry. I accordingly believe that any provision which can help to speed up planning requires most careful consideration.
The provision for unilateral undertakings will have effect in reality only when a situation arises in which the Secretary of State has to decide an application on appeal. Obviously, undertakings offered to a local authority and accepted by it prior to, or even during, an appeal would not be unilateral undertakings but planning agreements. Unilateral undertakings will only have a purpose when an application is taken to appeal and the Secretary of State decides that it is appropriate for the appellant to offer a benefit to the local authority in exchange for planning agreement.
At the moment the Secretary of State has two options in such circumstances. He may either give a "minded to allow" decision or accept an undertaking from the developer on behalf of the local authority. If a "minded to allow" decision is given, the developer is likely to face further delays of between three and six months while he and the local authority seek to agree a planning agreement. A major disadvantage of this procedure is that, if the two parties do not agree, then either the Secretary of State has to give approval for the development without any planning gain or an otherwise acceptable development is frustrated.
Alternatively, the Secretary of State is already empowered to choose to accept an undertaking from the developer at an inquiry. There is judicial authority for this. I think the case concerned is that of the Hildenborough Village Preservation Society 1978. However, such existing undertakings lack the statutory backing provided by this Bill. Problems such as difficulties with enforcement and interpretation may arise. Far from restricting the powers of local authorities, I believe that the unilateral undertaking provision offers many real benefits to them. An undertaking would only exist when it had been made by the developer and accepted by the Secretary of State. Since the local authority is not party to the acceptance of the undertaking, it would not be legally bound to accept the benefit.
I turn to the example of the public open space which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Second Reading debate. He quite properly suggested that it would he unfair if a unilateral undertaking imposed additional cost on a local authority since it had not been party to the

1379
agreement. However, if, following an inquiry, the Secretary of State grants approval for a planning application in exchange for a unilateral undertaking by the developer to give—shall we say?—public open space to the local authority, then there is nothing in the Bill to require the local authority to accept the gift. Indeed it could very easily refuse to accept the conveyance of the land. Not only would the local authority be in a position to choose whether or not to accept the land but it would also be possible for the Secretary of State to require, within the terms of the undertaking, the developer to include with the gift of the land a commuted lump sum to cover maintenance costs.
Under the new system and prior to the Secretary of State's acceptance of a unilateral undertaking, the local authority would of course have an opportunity to make submissions during the inquiry about the content of the undertaking. The Secretary of State will also be bound by his own strict guidance set out in DoE Circular 22/83 as to what is and what is not appropriate in terms of planning gain. It would thus be possible for a local authority to challenge his decision if it felt that the package was inappropriate. Unlike the undertakings which the Secretary of State might accept at present, under the new system the content of undertaking would be clear, being executed by deed, and thus problems of enforcement and interpretation would, I suggest, be considerably lessened.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am deeply conscious of the expertise in this area of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I am sure that he has given adequate consideration to the issue of whether he should have declared an interest when speaking on these matters.
The noble Lord made a number of statements about the implications of unilateral agreements. I simply cannot agree with him. The critical judgment about whether planning agreements should be entered into and whether they are acceptable in planning terms is set out clearly in planning policy guidance note I. That is the Government's planning policy guidance; it does not come from us. The note says that the facilities to be provided or financed should be directly related to the development in question or the use of the land after development.
The noble Lord's example of the provision of public open space, in respect of which he said that the local authority is not obliged to accept the covenant of the land or to maintain the public open space, indicates to me that he does not fully appreciate the implications of the planning policy guidance note or the relationship between the development and the gain, which is otherwise under an agreement to be agreed between the developer and the local authority. I wonder whether he fully appreciates—and I wonder whether the Government fully appreciate—that if facilities are produced by a developer as ancillary to a planning permission, the local authority has to continue to provide services, has to provide access if it is not available or continue to provide access if it is
1380
available at the outset, and has to maintain any facilities which are produced for the public benefit. All those things cost money.
When there is an agreement between a developer and a local authority under Section 106, all that is entirely acceptable because the local authority is making the judgment with its eyes open. But when there is a unilateral agreement, or, as is made clear both by the Government and by the noble Lord, an agreement in effect between the developer and the Secretary of State, the local authority is the pig in the middle. The local authority, not necessarily wanting those facilities, will have to maintain them, pay for them or reject them, which means that the so-called planning gain, the undertaking, is of no meaning and the Secretary of State ought not to be considering it.
The Minister tells us that there has been consultation on this matter and that there have been a large number of replies in favour of the Government's proposals. I am bound to ask: who has replied in favour of the Government's proposals? Which of the local authority associations has replied in favour of the proposals? Which of the professional institutes concerned with planning and planning law has replied in favour of the proposals? The Royal Town Planning Institute carried out an extensive survey which unearthed very few abuses of the kind which are alleged for planning agreements.
The Minister says rightly in response to my amendment that there can be no binding commitment to do something which the developer has no power to do. I accept that, but it is not a very powerful argument. I should have thought that it was tautologous. It is claimed that there is no question of binding the local authority directly to do anything. Of course there is no question of binding the local authority directly, but what we are complaining about is that the local authority will be bound indirectly to do many things with which it may not agree.
If I am to be convinced that this major change to planning law is required and that this major weakening of the authority and responsibility of local planning authorities is acceptable, I need to be given examples of the abuse which it is designed to correct. I have had no examples of that abuse. The Royal Town Planning Institute has found no examples of the abuse.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed by the response of the Liberal Democratic Party to the issue. I shall be most interested to see whether it pursues the matter when the Bill reaches another place. I have never before heard the suggestion that it was in favour of unilateral agreements. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may find himself alone in the matter.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am not ashamed of that fact. I must point out that we would not have to dig too deep to find examples of local authorities which have been totally and utterly bloody-minded with perfectly capable and excellent developers. Indeed, I could name one in my old constituency. I gave a cautious welcome to this proposal. I realise that it could be abused. But, on the other hand, one of the

1381
finest things which happened in my old constituency was the completion of a first-class job by a property company. I do not believe that the local authority really wanted to help the company one iota. If developers cannot get any sense out of some of the planning committees then they should have the right to "do a deal" with the Government's consent. After all, Lambeth Council would not even talk to British Rail about Waterloo, which was absolute nonsense. Of course, there will be much talk about it, but there are umpteen examples all over the country of local authorities which, as I said, have been totally and utterly bloody-minded over very sensible developments.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: If having an interest in a more efficient planning system for this country requires a declaration of interest, I must apologise to the Committee for not declaring such an interest. I suggest to Members of the Committee that the whole country has an interest in a more efficient planning system. I also suggest to the noble Lord opposite that he has ignored the point that a system which protracts decision-taking as regards planning for a further three to six months is not consistent with an object which everyone in this Chamber wants to achieve; namely, a more efficient planning system.
I further suggest to the noble Lord that he has failed to take the point that if a local authority has a good case for not accepting a unilateral undertaking, and not taking responsibility for such a liability, it will have the opportunity of establishing that case in the public inquiry. It will then be a decision for the Secretary of State, and if he makes the wrong decision the matter would be outside our control. It is for the Secretary of State to listen to the local authority and to make a judgment as to whether the authority's reservations about a unilateral undertaking are valid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that what the noble Lord has just said affects the issue. In my view, we still have the position where the developer and the Secretary of State have the ability between them to come to an agreement which will be indirectly —not directly—binding upon the local authority, which will run the risk of the local authority being involved in extra expenditure and which will also run the risk of providing or financing facilities which are not directly related to the development in question. That the issue. It must be an agreement with the local planning authority, which knows about the needs of the area around the land destined for development, to participate in that discussion and agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made very valid points about delays in planning permission which I
1382
acknowledge. However, the amendment is not about delays in planning permission; it is about unilateral agreements being entered into without the approval of the local authority. The powers for a developer to claim that refusal has been deemed after the expiration of the legal date are not affected by the proposed amendment. The matter can still go to appeal when the allotted number of weeks have expired.
I am sure that the noble Lord is right if in fact he is saying that the time taken to consider planning appeals has increased. If that is so, I hope that he will support future amendments from these Benches which will seek to outlaw the kind of twin-tracking, duplicated appeals which take up so much extra time and which make it more difficult for local planning authorities to keep within the planning period.
What planning authorities do with greater or lesser degrees of efficiency is to deal with the planning applications which come before them. If developers deliberately put forward a number of alternative applications in order to get around the rules, then one of the effects will be that the decision period involved will be prolonged. That will affect not only them, but also everyone else.
The noble Lord and I are on the same side on the issue of delays in planning appeals. It is only on the issue of unilateral undertakings that we are not in agreement. I am conscious that it has been agreed that the Committee will adjourn at approximately 11 p.m. I do not wish to try the Committee's patience. It is extremely unfortunate that this important subject has arisen at this late hour. It is not a matter that we can allow to drop. It is of fundamental importance to the ability of local planning authorities to do their job properly. The Government's proposals are regrettable in an otherwise welcome Bill. We shall be forced to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 19, line 20, leave out ("by the authority").
Page 19, line 44, at end insert ("by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (7) (d)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  THE GULF: USE OF ARMED FORCE
  THE GULF: USE OF ARMED FORCE
  GULF CRISIS FINANCIAL CO-ORDINATION GROUP
  GULF CRISIS FINANCIAL CO-ORDINATION GROUP
  INCOME GENERATION UNIT
  INCOME GENERATION UNIT
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS: FUNDING
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS: FUNDING
  CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD: SUPPORT
  CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD: SUPPORT
  SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR-OLDS: SEVERE HARDSHIP SUPPORT
  SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR-OLDS: SEVERE HARDSHIP SUPPORT
  REFUGEES: INCOME SUPPORT
  REFUGEES: INCOME SUPPORT
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOLS: INCOME SUPPORT/PARENTAL SUPPORT DATA
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOLS: INCOME SUPPORT/PARENTAL SUPPORT DATA
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOL: HOUSING/MAINTENANCE DATA
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOL: HOUSING/MAINTENANCE DATA
  AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
  AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY