Sitting of 29 January 1991

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give you notice that I shall be objecting to all eight private Bills in order to encourage the Government to come forward with proposals to reform private business.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, it might be for the convenience of the House if I put all eight Bills together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Object."] In that case, I shall put them singly.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 31 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Training
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last discussed training with his opposite numbers in (a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I have met my opposite numbers in Germany, France and Italy on a number of occasions and have discussed a wide range of employment and training issues with them.
    Mr. Holt: That is a marvellously bland answer. Has my right hon. and learned Friend specifically discussed with his opposite numbers on the continent why they do not have the same shortage of skilled people as we have? They have better education and training involvement, they do not have the rigid school leaving age that we have and they have a wider diversity of opportunity in education and training for their young people. Why is it, therefore, that we stick slavishly to a school leaving age of 16 and a single type of comprehensive school, resulting in a lack of opportunity for our young people?
    Mr. Howard: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was emphasising the marvellous or the bland in his original comment. The school leaving age is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that taxpayers—the Government—spend more on training young people in Britain than is spent in Germany, France or Japan and we are increasingly seeing the results of those efforts.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State must know that every employer, particularly in engineering, is short of skilled labour because major redundancies in engineering in the past 10 years have meant that there has been no training of apprentices. Should not we take a leaf out of the Germans' book and train more apprentices, particularly adult apprentices?
    Mr. Howard: We are addressing those problems and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the great effort that is being made through, in particular, the training and enterprise councils to improve the level of skills throughout our economy. Those efforts are achieving considerable success.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the latest European statistics show that, as a proportion of labour costs, British firms spend as much on training as do their German counterparts? We are spending in the region of £20 billion a year now on training—a dramatic increase during the past few years which shows the new emphasis being given to training in British industry.
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is noteworthy that, even in today's CBI quarterly survey, which is not in every respect a cheerful document, there is

    775
    a healthy positive balance in the number of employers who intend to continue to increase their investment in training compared with those who do not.
    Mr. McLeish: Why is there such overwhelming complacency, indifference and ambivalence in the Government's attitude to training? Why is it that, after 11 years discussing training with his European colleagues, we still do not have a coherent system of training for 16 to 19-year-olds, the unemployed are abandoned as cash cuts hit and unemployment rises and more than 50 per cent. of employees in British industry receive no training? When will the cuts stop? When will the Government abandon voluntarism and give some leadership in the skills crisis?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. We have a clear and coherent training strategy and it is working well. The people who need to get their act together are the members of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) goes round the country saying how splendid training and enterprise councils are, whereas the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) goes round saying that they are a terrible mistake.

    Social Charter
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met Commissioner Papandreou to discuss the social charter.
    Mr. Howard: I met Mrs. Papandreou on 14 January to discuss the Commission's social action programme and priorities for social affairs in the Community in 1991.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the social charter, by imposing similar obligations across the Community, guarantees greater unemployment among poorer member states? Is he aware that the Trojan horse that is the social charter will force nearly 2 million low-paid people in the United Kingdom to pay national insurance contributions for the first time?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those aspects of the social action programme that would damage employment prospects and impose heavy and unacceptable burdens on employers in this country and elsewhere. That is why we are continuing to resist the proposals and our opposition is attracting increasing support from other member states.
    Mr. Paice: Next time my right hon. and learned Friend meets Commissioner Papandreou, will he express the fact that, although many of us support strongly the Community's action in moving towards a single market, we greatly object to the way in which it is using that development to interfere in sectors of life that are far removed from anything to do with training matters and are properly the responsibility of the House?
    Mr. Howard: There is a good deal of force in my hon. Friend's remarks—particularly his observation about the extent to which the Commission is attempting to use the treaty's single market provisions to promote proposals relating to other areas that should not be based on qualified majority voting. I have consistently made that point in the Social Affairs Council and that argument is gaining the increasing support of other member states.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. Obviously, he vehemently opposed the social charter in every jot. We now learn that he accepts half of it—and in particular that he is prepared to support the action programme for women. Survey after survey shows that the biggest handicap confronting women in the workplace is meeting their child care obligations and matching them to their work. Given that child care facilities in this country are as bad as anywhere in Europe, what will the Government do to promote adequate child care and flexible working hours so that the nation can benefit from the resource of women back at work?
    Mr. Howard: We have always made it clear that we would examine all the proposals in the social action programme on their merits, and we have done so from the start. I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman ask for flexible working hours to help women who want to work, when Labour has adopted an entirely uncritical attitude to the programme, which includes proposals that would impose the most stringent limits on part-time working. That would prove much more burdensome for employers and sharply reduce the opportunities to work available to women. The hon. Gentleman should adopt a more consistent approach.

    Tourism
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to encourage the growth of employment in the tourism industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): In 1990, the tourism industry employed 1·4 million people—25 per cent. more than in 1981. The numbers of self-employed people in the industry grew by 17 per cent. between 1981 and 1989. The Government will continue their substantial financial support for tourism and the industry must also play its part by negotiating realistic pay settlements.
    Mr. Speller: Given curent international events, does my hon. Friend agree that this will probably be the last year ever for the British tourist, hotel and catering industries to promote an increase in the number of holidays taken in this country and to seek to attract back to Britain the many holidaymakers who, for many reasons, good or bad, have chosen in the past to holiday overseas? Does my hon. Friend further agree that there must be more investment if Britain is to offer holidaymakers the best value for money anywhere in Europe?
    Mr. Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to take advantage of the situation, even though it is rather grave on the tourism front because of the impact of the Gulf war. The promotional efforts to which he referred are important and there is a real challenge to encourage home tourists to make more use of facilities here. The timing of the promotion is of the essence, but it is for the industry, in conjunction with the British tourist authorities, to decide how to do it.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that many small independent travel agents are expressing deep concern about employment prospects for their employees as a result of the crisis to which he referred? Will the Government be taking any steps to reassure them that

    777
    their jobs will not be lost as a result of the problem, perhaps through increased advertising to encourage people to visit this country in the coming year?
    Mr. Jackson: The position is serious, but it affects us all. The Government are well aware of the terrorist threat to this country. Excellent security arrangements are in place and we are intensifying them. I pay tribute to the people involved in enforcing those arrangements. However, we must try to sustain a spirit of business as usual and it is for the industry to look after itself.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend examine ways in which the Government can help to spread tourism so as to increase the possibility of employment in the industry in parts of the country other than those currently benefiting from it? Does he recognise that there is some concern in towns such as Bath, Cambridge and Oxford, which already attract a substantial number of tourists? Does he recognise the case for trying to promote tourism in other parts of the country which do not have as many tourists?
    Mr. Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend, but, as he knows, recently there was a review of such matters and various institutional changes were made. It is Government policy to encourage diversification and the spread of the opportunities represented by tourism.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the north-west region.
    Mr. Jackson: In September 1990 the civilian work force in employment in the north-west stood at 2,890,000. which was an increase since 1983 of 14 per cent. or about 366,000 new jobs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I have a straight answer to a simple question, with no waffling and no misrepresentation of statistics? Have high interest rates and the high rate of sterling at entry into the European exchange rate mechanism damaged employment prospects in the north-west of England and the county of Cumbria? Are those two factors contributing to escalating unemployment? If the Minister is willing to concede that they are, what special measures can he now introduce to deal with the problems in the north-west of England? What is he going to do?
    Mr. Jackson: I understood that entry into the ERM was Opposition policy. It is common ground among the parties in the House that inflation has to be brought down. Although there is some argument about how one achieves that, I think that everyone accepts that a consequence of any policy to reduce inflation is that the economy will slow down. We have to live with that, but we must try to ensure that the rise in unemployment is minimised. We must also look carefully at wage settlements to ensure that unions and employees do not demand too much and that employers do not award wages that are unsustainable by the business.
    Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that 150 jobs at the nuclear construction facility at Daresbury are threatened because of the ever-escalating contributions to CERN— the centre for European nuclear research? Will he have a
    778
    word with his colleagues at the Department of Education and Science to ensure that we do not continue to export jobs because of grandiose European ventures?
    Mr. Jackson: This matter relates more to my previous responsibilities than to my present ones. I note what my hon. Friend says and I will draw the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to his remarks. However, it is rather an over-simplification to say that it is a choice between CERN and Daresbury. There are important European facilities, which involved Daresbury, at the Institut Laue Langevin in Grenoble. My hon. Friend is using over-simplistic terms.
    Mr. Alton: Has the Minister noted the complaint made to the Merseyside chamber of commerce that the uniform business rate has cost industry and enterprise in the north-west and the midlands an additional £520 million this year? Does he agree that that has placed a downward pressure on jobs in the region? What measures will he take to protect small businesses and industries during the recession?
    Mr. Jackson: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says about the impact of the uniform business rate in the north-west. Let me repeat that the key to the problem of unemployment is the attitude of employers and employees to wage settlements. We must all work together to ensure that unemployment is minimised through the achievement of reasonable settlements.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Opposition and the truth have been strangers for years? Will he also confirm that there are more jobs in the north-west—as there are in Britain as a whole—than there have been for many years?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the national figures show a substantial increase in the rate of employment in Britain.

    Workplace Accidents
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government propose to take any new initiatives to reduce the number of workplace accidents.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Primary responsibility for maintaining and improving health and safety in the workplace rests with employers and others. The Health and Safety Commission's regulatory and the Executive's enforcement roles are complemented by their giving guidance and advice to stimulate employers and others to act to raise standards. Their current priorities for action are set out in their plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond, which the Secretary of State helped to launch in July last year.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the Government are guilty of gross negligence in regard to safety at work? If he studies the article in The Guardian of 24 November which deals with the tragic death of George Kenyon at Holt Plastics in Haslingden, he will learn that, in 1988–89, there were 697 deaths at work and nearly 200,000 serious injuries. Since 1981, there has been a massive increase in the number of accidents and a

    779
    reduction of over 900 in the number of inspectors. Is not it time that the Government did something to reduce that appalling figure?
    Mr. Forth: Let me make it clear that I make a practice of never studying articles in The Guardian: I therefore cannot comment on the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in every respect. First, the Health and Safety Commission has told us that it has the resources for which it asked, and is therefore well able to deal with workplace accidents—which it does very competently and professionally. Secondly, the House should not be misled by what the hon. Gentleman said about that tragic incident. As I am sure he knows, it resulted in charges of manslaughter and, indeed, a manslaughter conviction. The charges were brought jointly by the Health and Safety Executive and the Crown prosecution service.
    The rate of fatal accidents at work has fallen consistently throughout the 1980s. That, surely, is cause for tribute to be paid to the work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive rather than for the sort of ill-informed criticism that we heard from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Madel: In view of certain horrific accidents that took place last year, will the Health and Safety Commission introduce new regulations governing the transport of hazardous substances on the roads?
    Mr. Forth: That is a matter for the commission and one of which it is well aware. It will be working constantly—as it already does—across the whole area of health and safety to ensure that the existing regulations are appropriate to current developments and that its resources and policies ensure the maximum safety of people in the workplace and between workplaces.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that accidents are caused by either carelessness or negligence? Will he encourage the placing of more emphasis in schools on the need for improved care and safety practices among young people who are about to go into industry? Will he also encourage employers to allocate funds for training, so that more individuals with health and safety qualifications are employed in industry?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: that although carelessness and negligence are the main contributory factors, accidents are caused, at least in part, by lack of information and awareness among both employers and workers about the need for safety. The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have produced a number of excellent publications. They work with trade associations and industry to ensure that everyone is fully informed about the requirements of safety in the workplace and of the regulatory framework within which they must operate. That is something of which we are well aware and constant attention is devoted to it. I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's recommendations to my colleagues at the Department of Education and Science so that we may ensure that schools, too, are made aware of the need for safety.

    Gulf War
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what circulars he has issued to his local offices in relation to employment policy and recruitment for service in the Gulf.
    Mr. Howard: Local offices of the employment service have been issued with guidance covering the employment rights of members of the reserve forces on discharge to civilian life. No other guidance has been issued in relation to service in the Gulf.
    Mr. Dalyell: What role has the Minister's Department played in the devising of conscription forms? What is departmental thinking on the proposition, which is extremely unacceptable to many hon. Members, that 18 to 25-year-old unemployed males should be conscripted first?
    Mr. Howard: There is no question whatever of introducing conscription, nor is there any need to do so. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that during the past few weeks recruitment offices have been inundated with volunteers.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me to take this opportunity to commend those British civilians who are serving in the Gulf and ensuring the success of the war effort? Their courage at this vital time should not be forgotten.
    Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to all our citizens in the Gulf—civilians as well as those in the armed forces.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a matter of considerable pride in the United Kingdom that our forces are made up of professionals, backed by adequate numbers of volunteer reservists and auxiliaries, and that there is no shortage of people coming forward to serve our country and the United Nations in the Gulf?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The performance of our forces in the Gulf, regulars and reservists, has won the admiration of the whole world.
    Mr. Ron Brown: If conscription becomes necessary, do not the young people of this country have a democratic right to refuse to accept their draft papers? Even if the Government believe to the contrary, do not they have that democratic right?
    Mr. Howard: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), there is no question of introducing conscription. The hon. Gentleman's questions, therefore, simply do not arise.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate companies that have enabled reservists to respond to the call to serve in the Gulf, particularly the health authorities that have allowed medical reservists to go there? Will he assure the House that no stone will be left unturned to ensure that their job security is maintained after the war has ended?
    Mr. Howard: I am happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. The Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 entitles reservists to return to their jobs after full-time service.

    Manufacturing Employment, Leeds
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of manufacturing employment in Leeds during 1990.
    Mr. Jackson: I am afraid that the most recent census of employment that we have is for September 1987. It gives the estimates for local areas. In that month, 68,200 employees were employed in manufacturing industries in the Leeds travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that those figures represent a real decline in the manufacturing base of the city of Leeds? Is he also aware that the recession is hitting hard the printing, engineering and textile industries—so much so that Leeds chamber of commerce predicts that a quarter of Leeds firms will make people redundant in the next three months? What action does his Department intend to take to reverse the elimination of the manufacturing base of Leeds? In particular, I ask the Minister to reopen the only jobcentre in west Leeds. That jobcentre is desperately needed, but it was closed last year by his Department.
    Mr. Jackson: We have already had some discussion on the implications of the recession and I have given advice about how unemployment could be kept down, at a time when economic activity is inevitably falling back, by looking more carefully at wage settlements. The hon. Gentleman asked about jobcentres in his constituency. There is, of course, the proposed Horsforth jobcentre and I shall certainly have another look at the jobcentres in his constituency. I know that there has been extensive correspondence about the matter in the past.
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not true that if the Government had heeded the Labour party's advice last year to slash the defence industry, not only would our troops in the Gulf be less well-equipped but many manufacturing jobs of the highest quality in Leeds would be lost, including many at the Challenger tank factory?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. We would have been further embarrassed in the military operations in the Gulf. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) would do well to study the implications of what my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said.

    Health and Safety Executive
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had about resourcing difficulties with the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Forth: The Government have once again met in full the Health and Safety Commission's request for funds for 1991–92. The commission's chairman, Dr. Cullen, has recently written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State indicating that the available resources will enable the commission to take forward its programme of work.
    Mr. Eastham: Will the Minister consider the serious disasters taking place throughout the country, the extra responsibilities that the Health and Safety Executive is given for North sea oil rigs, rivers and railways and the fact that it reported to the Select Committee on Employment
    782
    recently that the Treasury is providing inadequate funds with inadequate inflation factors to add to its budget? Will he also consider the important factor reported to the Committee that the Health and Safety Executive is unable to man the appropriate law facilities and is unable to cope with enforcing the law?
    Mr. Forth: I must confess that my reading of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment does not coincide with that of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we should both re-study the record to see what was said. As I said in my original reply, the chairman of the commission has said that he believes that the resources are adequate for the great responsibilities of the commission and the executive. Our record on health and safety bears that out. It is a record of which we are proud and it is one of the best in the European Community. Of course, we always look at any case that is made for additional resources. We have said that the transfer of responsibilities after the Cullen report will not cause a lack of resources. I cannot square the record or Dr. Cullen's evidence with what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
    Mr. Burns: So that there is no misunderstanding on this important issue, will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department has met in full for the next financial year the Health and Safety Commission's request for funding?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is correct and I am grateful to him for emphasising that point. I cannot stress enough the high regard that we have for the work of the commission and the executive and the great lengths to which we go to ensure that they have the resources that they require and for which they ask. I hope that that will continue.

    Factory Inspections
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of factories and other places of work which have not been inspected by factory inspectors for three, five, seven, nine and 11 years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: As the reply contains detailed statistics I shall, with permission, arrange for it to be printed in the Official Report.
    The figures include many premises that have a low inspection rating based on inspectors' judgment of risks, site standards and management control. In addition, these premises also include those that have been visited for other purposes such as the investigation of an accident or complaint.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the level of fatalities and accidents in British industry is still far too high? He said in answer to an earlier question that it is important to make workers and employers conscious of the problems of safety at work and that one of the best ways of ensuring that is to have regular inspections.
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is correct. We share the view that accident levels are always too high. The number of health and safety inspectors has increased in the past year or two and a carefully planned series of visits and inspections is carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. Work is continuing, and will always continue, to find more and better ways of ensuring that awareness of

    783
    safety requirements in the workplace is improved and that our health and safety record, which is already very good by international camparison, continues to improve. That is our aim.
    Following is the information:
    There are 493,035 fixed premises registered with the Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate (FI). The following table shows the number of fixed premises registered with FI and recorded as not having received a planned inspection within the last three, five, seven, nine and eleven years:

    Number of years since last inspected

    Number of premises not inspected

    3

    247,713

    5

    187,971

    7

    158,980

    9

    95,606

    11

    69,564

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and what are the comparable figures for all the other European Community states.
    Mr. Howard: The United Kingdom has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community and the United Kingdom rate is well below the European average. Unemployment is higher in Spain, Ireland, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Greece. With permission, I shall publish the detailed figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that typically helpful and detailed reply. Does he agree that it enables us to put the United Kingdom's unemployment figures into the European perspective? Does he further agree that it strikes a favourable comparison with Europe?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We can put the figures in perspective by remembering that there are now 2 million more people at work than there were when the Government took office in 1979.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State recall the letter that he sent me dated 15 January, in which he said that between 1979 and 1988 employment in the United Kingdom increased by 1·9 per cent., whereas in the European Community it increased by 3·5 per cent.—virtually double the increase in this country? He should not be complacent about unemployment as in the three months to September it rose on average by 17,000. In the three months to January it rose by 57,000—an increase of 300 per cent.—and more than 200,000 male workers have lost their jobs since March. The CBI now tells us that we are on the verge of an unemployment disaster because of the recession. Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think of reducing interest rates to get us out of the recession before there is a huge increase in unemployment?
    Mr. Howard: We should never be complacent about unemployment, but the European figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred show that between 1983 and 1988 almost twice as many jobs were created in this country as
    784
    in the rest of the Community put together. We regret that unemployment is increasing, but more than half those who enter unemployment leave it within three months.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why our unemployment levels are so favourable, compared with other EEC countries, is that our labour relations are much more flexible than most of theirs, including Germany? Is not the quickest way of achieving that awful word "convergence" to adopt the social charter?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of disputes in this country is the lowest for 60 years, which is a tribute to the Government's employment legislation. The surest way of worsening our employment record would be to introduce legislation increasing the number of strikes, as proposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Blair: With unemployment rising in every region of the country, every sector of industry and every occupation, what pride does the Secretary of State take in presiding over this unique combination—the fastest rising unemployment of any major industrial country, acute skill shortages and proposed cuts in the Department's budget for training the unemployed?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we are providing the widest ever range of help to the unemployed to help them get back to work as quickly as possible. We are providing up to 100,000 extra places in job clubs, and the job interview guarantee scheme and employment training will continue to play an important part in helping the unemployed get back to work quickly.
    Following is the information:

    Comparisons of unemployment between EC countries

    Standardised unemployment rates2 seasonally adjusted

    Per cent. rate

    Latest month

    Spain

    15·8

    August

    Ireland

    14·8

    November

    Italy

    9·9

    July

    France

    8·9

    October

    Belgium

    8·2

    November

    Denmark

    (8·2)2

    November

    Greece

    (7·4)1

    April 1987

    Netherlands

    7·4

    September

    United Kingdom

    6·7

    November

    Portugal

    4·7

    August

    Luxembourg

    (1·7)2

    November

    EC Average

    (8·3)2

    November

    Note: For those EC countries for which no OECD standardised rates are available, similar harmonised rates compiled by the Statistical Office of European Communities (EUROSTAT) are shown in brackets. These showed the United Kingdom rate at 6·7 per cent. in November compared with the EC average of 8·3 per cent.

    1 Recent comparable figures are currently not available in Greece, the latest relating to April 1987.

    2 There are no reliable figures available as yet for a unified Germany.

    Low Pay
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to introduce to eradicate low pay.
    Mr. Forth: Pay is a matter for negotiators themselves to determine in the light of their particular circumstances.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Government take positive steps to eradicate low pay by prosecuting employers who illegally pay wages below the minimum rate? Is the Minister aware that in 1989 nearly 5,500 employers were found guilty of this offence, yet only 10 were prosecuted? Is not this a case of double standards? How can the Government get away with a criminal act when nobody else can?
    Mr. Forth: Opposition Members seem to have an almost unseemly lust for prosecution. This is all the more odd since the number of prosecutions brought under the present Government is almost exactly the same as that brought under the Labour party when it was last in power —although it must be difficult for Opposition Members to remember that. In this regard, we work by persuasion and on the basis of information—not by dragging people automatically and vindictively through the courts. I am afraid that until Opposition Members understand that, I shall continue to give this answer every time the question is asked.
    Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend agree that European proposals to eradicate low-paying part-time jobs are much more likely to eradicate the jobs, which are of such value, particularly to working women?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The truth is that many of the proposals emanating from the European Commission and from the Opposition would have the effect of destroying jobs. As my hon. Friend knows, part of the very proud record of the present Government is the number of jobs provided in the wealth-creating sector over the last two or three years. That is something that we wish to protect and we shall resist any efforts by the Labour party, or anybody else, to destroy jobs.
    Dr. Reid: How can the Minister say that he is committed to the eradication of low pay when the mass unemployment created by the present Government is the very means by which low pay is extended throughout the country? Can he imagine workers in a constituency like mine, which, over the next few years, faces an unemployment rate of 40 per cent., having any bargaining power to secure a decent level of pay? Is not the truth that mass unemployment and low pay are two sides of the same Government policy?
    Mr. Forth: I can agree with half of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is absolutely right in his assertion that unemployment is the main cause of poverty. He is quite wrong, however, to suggest that low pay is equally a cause. If we were to intervene arbitrarily to increase the level of pay in this country and beyond, employment would be the main casualty. Perversely, any effort to provide arbitrary levels of income would be likely to increase unemployment even further. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said a moment ago, we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the European Community, and we intend to keep it that way.

    Retail Prices Index
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the administrative arrangements regarding the collection of statistics for the retail prices index.
    Mr. Jackson: First, I acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Public Accounts Committee's carefully considered report on the retail prices index. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the important personal role that he played on the PAC when it looked at this issue. In close co-operation with the Central Statistical Office, which has responsibility for the RP1, the employment service is taking action to ensure that the data are comprehensive and accurate by introducing targets for collection offices, tighter management controls over the collection of data, and better guidance for collectors.
    Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for his full response. Is he aware that nothing could be more important to pensioners than for the retail prices index connection to be given high priority in the work of the Department of Employment? As the permanent secretary to his Department suggested to the Public Accounts Committee that this work could be privatised, does my hon. Friend have anything to say in that regard?
    Mr. Jackson: I assure my hon. Friend that we do not believe that any bias arose from deficiencies in the figures. However, we certainly acknowledge the priority of this work for the employment service. The question of how this sort of information is collected is kept under review, and on that point I shall keep in touch with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Cryer: While prices are very important to pensioners, are not wages also important? As the Government have boasted about the booming economy, why, when they came to office, did they deliberately destroy the link between pensions and wages? In effect, they have each year robbed every pensioner in this country of hundreds of pounds of rightful income that was provided under Labour.
    Mr. Jackson: This is, of course, a matter for the Department of Social Security. I seem to remember that, when it was in government, the Labour party found it difficult to sustain the link.

    Tourism
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for overseas visitors (a) to the United Kingdom and (b) to London.
    Mr. Jackson: According to the latest available figures, overseas residents made an estimated 15·6 million visits to the United Kingdom during the first 10 months of 1990 and 4·3 million visits to London during the first six months of that year.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures reflect great credit on everyone working in the tourist industry and that they should help to tide it through the uncertain period that lies immediately ahead? Does my hon. Friend accept that once the uncertainties of the Gulf are over and tourists come back to London in large numbers, the number of coaches will multiply? The off-street parking facilities in London are inadequate. Will my hon. Friend talk to his colleagues in the Department of Transport and to the local authorities to see whether that can be remedied?
    Mr. Jackson: I am well aware of the problems of coach parking. Primary responsibility lies with the borough

    787
    councils, but, as my hon. Friend knows, Transport Ministers are actively considering the issue in conjunction with all the other interests and organisations involved. The working parties are due to report early this year.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the strong opinion in the tourist industry in Wales that the way in which the British Tourist Authority markets Britain overseas leads to a preponderance of visitors coming to London and to an inadequate proportion coming to areas such as Wales? Will he discuss with the BTA the representations from the Welsh tourist board for it to have the right to market Wales overseas?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall draw that to the attention of my colleague who deals with this matter and to the BTA. As I said in an earlier answer, it is important that we should seek to diversify the range of areas that attract tourists to this country. I go along with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Cran: Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity to assure foreign business men and tourists —and indeed, almost everyone else who comes to the United Kingdom—that they have been grossly misled into thinking that coming into the United Kingdom is a dangerous occupation? Would he confirm that using British aircraft and British airports is almost as safe as using those anywhere else in the world and that stringent security arrangements are in place? Will he confirm that they will stay in place as long as the threats, to which we are accustomed, continue?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. A great deal of effort has gone into ensuring that our aircraft and all other modes of transport are entirely safe. My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no question of people in this country being intimidated by terrorism. I hope very much that the usual clutch of visitors will come to this country, where they will find the usual warm welcome.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, with unemployment rising, and output and investment falling, his interest rate policies have pushed Britain back into slump? Will he now change those policies before he inflicts further damage on British jobs, on British enterprise and on British competitiveness?
    The Prime Minister: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the thrust of policy is geared to dealing with the principal economic problem in front of us—the reduction of inflation—so that the economy may again begin to grow. That is the thrust of policy and it will continue to be so.
    Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell us how on earth cutting investment combats inflation? Is it not obvious to him that weakening British industry now will weaken the British economy in the future?
    The Prime Minister: As the Confederation of British Industry said yesterday in its report, it is encouraging that most employers expect to maintain spending on innovation and to maintain or increase spending on training. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise the substantive point that what really destroys the effectiveness of investment in this country is inflation, when it gets out of hand and when people can see that investment will not yield a proper reward.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if British industry is to begin recovery in the course of this year, he must cut interest rates now and find a sensible way of restraining consumption? What is happening now is ruinous.
    The Prime Minister: When it is appropriate to reduce interest rates, people do so. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was urging us to join the exchange rate mechanism when the exchange rate was DM 2·95. We will reduce interest rates when it is appropriate to do so.

    Baltic States
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the Soviet Union's handling of the Baltic states and their bid for independence.
    The Prime Minister: We have made our concern known very clearly to the Soviet authorities, in particular about the actions of Soviet troops in Vilnius and Riga and their tragic consequences. We believe that the Soviet authorities should withdraw their troops and negotiate with the elected authorities in the Baltic states on their aspirations.
    Mr. Hunter: In the light of the Soviet Union's oppressive policies in the Baltic states, will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the factors that will determine future United Kingdom aid will be the Soviet Union's acknowledgement of the Baltic states people's right to self-determination?
    The Prime Minister: We have always supported the right of the people of the Baltic states to decide their future status through negotiation with the Soviet Union. That will continue to guide our policy in the future.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that President Landsbergis will host a conference entitled "a free Lithuania in Europe" between 7 and 16 February in Vilnius and that, concurrent with that, he will conduct a national poll to establish changes within the constitution of the state of Lithuania? Does the Prime Minister agree that such a conference would be an ideal opportunity for an all-party delegation from the House to visit the Baltic states to see what is happening? Will the Prime Minister consider such a delegation?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestion. That is a matter for hon. Members, not for me.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly plain to the Soviet authorities that aid to the

    789
    USSR as a unitary state is conditional on the maintenance of human rights and democratic freedoms within the constituent republics as they now are?
    The Prime Minister: I have previously done that, as my hon. Friend will know. I must add that, over the past few years, we have invested a great deal of time and effort, as has the United States, in improving the relationship and atmosphere with the Soviet Union. I hope that we can suspend judgment on some activities until we have further information. What appears to be happening in Vilnius and Riga is quite unacceptable, but I hope that we can suspend judgment until we see matters more clearly. Yet again, we make it clear to the Soviet Union that our support for Mr. Gorbachev is support for him and his reforms, not for repression.

    Engagements
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is total support for his concern for the welfare of British troops in the Gulf? Will he put his money where his mouth is and give councils the money that they need to relieve their troops in the Gulf of the poll tax burden?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House the other day, authority already exists for local authorities to relieve troops during their period there.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of the Post Office this afternoon about the supply of the blue letter forms on which families write to forces in the Gulf? Is he aware that families of the Staffordshire regiment have been complaining that the forms are not readily available in many rural post offices?
    The Prime Minister: I can say to my hon. Friend that more have been distributed because of concern about that matter. About 600 sacks of mail are being moved each day to and from the Gulf. It is a massive operation. Hon. Members will have seen on television some of the difficulties that there are in delivering it.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today considering the effects of 13 days of war in the Gulf, the deaths of service people, the massive losses of Iraqi civilians, the environmental destruction throughout the region, and the loss of some civil liberties in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman accordingly join King Hussein of Jordan and the Pope in calling for a ceasefire in the war to enable the problems of the region to be addressed peacefully, as they will all be there at the end of the fighting?
    The Prime Minister: It was not the allies who ensured that the problems of the region could not be solved
    790
    peacefully; it was Saddam Hussein. It is perfectly clear what needs to be done before they can be addressed peacefully.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: Will my right hon.Friend confirm that the coalition forces in the Gulf are striving to uphold the United Nations resolutions and that it is hoped, therefore, that as many members of the United Nations as possible will contribute towards this effort? Does he agree that there is every indication at the present time that this will happen, and that it is to be hoped that our friends and allies, particularly those that have not sent forces to the Gulf, will recognise their responsibilities and find ways of contributing to the war effort?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. A number of Governments have already made financial contributions towards the cost of the forces in the Gulf and a number of others have announced their intention to do so. I understand that Germany has made such an announcement just today. We are grateful for that and we will be in touch with the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the objective of the coalition forces in the Gulf remains to secure the liberation, peace and stability of Kuwait and does not extend to the occupation and dismemberment of a defeated Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm our war aims to the right hon. Gentleman. We have made them clear consistently. They are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. They have been and remain the aims of the allies.

    North Yorkshire
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to North Yorkshire.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to include North Yorkshire among them.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend encourage those banks and building societies that are offering mortgages to home owners in North Yorkshire to extend the facility to European currency unit mortgages, thereby reducing the interest rate by some 3 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: Banks and building societies have the capacity to do that at present. It is a matter for their judgment whether they do so and for their mortgage borrowers whether they seek such a facility.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the course of his visit to North Yorkshire, will the Prime Minister take note of the importance of the link from the A1 servicing North Yorkshire to the M1 to ease the congestion of traffic on the A642 through Oulton and Rothwell?
    The Prime Minister: I will do better than that; I will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Dickens: Prime Minister, are you aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Are you aware—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have sympathy for the hon. Member. Give him a fair hearing.
    Mr. Dickens: Prime Minister, are you aware—
    Mr. Speaker: Why not proceed with the question? I think we have got the first bit.
    Mr. Dickens: Is the Prime Minister aware that my eldest son, Clive, signed on for the Gulf last week, and this week—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Did he do it in Yorkshire, that is the point?
    Mr. Dickens: Is this not more commendable than the behaviour of a lot of yellow-bellied Labour MPs?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman absolutely spoiled a good opportunity.

    Engagements
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister is travelling around North Yorkshire, will he pay a visit to York and take note that the Conservative club is having a closing-down sale because it has gone bankrupt as a result of the Government's business rate having increased from £5,000 to £15,000? Is it a Government policy to achieve a classless society by closing down Tory clubs in marginal seats? However, every cloud has a silver lining. When Labour comes into power we shall abolish the poll tax and there will be jobs in York, Derbyshire and everywhere else in Britain.
    The Prime Minister: But not, I think, for most people working today, for they will have long since retired.
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year the Northern regional health authority is receiving the largest sum that it has ever had? That is welcome news in the north of England. The 10·2 per cent. increase over last year means that the people of the north of England are getting a marvellous deal from the Government. In particular there will be the opportunity for increased capital investment in a new hospital in my constituency for which we have waited for over 10 years.
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear that. I am always pleased when my hon. Friend is pleased. He is a doughty fighter for the north and has been for many years.
    Ms. Abbott: Will the Prime Minister confirm that there is nothing explicit in the appropriate United Nations resolutions that authorises an allied invasion of Iraq? Does he accept that although there is a widespread consensus in the House and internationally that Saddam Hussein must leave Kuwait, there is no such consensus for an allied invasion of Iraq to smash its military machine, with all the casualties and damage to Iraq's people and infrastructure that would result?
    The Prime Minister: Resolution 678 authorises all necessary means to implement the objective of freeing Kuwait and restoring peace and security to the area. At this stage it is impossible to determine in detail precisely what that may mean. We shall need to judge that in the light of circumstances and we shall judge our actions against the security council resolutions.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about possible cuts in fire service provision which are the subject of an enormous lobby today by firemen and women worried about the cuts imposed by the Government on fire services?
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland)
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a point of order which might interest you on the ten-minute Bill which is about to be presented to the House by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? I am sure that the matter can be explained. The hon. Gentleman wishes to have leave to bring in a Bill which will abolish warrant sales in Scotland. In the hypothetical case—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with hypothetical points of order. What is the point of order on a matter of fact?
Mr. King: It is a matter of fact that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is on record as saying that he has not paid his community charge. My point of order is that, in June 1858, in column 209 of Hansard, a resolution was agreed as follows:
"it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignitary of this House, that any of its Members should bring forward, promote or advocate in this House, any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned, for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward."
It is absolutely true that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is not presenting the Bill for any financial reward; one understands that. The point that I wish to make to you, Mr. Speaker, is that, in promoting the Bill, the hon. Member will be rewarded, if it goes through, by not having to pay community charge or perhaps not having goods seized from him in payment of that community charge. In 1858, the matter concerned members of the legal profession, but during that debate it was determined as applicable in a wider area. The resolution refers to "any Member" of the House, whether a member of the legal profession or not. It is therefore a point that you might care to consider. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have in fact considered it. I am afraid that the hon. Member is not on to a particularly good point. There is no question of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) being paid for asking leave to bring in his Bill. That was what the resolution in 1858 was all about. If hon. Members could not advocate general changes in the law from which they would benefit themselves, it would never be possible to reduce taxation. I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) wants. Therefore, the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is fully in order.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing further to that point of order. I call the hon. Member for Falkirk, West to move the motion, which I think will be opposed.
3.35 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no truth either in the rumour that I am sponsored by the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers.
794
This is my third attempt to introduce such a measure. The last time, I managed to get cross-party support; indeed, on checking Hansard, I note that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was one of the sponsors of the Bill which I tried to introduce along these lines. I therefore expect him to vote with me, if there is a vote, and to encourage all his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches to do likewise.
At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the late Jimmy Dempsey, the former Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie who campaigned for many years for the abolition of warrant sales. I should also like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who last year introduced a similar Bill. I was pleased to be one of her sponsors.
The practice of warrant sales in Scotland dates back to the middle ages. Since that time, they have caused untold hardship and misery to many people and their families. Indeed, people have sometimes been driven literally to suicide when faced with the threat of a warrant sale. At the moment, many families in Scotland are living in fear of a knock on the door from the sheriff officer coming to threaten or actually sell their belongings because the family has fallen into debt, often through no fault of its own.
Warrant sales have rightly been described as a barbaric form of humiliation and blackmail which ought to have been outlawed years ago. They are not even an efficient system of debt collection, because the expenses incurred through the warrant sale system are often out of ad proportion to the amount of the original debt, and only about 3 per cent. of warrant sales are successful in the sense of recovering the total debt incurred. People's possessions are often sold at a fraction of their real value, with the result that the debtor loses the lot, the creditor gains little but the sheriff officer and unscrupulous salesmen line their pockets.
Recent legislation has extended the number of articles exempt from warrant sales to many essential household items and articles of furniture. Hon. Members may welcome those exemptions, but they go only part of the way. What is required is complete abolition, and that is what my Bill proposes.
My Bill also proposes to replace the warrant sales system with a debt arbitration service, which would facilitate arrangements between creditor and debtor so that a debt that is not disputed can be repaid by instalments, taking into account the debtor's financial circumstances.
My Bill would also control the conduct of sheriff officers by making them employees of the courts, and therefore more accountable. Under the existing system, they appear to behave like free enterprise agents; firms of sheriff officers have connections with private debt collecting agencies. That should be outlawed.
Sometimes, sheriff officers behave almost like Gestapo officers, breaking into people's houses, bullying residents, subjecting them to fear and intimidation and threatening to sell off their furniture and other miserable possessions. My Bill would stop such legalised intimidation.
Since the advent of the poll tax, the case for the introduction of my Bill has been reinforced. Recent figures produced by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities show that, during the current financial year, more than 50 per cent. of Scottish poll tax has not yet been collected.

795
During the past financial year, 1989–90, 1,208,000 summary warrants were issued for non-payment of the poll tax.
After 20 months of the existence of the poll tax in Scotland, warrant officers have made 15,000 attempts to poind property. Only 1,000 poindings have taken place and, as far as I know, there has not been a single warrant sale in Scotland for non-payment of the poll tax. That is not due to sheriff officers' good nature but to the strength of some local authorities and to the massive resistance of the anti-poll tax campaign.
Let us be straight about this: most people who are in poll tax arrears simply cannot afford to pay the poll tax, but they have been joined by many who can pay and who have chosen to make a stand so that those who cannot pay are not isolated and thereby become easy victims for sheriff officers.
I do not expect every hon. Member to agree with that stance, which is the one that I have taken. I have made it clear that, if Conservative Members want me to pay my poll tax, the sooner the Government abolish it the better. I am on record as saying, in the House and elsewhere, that as soon as the Government announce the abolition of the poll tax I shall gladly pay every penny of my arrears. I am not attempting to get any free ride.
Whether people agree with my stance or not, it is fairly self-evident that the more people who refuse to pay, the more difficult it will be for the 200 sheriff officers to target, hound and harass the poor people who have no choice because they cannot afford to pay. It is also self-evident that the more people there are who refuse to pay, the sooner the poll tax will be abolished.
If everyone had stumped up every single penny of their poll tax, the former Prime Minister would still be at No. 10 Downing street and the poll tax would not be under threat. However, largely because of the anti-poll tax campaign, the Government have been pushed into undertaking some form of review.
I warn the Government that the anti-poll tax campaign, including non-payment, will continue until the tax is completely abolished. If the Government have any sensitivity at all to the feelings of the people of Scotland and of the rest of Britain, they will introduce their own legislation to abolish the poll tax and warrant sales. Unfortunately, there is no immediate sign of the Government doing that, so I ask the House to support my Bill.
3.45 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I know that behind this Bill lie humane notions of helping people in financial difficulty, but I have more than a suspicion that its real motive is to excuse people who have not paid their poll tax from their respnsibilities and obligations under the law. It may be that some non-payers are in financial difficulty, but that cannot be said of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, because, although he can patently afford to pay his poll tax, he decided not to do so.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything out of order.
Mr. Ewing: I am surprised that you, Mr. Speaker, did not hear anything out of order, because the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), made reference to
"the hon. Member for Falkirk, East",
but I am sitting here quiet as a kirk moose.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I trust that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will correct himself.
Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise to both you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East for my mistake.
I was making the point that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—
Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member mentioned, but what is his point of order?
Mr. Sillars: Can you, Mr. Speaker, intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), because he knows no more about Scottish geography than he does about the Scottish law of diligence?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Amber Valley was in order in the remarks that he was making.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West, can well afford to pay his poll tax, but chose not to—and by introducing his Bill, he seeks to absolve himself from the consequences of his actions. The hon. Gentleman is always among the first to criticise those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who fail to declare their interests, yet he has signally failed to declare his own interest in the Bill, which, if enacted, could result in considerable financial benefit to himself.
The interests declared by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West in the Register of Members' Interests include occasional fees for broadcasting and writing, sponsorship by the Confederation of Health Service Employees, and a trip to the Gulf in September 1990 as a member of the international peace mission. However, there is nothing about the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Bill or in poll tax avoidance.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must come to the protection of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I have already told the House that he is in order in introducing his Bill.
Mr. Oppenheim: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but I had expected at the very least that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not known for his reticence in impugning others for their lack of propriety, would jump to his feet to urge the hon. Member for Falkirk, West to declare some interest in his own Bill, even if he is not strictly obliged to do so by the conventions of the House. Perhaps I expected too much. After all, the hon. Member for Bolsover also has an interest in the Bill, as a non-payer of the poll tax himself.
Talking of Derbyshire Members of Parliament, of the four Opposition Members who represent Derbyshire constituencies, no fewer than three have failed to pay their fair share to their counties' local government costs for this year.
Perhaps hon. Members who have brought the Bill forward feel that in some strange way they are striking a

797
blow for working-class dignity, but that is not the way that they are perceived by most people. When the vast majority of people who have paid their poll tax—often, I accept, with some difficulty—see the likes of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is a millionaire many times over, refusing to pay his poll tax, they are rightly resentful.
They are all the more resentful when it is the very same hon. Members who are at the forefront of demands for more money for local government, who constantly demand improvements in public services and are the first to leap to the defence of any item of profligate spending by their county councils, who now refuse to make their fair and legitimate contribution to local government costs. They are always the first to make excuses for any excessive local government spending, but when it comes to stumping up for the bill, they are always the last in the queue.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Order Paper, as I understand it, the Bill is connected with the abolition of warrant sales in Scotland and does not relate to the poll tax. I ask you to consider whether it is in order to misrepresent the Bill in this way, when 99 per cent. of warrant sales, poindings and everything else relating to the law of diligence in Scotland relates not to the poll tax but to other matters of debt? Is it in order for the hon. Member to misrepresent the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) did mention the question of warrant sales in respect of the poll tax, in the latter part of his speech and therefore it is in order for the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) to do the same. However, I remind the hon. Member for Amber Valley that the Bill concerns warrant sales and not the application of this procedure in England.
Mr. Oppenheim: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.
People are especially resentful when Opposition Members fail to pay their fair share towards local government costs. They know that, in doing so, they are increasing the burden upon the rest of the population who, for the most part, are paying their fair share.
I find it extraordinary that anyone who aspires to be a law maker can urge people to break the law, and even more extraordinary that he should then seek to legislate to absolve himself and others from the consequences of such law breaking. That a party which aspires to government should have so many law breakers in its ranks is bad enough, but that they should also be tolerated by the Leader of the Opposition in such a spineless way shows that their party is still far from fit to hold office.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes, 109.

Division No. 49]

[3.53 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

Battle, John

Allen, Graham

Beggs, Roy

Alton, David

Bellotti, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Armstrong, Hilary

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

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Benton, Joseph

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bermingham, Gerald

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Bidwell, Sydney

Barron, Kevin

Blair, Tony

798

Blunkett, David

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Boyes, Roland

Lewis, Terry

Bradley, Keith

Litherland, Robert

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Livingstone, Ken

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Livsey, Richard

Buckley, George J.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Loyden, Eddie

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McAllion, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McAvoy, Thomas

Canavan, Dennis

McCartney, Ian

Cartwright, John

Macdonald, Calum A.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McFall, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Clelland, David

McKelvey, William

Cohen, Harry

McLeish, Henry

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

McMaster, Gordon

Corbyn, Jeremy

McNamara, Kevin

Cousins, Jim

McWilliam, John

Cryer, Bob

Madden, Max

Cummings, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Marek, Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Darling, Alistair

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dewar, Donald

Martin, Michael J, (Springburn)

Dixon, Don

Maxton, John

Dobson, Frank

Michael, Alun

Doran, Frank

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Douglas, Dick

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Eadie, Alexander

Mullin, Chris

Eastham, Ken

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

O'Brien, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Faulds, Andrew

Patchett, Terry

Fearn, Ronald

Pendry, Tom

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Fisher, Mark

Randall, Stuart

Flynn, Paul

Redmond, Martin

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Foster, Derek

Richardson, Jo

Foulkes, George

Rooker, Jeff

Fraser, John

Rooney, Terence

Fyfe, Maria

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Galbraith, Sam

Rowlands, Ted

George, Bruce

Ruddock, Joan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Sedgemore, Brian

Golding, Mrs Llin

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Gordon, Mildred

Sillars, Jim

Gould, Bryan

Skinner, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Haynes, Frank

Stott, Roger

Hinchliffe, David

Strang, Gavin

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Trimble, David

Home Robertson, John

Turner, Dennis

Howells, Geraint

Walley, Joan

Hoyle, Doug

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wareing, Robert N.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Illsley, Eric

Wigley, Dafydd

Ingram, Adam

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Wilson, Brian

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Winnick, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Worthington, Tony

Kennedy, Charles

Wray, Jimmy

Kilfedder, James

Lamond, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Leadbitter, Ted

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Leighton, Ron

Mr. Dave Nellist.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Alexander, Richard

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bright, Graham

799

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

Knapman, Roger

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Latham, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Lawrence, Ivan

Burns, Simon

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Butler, Chris

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Miller, Sir Hal

Carttiss, Michael

Mills, Iain

Churchill, Mr

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mitchell, Sir David

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Colvin, Michael

Morrison, Sir Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Mudd, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Nelson, Anthony

Cormack, Patrick

Norris, Steve

Cran, James

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Oppenheim, Phillip

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

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Pawsey, James

Dover, Den

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Dunn, Bob

Porter, David (Waveney)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Powell, William (Corby)

Evennett, David

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Favell, Tony

Rhodes James, Robert

Fishburn, John Dudley

Riddick, Graham

Fry, Peter

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gale, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gardiner, Sir George

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Gorst, John

Shersby, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Sims, Roger

Gregory, Conal

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Grylls, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Hague, William

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Hannam, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Thorne, Neil

Harris, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Tredinnick, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Hill, James

Warren, Kenneth

Hind, Kenneth

Watts, John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Wheeler, Sir John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Whitney, Ray

Hunter, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Irvine, Michael

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Janman, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Mr. Tim Devlin and

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. Robin Squire.

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. David Marshall.

Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland)
  ABOLITION OF WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 March and to be printed. [Bill 69].

Local Government Finance (England)
4.4 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
That the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 93), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the next four motions on the Order Paper:
That the Population Report (England) (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 94), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 95), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 96), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 12), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.
Divisions will take place at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Heseltine: The House will expect me to say something about the progress of the review of local government structure and finance that I announced on 5 December. As I have said, the review will be a thorough one. I wish to consult widely. I have already had a constructive meeting with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I have agreed to meet him again. I have met the leaders of the local authority associations, and I shall meet them again next week. I have met individual local authority leaders from all parties and 1 have an extensive programme of further meetings. I have also arranged to attend a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State are also consulting widely.
I repeat my invitation to the parliamentary Labour party. It seems curious that the Labour party is co-operating in my review at every level, with the exception of the party leadership.
Depending on the progress of our discussions, I hope to give a first indication of our thinking in the spring. By the nature of the review, anything that I can say then will be unlikely to deal with all the issues that must be addressed, but it may make sense to focus the national debate—to rule some things out and some things in.
I have already announced to the House changes that will have major practical implications for the incidence of the community charge. The community charge reduction scheme will provide £1·7 billion of help to more than half of all charge payers next year. Together with the settlement that we are discussing today and the community charge reduction scheme, I believe that local authorities will have it in their power to hold bills actually paid by charge payers to below £300 on average.
The help will be particularly directed at those couples and single people who experienced the largest increases in their bills last year. Virtually all those who previously had rates bills below three quarters of the average for their areas will benefit.

801
The House will wish me also to address the issue of the community charge as it affects our service men serving in the Gulf.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his first point, there is a certain amount of lack of information. What about people who had no rates bills at all because they were not householders and who now get community charge bills?
Mr. Heseltine: If such people are disabled or elderly, they are entitled to special assistance, which is part of already established regimes with which the House will be familiar.
Mr. William O'Brien: What about the others?
Mr. Heseltine: That is the answer to the question. The schemes that exist have already been fully explained to the House. If no scheme relates specifically to them, they are liable to the charges. One of the purposes behind the introduction of the community charge was to bring into its incidence all the adults in the community. Therefore, it follows that people who did not qualify as home owners before the community charge was introduced would be likely to come within its incidence afterwards. That was one of the necessary purposes.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State point out by example what he meant by help relating to disability? There is no such help. It is based only on income. That is not the answer to the question posed by his hon. Friend for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Disabled people qualify for the transitional relief scheme and for the new community charge reduction scheme. [Interruption.] I have done my best to answer the question.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heseltine: We have had two specific questions, to which I have given an answer. There is a great deal of detail to deal with in this speech and I intend to make some progress. I intend to deal with the important issue of the affect of the community charge on our service men in the Gulf.
On 5 November, we advised local authorities that, where a service man is posted until further notice outside Great Britain, community charge registration officers should use their discretion to assume that his liability for the personal community charge ceases from the date of posting. There are arrangements for service liaison officers to inform community charge registration officers of postings to enable this arrangement to work efficiently. The spouse of any service man who is posted will continue to be liable to the personal charge where she remains resident in this country. We have advised authorities that, where a service man has an outstanding community charge liability at the date when he is posted, no action should be taken to recover the amount due until the service man's return.
Mr. Julian Critchley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in Rushmoor, which covers Aldershot and Farnborough, the register has dropped by more than 2,000 because of the number of service men going to the Gulf. Were the revenue support grant to remain the same
802
as last September, most of my constituents would be paying £14 a year more in poll tax. Is he able to help with that?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that question to me. I have considered the effect of service men leaving their local authority areas to serve in the Gulf. Most local authorities would be able to absorb the problem within the normal flow of population which effects all such movements of people from one year to the other. That deals with the problems of most authorities when service men move overseas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is seeing my hon. Friend the Minister for local Government and Inner Cities tomorrow about the particular consequences for his constituency and his local authority, given that many service men are involved. We have no specific proposals, but we should like to listen to what my hon. Friend has to say. If it seems that there is a substantial problem, we may consider it in the light of the consultation.
Mr. Dave Nellist: What happens—God forbid, all of us hope that this does not happen—if a service man who is exempted from the point of departure from these shores does not return? Will their spouses, because of joint and several liability and as has happened with families of trawlermen under Scottish legislation, be levied with a tax for which that service man was liable before leaving these shores? Yesterday, The Guardian and The Times reported that the Department is considering abolishing court hearings for non-payers. That will mean that service men's widows, instead of being prosecuted by councils, will have to initiate proceedings to prove their innocence, unless the right hon. Gentleman says that those service men will be totally exempt.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises a hypothetical circumstance which is within the discretion of CCROs. We hope that those circumstances will not arise, but I have explored them and will consider them further if necessary. The existing arrangements are adequate to cope with such a—
Mr. John McAllion rose—
Mr. Heseltine: No. The House understands that these matters provide for endless intervention, and one makes no progress with one's speech. Many of the questions that will occur to hon. Members will be covered by my remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin.) on 18 October that no service man was to be financially worse off as a result of service in the Gulf. I can confirm that that assurance applies to auxiliaries and territorials who are posted outside Great Britain and become liable to the standard community charge as a result. That arrangement already applies to regulars. The Ministry of Defence will pay to such people compensation equal to any excess of their standard charge liability over the personal community charge which they had been paying before posting.
I should like to say a word about the apparent anomaly that has emerged in the different treatment of single and married service men for community charge purposes. Under Queen's Regulations, a single soldier who has been

803
living in barracks is deemed to have lost any right to return to that accommodation after an absence of 61 days. Our advice to local authorities is that, if the service man returns within that period, he is liable for the personal charge during his absence, whereas, if he returns after 61 days, he should be treated as having had his sole or main residence elsewhere during that period and should not be liable for the personal charge at the address.
However, personnel living in married quarters or in their own homes are assumed not to have changed their sole or main residence until they have been absent for six months—by analogy with the practice adopted by CCROs in respect of other groups, such as merchant seamen. So it is possible for two people—one single, and one married—to be posted to the Gulf, for both to return after, say, 62 days, and for the single person to have no personal community charge liability for that period even if he returns to the same barracks, whereas the married soldier is liable for the whole period. This may seem like an anomaly, but, of course, it applies to any posting outside Great Britain, not just postings to the Gulf.
Also, there is some analogy with the position under the rating system. The single soldier posted outside Great Britain would have ceased to have liability for the rating element of his accommodation charge, whereas the married soldier would have remained liable for a rating charge in respect of his family home. So I do not think that this is the anomaly that it may at first appear to be.
The House will appreciate that the last time we issued local authorities with guidance on the treatment of service personnel was early in November, and that events since then have moved on. There have come to light new cases that were not wholly covered by our guidance. We therefore plan to issue to authorities fresh guidance building on the advice that we have already given them. I shall put details before the House at the earliest opportunity.
The hon. Member fore Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has today written to me suggesting that we should go further, and introduce legislation exempting from the community charge all service men in the Gulf. I am not convinced that this is necessary. I believe that, if community charge registration officers use their discretion in the way we have advised, service men will be treated equitably. If, however, there emerge problems that can be dealt with only by legislation, I shall come back to the House as soon as I can.
At this time of the year, is is customary to hear of cuts—often of horrendous proportions—in local government services. Indeed, one could be forgiven for believing that the 1980s in some way saw the decimation of what local government was asked to provide.
It may help hon. Members if I remind them of the simple facts.
When the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, local authority manpower—at nearly 2 million full-time equivalents—was at an all-time high. In the following two years, we managed to persuade authorities to look more critically at their manpower requirements. This resulted in a welcome reduction of 80,000 employees, But the encouraging trend was short-lived. Local authority manpower has steadily increased and, on a comparable basis, is now back to virtually the level of 1979. Local
804
authority total revenue expenditure increased from £43 billion, at 1990 prices, in 1979–80 to £51 billion in 1990–91—a 17 per cent. real-terms increase.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: In view of the larger numbers of socialist councils, my right hon. Friend should not be surprised at what has happened to manpower figures. Is he aware, for example, that in Hertfordshire, where, between 1985 and 1989, the county council had a Labour and Liberal majority, the number of employees increased by 5,000 and that spending was at a level £40 million above the rate of inflation?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend brings a sad example to our attention. However, the situation is even worse than he suggests. When one looks at the situation in the country at large one finds that Conservative authorities are much more careful about the interests of their charge payers, and that they consistently levy lower charges.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Taking into account the legislation that the Government have imposed on local authorities, is it any wonder that there should have been manpower increases? Consider, for example, the hundreds of people who, in my area, as in every other, have had to be employed to collect the infamous poll tax.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that the increases had been going on long before the community charge was introduced. I am grateful to hear him talking about increases in manpower. I am not sure how he squares that with the language about cuts that we continually hear from the Labour party. The whole essence of what I am trying to say to the House is that manpower is broadly where it was, at the highest level ever, in 1979, but that the real expenditure of local government is 17 per cent. higher than it was at the beginning of the decade. Spending across almost all services has increased significantly.
Two examples illustrate my point. In 1981–82, spending on the police amounted to £1·9 billion. In 1989–90, it amounted to £3·8 billion, which is an increase in real terms of 30·3 per cent. Similarly, in 1981–82, spending on personal social services amounted to £1·8 billion, increasing in real terms by 30·1 per cent. to £3·6 billion in 1989–90. The reality is that there has been a consistent real-term increase in local authority expenditure throughout the 1980s.
The settlement announced on 31 October is realistic by any standards. It provides for an increase in total standard spending—that is, the amount that it would be appropriate for local authorities in aggregate to spend—of 19 per cent. to £39 billion. When viewed in isolation, that is a considerable increase. When set in the context of the substantial growth in local government spending over the past decade, it gives the lie to the suggestion that local government is being forced to make damaging cuts—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is interesting that, despite all the figures, the Labour party goes on talking about that.
I have a copy here of a publication of the National and Local Government Officers Association called Public Service. It is interesting because it examines the various authorities that were capped last year. The House will be fully aware of all that was said about the consequences to public services if the capping legislation was enforced and if the cuts were brought about. The newspaper has done

805
the admirable service for all of us of surveying what happened in some of the capped authorities so that we can see what the horrendous consequences, about which the Labour party talked, were in practice.
Let me give an example. Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, but there were no compulsory redundancies. Bristol's budget was cut by £7·6 million, but there were no redundancies, no cuts in services and no charge increases, and almost £5 million was saved on financial adjustments. The rest was due to cuts in committees. I do not intend to go further.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: No.
This newspaper, admirable as it is in this one rather narrow respect, is available freely for hon. Members to study. There is a difference between what is said in advance about cuts and what happens in practice.
Even in the face of the level of provision about which I have been talking, there is still some complaint that we have not "provided for inflation". That reflects an attitude in certain quarters that inflation is an automatic factor which has to be built into the public expenditure profile, and which must be provided for and perhaps even nurtured.
The realistic point is that inflation must be tackled vigorously if we are to get it down. The clear implication is that, while central Government, industry and every householder have to tighten their belts, local government can be expected to ride on as if there had been no change in its economic fortunes. The logical extension of that argument—that the taxpayers, the business rate payers and the charge payers should fund the high-spending aspirations of the town hall—is set on one side as if there were no logical connection. I regard that as unacceptable.
Mr. Illsley: Utter rubbish.
Mr. Heseltine: It is not utter rubbish; it is far worse than that.
Mr. Bryan Gould: I have been trying to follow what the Secretary of State is saying, but I find it somewhat confusing. Is it not the case that, if an increase in central Government grant or an increase in permitted expenditure is lower than the prevailing rate of inflation, the real effect is a cut? Is not that the inevitable consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's settlement, and is not that the very point that has been made by the Opposition and by local authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: I am coming, helpfully, to the Audit Commission's view on the question that has been put to me by Opposition Members. Some people suggest that local authority budgets have been cut to the bone and that therefore, if we do not provide 100 per cent. of the inflationary increases, as the hon. Gentleman asked, we shall impose further cuts. That is to confuse cash spent with the quality of service delivered, without any attempt to get value for money.
Since 1982, the Audit Commission has systematically worked its way through many of the services of local government. It has discovered that there is scope for £1·3 billion of value-for-money improvements. Opposition Members would call that a cut. We say that it is expenditure that should long since have been rooted out
806
and avoided. That £1·3 billion, only half of which has so far been delivered in economies, was related to only 40 per cent. of local authority expenditure. Quite obviously, there are opportunities for value-for-money reductions without a reduction in service. Those opportunities have been drawn to the attention of local government and of charge payers, formerly ratepayers, by the Audit Commission.
What do we hear from Labour Members? They want to get rid of the Audit Commission. That body, which is systematically improving the quality of services by advice to local government, with all the benefit that flows to the local people concerned because they get better services at lower or the same cost, is to be stopped from pursuing that correct interest in taxpayers' money.
Mr. Gould: I am sorry to ask the Secretary of State to allow me to intervene again, but he really cannot get away with that total misstatement of Labour's position. We have made it clear that the audit function of the Audit Commission should be retained and strengthened. It should be placed in the context in which not just the accountants' narrow view of cost cutting prevails, and it should also be placed in the context of value for money and the quality delivery of services. That is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's side of the argument and ours.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand. We have auditors whose interest is to establish the rectitude of the accounts and whether the books add up. That is an important form of auditing. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is keen on that. That is retained. What about the pursuit of value for money, comparative statistics, and quality of service? That is another essential feature of the Audit Commission's activities. The Labour party has defined the function of the Audit Commission as it now exists.
Of course, Labour Members are not prepared to have comparative statistics. They are not prepared for somebody else to monitor the value that is delivered by local government. Why? It is because they know perfectly well that the authorities over which they preside cannot stand the scrutiny of any outside organisation. That is a classic example of the Labour party softening the climate of public expenditure without anyone having regard to the detail that matters.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robin Squire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to an hon. Member on his side of the House. Does he agree that the matter is worse than he has so far stated? Not only is there a highly suspect question mark over the future of the Audit Commission, but compulsory tendering has been thrown into the balance by the Labour party. We are talking of £3 billion-worth of local government contracts every year, and an estimated 20 per cent. savings—all to the benefit of community charge payers—which have been thrown out the window by the Labour party.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend says that the matter is worse than I have put it. He may be right. I am known for the moderation with which I describe the vagaries of the Labour party.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) has greatly reinforced the point that I wanted to make. If time permitted, I would deal with the benefits of compulsory tendering.
Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. We must make progress.
Parliament has given me powers to cap authorities whose budgets are excessive, or which increase their budgets excessively from year to year. I shall use those powers if it proves necessary. Whether or not it will be necessary is in authorities' own hands. None of them should doubt our determination to ensure that they do not spend more than the nation can afford.
The criteria that we intend to use for next year were set out clearly on 31 October, and I reaffirm them now. Let me also explain the process in more detail, because there has been some misunderstanding about it and I would not be suprised if some hon. Members—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps I could make the point before we explore it.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are particularly interested in the way the capping machinery works. We have published the intended criteria for deciding whether a precept or demand on the collection fund is excessive, or has increased excessively between this year and next. It is now for authorities to fix their budgets in that knowledge. When they have done so, I must consider those budgets and make my legal decisions on the criteria to be used. That will determine which authorities are capped.
At the same time, I shall propose the numerical level of the cap for each authority in the light of the information I have about their individual circumstances. The capped authorities then have 28 days within which to accept my proposed level of cap or to suggest an alternative level. Only thereafter, if an authority has not accepted my proposed level of cap, do I bring forward to the House an order finally fixing the level of its cap.
These arrangements apply to all authorities, including the single-service police, and fire and civil defence, authorities, which have expressed a number of concerns to me. I believe that the intended criteria are fair and reasonable for all authorities, but if an authority has budgeted in excess of the criteria I adopt, I must in proposing and fixing the level of its cap take its particular circumstances into account.
Mr. David Ashby: Would this capping apply to the Wimbledon commoners, who have increased their community charge by about 300 or 400 per cent. from last year?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend knows that there is a £15 million cut-off, and that authorities below that point are not brought within the capping regime—for which the
808
House is profoundly grateful. Certainly my hon. Friends are profoundly grateful that we have only a limited number of authorities with which to deal.
Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in fact dealing with the main complaint that we hear, which he dealt with when he was on the Back Benches—that the basic system of the poll tax is unfair and will not be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people? Those people take precisely the point about the poll tax that he made in speech after speech in denouncing it. Why, as Secretary of State, does he keep it going?
Mr. Heseltine: I generously gave way to the hon. Member hoping that he wished to make a constructive point on the matter that I was discussing, but it was a more general point, which he will doubtless explore, Mr. Speaker, if you are good enough to let him catch your eye.
Turning to the standard spending assessments, it is of course essential that we use the most equitable formulae for dividing the resources available, although it does not automatically follow that we are all agreed. We looked once more at the methodology used for calculating SSAs, and our conclusion was that, by and large, it was fair and appropriate. Nevertheless, after listening carefully to what authorities and their associations had to say—and their advice was often conflicting—we accepted that some improvements were necessary, and these were detailed in the consultation paper. In some instances, there have been changes in the provisional SSAs published at the time of consultation compared with those which are now final, owing to the incorporation of new information.
It is worth reiterating at this stage that an authority's SSA is specific to it—a point which is often misunderstood. SSAs represent our view of the amount of revenue expenditure which it would be appropriate for an authority to incur to provide a standard level of service. They take account of each authority's social, demographic and geographical characteristics and the functions for which it is responsible. They are calculated by applying the same formula to various indicators which reflect the particular characteristics of each authority.
Thus, although two neighbouring authorities may be of the same size and have the same population, differences in such matters as pupil numbers, population densities or road lengths will cause SSAs to differ. But the important point is that SSAs are calculated evenhandedly for each authority, taking full account of the particular characteristics of its area.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My local authority of Lancaster feels strongly that the all-ages social index militates harshly against it compared with places such as Blackburn, Burnley or Preston. We are a very economical council but we are made to appear extravagant because our standard spending assessment is so much affected by various considerations such as the all-ages social index.
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but it means that the needs indicators chosen for distribution of the SSAs showed greater requirements in the other authorities to which she referred. It is not within our gift to do anything but follow the statistics upon which the calculations are made. It is essential that these matters are dealt with on a formula basis. Ministers do not have any discretion once the criteria have been established.

809
They must follow through the logic of where the criteria take them. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that that is the basis of the legislative framework of the community charge.
Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the standard spending assessments have been cut for the metropolitan authorities by £8 million and for the counties by £2 million, whereas those of the London boroughs have been increased by £11 million? Why should the rest of the country pay for London's profligacy?
Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not had time to absorb the full detail of what I am putting to the House. In this settlement, the SSAs are increased by 19·4 per cent. over what we have announced for this year. That is 7 per cent. up on the budget which local authorities set for the current year. Those increases spread right across local authorities. There may be some switch within them as a consequence of judgments that we have reached about the incidence of each SSA and its formulae, but the whole thrust of what has happened is a substantial increase in SSAs across the whole of England.
Perhaps I may now consider the other side of the equation—
Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State give way, on the north-west?
Mr. Heseltine: We have had one question from the north-west, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State accept that anyone who examines local government in the north-west must agree that St. Helens metropolitan district council is probably one of the most efficient councils in the region? Will he explain why St. Helens was the only Merseyside authority to be poll tax-capped last year?
Mr. Heseltine: There is only one answer to that question: it came within the capping criteria. The criteria were set out, the budgets were set and the authority came within the criteria. There is nothing complicated about that. The answer would be exactly the same this year.
Let us move on to the other side of the equation—the funding of all the expenditure involved in financing local government. As the House knows, local authority revenue spending is financed predominantly from three sources: central Government grants, business rates and the community charge. The first two sources, which are referred to collectively as aggregate external finance, are increased this coming year by £3 billion—from £23·1 billion this year to £26·05 billion in 1991–92. That includes £485 million to finance the area protection grant—the new government grant which subsumes the old safety net and the grant to areas of low rateable value. The most significant aspect of this grant, from the charge payers' point of view, is that, from next year, central Government will meet the cost of the safety net.
As we announced in October, we propose that the business rate for next year should be 38·6p in the pound, an increase in line with the rate of inflation. The burden on business will therefore remain broadly the same in real terms as it has been since 1989–90. This stability of the business rate, where business knows from year to year the maximum increase that it can be asked to meet, contrasts markedly with the previous system, whereby business was frequently asked to contribute higher and higher amounts
810
to authorities' growing spending. Locally set poundages rose by an average of 37·4 per cent. more than the rate of inflation between 1979 and 1989.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in many small market towns, including some in my constituency, shops have had sharp increases in rateable values as a result of revaluation? Will he reconsider the five-year transition period? I believe that he has powers under the legislation to extend it, if necessary.
Mr. Heseltine: The provision is that, at the end of the five years, we can review the transitional position. That is not a commitment one way or the other on what we may decide, but the power to review is built into the system. I hope that helps my hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly stresses, in regard to the uniform business rate, that people in individual local authority areas can plan from one year to another because they know what the maximum increase will be. Therefore, is it not incumbent on my right hon. Friend to say whether the five-year period will be extended, for exactly the same reason?
Mr. Heseltine: If we were intending to have a review at the end of the period, it is not realistic to suggest that we will bring the review period forward by announcing that it will happen before the time originally envisaged. Although I understand the point made by my hon. Friend, I do not want to go further than the already known arrangements.
Mr. Gould: 1 rise again in spirit of genuine inquiry, because I may not know the answer and the Secretary of State may be able to enlighten me. If he will not move on the question of extending the transitional period and will not look at it until the five-year period has elapsed, surely any possible relief under the transitional arrangements would then by definition come to an end, because it would then be too late.
Mr. Heseltine: It would be within our gift to decide to extend the period, or to introduce a new scheme for relief, whatever it might be. Theoretically, it would be possible to make such a decision. There may well have been a revaluation of business properties before then. The arrangements were designed to avoid the fact that there are great gaps between revaluations and all the problems that flow from that. No doubt hon. Members will wish to keep this in mind, but it is not yet on the immediate agenda.
Mr. David Bellotti: The Secretary of State referred to the increase in the business rate. Can he tell us what percentage that is as a rate of inflation? Is it 9·3 per cent.? Is that the rate of inflation which the Secretary of State intends to use for the increase in the business rate?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman wants to know the rate of increase in the business rate. I believe that it is 10·9 per cent. If I am wrong, I will ensure that the figure is corrected in the reply to the debate.
Once the House has approved the settlement, it is for local authorities to set their budgets. I believe that many authorities will aim to provide a satisfactory level of service while setting a charge no higher than £380. Already there are many signs of authorities being determined to charge less than that.

811
But this is not the end of the story. The headline charge is not a true reflection of the average charges that people actually pay. This year, the headline charge was £357. With benefits and transitional relief, the actual charge payable was about £280. Already, community charge benefits help more than 7 million people. As I said earlier, the community charge reduction scheme will provide an extra £1·2 million of new money to help about 18 million charge payers. I have deliberately chosen this means of providing help, rather than increasing RSG, so that every penny of the £1·2 billion will go towards reduced charges, not to finance yet more spending.
I think that I said £1·2 million a moment ago; the not unreasonable explanation is that that was written in my speech, but it should have been £1·2 billion. I hope that the House will forgive me for having misled it for those brief moments.
The combination of community charge benefits and the new community charge reduction scheme will, if local authorities play their part, result in average charges actually paid of less than £300.
Sir Timothy Raison: Going back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on the community charge reduction scheme, I think that the scheme and transitional relief are admirable and the right mechanism to use for dealing with hardship, but I should like to raise one example. Let us assume that a couple aged, say about 20, who two years previously were living with their parents, have got married and set up home. The wife may not be working. Such a couple could not receive any relief, as I understand it, unless they qualified for rebate. Surely such people are likely to be hardest hit by the scheme. There should be some way of finding the equivalent of transitional relief for them.
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has raised an important point. The difficulty we had within the confines of the legislation was to find how best to use the money that we could afford to help the maximum number of people. My right hon. Friend has raised an example of people who would not benefit from the scheme which we have put forward. If we had had the legislative framework and the resources to extend the scheme we might have wanted to help that category, but it was not possible within what we could do this year. I must say that honestly to my right hon. Friend.
I have made the point that the actual level of average charge paid is a great deal less than the headline figure about which we hear much more frequently
Mr. David Wilshire: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point about how low charges could be, given the help by the Government, and given the fact that councils can look for value for money, will he agree that the work of keeping charges down will be severely hampered by those who deliberately flout the law by refusing to pay their charges, and that the Labour party is instrumental in pushing charges up through that tactic?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a most eloquent point. I cannot do other than agree with what he said. It is not just that Labour Members refuse to pay the charge and therefore set a wholly unacceptable example as
812
Members of the House: it is that, the more one examines the performance of Labour authorities throughout the country, the more one realises that, in practice, a Labour-controlled authority is more likely to set a high charge than a Conservative authority. It applies to all classes of authority. The House is entitled to an indication of the figures because it will help. The charge payer will make a judgment about whether there is a differene in the level of services.
Mr. Allen McKay rose—
Mr. Heseltine: No, I am not giving way. I am about to give a detailed exposition of how much it costs to have a Labour authority, and I will not be blown off course by interruptions from Labour Members who, I would have thought, would want to know what it costs to vote Labour in any area. Let us go solemnly through the figures.
In the London boroughs, if a person is lucky enough to live in a Conservative-controlled borough, the average charge is £285; if he lives in a borough controlled by other than the Conservative or Labour parties, it costs £331; if he moves into a Labour borough, it will cost him £420. If we move to the metropolitan districts, the charge in a Conservative metropolitan district is £309; in a metropolitan district controlled by other than the Conservative or Labour parties, the charge is £334; in a Labour metropolitan district the charge is £369.
If we move into the shire districts, we may find a set of statistics—I am sure they will come out at the elections—which show that there is no difference in Labour or Conservative authorities, but there is a snag; it is called the safety net. The safety net is the amount of contributions that are now being transferred to the centre. When we strip out the safety net, we discover that, in a Conservative-controlled shire district, the charge is £317; in a shire controlled by other than Conservative or Labour, the charge is £355; in a Labour shire district the figure is £408.
The figures are utterly uncontroversial; they are matters of fact. It is a very expensive privilege to live in a Labour-controlled local authority area. Most privileges entail something in terms of value for money but it is highly questionable whether one receives additional value for money in respect of the large extra costs of living in a Labour-controlled local authority area. But, at this late stage, I do not wish to make controversial points—[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilshire: We can stick to the truth.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must stick to the truth.
Mr. John Battle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: No, I think that the case has been clearly set out. The hon. Gentleman will have enjoyed what I said. He can now go and defend Labour-controlled authorities on the hustings up and down the country.
The level of charge next year will also be affected by the efficiency and diligence of authorities in collecting this year's charge. The latest figures show that, by the end of December, authorities had collected 75 per cent. of their expected total yield for the year. That is encouraging, but it is important that authorities should press ahead with collecting the charge for the remainder of the year, using

813
their enforcement powers where charges are not paid. Those who do not pay the charge merely deny councils funds for their services and shift the burden of payment on to those who pay.
Four formal reports give effect to the settlement. The Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1991–92 sets out my determination of the amount of RSG for that year, the amount of that grant that I propose to pay to receiving authorities and to each specified body, and my specification of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates.
The Population Report (England) (No. 2) contains rules for calculating the relevant population of the area of each charging authority.
The Special Grant Report (No. 2) sets out which authorities will receive area protection grant and inner-London education grant, and the amounts of grant payable.
The Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (England) amends the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), which sets out the basis on which I propose to distribute RSG to receiving authorities.
In addition, the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90 corrects the effects of an error in respect of road lengths in the London borough of Croydon used in the calculation of the borough's grant-related expenditure assessment for 1989–90.
The settlement provides a sound funding base for local authorities throughout England for the coming year. With an extra £4·25 billion of central support, it is sufficient to allow each and every authority properly to discharge its functions and liabilities, provided that it continues to exercise due diligence in rooting out inefficiency and waste. Generous benefits and other forms of relief make possible a national average community charge payment of less than £300. No one who examines the settlement carefully and in detail can reach any conclusion other than that we have struck the right balance. Local government is well provided for in 1991–92. I commend the settlement to the House.
4.52 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: I think that it is fair to say that the arrival of the Secretary of State at Marsham street raised hopes that many of the mistakes made in the introduction and administration of the poll tax would at last be corrected. After all, the Secretary of State was one of the few senior Tory politicians who had consistently criticised the poll tax and refused to swallow the propaganda that has constantly assured local government poll tax payers and, indeed, the House, that the tax would be fair and workable. The Secretary of State expressed a proper degree of scepticism about all that. He said:
"The problem is that, from the moment the proposals appeared, their unacceptably regressive nature forced concession after concession, to the point at which today we are left with few of the originally claimed advantages and all of the self-evident disadvantages."—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c.621.]
Here was a man, it seemed, who was not easily persuaded by arguments and assertions that appeared to fly in the face of the facts. Unfortunately, he was in a tiny minority in the Tory party. Although the poll tax probably only ever counted a handful of Tory Back Benchers among its committed supporters, those committed supporters unfortunately included the then Prime Minister, the right
814
hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and their lead—their insistence that the poll tax was the right answer—was enough to persuade many others that the problems of the poll tax, so evident from the experience of all those who had anything whatever to do with it, were always just on the point of being overcome. I see some of those hon. Members on the Conservative Benches today; they know who they are. They were persuaded to believe what they knew could not be true. They believed what they wanted to believe.
That steady refusal to face the facts and the constant recourse to delusion and self-deception go a long way to explain how the whole sorry saga of the poll tax came to pass. Tory Back Benchers have constantly been told that local government expenditure is at one level when, in reality, it is at a different and much higher level. On the basis of that false assertion, a whole structure of miscalculation has been erected. Revenue support grant has been fixed at levels which, it was asserted, represented substantial increases when, in reality, the grant made painful cuts in services inevitable. On that false basis, hon. Members were told that the poll tax last year would average £278; it turned out to be £357.
Other false assertions were made. Hon. Members were told that calculations could safely be made on the basis that inflation was running at only a proportion of its true rate—the same true rate which the Secretary of State and his predecessor have chosen to apply to the increase in the business rate. They were told that calculations could safely proceed on the assumption that 100 per cent. of the poll tax would be collected, whereas the widespread experience —now confirmed by the Audit Commission—has been of collection levels damagingly lower than that.
Mr. Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the factors leading to non-payment has been the campaign waged by the Labour party and that, had the Labour party been reasonable and sensible, levels of collection would be a great deal higher than they are?
Mr. Gould: I do not think that I shall bother with that calumny, except to say yet again that that is not the Labour party's policy and that we have made it clear that, however unfair and unworkable the tax may be, the obligation of poll tax payers is to pay what is due from them.
Mr. Heseltine: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about collection. Would he care to comment on the fact that Barnsley, Calderdale, Gateshead and Copeland have collected 93·3, 90·9, 90·8, and 90·8 per cent. respectively of their budgeted poll tax?
Mr. Gould: I am delighted to congratulate those authorities on their achievement. But, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Audit Commission, which has looked at the matter in detail, has forecast non-collection levels of a substantial size for a variety of categories of local authority—in the case of the London boroughs, amounting to perhaps 10 per cent. of their expected collection level. That is a serious blow to local authority finances, and augurs badly for the level of poll tax to be fixed in the coming year.
Hon. Members were also told, in this farrago of misrepresentation, that local authorities that set poll tax levels higher than forecast were profligate or extreme and,

815
without exception, Labour-controlled. The truth is that dozens, scores, perhaps, hundreds, of Tory councillors, to their great credit, made it clear that their experience did not bear out that false claim.
In the light of that welter of deception, it is little wonder that the poll tax figures never added up. It was not just the unfairness of the tax or the size of the bills that angered people; it was the Government's refusal to face the facts and to assert that much of the trouble arose because Ministers would not concede what was manifestly true.
It was in the hope that he would cut through the web of self-deception and delusion that the Secretary of State was welcomed to his new responsibility. It was hoped that the long-term critic of the poll tax would have no truck with the half-truths and fictions that had been put in place to deflect the truth. It was hoped that he would tell the truth, unpalatable though it might be, as a means of sorting out what then had to be done.
It is disappointing to say that we have to record that the Secretary of State's statement has shattered all those hopes. Far from setting the record straight, he has repeated all the misstatements and the attempts at deception made by his predecessors.
So it is that the Secretary of State reports that local government spending for 1991–92 will be £39 billion rather than the £40·8 billion which local authority associations are adamant is required if they are to meet their obligations. So it is that he can then maintain that his settlement represents a 19 per cent. increase, whereas, in reality, he has settled on an increase of only 7·1 per cent. above this year's spending level, and his revenue support grant will rise by only 1·9 per cent. or £183 million.
So it is that the Secretary of State continues to maintain that, for the purpose of assessing the acceptable increase in local government spending, inflation is only 7·1 per cent. rather than the 10·9 per cent. which he chose to apply to the business rate. So it is that he adheres to his predecessor's estimate that the poll tax this coming year will average £380, whereas everyone in local government and beyond knows that it will be well above £400.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted today, as he has many times in the past, the difference between what the Government have said the charge should have been and the reality for the poor charge payer. But will he at least agree that, whatever details he might argue about, the first poll tax figure represented no less than £2,500 million of spending above the rate of inflation? Had that not happened, the average poll tax would have been about £70 per adult less than it was.
Mr. Gould: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in putting forward that point, but I suggest that he discusses it with some of his Conservative colleagues in local government—for example, in West Oxfordshire. I think that they will confirm that the poll tax bills were so much higher than forecast because the Government deliberately understated the level of local government spending and the rate of inflation, they deliberately ignored the range of new commitments imposed on local authorities by the Government and they refused to accept
816
that anything other than a 100 per cent. collection was possible. I simply invite the House to cast aside the figures and to recognise that that is where the problem arises.
None of those mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, has yet been corrected. I well understand how anxious hon. Members are about the matter, but for all those who want to believe again that, at long last, the poll tax ills have been cured, I simply say that their hopes will again be dashed.
Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of items that he finds unpalatable. Did he find unpalatable the advice from the Association of Labour Authorities that Labour-controlled London boroughs should set the highest community charge that they could get away with? Will he take action to ensure that that does not happen this year?
Mr. Gould: That again is a calumny, and it has no significance. There is no evidence that Labour-controlled local authorities in London or anywhere else did other than set the lowest possible poll tax. The level of poll tax for the coming year will, again, be in line with what is required to try to maintain services and to keep the bill as low as possible.
The truth is that the Secretary of State has changed virtually nothing. All the fine words about fundamental change have left unchanged a revenue support grant, a method of calculating standard spending assessments and a set of capping criteria. The poll tax remains, with all its imperfections and, as a consequence, with all the protective misrepresentations that it now needs in order to conceal the truth. The Secretary of State was not even able to offer help to those groups, such as student nurses or non-working partners, whose cases cry out most loudly for reform.
Yet it will be claimed, and with some justice, that the Secretary of State has at least changed something. He has done away with a discredited transitional relief scheme and replaced it with a proper scheme, trading in realities and not inventions and, so it is said, backed by real money. I wish that all that were true. I wish that hon. Members who so desperately want to be let off the poll tax hook and who want to believe that the new scheme will do the trick were right, but I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State has not only repeated parrot fashion the delusions and deceptions of his predecessors but has, in the matter of his new community charge reduction scheme, invented some new ones of his own.
Let us examine the Secretary of State's claim that he has found £1·2 billion of new money. We should immediately be warned about the reliability of that assertion when the Secretary of State insists that that sum should be added to what he claimed was the £3 billion of new money already provided, when we know that £2 billion of that supposedly new money comes from the beleaguered business rate payer.
The truth about the £1·2 billion is hinted at in the Chancellor's statement on the same subject. He says that, because of the balancing effect of the changes, the overall public expenditure planning total will not be increased by the scheme. We need to know what that balancing effect is. Where does the new money come from, if not from increased public spending? What other budgets are being raided? Is not the explanation at least partly that those who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme are very largely those who this year are receiving

817
a rebate? For many of them, what they gain by way of relief under the new scheme will be lost by way of rebate. That is how the trick is pulled. It is not new money, but money transferred from one budget to another. I challenge the Secretary of State to disclaim or deny that point. I also challenge him to come clean about where that money really comes from.
Nor has the Secretary of State succeeded in removing the constraints which so limited the value of the transitional relief scheme. No one who has moved home since 1 April 1990 will qualify, and yet, as the Audit Commission found, in London that could mean that half the population is disqualified from help.
Mr. Richard Holt: Come on.
Mr. Gould: Yes, in some London boroughs there is a rate of movement of address of between 40 and 60 per cent.
Mr. Squire: I suspect that there are two different figures. There is the number of people who move home, which is a significant proportion, and there are those who move from low-rated properties, who would benefit from this. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right. My point is that, by virtue of that limitation, that large proportion of poll tax payers, whether or not they qualify in other respects, will simply be outside the ambit of the scheme. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
No one who lives in a household of more than two poll tax payers will receive any benefit—an anomaly which is recognised under the Secretary of State's new scheme in the case of those in sheltered accommodation, and very welcome that is, but not for others in similar circumstances but not living in sheltered accommodation.
Let us look at the Secretary of State's assertion that he has corrected the most obvious fiction about the transitional relief scheme—the fact that the calculation of the relief was on the basis of an invented poll tax figure rather than on the bill faced by poll tax payers. On 17 January, the Secretary of State said that the new scheme will compare the old rates bill, which, incidentally, is itself an assumed figure, with the actual poll tax bill being paid. That is simply not the case. That is another example of Ministers inventing a fact when the truth is inconvenient.
As the Secretary of State's statement makes clear, he has entered a new set of figures based on a new assumed poll tax figure for the purposes of his scheme. In most cases, the comparison will not be between the rates and the actual bill for 1991, but between the rates and a new assumed poll tax at the 1990 level, adjusted for the removal of the safety net. Poll tax payers will be left to bear in full any disparity between the assumed figure and their actual bills for 1991.
Mr. Wilshire: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how last year's figure, whether or not it is adjusted, can be described as an assumed figure? The English language is quite clear. Last year's community charges were real, for people paid them.
Mr. Gould: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The term "assumed" poll tax is not my phrase. If he will examine the Secretary of State's statement, he will find a table that sets out in detail the specific poll tax figure for every local authority throughout the country. So much for those
818
Conservative Members who pretend that we do not understand the scheme; it is they who are so clearly ignorant of its provisions.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman claims that the scheme will not benefit households in which there are more than two people eligible to pay the community charge, but he must know that that is not the case. A substantial number of elderly people who live with their families in my constituency are benefiting at this very moment from transitional relief and they will benefit more in the future. Why is the hon. Gentleman misleading the House?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman may be able to cite isolated cases and, as I do not want to mislead the House, I admit that my claim that nobody would benefit was too sweeping a generalisation. However, because of the limitation that only two bills can be counted, the vast majority of those living in a household in which more than two people have to pay the poll tax will not benefit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is a fair and accurate reflection of the situation.
The true significance of the new scheme is the need to introduce it at all. Ministers congratulate themselves on protecting—to use their word and that used by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks)—18 million poll tax payers by relating their bills to the rates. The irony that the Government are protecting people against their own poll tax seems lost on Ministers. If that protection is a partial equation of the tax to the rates, why not do the job properly and restore a fair and modernised rating system, as we propose?
The consequence of the Government's continued deceptions and delusions are painfully clear. The Secretary of State's failure to grasp the nettle means that poll tax bills in the coming year will still be much higher than the Government dare to admit. The figure will certainly average in excess of £400. Local authorities will find themselves trapped between an inadequate RSG and the threat of capping. They will be forced not only to fix their poll tax at a higher level than they would wish, but to implement the most painful cuts in grants to voluntary bodies and close leisure facilities, luncheon clubs for the elderly, day nurseries and legal advice centres. The cuts will also hit the level and effectiveness of policing and the morale and efficiency of fire services.
Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State did not spend much time on policing. Is my hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands police authority and its chief constable believe that the figure set by the Secretary of State will force the authority to get rid of 100 officers? Both the authority and the chief constable were told by Lord Ferrers last autumn to ignore the standard spending assessment because it was imperative, in accordance with Government policy, not to cut the West Midlands force. Where do the figures come from? How can the Secretary of State defend a cut in the number of police officers in the west midlands as a direct result of the figure that he has fixed, when that contradicts the view of the Home Office Minister responsible for policing?
Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend's point is replicated throughout the country. I have received letters and other representations from authorities of all sizes, functions and

819
persuasions, who are adamant that the cuts will be extremely damaging and painful—particularly in respect of police and fire services.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the magnificent lobbying by the fire service today, it was pointed out that Derbyshire's chief fire officer, for example, has warned of cuts of close to £1 million as a direct result of the poll tax and because the Government have allocated additional money to Derbyshire that reflects inflation of only 1·4 per cent., whereas we all know that it has been running at between 8 and 10 per cent. for most of the year? There will be a similar effect on local authorities throughout the country that operate their own fire services.
Mr. Gould: The point that my hon. Friend makes so powerfully in respect of his own local authority is borne out by the experience of many others.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: On the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), could not the cost of the extra police officers required in Birmingham have been met had it not been for the expense of the 149 trips to 31 foreign countries paid for by Birmingham city council last year?
Mr. Gould: The fact remains that the pattern of deep and painful cuts in essential services to which I referred will be repeated throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman will soon discover that that experience will not be confined to Labour-controlled authorities.
Ms. Hilliary Armstrong: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I met today teachers and parents from Warwickshire, which is not a Labour-controlled authority, to discuss a proposal to be put before its education committee on Thursday, which will mean the closure of either nine nursery schools or 26 nursery classes. Parents from all over Warwickshire have contacted me because they are up in arms over the Government's insistence that local authorities should take responsibility for their services, while the Government are making vicious cuts in local government grants that will affect young children for the rest of their lives.
Mr. Gould: Conservative Members must be either deaf or blind if they have not yet become aware of the cries of pain from their local authorities. We have certainly heard them and understood their significance, and we recognise the damage that the Government's action will inflict on local services.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is anxious to shift attention away from Birmingham, but that is where many of the difficulties that created the need to implement such a scheme started. Would not Birmingham be able to solve some of its economic difficulties and problems of homelessness if it did not keep empty 2,500 of its properties? The same goes for many other Labour councils throughout the country that keep thousands of people out of the properties they own.
Mr. Gould: The number of empty properties in Birmingham is less than the national average. Incidentally, when the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr.
820
Jones) intervened earlier on the question of policing levels in Birmingham, I forbore out of courtesy to point out that Birmingham is not a police authority.
The incontrovertible cuts of which I have spoken will bring disruption and chaos to many local authorities in planning their budgets and finances, but the real losers will be all those who depend on local government services to maintain minimum standards. They will frequently find occasion in their day-to-day lives to curse a Secretary of State who has inflicted such damage on local government.
The Government's actions do not augur well for the so-called fundamental review, which remains shrouded in confusion over its aims, timing and likely outcome. Press reports suggesting that the Prime Minister had offered the prospect of a conclusion before May have, I understand, been disowned. Today, the Prime Minister wrote to me and was able to say no more than
"as soon as we are in a position to announce the result of the review we shall do so."
We cannot take that as a serious commitment, and must therefore assume that his earlier remarks to the 1922 Committee were again contingent remarks—I suppose they were a British equivalent to the Nixonian term "inoperative".
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould: No, I am just about to end my speech. The Prime Minister may not have a clue as to what to do about the poll tax. In the light of his speech today and of his revenue support grant statement, it is increasingly clear that the Secretary of State does not have a clue what to do about the poll tax. However, the British people have a clue—they want a Labour Government to sweep the poll tax away.
5.20 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: I shall refer to several of the comments of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is my next-door neighbour, geographically, and whom it is usually a pleasure to follow in debates. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber, there must be something of an element of déjà vu about returning to the Front Bench and introducing several rate support grant reports. However, in this case the overall effects of the reports are beneficial, not only in comparison with last year but when considering the past decade or so, and I congratulate him on that. It is clear evidence that the Government are listening to representations made from both sides of the Chamber about aspects of the system. In the main, I shall talk not about the system but about the reports and the proper response to them.
The hon. Member for Dagenham was a little curmudgeonly to talk of the Government's listing aggregate external funding and saying that it includes businesses, companies and tax paid. After all, one cannot have it both ways. Either the Government are to be criticised for ensuring that local authorities determine about 25 per cent. of their funding, because the local business element is the majority 75 per cent., or one could say that the money is legitimately used as part of a Government exercise and is part of national funding of local government. I simply do not understand the hon. Member's argument, and I think that it was a bogus point.

821
The increase of £3 billion is a large figure by any definition, and the 12·8 per cent. increase is substantially in excess of current rates of inflation, plus—as hon. Members know—there is no need for the payment of safety nets in the forthcoming year, so most authorities have done significantly better than the rate of inflation. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Dagenham is listening to me, or at least I think he is. He will shortly be listening to me—
Mr. Terry Lewis: I am listening.
Mr. Squire: I am grateful. The hon. Member for Worsley is most helpful.
During the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham, one might have thought that transitional relief was reaching virtually no one. That is not my understanding. I have carefully read the same papers as the hon. Gentleman has and can say only that in my authority, where the average rates bill in 1989–90 was £501, every couple paying the average rate will gain £105 next year. Many right hon. and hon. Members will find similar figures when they examine the accounts for their areas.
Therefore, it is monstrous to imply that this is a tiny change which will affect very few families. I was talking about the average. People in smaller than average homes—many of whom might have bought their homes from the local authority—will make larger gains. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team deserve congratulations on the size of scope of the transitional relief.
Within the context of the settlement, it was right for the Government to stress again that they expect councils to make savings and to make progress on savings which have been identified by the Audit Commission. Hon. Members who have gone through the Audit Commission's reports will be aware just how wide is the scope for local authorities to make savings, for example, in the area of excess school places—a very large figure indeed—regardless of whether the local authority is under Labour or Conservative control. Collectively there is a lot of wasted money.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Squire: I shall finish this point and then I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
One of my hon. Friends mentioned the speed with which empty properties are re-let. That is another area which, apart from its impact on homelessness, is a significant financial element.
Mr. Evans: I support the hon. Gentleman's contention about the number of empty places in schools and the necessary restructuring. Does he agree that the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to allow almost any school in Britain to opt out, under the Government's legislation, is wrecking local authorities' proposals to restructure their education service?
Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has an interesting point. It is my understanding that the Secretary of State has considered applications closely and rejected those where the school in question was clearly due to be closed because of a relative lack of popularity—and so he should. However, the hon. Gentleman is moving into wider areas, which we both recognise and may disagree upon. If a school is popular and faces closure because of the arbitrary
822
whim of a local authority, it is right and proper that it should be protected and that parents who choose such popular schools should have their choice endorsed.
I referred to the Audit Commission in an earlier intervention, and I noticed that the Labour party is a little confused about its options on the Audit Commission. I have no doubts and believe that the commission is doing a powerful job. Until recently I thought that that fact was recognised on both sides of the Chamber. The Commission does not invariably attract the approval of either the Government or Conservative Members. At times it is critical of Government, Government Departments and Conservative authorities. However, it brings a degree of independence and objectivity which I suspect are otherwise absent from our discussions.
It is a local authority's responsibility to draw up standards and to ensure that they are met and it is the Audit Commission's responsibility to say whether the authority is meeting those targets or letting down its charge payers. Sadly, there remain too many instances where that is the case. On these occasions it is customary to mention the position in one's own borough, and I should be foolish if I did not do so in this context, although I promise that I shall not make a long speech.
I welcome the small improvement in the way in which additional educational needs are measured and I have passed my congratulations on to the Front Bench. What concerns me are ethnic minorities, as my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have heard me say on several occasions. I take second place to no one in wanting significant amounts of money to be devoted to areas where there is a large number of people for whom English is a second language. That requires considerable resources, and it should be seen as part and parcel of the system.
However, the present system goes much further and talks about two generations of families. I contrast my borough of Havering with Redbridge which, as my hon. but silent Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, knows, has a considerable number of second or third-generation Asians. Redbridge will benefit substantially more than Havering in the forthcoming year—to the tune of £18·6 million—despite the fact that it has 4,200 fewer adult inhabitants.
I do not criticise Redbridge for that; that is the luck of the draw—the way the cookie crumbles. Nevertheless, I believe that it is unfair, not only to my borough but to others. In most other respects, Havering and Redbridge are very similar, with similar demands, services and life styles. The figure is not only rising, but moving further and further from the level to be expected in a proper distribution system.
My right hon. Friend was uncharacteristically shy about giving the details of improvements that he has made to the standard charge. The charge—which affects many people with second homes—needed reform; several local authorities were exercising their freedom in an unreasonable way. I particularly welcome the maximum multiplier of half that will in future apply to those who are required in live at their place of work, but who also have a home of their own: that will help many people in London.
I am also pleased that people with empty granny flats in their houses will in future be given a zero multiplier, rather than the potential multiplier of one or two, and that those whose homes are awaiting sale after repossession by a mortgage lender will also be given a zero multiplier. Surely

823
it is right for us to provide such relief for a category of people—let us hope that it is a small category—who have already suffered so much through the loss of their homes. Similar reliefs are being extended to those experiencing difficulty selling their homes and to elderly people who live in a home or hospital but who have kept on their old homes. Those are important improvements; although, for some reason, the hon. Member for Dagenham failed to mention them, I am sure that, on balance, he welcomes them, too.
The Labour party has a tendency to talk of abolition. I have mentioned the Audit Commission and, in an intervention, I also mentioned competitive tendering. Competitive tendering goes to the heart of not only local government but health service funding; according to the best estimate, the health service is now saving some £130 million a year—which is being devoted to the sharp end of health care—as a result of such tendering. It too is now being ruled out on the diktat of the public sector unions; yet Labour tells us that it is not being dictated to by the unions—that that is all a bad dream of yesteryear.
Surely the fact that the tendering market in local government amounts to some £3 billion is reason enough for it to be conducted as efficiently as possible. It may surprise hon. Members who have misjudged me to learn that I have never suggested that competitive tendering should invariably take place in the private sector. What I do suggest, very strongly, is that, unless checks are made regularly—and, if such checks are voluntary, they will not be undertaken in many authorities—those who ultimately pay the bills will lose out as a result of the abolition of competitive tendering. I urge Opposition Members, especially those with open minds, to reconsider their party's pledge.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke of the possible outcome of the current review. Let me make three final points. First, I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to look carefully at the precepts. I want local authorities to be more accountable to their charge payers for the money that they control and the way in which they spend it. I speak from experience of London, but I am sure that the same applies in other parts of the country.
At present, a substantial proportion of the bills that end up on my constituents' doormats are determined not by the local authority—I am not talking simply about county council versus district council—but by the police, the probation service and goodness knows what other bodies. The local authority then passes on those levies, with no means of control, which, of course, reduces its accountability. I urge my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to whether, for instance, the Metropolitan police budget should be not only determined but controlled by central Government—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: And paid for.
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend knows about these matters. Yes, it should be paid for by central Government in one way or another, because it certainly cannot be controlled effectively by local authorities.
Secondly, if we wish students to make some payment in the form of local taxation—and I consider that right—we need to change the basis of the system. As a result of the review, the community charge as we know it may cease to
824
exist; but if any form of annual payment is to be retained, my right hon. Friend must give careful thought to the creative ability of students to move from digs to digs in a period of five or six weeks and thus legally avoid any liability.
Students are, after all, creative individuals: the hon. Member for Worsley is well aware of that. We know that students engage in that practice and it will no doubt continue in every university town in the country. We need to change to a system involving an annual payment—of a licence fee, perhaps—to a single central authority, arguably the one within which the college or university falls, and drawing a veil over where the students concerned will be living for the duration of the academic year.
My third point relates to the poorest group in the community, those receiving income support. I supported the proposal—which predates the community charge—for a minimum payment of 20 per cent. towards local services from those on income support, who would then be compensated by an increase in the level of income support. Now, however, everything tells me that, on balance, that was the wrong decision—for all the reasons given by the Audit Commission in respect of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population. My view is reinforced by representations from local authority treasurers, who tell me that an average of 35 to 40 per cent. of their departments' time is spent collecting the money due from those on income support. Even if we allow for an element of exaggeration, that is a staggering figure.
If we wish in the near future to extend to local government an olive branch—a sign that relationships between central and local government could not be better—one of the biggest reliefs that we could give local authorities all over the country would be an assurance that under a new system, whatever form it may take, people on income support will not he expected to pay the charge. It is not worth it; in this context, I question even the accountability argument.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an early opportunity to speak. I commend the reports and will support them in the Lobby.
5.37 pm
Mr. John Evans: Let me say at the outset how much I agree with what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said about the imposition of a 20 per cent. payment on the poorest sections of the community. I trust that, on this occasion, his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench listened to what he said, and that other Conservative Members also support his suggestion—although it flies in the face of what many of them have said over the past four or five years. I am certain that local authorities, and treasurers in particular, fervently hope that Ministers will act on the hon. Gentleman's wise words.
When the House last debated this issue, on 5 December, I was one of those who gave the incoming Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt. Like others, I had heard and read what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the iniquitous poll tax during the election for the Conservative party leader. On that occasion, I referred to the many serious problems and anomalies that affect St. Helens, due to the poll tax, and I called on the Secretary of State to abolish it. However, I told him that, before doing so, he had

825
"the chance to prove his mettle by restructuring the SSAs, especially those relating to education and social services, and reintroducing unemployment as a factor in grant support."
I told him also:
"If he fails to do that, we shall know that his leadership promises…were simply empty rhetoric."—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 360.]
After the Secretary of State's speech today about the poll tax, his speech on 5 December and the promises that he made during the Tory leadership election can only be described as empty rhetoric. I suspect that the current exercise is little more than a squalid attempt to save the skins of Tory Members of Parliament with marginal seats in the north of England. They face particularly severe problems on account of local authorities, which previously had low rateable values, having to impose a high poll tax.
There has been no restructuring of the standard spending assessments for education and social services in St. Helens. Even more significant is the fact that no attempt has been made to reintroduce unemployment as a factor in the rate support grant settlement. Unemployment is rising sharply in all the northern metropolitan areas. More and more companies are closing down, which inevitably leads to redundancies. Unemployment was bad last year, but it is even worse this year. No account, however, is taken of that fact in the rate support grant settlement, although it always used to be taken into account in the settlement for metropolitan areas in the north of England.
Therefore, St. Helens has been badly hit by the legislation. I have said on previous occasions, and I shall say it again, that St. Helens metropolitan borough council is very well run. It provides an efficient service to its citizens and it has done its utmost to comply with every Government edict. It had never been rate-capped. However, last year it was poll tax-capped.
St. Helens will be worse off this year than it was last year. The local authority received £46·3 million in grant last year. The settlement for next year is £48·5 million—a £2·2 million increase. If inflation had been allowed at 10 per cent., St. Helens would have received rate support amounting to £50·9 million.
St. Helens is better off when it comes to the uniform business rate. Last year, it received £39·8 million. Next year, it will receive £47·7 million. If 10 per cent. inflation had been allowed, St. Helens would have received only £43·8 million. However, it has lost transitional relief amounting to £3 million. Taking into account, therefore, last year's settlement when St. Helens was capped for the first time, it is now £2·1 million worse off, if 10 per cent. inflation is allowed for.
It is monstrous for the Secretary of State to suggest that local authorities can ignore the rate of inflation. I remind him that a major part of local Government expenditure is accounted for by education, including the salaries of teachers and other employees. That expenditure is not fixed by the local authority; it is fixed by central Government. It ill becomes the Secretary of State to suggest that St. Helens can get away with 7 per cent. inflation and make good the problems that he has deposited in its lap.
St. Helens has done its utmost to ensure that its citizens pay the poll tax, but the level of non-payment runs at 15 per cent. The local authority is doing all in its power to bring that down. Those who are struggling to pay the poll tax greatly resent being charged for those who do not pay it. My constituents tell me that they believe that, because
826
the Conservative Government imposed the poll tax in the first instance, those who argue against paying the poll tax should take up their argument with central Government, not with St. Helens and its other residents. They believe that non-payment of poll tax should be borne by central Government, not by them. They greatly resent having to shoulder that burden.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear to his St. Helens electorate that that is certainly not Labour party policy, let alone Government policy. It is entirely in the interests of their own pockets that charge payers should ensure that their neighbours pay the community charge.
Mr. Evans: I am passing on arguments that my constituents have put to me. They bitterly resent the poll tax and want it abolished. I have pointed to one of the anomalies. I know what Labour party policy is. It is to get rid of the poll tax. The Minister has always been a great supporter of the poll tax, but I hope to persuade him that Conservative party policy also ought to be to repeal the poll tax.
Mr. Illsley: St. Helens and my local authority, Barnsley, have been prudent by making provision for a certain percentage of poll tax to be levied to cover non-payment. The Secretary of State said that certain authorities—I am sure that he included St. Helens in that statement—have a high collection rate. The collection rate in Barnsley is 93 per cent. That shows that it is not a profligate, high-spending or irresponsible authority. It calculated the exact collection rate and allowed 6 per cent. for non-payment. A collection rate of 93 per cent. shows just how careful it has been, and just how ridiculous it is for the Government to assume that the collection rate can amount to 100 per cent. That is the problem.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has spelt out the answer superbly. The Government were repeatedly warned that to insist on a 100 per cent. collection of the charge was absolute nonsense, and that it would never be reached. Since local authorities receive their grant on that basis, they face a dilemma.
It is also immoral that St. Helens poll tax payers should be required to make good the losses made in collecting the uniform business rate. Small businesses in St. Helens, particularly shops, are going bankrupt at an alarming rate. They cannot then pay the uniform business rate. Consequently, St. Helens poll tax payers have to make good the shortfall. The Minister should go into that matter in detail. St. Helens poll tax payers do not understand why they should have to make good that shortfall.
The Secretary of State may have created confusion over whether or not there will be a review of the uniform business rate within the next five years. He referred to the possibility of a revaluation within that period. If that becomes known in St. Helens, there will be almost a revolution. I hope that the Minister of State will clear up the confusion. If it is thought that there could be another revaluation within five years, those who pay the uniform business rate will interpret it as meaning that they will have to pay even higher rates.
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): There is no mystery about this. The

827
hon. Gentleman must look at the statute. Statutorily we are required to have a revaluation every five years, and the next one will be in 1995.
Mr. Evans: The Minister was not in the House, but one of the first things that the Tory Government did in 1979 was to scrap the rating revaluation which was almost in place. Therefore, no one takes a great deal of notice of Government promises in this area. That was when the trouble started.
Another area of concern in my authority, relates to the proposition that the local authority will now have to pay to take non-poll tax payers to magistrates courts. The budgets of magistrates courts have been cash-limited, and I understand that, if the local authority seeks to prosecute non-poll tax payers, a fairly substantial charge will be laid upon it, adding further to the burdens facing my local authority.
My local authority has also asked me to make it clear that it resents the Government introducing new legislation and not making available the resources necessary of its implementation. For example, the Government introduced the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Children Act 1989, both of which my local authority supports as, I would imagine, do most people, but they are not making available the resources necessary for full implementation. Will the Minister of State consider that point? Either the Government should not introduce new legislation, however desirable it may be, or they must make the necessary resources available.
I want to ask the Minister a question about the Gulf which I asked during the Secretary of State's statement a few days ago. Whiston hospital is part of St. Helens and Knowsley health authority and is the regional burns unit. God forbid that any casualties should come from the Gulf and find themselves in Whiston hospital. I hope, as I am sure does everyone in the House, that all our service men and women come home safe and sound and whole in limb. The Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that extra resources will be made available to the health authority, but I must put on record the position facing the local authority.
I am sure that the Minister will accept the principle that if, unfortunately and sadly, any of our service men and women find themselves in that hospital, the chances are that they will be there for some time. It may be that the local authority will be called upon to make available housing and other services for the families of those service men and women. Can the Minister guarantee, particularly for an authority as strapped as St. Helens, that, if additional resources are called upon, the Department of the Environment will make good those costs 100 per cent. so that St. Helens can carry out the duties that it would want to fulfil?
The Secretary of State said that the SSAs were fair for each authority. That is nonsense. If we look at children at risk of abuse, can the Minister explain why the borough of Westminster receives twice as much per child as St. Helens? Surely, if a child is at risk, the authority is entitled to a standard payment. It cannot be right that one authority should receive twice as much as another.
Before the introduction of the poll tax, the average rates bill in St. Helens was £208. The average rates bill in Westminster was £501. Now, the poll tax in St. Helens is
828
more than twice the poll tax in Westminster. Surely it is self-evident that something has gone badly wrong when figures can be reversed as neatly as that.
On the cost of education, the spending assessment per secondary pupil in St. Helens is £1,433 and in Liverpool it is £1,717. Therefore, a comprehensive school in Liverpool with 1,000 pupils receives £284,000 a year more than a similar school in St. Helens. Those two authorities are virtually next door to each other and have almost the same sort of problems. How can that make sense?
May I also point out to the Minister that a poll tax payer in St. Helens has to pay £8 per head towards the debts of the Mersey tunnel? That tunnel is of no economic value to the citizens of St. Helens. No one from St. Helens uses the Mersey tunnel. Can the Minister explain to me or my constituents why they should have to pay, when the citizens of Widnes, who are more likely to use the tunnel, do not have to pay a penny? Those are the sort of anomalies and nonsenses that we expected to have been removed, or at least to have been mentioned, in passing during the review.
The Minister knows as well as I do that St. Helens has never been guilty of profligacy. Indeed, on 5 December, the Secretary of State praised St. Helens. He said:
"In all our big cities, there are now collaborative projects which show the right way ahead…In St. Helens on Merseyside, Ravenhead Renaissance is a consortium of private sector companies and the local council. With Government support, it is regenerating a large run down area of the town."—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 322.]
The right hon. Gentleman could have mentioned the Community of St. Helens Trust which has been in place for many years. Many Ministers have been to St. Helens and had discussions with the trust. It is an organisation run between local authorities and business and industry in the town. Its purpose is to successfully launch small businesses. That is another element of the co-operation between Labour-controlled St. Helens council and the local community. Yet St. Helens is now forced to consider every element of its services, which we believe have already been cut to the bone over the past few years, and almost certainly, in the ensuing year, we will face further cuts.
I invited the predecessors of the Secretary of State and Minister to come to St. Helens and go through the local authority's books. I invited them to publish any areas of waste or extravagance they could put their hands on. I repeat that invitation to the Minister and the Secretary of State. We would be delighted to welcome them to St. Helens. We would show them everything that is happening in the town, and we would be delighted to give them the books and invite them to comment.
Dr. Hampson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the St. Helens trust. Nobody supported that more strongly than the present Secretary of State when he was previously Secretary of State for the Environment. I wonder whether the logic of what the hon. Gentleman said is that the council is unable to give spending priority to areas such as that because of the distortion caused by education being imposed as a cost on the shoulders of the local community. Because of the education budget, the council is obliged to cut in other areas. Is that not an argument for him to support the transfer of education away from local authorities, so that they can concentrate on genuinely important local matters?
Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt he will be able to make the speech that he is bursting to make on transferring education from local authorities to the centre. A debate will be held on that subject. My only fear is that in the past 12 years I have watched instruments of policy being removed from local authorities to Whitehall. I am not sure that that is the best answer. I shall read the hon. Gentleman's speech and see what points he makes. As he is a well-known supporter of the Secretary of State, it will be interesting to see whether he convinces the right hon. Gentleman of that.
The cause of the problems that St. Helens and other authorities face have is the poll tax. Every hon. Member knows that the poll tax has been, and is, a disaster and that one day it will have to be scrapped. We shall have to wait and see whether the Secretary of State can do that before the election or whether the Labour Government will have to do it after the election.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has gone. She was the major instigator of this iniquitous tax. As she has gone, surely Ministers have the guts to do what the Secretary of State said he would do in the leadership election—abolish the poll tax. The people of St. Helens are desperately anxious for that to happen.
6 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I wish to contribute to the debate for three reasons. First, this time last year I was among the dissenters. It would be helpful if I commented on the changes that have been announced since and explain why I wish to commend them.
Secondly, I am one of the select band, or of the unfortunate group, whose minds have been numbed by service in local government. Those who have such experience—good or bad, depending on one's point of view—can help to clear for others the fog around the detail that is before us.
Thirdly, I wish to say a word or two about the aspects of this annual exercise that have an important bearing on the nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out review that is taking place.
I shall explain why this dissenter will be a conformist at 10 pm. This time last year, I readily supported the Government's global allocation of money to local government as a whole, but I disagreed in detail with the way in which it was distributed. Mine was not a particularly easy case. I had to argue that the county of Surrey and its boroughs needed more and inner cities needed less. It did not make me very popular or win too many arguments, but, nevertheless, that argument still applies and it must be put in perspective.
Surrey has the second lowest standard spending assessment per head in the country. Spending per head of population in Surrey—bearing in mind that we are considering spending for notionally the same level of service throughout the country—is £290 less than in Cleveland. Those who are concerned about the treatment of wealthy areas such as Surrey recognise that there should be a differential, but the argument advanced this time last year was that that difference was too great.
Two key issues had to be considered and they have been considered in the interim. The first was that the costs of neighbouring boroughs in the south-east varied little, yet allocations did. For example, Spelthorne, which is slap up
830
against the boundaries of Heathrow airport and which shares the same environment and pressures as the London boroughs of Hillingdon and Hounslow, received significantly less under the "other services" allocation, yet its costs were the same.
The second issue that exercised my mind greatly last year was the education formula. Money for the generality of education was switched to special needs. In previous years, about 12 per cent. of that money had gone to special needs, but it increased to 24 per cent. That made the general education budget appear horribly overspent and caused a distortion in the figures, because special needs were calculated on the number of one-parent families, of which Surrey has fewer than average, on the number of people on income support, of which Surrey has fewer than average, and on the number of people who have a immigrant background, of which Surrey has fewer than average. It took no account of the number of statemented children, of which Surrey has considerably more than average. There was an injustice in that calculation.
I rehearse those objections of a year ago to make one key point—that, when the Government say that they will listen, they do so. When one can put a convincing case, stripped of rhetoric and party-political points, one receives a response. Both issues have been addressed in the calculations that we are considering.
The inner-fringe allocation for other services, which includes the borough of Spelthorne, is higher than the allocation to the outer London boroughs, so my first point was taken on board. The allocation of money to special needs education is down from 24 to 21 per cent., which is a significant step in the right direction. I wish to place on record my thanks and the thanks of councillors in my constituency for the Government's response.
Having said that, I tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities that there is still scope for more improvement. We shall continue to press him and his colleagues to listen carefully in the year ahead.
The second reason why I wished to contribute to the debate was that, as one of the select band or unfortunate few, I spent 11 years as a councillor under Labour and Conservative Administrations. Therefore, the points that I shall make based on that experience are not necessarily party political. Those 11 years gave me an insight into local government finance. It was mind-numbing, as I said before, and complex.
I shall give an example of the problems that we encountered. I urge hon. Members to listen carefully because heaven forbid that I should have to repeat it. I draw hon. Members' attention to annex IV of the Revenue Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90, which we are debating in 1991; there is the start of the complexity. Paragraph 3 says:
"An authority's GRP for any level of total expenditure at or above the threshold level is determined by the following formula:
GRP = GRP at GRE + 1·1p × threshold amount
+1·5p × (total expenditure-GRE/population=threshold amount)"
I trust that hon. Members are clear about that. It is mind-numbing, but we are being asked to vote on it.
Even if, after 11 years one gets the hang of it—I am sure that Front-Bench Labour spokesmen share my enthusiasm for this—there is always that figure: take away or add the number one first thought of. In the example that

831
I gave, it is 1·1p or 1·5p. In other words, if the formulas do not come up with the answers that are required, they are adjusted so that they do. It is an odd system, but Conservative and Labour Governments have used it, so I do not invite people to draw political conclusions from it.
My 11 years in local government suggest that six things must be considered before we vote at 10 pm: first, the global spending figure for the forthcoming year; secondly, the aggregate external finance figure; thirdly, how that AEF figure is distributed—in other words, the SSAs; fourthly, the capping criteria that are used; fifthly, the new invention, the community charge relief scheme; and, finally, the community charge spending calculation for local government generally and for each particular authority.
The global spending figure is not a community charge issue. Whatever system of revenue raising one has, someone will have to fix the global spending figure. I raise that point to make it clear that very little of what is being debated has any real and direct bearing upon the party political aspect of the community charge and its future. Whatever system of revenue raising one has, the global spending figure will always be controversial and tension will be inevitable every year when we come to debate the issue.
Local government, whoever is in control, will be all about articulating and responding to need; and central Government, whichever party occupies Downing street, will have to make statements about minimum standards and about what the nation can afford. Whoever is in power, we shall have to face up to the fact that there is not a bottomless bucket. Anybody who believes that getting rid of or changing the community charge would mean that the global spending figure did not have to be discussed every year is wrong.
As for next year, the £39 billion, which is 19 per cent. more than the figure that was set last year and, as somebody said earlier, 7 per cent. above actual spending for the current year, is fair and reasonable. I hear what people say about inflation this year, but inflation is falling fast and the prediction is that it will go down further. As the Audit Commission says, there is considerable scope for value-for-money exercises to ensure that better use is made of funds. The trap that we must all guard against falling into is simply taking this year's spending and adding something on. That is not the way to justify accounting procedures. The £39 billion, in the case of a well-run authority, could well represent service growth.
Neither is the second of the issues—the aggregate external finance—a community charge issue. Even if local authorities wanted to raise all their money from local people by a different system of collecting tax, somebody at the centre would have to address the question of unequal wealth. Whatever we do with the community charge, somebody, each year, will have to ask how poor the poor areas are, and that will always be controversial. Returning to my "Surrey versus Cleveland" point, I must say that we shall disagree for ever about where the definition lies. Equally, somebody will always have to take a decision on what percentage, irrespective of the method used to collect money locally, should come from the centre. Every year, whatever we do about the community charge, we shall have to have this debate.
832
It is important to understand how the tension, the conflict, should be managed. That takes the focus of the debate away from the community charge and puts it where it should be. This part of the debate should be about what services local government ought to provide. In other words, how big is the total spend? Asking that question helps one to arrive at a decision on how to split expenditure up. Secondly, what variations in standards across the country are acceptable?
If one cannot accept a variation in the spelling ability of children, the centre will have to take a bigger hand in the control of the service that is provided. I contend that the greater the control from the centre, the greater the extent to which money will come from the centre rather than from local people. That debate has nothing much to do with the community charge, but everything to do with the issues that are before us.
I think that the AEF figure of £26·05 billion for 1991–92 is fair and reasonable. It is 12·8 per cent.—above even the highest figure given for inflation—and,whatever may have been said, it includes £3 billion of new money to help local government. That sort of settlement, in my judgment, more than maintains the status quo. For next year it will mean that local authorities, if they go about running their business properly, can choose whether to reduce the community charge or to improve services—or to have a combination of both.
When one turns to the distribution of the money that comes from the centre one sees again that the SSAs are not a community charge issue in themselves. The SSAs reflect varying needs across the country and the varying affluence of different parts of the country. Differing needs and differing affluence existed before we had the community charge and they will continue to exist. Anybody who thinks that scrapping or reforming the community charge would result in our not having to have this part of the debate each year misunderstands the true nature of what is going on.
It is important that we should ask ourselves why the SSAs were introduced at the same time as the community charge. It was always assumed that there was a link because community charge meant SSAs. It did not. SSAs came about because there was a belief that the old system was "US" and had to be done away with, that, whether or not we changed the rating system, we had to bring in a system—
Mr. David Blimkett: "US"—useless.
Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to say "useless" I am happy to do so. The old system was useless. It was clapped-out. It was an awful system. The hon. Gentleman and I had to try to understand it and work it. As the years went by, it got worse and worse, and it had to go. If hon. Members, whether on the Government side or on the Opposition side, want to change the community charge, let them not suggest that the whole grant system has to be chucked out as well. It is a wholly different issue. The old system was awful.
It is important to understand the theory of the new system. Its purpose was to address once and for all the question of needs—to assess needs. The other thing that it set out to do was to be simple. I concede that it was bound to take time to settle down. One must bear in mind the fact that simplicity in itself actually militates against the

833
fine-tuning that hon. Members now seem to want. If all of us are not very careful, if we engage in special pleading —saying "Adjust this" and "Adjust that"—we shall end up with a system as complex as the one we got rid of, and in a year or two I shall be joining the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in describing it as useless. We must be careful. We must distinguish the SSA system from the community charge itself. There are still ways in which the issue needs to be addressed. I referred to the example of special education.
Capping is equally an issue about which we have to be clear. Despite the rhetoric, capping is not a community charge issue. Central Government will always need some means of enforcing control over local government. Even the Labour party, in its most extreme moments when it says that local government should be set free, says, in very small type and in brackets at the bottom, "unless". If one thinks about this in a detached way one must agree that the nation state has to control public expenditure. I repeat that capping in itself is not a community charge issue.
Dr. Hampson: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, in quite a number of countries, local authority funds are not provided out of national Treasury accounts. It seems to me that the reason for the scale of local authority spending—more than one quarter of total public expenditure—is simply that the system, indeed the whole structure, of local government is determined by expenditure on education.
Mr. Wilshire: I accept that. My hon. Friend started by saying that we do not need to have controls, and he went on to explain why we do. If one wanted local authorities simply to provide rubbish bins and the odd seat, that would be a different matter. I shall come back to this point, as it relates to where I believe successive Governments have gone wrong.
I believe that what is set out for 1991–92 makes good sense. Giving advance notice is the best way of helping local government. During my days in local government, we always moaned about never knowing from one moment to the next what was required of us. On this occasion, local government has been told what is required well in advance and knows what is coming. If we are to have the present system of capping, the criteria are reasonable. The procedures for going through the mechanisms of capping are sensible and reasonable as well.
Control of whatever sort is bound to be controversial because somebody will always argue that control from the centre—this brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)—limits local freedom of action. However, the control need not be as controversial as it is. For some time now, the target of capping has been expenditure and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West made the point that it depends what the money is spent on. The method that has been used until now has been to try to control income. If the target is expenditure and the means is income, we should not be surprised if confusion is the result.
We should, equally, not be surprised if we end up with ineffective control. I make the plea for future debates that, at some stage, we find a way to switch control from the mechanism of charge capping or income capping to
834
controlling expenditure. A bonus from that is that the way in which income is raised becomes far less controversial if it is not the mechanism for trying to control expenditure.
The community charge relief scheme is the only community charge issue before the House today and we should all realise that. There are two ironies. First, we have in front of us a scheme that we all wanted, yet we are saying that somehow the community charge needs to be adjusted for 17 million people. That strikes me as slightly odd. Secondly, to bring in the help that we need, we have to fall back on the rating system and on rateable values as the means of calculating relief. However, the present scheme will give a great deal of help to many people.
I have never argued that the borough of Spelthorne has been in the vanguard in making complaints about the effects of the community charge. However, even in my borough—and how much more it must be the case in boroughs that have greater problems—the scheme will bring a great deal of help. In the current year, some 7,000 people out of 70,000 are getting some sort of relief. Although the figures have not been finalised, it seems that, in the year from April, the 7,000 will become at least 20,000 to 25,000. That is the measure of the extra help, and I am sure that my constituents will be grateful for it.
I trust that the scheme will be temporary. If it is left in place permanently, it will continue to undermine the financial accountability on which the community charge principle was built. Distributing relief in this way also confuses in the public mind who is responsible for the redistribution of wealth. If we were to have such a permanent scheme, my plea is that we should find a method of income support as a means of redistribution rather than using rebates in the hands of local government.
The way in which the Government calculate what the community charge should be is not in itself a community charge issue. It is only a community charge issue in so fair as the system that we have is the community charge. If we were to get rid of it, we should still have to make a calculation about what the method of income should mean to the individual payer. As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, the figure of £381 is a norm or average for the country as a whole. It is certainly an achievable norm, and it may be worth testing that average figure against the real world.
In Surrey, £381 looks achievable. It seems that the lowest district charge in Surrey is heading for about £340 and that the highest is heading for about £470. It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends that the highest figure comes from the one council that is not controlled by the Conservative party. The estimates are realistic and achievable, and the experience in Surrey suggests that other counties and boroughs could follow suit.
There are implications for the review that my hon. Friend the Minister and others are undertaking. I urge my hon. Friend to take on board the implication of the fact that only one of the six issues that I have mentioned is a community charge issue. However we raise local tax, central Government will always set expenditure limits and central Government money will always be needed. Wealth redistribution will always be required and central Government will have to have a fallback mechanism for enforcing their requirements. That means that, if all one reviews is finance, the review must go wider than simply addressing the method of local taxation.
Some say that modifications to the community charge are necessary, but they must not be dealt with in isolation.

835
Modification is necessary and what has been done this year is timely, but the modifications—and any that are brought forward next year—will not produce a long-term solution. Even if abolition of the community charge is considered to be the way forward, that will deal with only one of the six issues that I have addressed. The review must go further than that.
Just as one cannot address the community charge in isolation from finance generally, so it is equally impossible to address the general question of finance in isolation from all the issues of local government. One must also address the questions of territories, services and local democracy. If I go too far down that track, I shall rapidly go out of order, so I will confine myself to two points about the review as it relates to the community charge.
The review must be comprehensive and it must proceed in the right order so that finance is dealt with at the right time. The review must start with territories and it must then deal with boundaries, with the single-tier issue, with service delivery and with local democracy. Only then should it move on to finance generally. Only after it resolves the general issues of finance, including all the six issues that I have mentioned, should it move on to the question of how one raises local revenue.
Finance is a means and not an end. If it is elevated to an end in its own right, we shall not get the cure that we want. The details of services, territories and local democracy must be worked out first so that finance—the means of delivery—is moulded to the new model that will come out of the review. It is therefore far too soon to come up with a solution to the long-term future of either the revenue support grant debate, which we are having today, or the community charge.
I suspect that the results of the review may make local government look so different that an entirely different system of revenue support grant or an entirely different system of local tax could look sensible. Perhaps—surprise, surprise—a modified community charge, given an entirely different definition of local government, could strike people of all parties as being both fair and convenient. However, for the time being, we must stick to the short term and we must stick with the present issues.
The Government have responded well to the issues that they are capable of addressing quickly. The reports represent substantial improvements compared with last year's procedures. However, there is no other realistic scope—I regret this a little—for improvement before I April this year. In the circumstances, I hope that all those who, like me, were dissenters last year will change their minds and say that there has been improvement which we should support while serving notice that, by this time next year, we hope that there will be even more change and improvement that we can support again.
6.29 pm
Mr. David Bellotti: This matter concerns some of the most vital services for our constituents. It is proper that we remind ourselves that, although we may be speaking of a little more than 25 per cent. of the country's expenditure, nevertheless we are helping to deliver important services. I refer to services such as education, housing, social services, care for the elderly, the police,
836
environmental health and planning. The list is long. Those services are so vital that the time that we spend on this matter is most important.
The Secretary of State's first test is to assure the House that he believes in those services and that they should be delivered. The 7 per cent. expenditure increase over the previous year's budget does not meet the real needs for services. It is also a little hypocritical that the Secretary of State should confirm that, in looking at the figure for the increase in business rates, he took the level of inflation at 10·9 per cent., but that, in looking at the percentage for the increases in services and local authorities' needs, he took the figure of 7 per cent.
Mr. Portillo: Nineteen.
Mr. Bellotti: It is interesting that those different figures are arrived at to suit the Government. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of the percentage that he quoted. I shall demonstrate the percentage that the Government are quoting.
The high increase that is falling on business rate payers, who are currently finding it difficult to keep their small shops and businesses open, is not matched by the Government in cash terms. For example, the Government's own principal contribution to the revenue support grant, taking away the business rate increases, shows an increase of only 1·9 per cent. I shall be interested to hear the Minister confirm whether he considers that figure to be accurate.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said about aggregate external finance. Like me, he has served on local authorities for more than 11 years, and he knows that that is a key figure in the delivery of local services. The aggregate external finance this year will fall from 70 per cent. to 67 per cent. That means that local authorities will get less help from the Government-controlled part of the money that they need to provide their services.
We must remind ourselves that inflation is 9·3 per cent. or thereabouts. Therefore, one matter that the Minister must consider is what level of pay increases local government workers are likely to achieve this year. We were reminded that teachers account for most local authority wage increases, and that such increases should be in the region of 9 per cent. If they are in that region, where is the money to fund them? Are local authorities supposed to cut other services to pay the proper wages that they should'? Those questions remain after looking at the overall financial package that the Government are placing before us.
I shall refer to one or two authorities to try to demonstrate that it does not matter whether we are discussing Conservative-controlled, Labour-controlled or Liberal-Democrat-controlled authorities; the picture is still bleak for every local authority.
For example, East Sussex county council has fared rather well in terms of capital allocation. Nevertheless, a report clearly shows that the standard of our school buildings is such that we need to spend an enormous sum, which the Government will not permit us to spend, to bring those buildings back up to the required standard. We have one of the highest-rising pupil numbers in the country and our staying-on rate is one of the best. However, we are penalised by not being able to be able to invest in school buildings to provide for those pupils.

837
The Government are taking into account the balances that they expect local authorities to have. In the case of East Sussex, our balances this year, at only £3 million, mean that we are being doubly penalised for not holding money in the bank and for wanting to deliver services but not having the money for them.
I am not attracted to the argument that two or three Conservative Back-Bench Members have made about moving education into the centre to reduce the community charge or poll tax. I wonder whether those hon. Members are suggesting that they would leave local authorities with the sum of money that they currently have, but not require them to provide education. That could become a slightly atractive proposition, but I am sure that the Government would not do that. I am sure that they would remove the amount of money that they expect to be spent on education, leave local authorities with less money to provide fewer services and then provide education from the centre, where it could he controlled.
Having considered central Government expenditure in recent years, I am not convinced that they are very good at controlling expenditure. Local authorities are much better at doing that. I am attracted to the proposition, but I wonder what Conservative Members are actually saying when they make such points.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's point is absolute nonsense. Perhaps I can help him by telling him that central Government expenditure between 1984 and 1989 increased by 2·4 per cent. Over exactly the same period, local government expenditure increased by 9·4 per cent. Elementary maths will tell the hon. Gentleman that, far from central Government expenditure increasing faster, local government expenditure increased faster—by a factor of four times over that period.
Mr. Bellotti: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with his point straight away. As I was a county councillor since 1981, I shall be pleased to send the hon. Gentleman a list of the responsibilities that central Government have placed on local government and, therefore, the costs that local government has had to bear as a result. Central Government have not made available the money to pay for those services.
Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bellotti: The hon. Gentleman has made one intervention. I wish to proceed.
Mr. Mitchell: I am responding.
Mr. Bellotti: If the hon. Gentleman is responding, I shall give way.
Mr. Mitchell: I do not wish to compound the hon. Gentleman's ignominy. He made a point about the increase in local government expenditure as against the increase in central Government expenditure. He then tried to wriggle out of his first point. Although it is true that there has been a change in the allocation of responsibilities as between central and local government, it goes both ways. The hon. Gentleman will reflect on the success of the Government's right-to-buy policy, which has been a trend in the opposite direction. Therefore, he must accept that those matters go both ways.
Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for elaborating his point. If one is on the receiving end in local
838
government, one sees central Government burdens year after year. We should not continue the dialogue. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I have made mine. I hope that my next point will help him.
I now refer to the financing of the police of East and West Sussex. Lord Ferrers sent a letter to hon. Members pointing out the level of extra policing available. He said that, since the Government came to office in 1979, 179 extra police officers had been allocated for East and West Sussex. Of course, Lord Ferrers did not point out the extra responsibilities that had been given to those police authorities.
First, the policing of Gatwick airport has increased enormously because of the extra security that the Government properly wanted to be provided there. Secondly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has led to the need for extra staff in police stations. Those extra costs have fallen on Sussex police authority as a result of Government policy. The policy is not disputed, but the resources do not follow the policy. We have no extra police officers on the streets of East and West Sussex, because all the extra 179 police officers are involved either at Gatwick airport or in Police and Criminal Evidence Act duties.
It was stated that Eastbourne borough council is one local authority that has done particularly well this year. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the late Ian Gow, who last year led a deputation to the Minister because of the very poor settlement for Eastbourne borough council. Last year's settlement was 16 per cent. lower than the previous settlement under the grant-related expenditure assessment system. That is an appalling situation—one of the worst in the country. My predecessor's efforts have led to an improvement this year, but, taking the two years together, we are still well below the average of other districts in our county and well down the list of districts in the country.
My point is that Eastbourne borough council, like many other local authorities, is spending an enormous sum of money collecting the poll tax and that has not been reflected in the amounts of money which Government have been giving to local authorities. I am sure that, if the burden of the poll tax were removed by abolishing it, local authorities would be able to use the money that has been allocated in a more cost-effective and service provision-led way.
The position in another area not far from mine Sussex demonstrates how ridiculous the reports are. This year the Government have allocated, through revenue support grant, £89 to each person in Hove in East Sussex and £169 to each person in Adur in West Sussex. Yet there are a couple of streets—St. Richard's road and Bramblydene road—in which those two local authorities each have houses. So there are people living next door to each other, some in Hove and some in Adur, for whom Government contributions per head differ by 100 per cent. The cost of delivering a service in that area is almost the same, whether it be refuse collection, environmental health, planning, leisure or recreation. How can the Government say that they will give 100 per cent. more in one house than in the house next door? It is absolutely ridiculous and brings the poll tax into disrepute.
Those figures are very interesting when compared with figures across the country. In Westminster, for instance, the equivalent figure is £998. How can it be said that a person living in Westminster can have £998 from Government while people living in Adur get only £89? It really is ridiculous.

839
Earlier the Secretary of State said that there were those on the Opposition Front Bench saying that there were cuts when there was none. Warwickshire local authority is looking at its education programmes. But it had already made cuts of £0·75 million in its social services before examining the cuts now necessary as a result of these reports. Stockport authority has made cuts of over £2 million in its social services and more than 200 of its home helps and social workers will lose their jobs as a result of the reports.
The standard spending assessments do not take account of debt charges. When local authorities have very old housing, where the private sector is very unlikely to come in and pay and people do not have the sort of incomes that enable them to purchase from the council, a disproportionate cost falls upon them. I think particularly of Pendle, where the cost will now fall on the general fund and be met by poll tax payers. This seems very unfair, given that other authorities have advantages over authorities such as Pendle because of its historical housing provision.
The Secretary of State for the Environment referred to poll tax payers who are serving in the Gulf area. Some local authorities will bear an average burden in terms of meeting some of the refunds or the results of people not being charged, but other local authorities will be disproportionately hit. I know of four or five such authorities, of which Gosport is an example. The position there is very serious. I know that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has already raised the issue, but I refer to it again because it demonstrates the problem. The cost to Gosport council in terms of revenue lost as a result of our troops being engaged long term in the Gulf will approach £1 million in a year. No local authority can afford to lose that sort of money from its proposed budget.
Therefore, I call on the Government to try to meet that point wherever they can. It would be unfair for local authorities with high proportions of troops normally resident in their areas to have to meet that burden over and above the burdens they already bear. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will give a little encouragement to local authorities that have to put up with that extra burden.
It is ridiculous that we can be told by the Secretary of State for the Environment that service men who are away for fewer than 61 days will be liable for poll tax, whereas those who are away for over 61 days will not. Could a more ludicrous situation be imagined in these difficult and tragic circumstances than for our troops to be coming home just at the point when a few hours one way or another would make a difference to paying the poll tax? In these very exceptional circumstances, surely all the troops serving for us in the Gulf should be exempt from poll tax. There should be no doubt about that.
What does the House think that local authorities should be doing to contribute to their communities? The reports are so tight that local authorities have great difficulty carrying out all their statutory functions and cannot even begin to address things that might benefit the local communities.
During the football world cup in Italy last year the stands, the stadiums and all the facilities were tremendous. On inquiry, it appeared that they had been provided through a mixture of central Government, local authority
840
and private funding. But what do our Government do to help football clubs to provide stadiums which, we hope, will become the venues for the 1998 world cup? The Football Trust and the funds for it came about only as a result of a reduction in taxation—a movement of money, not extra money that the Government found.
There are currently 120 applications before the Football Trust, not one of which is a partnership proposal that includes the local authority. No local authority in this country could afford to join a community-inspired and led proposal to improve football stadiums. The Government are very quick to blame those who cause problems in football grounds, but very slow to provide the funds to improve them. I should like the Minister of State to find a mechanism to enable our football clubs to provide, in partnership with local authorities, the facilities that we should have in this country.
In Italy we saw 12 stadiums, which cost about £30 million each, and at the end of the world cup they were being used by the local communities for squash, indoor tennis, indoor football, weight training, and so on. If the Government do not believe that those things are worth providing money for, they should say that they do not want to involve themselves in schemes that benefit local communities and the people would know not to vote Conservative in future elections. But the Government do not say that and we do not get the facilities that we should have.
In our area in Sussex, Brighton and Hove Albion has, in the past few days, put on a tremendous performance in bringing Liverpool back to Brighton for a replay. But we are locked in a discussion to try to find a new stadium for the area. The local authorities cannot help with pump priming, the Government do not help very much and private enterprise, with interest rates as they are, cannot help. So our facilities are inadequate. The Government could do much to encourage the building of a new football stadium in the Brighton area. We shall need it, because I am sure that, after the replay on Wednesday, we shall welcome another Merseyside team to Brighton for another match.
The problems of local authorities will be solved only when we have a Government who believe in local services and wake up to the fact that the only answer is to abolish the poll tax. The poll tax is unfair, unjust and unworkable. Government grants to local authorities are unfair and almost inexplicable. The reports will do nothing to improve local government services, and that is why we shall oppose them.
6.49 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to hon. Members who are waiting to speak, for the fact that I must slip out later for the best of reasons—that I have a meeting with some of my local councillors. I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), because, since my earliest youth, I was a Brighton and Hove Albion supporter. I spent many hours on the terraces. Since those days, when it was in the third division south, until now, when it has climbed the league and reached cup finals and the first division, it has not once appealed to the Government for funds to help it. It succeeded on its own initiative, and I shall continue to support it and other clubs which seek to raise money for stadiums.

841
It was interesting to hear a Liberal view on local government finance. We do not get too much of that in Wandsworth. Not only are there no Liberal councillors, but no Liberal candidate stood in the last borough elections in my constituency. That is down to the good sense and wisdom of the local Liberal party. Clearly, it congratulates the Conservatives on getting it right and sees no need to oppose them. I hope that my thanks will go via the hon. Gentleman to his colleagues, if there are any, in that part of London.
I wish to respond to some points made by hon. Members who have, perhaps temporarily, left the Chamber. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made a fair and valid point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it. He asked about social services and community services for people who may return injured from the Gulf. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that money is made available for such services in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has swiftly responded to the need to provide extra finances for the health service, if necessary.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North also made an interesting point about education. To some extent, we have covered that by our legislation to permit local education authorities to be a little more flexible in pay bargaining and remove some of the rigidity of central pay bargaining. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that that assists him in St. Helens, as it will assist people in other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) made an interesting bid. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider it in the review. It related to people on income support and the amount of charge that they should pay. There is an alternative to not collecting the charge from them. We should enable them to continue to have a say in how their money is spent but insist that they pay 20 per cent., not of the actual but of the assumed charge. That would give local councils a great incentive to make sure that their charge was reduced to less than the assumed charge, as it is in Wandsworth. Income support recipients would then be in pocket. That would be an additional benefit to charge payers on income support, and something similar could be considered for students.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who opened for the Opposition. If ever there was a poisoned chalice, it must be the Labour spokesmanship on matters of local government finance. For a start, he has the cross of his own policy, which is to burden the nation with the capital value tax plus revaluation. Then he has Labour councils all around the country which are hellbent on overspending and wasting the resources that they receive from taxpayers and chargepayers. Then he has the political element, to which I referred in an intervention, from the Association of London Authorities. The hon. Gentleman accused me of calumny, but it is in black and white. If there is any calumny, it is that of the Labour party in London against voters and charge payers in London.
Then the Opposition spokesman has behind him and outside the House supporters of non-payment, with all that that does for people who are much less well off than hon. Members. Non-payment places a greater burden on such people to pay for local services than if everyone paid his share. Lastly, the hon. Gentleman has the policy of
842
coming cap in hand to the taxpayer to ask for more. One can do that only by asking taxpayers to pay more tax; that is yet another burden on both taxpayers and chargepayers.
This debate is something of an annual set piece. I suppose that we shall always have it; it will always be with us. We shall always have our rate support grant debate, irrespective of the type of system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said. We should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues—both officials and Ministers—at the Department of the Environment. In a past life, I have seen at first hand the painstaking and patient way in which they listen to representations from hon. Members and local authorities. They take on board suggestions made and come up with steady ways of refining and improving the system.
What has been missing from the debate so far is a message from the House to local government. Understandably, the debate is about the challenge to Government to assist in paying for local government services. What has been missing is the challenge from Government and Parliament to local government to use those resources efficiently and wisely and in the best interests of local people. If we do not get that right, local government will not be right.
So the debate is about balance. As Carlyle said, it is a
"vain hope to make men happy by politics".
I suspect that the same is true of local government finance politics. Nevertheless, there should be a balance between the various interests. If we can get that right we can begin to see some progress.
We must understand that the resources for local government do not come out of thin air. They come out of the pockets of taxpayers and charge payers. The balance that we seek is three-way, if it is possible to have a three-way balance. It is not so much squaring the circle as squaring the triangle of balance between quality, need and cost. The Government can create the framework with the standard spending assessment system which allocates according to the services needed given the type of area. The Government can then help with the cost through the rate support grant.
I welcome the other measures introduced to assist the individual through targeted support by means of rebates and transitional relief systems, but local government can add quality through efficiency. That surely goes for the recipients of all central government finance who run local services, whether in the health service, education, local government and so on.
The figures for this year are fair. In my area of inner London, it is a fair settlement. It is much better than the third-third-third distribution between chargepayer, business rates and central taxation which one might expect. In inner London, £2·4 billion out of the standard spending assessment of £2·9 billion comes from external finance, which is to say from the Government, via revenue support grant, the uniform business rate and one or two other grants.
In Wandsworth, the standard spending assessment is £285 million. We have an expected community charge raising of £75 million. These figures are all based on a community charge which I hope will be an exaggerated version of what is paid at the end of the day, but that depends on many things—not least the willingness of some

843
Labour Members who have second homes in my constituency to pay their fair share. I am sure that Labour Members who are present will encourage them so to do.
The total external support for Wandsworth is £235 million. Before any Labour Member seeks to compare like with unlike, may I say that the right way to make comparisons is to take the figures for comparable boroughs of inner London? Wandsworth receives less external support than the average for inner London. It receives £1,192 per adult, as opposed to the inner-London average of £1,397. The neighbouring boroughs in south London are Lambeth and Southwark. Taking the figures for RSG, Wandsworth receives £141 million, Southwark £150 million and Lambeth £201 million.
In total external support, Wandsworth receives £235 million, Southwark £236 million and Lambeth £268 million. If we translate reasonably comparable figures for reasonably comparable boroughs—comparable in the make-up of the electorate, problem areas and so on—we might assume that the community charges would be reasonably comparable. In practice, whereas Wandsworth has been able to come up this year with a community charge of £148, the charges in Lambeth and Southwark—before capping—are £548 and £390 respectively.
It is not the new system which has resulted in the figures. In the previous year, the average household in Wandsworth was paying £385 in rates, more or less the equivalent of two community charges, but in Lambeth the average household was paying £516, which is less for the average household of two people than one person is now being asked to pay in community charge. In Southwark, the figure is a little better, but not a great deal.
There has to be a message in all that about the efficient use of resources. I think that it is time the House sent a message back to local councils, particularly Labour-controlled councils. This does not apply to all Labour councils, but to many of them. It is time that they examined their efficiency and the quality and cost of their services in the interests of their local communities.
Mr. John Fraser: Wandsworth has just had to close three law centres and a large number of voluntary organisations. What is particularly sad is that it has begun to close youth clubs. Is the reason for the closure of the youth clubs the fact that the Government are too mean, that Wandsworth is too mean or that the youth clubs are too extravagant?
Mr. Bowis: There has been rationalisation of youth clubs, day centres, luncheon clubs and so on. I have been to one luncheon club, for example, where there were only 12 people. There were four law centres; there is now one, but that is comparable to many London boroughs. To have had four was unique. It was not a question of closing them; charge payers' support for those voluntary organisations was removed.
At the same time, Wandsworth pays £9 million in grants to voluntary organisations, substantially more than the average for inner London. It insists that the money which it raises from charge payers and hands on to the voluntary sector goes to the sharp end services and not to the umbrella organisations or to organisations for which alternative sources of funding are available. If the hon.
844
Member for Norwood, (Mr. Fraser) would urge his colleagues from Lambeth to come and see us, we would be happy to assist them to find greater efficiency savings. To be fair, on some occasions they have done so.
Over the 12 years of Conservative management of the borough, Wandsworth has made £50 million of efficiency savings. If a council makes such savings while maintaining the quality of services, it has resources to improve the quality of life in the area and to keep charges low. Wandsworth provides 123 services, at a cost to the individual of £148. That is not a bad bargain in anybody's book.
The message of tendering is crucial to that record. It is sad to hear the Labour party committing itself to the abolition of competitive tendering. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has said that a future Labour Government would relieve local authorities of going out to compulsory tender. That is short-sighted. In Wandsworth, we have found that tendering is not only of benefit when the service goes out to the private sector—on those occasions, we have found that efficiency savings of 33 per cent. were made—but even when the in-house services applies for and gets the tender, the result being a 25 per cent. saving. So there are savings through the tendering process, whether or not the service eventually goes outside. To cancel that benefit to the local community is crazy.
When people talk about my borough, they sometimes say that we have cut services in order to get a low charge. That is not right. The first priority is to improve services, and the second priority is to make sure that the cost is as low as possible. That can be done. The staffing ratio for inner London is 3·7 per 1,000; in Wandsworth, it is 2·1 per 1,000. In refuse collection, savings of 50 per cent. have been made over the years. The reason is that, in the Labour borough of Southwark, one man collects one tonne of rubbish per day, whereas in Wandsworth one man collects four tonnes of rubbish per day. There are straightforward efficiency savings. The service is better, and the public are more and more satisfied with it; they are very satisfied with the lower cost.
The cost of running libraries has been reduced by 45 per cent. Book usage has gone up by 40 per cent. The arrears of rent in my borough are half the inner London average. Rent and community charge arrears can pay for services. If a council does not collect the money, it cannot provide the services. If Lambeth collected its rent and community charge arrears, based on last year's figures, it could pay for the equivalent of half the cost of Wandsworth's education service.
We have heard about the threat to district auditors from the Labour party.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Before he leaves the excellent reputation of his own borough in comparison with Southwark, my hon. Friend might be interested to know that Councillor Keeble, the council leader, said on Radio 4 not many months ago:
"There has not been a proper management structure in the housing department."
Clearly, the deficiencies of the housing department are mirrored in the deficiencies of the cleansing department.
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One sees that again and again. The Audit Commission highlights the problems. It published a well-known comparison between inner-London Labour boroughs and inner-London Conservative boroughs. It was no great surprise

845
that the result was that half the quality was provided at twice the cost in the Labour boroughs. That is what we are seeking to get rid of.
Quality is crucial. The efficient use of resources results in improved estate management, improved tower blocks, improved shopping parades, improved crime prevention schemes and improved enterprise, with many black businesses being assisted to start up. The capital programme resulting from sales receipts has transformed a miserable, wretched, rundown inner-city Labour borough into the thriving hub of activity and enterprise, attracting jobs and people to live there, that my borough is today. Surely, that must be the message.
Labour and Liberal-controlled authorities have the weapons in their hands: they can make efficient use of the resources from the taxpayer and the top-up resources from the community charge payer. I can assure the House that my borough will continue to make efficient use of local and national resources to provide quality services at reasonable cost. That is possible throughout the country —subject only to two threats in addition to the unwillingness of some Labour-controlled authorities to tackle the problems.
The first threat is non-payment, which was dealt with adequately earlier in the debate. The second is the problem of overspenders—those who simply cannot control their spending. Given that those problems are kept under control, we can wholeheartedly support the settlement, which is both fair and reasonable. However, the reasonableness and fairness of the settlement depend on the councils playing fair by their charge payers.
7.10 pm
Mr. John Fraser: Characteristically, the Secretary of State left the Chamber as soon as he could after the opening speeches. He was not an assiduous attender while he was not on the Front Bench but perhaps he ought to be slightly more assiduous in respect of debates for which he is responsible. Let me begin with a point on which I tried to intervene during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. As I could not catch him at the time, perhaps his hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will pass my remarks on to him.
The Secretary of State evaded some of the questions arising from the community charge reduction scheme. The first concerns some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the community living in private, multiple-occupation accommodation, who never received a rates bill and always paid their landlords a rent inclusive of rates. In respect of those people, there was no apportionment of rateable value between one part of the property and another.
One bit of unfinished business left by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) concerns the question whether those people ever had their rent reduced when they began to pay poll tax. Many of them had no rent reduction at all and now they do not have a rate base upon which to claim under the community charge reduction scheme. Will the Minister consider whether the scheme can be widened to cover those people who have already been penalised once because they had to pay rates as an inclusive part of their rent and did not receive a rebate from their landlord when the rates were abolished?
846
The Secretary of State and a number of other Conservative Members spent some time drawing attention to the wide variations in poll tax as between one borough and another—a variation that certainly applies as between Wandsworth and Lambeth. They do not seem fully to have understood the multiplier principle that is at work with the poll tax.
Let me give the House an illustration. Imagine that four people contribute to a kitty for a round of drinks. Suppose that the Minister and the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who is sitting behind him, represent the Government in that party of four. I draw that analogy because the Government pay about 50 per cent. of many local authorities' costs. Suppose that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is the business man in the group. I say that because, under the uniform business rate, business men typically pay about 25 per cent. of local authority costs. I am the poll tax payer—also responsible for 25 per cent. The four of us put a total of £4 into the kitty and I buy the drinks. I go up to the counter to buy what I expect to be £4 of drinks and the round comes to £4·40.
Under the kitty principle that used to apply under the old rating system—both with business rates and, more so, with equalisation in London—I could have gone back to my mates and said, "The round cost a bit more than you put in the kitty; I want an extra 10p from each of you," and they would have provided me with the money. Under the new local government finance system, the kitty principle no longer applies. That means that the poll tax-paying member of the group of four has to bear all the extra cost of the round. Although the extra cost of the drinks is only 10 per cent., it adds 40 per cent. to my bill. That is exactly what happens when there is a variation in expenditure arid a variation in service between one local authority arid another.
The example that I have given is typical of the sort of arrangements that apply to the sharing of the burden of expenditure in local government. If poll tax payers want the quality of their services to be increased by I per cent. —entailing an extra 1 per cent. in cost—the cost to them is an extra 4 per cent. If they want the cost of their services to be increased by 10 per cent., the cost to them is 40 per cent.
There is a converse side to the argument. The London borough of Wandsworth is favoured. It is receiving almost £20 million of special area relief in the current year. Proportionately, it also receives a large amount of external grant, and only about one sixth or one seventh of its expenditure is met by the poll tax payer. That is quite a small proportion compared with other boroughs.
Mr. Bowis: Of course it is, because, by efficiency savings, Wandsworth has been able to keep the charge low. If one keeps the charge low, it will be a smaller proportion of the total. That is mathematically simple. Nevertheless, Wandsworth has received less in external support from the taxpayer and business rate payer than has Lambeth.
Mr. Fraser: What the hon. Gentleman is saying and what I am saying are both true. Wandsworth can raid its balances and take out £25 million, thus reducing its poll tax by £150. If it then gets £20 million of special area support grant—one item of external support—of which Lambeth gets virtually nothing, the poll tax is reduced by £90 to £100 per poll tax payer. This year, Wandsworth has

847
realised that the converse of what I have been saying is also true and that, where the poll tax share of the burden is relatively small, one can reduce the poll tax by 7 per cent. for every 1 per cent. by which one reduces expenditure.
Both trends are in operation at the moment. Some local authorities are particularly mean; I happen to think that Wandsworth is now one of them. It is achieving large savings in the poll tax as a result of relatively small percentage cuts in expenditure. But if a council wants to improve services, the cost to the poll tax payer becomes very heavy.
I want to return to Lambeth council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good idea."] I do not represent Lambeth council; I represent my electors. We should remember that none of us here represents local authorities.
I have the dubious distinction of being the Member of Parliament who, on the Government's own forecasts, will have the highest poll tax in the world. I say that because only one other country had the poll tax and that was Papua New Guinea, where it proved rather unsuccessful and was abolished. I ought to be in "The Guinness Book of Records" because the prospective poll tax in my area is the highest in the world—£546, according to the Government's forecast figure for the assumed personal charge, Strangely, that is exactly the level of poll tax forecast by the Government three years ago, before the Local Government Finance Act 1988 completed its passage through the House.
Whatever may be said about the expansion of expenditure in my borough, it cannot explain the figure. As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) pointed out, it is twice as high as the average level of rates used to be. That does not show that there is something wrong with Lambeth council, although there may be a few things wrong with it; the main fault lies with those who introduced the poll tax which had the effect of, on average, doubling the burden per head of the population in my borough.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman generously said that there might be something wrong with Lambeth council. Will he comment on the district auditor's report in October last year which, among other things, said:
"Lambeth operates in an ethos of crisis management rather than one of forward planning, with little obvious thought or vision of where it wants to be in three, five or ten years' time, and no strategy of getting there."?
Is not that an accurate description of Lambeth council —an appalling level of services which are getting worse, charging a high community charge and not really caring about the quality of service that it provides?
Mr. Fraser: Various comments have been made, and that might be an understatement compared with others that one hears. I want to come to exactly that point about Lambeth's financial problems and, in particular, those of its treasurer's department.
The Government's assumed poll tax level means an enormous impoverishment of the second most deprived borough in the country. It means that £94 million a year gross is being taken out of the pockets of poll taxpayers in my borough, compared with £34 million in Wandsworth, £54 million in Lewisham and £58 million in Southwark —all comparable boroughs, except that, of the four, mine is the most deprived.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: I shall give way only once more.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is advising the House of the difficult position in which Lambeth finds itself. Was that decision improved by the decision last December to spend £42,000 on a stretch limousine for its mayor—a decision which even the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) described as incredible?
Mr. Fraser: That is not a decision which I would have made. However, as I say, I am here to represent my electors, not to argue the case for my local authority. As always, I shall look at the matter overall in an objective way. I am not here to put forward a special defence for my local authority.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a tax that can double the average burden on people in the second most deprived borough in the country. Let me give some idea of the variation of deprivation in London alone. In two postal districts in Lambeth, SW2 and SW9—the focal points of riots on two occasions—unemployment is greater than all the unemployment in many of the outer London boroughs. That is one measure of our deprivation. Another measure is the fact that, according to the Government's figures, of the 172,000 poll tax payers in Lambeth, 80,000 have so far applied for a rebate. That must mean that more than half the people living in my borough are on the poverty line, and also having to pay a high poll tax.
The result is that the borough's financial institutions are beginning to break down entirely. It is about five years since my borough had any unqualified audited accounts. The books have not been closed off since 1985. People have often had to wait not months but years for their rebates to be calculated. People who have come to see me have had to wait for between four and six years for their rate demand with the rebate on it.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: 1 will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman must use his central office material in a pamphlet somewhere.
Lambeth has rent and rates arrears of £56 million—an average debt in rent and rates of £326 per poll tax payer. In other words, the level of rent and rates arrears in Lambeth is greater than some people's poll tax. Those are figures which the Government use as a sign of inefficiency and inadequacy in my borough. I do not deny that there are some elements of inefficiency there, but—
Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: No, central office must wait, not me.
There are other elements at work. One, to which I have averted already, is the poverty of the population in Lambeth. If half one's population is applying for rent and poll tax rebates—rate rebates in the past—of course the system begins to break down. But it is worse than that. The change in the population is enormous. According to the election register, in many wards the change in the population measured in two snapshots, one year after another, amounts to between 15 and 25 per cent. The family practitioner committee's statistics of the change in the population amounts to about 35 per cent. a year. Some

849
figures put the change in population even higher than that. When high levels of poverty, unemployment and mobility of population occur together, along with constant changes in the calculation of rebates and the way in which the poll tax is calculated—for example, the new charge reduction system—the financial system begins to break down.
Two things are apparent. One is that the people whom I represent cannot afford this system, and the other is that the local authority's administrative system cannot cope with it either. There are many signs that that is so. One of the greatest is that arrears still amount to 50 per cent., despite the fact that we are almost 10 months into the financial year. The level of poll tax and the complications of rebate, coupled with the other social factors that 1 have illustrated, mean that the system is partly breaking down and the situation may get worse.
Today we are supposed to have some relief. At the end of the year in which we had rates, the average burden on the population, in an authority which was supposed to be an overspender, was £250 per person per year. Then we had the poll tax which was supposed to make local authorities more accountable and efficient. The burden in the first year after capping was £522 per person per year. Now, because of the level of arrears and the low level of collection in my borough, the forecast level of poll tax for next year, after all the reliefs, safety nets and the rest, will be £546 a year. The Secretary of State—the gymnast on the Front Bench—has done a few somersaults and we find ourselves in a worse position than when we started.
What will be the consequences of all this? The social stability of a place such as Lambeth is always fairly fragile, but there is a great danger that in Lambeth it will break down altogether, particularly if a large number of poor young people are pursued through the courts, possibly even to prison. We are beginning to see the breakdown of the administrative and financial systems and the even greater breakdown of the social structure.
Despite all the help that is supposed to have been given to us, there will be cuts in council services next year. That has to be the case. We were poll tax-capped in the current year—a figure of £287 million—and the maximum amount by which we can increase our expenditure next year is 7 per cent. If the rate of inflation for local authorities runs at around 10 per cent. and expenditure can be increased by 7 per cent., that means a cut of about 3 per cent. Therefore, instability and costs will increase, but the quality of the services will deteriorate.
I want to see the reports scrapped and redrawn so that they will fulfil the short-term, temporary objectives originally presented by the Secretary of State. Otherwise, my constituents will be worse off. I endorse the demand made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) to scrap the 20 per cent. payment made by the poorest and the disabled in the community, which would eliminate 20 or 30 per cent. of the collections and simplify the administration, even though that may sound like a defence of the poll tax—but my previous point deals with that. In that way, those who are receiving income support and who are otherwise very poor will not have to pay poll tax. The long-term aim must be to scrap the poll tax altogether.
7.30 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: My hon. Friend the Minister may find it significant that Opposition Members have twice referred to Warwickshire and to the difficulty in which it finds itself.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and his departmental colleagues for the considerable courtesy that they have shown to me and others of my hon. Friends who represent Warwickshire constituencies. My hon. Friend the Minister welcomed a delegation from Warwickshire and had meetings with me and other Warwickshire Members of Parliament, at which we sought to persuade him of the problems confronting our county. I am grateful for the sympathy that he has shown in respect of Warwickshire's difficult situation.
I shall argue a narrow case this evening. It is difficult to separate the community charge from revenue support grant, since community charge levels will clearly depend on Government support. The standard spending assessment is a blunt instrument. It is national in its impact, but apparently makes no provision for the fine tuning that is necessary to right the obvious injustices that arise in its application.
This year, local authorities will spend in aggregate £39 billion, which is a substantial increase of about 19 per cent. over 1990–91. Although it is difficult to fault the global package, which is generous, criticism can justifiably be levelled at the way in which individual counties will be affected.
The impartial Audit Commission grouped counties into families, and when Warwickshire is compared with other counties in the same family group, anomalies immediately manifest themselves. Warwickshire, for example, receives revenue support grant of £101 per charge payer, yet the corresponding figures for Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire, which are in the same family, are £198 and £254—twice as much and two and a half times as much respectively. There is obviously something wrong with a formula that throws up such grotesque differences between similar counties.
Warwickshire receives less grant per head than any other county, except perhaps stockbroker Surrey. If my county had received only the average for the family in which the Audit Commission grouped it, the county's grant would have been £60 more per charge payer and the resultant community charge £60 less, which emphasises the indefensible differences produced by the SSA formula.
In a conversation with the county treasurer on 25 January, he advised me that Warwickshire's SSA for 1991–92 is only 6 per cent. above the 1990–91 precept, at a time when inflation is running in excess of 9 per cent. He reminded me that the interim advisory committee's pay award for teachers will be something between 8 per cent. and 10·1 per cent. Under the Edmund Davies formula, the police award will be about 9·75 per cent. With the best will in the world, Warwickshire cannot provide the same level of service as other counties at a similar cost to the charge payer, unless it receives about the same Government support. As I have shown, Warwickshire's grant is far from being the same as that for similar counties.
In the 1970s, I was a member of Warwickshire county council, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that it is not a spendthrift local authority that treats charge payers or their money irresponsibly. The reverse is true, as

851
is borne out by a letter that I received from the leader of the county council, in which he informs me that the fire service SSA has been set at 31 per cent. below the level acceptable to Her Majesty's inspectorate. That emphasises the extent of the errors produced by a formula, which may be in tune with the majority of counties, but is sounding increasingly discordant in my own.
Warwickshire's police SSA has been set at 11 per cent. below the authority's estimated cost for 1991–92. If it is to operate within the financial constraints that have been imposed, the authority may have to reduce the number of policemen on the beat, just at a time when the county has received an increase in its force establishment. In other words, the Home Office sees a need to add to the number of police officers in Warwickshire, but the all-powerful SSA disagrees. That seems to be a case of the Department of the Environment knowing more about operational police requirements than the Home Office.
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, take his place on the beat— [Laughter.] I meant to say, on the Bench. That was a Freudian slip. In any event, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is present to hear my remarks about police SSAs. I do not doubt that he will make representations to his ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment about the difficulty in which Warwickshire will be if it is unable to fund the increase in police establishment that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have made available to it. When two Government Departments disagree to such a marked extent, something is obviously hopelessly wrong.
Mr. Illsley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the effect of insufficient SSAs on the police and fire services. The norm established by the Department of the Environment is totally at odds with Home Office recommendations in respect of most local authorities. The sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman accord absolutely with those that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been expressing for the past year.
Mr. Pawsey: Perhaps this is the first and last time that the hon. Gentleman and I will find ourselves in some measure of agreement. In due course, I look forward to being again in cheerful disagreement with him, and I hope that it will not be too long. I give way to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
Mr. Frank Haynes: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to call me his hon. Friend. We certainly agree with one another when we are in an important Committee, and we usually back one another up on the problems that come to that Committee. But the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for speaking as he has tonight for the simple reason that although he is now complaining about the poll tax and standard spending assessments, he has been in the Ayes Lobby and has voted for it on every occasion. Now he is moaning and groaning. We told them time and time again that they were wrong and now it is all coming out.
Mr. Pawsey: I have substantial respect for the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), but he made a grievous error. When the community charge was
852
introduced in this place in January last year, I was one of those hon. Members who voted against. The hon. Gentleman is normally pretty certain of his facts—that certainly is the case in the Committee on which we both serve—but in this instance I must tell him as straight and plain as I can that he is wrong. Perhaps he might even withdraw the comment. I shall give him the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Haynes: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should have checked the voting record in Hansard. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to one vote. He has voted in favour ever since.
Mr. Pawsey: It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman seriously after that. I am grateful to receive his apology. Conservative Members would expect nothing less, as his courtesy and chivalry are well known.
The hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) both referred to the problems being experienced by Warwickshire, specifically in nursery education. So far, I have referred only to the police and fire service, which are clearly affected. However, the education service also has to face up to the need to make major savings. The county council has decided that it will have to look to the non-statutory area of education and especially nursery education. In the four days since Friday last week, I have received more than 100 letters from my constituents, all objecting to the proposed savings that the county wishes to make in its nursery facilities.
I share the views of the overwhelming majority of my constituents who have written to advise me of their concerns. I am the chairman of the Conservative party education committee in the House, and I acknowledge the importance of education and nursery education. I deeply regret the fact that my county council is reduced to having to try to stay within its standard spending assessment by substantially cutting nursery education.
The formula is full of contradictions. For example, it is assumed within the magic SSA that Warwickshire will receive about £6·7 million in interest from receipts. But because it has consistently followed guidelines issued by the present Government, it has spent its reserves, with the result that the total interest from receipts will be only £2·2 million—a shortfall of about £4·5 million in that one instance.
I have not the slightest doubt that both the guidelines and the formula for the SSA have been carefully worked out on the Department's computer and I acknowledge the fact that it seeks to accommodate a wide range of differing local authorities—the good, the bad and the Labourcontrolled—but Warwickshire is treated unjustly by the SSA. More to the point, despite the substantial number of representations that I and my hon. Friends in Warwickshire have made, it is evidently impossible either to control or amend the formula. Apparently, it has been hewn upon some tablet of stone that is kept in the Department of the Environment and is outside any further human considerations.
Apparently there is no presiding human presence able to rectify the anomalies, with the result that my constituents, and those living elsewhere in Warwickshire, will be unfairly treated when compared with people living in neighbouring local authorities.
Mr. Lewis Stevens: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Pawsey: Yes, I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who is a fellow Member of Parliament for Warwickshire.
Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I share his concerns, especially about the proposal that nursery education in the county might suffer badly. Does he agree that there is a further problem with the formula in that having used it last year, when Warwickshire's proportion of the grant was extremely small and caused difficulties, it is continued and accentuated this year on the same basis? Once one is in a bad way, one's position gets worse.
Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend is right. He comes to the House with substantial experience in local government and he has served his constituents well. I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister who will reply to the debate that my hon. Friend is a well-known, hard-working constituency Member of Parliament. I willingly pay him that tribute and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to him with care.
My argument is that the difficulties facing Warwickshire are not due to local authority profligacy, or to councillors' stupidity, but solely to a rigid inflexible formula. For those reasons, and until a fairer formula is produced—one which does not discriminate against one county—I shall reluctantly vote against the reports at 10 o'clock.
Revenue support grant for Warwickshire is inadequate and a positive change is undoubtedly needed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect—I say that with all the sincerity that I can summon—will recognise that. Given the opportunity, I believe that he would recognise the anomalies in the formula and would remedy them. Therefore, I urge him to hold out some hope in his summing up that we shall see an improvement in Warwickshire's SSA and to change the formula that is causing so much difficulty and pain to my constituents and to other people living in Warwickshire.
7.40 pm
Mr. Joe Benton: I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State's opening remarks. Straight away, I must admit to great disappointment at the contents of his remarks. I speak with some experience of local government. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I was in local government for 20 years. Recognising the present dilemma for local government, I am profoundly disappointed at the Secretary of State's comments. I am well aware of differing views on the poll tax, but the Secretary of State's speech did not do anything to recognise how the review will approach the problem. He made no reference whatsoever to injustices—for example, to low-income families and the unemployed, who have to pay 20 per cent.
Again because of my experience in local government, I recognise that there will always be difficulty and debate over how local government is funded. That has been the case for 20 years, and, no matter what alternatives are produced, they will never satisfy everyone.
Throughout today's debate, hon. Members, mostly Conservative, have criticised the "profligacy" of some authorities, reminding us constantly that the point at issue is the use of resources. I am prepared to accept the
854
importance of that. My local authority, Sefton borough council, would be called mean by some; I prefer to call it stringent and careful. I am sure that, if the Secretary of State were present, he would say that Sefton was well known to him, for its spending practices have earned the praise of several Conservative Secretaries of State of the Environment in the past.
I joined the authority in 1974. At the time, it was Tory-controlled, and it remained so until three or four years ago. I assure the House that, throughout the ramifications of budget planning, there was no mention of growth; the word was always "cuts". It is to the credit of Sefton council that, whichever party was in power, it always obeyed the mandates, diktats and guidance of national Government in regard to spending.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that resources are not contained in a bottomless pit, but there is a distinct difference between monitoring authorities' spending and putting authorities in a straitjacket.
Having consistently exercised prudence, Sefton must now make cuts amounting to £10 million in next year's budget. It cannot even stand still, or it will be poll tax-capped. For an authority that has played fair all along the line, that is a terrible dilemma; I hope that the Minister will be able to advise me, and advise Sefton, how it can be dealt with. One of the main problems is the fact that £5 million must be cut from the education budget, which badly needs the money. I know that many other authorities face similar difficulties.
The problems of the police force have already been mentioned. For the first time, the crime rate on Merseyside has fallen. How do the Government propose to reward its police force? By taking 100 policemen off the beat: their measures will undoubtedly affect recruitment.
Will the Minister tell us how Sefton can impose those cuts without depriving the public of services? As I have said, I realise that it will always be difficult to finance local government, but I appeal to Ministers to consider the injustices of the poll tax when conducting their review. The legislation should never have been on the statute book in the first place; it should now be repealed, and replaced by the Labour alternative.
7.45 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: As some hon. Members have already pointed out, this debate is an annual event. It give us the opportunity to make a number of points about local government, often based on experience: the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), for instance, made some very serious comments that related to his long experience in local government, including some specific references to the authority that he had served. As he said—and as any hon. Member who has served in local government, and has tried to wrestle with the attendant problems, will know—there are no easy answers.
I only wish that the opening speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) had been equally straightforward. Once again, the hon. Gentleman adopted the "magic wand" approach: a Labour Government would get rid of all the problems, the annual settlement would no longer be necessary, and local authorities would somehow have plenty of money to spend. That simply is not true. It has not been true since Anthony Crosland told local councils, Labour as well as Conservative, that the party was over.

855
Moreover, it was not a Conservative Secretary of State who first embarked on the Government's present course to prevent profligate councils from milking the central Exchequer—of robbing other councils; we all know that that used to happen. It was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who changed the system, and he was right to do so. What is more, whatever Opposition Members may say to pacify their friends in local government, a Labour Administration would not change the system, and they know it. If they were honest, they would say so now.
No one can doubt that this is a good settlement for local government. The TSS—total standard spending—for 1991–92 has been set at £39 billion, 19 per cent. higher than that for 1990–91 and 7 per cent. higher than this year's budgets. Why the difference between the figures? Far too many local authorities, between setting their budgets and receiving the outturn figures, lost control of their expenditure—that is, they did not bother to control central Exchequer expenditure. They also agreed to wage rises that they knew could not be afforded. Should the Government pay? No: it is for local authorities to control their own expenditure in a way that is possible for them; and they can control what the Whitley councils decide to award the various categories of local authority staff.
It might be assumed from the stories related by Opposition Members that enormous cuts in council spending had been made—
Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman's remarks may lead to confusion. He should make it clear that some wage settlements result from national agreements to which local authorities must then adhere. Some of those agreements—those relating to the fire service and the police, for instance—are entirely out of the control of local authority negotiating powers. Is the hon. Gentleman exhorting authorities to contravene such agreements?
Mr. Hughes: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Local authorities are bound to comply with national agreements—those relating to the police and the fire brigades, for example. However, some national agreements—the Whitley council agreements—are entirely of the local authorities' own making. Local authorities collectively reached a decision about what they would pay. Some of those agreements have led to exorbitant levels of pay. I do not believe that local authorities should be party to national agreements that involve their own staff. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to point to the fact that there are two categories.
Local authority spending during the last two years has increased by 25 per cent. That does not reflect enormous local authority spending cuts. My experience of local government, and considering it in a broader context since I became a Member of Parliament, is that it is good at maintaining services that it has traditionally provided and ensuring that there are sufficient staff to provide them. However, local government never considers the services that it may need to provide in the future. Moreover, it never looks at services where they might be able to make enormous savings.
Local authorities ought to introduce modern management methods. Some of them would reflect what is done in the private sector. They ought to ask themselves whether
856
they are able to provide better services than anyone else, or whether they ought to contract them out to others. In some cases, they will have to take a difficult decision. However, contracting out those services would often lead to better services. When contracts have been put out to tender and bids lower than the local authority price have been received, the result has often been much better services and greater control over their delivery and the amount of money that is needed to provide them.
The Government have rightly announced that, next year, local authorities will have much less discretion over the multipliers that they can use for the standard charge. I welcome that announcement. It is unfortunate, however, that local authorities failed to use sensibly the discretion that was granted to them.
I should have preferred local authorities to retain their discretion. However, when property has been left empty—I refer to empty granny flats, to someone moving home or to an elderly person going into sheltered accommodation—that notional second property has been charged twice the standard charge. That is both unreasonable and wrong. However, the local authorities have been inflexible. I do not welcome the removal of local authority discretion but local government has brought it upon itself.
When flats over business premises, which are difficult to let, are left empty, the multiplier has been limited. Many companies have not tried hard enough, however, to let them. We are talking about thousands and thousands of empty properties, many of which are to be found in areas of great housing need. They could and should be brought into use but they are not, for two reasons. First, businesses find it a nuisance to let them. Secondly, they did not have to pay very much for those properties. Until the introduction of the uniform business rate, they were not rated separately.
Whatever may be right or wrong about the uniform business rate, the fact that businesses now realise that an asset that they have had for some time is valuable and needs to be rented out is important to those of us who care about housing. Unfortunately, the Government say that they intend to impose a maximum multiplier of one. I should impose a maximum multiplier of three, four or even five in order to concentrate people's minds on the fact that such properties represent a community asset that ought to be brought back into use. Only in that one narrow instance would I wish the multiplier to be increased so that those valuable properties can be brought back into use.
A problem relating to the uniform business rate was aired at question time today by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He referred to the slightly embarrassing saga of York Conservative club, which has gone bankrupt—according to the hon. Member, because of the uniform business rate. The revaluation of sports clubs has created a problem. Some local authorities will make no reduction for sports clubs. They have to pay the full uniform business rate. Many of those clubs will have to close, thereby depriving the community of the many valuable services that they provide. I refer to cricket clubs and football clubs and to a particular bowls club in Harrow.
They have not asked the Government or their local authority for money. Nevertheless, they want their contribution to the community to be recognised in the form of a reduction in the uniform business rate. If local authorities will not reduce it willingly, the Government

857
ought to ensure that they do. If the uniform business rate is not reduced, it may lead to serious problems for communities.
It is important that people should understand what the Labour party's plans are for the Audit Commission. Each month it has announced different plans. In October, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that he would sweep the Audit Commission away. In November, he told the Financial Times that its days were numbered. Today, his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham told the House that he would keep the Audit Commission—although, when pressed, he said that he would emasculate it.
Mr. Blunkett: I reiterate what I said to the Statutory Instruments Committee that considered the Audit Commission's code of practice: that the Labour party would subsume the Audit Commission into the Quality Commission. Its audit powers would continue. I do not intend to go over ground that has not been ploughed by us but that has been vigorously ploughed by the Government, who have used it as a smoke screen. They never talk about quality.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having confirmed that he wishes to subsume, as he puts it, the Audit Commission and to emasculate its powers. He does not mind it auditing the books of local authorities, but heaven forbid that it should make comparisons about value for money as between one local authority and another.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: This is a most important matter, and, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to dwell upon it. The fact that we have had an effective Audit Commission for the last eight years has led to enormous gains. If the proposals enshrined in the Opposition's consultative document were to be implemented, they would emasculate and remove all the benefits of having an Audit Commission. As it is a consultative document, will my hon. Friend join me in urging the hon. Gentleman, who is to wind up for the Opposition, not to proceed with it?
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. Anyone who doubts the value of the Audit Commission's work should read the Adjournment debate initiated last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). My hon. Friend set out clearly much of the enormously valuable work that has been done by the Audit Commission. I can understand why the Labour party may not welcome its work. It does not go along with its political prejudices, and it has criticised many Labour councils. The reality is that it has done extremely important work and councils would be poorer without its advice.
The Labour party says that it would get rid of capping, which it says is an infringement of local democracy. In this financial year, 4 million people have saved between £26 and £99 each as a result of capping. I do not think that they would thank the Labour party for getting rid of it. The Labour party knows that it cannot control the excesses of some of the councils. It knows that some councils will milk as much as possible from every charge payer or ratepayer or whatever the system may be. By getting rid of capping, the Labour party would be removing protection for ordinary people.
Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman talks of the benefits of capping being between £26 and £99. Can he tell us why the Government will not allow the electorate to vote for a particular authority that sets a certain poll tax level? Where is the accountability that was supposedly built into the poll tax when the Government are prescribing standard spending assessments, budget levels and poll tax levels?
Mr. Hughes: That is an interesting suggestion, and I look forward to seeing it in the next Labour party manifesto. I suspect that it will not be there, and I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is making an entirely serious suggestion. It might be his view, and I will be interested to hear more later.
Competitive tendering has saved local authorities about £3 billion a year. It is clear from what is said that the Labour party would do everything possible to disrupt or get rid of competitive tendering. About a year ago, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said:
"A future Labour Government will relieve local authorities of going out to compulsory competitive tender across a whole range of services."
That is no surprise to those of us who served on the Committee considering the Local Government Bill. It was clear that the Labour party did not care about value for money. It wanted local councils to keep control of everything, whether they were providing a good service or not, and that is typical of the Labour party's policy.
The Labour party needs to answer two questions, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brightside will be able to answer them tonight. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced the £3 billion increase in external finance for local authorities next year, the hon. Member for Brightside called it peanuts. In December, he called for a 50 per cent. increase.
If the hon. Gentleman is being honest, he should tell us the answer to one precise question: what level of extra funding would a Labour Government make available to local authorities? That is a simple question. I also want the hon. Gentleman to assure the House that the promise of more money, at whatever level, will not mean an increase in the standard rate of income tax or the overall tax burden. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to answer that point now.
Mr. Blunkett: I should be delighted to give as my answer a simple riposte. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me how much the £1·2 billion announced by the Secretary of State last week will add to income tax, VAT or cuts in other expenditure.
Mr. Hughes: We recognise that that is part of the taxation pattern. The £1·2 billion is getting on for 1 p on income tax. We know that. However, the hon. Member for Brightside called £3 billion, in excess of 2p on income tax, peanuts. If he thinks that that is not enough spending, how much does he want to spend? I shall ask him once again whether he can give an assurance that it will not add to the general level of taxation or the level of income tax. Is the answer yes or no? If he cannot answer it now, perhaps he will do so in his reply.
The reality is that the Labour party is shy of linking one with the other, whereas we recognise that any spending commitment has a taxation commitment as well—

859
[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brightside wants to intervene, I am happy to give way. If he mumbles from a sedentary position, it is difficult to respond.
The Labour party has an appalling record in local government and that can be illustrated by two things. First, if one looks at the level of non-collection of rent and rates in London boroughs, one will see that the Labour party leads the field. How can one of the Lambeth Members of Parliament complain in the debate about the level of funding to his borough when, in that borough in the year to 31 March 1989, there was £17·49 million of uncollected rents and £33·2 million of uncollected rates? Every penny of that could be spent on services in that borough, but the authority cannot be bothered to collect it. That is the case not only across London but in many Labour authorities up and down the country.
As has already been said, if Labour councils kept fewer properties empty, they could solve the homelessness and economic problems in their areas. Manchester has over 6,000 vacant dwellings, Liverpool has nearly 6,000, Sheffield has 3,400, Salford has 2,500, Birmingham has 2,400, Sandwell has 2,300 and Hackney has 2,100. The one thing that binds those authorities is that they are all controlled by the Labour party—a party that would rather whinge about the level of funding than collect its rents or rates or fill the property it owns.
It is important for the future of local government that local authorities, irrespective of who controls them, should be looking constantly at value for money. It is not enough to come along to the debate or to say to local people, "We run efficient services," merely on the basis that they think they do.
It is my experience that local councillors, irrespective of party, have insufficient information about the central bureaucracy of the council in which they serve and the way in which large sums of money are spent or about the most up-to-date practices of management that could often save a great deal of money for local authorities that could and should be used on other services. Almost all local authorities need to look carefully at the management services, the way they manage contracts or direct services and how those services are delivered to see whether they can achieve better value for money.
I want to talk about the long horizon that has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dagenham and others. There have been a number of local government reorganisations, most of which, in my judgment, have not been very successful. It is no secret that I was not keen on the reorganisation that led to the abolition of the Greater London council. I do not want us once again to bring forward a reorganisation package that is ill thought out because we have not considered what services we want local authorities to provide.
We must seriously consider, and if possible on a cross-party basis, the services that are provided by local councils. What do we want them to do? At what level should they operate? What services are better operated by them and what can best be done by Government? If we do that, perhaps we shall find genuine solutions to the fundamental questions that we all air in these debates. I
860
will not be happy with the reorganisation package unless I feel that those fundamental questions have been answered.
8.20 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I noted the words that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) used earlier. He said: "Labour will not change the system." I have news for him: Labour is committed to changing the system by abolishing the poll tax. He will find that in the next Labour manifesto. The Conservative party and the Secretary of State made noises about changing the system, but they are hedging, delaying and back-tracking on abolishing the poll tax, which, as everyone knows, is iniquitous and massively unpopular.
Sometimes I think that the Alan B'Stard tendency in the Tory party have set its policies on local government. Those Tory Members have glorified the callous effects of the cuts that they have imposed on local authorities. We have today heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member from that Alan B'Stard tendency.
Poll tax capping is enforcing a renewed rundown of local authority services, despite higher bills for poll tax payers. In the London borough of Waltham Forest, the fear of poll tax capping has forced cuts next year of 5 per cent., which will affect social services, housing repairs, rents and education. The number of secondary school teachers will be reduced, despite many teacher vacancies. The Government are responsible for that. Traditionally, the borough has offered better public services than its neighbours, especially for the needy, in education and in provision for the elderly, but it is being punished for doing so.
The system is still unfair. Poll tax payers in Waltham Forest had to give £42 as a direct handout to Wandsworth and other boroughs. Wandsworth is getting that money and much more under the extra grant system, whereas Waltham Forest gets nothing. If it did, the poll tax would be less than £200.
The leader of Basildon council, Peter Ballard, has contacted me out of desperation because he cannot get Basildon's voice heard in the House. The two Conservative Members of Parliament for the area have repeatedly ignored Basildon's local government needs. Basildon and Southend are similar boroughs in Essex. One is a new town and one is an old-established area, but they are similar in many ways.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cohen: Is it on Basildon?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that he observed the normal courtesies of the House and advised my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) that he would be raising this matter. Conservative Members know that my hon. Friend is an outstanding advocate for Basildon and an extemely good Member of Parliament.
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has not heard my case yet, but I have given notice to both hon. Members who represent the area, and they have chosen not to be here.
Basildon's standard spending assessment is £12·1 million, whereas Southend's is £17·8 million. Basildon receives Government grant of £18·4 million whereas

861
Southend receives £24·3 million—almost £6 million more. The populations of both towns is almost the same: Basildon's is 120,000 and Southend's is 123,000. The Government cut Basildon's grant by 5 per cent. this year but increased Southend's by 1 per cent. The SSA per person in Basildon is £100, but in Southend it is £144—44 per cent. more. The revenue support grant is £153 per person in Basildon, but £179 in Southend, almost 29 per cent. more.
Local Members of Parliament have let those facts go unchallenged. There has been not a word about that, and no fight for Basildon in the House. If Basildon received the same grant as Southend, Basildon's poll tax payers would be £50 better off.
Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend may recall debates last year on poll tax capping, when hon. Members representing the Basildon area lamented the fact that Basildon had not been capped.
Mr. Cohen: That is right. Certainly one of those hon. Members has been eager for capping and has virtually urged the Government to cap the council.
The council has written twice to the Secretary of State asking for a meeting to discuss those issues and the unfair way in which Basildon is treated, but it has twice been refused a meeting. It wrote to the local Members of Parliament, but they ignored its call for help.
Basildon council has been capped at £23·7 million, a poll tax of £443, when it budgeted for £27·9 million, a poll tax of £478—a difference of £35. To reach the capped level, it has had to make £4·6 million of cuts. It has minimised the damage to services by capitalising £3·1 million of interest payments, but it has still had to make 1·5 million of service cuts to get to the capped level. It has had to make a further £2·4 million of cuts to avoid capping for the forthcoming year. That has led to 150 jobs going west.
Basildon needs £18 million just to deliver the statutory duties imposed on it to collect the poll tax and to pay debt charges. New legislation that the Government are imposing will cost another £500,000, and it has redundancy costs to pay which the Government have imposed.
Mr. Michael Brown: I have been listening carefully to the comparison that the hon. Gentleman has been drawing between Basildon and Southend. Should he not extend the comparison? I wonder whether part of Basildon's problem is that it has failed, whereas Southend has succeeded, in privatising and contracting out many of its services. Is not that the reason why Southend is able to deliver services such as refuse collection so much more efficiently and therefore at a much lower cost than Basildon? The hon. Gentleman should listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) when he urges the same disciplines on Basildon as have been applied to Southend council, because that might solve many of Basildon's problems.
Mr. Cohen: Basildon's services are of a very high quality, whereas Southend is in many ways quite seedy and rundown. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. Certainly he did not address the differences in grant levels. Nor did the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who should be here to take the figures apart. Anyway, Basildon council has to find £18 million to provide basic statutory services.
862
The fact that the Government's policies have resulted in homelessness has created an extra burden. The number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Basildon has gone up by 3,500 per cent. since 1987, at a cost of over £1 million to poll tax payers—over £8 for every payer. Then we have the investment swaps. Basildon has been successful at that. The decision of the House of Lords could result in Basildon's losing £2 million from its balances, and that amount could go on to the poll tax, which would be unfair. I hope that the Minister will assure us that poll tax payers will not lose as a result of that arrangement and that losses will be accounted for where they should be—at the banks. We need an assurance that, if that is not to happen, the council will be properly compensated.
There have been cuts this year already. All holiday schemes for the elderly and disabled have been stopped; welfare transport and shopping trips for those who are virtually housebound have been reduced; summer holiday play schemes have been cut; green way and verge cutting have been reduced; the cost of the spring clean-up campaign cannot now be met. The hon. Member for Basildon was one of those who boasted about how clean Basildon is.
Then there are environmental health cuts, cuts in welfare rights advice, the closure of six sports centres and swimming pools for an extra day, and an increase in fees at swimming pools and recreation centres. Bus passes have been affected, and the value of food vouchers has had to be reduced from £66 to £52. There have been cuts in the repair and maintenance of buildings.
The councillors themselves cannot be blamed for all this. Indeed, they have even demonstrated responsibility by reducing their own allowances in an effort to stay within the figures. It really is down to the Government, yet they boast about poll tax capping. They set the figures, so they are to blame for the cuts that have taken place and the ones that are to follow.
The leader of the Basildon council, Councillor Ballard, tells me that, if it is again capped at £23·7 million, the effects will be disastrous for the people of the district. Major facilities will have to close. Most of the welfare package and the services for elderly people will be lost and the council will have to make hundreds of staff redundant. Basildon has not been fairly represented in the House on that issue.
We are spending about £30 million a day on the war in the Gulf. The cost of the war for one day is greater than Basildon's annual budget. The Government have said that there is not a bottomless pit. For the war,there is indeed a bottomless pit, but the public services to which war victims will come home, and on which they will rely, have been decimated. That applies to Basildon and to other places throughout the country. The Government should be giving Basildon a much fairer deal.
8.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I start by referring to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who seemed to chide my hon. Friends and myself for what he referred to as central office propaganda. I do not know whether he imagines that at the bottom of central office there is a machine that churns out untruths about local government, but I can assure him that these matters are based on fact.

863
My reason, and that of my hon. Friends, for following so closely what goes on in Lambeth, although that borough is more than 100 miles from where I live, is that it is close to Westminster. It gives us and the electorate some indication of what a Labour Government would be like.
I understand the sensitivity that is displayed when my hon. Friends and I quote what is happening in Lambeth. The facts are truly horrific. When I tell the House that the Labour leader of Lambeth council, Joan Twelves, has refused to pay the community charge, saying that she will put her charge bill "in the bin", my hon. Friends will be truly astonished. Then I can tell them that it is extremely unlikely that the contents of that bin will be collected. In August 1990, Lambeth council received 877 complaints about dustbin collections and 1,138 complaints about street cleaning.
These are very serious matters. They go to the heart of people's perception of the quality of local government and the way in which it is run. The point about Lambeth is very important indeed. It is that Lambeth is an example of places where one finds appalling services, dreadful value for money and completely ineffective management. We raise the subject of Lambeth not only to embarrass the Labour party but because we feel that many of the problems of Lambeth simply must be addressed as soon as possible.
Mr. Battle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more expensive to live in Harrogate, which has a council that is SLD and Tory hung, than in Leeds, just down the road, which has a very prudent and wise council? We have heard lots of anecdotes about individual boroughs. Would not it be better to address the structural fault, which is the means of assessing the SSA? Some Conservative Members have come to realise that that is the problem we face.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Many of my hon. Friends, in their comparisons with Wandsworth—an excellently managed borough right next door to Lambeth—have addressed exactly that point. We are not looking at these facts in isolation; we are making exactly the comparison that the hon. Gentleman says we should be making. I am very pleased to be able to correct him on that point.
At the beginning of the debate much play was made of the wide consultation that is taking place about the steps that are needed to reform the community charge. I welcome that wide consultation. The Secretary of State made it clear that it was continuing at local level, at national level and across the political divide, and he once again invited Opposition Front-Bench Members to come and talk to him about the reforms that are necessary.
I urge hon. Members to think carefully before again turning down that suggestion. There is a critical need for wide consensus on any reform of local government and I hope very much that Opposition Members will welcome the proposal that in the spring there should be an interim report making clear what is ruled in and what is ruled out of the community charge review. I hope that, as a result, it will be possible to achieve wide consensus in respect of any reform of local government" which will have to be attached to reform of the community charge. Many of us feel that a further upheaval for local government will be
864
almost too much for councils to contemplate, but if there is to be more change, let us have the widest possible consensus about it.
I welcome very much the recent announcement about the community charge reduction scheme. I believe that it will direct help towards couples and single people who lost out badly when the community charge was introduced. I think particularly of many of my constituents in Netherfield, who will benefit from the scheme. I am very grateful to the Government for heeding the words of those of us who asked that that particular problem should be addressed.
In any debate on the level of the revenue support grant, it must be said that much extra money has been provided. There has been an increase of 19 per cent., which is way above the level of inflation over the past year. There is £1·7 billion on top, through the community charge reduction scheme, and there is another £4·5 billion in extra money. Those are large sums, and it is greatly to the Government's credit that they have managed to find these sums at this time. However, any scheme that leads to 18 million people receiving some form of benefit must be susceptible to improvement; that is why I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon.
Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that funding had increased by 19 per cent. He will find that the Government have increased the standard spending assessments by 19 per cent.; they have not increased the level of Government funding by that amount. Those are two different figures.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right, but that point was dealt with clearly by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, whatever the basis, there has been a steep increase in funding.
This afternoon, we have dealt with civilising the community charge for the next year and with the major reforms thereafter. Any major reform of local government will now have to take on board the importance of unitary local government. I am a supporter of unitary local government which, if the units are the right size, will ensure that local government is nearer to the people it seeks to represent and will also make accountability, which is so important, that much easier.
When discussing accountability, I want to emphasise the position of my constituents in Gedling, who are fortunate enough to have a prudent and successful local council, which spends below its SSA. However, it is saddled with high expenditure by Nottinghamshire's socialist county council, which spends no less than £80 per head above its SSA. It is extremely important that my constituents should understand why their charge is so high and where the blame for that lies. It lies with Nottinghamshire's socialist county council and not with Gedling's prudent, successful and well-respected borough council.
Mr. Andy Stewart: For the benefit of Nottinghamshire people, my hon. Friend should reiterate what he has just said. He should also comment on the scandalous suggestion by the profligate Nottinghamshire county council which last year creamed off £65 million of money meant for schools. It now tells everyone in the county that it may be community charge capped and may have to cut the education budget. That is scandalous.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point and I hope that he will be heard by Nottinghamshire county council, which still has, at this late stage, a chance to introduce some of the remedies that my hon. Friend thinks are so important.
The issue of capping has been raised today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out clearly what the criteria are, so anyone who is capped is very much a volunteer. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made the point that capping has led to 4 million people saving up to £99 this year. I hardly think that they will wish to thank the Labour party when it says that capping should not take place. It is also interesting to note that, in spite of the dire warnings from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about what happens when capping takes place and how meals-on-wheels and other vulnerable and important services are dealt a death blow, that tends not to be the case.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the magazine of the National and Local Government Officers Association called Public Service. It has recently carried out a survey of capped authorities. My right hon. Friend referred to the survey and I believe that it is worth further study. It says:
"Brent: No cuts were required as a result of capping … Bristol: No redundancies, no cuts in services, no charge increases … Calderdale: Holding growth, increasing some charges and cutting some non-essential services … Camden: No cuts necessary. Cap was £4·4 million … Council said 'Our income was sufficient for us not to need to make cuts'… Greenwich: Some redundancies expected, but no large scale job-cuts.… Lambeth: Managed to avoid closure of front line services and no redundancies … Rochdale"—
a Liberal authority—
"No compulsory redundancies."
Those are not central office or Government quotations and they have not been manufactured by my hon. Friends. They are quotations from the house magazine of NALGO. I am sure that we shall give them the weight that they deserve.
I draw the attention of the House to the Audit Commission, which has been mentioned several times in our debate. We concentrate very much on input and there has been much bandying of statistics across the Chamber on the level of funding for services. Nevertheless, although we spend on enormous amount of time examining input, we should also spend far more time examining output and value for money. The Audit Commission is not a stick with which to beat local government. It has criticised central Government when, from time to time, they made the job of local authorities that much more difficult. To characterise the commission as having outlived its usefulness, especially in the unlikely event of there being a Labour Government, is a tremendous misunderstanding of what it tries to do. It is easy for the House to undersell the work of the Audit Commission.
I argue that the commission is the single greatest force for good in achieving best value for money in local government expenditure that the Government have introduced. Just under £1·5 billion of savings have been identified by the Audit Commission. Much of its work may seem dry and analytical, but it is of enourmous importance.
I want to cite a couple of the commission's reports. There was the report of "Improving the Performance of the Finger Print Service". The report showed that some finger print bureaux spent six times as much community
866
charge payers' money as others. There are wide variations in effectiveness in terms of the convictions secured through finger print evidence. The figures vary from 75 convictions per officer down to just four convictions per officer. It is a significant report, which has not had enormously wide publicity, but which has shown the Audit Commission at its very best. There are many pointers to the fact that we do not get the best value for money from the police, and the detailed work of the Audit Commission is extremely important.
Another report, which I have plucked at random, Is entitled "The Cost of Absence Through Sickness to Local Authorities". It showed that, on average, London boroughs have twice the CBI national average of days lost through sickness. Before the Audit Commission started its investigation, some local authorities did not know what their own levels of absence through sickness were. Lambeth was, rightly, so appalled to learn of its level of sickness that it introduced immediate management changes—which promptly led to a strike. However, at least it was able to make the necessary changes. Brent is losing £8 million a year through sickness.
If local authority sickness in London was at the level of the CBI national average, the community charge per head in London would decline by £25. That clearly shows the merit and value of the survey. We should not lightly dismiss the importance of the work of the Audit Commission. I argue that we should significantly increase its work.
I want to draw the attention of Opposition Members to other important studies. The Audit Commission produced a study on "Building: Direct Labour Organisations". It produced a purchasing study on how local authorities buy goods and services, which has been widely welcomed, and it has also done work on the maintaining and buying of vehicle fleets. Its work on community care has national as well as local importance. It has done work on "The Competitive Council", which is much used by many councils and which identifies eight key factors for assessing success. I urge the House and especially the Opposition to reflect carefully on what the Audit Commission has already achieved and what more it could achieve not only in local government, but in other areas.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (M r. Blunkett) mentioned earlier a document entitled, "Quality Commission:—A Consultation Paper" which was published this month by the Labour party. I note with relief that it is a consultation paper. I very much hope that the Labour party will think carefully before hardening those proposals. There are two positive points in that paper, the first of which is in paragraph 3.4. The paper admits that the Audit Commission brings a certain rigour to the way in which local authorities conduct themselves. Labour Members are to be congratulated on that conclusion. Then why remove the rigour, which is the effect of many proposals in that paper?
The consultation paper also states that a management advisory team can be put into authorities such as Liverpool which are completely out of control. I welcome that sensible measure. Elsewhere, the document is a disaster because it gets rid of value-for-money studies and competitive tendering and invites councils effectively to volunteer for quality audits. That is an absurd proposition. Labour Members have sold out to NALGO, the National Union of Public Employees, and the various local government unions. It would be a terrible mistake if the

867
Opposition adopted that proposition. I hope that the hon. Member for Brightside, who is in many respects a reasonable person, will think carefully about whether he wishes to pursue it.
The Audit Commission is an independent, external, intrusive, fearless watchdog, not the toothless puppy that the Labour proposals would render it. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider whether he wishes to proceed with that document.
I hope that the Audit Commission's powers will be extended into public housing, the police, magistrates courts, university finance, and in particular, schools. An article in today's issue of The Guardian mentions the report entitled "Management within primary schools" and now looks at tools and ideas to help schools use their new budgetary responsibility. It is an important article, and it deserves to be widely read.
8.50 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: Since 1979, we have had as many systems of revenue support for local government as we have had Secretaries of State. One thing that they all have in common is that they are almost incomprehensible to anyone but a few academics and specialist local government officers. We were promised that with the poll tax would come a simpler, more acceptable system. Hon. Members have shown that SSAs are no more acceptable than the GREs before them. Like other hon. Members who have spent much time in local government, I remain unconvinced that the mandarins of Marsham street can work out what is right for every individual local authority to spend, however sophisticated their computer programmes may be.
The only justification that was put forward for the poll tax was that it increased accountability. It could not be defended on the grounds of fairness, justice or efficiency, but it was argued that it would increase the accountability of local authorities to the electorate. It was to do that by reducing the pain threshold and increasing, therefore, the taxpayer's interest in what went on in his local council. It was argued that, in that way, the amount of local council spending could be driven down.
Then there was the rather strange concept of what one might call reverse accountability. The poll tax was to make electors accountable for the spending decisions they took when they cast their votes in local elections. That was to be done by making everybody pay something towards their poll tax, so that no one was insulated or protected from the effects of the spending choices that they made at election times.
The past year has seen the collapse of both approaches. As we know, the poll tax did not result in accountable local government spending—just the reverse. Many local authorities seized the opportunity that was presented by the changeover to jack up their spending and to blame the Government for high poll tax bills. Accountability failed because it was impossible for most poll tax payers to know whether the charges were reasonable. They had no basis on which to compare poll tax bills with previous rate bills. They saw high levels of poll tax all over the country, and it was perfectly natural that they should blame the Government rather than the local authority.
868
As other hon. Members have pointed out, in any case, capping local authorities totally undermines the concept of local accountability. Maximum spending levels are set by central Government. That must encourage a capped local council to cut high-visibility and essential services and then to put the blame on central Government.
At the other extreme of the accountability argument, I welcome hon. Members' comments about the urgent need to scrap the 20 per cent. poll tax minimum charge. There was never justice in the concept of universal taxation—the idea that everyone, however poor, must pay something towards their poll tax bill. The Government pride themselves on their belief that benefits must be targeted at those most in need. Why should they advance the curious concept that everyone should pay taxes? If benefits should go to those most in need, surely taxes should be paid by those who are best able to pay them. That is what we do with national taxation: because the poor might vote for a high-spending national Government, they must be forced to pay national income tax in some way to deter them from making that decision at an election.
The policy of making even those on income support pay one fifth of the poll tax makes the poorest even poorer. That policy may not create many problems in Bath or Henley, but in constituencies such as Woolwich these are single-parent families on income support and elderly people on state pensions who are already struggling to make ends meet. Making them pay one fifth of their poll tax is simply adding a substantial extra burden and much unnecessary worry. It cannot be right to make such people worse off.
It is a simple fact that the cost of trying to collect large numbers of very small sums is uneconomic. We have heard great praise for the Audit Commission. It is worth remembering that the Audit Commission supported the proposal that the 20 per cent. minimum payment be abolished. It recognised that that would make the task of collection a little less difficult and would reduce the huge administration costs associated with the poll tax. It would also make the system just a little fairer.
We have heard much about the results of capping, so I shall say a word about those results in Greenwich. Greenwich has the doubtful distinction of having been capped ever since capping began. But, as has been said, thus far we have not seen in Greenwich or elsewhere the dramatic cuts that we thought might flow from capping. It is true that a borough such as Greenwich has evaded the worst effects so far by a variety of one-off schemes, creative accounting, the use of balances, and all the rest of the financial juggling to which we have become used in local government. But the chickens, at last, are coming home to roost.
We know that the likely maximum total spending in Greenwich for the next financial year will be £212·95 million. The council's projected spending for that year was £248·2 million, which leaves a spending gap of £35·275 million for the authority—a cut of more than 14 per cent. in the spending programme. Action has already been taken to make cuts of about £20 million, but a further £15 million in cuts must still come.
It is interesting to see where the cuts have fallen. There have been increased charges for home helps, lunch clubs, meals on wheels and other services to the elderly. Perhaps the meanest cut of all is the scrapping of the home bathing service for elderly people who cannot bathe themselves, saving only £36,000 in a full year. The elderly and the

869
disabled are now limited to one journey a week on the taxi card service. Services for the mentally handicapped have been cut and old people's homes are to be shut.
In contrast, and oddly, the budget for social services central administration is planned to increase by £1·6 million. Oddly, a £90,000 grant to a theatre which is not even in the borough is to continue. The council's newspaper is to continue, at a cost of £120,000 a year plus delivery charges. Now the council is producing a series of coloured leaflets, one for each service area, detailing the cuts that it is making and, of course, blaming the Government for them.
That, it seems to me, demonstrates the weakness of the concept of central control of local council spending. Faced by a crude cap, many councils do not react by asking how they can improve the efficiency of their operations and deliver the same quality of service at lower cost. They take the easy way out, cut spending and blame the Government. That may reduce the total level of spending, but it is no way to provide value for money.
All of us who have had experience of local government and local government finance over the past 20 years or so know that reform of local government finance is a minefield. I suspect that Ministers now bitterly regret the fact that they ever wandered into that minefield. I have lost count over the past 20 years of the number of Government inquiries, unofficial and official studies and reports, Green Papers and White Papers all directed to the problem of how to produce a reasonably fair system of paying for local council services.
It should be obvious by now that if there had been a simple, straightforward solution to this problem, someone would have stumbled on it long ago. It is absolutely clear that the search for an easy solution is like the search for the philosopher's stone or the holy grail. It is an illusion, and, is doomed to failure.
We have to accept, if we are looking for the least bad solution, that any system of local government finance that any of us dreams up will have a number of serious drawbacks and defects. What we are looking for, in my view, is the scheme with the fewest snags. Since Layfield produced his report in 1976, I have been convinced that the most promising—indeed, the only—way forward is that of local income tax. I have heard nothing to change that view since 1976, and certainly the experience of the poll tax over the past 12 months has not changed my belief that local income tax is by far the best way of paying for local services. In my view, the sooner we get on with it the better it will be for the health of our local government system.
9 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: Many of us have been looking closely at the idea of a local income tax for some time. The problem is the variation of incomes in different areas. In an area such as mine, which has a low income rate and a low income base, the tax would not supply sufficient money to run local government. So there would also have to be equalisation, grants to offset that and all the other things.
I was disappointed by the Secretary of State, for a number of reasons. He smiles, and rightly so. I was talking to members of the Fire Brigades Union before I came into the Chamber for this debate, and I said that at best we
870
would have a Labour Government who would get rid of the poll tax altogether and at worst a Secretary of State who would get rid of the poll tax anyway.
I should have known better. Two years ago, there was no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get rid of the poll tax because he realised exactly what it is—a vote loser. He is no idiot. He knows all about its impact both in the House and outside. Government supporters know exactly what it is, because in recent debates not one hon. Member has spoken in favour of the poll tax.
We should remind Government Members that, when the right hon. Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) brought the poll tax to the Floor of the House, with the clear statement that it would clobber local government, they waved their Order Papers to support him in the Chamber, and they supported him also in the Lobby. However, times changed and people realised that they had got hold of a tiger by its tail. So when the Secretary of State said that he wanted to change it, believed him. I should have known better.
Perhaps there will still be a change of heart and a change in the poll tax. A change is needed; the right hon. Gentleman knows it, the Government know it and Government supporters know it. I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not come right out with the statement that we should get together and find an alternative to the poll tax instead of tinkering about with it, because no tinkering will make any difference and it will be very expensive. Rita Hale of the Corporation of Insurance and Financial Advisers put her finger on this point when she said that the poll tax would become more and more expensive each year.
The Secretary of State quoted Barnsley as having collected 93 per cent. of its poll tax. He should also have examined how much it had cost to collect. it. The chairman and treasurer of Barnsley finance committee said quite openly that it would be cheaper to get rid of the 20 per cent. and not collect it at all, because it is costing more and more to collect. So, if we are talking about efficiency, the first thing that we should do is get rid of the 20 per cent., and we would save money.
People have talked about the poll tax and local government and the facilities provided. Local government is a marvellous, mostly efficient animal which is different in every area. Different areas at different times have different, complex needs which depend on the locality. No one tonight has mentioned the democracy of local government.
The basis of the government of this country is local government. It has evolved in a certain way and we should never forget it. Local government is about local people, the people who elect it and are represented by it, as well as the people elected to carry out the wishes of local people. The poll tax interferes with local democracy, local wishes and local people. Surely it is right that local people decide how much they want to spend and are determined to spend on local services. We have forgotten that in the debate, because we have concentrated on scoring political points. That is wrong. Local government is bigger and worth more than that because it is so important.
The most important aspect of the reports is their effects. The important thing is not how money is raised, but how it is spent on what people need and how money is distributed. Efficiency can be measured in many ways. Let us consider South Yorkshire police authority. The chief constable is extremely worried because the authority has

871
the lowest ratio of policemen to population. So the number of policemen should be increased, not reduced. Yet under the present proposals, 120 officers on the beat will be lost. Not only that, but 200 civilians in the force must go. To make up for the latter, 200 policemen must be taken off the beat, so effectively 320 policemen will disappear from an already depleted force. That is not right at a time when the crime rate is rising.
I have taken up the problems of the fire brigades with the Secretary of State on previous occasions. I wish to deal with the consequences of the reports on South Yorkshire fire service. If we are to believe the fire chief, and we should, in 1986 the service lost 67 fire-fighting posts. In 1988 it lost 28 posts and now, because of the poll tax, it is again likely to lose 150 posts. That is a ridiculous position and it cannot and should not be sustained.
The number of firemen is considerably below Home Office recommended numbers. When a delegation recently visited Earl Ferrers, he said that it would be foolish to allow the number of firemen to fall below the Home Office figures. Not only has there been a loss of fire cover and full-time personnel, a failure to retain personnel and a reduction in the number of fire stations, but call-out time has increased from five minutes to eight or perhaps 10 minutes on first and second calls. That is unacceptable and should have been avoided at all costs.
To return to local government itself, a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities said that under the Government's proposals Barnsley's standard spending assessment would increase by 19·3 per cent. That is slightly higher than the average increase for metropolitan districts. In other words the letter says, "At least we are looking after you." But, taken on a year-on-year basis, the increase is only 2·7 per cent. over the last year. With inflation at 9 per cent., teachers' awards already set at 9 per cent. and other wage increases still to work through, that is an effective cut in local government services—on top of a £10 million cut last year.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State know exactly what that means in our area, with its low rateable values, low wages and low level of facilities. Nevertheless, it is trying to pull itself out of the mud, and it will, irrespective of the effect of central Government on local government. It means that we have not built a nursery school for five years. The chief education officer told me that, on current prospects, we will not build another, at a time when there should be good nursery provision.
For three years we have been rationalising schools, and schools are now being closed at a rate at which we used to close colleries. Children have been transferred from one school to another; now they have to move again. That is wrong in rural areas where the school may be not just the school but the chapel and the community hall for the village. Because of rationalisation and poll tax capping, authorities have to close schools. That is a direct effect on Government policy.
It is time that the Secretary of State and Minister of State got their act together. When they ask my hon. Friends to co-operate on the poll tax, I hope that my hon. Friends will keep saying no. If the Government say that they will get rid of the poll tax and look for an alternative, I am sure that my hon. Friends will say yes to co-operation.
9.10 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: The Secretary of State said that capping was necessary for authorities with excessive budgets. That is a fallacy. Capping is available for authorities whose budgets are above their standard spending assessments. Those authorities are not profligate; they are not high spenders. If we look at the list of authorities which were capped last year, it is easy to see that most of them were reasonable. My authority was capped, yet 250 other authorities had higher poll taxes.
The Secretary of State said that standard spending assessments were based on fair and reasonable criteria. It is a pity that he did not attend the Standing Committee on the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill, where he would have heard the arguments against the SSAs and the information put forward which showed that they were based on irrelevancies and data taken from the 1981 census. That information is well out of date and in many respects irrelevant. Many of the indicators within the SSAs did not relate to the services provided.
The Secretary of State referred to road lengths being one aspect that was taken into account in setting SSAs. If he came to Barnsley, where roads have been damaged by mining subsidence, he would realise that it is not the length of the road but the quality of the surface which causes major problems for the local authority. Use of wrong information and data lead to many anomalies.
I have said many times in the House that capping is based on inadequate standard spending assessments and on how much the poll tax is greater than SSA. The local authority does not set the SSA, so how can it be classed as an excessive spender if the amount of money that it can spend is laid down? It is pointless for Conservative Members to continue to describe local authorities as excessive spenders when they are no longer allowed to determine their own budgets. Even now, local authorities cannot set poll taxes more than 7 per cent. over their previous budgets. Central Government prescribe how much more poll tax they can levy, how much grant they receive and what can be spent. SSAs are crucial to capping, but they are totally discredited, being based on unfair information and irrelevancies.
As to aggregate external finance, the revenue support grant has been increased by only 1·9 per cent., whereas the national non-domestic rate has been increased by 19 per cent. When we talk about aggregate external finance, it is not, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) said, that the Government are making a 19 per cent. increase in funding. In fact, they are allowing for extra funding of 1·9 per cent. The rest will have to come from national non-domestic rates.
It is the business community that will have to find the bulk of the increase. In the past three weeks, up to 1,000 job losses have been announced in my constituency. Some of those cuts arise from a factory closure. It is not that the company concerned has gone bankrupt or that it has no orders. It has a number of factories and to save money it has simply decided to close down the one in my constituency. As long as we continue to pass the financial burden on to such businesses, that excuse will continue to be given for factory closures.
Aggregate external finance has been increased by 12·8 per cent., but only 7·7 per cent. of that is to be funded by central Government. We have capping criteria of 9 per cent., 7 per cent. and 5 per cent., depending on the

873
percentage above budget. Revenue support grant and business rates are decided by the Government. Now, budgets are prescribed by the Government. There is no accountability in that. There is no chance for the local elector to go to the polls and vote for or against a local authority that sets a high poll tax. In any case, in many instances last year, the elections came long after local electors had been made aware of what the poll tax levels would be.
Let me echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). My authority's SSA has been increased by 19·9 per cent. for 1991–92, yet we still come 36th in the list of 36 metropolitan districts. Manchester has an SSA of £1,550 per adult, yet in Barnsley we have £881 to provide the standard level of service. That means that Barnsley receives 55 per cent. of what Manchester receives to provide a standard service. What Barnsley can spend in the forthcoming year is to be restricted as a result of calculations based on the 1981 census and its irrelevancies.
There have been changes in the SSA methodology. I am almost embarrassed to say this, but Barnsley has benefited from a small increase in its standard spending assessment. I was not going to mention that fact in case it was the result of a mistake in the Department and it was taken away from us. We benefited to the tune of £500,000. Revenue support grant in Barnsley has been reduced by £17 per adult since last year, but the business rate poundage has been increased by 10–9 per cent.—bang in line with inflation. Why should not revenue support grant increase in line with inflation? Why cannot SSAs and budgets be increased in line with inflation? Why must the burden be passed on to non-domestic rate payers? In terms of area protection, my authority will lose £4·1 million under the arrangements.
When all those factors are taken together, the increase in central funding to Barnsley is 2·6 per cent., compared with a rate of inflation of more than 10 per cent. That amounts to roughly £50 per adult.
As I said, Barnsley is at the bottom of the list of metropolitan districts. We have been allowed a 7 per cent. increase this year in accordance with the new criteria. At least this year we know the extent to which we will be capped. We will be capped at £141·2 million—an increase of £9·2 million. But assuming pay awards of around 9 per cent., we will not have enough in this year's budget to fund those awards. In fact, £141 million is the budget that the authority set last year, which was then capped at £132 million.
The Secretary of State quoted the NALGO newspaper, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Gedling, but both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gedling seemed to skim over what that magazine said about Barnsley. The reason is that Barnsley made some cuts: there were some compulsory redundancies, and the authority closed a music school.
The Secretary of State also referred to collection rates, and I was pleased to hear him say that Barnsley had a 93 per cent. collection rate. That shows the careful and accurate planning that some local authorities have been able to achieve.
My local authority allowed for an addition of 6 per cent. to the poll tax to meet the shortfall in collection and it got that figure right to within about 1 per cent. However, my constituents are now saying that they will pay their poll
874
tax but not the 6 per cent. addition to cover the shortfall caused by people who will not pay, so we have created another problem for ourselves.
The SSA for the police has been increased by 10 per cent., compared with 19 per cent. for other service blocks. They have a budget forecast of £56 million, an increase of 12·8 per cent., a standstill budget, but they must cut it by 3·8 per cent., or just under £4 million. They need an increase of 12·8 per cent. to cover inflation, approved developments and 25 additional posts this year, to recover after the Hillsborough disaster and to protect the housing allowance and their capital programme. To lose £4 million will mean a cut of £1·75 million in natural wastage, 170 posts will have to go, the capital programme will have to go and they will have to use every penny of their reserves.
The fire service in South Yorkshire is in the same boat. It has a standstill budget when it needs an increase of about 12 per cent. It must cut about £2·1 million from its budget. It has had to impose a recruitment ban and a stop on capital schemes and use all its reserves.
Those are the cuts that authorities in Barnsley have been forced to make, yet they have a 93 per cent. collection rate and a record of good housekeeping. It is about time that the Secretary of State looked at what is happening to those authorities and got rid of the poll tax once and for all.
9.21 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: I pay tribute to the thoughtful contributions that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have made. In particular, I pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who, by necessity, contributed only briefly at the end. Regrettably, part of today's debate made last week's debates on the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill seem one of the most radical and lively political events of my recent life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said, it is a great shame that we have not been able to concentrate more on what the debate is about. It is surely about the Government's role in supporting local government services. Instead, Conservative Members have tried to prove the unprovable or to make statements, as the Secretary of State did at the beginning, to show that—despite the fact that they do not like the more draconian capping rules that are being brought in for the coming year—on average Labour-controlled authorities charge a higher poll tax than Conservative authorities.
Apart from the fact that the SSA has no semblance of common sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, (Mr. Illsley) said, there is the little matter of the make-up of the area. Even despite that, the facts that the Secretary of State gave do not necessarily bear out the conclusions that he drew.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy early last year analysed poll tax bills in Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic authorities and in those where no political party had overall control. Taking the poll tax average in each of those categories, and comparing those with the target or notional average figures that have been determined by the Government in terms of what they expect those authorities to charge in relation to their SSAs, CIPFA came to the conclusion that, on average, Conservative-controlled authorities were 31

875
per cent. above their targets, Labour-controlled authorities were 35 per cent. above and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities and those where no political party had control were 36 per cent. above their target. That produced an average difference of only 4 per cent. between all Labour and Conservative authorities, in the extent to which they spent above the target or notional figure set for each of them. Let us hear no more nonsensical claims that Tory councils set low poll taxes.
It is difficult to recall what was said at the start of the debate, but the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) clearly spelled out the twisted rationale of the poll tax, when he described how little Surrey county council spends per head of its population. Those who are in need would no doubt remark on the depressed level of service that it offers. Nevertheless, poll tax levels in all the Surrey districts are among the highest in the country—£200 per head above the figure charged by capped Calderdale. The Surrey authorities make those in the north of England—
Mr. Portillo: What about the safety net?
Mr. Blunkett: What about it? It replaced equalisation, but attempted to take some account of an authority's resource base. In any event, it is being phased out. That apart, I know of no safety net that would account for the disparities in the charges made by authorities such as Wigan, St. Helens, Calderdale, North Tyneside, Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley—many of which strive to serve coalfield communities—and those imposed by Berkshire and Surrey. The logic of the poll tax is that it can often result in very large bills but a very poor quality of service.
Mr. Wilshire: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument up to a point, but he twice dragged into his remarks accusations about poor levels of service. I would not attempt to remark on the level of service provided in Sheffield and, as the hon. Gentleman does not have the slightest notion of the standards observed in Surrey, he should not denigrate its authorities. I made the point that, for much lower expenditure, one could arrive at the same standard of service. The hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts right.
Mr. Blunkett: We do not accept that one can devise a formula that will result in the same standard of service for a standard level of poll tax, given an assessment of need from the centre of the kind in which the Secretary of State believes. In 1980, the present Secretary of State for Defence was the local government Minister and he came out with some political tripe when he asserted that a standard level of service can be provided for a standard charge to ratepayers, as they were known in those days. He said that the Government accepted that their assessment was a way of determining the distribution of grant and did not necessarily lead them to believe that that particular level of service was right for a particular locality.
That Minister moved on, and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), having served as Secretary of State for the Environment, has also moved on in his own mysterious way, eventually to return to that office. If he
876
studies those debates from the early 1980s, it will become obvious to him that one cannot make an assessment from the centre.
Tonight's debate should have concentrated on the quality of local authority services. For what purpose does the revenue support grant exist? It was supposed to support local authorities in meeting the needs determined by local political debate and was supplemented by local taxation in order to provide the best services to the community concerned.
However, hardly anyone has mentioned the RSG tonight—least of all Conservative Members. Instead, hon. Members seemed to talk for hours about the Audit Commission. Vacancies in housing seem to be a favourite target—that is now separated from the general fund. Hon. Members have done anything rather than address provision of services. Surely the second leg of the debate should have been about the other function of the Government, which is to provide a safety net or provision through rebates to help those who cannot meet the bills levied on them under whatever system. However, we have heard nothing about rebates either. The third leg should have been about the inequalities that exist between localities and people. Hence the previously accepted need for equalisation and the existence of the safety net.
None of those issues has been considered in the debate because Conservative Members and Ministers do not want to admit that, if we still had the system that appertained before 31 March last year, and a broad base of local taxation, which involved the business community as well as the domestic tax payer, and we did not have a national business rate, and if we took out the Government's contribution towards the safety net process, which is another £500 million, we would be left with the Government providing peanuts for local government service support in the coming financial year. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). The Government are providing a 1·9 per cent. increase in revenue support grant in 1991–92.
Dr. Hampson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why, whether under the rating or the community charge system, people felt that their bills were too high is because local authorities spend such a huge proportion of national expenditure? That is why, in our system, the Treasury feels that it has to get a grip upon it. Therefore, does he see the sense of transferring the key national service that causes this huge cost—education? The Leader of the Opposition, when he was an education spokesman—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers this from his Sheffield days—advocated the transfer of education costs to the centre. What does he think now?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not need to duck that question, because the Opposition are against the centralisation of services. Incidentally, the figures are interesting. From 1979 until the last financial year, central Government spending rose by 177 per cent., while local government spending rose by 146 per cent. We need to understand clearly what has happened.
To return to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, his implication is that central Government would spend less on education if it were centralised, because the same amount would have to be found to maintain the same level of pupil-teacher ratio and the same standard of equipment and books, which many Labour authorities have been

877
penalised for attempting to provide in the past 12 years. It is interesting that, when people want to say how good our education system is, they hold up figures showing how much money is being spent on it, but when they want to beat local government—especially Labour local government—they point out how much is being spent which should not be spent. The truth is that centralisation and interference would make matters a great deal worse than they already are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), the shadow spokesman for education, mentioned, in an intervention, that Warwickshire county council faces draconian cuts in education, and is wiping out nursery provision to meet Government targets. In fact, the county council has said that it has no intention of trying to meet the Government's poll tax targets, which are predicted on standard spending levels that are totally unacceptable.
I have mentioned before, and I make no apology for mentioning again the index of need, which applies an all-ages index factor in a way that results in Wandsworth, Westminster and councils in the south of England being among the 20 most deprived authorities in Britain, while Barnsley is 172nd and Rotherham is 146th and such councils are penalised because no account was taken of unemployment or car ownership.
The system is farcical: the more deprived an authority appears to be, the less likely it is to receive central Government support. Given the current procedure, it is impossible to make a fair assessment of how grant should be allocated; nor can we assess the way in which authorities should handle their budgets. There is no longer any accountability: the Secretary of State controls not only the relationship between previous rate bills and this year's poll tax bills through the new community charge reduction scheme, but next year's bills themselves, through capping and the standard spending assessments. There is more centralisation than ever before, and accountability has been denied to local authorities.
Yet help might have been provided. The £1·2 billion of extra assistance could have been used to provide services that now face enormous cuts. A number of my hon. Friends have given examples, and I make no apology—I rarely mention Sheffield from the Dispatch Box—for saying that my authority is in a dire state, given the likely funding for services over the coming year. Even after the use of balances, cuts amounting to £20 million must be made and 2,500 people are being offered voluntary redundancy between now and 1 April.
That is a sorry picture and is entirely due to the way in which the Government assess need and determine the provision of grant. It has nothing to do with whether the city provides too high a level of social services, as was implied by the figures given in the Secretary of State's speech, or with whether the police authority—which has a much better record than the Metropolitan police, who are controlled directly by the Government—is putting too many men on the beat. Nor has it anything to do with the level of the fire service or with the extent and quality of education. But it has everything to do with the unfair system in which authorities operate.
We all agree that the finding of money with which to fight Saddam Hussein is justified and right; but we cannot justify circumstances in which we can afford to fight Saddam but cannot afford to fight poverty, ignorance, under-achievement, unfit housing, declining transport
878
standards and a despoiled environment in the most deprived parts of the country. It is a disgrace that we can fight a war abroad, but cannot fight a war against decline at home. It is entirely wrong that, while our manufacturing industry collapses around us, we in the Chamber discuss how the screw can be tightened on local government to make the lives of councillors and managers more miserable and to worsen the plight of the recipients of services. It is a disgrace that a wealthy and proud nation, which wishes to play its part on the world stage, cannot ensure that people have home helps when they need them or are provided with a decent education and a decent start in life.
It is time that we addressed those issues, so that we can equate the decisions made by the Government with the rubbish that we hear from Conservative Members about the need to cut services still further to protect the hard-pressed poll tax payer. What we need is not further cuts in services, but a complete change in the relationship between local and central Government. We need a new system for the funding of local services at local level and a new grant system that takes out of the political arena the gerrymandering and jiggery-pokery that the community charge reduction scheme will involve in the coming year. We should be debating not the saving of Conservative seats, but the saving of services. We should be talking about the need for the revenue support grant to ensure that people are given their entitlement.
The final humiliation for the poll tax is that the community charge reduction scheme has directly to relate the relief given to the so-called "despised" old-fashioned rating system. What we have before us is the view that, if we cannot better the rating system, we should provide an additional £1·2 billion to bribe people into believing that the poll tax was not so bad when it was introduced.
The Secretary of State knows that that is not right. In The Times article that he wrote in May of last year he made it clear that he did not believe in capping or in the poll tax and that he did not believe in the system that he now has to operate. We know that the Prime Minister thinks that it is crazy. Last Thursday—as repeated, in his own words tonight, by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell)—he told us that, when over half the poll tax payers have to be provided with relief, there is something wrong with the system.
All of us know that there is something wrong with the system. The Labour party has an alternative: action to meet need, the restoration of the public services that so many people were proud of, a determination to restore quality and confidence to local authority services and a commitment to local democracy and diversity. We offer art alternative to the poll tax and to centralisation and bureaucratic interference. We offer an end to this misery. We also offer an end to this shambles that the Government have inflicted on the British people.
The Government will be held to account for all the misery that they have inflicted on the people whom we try to represent. It will come home to roost when people at last realise that they have the chance to vote on the most important political domestic issue that will face us at the next general election—that is, whether Conservative Members will come out and say that they intend to do something substantial about the poll tax or whether people will hear, loud and clear, from the Labour party that only we have promised outright and within the shortest possible time to abolish the tax that is at the root of all our problems.
9.41 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Let me begin uncontroversially and quietly by agreeing with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that there have been many good contributions to the debate.
I begin with the community charge reduction scheme. It is a very fine scheme. It was rightly praised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and others. However, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asked a series of questions about it. He wanted to know what the net additional cost this year will be. It is £1·1 billion for Great Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear that that was the figure that he intended to add to the planning total. However, the total to be spent this year on the scheme is £1·7 billion. That is why it is possible to help 18 million community charge payers by means of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Dagenham wondered whether we had got our arithmetic right. He is worried about the number of people who may no longer be eligible because they move, or for other reasons. In our figures, we have allowed for a 10 per cent. turnover. The hon. Gentleman referred to the changes to the register in London. If a couple move from one place to another in London or anywhere else, that constitutes four changes to the register—two when they leave and two when they arrive somewhere else. That, therefore, is not the indicator. The hon. Gentleman will find that the average mortgage that people take out runs for eight years, which suggests that the turnover is of the order that we have set.
This scheme, in common with its predecessorr, the transitional relief scheme, applies to those non-ratepayers who are disabled or elderly. By "disabled" we mean people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance or mobility supplement. The new scheme will also apply to those in sheltered housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) referred to the uniform business rate, as did the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). Under the new system, we are required by statute to have a revaluation after five years, to take effect in 1995. The question is whether transitional help can be given beyond that period. That will depend partly on whether the revaluation throws up new values that require transitional relief to continue. We are certainly willing to consider that matter.
The increase in uniform business rate set on the September retail price index is 10·9 per cent. I remind hon. Members—my hon. Friends know this well—that, under the old rating system, when business was at the mercy of Labour local authorities, to get away with an increase of 10·9 per cent. would have been an exceptional year for business. As a result of the change that we have made, in the first year of the uniform business rate, the amount that we have raised from business in rates is £1 billion less than we would have raised under the old system, because the increase has been limited to inflation.
Fortunately, there was more in the uniform business rate pot than we had anticipated, and that has made it possible for us to pass more from the uniform business rate
880
into aggregate external finance—the total amount that passes from central Government to local government for next year. That is up by 12·8 per cent.
That is the figure that really matters to local authorities. They are not concerned to know how much is rate support grant or how much is non-domestic rates. They want to know how much help they will get from the centre. An increase of 12·8 per cent. next year is a generous settlement, and most local authority leaders have welcomed it as realistic.
I should like to say something to my hon. Friends about how the SSAs are calculated. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was particularly thoughtful on the subject. It is most important to recognise that we calculate SSAs on the same basis for everyone. I make no apology to the hon. Member for Brightside when I say that we are trying to arrive at a position in which we calculate that authorities could provide a standard level of service for a given level of community charge. We recognise that different areas have different needs, and that the Government have to give different amounts of money to help local authorities with those different needs. As soon as one tries to measure different needs in different places, disputes will arise: the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) fairly recognised that point.
Since the community charge was introduced, we have had an entirely new system of assessing those needs. The system was thoroughly overhauled. We have had a new analysis and a great deal of work has been done on what makes it more expensive in one place than in another to provide a standard level of service. There was a huge amount of discussion with the local authority associations.
I fully accept what my hon. Friends will expect me to say, which is that there can be no final word about standard spending assessments. Of course they are imperfect, but they are the best guide we have to the different needs of different local authorities, and therefore to the different amounts of money that we should be able to provide. Even my hon. Friends who are dissatisfied with their standard spending assessments will recognise that there is merit in retaining as far as possible, stability between one year and the next if we are ever to see accountability showing through.
I recognise that there were shortcomings in the standard spending assessments. Some are inevitable. For instance, on overnight visitors we have no reliable data more recent than the mid-1970s. We need to collect more. Much of our information relies on the 1981 census. We shall have a 1991 census, and that will make life easier for us.
I must tell my hon. Friends that looking at two neighbouring areas and feeling that the standard spending assessments between the two are not immediately explicable—in other words, that their intuition and our analysis are at variance—does not automatically prove that the standard spending assessments are wrong, because we are trying to measure different levels of need in different areas.
Of course Ministers are constrained. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that he thought that I would do more if I could. It has always been such a pleasure to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) that, if I had £10 million in my pocket for Warwickshire, I would

881
feel inclined to give it to him. However, he knows how constrained we are, because Ministers must behave reasonably and in line with the evidence presented to them.
There has been new evidence and we have brought it into play. For instance, there was new evidence on the buses and coaches within the highway maintenance standard spending assessment, and we made a change. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said that there should be some presiding human presence involved in all this. I try to be a presiding human presence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is more presiding and no less human. My right hon. Friend and I have used our judgment on an issue that concerns many of my hon. Friends and even Opposition Members, and that is the weighting within education given on the basis of additional educational needs. We decided to reduce that weighting on the basis of the analysis that had been carried out. We exercised our judgment when we doubled the weighting given to overnight visitors.
Several points were made about how SSAs operate. I was asked how children in care could cost different amounts in different places. Analysis has shown that, in some places of great social deprivation, a higher proportion of children need to be taken into residential care much more frequently, which is more expensive.
I was asked why we do not use unemployment as an indicator. We are trying to find out what makes local authority services more expensive, and those are more social factors than unemployment factors. I was asked by the hon. Member for Brightside why we do not use the indicator of car ownership. In the country, people have a higher propensity to own cars, even if they are poor. To use that would be to the disadvantage of the cities, which the hon. Gentleman wants to protect.
Mr. Battle: Will the Minister explain why the Department used car ownership, unemployment and other social factors when assessing urban development grant?
Mr. Portillo: We have considered what makes local authority services more expensive. That is a different exercise from urban development grant. It is not car ownership or unemployment but social factors that incur more expense for local authorities. We are focused on the right issue.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) asked what would happen if his local authority or any other authority incurred special costs because of the Gulf crisis. We hope that that will not arise, but demands could be placed on social services. I give him the assurance that we shall consider that carefully if and when it becomes clear that a local authority is facing significant new burdens as a result of the Gulf crisis. He has my assurance on that point.
We had some debate—the hon. Member for Brightside complained about it—on efficiency in local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West spoke lucidly of the advantages of competitive tendering. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), in an excellent speech, told us of the work being done in Wandsworth and gave that extraordinarily telling example of how much more rubbish was collected per man in Wandsworth than in Southwark. I was alarmed when I heard that, under Labour's plans, the Audit Commission,
882
which does such good work, would be subsumed. "Subsumed" is a nasty socialist verb which I shall add to my socialist phrase book.
We had much wriggling from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in defence of Lambeth. He came up with a marvellous phrase. He said that he would not deny that in Lambeth there were some elements of inefficiency. That may go down in the phrases of the year. He may find himself in the colour magazines at the end of the year because of it.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that not even the police are immune from making gains in efficiency. The Audit Commission, which under Labour's plans will be subsumed, has drawn attention to the efficiency gains that can—
Mr. Gould: The Minister does not understand the verb.
Mr. Portillo: I hope that I do not understand the verb. What I understand by it is so grisly that I am extremely worried about Labour's plans.
The Audit Commission, which is safe in our hands—let me put it that way—has pointed out that the police authorities are capable of making many gains in efficiency. In West Mercia, for example, a review of administrative procedures saved £5 million for the police, largely by transferring functions from uniformed officers to civilians. Nationally, it has been observed that the police receive twice as many training days per annum as other public sector workers. It has been identified that savings of 15 per cent. are available in police communications and that a 25 per cent. increase—in many cases much more—in income generation is possible within police forces. The point that I am making is that, whatever may have been said to my hon. Friends, the sacking of policemen is not by any means the only option for police authorities.
Dame Jill Knight: Many of us understand completely the herculean nature of the task that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State face. However, we are extremely anxious about the threats to sack policemen, particularly in the west midlands. The very thought of 100 policemen being sacked puts a chill into our hearts. We are told by our chief constable that no more savings can easily be made. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell us that we may be voting for the sacking of 100 policemen?
Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that my hon. Friend will be voting for any such thing. I have told her that I believe that there are efficiency savings to be made and that any police authority, such as the one in her area—I have just listed four examples—should be able to meet its statutory obligations.
In any case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained how the capping procedure works. He explained that, if a police authority were to find that it had to spend in such a way that it came within our capping criteria, we should very carefully consider its situation on its individual merits. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned that, if a police authority were to spend all its reserves, it might be in a difficult position.
Obviously, if a police authority were to find itself in an emergency, the situation would be dealt with properly at the time, and we should consider the consequences very

883
carefully. However, police authorities should have regard to their statutory duties with respect to our intended criteria, the approved level of police manpower and all other relevant considerations. I think that that ought to reassure my hon. Friend.
Mr. Turner: I want to ask a question about efficiency within the Audit Commission. Has the commission raised with the Government the question of the delay in paying the revenue support grant to local authorities? The council in Wolverhampton will have to add £3 to every poll tax bill in the next year because of the Government's refusal to pay at the proper time.
Mr. Portillo: I am a great believer in central Government playing their part. I am sorry that these reports are being debated so late in the day. However, hon. Members will understand that the Government wanted time to bring in the community charge reduction scheme. That has been very much welcomed on the Government side of the House, even if it has been received grudgingly by the Opposition.
My hon. Friends are worried about fire authorities. In that case, the Government will decide on capping after the budgets have been set, again taking account of all the appropriate considerations, including the scope for achieving greater value for money and the need to maintain the minimum standards of fire cover. The Home Secretary's approval would be required for the closure of any fire station or for any other reduction of operational capacity. I hope that that will assure my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne reminded us that this debate is not concerned principally with the community charge. In that respect, the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham was disappointing, because he dwelt so much on the community charge and so little on the reports. His speech was largely familiar to us. His accusation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had made no progress was shot down by all my hon. Friends who welcomed the community charge reduction scheme.
If the hon. Member for Dagenham said anything that was relevant, it was that there is not enough money. He said that the £3 billion extra that is being provided and the£1·7 billion for the community charge reduction scheme were insufficient. If we offered £30 billion and £17 billion—
Mr. Gould: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: No: I am in my last minute.
—the hon. Gentleman would still be saying that that was not enough. The hon. Gentleman's attitude to money is still wholly irresponsible. Independent observers, such as Mr. Tony Travers, have observed that this is the most generous RSG settlement since the mid-1970s. The Government have found another £4·25 billion, yet the hon. Gentleman says that that is not enough even though this year's spending is up by 31 per cent. compared to public spending just two years ago.
The hon. Member for Dagenham says that he favours spending £40·8 billion next year, which would be 47 per cent. up on spending two years ago. His position remains profligate, unbelievable and irresponsible. I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 220.

Division No. 51]

[11.46 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aitken, Jonathan

Dover, Den

Alexander, Richard

Dunn, Bob

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Amess, David

Dykes, Hugh

Amos, Alan

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Evennett, David

Ashby, David

Fallon, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Favell, Tony

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Baldry, Tony

Fookes, Dame Janet

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Batiste, Spencer

Forth, Eric

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bellingham, Henry

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bendall, Vivian

Franks, Cecil

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Freeman, Roger

Benyon, W.

French, Douglas

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fry, Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Gardiner, Sir George

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gill, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bottomley, Peter

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Goodlad, Alastair

Bowis, John

Gorst, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brazier, Julian

Gregory, Conal

Bright, Graham

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

Grist, Ian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Ground, Patrick

Budgen, Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Burns, Simon

Hague, William

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Butler, Chris

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butterfill, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hannam, John

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Carttiss, Michael

Harris, David

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Christopher

Chapman, Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Chope, Christopher

Hayward, Robert

Churchill, Mr

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Conway, Derek

Hind, Kenneth

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cope, Rt Hon John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cran, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Critchley, Julian

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Curry, David

Hunter, Andrew

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

Irvine, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jack, Michael

Day, Stephen

Jackson, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Janman, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dorrell, Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

912

Key, Robert

Rossi, Sir Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rost, Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Knapman, Roger

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Knowles, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knox, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Latham, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shersby, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maclean, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Madel, David

Stern, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Stevens, Lewis

Mans, Keith

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maples, John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sumberg, David

Maude, Hon Francis

Summerson, Hugo

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Miller, Sir Hal

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Miscampbell, Norman

Thorne, Neil

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thornton, Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David

Thurnham, Peter

Moate, Roger

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tracey, Richard

Morrison, Sir Charles

Tredinnick, David

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Trippier, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trotter, Neville

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Viggers, Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Nicholls, Patrick

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walden, George

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Norris, Steve

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Warren, Kenneth

Paice, James

Watts, John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wells, Bowen

Patnick, Irvine

Wheeler, Sir John

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Whitney, Ray

Patten, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Ann

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wiggin, Jerry

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilkinson, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wilshire, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Portillo, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Powell, William (Corby)

Wolfson, Mark

Price, Sir David

Wood, Timothy

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Redwood, John

Yeo, Tim

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rhodes James, Robert

Younger, Rt Hon George

Riddick, Graham

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Mr. John D. Taylor and

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mr. Tom Sackville.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Allen, Graham

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barron, Kevin

Armstrong, Hilary

Battle, John

Ashton, Joe

Beckett, Margaret

913

Beith, A. J.

Fyfe, Maria

Bell, Stuart

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

George, Bruce

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

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Benton, Joseph

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bermingham, Gerald

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bidwell, Sydney

Gordon, Mildred

Blunkett, David

Gould, Bryan

Boateng, Paul

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Boyes, Roland

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bradley, Keith

Grocott, Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hinchliffe, David

Buckley, George J.

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Caborn, Richard

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Geraint

Canavan, Dennis

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hoyle, Doug

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Illsley, Eric

Corbett, Robin

Ingram, Adam

Corbyn, Jeremy

Janner, Greville

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Crowther, Stan

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cummings, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Dalyell, Tam

Kirkwood, Archy

Darling, Alistair

Lamond, James

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Dewar, Donald

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dixon, Don

Lewis, Terry

Dobson, Frank

Litherland, Robert

Doran, Frank

Livsey, Richard

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

Eadie, Alexander

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Eastham, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McAllion, John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McAvoy, Thomas

Fatchett, Derek

McCartney, Ian

Fearn, Ronald

Macdonald, Calum A.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McFall, John

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Fisher, Mark

McKelvey, William

Flynn, Paul

McLeish, Henry

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McMaster, Gordon

Foster, Derek

McNamara, Kevin

Foulkes, George

McWilliam, John

Fraser, John

Madden, Max

914

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Rooney, Terence

Marek, Dr John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Rowlands, Ted

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ruddock, Joan

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Sedgemore, Brian

Martlew, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Maxton, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Meale, Alan

Short, Clare

Michael, Alun

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morley, Elliot

Soley, Clive

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Steinberg, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Stott, Roger

Murphy, Paul

Strang, Gavin

Nellist, Dave

Straw, Jack

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Hara, Edward

Turner, Dennis

O'Neill, Martin

Vaz, Keith

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Walley, Joan

Patchett, Terry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pendry, Tom

Wareing, Robert N.

Pike, Peter L.

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Prescott, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Primarolo, Dawn

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Randall, Stuart

Wilson, Brian

Redmond, Martin

Winnick, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Reid, Dr John

Worthington, Tony

Richardson, Jo

Wray, Jimmy

Robertson, George

Robinson, Geoffrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Rogers, Allan

Mr, Frank Haynes and

Rooker, Jeff

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 93), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [25 January], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other motions relating to local government finance.
Resolved,
That the Population Report (England) (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 94), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 95), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 96), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 12), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
Mr. Speaker: Welsh revenue support grant—Mr. Secretary Hunt.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On the Welsh revenue support grant?
Mrs. Gorman: It is on the previous item. I understand that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a vitriolic speech about me and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). We were not in the Chamber to discuss Basildon's rates because we were both engaged elsewhere on other business. Neither of us was informed by the hon. Gentleman that he intended to make that speech. We feel that it was a gross discourtesy to the House and to us.
Mr. Speaker: It is always sad when hon. Members are not in the Chamber to hear debates. I cannot help the hon. Lady. She had better take the matter up with the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

Local Government Finance(Wales)
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss all three motions. There will be a Division at the end of the debate.
10.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 78), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
I am delighted that we are taking also the associated motions:
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 79), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 80), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, he approved.
The report embody the decisions that I announced in the House on 17 January on Welsh local government finance and the settlement for 1991–92. In announcing my decisions to the House, I described the settlement as good news for local authorities and Welsh charge payers and clearly that was a realistic assessment.
It is not necessary this evening to repeat the decisions that I announced on 17 January, but I remind the House that I am allowing local authorities additional spending of 8 per cent. on 1990–91 budgets. That is I per cent. more than will be allowed in England. With the improved outlook for inflation during 1991–92, I am confident that that will be an entirely adequate level of spending to cover inflationary and other pressures and to meet the cost of new responsibilities.
As the House will know, the Audit Commission has shown that there is considerable potential for all local authorities to secure further efficiency savings. I am anxious that they should do so in order to release further resources for the development of services. On 17 January I commended the work of Welsh local authorities to secure greater efficiency and I do so again tonight. Local authorities in Wales have also recognised that much remains to be done and clearly they are getting on with the job.
The distribution report sets out the calculations for each authority's standard spending assessment. The overall increase in SSAs is 15 per cent., the average for counties being 14 per cent. and the average for districts being 21 per cent. These increases are substantial and give the lie to those who argue that the settlement is inadequate. I am pleased to tell the House that once again in Wales we have been able to reach full agreement with the local authority associations on the formulae for calculating SSAs.
Mr. Win Griffiths: We do not understand them.
Mr. Hunt: Fortunately, the Welsh local authorities and the Welsh Office understand them. I believe that Government Back Benchers understand them. It is a shame that the Opposition have yet to catch up.
Mr. Win Griffiths: One point intrigues me. I have read the reports. In the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 2) table 1·5 on page 11 deals with
890
the standard spending assessment. Can the Secretary of State explain on what basis the estimated expenditure additions are calculated? They do not seem to bear any relationship to the interim SSAs. For example, how is the estimated expenditure addition calculated for Neath as compared with the one for Ogwr?
Mr. Hunt: It is simple, if the hon. Gentleman will concentrate for a moment. The standard spending assessment for Ogwr in the 1991–92 settlement is £17,218,000 which is an increase of 16·5 per cent. A 2 per cent. decrease in population has meant, however, that the SSA increase need not be as high as the district average. That is why the figures for Ogwr are as set out. However, taking the last two years for the estimated expenditure additions and looking at the background of the SSAs, the figures have increased by 35 per cent., which is one of the highest increases in Wales. If the hon. Gentleman referred to his local authority, he would find that it agrees with the assessment.
On the interim SSA, the hon. Gentleman will see that the composite secondary indicator and the secondary factor accumulate to the current SSA. If he reads the table in that context he will see how the figures add up. Other hon. Members seem to be aware of the background to the figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consult hits colleagues.
On the aggregate external finance, the level of Government support for Welsh local authority spending remains at close to 80 per cent. of total standard spending. When I announced my proposals for the settlement last July, 1 reminded the House of my predecessor's commitment that no resources would be lost to Wales as a result of moving to the new system. The settlement shows that that commitment is being honoured; indeed, when grant in support of the new community charge reduction scheme is taken into account, more than 82 per cent. of the expenditure of Welsh local government will be met from sources other than the community charge payer, if authorities spend in line with the plans which I have already described as adequate.
That takes me to the good news for the community charge payer which the settlement represents. The corollary of 82 per cent. Government support is that only 18 per cent. of the cost of local authority services will be met by charge payers. The House should further be aware that this figure is reduced to less than 15 per cent. when community charge benefit is taken into account. The average charge payable when benefits and the community charge reduction scheme are taken into account will be less than £170—always provided, as I point out time and time again, that local authorities spend in line with these plans.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: In line with the figures that my right hon. Friend has given, I think that it would be appropriate if, at this point he told us something about collection rates.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) may try to correct me again, but I understand that the latest figures on collection show a very favourable position in Wales and that districts in Wales—where, as hon. Members will know, community charges averaged£232 this year—are now on target to collect at least 95 per cent. of this year's charge. That is the figure given by a survey conducted by the Council of Welsh Districts. That survey, which I understand to be the first in Wales,

891
suggests that council treasurers' initial assumptions in respect of non-payment are being proved correct. In Swansea, 97 per cent. of adults have made a payment towards the community charge. That figure is followed closely by those of Lliw Valley, Brecknock and Carmarthen at 96 per cent., and 95 per cent. respectively. Cardiff and Ogwr register 94 per cent. Top of the income table is Lliw Valley—where 77 per cent. of the year's cash was collected by the end of November—and it is followed closely by Carmarthen.
Those figures show a tremendous effort on the part of local authorities and all the staff concerned. They also show that, in Wales, non-collection and non-payment have been a total failure. People in Wales recognise their responsibility to pay the community charge, and they have done so.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Secretary of State have the figures for Rhondda?
Mr. Hunt: I understand that Rhondda has had one of the best collection rates. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm or deny the latest news that I have received from Rhondda, which is that 98 per cent. of charge payers are expected to pay the community charge.
Mr. Rogers: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman says, that is a record of which Rhondda has every right to be proud.
I understand that one Opposition Member has told the press that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may criticise the community charge reduction scheme. Let me give the House 10 reasons why I believe our scheme is a very good one which should be the envy of England.
First, 67 per cent. of charge payers—more than two in three—will get an automatic reduction which they will not even have to claim. Secondly, 612 of our 865 communities will get relief, whereas only 323 got relief this year. Thirdly, all charge payers in those communities facing the highest average increases in the transfer to the new system from the rates will benefit. Fourthly, charge payers know in advance exactly how much their reduction will be. Fifthly,£20 million is available in 1990–91 and that will increase to£62 million next year.
Sixthly, all the £62 million is to go directly to reducing bills. Seventhly, there are no significant administrative costs and no local government bureaucracy. Eighthly, people who have moved house since 1 April 1990 will not lose out. Ninthly, people in sheltered accommodation in qualifying communities will get their assistance automatically. Finally, the Welsh local authority associations agreed in 1990 that the Welsh scheme provides the best all-round arrangement for Wales, and I believe that what has happened has proved that point.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite those 10 points, people on low incomes in difficult financial circumstances will not benefit while others on high incomes who can well afford to pay, more will benefit from a £80 or £90 reduction? This is not such a finely tuned system and not all that fair to those on low incomes.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will recall that such anomalies were pointed out during initial discussions of
892
the scheme. Despite that, all the local authority associations in Wales agreed that it was the best possible solution for Wales. They agreed that it would be the best system for Wales.
Mr. Rogers: Further to the rather sanctimonious point madce by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), what does the Secretary of State think about Plaid Cymru councillors, professional people on high salaries, refusing to pay their poll tax, although they can afford it, and leading campaigns against the poll tax, who avail themselves of services, sending their children to school and having their refuse collected, while old-age pensioners and others subsidise them? Will the Secretary of State condemn those Plaid Cymru councillors whose refusal to pay their poll tax means that poor people on low incomes have to pay extra? It has been calculated that in the Rhondda the surcharge may be as much as £20 to £30 extra as a result of people such as the Plaid Cymru councillor refusing to pay.
Mr. Wigley: Labour councillors do the Tories' dirty work for them.
Mr. Hunt: I am reluctant to intervene, but I suppose that I must.
Irrespective of party, I strongly condemn any person in a position of authority who urges others to follow his or her example in not paying the community charge. It means that that individual is trying to get a free ride on the backs of others in the community. In that respect, I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke about people on low incomes. We have a generous community charge rebate scheme which was not taken into account when I gave the figure of an average £200 community charge. If one takes into account the rebate as well as the community charge reduction scheme, charge payers in Wales will be paying on average less than £170, and that is a great advantage in comparison with England and Scotland.
Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State has listed the 10 advantages, but who imposed the exorbitant charges in the first place? Does he realise that he cannot deny responsibility for that?
Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me explain that the settlement for this financial year is adequate and that any extra amount over and above that predicted in the settlement is wholly due to the spending decisions of individual councils.
I hope that people will recognise that we have targeted this enhanced protection on those areas of relatively low average rateable value where the impact of the new system has been greatest. I hope that, on reflection, they will agree that this represents the right approach and one which properly reflects Welsh circumstances.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: If the Secretary of State is targeting things properly, why is it that, in communities such as mine, the Gurnos and Gellideg council estates receive no transitional benefit under the system?
Mr. Hunt: Because the scheme is based on areas of relatively low average rateable value. That was the basis on which it was agreed with the local authority associations.

893
That is the only basis on which one can calculate those who lose and gain when moving from a system where local taxation is based on rateable value to one based on the new community charge. It was agreed with local authorities that, that was the best system. About 300 communities will not benefit from the scheme, but the £62 million is being spent to best effect. If we introduced the English transitional scheme to Wales, many fewer people would benefit, and the amount that would feed through to them would be much lower, too.
Mr. Rowlands: The Minister gave an elongated reply to my question, but I can tell him that, under the old rating system, a husband and wife on the Gellideg or Gurnos estates paid about £300 a year. By any standards, they are not the wealthiest communities in my constituency or in south Wales. If the benefit is targeted as the Minister suggests, why has it missed those communities?
Mr. Hunt: I gave not an elongated but a factual reply, and explained that targeting is based on the average rateable value. If people individually or collectively cannot afford to pay, they may be entitled to community charge benefit, which is being received by more than 500,000 charge payers in Wales. That is special targeting over and above the reduction scheme that I described.
Mr. Richard Livsey: In that case, why cannot the lowest-paid people in our society afford to pay even 20 per cent. of their poll tax? Also, the Audit Commission calculated that it costs more to administer that collection than it produces in revenue.
Mr. Hunt: If the 20 per cent. sector were removed, those who receive income support enhancement to meet that commitment would be worse off. That enhancement is calculated on the average community charge in England and Wales, which is very much higher than the average in Wales alone. Therefore, the amount received by those on income support is greater than the sum that they have to pay.
Collection costs are a factor, although I do not have precise figures. Nevertheless, the requirement to make a 20 per cent. contribution is part of a scheme to ensure that everyone pays something towards the cost of the services that they use. In Wales, those concerned receive more through the benefit system, on average, than they are required to pay.
As to local authority budgets in 1991–92, following representations from local authority associations, I have chosen not to announce community charge capping criteria but to reconsider the position in the light of the budgets set. I made it clear to the associations and to every Welsh local authority—as I have to the House on several occasions—that I am looking to them to adopt prudent budgetary policies. If local authorities fail to do so, they will place themselves in jeopardy not only of charge capping, but of lower levels of external financing and of spending in the future.
Local authorities have a responsibility to their community charge payers to spend closely in line with the settlement and to set their charges accordingly. I am encouraged by recent press reports suggesting that some local authorities have already adopted that approach, and I look to others to follow that lead. The choice is theirs.
The settlements before the House this evening will surely become a thing of the past if local authorities do not
894
respond appropriately. As it is, the settlement that I am presenting this year is good for local authorities, good for charge payers and good for Wales. I commend it to the House.
10.39 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his exposition, but he was less than frank when dealing with the credits of his community charge reduction scheme. He might have told us that, as recently as 22 January, Mr. Dennis Puddle, a councillor and chairman of the Welsh district councils, wrote to the right hon. Gentleman at the Welsh Office and listed five alternative, arguably better schemes, for using the £42 million. The first two involve removing the 20 per cent. minimum payment and the others are to pay relief in Wales to individuals, as in England, not to communities.
That was a constructive letter and, in making a constructive speech, the right hon. Gentleman might have referred to Mr. Puddle's communication to him, because it puts a different gloss on the 10 points that he listed in support of his reduction scheme.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an early chance to respond to his remarks. I saw that letter for the first time only a few hours ago.
Mr. Alan Williams: That is because the Secretary of State did not consult.
Mr. Hunt: No. I have only just seen the letter, and if the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside looks at it, he will see that the alternative scheme encompasses areas other than community charge relief. Against the arguments put forward, Councillor Puddle says:
"It is accepted that the limited 1990–91 Transitional Relief scheme avoided significant"—
Mr. Alun Michael: That is the old one for 1990–91.
Mr. Hunt: The new scheme has exactly the same basis as the transitional relief scheme.
Mr. Michael: That is the point.
Mr. Hunt: Councillor Puddle said:
"It is accepted that the limited … Transitional Relief scheme avoided significant additional administration costs."
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman wriggles. His officials sent him a copy of the letter and they marked it. It was not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to present the case for his charge change without referring to this letter. I have brought the letter to the attention of the House and he has been forced to concede that there are other methods—Councillor Puddle lists five. The right hon. Gentleman should, in all honour, have brought that letter to the attention of the House, and I must protest at his omission.
No amount of fine words will persuade the people of Wales to support the poll tax, because the Minister's fine words do not relate to the gathering intensity of the recession in Wales. It is a fact that our local authorities want to enhance their economic development policies. Their associations say that this settlement does not encourage them to do so. The increase in the business rate of about 10·9 per cent. is twice the projected rate of inflation, and that will add to the problems of business in Wales in the current recession.

895
May I remind the hon. Gentleman about the business rate and the recession? We have heard about the pending closure of the Deep Navigation pit, with 370 jobs. Mardy colliery has been axed; there are likely to be high-tech redundancies in Gwent at Mitel; Brymbo steelworks has closed; Laura Ashley factories are closing; Holyhead port will be hit; a G-Plan furniture factory in Wrexham will close; Glendale Furniture factory on Deeside is in the hands of the receiver; quarry jobs are to be lost in Gwynedd; and on Deeside, 200 Castle Cement jobs are to go.
The local authorities have consistently stated that the settlement is insufficient to enable them to deal with existing policies, population trends and central Government initiatives and legislation. A gap of about £50 million or more was identified by the local authorities—it remains. That is the view of the Welsh counties and the Welsh districts.
The settlement is very volatile. The extremes, in relation to the revenue support grant average, are astonishing. The high, for Meirionnydd—and good luck to it—is 32·9 per cent., while the low, for contiguous Montgomery, is minus 1·5 per cent. My district council, Alyn and Deeside, will receive only 0·4 per cent.—an extra £13,000—and the borough of Colwyn only 1·2 per cent., despite its pressing problems.
I do not think that the Secretary of State has fully considered the impact on council budgets, which will be considerable. The district councils are aghast at the implications of, for example, the litter code of practice: they say that the lack of specific provision for districts is more than worrying. The forecast costs are four to six times higher than the highest Government figure.
The Welsh district councils are also worried about the implications for housing investment. Compared with the 1987–90 Welsh district housing investment average, the current figure represents a real-terms reduction of no less than £75 million, or 25 per cent. There is a housing crisis in Wales and homelessness is an increasing and, in many instances, heartbreaking problem. It is becoming more and more difficult to find a house at an affordable rent, and many Welsh people find it almost impossible to afford a mortgage. Mortgages in Wales—a land, often, of low wages—are sky-high. Opposition Members think that the Government's policies have made Wales's housing problems worse, and the most severe problems are still in the valleys; although problems exist elsewhere, sometimes to a daunting extent.
Mr. Alan Williams: Swansea—where 1,000 houses are defective and most will have to be demolished—faces a cost of £75 million; the Secretary of State's housing allocation is £5 million, which must cover all costs. And he describes this as a generous settlement.
Mr. Jones: In that instance, it cannot be described as generous. My right hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the
896
Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) are constantly making that point, on behalf of a city council with a superb housing reputation. We should remind the Secretary of State that local authorities want to improve pre-war council estates—to tackle the problem of defective pre-reinforced concrete homes, renovate private homes, implement special schemes to deal with homelessness and build new council houses and flats. Will the Government agree to allow Welsh councils to use at least 50 per cent. of council house sale receipts, as the districts ask? Will they also permit the use of non-house sale receipts, up to a limit of 75 per cent.?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the new community charge reduction scheme. The House will recall that I broadly welcomed the news when it was announced last week. If the Government do not intend to abolish the poll tax—we can draw that conclusion—any relief is to be welcomed. According to the Government's figures, two thirds of the population of Wales will receive some relief from the scheme. That suggests that the Government have no confidence in the system.
The Secretary of State skirted round the capping issue. The inadequacy of the settlement means that local authorities will have great difficulty maintaining their current level of services and staying within the spending limits. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to apply caps? If so, why does not he announce the criteria? Will he confirm that the English criteria are to be used? In his statement on 23 July he said that he would publish in advance his capping criteria. On 31 October, however, he stated that he would not publish them in advance. The Secretary of State should have told the House why he was wobbling on this important issue. His indecision is not conducive to good government, either local or national. I hope that Ministers will respond to these questions, to which the countries and districts want an answer.
The counties are uneasy about having to face up to the impending pay settlements for teachers, firemen and the police. The legislative challenge of the national curriculum, community care and the Children Act 1989 is severe for our county authorities. The comunity charge for standard spending of £228 is a fiction. The Government have underfunded for pay awards, inflation and new central Government pressures. However, the poll tax is up and running and the Government are attempting to sweeten it. We can see that they are preparing for a general election.
I vividly remember the Secretary of State for the Environment making his Back-Bench speech during the Second Reading of the poll tax Bill. He said that it would be called a Tory tax. Of course it is a Tory tax. It is also an unjust tax. The poll tax has no support in Wales. It affronts our sense of fair play because it is unrelated to the ability to pay. Whatever the Government do, the people of Wales will reject the poll tax. No amount of finesse and no amount of repackaging will hide its glaring inadequacies and injustices. Labour Members pledge to abolish the poll tax. The incoming Labour Government will abolish the poll tax in Wales.
10.53 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: No one can deny that my right hon. Friend's settlement, announced last week, was the most appropriate and generous settlement for Wales. It was remarkably generous. The community charge was introduced only last year. It led to understandable confusion, due to the change from an old system, however discredited, to something new and different. Almost every local council in Wales took advantage of that change by imposing community charges that were far higher than necessary.
Has my right hon. Friend set an increase based on his level for last year or even the year before? If he had increased his settlement for last year by 9·5 per cent. in line with inflation or 20 per cent. from two years before, local councils would need to be instituting substantial cuts in their budgets. Instead, my right hon. Friend has allowed an 8 per cent. increase on their budgets—not their spending—when he knows that those budgets were already set way too high. One leading Labour politician said to me recently that even he cannot understand how some Labour councils have increased their budgeting and levied the community charges that they have. They are not able to spend it.
I wonder if the cynical manipulation of the community charge to which the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred applies to the capital city of Wales —Cardiff city council. If there was any foundation in what the hon. Gentleman was trying to claim about district councils' needs, how could Cardiff city council, probably the most left-wing council in the Principality, move to cut the community charge?
Is it cynical to suggest that the sole motivation for the left-wing councillors running Cardiff city council is that they are running scared? They know that the elections will be held in May this year. They know that they took too much off the people of Cardiff last year and they are desperate to give it back, despite all the claims of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that district councils need to levy more in the community charge. Left-wing Cardiff city council is letting him down.
I feel sure that the councils in Wales know what a friend they have in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate. We should all applaud my right hon. Friend's community charge reduction scheme, providing a threefold increase in the amount of money devoted to the scheme and extending it to cover 1·4 million people in Wales. At last the people of Wales know that someone is fighting back against the impositions of the local councils.
I must tell my right hon. Friend that there are already complaints about his community charge reduction scheme. People beyond those whom he has brought in want his protection against the impositions of the local councils. Already there is a grab-back going on in Wales. My right hon. Friend has announced an excellent reduction scheme, but certain local councils are seeing the opportunity to grab that money back. Once again, the example is close to home. South Glamorgan council, again a left-wing council, controlled solely by the Labour party, is proposing an increase in the community charge of double the rate of inflation. That is totally unjustified, but I am afraid that there is not the cautionary factor of the elections this year. It is insulated from that for another two years.
898
The real answer to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been trying to deal with is to get the local authorities in Wales to set reasonable community charge levels. Again I shall cite a local example because I know it best. The Welsh Office has calculated that, on the best estimates available, the community charge in Cardiff should be about £100 less than is being levied to maintain the services. Every citizen in the capital of Wales is having to pay an extra £100, and it looks like that will get worse rather than better because of the decisions of the left-wing councillors.
The community charge is much fairer than the rating system it replaced, but we all know the practical problems and the way in which left-wing councils have sought to exploit them. I am coming round to the conclusion that. whatever changes or reductions are made in the community charge, there is a need for far greater accountability by the councils which make the decisions about the level of the community charge.
It is difficult to pursue that accountability with the confusion for the electorate of two tiers of local government. I would welcome moves in the next Parliament towards establishing one tier. Rather than having council elections once every four years, one third of councillors should be re-elected each year. Wales has led the way in proving that accountability works. We have had two examples of electors choosing to abolish community councils because they were not delivering what those electors had a right to expect.
10.59 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I was taught that a good sermon has three points, not 10 as the Secretary of State made. I shall make three points.
First, Conservative Members have preached the sermon that one does not throw bad money at a bad case. The Government have been throwing large sums at trying, to make a fatally flawed tax scheme work. I intervened on the Secretary of State briefly and mentioned two of the communities that I represent, the Gurnos and Gellideg, estates. By any criteria, they are not well-off, middle-class estates. Many of their residents will get relief from the poll tax reduction scheme, but many husbands and wives—average families—will pay much more than they paid under the old rating system, despite the fact that thin system is supposed to be well targeted. The system fails because targeting cannot relieve the fatally flawed nature of the tax—one that drags more and more people into taxation.
Time and again, Chancellors of the Exchequer have sought to remove people from marginal personal and national taxation. The poll tax scheme drags more and more people into marginal taxation under the specious concept of accountability. It drags in young students and makes them pay £40, but then other people spend half their life chasing them to find out where they live and what they do. It brings into taxation people who should be excluded. Governments of both parties have raised thresholds to take people out of taxation, but this tax system drags a whole host of people back into taxation at local level.
My second point is on the scheme's impact on local expenditure. The Government say that huge sums are being spent on local government. During the past 10 years of Thatcherite government, the Government have devised

899
means of spending money in any way but through local authorities. It has been a deliberate policy, and I understand the argument for it. They have created agencies and other means of spending money to do the things that local authorities were supposed to do. We now have housing associations, the Welsh Development Agency—
Mr. Alan Williams: Quangos.
Mr. Rowlands: Yes, quangos.
Money has been made available, so I am not complaining about the impact that that public expenditure has had in my constituency. The Secretary of State testified to the quality of Welsh local government, but why is it that in my community the pavements are cracked, there are potholes in the streets and the street lighting is as bad, as it has ever been, if not worse? The local infrastructure, which is the responsibility of local government, is in a shabby and deplorable state.
I do not believe that it is the fault of local government. The right hon. Gentleman says that large sums of money have been spent. He has testified to the fact that local government is not inefficient and is not wasting huge sums of money. At best, he can claim that there are margins for improvement. Why, despite all this, has there been such an environmental impact at local level? We all know about the condition of pavements and street lighting. Why are the fundamental facilities now shabbier and dirtier than they were more than a decade ago?
I come now to my third point. I do not know what impact recession has on local government expenditure. In recent weeks, the Secretary of State has taken some curious cold comfort from the indication that the recession is hitting the south-east harder than it is hitting Wales. Let me tell him that the recession is biting deeply and radically into the communities that I represent. It affects pits, which are being closed, deep navigation facilities and employment. It gives me no pleasure—indeed, it is horrifying—to have to say that it seems that 1991 will be much like 1981.
There will be other debates about the general economic scene. I do not know what effect recession, with the loss of jobs and of purchasing power, will have on local government services. I do not quite understand how the Government have built revenue support into their settlement factor. Rapidly deepening recession is hitting the economy and jobs in communities like mine.
In respect of all three points, the right hon. Gentleman may say, "I have fought well. I have managed to cushion the worse effects of this tax." It is the silliest tax ever to have been imposed on people. The Secretary of State ought to wake up to the fact that our communities are now deeply in recession and that we need his voice on economic policies as much as on local government finance.
11.7 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: If there is anything that could reconcile me to poll tax, it is the synthetic indignation of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the sheer dishonesty of the Labour party in claiming that it could abolish the tax overnight. Everybody knows perfectly well that it will not be done in one year. Nor can the dazzling display of the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box conceal the fact that
900
this system is as abstruse as any that went before it. It is with all due respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) that I say that it is not noticeably more effective in making councils responsible to their electorates.
Within the unacceptably tight limits of this still less than satisfactory system, my right hon. Friend has managed to secure a very good deal for Wales. I doubt whether even my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) could have done better—and there is no higher praise than that to bestow. However, the borough of Colwyn feels that it has done badly out of this settlement. I know that a number of communities within the borough have done very well, but they are mostly the sparsely populated ones. Apart from Betws-yn-Rhos, they are the ones outside my constituency. The formula seems to have worked to the disadvantage of the rest.
There was a good deal of force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He made the point that directing the relief at communities rather than at individuals produces pretty severe anomalies. Nonetheless, I accept my right hon. Friend's assurance that, anomalies or not, the system overall has worked out better for Wales than for England.
I have no doubt that the poll tax is dead and that we shall have to forgo the pleasure of kicking it, at least in so far as it is the principal element in locally raised finance. I also have no doubt that we must go back to a property tax that is easy to collect, has some rough correspondence with ability to pay and encourages the full use of living space. There is a valid theoretical argument for keeping a flat-rate charge to bring home the cost of the things for which people vote so blithely, but the question is whether it is worth the cost just to prove the point.
It is important that whatever new system of local government finance we have, we should try now to move away from the built-in tension between central and local government which is so endemic in the present system. That suggests to me that the state should move in the direction of paying for the services that are basically national services, such as education, the police and the fire services, and that local services should be paid for by local taxation which local authorities are free to raise and to spend entirely as they see fit.
The present in-built tensions are having some bad results. Councils take bad decisions not only because they are misguided, but sometimes purely to be able to blame central Government. The ruling Labour group on Clwyd county council, for example, proposes to sell off Bodelwyddan castle. I know that that is not a money spinner, but it brings much needed investment into the area and it confers huge prestige. It is far easier to shift the blame for that on to central Government and thereby to evade the unpopularity of cutting some of the swollen administrative staff.
I will vote for a reprieve for the poll tax in Wales tonight, as I did for England, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take it as a sign that I have changed my mind about the tax. It is merely a token of the high regard that I have for him and of the high esteeem in which I hold the Government under their new management.
11.11 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: This debate is about a failed scheme. We all know that the poll tax has utterly failed. The debate is also a commentary on the Government's failure to keep inflation down and on the problems that stem from that, which run back into local government. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right when he said that the country was in deep recession. I am one of 10 hon. Members who used to work for Imperial Chemical Industries and we meet the chairman every year. This December, he told us that the recession in late 1990 was just as deep as the recession in 1981 and he was full of foreboding about economic prospects for 1991. That is the background against which we are trying to operate local government.
Some councils feel that the deal is better than they had originally feared in that it is based on current spending rather than on budgeted spending by local authorities. However, the problem is the old one of inflation and of the relationship between inflation and what the Secretary of State has on offer. What he has on offer is sometimes too simplistic, in that it is a straight 8 per cent. It is really a 6 per cent. allowance for inflation plus 2 per cent. for some growth. Against the background of inflation hovering around 10 per cent., that is not acceptable for councils. They are confronted with a shortfall in relation to inflation and they have to find the difference. Their expenditure has to be committed to the most prominent spending priorities and the greatest in most counties is education.
The teachers' pay award is coming up and it is likely —and rightly—to be about 10 per cent. Within that, a hangover of pay increases from the previous year's increments has to be included. Most county councils feel that they will have to find 10·5 per cent. for teachers' pay. They will have to find the difference between 8 and 10·5 per cent.
In my county of Powys, school transport forms 10 per cent. of the education budget. That is twice the administration costs of the education department in the county. In the next 12 months we are likely to see a 20 per cent. increase in school transport costs, based on a present cost of £2·5 million. That matter is not properly taken into account in the Secretary of State's allowances. What allowance has the Secretary of State made for increased costs as a result of Government legislation over the past 12 months in particular? For example, I refer to the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and their provisions for the disabled. The litter code has already been mentioned. In my area, the additional on-costs of that legislation amount to about £1·2 million. I should like to know whether proper allowance for this has been made within the revenue support grant calculations.
To some community councils, the transitional relief and the community charge reduction scheme is helpful—certainly in my area, where some remote community councils have a substantial reduction, although it produces some rather odd inequities. One can liken it to rugby scores—Merthyr Cynog 50, Brecon nil; Llanbadarn Fynydd 33, Llandridnod Wells nil. In such communities, the ability to pay does not make much sense because many people with the least ability to pay are getting no relief.
902
Hon. Members' comments about targeting individuals rather than communities make some sense in these circumstances.
Most charge payers—certainly in Brecon and Radnor —will pay more poll tax than they did last year as a result of the situation that is emerging, in spite of the Secretary of State trying to adjust a failed system.
Housing in the districts and boroughs is critical. Repair costs are mounting. However, councils have a much reduced if not non-existent role in the building of houses. When one examines the situation in Wales—Tai Cymru has funding allocations over the past 12 months, with a target of 3,000 houses to be built—one can see that it is totally inadequate. At least 7,000 affordable houses should be built per year, but allocations to housing associations are inadequate. Some housing associations have been discriminated against by the Welsh Office. That matter should be put right. Funding for local authority housing used to feature strongly in revenue support grant settlements in the past.
The non-domestic business rate has undoubtedly been a disaster for small businesses. In my area, shops are closing—some have been closed for the past six months —as a result of the burden of the non-domestic rate. The Secretary of State has increased it by more than 10 per cent., and that is hard to justify, because it is killing many small businesses.
Which councils is the Secretary of State thinking of capping? I hope none. However, we deserve some indication of his thoughts on this matter in relation to possible increases in poll tax in certain districts. Will he take action, given that councils are trying to operate a failed system? Poll tax payers are undoubtedly paying vastly more than they paid under the rating system.
The poll tax is clearly a complete disaster and should be abolished at the earliest possible moment. What we have heard this evening is just fiddling around with this failed system of the poll tax. It must be replaced by a system based on ability to pay. That means, in our case, the introduction of a local income tax based on people's ability to pay; this would do the job and exclude such people as students, who very often cannot afford to pay even the 20 per cent. poll tax. As I indicated in my question to the Secretary of State earlier, the administration costs of that 20 per cent. tax frequently exceed its value. Indeed, it costs councils to collect it.
So we believe that a fairer system has to be introduced at the earliest possible moment. It is at least pleasing to note that the Government are listening to people with ideas, and we hope that they will come up with ideas for a better solution of the problem, since the poll tax has clearly failed the nation.
11.20 pm
Mr. Ian Grist rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Grist: Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," but I do not know whether they will particularly like what I have to say. Nevertheless, such a reception is always welcome.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) when he complained about the

903
cost of education. I have believed for a long time that it should be on the national rather than the local budget, for the reasons that my hon. Friend put forward.
I should like to welcome the most impressive settlement which my hon. Friend has managed to squeeze out of the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. I think that he did it just in time; if it had come subsequently, things might have been more difficult. The centre of Cardiff, and most particularly the older areas of Cardiff and the three old wards in the centre which lie in my constituency, have benefited hugely from this new community charge reduction scheme. I am most grateful for that, and I know that my constituents will be as well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) said, if it is not being too cynical—but we are all politicans—Cardiff city council managed to increase its expenditure by 20 per cent. two years ago and raided the balances. That was one thing. Then it increased expenditure by 30 per cent. this year and blamed the community charge. And, lo and behold, this coming year, which is election year, it is to cut it. That is, of course, precisely what we said would be done. It has acted in line with what we said, so I suppose we should not complain, but I do not see why we should not complain, since this is the most mischievous piece of politicking with local people's money.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and to some extent the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Brecon and Radnor, complained about non-domestic rates. Those rates reflect the changes in valuations since 1973. They do not raise more money than would have been raised otherwise under the rating system. So this is a reallocation through revaluation, and people should not complain about that. If they really wanted the old rates, they could have had revaluation on housing, and I do not think that people would like that very much either, seeing the amount of house improvement that has gone on since 1973.
Of course, the complaint about 10·9 per cent. is a complaint about the current inflation rate, and that is coming down. That is why the increased expenditure available to councils through the allowances this year will be greater than the rate of inflation throughout the coming 12 months. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. It is not good enough to take the highest rate in one particular year; one has to take the average throughout the year, in which councils play a major part through their negotiations on pay rates. That is something to which they in turn must pay a great deal of attention.
The county council in South Glamorgan is putting up its community charge by twice the current inflation rate, and therefore by more than the future one, raising the community charge by £38. So between the reduction in the city and the increases in the county, some will be paying more, but some, because of the kindness of the city council and because of this new community charge reduction rate, will be paying less. I hope that, after they look at their new bills, people will be able to work out precisely what is going on.
The new system, whatever else may be said about it, is a great deal easier to understand than the old one. I do not believe that many hon. Members really understood the old
904
rating system and the rate support grant. When I joined the Welsh Office, I was given a little booklet to help me to understand it. There was an article in The Economist at the time entitled "The rates made easy—honestly." I got halfway through it and crumbled.
Unlike the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I believe that everyone should at least attempt to make some contribution towards their local authority's expenditure, which is made on their behalf and that of the local community, whether it be £1, £2, £3, £4 or £5 a week —which is what people in Wales are asked to spend on average.
That is not an unreasonable charge. Let us take my two young sons, who live in my house. Why should I pay the rates while they live there for nothing? They are earning. They have no other responsibilities. I do not see why they should not make a contribution, whatever one may say about the present system. The principle that they and other people should contribute to their local authority is perfectly reasonable.
However, in the review being carried out, I should like to see some form of flat-rate payment allied to a return to some form of property tax. The reason is simple. Houses do not move around. Although the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) told me otherwise, even local income tax has that drawback. People move around and are a little tricky to trace, keep track of and follow. I am not a great believer in that system.
Nor am I a believer in using capital values of housing as the basis for local taxation. In the past year, we have seen differential falls in the value of housing. Some of the crazy ideas for basing capital values on the last sale price are as daft as they sound. I would not go along with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North supported the idea of creating unitary authorities. I believe in the two-tier principle. I always have. Not least in Wales, unitary authorities would not be appropriate. In order to have a worthwhile size of population and accumulation of finance, we should have to have the most enormous authorities in mid and north Wales, or we would have over-large unitary authorities which were not properly local but were not large enough to carry out strategic planning in their own right. There would have to be another body above it, which might, of course, be called Parliament but nevertheless would be a further power removed from the locality.
I see the future as a two-tier system and a partial return to the old system, incorporating the principles of the present system. There should be minimum disruption. We have had quite enough disruption. The new review should produce a minimum of disruption and lead to a system which is clearer than the old one but will be perhaps a little more four square.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley rose—
Mr. Alun Michael rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I call Mr. Alun Michael.
Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you not intend to call members of all parties to speak in this Welsh debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am concerned that all parties, particularly

905
minority parties, should have a voice in the House. But the debate is in the hands of hon. Members who have already spoken from both the Front and Back Benches and the time that they take. I understand that the Front-Bench Members seek to reply to the debate. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has risen, and I have called him.
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is not acceptable. Every party in Wales that is represented in the House should have an opportunity to speak in a debate which is so important to the people of Wales. One and a half hours on matters of critical importance to the poll tax payers of Wales is simply not acceptable—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate how important the matter is to the people of Wales and the hon. Members who represent them, but it is not for the Chair to determine the length of debates in the House. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has sought to catch my eye so that he can reply to the debate. I call Mr. Alun Michael.
Mr. Wigley: It is up to the Chair to decide which hon. Members are called and in what order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have decided whom I am calling. I call Mr. Alun Michael.
Mr. Wigley: I am not prepared to accept that. It is in your hands to decide in which order you choose hon. Members to speak. It is within your capability to allow every party—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I require the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I call Mr. Alun Michael.
Mr. Wigley: No, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Alun Michael: This is self-indulgent.
Mr. Wigley: It is not self-indulgent.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I require the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am requiring the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Wigley: I am surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you should take that view—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am requiring the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Is he prepared to resume his seat?
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is he prepared to resume his seat?
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry—
Madam Deputy Speaker: If not, I am going to ask him to remove himself from the Chamber for the remainder of today's debate.
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do me the courtesy of resuming his seat. If not, I will ask him to remove himself from the Chamber for the remainder of this day's sitting.
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to do it, but if the hon. Gentleman will not resume his seat—
Mr. Wigley rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to remove himself from the Chamber for the remainder of this day's sitting.
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Wales has a right to be heard—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber for the remainder of this day's session.
Mr. Wigley: Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. On this point of order, I am attempting to be as fair as possible in the Chair. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do the honourable thing to his colleagues in the House and to the Chair. If he will not resume his seat, I am asking him to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Wigley: Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Name him."] I do not wish to name the hon. Gentleman. I am simply asking him either to resume his seat so that we can get on with the debate, which has about 16 minutes left, or to leave the Chamber. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I call Mr. Alun Michael.
11.31 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: It is easy to understand the frustration of hon. Members who are unable to take part in the debate. I must make the point that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have had their time. Many of my hon. Friends have been equally frustrated by the shortness of the debate.
The debate has proved that, squirm as the Conservatives may, it is crystal clear that the settlement is completely inadequate to allow local authorities in Wales to deliver the services that their communities have a right to expect and that it forces an increase in poll tax levels.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) should understand better than most how unsatisfactory the settlement is. His loyalty is greater than his sense, and greater than the sense that he has shown in previous contributions, although I note that he has come some way —a little belatedly—to meet the Labour party's proposal to replace the poll tax.
The Secretary of State for Wales tells us that an increase, as he calls it, which amounts to 8 per cent. above last year's budget levels, is good for Wales. That is nonsense, although the position is even worse for English authorities which are offered the more derisory increase of 7 per cent. It does not even cover inflation. He then had the cheek to growl at Welsh local authorities as if he had been

907
generous, and as if it would be ungrateful of them not to stick to the unrealistic poll tax levels which he has demanded.
Let me cut through all the jargon and set the record straight with four statements that do not brook argument. First, local authorities in Wales set reasonable budgets, according to the Government's own criteria. For 1990–91, English local authorities set levels that average 12·3 per cent. above their standard spending assessments. That is 12·3 per cent. above the level that the Government recognise that councils need to spend. In Wales, they went only 5·7 per cent. above the level that the parsimonious Government recognise as essential. Welsh counties as a whole were only 4 per cent. over their level.
In case the Secretary of State is tempted to follow the line urged on him by the backwoods warrior, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who ought to know better, let him consider that last year South Glamorgan was only 2·9 per cent. above its SSA—a remarkable achievement. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North criticised that county for its proposal to increase the poll tax for 1991–92, but it allows for spending at a level only 0·9 per cent.—less than 1 per cent.—above standard spending assessment. So it is closer to the Government's target than last year.
It is even closer to the target that the Secretary of State for Wales, at the Dispatch Box, praised fulsomely as being fair and reasonable. As his own words proved, a prudent and responsible authority is being forced by the Minister's parsimony to raise its poll tax. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North should be fighting for his constituents instead of fawning on the Secretary of State. That illustrates the dilemma for councils throughout Wales, which are desperate to keep down the burden on their own people.
Secondly, it is the Government who are failing to pull their weight and pay their fair share of the bill. In 1981–82, the Government met 73·4 per cent. of local authority expenditure. After their onslaught on local councils year after year, that has been cut ruthlessly. In 1991–92, the figure will be down to about 58 per cent. That is why councils have to consider increasing their poll tax levels, despite having increased efficiency, despite having pruned the dead wood and despite having cut services in recent years. Ministers know that that is a simple fact, which is why tonight's statement by the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman's press releases and the words of his Back Benchers amount to gross misrepresentation.
Thirdly, the Government have heaped additional responsibilities and burdens on local authorities without providing them with the resources necessary to do the job. Several have been mentioned tonight. They include local management of schools, the national curriculum, care in the community, the demands of the Children Act 1989, and the demands of other authorities—I would cite the inadequate increase in the police authority budget—over which local authorities have no control. They also include housing benefit administration and the loss of interest to local authorities due to the changeover from rates to poll tax—a loss of £1 million this year to Cardiff city council alone. They include the costs of competition, which this crazy Government have forced on local authorities and of implementing the environment legislation. On top of all
908
those and more, there is the homelessness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred. Frankly, the financial burden of the Government's failure to allow councils to provide housing for rent falls on poll tax payers as surely as the personal burden of misery falls on the homeless themselves.
My fourth statement is simple: the Secretary of State's relief scheme is absolutely crazy. In his statement tonight, the right hon. Gentleman said that more poll tax payers will get a reduction. That is a distortion. What it means is that still more people will get a softening to the edge with which this silly and unfair tax cuts into their standard of living.
How the Minister has arrived at the relief levels for different communities in Wales is a mystery. He has deepened that mystery by failing to seek the advice of local councils and, as a result, the anomalies are ludicrous.
In Cardiff, for instance, an individual living in the community of Adamsdown gets relief of £86. That is reasonable. But an individual in the community of Butetown—the most deprived community in Wales, on a whole range of factors—gets a miserable £5. The Riverside community, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), has its social problems, but a well-off individual in a large valuable house near the top of Cathedral road gets the same relief —£50—as someone in the deprived parts of that ward. Someone on the Llanrumney estate gets only £23. Someone in St. Donats gets £59. Where is the sense or reason in that?
The scheme is equally nonsensical elsewhere in Wales —and I have looked at the figures for the areas that I know well. In Colwyn bay, one gets just £3, whether one is rich or poor. In Petrefoelas, one gets £87. In Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, one gets only £1. In every community in the Rhondda, one gets the same—£81. In the Ringland area of Newport, one gets only £3.
Take the village where my grandmother was born. If one lives in Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant in Glyndwyr, one gets £107, but if one lives in Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant in Montgomeryshire, one gets only £18. I know that there are virtues in living in that area, but such anomalies are crazy. To take the words of the Secretary of State for Wales, "Some system—some targeting." This mess has been created because the Minister wants to get over the unpalatable fact that the poll tax cannot be made fair.
The Secretary of State claims that, in reviewing the poll tax, he will consider the interest of the people of Wales. That is patently false, because the interests of the Welsh people have been clear from the beginning and the will of the people of Wales is absolutely clear: they and we want the right hon. Gentleman to swallow his pride and get rid of the poll tax for once and for all.
The settlement is financially inadequate. It is mere tinkering, which makes the system even more ludicrous and unfair for the local authorities and people of Wales.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Nicholas Bennett.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State will be the fourth Conservative Member for Wales to speak in this debate. Not a single Member of my party has been called, and that is a disgrace. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, suggest to the Under-Secretary that, in the spirit of fairness which the House should uphold, he

909
forgoes his opportunity to reply and allows my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to make his contribution?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Under-Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
11.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I should have liked to respond to the request of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), but unfortunately it is my responsibility—
Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is wrong. The Under-Secretary of State will be the fifth Conservative Member to be called and, considering the strength of support for the Conservative party among the population in Wales, it is deplorable that so many should be called.
Mr. Bennett: I wish that other Labour Members had been as numerate as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) in their contributions to the debate.
During the past two years Labour Members have adopted two approaches to local government finance. Out of office, year after year they have always said that the rate support grant is inadequate and underfunded. But in office the story is different. If one goes back—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like the Government looking at their record as opposed to their promises. In 1975—
Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it within your power to direct the Under-Secretary of State to keep to the matter in hand—local government finance under the Government?
Mr. Bennett: It is interesting that Labour Members prefer us not to look at their policies in government, but would rather talk about their policies for the future. If one looks at debates on RSG from 1974 to 1979, there was no mention then of inadequate or insufficient funding—
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has nothing to do with the motion. The Under-Secretary of State is referring to Labour party policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister, who has very little time left, will refer to the motion.
Mr. Bennett: It is clear that the Opposition do not want to hear the facts. Let me give them. Under the previous Labour Government, we saw no increases in local government spending, only reductions. In 1976–77., local government spending was reduced by 4 per cent. The following year, it went down by 8 per cent. In their last year in office, it went down by a further 4 per cent. That is the Labour party's record. We need no lectures about local government spending from a party that consistently cut local authority spending in each year that it held office.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in a speech which piled cliché on to cliché, said that his authorities had seen an increase in spending of only £13,000. That is not correct. The aggregate external finance figure for Alyn and Deeside for the coming year shows an extra £456,000—8—4 per cent. The hon. Gentleman preferred not to look at the complete figures.
910
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), in a sensible speech, fought for his constituents against the way in which Cardiff and South Glamorgan have increased year on year their spending regardless of what the charge payer can pay. If one looks at the figures for different authorities, one sees some appalling increases. Neath has increased spending by more than 70 per cent. in the past three years. That is the sort of problem that we have in local authorities throughout Wales. All they think about is whether they can rake in some more money from the community charge payer, and they do so without any thought for the charge payers themselves.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bennett: No, I will not.
Time and time again, Labour Members say that the non-domestic rate is too high, the community charge is too high and Government spending is too low. But we hear nothing about what they would do if they were in office. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside simply said that the Labour party would abolish the poll tax in Wales. There was then a deathly silence, and he sat down. When the hon. Gentleman held my place at the Dispatch Box in 1974, he said that the rating system was an anomaly and should be abolished. We discover now that Labour wants to return to a property tax—to the very system which, up to three years ago, the Opposition considered so unfair. Labour's problem is that it has no policies.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Minister is concentrating on matters more appropriate to the history classroom, should not he declare an interest, as a history teacher, before he entered Parliament?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is hardly a point of order.
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman may therefore rest assured that the facts that I put before the House a re correct.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member sure that it is a point of order and not a debating point?
Mr. Griffiths: I am not 100 per cent. certain—which is why I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to inform the House whether you have any control over all those present in the Chamber, because during the Minister's speech, six of the eight experts in the Box occupied by civil servants left because they could not stand what the Minister was saying.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Admissions to, and exits from, the Chamber have nothing to do with me—other than in the case of those whom I name.
Mr. Bennett: I do not need experts in responding to the debate, because I have the information that I need at my fingertips.
This generous settlement—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER,

911
pursuant to the Order [25 January] to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion, and of the other motion relating to Local Government Finance (Wales).
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 78), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 79), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
Resolved,
That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 2) (House of Commons Paper No. 80), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

PETITION

  Sowerby Bridge Fire Station
  11.58 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Nearly 3,000 citizens of Sowerby Bridge have signed a petition protesting at the proposed closure of their fire station which is a direct result of the Government's poll tax and the entirely inadequate standard spending assessment. In my opinion, the closure will lead to a risk of loss of life and damage to property; it is completely unacceptable to my constituents and I urge the House not to accept it.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a motion of no confidence in the Chair has been tabled, can you tell me at what stage it will be taken?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I am unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at this stage. I have only just learnt that a motion of no confidence has been tabled.

Juveniles (Detention)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
11.59 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: Last July, a 15-year-old boy, Philip Knight, killed himself while on remand in Swansea prison. His case, though tragic, is, sadly, not unique. However, he was the youngest child ever to commit suicide while detained in prison. His avoidable death brought the scandalous practice of remanding juveniles in adult prisons to the attention of the public.
Last year, nine young men under the age of 21 committed suicide while on remand. Everyone—the press, the media and the Government—said that it must never happen again. The Government announced that they intended to change the system. Last Friday, however, another 15-year-old boy was remanded in Swansea prison, a prison for adults. Why?
Last year, 1,613 15 to 16-year-old boys were on remand in adult prisons. The suicide rate among all remand prisoners is very high. The young, as we have learnt, are no exception. Fifty-five per cent. of all suicides in prison are committed by prisoners on remand. Of the 1,613 untried and unsentenced juveniles in prison or remand centres, the prison department's statistics do not account for 357 cases. I could not trace what happened to them; nor could the prison department. Of the remaining 1,256 cases, 41 per cent. were found to be not guilty or were given non-custodial sentences. That is a very high percentage of all the young people who have been on remand in adult prisons.
Hon. Members are aware that draft legislation is currently being considered in Committee to amend and reform the law relating to the treatment of juvenile offenders and others. I had hoped that it would provide the opportunity to bring about radical changes to a system that is designed to deal more with the hardened criminal than with a particularly vulnerable section of the community—young people charged with but not yet found guilty of various offences.
We have now had the chance to examine the proposals in detail and to listen to comments and criticisms from a large number of organisations concerned with young people. The criticisms from a wide range of professional and other organisations have been overwhelming. All agree that the Bill's provisions do not meet the challenge posed by young men on remand in adult prisons. Some people believe that the Government are operating a dual agenda, giving the signal of great public concern about what is happening, but not meeting their obligations or their promise to tackle the problem.
The conditions in which juveniles are remanded in custody are usually much worse than those of youngsters who have been sentenced and who are in young offenders' institutions. Their conditions of imprisonment are among the worst to be found in the penal system. Overcrowded and insanitary conditions prevail. Bullying and intimidation are rife. Prison staff tell us that the necessary specialist training to deal with these often distressed youngsters is not available. We are all aware now, if we were not before, of what can happen when cries for help, in the form of self-mutilation, rule-breaking and so on, are misinterpreted or ignored. Many of these young men and women —many of them children—are emotionally unstable.

917
A recent prison board report dealing with B wing of Hull prison said:
"The hospital staff have had to deal with an upsurge of self-mutilation and the swallowing of various objects, such as radio batteries, almost entirely from inmates of B wing. The reasons are various—attention seeking, immaturity, depression, poor conditions leading to protest action and a desire to get away from the prison to perceived sympathetic attitudes in the local NHS hospital where surgery is involved. It is largely because of the vigilance of the wing and hospital staff and the treatment available that a fatal consequence has so far been avoided. Unless there are improvements in B wing, it is likely that sooner or later there will be a death."
If we accept, as we do, the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, it is reasonable to expect that the conditions in which someone is remanded should be at least as good as, if not better than, anything that can be found elsewhere in the penal system. That is clearly not the case.
The Government say that they are aware of all this and that we need more secure units and more specialist juvenile remand centres, all of which cost money. They argue that the answer lies in privatisation and they quote the American model where it is claimed that the private sector helps to supplement the state penal settlement by running its own secure institutions.
We are talking about less than half of 1 per cent. of the American prison population, and I challenge the view that a consortium led by Kentucky Fried Chicken, which I understand is involved, is the sort of organisation with appropriate experience in the sensitive area of juvenile offenders. I understand that the Government have put out to tender the new juvenile remand centre at Everthorpe on Humberside. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will tell me.
It is recognised that trained specialist staff are needed to help young people on remand to come to terms with their situation.
Mr. Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend may not be aware of some of the results of the American privatisation of prisons. Some valuable research was carried out successfully in the American prison service on the reduction of suicides among prisoners, using the counselling of fellow prisoners. When inquiries were made about that detailed research, the information was refused on the grounds that it was copyright.
Ms. Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
We need to help youngsters to face the consequences of their actions and make plans for their future when it is found necessary to remand them. There must be proper recognition of the problems facing youngsters when they leave remand to return to the outside world. Many have no homes to go to, no jobs to support them and no family to fall back on. It is clearly an inadequate and short-sighted response to turn the key and with it turn our backs on their lives.
Ian McKinley was transferred from Strangeways prison to Hindley. He spent the whole seven weeks between his transfer and his death in solitary confinement. During that time, he was never assessed for suicide risks by a doctor, nor was he seen by a psychiatrist. That was clearly a completely inadequate response to his needs.
Prison officers are left to do a skilled social worker's job, keeping an eye out for the potential suicide. When things go wrong, there is no formal post-trauma
918
counselling, although after Strangeways there are ideas afoot to formalise some form of counselling system, which is long overdue.
The Prison Officers Association quotes an example of one officer at Armley who was in trauma after cutting down the bodies of two juveniles who had hanged themselves one night. He was not even given a rest period to come to terms with what he had witnessed. Instead, he was put to work acting as letter censor, with a brief to look carefully for any signs in the letters that more prisoners might be suicidal. That is a terrible way to treat someone who had just been through that appalling experience.
Just as there are good and bad Members of Parliament, so there are good and bad prison officers. Time and again, the Prison Officers Association has argued the case for better training, clearer guidelines and more resources. It recognises that its members are neither psychiatrists nor social workers, yet skills and responsibilities associated with those professions are expected of them and when things go wrong—as we know, they can go horribly wrong —the gross insensitivity towards individual officers leaves one breathless.
There were three juvenile suicides in Hindley remand centre last year, one in February and two in June. The same two prison officers appeared at both inquests. Neither had received post-trauma counselling, or any suicide prevention training. No doubt many of the prison officers carry a great deal of guilt with them. They should not because it is not their fault, but that is what happens. The young female officer who discovered Philip Knight's body—the 15-year-old boy—was not given leave to attend his inquest. She had received no counselling, and the Prison Officers Association thought that attendance at the inquest might help her. The Home Office refused. It failed to send a representative from its prison department or anyone from senior management at Swansea. Why? What is the argument behind that?
At inquest after inquest, the same issues are raised and each time good sections of the media—newspapers and others—protest. Each time, we are told that action is in the pipeline, but it is not, and that is not good enough.
We must tackle the degrading and dehumanising regime in the remand sector and examine why youngsters are in it in the first place. That includes considering the role of social security legislation, which deprives many 16 and 17-year-olds of some form of financial support, turning them to petty crime and a life on the streets.
We must work more closely with the voluntary agencies that work with vulnerable youngsters on a daily basis. We must examine the use of the unruliness certificate and secure local authority accommodation to identify where improvements can be made. We must not be lulled into accepting privatisation as a reasonable response to the long-term needs of young people, when in reality it is a shortcut to offloading responsibility.
Almost a year ago, we were promised a consultation paper on custodial remands for 15 and 16-year-olds. The Minister of State said in the House on 13 December that we could expect sight of the paper either before Christmas or shortly after. It has yet to materialise. Proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill will not now be available for tabling in Committee, and we shall not be given much time to comment on some of the Bill's more controversial aspects, such as the privatisation of secure units.

919
I have grave doubts about the Government's commitment to reform of this shameful sector of the prison service. Over the years, we have had brought to our notice time and again the tragedies of our young men and children—they are children—who are on remand in adult prisons. I know that in some areas—Swansea is one—there is no alternative, and we must carefully consider that.
Time and again we hear of suicides. The public are outraged that these issues are raised but nothing is done. I am personally outraged, because I believed the Government when they said at the time of Philip Knight's death that it would not happen again, that action would be taken and that proposals would be made. The Criminal Justice Bill is being considered in Committee, but reforms and changes have not been proposed. In December we were promised a consultative paper, but it is yet to materialise.
Public anxiety about remanding juveniles in custody cannot be met by proposals that will merely reduce their number, as some organisations expect to happen, but not end this unacceptable practice. Remanding boys of 15 and 16 to adult prisons is morally indefensible in a civilised society. Nothing short of a total ban on such remands will meet justified public concern. The few young people who must be detained to protect the public should be held in local authority units, not in the conditions that obtain in Victorian prisons.
I said at the beginning of my speech how we were all shocked that a young boy of 15 could kill himself and that many of the young people who have killed themselves have been very young. People on remand, whatever their age, are at their most vulnerable. They do not know what will happen to them and they are plunged into despair and misery. With the best will in the world, our prison system is not geared to coping with such misery, which needs specialist training and far more skills than we give our prison officers. It is not their fault that they do not have the skills or the wherewithal to deal with these young people.
It is important that the Government state their thinking on abolishing this misery for our young men in particular, but also some girls, and what plans they have for fundamental change so that there are no more Philip Knights, no more young men killing themselves in misery because they are remanded in conditions that cannot cope with their needs, where they feel abandoned and where, often, they should not be in the first place. They are not a danger to society. Often, they are disturbed young people with behavioural problems that need specialist training.
12.14 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am aware of the hon. Lady's long-standing interest in these issues, which goes back over many years. She speaks with considerable experience but, like me, she will have learnt not always to trust press speculation about the terrible things that the Government might be about to do. She mentioned the possibility of privatisation in respect of our future provision for juveniles on remand. When we publish our plans in the very near future, she will see that much of what she has read in the newspapers amounts to speculation.
The Criminal Justice Bill is currently being considered in Standing Committee. Indeed, I spent most of today in
920
that Committee. In the Bill, we are making provision to put out to tender the new establishment at Everthorpe, which will actually be called Wolds. It will be a remand prison for adults, not for juveniles. I hope that I have cleared that point up to the hon. Lady's satisfaction. I was anxious to deal with those two matters at the beginning of my speech, as they materially affect the tone of what I am about to say.
The situation should be seen against the background of the fact that the number of juveniles sentenced to custody in this country fell from approximately 8,000 in 1982 to just over 2,000 in 1990. By anyone's standards, that is a considerable reduction. It is to be warmly welcomed, in the sense that it was not paralleled by a rise in juvenile crime. On the contrary, juvenile crime dropped during the 1980s. I think that there is considerable agreement between the political parties that one of the best forms of crime prevention is, if possible, to stop young people going into detention in the first place—in other words, criminal prevention is very much better than crime prevention—except in the case of those very narrow categories of people who, for public protection, have to be in custody.
I should like to deal briefly with that matter before considering the hon. Lady's specific points about remand. There are only limited circumstances in which sentenced juveniles can be held in adult prisons. Most of those still held will be awaiting allocation after having been given a sentence of detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The hon. Lady is very familiar with the workings of that Act and will realise that those young people will have been convicted of the most serious crimes—very often, homicide. Otherwise, the power to hold juveniles temporarily in adult prisons is used very rarely indeed.
The concern of the hon. Lady and of the public, quite rightly, has focused much more on unsentenced juveniles. The hon. Lady may be aware that, in the Criminal Justice Bill that is now being considered in Committee, we are abolishing the sentence of detention of 14-year-olds in young offender institutions. That is another step forward along the road that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members would wish us to take. Concern is not so much now about sentenced juveniles in detention as about unsentenced juveniles in detention and about the conditions in which those juveniles are held. The public are rightly concerned about this, as am I.
The main category of unsentenced juveniles who may be held in prison department custody are 15 and 16-year-old boys refused bail who are certified by the court as being too unruly to be safely remanded to local authority care—the unruliness certificate procedure. In addition, convicted juveniles of both sexes may be remanded in custody to await sentence at the Crown court, but their numbers are small. As with sentenced juveniles, the number of remanded juveniles held in prison department custody is coming down. In 1987, in England and Wales, there were about 1,900 people in that category, and in 1989 about 1,500. I do not yet have the 1990 figures, but I expect that when they are published they will show a further decline. The drop is encouraging, but no one —least of all the Government—wants unconvicted 15 and 16-year-olds to be locked up in adult prisons.
It is a matter of regret that juveniles have to be locked up at all. However, I am afraid to say that, with some juveniles who have been charged with very serious offences or who otherwise pose a risk to the public, it is necessary

921
to have some secure containment before they come to trial. The hon. Lady will argue that a certain amount of secure containment is available under the child care system. As she knows, standards of security vary a lot around the country. Such accommodation can be used for remanded juveniles, but there are problems. There is limited accommodation. Understandably, local authorities do not have large holdings of vacant accommodation and there are compelling demands on it from within the care system. In addition, under the present law, the courts' power in using secure accommodation is severely limited.
When a court has before it, for example, a juvenile whom it feels needs to be locked up, it has no power to direct that that juvenile should be locked up in secure accommodation. If the court wants to keep the juvenile out of prison department custody, it has to remand him in local authority care and to rely on the sensible discretion of the local authority.
Generally speaking, local authorities exercise sensible discretion. In some parts of the country, they may have erred too much in favour of not exercising the discretion to hold children in secure conditions. In those areas, sentencers have got into the habit of not using local authority accommodation, so people have ended up in prison. I do not know about the position in Swansea, to which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred. I know that, in some parts of the country, there are considerable gaps in provision and we must address ourselves to that.
Under the present system, there is no alternative to a prison department custodial remand for some juveniles. We regret that. We also accept that it is undesirable, and we want to do something about it. We are committed to the objective of ending prison department custodial remand for unsentenced juveniles, as my right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary's White Paper pointed out when it was published last year. My right hon. and learned Friend said on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill:
"The object is to devise a system that will not result in their going to prison".—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 150.]
He was referring to juveniles.
In our White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", we outlined proposals for amending the arrangements for the remand of alleged juvenile offenders under 17. As part of those proposals, we announced our intention to restrict the circumstances in which juveniles can be remanded to adult prisons. We promised a consultation paper, to which the hon. Lady referred; I can understand her impatience at not having seen it.
We have been working hard on developing the proposals on juvenile remand. That has not been easy. There are conflicting demands which need to be balanced. We have had to ask people from the prison department to look at the standards of security in some local authority secure accommodation and we find that security varies widely.
I do not mean that we are considering only matters of containment; we are considering the issues of suicide and self-injury, which can sometimes occur because someone who is contained—whether in a prison cell or in a local authority home—can find something with which to hang or damage himself. Much inspection work has been needed. It is a complex area of law and practice, which is why it has taken us so long to prepare the paper.
The paper is now almost ready, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to be able to publish it
922
within a week or so. That will mean that it should be available for the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill in time for it to receive an initial consideration. We shall therefore meet the sole pledge given by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary when he said that he would undertake to bring forward the consultation paper while the Criminal Justice Bill was being considered in the House.
As the White Paper made clear, we needed to look at all aspects of the arrangements for juvenile remand. I hope that the House will understand that I cannot go into the details before we publish.
In preparing the consultation paper, we scrutinised the existing framework of law and practice from the point of bail onwards. There have been some encouraging developments, such as the use of bail support schemes for juveniles. I am a strong proponent of the development of bail support schemes for juveniles, in the same way as I think that bail information schemes are valuable for adults in making sure that only those who have to be remanded in custody—there will always be those who have to be remanded in custody before trial—actually get that custody.
Bail support schemes provide a structured programme of activities for and work with young people awaiting trial under very close supervision in the community. On some occasions, that supervision is of such an intensity that it may be no cheaper, and I can imagine that, in certain circumstances, it can be as expensive as remand in prison accommodation. Several schemes already exist in different parts of the country, which show that they can deal properly with remanded juveniles in the community and reduce the need to refuse bail in all but the most serious cases.
I should like bail support schemes to be set up soon in all parts of the country, in the same way as bail information schemes for adults are set up, whereby information is conveyed to the Crown prosecution service to determine whether it is necessary for the Crown prosecution service to press for remand in custody.
We need also carefully to consider the protection of the public and the standard of security that is needed for some of the most disturbed and difficult juveniles who are charged with offences. As always, in trying to balance the public interest, one wishes to do all that one possibly can to help young people who are remanded and awaiting triald, but, at the same time, to guard the public interest. That is the difficult task that Home Office Ministers of whatever political party always have to face.
It is our intention to give effect to the proposals that will be contained in the consultation paper which will be published very shortly in the Criminal Justice Bill, by way of amendment either in Committee or on Report, or in the other place. It will certianly be considered during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, and there will be full discussion. There is the proviso that, before we can have those discussions, we must have a reasonable period for consultation, as the hon. Lady said, and consider carefully the comments that we receive.
I hope that, with that undertaking, the hon. Lady, whose frustration at not seeing the consultation paper I fully understand, will feel that the matter is not quite as bleak as it was at 11.59 pm, when we began the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  A1
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timescale is envisaged for the widening of the A1 between the north end of the motorway at Birtley and the south end of the Newcastle western bypass; and what areas of land and property will be affected.

  Mr. Chope
  The next key stage in the Department's preparation of the A1 Gateshead western bypass improvement is a public consultation which is currently planned to take place in 1992.

  The area of land and property affected is not yet known.

  East London Crossing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make a statement on the east London river crossing bridge.

  Mr. Chope
  The public inquiries into the design of the proposed bridge closed on 8 January. We are now awaiting the inspector's report. A decision will be announced as soon as the report has been received and considered.

  Hazardous Loads
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of accidents involving the rail transportation of hazardous and inflammable materials that have taken place within a 50 mile radius of Doncaster, for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  I regret that this information is not available in the form requested.

  Parking Schemes
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department gives to local authorities about resident only parking schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  The most recent published guidance is in Department of Transport circular 6/86 and in the publication "Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas" of which the Department and the Institution of Highways and Transportation are joint sponsors. The former deals with specific changes made by the Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Act 1986; the latter gives more general guidance on the sort of schemes which may be appropriate and the factors to be taken into account in deciding on them.

  Trains
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains operating or which it is planned to operate, in Scotland, were built(a) before 1950, (b) before 1956, (c) before 1960 and (d) before 1965.
  444
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Neither the Department of Transport nor Her Majesty's railway inspectorate holds comprehensive information on construction dates for railway rolling stock.

  Merchant Navy Reserve
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current strength of the Merchant Navy Reserve; and how many of its members are now on service in the Gulf.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Merchant Navy Reserve is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, and I have been asked to reply.

  The current strength of the Reserve is 301. None of its members have been called out for service in the Gulf, but it is understood that one of them happens to be serving on a ship in the area.

  Airports
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with airport authorities generally, and Manchester in particular, in the light of events in the Gulf.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Ever since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the Department has kept in close touch with the industry, including airport representatives, about the development of contingency plans to enhance aviation security as appropriate in the light of events. The measures provided for in those plans in the event of hostilities breaking out were brought into effect on 17 Janaury at Manchester as at other United Kingdom airports.

  Consultations have also take place with representatives of various airports, including Manchester, about their handling Government charter flights connected with the emergency.

  Blackwater Valley Relief Road
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to provide the necessary funding for the completion of the Blackwater Valley relief road southern and central sections.

  Mr. Chope
  The Blackwater Valley route is being supported with transport supplementary grant and-or credit approvals as appropriate. That support will be maintained through to completion subject to satisfactory progress and the continued availability of funds. The allocation of supplementary credit approvals to Surrey county council in respect of the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 is being reviewed.

  Clapham Train Crash
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to expedite the compensation due from British Rail to the widow of one of the constituents of the right hon. Member for Worthing whose husband was killed in the Clapham train crash; and if he will raise the matter when he next has a discussion with British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Compensation is a matter for British Rail and ultimately the courts. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to intervene in
  445
  individual cases, but will certainly discuss the general progress of claims when he next meets the chairman of British Rail.

  Coastguard
  Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made any recent review of the role or functions of Her Majesty's coastguard.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  An internal review of the coastguard sector organisation and Auxiliary service has been carried out by the chief coastguard. The review has considered Her Majesty's coastguard's coastal commitments and has made recommendations covering:the definition of HM Coastguard's responsibilities;
  performance targets;
  the sector organisation and the sector officers' role;
  the availability and pay of auxiliary Coastguards;
  Coastguard vehicles and equipment requirements, training and property management.

  Government Departments and any interested bodies are currently being consulted and coastguard regional controllers will now be holding discussions with local interests and staff about the implications of these recommendations in each region. No decisions will be taken on the review's recommendations until the implications have been fully assessed. I am placing a copy of a summary of the review and its recommendations in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Alphachloralose
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals to re-classify alphachloralose; and whether he intends to revoke the approval of phosgen for specific uses.

  Mr. Maclean
  From 1 March it will be illegal to use alphachloralose as a pesticide unless it is incorporated as an approved product. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides has also recommended that alphachloralose should be moved from part II to part I of the poisons list, thereby making it available only through retail pharmacies.

  I am not aware of phosgen, but the approval for sale and supply of phosdrin 24, a pesticide with active ingredient mevinphos, was revoked last September on the advice of the ACP. The storage and use of this product will be prohibited from September 1992.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of individual grant recipients in each environmentally sensitive area; what is the estimated total number of those eligible to receive grant in each environmentally sensitive area; and what is the total amount of grant paid out thus far under the scheme in each environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Curry
  The table shows the number of agreements with farmers in each ESA, together with the total sums payable under each scheme at 31 December 1990. Some farmers have a number of agreements. There are no reliable estimates of the number of farmers in each ESA.
  446

  ESA

  Number of agreements at 31 December 1990

  Total amounts payable up to 31 December 1990

  £

  Breckland

  139

  1,160,000

  Broads

  712

  5,650,000

  North Peak

  77

  1,890,000

  Pennine Dales

  290

  3,330,000

  Shropshire Borders

  215

  1,520,000

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  745

  2,840,000

  Suffolk River Valleys

  396

  2,300,000

  South Downs

  183

  1,560,000

  Test Valley

  20

  70,000

  West Penwith

  159

  1,260,000

  Total

  2,936

  21,580,000

  Crayfish
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when first his Department received advice from the Nature Conservancy Council about the danger to native crayfish stocks from the spread of crayfish plague by the introduction of American signal crayfish; and what action he has since taken in response to this.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials first received advice from the Nature Conservancy Council in 1977. Crayfish plague was officially confirmed in the United Kingdom in 1983, but it is probable the infection had already been present in our waters since the mid-1970s and that this was linked to the import of American signal crayfish. Such introductions preceded legislation to control, inter alia the import, keeping and release of non-native species of freshwater shellfish. Crayfish plague has now been detected in many of our river systems with crayfish populations. Our scientific advice is that eradication would be very difficult to accomplish. Nonetheless, we are continuing to discuss with the Nature Conservancy Council and the National Rivers Authority the feasibility of means of safeguarding native crayfish stocks in those areas at present free of crayfish plague. The Department is also funding scientific work on diagnostic methods.

  Beef Sector
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to help beef calf producers; and if he will make a statement regarding their future prospects.

  Mr. Curry
  In recognition of problems faced by beef calf producers, the Ministry has, as announced on 28 September 1990, increased suckler cow premium payments in the current year by £8 million, the rate of premium in less favoured areas is now at the maximum rate payable under EC rules and that for lowlands has been maintained at its current level despite an increase in the amount of eligible stock.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in discussions with the European Commission to honour the Government's commitment in "This Common Inheritance," paragraph 7.20.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will continue to urge the European Commission and
  447
  colleagues in the Agriculture Council to ensure that environmental considerations are fully integrated in agricultural support measures.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 29 January.

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

  Gulf War
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the current situation in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  The allied air campaign is proceeding satisfactorily and continues to erode Iraq's military capability. The effectiveness of the campaign so far is amply demonstrated by the very few and unsuccessful deployments of the Iraqi air forces, but there is still some way to go before our aim of implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions can be achieved. We condemn Iraq's use of missiles in indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations in Israel and Saudi Arabia. We also deplore Iraq's wanton destruction of the environment of the middle east by deliberately pumping oil into the Gulf.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Prime Minister what co-ordination and consultation arrangements exist between allied Governments to ensure political control of the military forces engaged in the Gulf war.

  The Prime Minister
  The aims of the coalition forces are those laid down by the United Nations Security Council. Military forces in the coalition remain under the ultimate control of their national governments who are maintaining close contact with each other.

WALES

  Higher Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Assembly of Welsh County Councils regarding the impact of the loss of top-up powers on the quality and quantity of public sector higher education in Welsh colleges.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We consult the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Welsh joint education committee every year before deciding on the higher education quantum, the amount of local authority resources we consider is needed for the provision of higher education in the maintained institutions. The figure we proposed for 1991–92 has been agreed by the assembly and the WJEC. We have had no consultations on topping-up, which is a local matter determined by individual LEAs.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Assembly of Welsh County Councils regarding the implications of the Price 448
  Waterhouse report on the future of public sector higher education in Welsh colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All Welsh LEAs have been consulted on the Price Waterhouse report both individually and collectively through the Wales advisory body for local authority higher education. An announcement on the recommendations of the report concerning the future status of the Polytechnic of Wales will be made shortly.

  Student Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the amount spent per head per full-time equivalent student in public sector higher education in Welsh colleges in the(a) current and (b) next financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The recurrent expenditure on higher education provision in Welsh local authority colleges is funded from three main sources. These are the higher education quantum determined annually by the Secretary of State and paid by LEAs from local authority resources, tuition fees paid through the mandatory awards system and "topping-up" payments paid by LEAs to their own colleges. The Department does not hold information on the level of topping-up payments, which are a local matter, but in some cases they are known to be significant. Recurrent expenditure at Trinity college Carmarthen, the only Welsh voluntary college, is funded by grant from the Welsh Office and tuition fees.

  The amount of recurrent funding per full-time equivalent home and EC student in public sector higher education in Wales from the higher education quantum, Welsh Office grant and tuition fees is estimated at £3,335 in 1990–91 and £3,738 in 1991–92. These figures take no account of topping-up payments to recurrent expenditure in the local authority colleges and funding for capital expenditure, but cover all public sector higher education in Wales. In this respect they differ from equivalent information regarding the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector, which does not take account of local authority higher education provision in England.

  Corlan Housing Association
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation regarding the references to the corporation in the HACAS report on the financial collapse of the Corlan housing association;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of Tai Cymru and the Cardiff Bay development corporation regarding their discussions immediately prior to the financial collapse of the Corlan housing association.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to t reply I gave on 28 January.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds he has allocated to the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council for the current financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Funding for TECs is provided by the Secretary of State of Employment. South Glamorgan TEC
  449
  has received £60,000 development funding this year and details of its operational budget for the remainder of the year are being finalised.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Expenditure, Harrow
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the per capita expenditure figures for primary and secondary schools in the London borough of Harrow, for the latest date available, of spending per pupil, and the relative figures at constant prices in 1979–80.

  Mr. Fallon
  Figures for nursery and primary schools are no longer collected separately. Harrow spent £465 per nursery and primary pupil in 1979–80 and £1,115 in 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available. It spent £745 per secondary pupil in 1979–80 and £1,740 in 1988–89. At 1988–89 prices those figures are £880 and £1,115 respectively for nursery and primary schools, and £1,405 and £1,740 respectively for secondary schools.

  Student Costs (Wales)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the unit costs per student for each of the university colleges in Wales for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the 1990 volume of "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators," produced by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Universities Funding Council, a copy of which is in the Library. This draws on 1988–89 data: detailed figures for university expenditure in 1989–90 are not yet available.

  Student Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his most up-to-date estimate of the amount spent per head per full-time equivalent—FTE—student in public sector higher education colleges in England in the(a) current and (b) next financial year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced his plans for spending on higher education on 8 November 1990 and published projections for student numbers in higher education on the same date. Recurrent public funding per FTE student in Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council funded institutions underlying the plans is £4,137 in the financial year 1991–92. The latest estimate for such funding in the financial year 1990–91 is £4,018. Total expenditure per student will depend on a number of additional factors on which information is not yet available.

  Students
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many A-level entrants were(a) school students and (b) further education college students on the latest available figures.
  450
  Mr. Eggar
  For the academic year 1988–89, the total number of A-level examination entries, including AS examinations, taking two AS entries as equivalent to one A-level entry, was as shown.

  A-level examination entries (000s)

  School leavers

  424·42

  Students in further education establishments

  76·67

  Schools (Salaries)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what principle a grant-maintained school will be funded where its relevant local education authority has opted out of the national determination of wages and conditions and established a salary rate higher than the national rate.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not intended that the principles governing the calculation of annual maintenance grant for a grant-maintained school would change because its former maintaining local education authority had opted out in this way.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has made any assessment of the impact of the introduction of training credits for 16-year-olds upon the staying-on rate in full-time education.

  Mr. Eggar
  No assessment of the impact is possible in advance of the implementation of the pilot training credit schemes. The impact of the pilot schemes, including the impact on the staying-on rate in full-time education, will be the subject of careful monitoring by my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education and Science.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the grant-maintained schools that have agreed to recognise trade unions for the purpose of representing teachers on disciplinary and individual grievance matters.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the governing body of a grant-maintained school, as the employer, to decide whether it wishes to recognise teacher unions for the purpose of representing teachers on disciplinary and individual grievance matters. The Department does not collect information on this matter.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the national curriculum working party report on physical education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the interim report from the national curriculum working group on physical education. He expects to publish it shortly.

  Teaching (Political Bias)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has as to undue political bias and undue emphasis on values and opinions in the teaching of geography; and if he will place such evidence in the Library.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In publishing the draft order for geography in the national curriculum, I made clear my reasons for departing from the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council. I recognise that geography lessons will sometimes deal with conflicting points of view on important geographical issues. The programmes of study which I published with the draft order refer to such issues. However, in setting out statutory statements of attainment against which pupils will be assessed, I believe that the emphasis should be on the knowledge and understanding of geography which inform people's views.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has available of political and other bias in the teaching of(a) 20th century history and (b) current affairs; and if he will place such evidence in the Library.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Of the complaints of bias that I receive from parents, the major part relate to teaching or classroom discussion about current issues and recent events. That is to be expected, because such issues and events arouse the strongest feelings. I believe that the great majority of teachers handle such matters with sensitivity and care and with full regard to their legal duty to ensure a balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues. Nevertheless, there is a special difficulty in achieving balance when dealing with contemporary events and personalities.

  Special Educational Need
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science how many pupils with statements of special educational need are recorded by each local education authority on DES form SEN(2) for January 1990 as attending maintained special schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools under arrangements made by the authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information was not collected for January 1990 on form SEN2. The Department has since revised form SEN2 in order that such information may be collected for January 1991 in respect of pupils for whom a statement was newly made in the previous year. I have arranged for the hon. Member to receive details in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Liverpool Magistrates Court
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when work will begin on the rebuilding of Liverpool magistrates court.

  Mr. John Patten
  Subject to the satisfactory completion by the local authority of the various next steps in the planning process, it should be possible for building work on a new Liverpool magistrates court to begin in 1995–96.

  Deportation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-Iraqi Arabic or Palestinians resident in Britain have been served with decisions to make a deportation order for national security reasons, on the grounds of being not conducive to the public good; from what areas of the United Kingdom they originated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Twelve non-Iraqi nationals have been advised of my right hon. Friend's decision to deport them on the grounds that their presence is not conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. The majority have lived in the south-east of the country. In one case, my right hon. Friend has decided to take no further action.

  Vehicle Clamping
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motor vehicles have been clamped in the Metropolitan police area in each of the past three years; and how many have been clamped for exceeding the time paid for in an authorised parking bay.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the numbers of vehicles clamped in the Metropolitan police area in the years 1987 to 1989 were respectively: 111,117 in 1987; 125,824 in 1988 and 149,663 in 1989. A figure for 1990 is not yet available. No information is available on the number clamped for exceeding the time paid for in an authorised parking bay.

  Iraqi Residents
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of the United Kingdom, of Iraqi origin, have been arrested or detained in the last fortnight for national security reasons, on the grounds of being not conducive to the public good; from what areas of the United Kingdom they originated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 101 Iraqis have been detained since the beginning of the year. They came from all parts of the United Kingdom. Forty-two remain in detention under the Immigration Act and 35 military personnel are in military custody. Two are in the United Kingdom having been released from detention and 21 have left or have been deported. In one case my right hon. Friend decided to take no further action and the man has been released from detention.

  Police Searches
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Leicestershire on the number of searches of(a) private homes and (b) businesses that have taken place in Leicestershire over the past five years; and how many of these searches were undertaken without a warrant having been obtained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no requirement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for police forces to produce statistics of searches of premises. The hon. Member should contact the chief constable of Leicestershire for the information available.
  453
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of searches of(a) private homes and (b) businesses that have taken place in England and Wales over the past five years; and how many of those searches were undertaken without a warrant having been obtained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what right of appeal residents have when arrested or detained or notified of deportation orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Immigration Act, there is no right of appeal to the appellate authorities against my right hon. Friend's intention to make a deportation order for reasons of national security. There is, however, a provision of the immigration rules to permit someone to appear before a panel of three independent advisers, chaired by a Lord Justice of Appeal, who will consider any representations made by the individual and, separately, the security case against the individual. All those made subject to this deportation action are advised of this right and many have chosen to exercise it.

  Vagrants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to update the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 and in particular the section dealing with branding of vagrants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no such plans. Neither branding nor vagrants are mentioned in the Justices of the Peace Act 1361.

  Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to up-date the Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no plans to amend this Act.

  Motor Vehicles (Security)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to persuade the motor vehicle manufacturers to improve the security devices on their vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and I have discussed this issue with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and are considering a report from the society on the action taken by motor manufacturers to improve the security of their cars. The motor manufacturers have clearly taken some steps to improve the security of their cars, but much more remains to be done. The best way for further progress to be made is for car buyers to give as much attention to the security of their car as they do to its performance and looks.

  We give advice to car buyers on what to look for in our crime prevention publicity material and intend to publish a car theft index.
  454
  In addition, we will continue to support efforts to seek agreement in Europe to the adoption of the British standard on door-locks as an EC directive.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future location of the headquarters of the prison service.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In January 1990 my predecessor announced that the headquarters of the prison service would be relocated to the midlands. Following a detailed evaluation of a number of options I have now authorised the opening of negotiations with developers for the construction of a new headquarters building for the prison service at St. Mary's wharf, Derby.

  If these negotiations are successful work on site could start later this year with the building being ready for occupation in late 1993 or early 1994. Some posts may move to temporary accommodation in Derby in advance of the general move.

  Final details have yet to be settled, but I estimate that around 1,900 posts will eventually be relocated to Derby, 1,500 of these from central London. At least 800 of the 1,900 posts will be filled by local recruitment.

  Everthorpe Remand Centre
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish rules establishing the return on capital and turnover which the prison department will be expected to make when submitting a tender for the management of Everthorpe remand centre.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 25 January 1991]: If the prison service decides to tender for the contract for the management of Everthorpe remand centre we would not propose publishing the make-up of the tender, since this could prejudice or distort the competition for the contract.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those areas in Britain that currently benefit from(a) RESIDER, (b) RENAVAL and (c) RECHAR; how much money they receive from the European Community in regional aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The qualifying areas for RESIDER and RENEVAL are as follows:RESIDER: The county of South Yorkshire and Scunthorpe travel-to-work area;
  RENAVAL: Plymouth travel-to-work area, the county of Tyne and Wear, and Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh districts of Cleveland, Wirral and Sefton districts of Merseyside, Kirkcaldy travel-to-work area and parts of Dunfermline and Alloa travel-to-work areas in Fife region, and Glasgow and Greenock travel-to-work areas in Strathclyde.
  The qualifying areas for RECHAR were listed in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. C177 of 18 July 1990.

  The RESIDER programme and two of the RENAVAL programmes are already current; they provide for 54 mecu of European regional development fund grant up to the

  455
  end of 1993. The RECHAR programmes and the remaining RENAVAL programmes are expected to provide for approximately 130 mecu of ERDF grant over the same period.

  Office Furniture
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many United Kingdom companies tendered for his Department's recent contract for office furniture.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has awarded a number of contracts to different companies to supply furniture in recent months.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which company was awarded his Department's recent contract for office furniture.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has awarded a number of contracts to different companies to supply furniture in recent months.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 14 December 1990.

  Mr. Redwood
  The main item for discussion was a communication from the Commission to the Council on the Commission's green paper on satellite communications —"Towards Europe-wide systems and services—Green Paper on a common approach in the field of Satellite communications in the European Community"—which was published on 20 November 1990. The Commission's proposals envisage wide-ranging liberalisation of the use of satellite terminal equipment on a Community-wide basis and equitable and non-discriminatory access to satellite capacity for all telecommunications service providers. The Council held an orientation debate in which the United Kingdom strongly supported the Commission's proposals.

  The Council also adopted a resolution on the final phase of the co-ordinated introduction of pan-European public digital mobile cellular communications in the Community—GSM—and a recommendation on the co-ordinated introduction of digital European cordless telecommunications—DECT. A common position was agreed on a proposal for a Council directive on the frequency bands to be reserved for DECT.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of foreign diplomats within the United Kingdom accredited to embassies and consulates, respectively, showing within the total the numbers by status against each foreign embassy and consulate; and how many of the total are entitled to diplomatic immunity.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total number of diplomatic staff accredited to foreign and commonwealth missions in the United Kingdom are:456

  Number

  a. Diplomatic agents

  2,382

  b. Members of Administrative and Technical Staff

  2,306

  c. Members of Service Staff

  393

  d. Consular officers accredited to subordinate consulates

  391

  All members of the staff of diplomatic missions in London who are not United Kingdom nationals nor permanently resident here enjoy a degree of diplomatic immunity under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. Those who are diplomatic agents enjoy personal inviolability including freedom from arrest or detention. They are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state, and except in relation to certain private matters, from its civil and administrative jurisdiction. Members of the administrative and technical staff also enjoy personal inviolability and the same immunities except that their immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction does not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. Members of the service staff have immunity only in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties. The immunity of consular officers is governed by the Consular Relations Act 1968.

  To list the number of staff at each embassy and consulate by status could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The London Diplomatic List, published biannually, lists diplomatic agents, by mission, accredited to foreign embassies; a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give, for each of the past five years to the nearest available date, the number of traffic and criminal offences, respectively, by foreign diplomats who were able to claim immunity, with the offences registered by embassy or consulate, and the action that was taken by Her Majesty's Government in the most serious cases.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our policy on diplomatic immunities and privileges is set out in the 1985 White Paper. In the most serious cases we require the withdrawal of the diplomat concerned. The figures requested for the past five years are shown in the table. Details of serious offences and unpaid parking fines are made annually to the House —the last one by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 26 April 1990, at columns 303–5.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Traffic offences1

  (a) Drink/Driving

  24

  25

  28

  27

  24

  (b) Minor offences

  71

  86

  103

  75

  52

  Serious offences

  Includes (a) above

  41

  40

  44

  40

  33

  Parking

  Unpaid fines

  22,331

  14,437

  10,079

  7,831

  26,282

  Diplomats withdrawn at FCO request

  17

  18

  14

  14

  6

  1 Technically all traffic offences are "criminal" offences.

  2 Provisional to 31 October 1990—latest figures processed.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the number of Cambodians still suffering from injuries inflicted under the Khmer Rouge regime; and what steps he has taken and will take to bring Pol Pot and others before the world court under article 9 of the genocide convention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no accurate information available on the number of Cambodians still suffering from injuries inflicted during the Pol Pot regime. Article IX of the genocide convention concerns disputes between states, not the prosecution of individuals. Only states may be parties in cases before the International Court of Justice, which has no criminal jurisdiction.

  Ascension Island
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on feral cats on Ascension island.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There is no statistical evidence that feral cats presently represent a major problem on Ascension island, but the matter is under review. If it appears necessary, we shall take steps to reduce the feral cat population.

ENERGY

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for a single national scale for the energy efficiency rating of domestic dwellings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 7 December 1990 at columns 243–44.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has in accordance with section 47 of the Electricity Act 1989, on measures taken by the Director General of Electricity Supply in respect of combined heat and power and the extent of its outlined and planned use in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Office of Electricity Regulation, in consultation with the Energy Efficiency Office and representatives of industry, are in the process of compiling a database of CHP projects operating in Great Britain. This should give the Director General of Electricity Supply, Government and industry a good indication of how CHP is progressing.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Sudan
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage the Government of Sudan to allow the newly-formed Sudanese Council of Churches to operate famine relief in southern Sudan.
  458
  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made representations to the Government of Sudan, through the United Kingdom's chairmanship of the donor group in Khartoum, to allow non-government organisations to operate relief activities throughout Sudan to alleviate the present food crisis. We have not taken separate action regarding individual organisations.

  Jablonna Conference
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial contribution from public funds was made, and what other support from his Department was given, in respect of the conference at Jablonna, Poland, arranged through the Jagiellonian Foundation in October 1990; and who attended.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The know-how fund made a contribution of £8,000 towards the costs of the recent Jagiellonian foundation seminar held to discuss general questions of curriculum reform in the Polish educational context.

  No other support was given by my Department. No complete record is available of the names of all those who attended, but among those who did so were:
  Dr. Leo Katzen, Department of Economics, Leicester University;
  David J. Levy, Department of Sociology, Middlesex Polytechnic;
  Professor Roger Scruton, Birkbeck College, London;
  Dr. John Marks, Director, Education Research Trust;
  Ken Connelly, retired headmaster;
  Professor Anthony O'Hear, Philosophy, Bradford University;
  Dr. Geoffrey Partington, Department of Education, Flinders University of Southern Australia;
  Professor David Cooper, Philosophy, Durham University;
  President of Philosophy of Education Society;
  Dr. Brian Davies, School of Education, University College, Cardiff;
  Dr. Andrew King, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Leicester University;
  Susan Wright, Department of Education, North London Polytechnic;
  Dr. Lawrence Norcross, retired headmaster;
  Stuart Sexton, Headmaster;
  Liz Lightfoot, Education correspondent, Mail on Sunday;
  Marek Matraszek, Jagiellonian Trust, Oxford;
  Professor Anthony Flew, Reading University, Philosophy Educational Theorist;
  Professor Richard Lynn, University of Ulster, Educational Psychologist;
  Chris Coldman, Mathematics teacher, London;
  Wiktor Kulerski, Minister of Education;
  Dr. Andrzej Pachocinski, Department of Education, Warsaw University;
  Dr. Wawrzyniec Konarski, Department of Education, Warsaw University;
  Dr. Milowit Kuninski, Department of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Krakow:
  Dr. Anton Kaminski, Department of Sociology, Warsaw University, and advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs;
  Dr. Stefania Szscurkowska, Ministry of Education;
  Iwona Langer-Kowalewska, Secondary school headmistress, Gdansk;
  Magdalena Pilch, Secondary School Headmistress, Warsaw;
  Dr. Witold Karczewski, Pan, Warsaw;
  together with school teachers from several parts of the country, and occasional visitors from the social and political science and education departments in the university.
  Dr. Nicolae Sacalis, from the Department of pedagogy at Bucharest University.
  Professor Wayne Shute, department of education at Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City;
  came as an independent observer.

  Third-World Students
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many students from Third-world countries are currently studying in this country on(a) Her Majesty's Government's bursaries, (b) their own resources and (c) other sources of finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the current financial year over 21,000 students from developing countries are receiving help from United Kingdom Government support schemes for study and training in this country. A total of 45,000 full time students from developing countries enrolled in October 1988 for further and higher education courses in this country for the academic year 1988–89, the latest year for which such a figure is available. This would include some of those here under United Kingdom Government support schemes as well as those here under their own resources and other sources of finance; these categories are not separately identifiable. The two figures quoted are compiled from different sources and in different ways and are not comparable.

  Project/Programme

  Description/Aims

  Teff Research

  Collaborative research to improve varieties of Teff

  Rainfall Monitoring

  Rainfall and crop development estimation and monitoring system

  Sidamo Rangelands

  Improved food security for ten local communities in South Sidamo; managed by CARE

  Koisha Rural Development

  Increase food production and strengthen rural economy in Koisha region of Sidamo; managed by SOS-Sahel

  Land Use—Western Hararghe

  Introduce sustainable system of land use for 17,000 families in Western Hararghe; managed by CARE

  Dairy Goat Project

  Increase rural incomes by improving the productivity of dairy goats managed by women; managed by FARM Africa

  Farmers' Research Project

  Assist NGOs working with communities in North Omo region to contribute more effectively to farmers' agricultural research; managed by FARM Africa

  Projects funded under the joint funding scheme

  Action Aid (Small Scale seed production)

  Develop economically viable and sustainable small scale seed enterprises

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (Rural Development)

  To increase productive capacity of land

  OXFAM (Delanta Agriculture)

  To promote post drought agricultural rehabilitation and prevent environmental degradation of the land

  OXFAM (Hararghe Agricultural)

  Construct a new seed store and to replace seed stocks lost in the drought

  Tear Fund (Cattle Project, Durami)

  To introduce the Borena breed bloodstock into the fresian/local bloodstock to increase milk yields and help improve disease resistance

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many tonnes of food aid have been delivered to Ethiopia since the Food and Agriculture Organisation appeal of 13 December 1990(a) from Her Majesty's Government and (b) in total.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A total of 19,000 tonnes of United Kingdom food aid, provided through the World Food Programme, is being delivered at Assab this week. Between 28 and 31 December 1990 some 20,467 tonnes of food aid from other donors were delivered at Assab. A total of 42,000 tonnes is expected, but not confirmed, in January.

  These figures do not include cross border food aid figures for Ethiopia. The total figure for cross-border

  Ethiopia and Sudan (Famine)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first received warnings of the current famine in Ethiopia and Sudan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Initial indications from international agencies of possible food shortages were received on September 13—Sudan—and 14—Ethiopia. Confirmed reports arrived in mid-December.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all assistance given for agricultural rehabilitation and restocking of seeds, tools and cattle in Ethiopia since the 1989–90 food shortage.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Relevant projects supported since the 1989–90 food shortage are:

  operations for December/January is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes for Eritrea. Comparable figures are not available for Tigray.

  Famine Relief
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all allocations of famine relief made to African countries in 1990 and 1991, with the date on which the allocation was made and stating whether or not the supplies have arrived for (i) aid from the Overseas Development Administration and (ii) aid from the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:
  461

  United Kingdom Food Aid committed in 1990

  Country

  Tonnage

  Estimated cost £million

  Ethiopia

  53,836

  8·230

  Mozambique

  15,000

  1·740

  Sudan

  10,550

  2·807

  Tanzania

  2,065

  0·201

  Zaire

  3,725

  0·446

  Other United Kingdom emergency relief in 1990

  Month

  Country

  £ million

  January

  Uganda

  0·03

  February

  Liberia

  0·392

  March

  Rwanda

  0·05

  April

  Sudan

  3·0

  April

  Ethiopia

  5·0

  June

  Sudan

  0·033

  June

  Sierra Leone

  0·067

  July

  Angola

  0·5

  August

  Mozambique

  3·5

  August

  Sierra Leone

  0·084

  September

  Ghana

  0·034

  October

  Ethiopia

  0·5

  December

  Ethiopia

  2·5

  December

  Sudan

  1·2

  December

  Angola

  0·5

  The hon. Lady will recall from my statement to the House on 19 December 1990 the most recent emergency aid package worth £7·2 million which is now being allocated to British non-governmental organisations and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. In addition, I have today announced a further £8·75 million package of famine relief for Ethiopia: It comprises
  35,000 tonnes of food aid for 1991 worth some £6·5 million.
  £2 million in non-food assistance to enable the food to be delivered.
  £250,000 to UNHCR for Somali refugees in Ethiopia.

  This new food aid includes an immediate shipment of 10,000 tonnes of food sent into the recently reopened port of Massawa. It has not been possible in the time available to give details of the dates on which the shipments arrived at their destination.

  It has also not been possible in the time available to obtain full details of emergency aid provided by the European Community for African countries affected by the famine. However, in the case of Ethiopia normal and emergency food aid provided by the Community in 1990 amounted to some 115 mecu of £80 million, of which the United Kingdom share was some £18 million. Most of this food had been delivered by October 1990.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements have been made in the famine early warning systems, and delivery mechanisms of relief aid used by the ODA since the 1984–85 famine.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to rely upon the reports of the Food and Agriculture Organisation's global information and early warning system, supplemented by special reports from both the World Food Programme and international and British relief agencies. These reports draw on information from national warning systems, to which the European Community contributes. The quality of these has improved substantially since 1984–85. The 462
  recent WFP crop assessment missions to Ethiopia and Sudan played a crucial role in the planning of our current relief activities.

  In 1984–85 air drops were necessary to reach those in need in Ethiopia. We now have three established land routes for delivering relief supplies—the southern line, the northern line through the recently re-opened port of Massawa and cross-border from Sudan.

  The regular meetings on the Horn of Africa I hold with British NGOs have also helped both the ODA and the NGOs in planning our emergency relief operations.

  These improvements have helped enable us to take early and speedy action in response to the threatened famine in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inflation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in inflation has been from July 1983 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The annual rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 4·2 per cent. for the 12 months to July 1983 compared with 9·3 per cent. for December 1990. Over the period from July 1983 to December 1990 the index has increased by 52·3 per cent., an annual rate of increase of 5·8 per cent. on average.

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of outstanding consumer debt; and what it was in real terms in 1982.

  Mr. Maples
  The level of outstanding consumer debt at the end of the third quarter 1990 was £49·6 billion. Due to changes in coverage, comparable figures are not available for 1982. Those which are available are in the September 1982 issue of Business Monitor SDM6 "Credit business of finance houses and other specialist consumer credit grantors". This publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Charities
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed that charities should become liable to charge value added tax on the production and sale of books, magazines and other printed matter as part of the European proposals for value added tax harmonisation; and whether it is proposed that charities would be able to reclaim value added tax paid for(a) the purchase and (b) the production of books, magazines and other printed matter.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Commission's most recent proposals, in May 1989, on the VAT rate structure in the single market were not entirely clear as to what might continue to be zero rated. Subsequent European Community discussions have advanced matters little. The United Kingdom has, however, stressed that we must retain the ability to apply a zero rate to those supplies that are currently treated in this way. These, of course, include the production and sale by charities of books, magazines and some other printed matter. As any Community legislation in this area requires unanimity, the United Kingdom's position is protected.
  463
  There have been no proposals to alter the rules in respect of VAT reclaimable on purchases and production of books, and so on.

  Home Carers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the practice followed in other member states of the European Community with respect to the charging of value added tax on the supply and delivery of goods and services to home carers.

  Mrs Gillian Shephard
  Comprehensive information would be disproportionately expensive to obtain. However, the provisions of the EC sixth VAT directive are clear on the charging of tax on the supply and delivery of goods and services, whether to home carers or others. I have no reason to believe that other member states' practices are not in conformity with EC law. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will write to me.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1990, what representations he has made to the EC Commission regarding the constraints of EC value added tax law with respect to the delivery of services and goods to home carers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The United Kingdom is bound by the EC sixth directive, to which all the member states gave their assent in 1977. The Government are not in a position to challenge its legal requirements.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many credit cards are in circulation in the United Kingdom; what was the comparable level in 1980; what are the comparable figures on a per capita basis in other European Community countries.

  Mr. Maples
  The only data available are from bank issuers of Mastercard and Visa. These show that at the end

  Proposed date of publication (1991)

  Supplement to the Autumn Statement

  Friday 1 February

  Department of Social Security

  Friday 1 February

  Ministry of Defence

  Tuesday 5 February

  Department of Employment

  Tuesday 5 February

  Home Office (including Charity Commission)

  Tuesday 5 February

  Cabinet Office

  Thursday 7 February

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

  Thursday 7 February

  Energy

  Thursday 7 February

  Department of Transport

  Thursday 7 February

  Department of Health and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Thursday 7 February

  Department of Education and Science

  Monday 11 February

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

  Tuesday 12 February

  Trade and Industry

  Tuesday 12 February

  Environment

  Wednesday 13 February

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including ODA)

  Wednesday 13 February

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  Wednesday 13 February

  Legal Departments

  Thursday 14 February

  Scotland

  Thursday 14 February

  Wales

  Friday 15 February

  Northern Ireland

  Friday 15 February

  Note: Copies will be available from the Vote Office.
  464
  of 1989 there were 28·6 million such cards issued in the United Kingdom. The comparable figure at the end of 1980 was 11·7 million. Data for other countries could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bingo Duty
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much bingo duty(a) yielded to the Exchequer and (b) cost to collect in the financial year ended 31 March 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the year ended 31 march 1990, bingo duty yielded £66 million; no separate cost of collecting bingo duty is available; the cost of collecting all the exise duties on betting and gaming, totalling £976 million, was £4·03 million.

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present outstanding personal debts on(a) bank credit cards, (b) retail accounts, (c) loans on personal accounts, (d) specialist credit and (e) finance house loans.

  Mr. Maples
  At the end of the third quarter 1990 the amounts outstanding were

  £ billion

  (a) Bank credit cards

  7·6

  (b) Retail accounts

  2·3

  (c) Bank loans on personal accounts

  17·0

  (d) Finance houses and other specialist credit grantors

  20·7

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the 1991 departmental reports to be published.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposed dates for publication of 1991 departmental reports and the supplement to the autumn statement are as follows:

  EC Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise with the European Court of Auditors the recent EC decision to pay £4,500,000 in compensation to 150 EC personnel; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom contribution to the EC.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 January 1991]: The Government have noted with concern the observations in the European Court of Auditors' recent report on the 1989 EC budget in connection with redundancy payments to temporary staff at the joint research centre—JRC. The estimated cost to the United Kingdom of these payments is some £300,000 after abatement. The Government recognise that costs are frequently incurred when any organisation is restructured, but will want to ensure that measures taken to correct staff imbalances at the JRC do not result in unwarranted expenditure and that they will have the intended effect. The Government will therefore aim to pursue this issue in forthcoming Council discussions on the European Court of Auditors' report and in the review of the JRC planned for later this year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) unoccupied housing executive houses there are, (b) priority applicants are on the waiting list, (c) transfers are listed and (d) housing executive houses have been sold in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, in Newtownabbey borough council area.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that the information requested in respect of the Newtownabbey borough council district is as follows:

  (a) At 31 December 1990 there were 44 unoccupied Housing Executive dwellings available for letting.

  (b) The number of priority applicants on the waiting list at 31 December 1990 was 93.

  (c) The number of applicants on the waiting list for transfer to the district at 31 December 1990 was 970.

  (d) The number of Housing Executive dwellings sold is as follows:

  Houses sold

  1987

  165

  1988

  200

  1989

  201

  1990

  165

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) unoccupied housing executive houses there are, (b) priority applicants are on the waiting list, (c) transfer requests are listed and (d) housing executive houses have been sold in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 in Antrim borough council area.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that the information requested in respect of the Antrim borough council district is as follows:

  a. At 31 December 1990 there were 37 unoccupied Housing Executive dwellings available for letting.

  b. The number of priority applicants on the waiting list at 31 December 1990 was 58.

  466

  c. The number of applicants on the waiting list for transfer to the district at 31 December 1990 was 551.

  d. The number of Housing Executive dwellings sold is as follows:

  Houses sold

  1987

  129

  1988

  125

  1989

  174

  1990

  239

  Killead Bypass
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the completion date for the Killead bypass.

  Mr. Needham
  Killead bypass is expected to be completed in autumn 1992.

  Roads, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to remove the mound of earth at the lower end of Hollymount crescent, Newtownards; what action has been taken against the rats at this location; and if planning permission has been granted for development at this location.

  Mr. Needham
  Outline planning permission was granted for residential development at the Hollymount crescent site on 2 March 1971. On the detailed plans approved in 1975 the area in question was shown as open space. The Department of the Environment (NI) has attempted without success to trace the owner of the land with a view to seeking his co-operation in having an environmental improvement scheme carried out at this location. The problem of rodent infestation is a matter for Ards borough council.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many LEDU-assisted firms went into liquidation or ceased trading in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is available only in respect of firms that were LEDU clients at the time they went into liquidation or ceased trading. The numbers of such firms in the years stated are detailed in the table.

  Year

  Number of Liquidations

  Number ceasing to trade

  Total

  1988

  16

  15

  31

  1989

  15

  11

  26

  1990

  17

  8

  25

  Local Authorities
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members there are in each of the 26 local authorities; and what was the total amount of allowances and expenses paid to these members by each of the local authorities in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is set out in the table.
  467

  Local Authority

  Number of Members

  Total amount of allowances and expenses paid to members by local authorities in each of the last five years

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1. Antrim

  19

  10,004

  6,976

  13,917

  21,235

  120,051

  2. Ards

  20

  17,029

  11,237

  16,127

  128,564

  145,000

  3. Armagh

  22

  14,835

  2,531

  12,962

  22,796

  127,007

  4. Ballymena

  23

  14,597

  7,887

  18,203

  27,152

  30,958

  5. Ballymoney

  16

  7,498

  4,933

  10,320

  12,571

  120,771

  6. Banbridge

  15

  10,337

  4,245

  14,970

  20,926

  17,727

  7. Belfast

  51

  55,861

  34,387

  53,721

  104,544

  186,459

  8. Carrickfergus

  15

  13,249

  6,050

  18,987

  134,832

  141,012

  9. Castlereagh

  21

  19,317

  11,830

  19,124

  35,540

  39,153

  10. Coleraine

  21

  12,668

  6,450

  14,620

  16,877

  22,510

  11. Cookstown

  16

  5,327

  2,780

  3,198

  5,401

  8,857

  12. Craigavon

  26

  18,961

  8,116

  8,723

  45,433

  44,358

  13. Derry

  30

  26,441

  31,050

  32,923

  42,279

  45,477

  14, Down

  23

  21,537

  16,842

  27,430

  33,092

  135,464

  15. Dungannon

  22

  11,060

  9,314

  12,564

  19,489

  24,301

  16. Fermanagh

  23

  23,843

  20,748

  17,362

  20,994

  28,308

  17. Lame

  15

  9,978

  5,694

  11,063

  13,167

  113,294

  18. Limavady

  15

  11,778

  5,172

  13,460

  18,640

  121,731

  19. Lisburn

  28

  26,751

  11,675

  33,598

  52,053

  59,345

  20. Magherafelt

  15

  4,149

  5,232

  7,350

  7,058

  11,256

  21. Moyle

  15

  8,620

  8,970

  11,820

  12,719

  118,978

  22. Newry and Mourne

  30

  54,266

  57,123

  48,405

  62,282

  171,804

  23. Newtownabbey

  25

  24,220

  10,182

  27,360

  46,125

  156,094

  24. North Down

  24

  18,486

  17,819

  24,010

  42,729

  135,351

  25. Omagh

  21

  19,834

  19,007

  27,354

  32,548

  1133,172

  26. Strabane

  15

  31,615

  20,344

  22,976

  27,845

  138,258

  Totals

  566

  492,261

  346,594

  522,547

  806,891

  896,697

  1 Estimates.

  Women Doctors
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the recent announcement about women doctors and their careers will be applied to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report of the joint working party on "Women Doctors and Their Careers" was issued by the Department of Health (London) on 22 January 1991. The report's recommendations have been drawn up in terms suitable for application in England only, but the Department of Health and Social Security for Northern Ireland will consider these and the action necessary in the light of needs in Northern Ireland.

  Toxic Waste Incinerator
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public safety and environmental impact assessment criteria and procedures would be invoked by the Government in respect of a proposal to site a toxic waste incinerator in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The effect of a proposal to site a toxic waste incinerator in Northern Ireland on public safety would be examined by the Department of Economic Development's health and safety inspectorate which enforces the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978. The order requires every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not exposed to risks to their health and safety. Regulations prevent the granting of planning permission to proposals of this type unless environmental information has first been considered. Schedule 1(8) of the Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (NI) 1989 applies and any planning
  468
  application for such an incinerator must be accompanied by an environmental statement. These statements are available for public information.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on planning applications made by Du Pont regarding waste incineration at Maydown.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The only planning application made by Du Pont at Maydown for a waste incinerator was submitted on the 10 October 1990 for the
  "installation of a solid waste burner"
  the purpose of which is to incinerate only lycra waste from the existing plant. Schedule 1(8) of the Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (NI) 1989 applies to this application and the company have been asked to submit an environmental statement for consideration with the planning application.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any Government Department or public agency has had discussions with Du Pont about the establishment of a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown complex.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: In October 1990, Du Pont (NI) Ltd. advised the Industrial Development Board, the Department of Economic Development, and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland of a proposal to establish a hazardous waste incinerator on its site at Maydown, Co. Londonderry. In December 1990, the company confirmed in writing that an evaluation of the project was under way. Officials from the Department involved will be available for consultations with the company as appropriate.
  469
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place with Republic of Ireland Government departments or public agencies regarding possible siting for a toxic waste incinerator.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: In November 1990, correspondence from the appropriate Minister in the Republic of Ireland indicated that the Republic of Ireland government was a at an advanced stage in its consideration of a central hazardous waste incinerator to service Irish industry, that it had become aware that Du Pont (UK) Ltd. was considering the provision of such a facility on its site at Maydown, Co. Londonderry and sought the views of the Northern Ireland authorities.

  The response indicated that Du Pont (UK) Ltd. was engaged in the necessary studies of all the implications of such a facility.

  Informal discussion of the matter between officials has been in accord with the correspondence.

ENVIRONMENT

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of empty properties owned by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information for April 1990 for England is in the table

  Vacant dwellings(thousands)

  Local authority1

  99·2

  Housing association2

  19·7

  1 Derived from local authorities' housing investment programme returns for April 1990. Includes 38,900 dwellings which are awaiting or undergoing major works or awaiting sale or demolition.

  2 Derived from housing association returns to the Housing Corporation for March 1990. Includes 12,700 dwellings, mainly purchased from the private sector, which require rehabilitation work before being suitable for occupation.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what new initiatives he is taking to tackle the problem of homelessness in(a) South Yorkshire and (b) Doncaster;

  (2) what new and additional finance is being made available to help (a) local authorities and (b) voluntary organisations to tackle the problem of homelessness in (i) South Yorkshire generally and (ii) Doncaster.

  Mr. Yeo
  Housing investment programme allocations to South Yorkshire authorities for 1991–92 total £56·574 million, of which Doncaster's share is £7·950 million. When these allocations were determined, the levels of homelessness experienced were taken into account, both through generalised needs index indicators and in the distribution of resources not allocated through the GNI. In addition, Doncaster MBC's proposal to provide an additional hostel for the homeless was taken specifically into account. Our two main national homelessness 470
  initiatives, involving expenditure of £396 million, are targeted on the areas of greatest need in London and the south-east. In the longer term, we will consider extension to other areas.

  Sheffield and Barnsley's urban programme submissions, which include schemes directed at the homeless, are under consideration now. Neither Doncaster nor Rotherham have included such schemes in their urban programme submissions.

  Applications from voluntary organisations assisting the homeless for funding in 1991–92 under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 are also currently being considered.

  Unused Sites, Thamesdown
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the unused sites owned by public bodies within the borough of Thamesdown, together with their owners and sizes in hectares, as detailed in the land register.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1989 individual public sector owners were asked to keep their own registers of their unused and underused land. Since then up-to-date information has ceased to be available from my right hon. Friend's register. Information on sites on owners' registers as at 31 March 1990 is available from individual owners for their holdings and from district or London borough councils for sites within their areas for which owners have deposited information.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been English Heritage's total education budget for each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many school children are estimated to have used English Heritage properties in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (3) what has been English Heritage's budget for educational publications, including audio-visual productions, in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  These are matters for English Heritage.

  Heveningham Hall, Suffolk
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to whom Heveningham hall in Suffolk was sold.

  Sir George Young
  I.D. Investment Development AG.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the arguments his Department put forward during negotiations on the derogation agreement with the European Community for the use and development of refuse-derived fuel.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the negotiations in the European Community of the draft directives on municipal waste incineration, the United Kingdom sought derogation for refuse-derived fuel in view of the considerable investment and research being undertaken in the United Kingdom to
  471
  develop RDG as an economic alternative fuel in the interests of recycling, the securing of energy from waste, and the development of waste disposal options.

  Crayfish
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from the Nature Conservancy Council since 1982 recommending the listing of American signal crayfish under schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has received a number of representations from the Nature Conservancy Council about this subject in recent years. In October 1990, the council formally recommended that the American signal crayfish should be added to schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My Department is currently considering this recommendation and undertaking the consultation required under section 26 of the 1981 Act.

  Nine Elms Coldstore
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his consent has been sought by the Covent Garden market authority for the demolition of the Nine Elms coldstore and for alternative proposals for the site.

  Mr. Yeo
  No.

  City Grant, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision on the application for £5 million city grant by 3Ds Ltd.; and how many applications are anticipated for the west end scheme in Bradford.

  Mr. Key
  The proposal for the first phase in the development of Bradford west end is under consideration. Discussions were held earlier this month with 3D Ltd. and further details have been requested from the developer. Once all information has been provided, the Department will be able to undertake a full appraisal of the scheme. No details are available for the likely number of any future applications arising from the proposal.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on efforts to secure international agreement on the environmental safety of genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Baldry
  The White Paper on the environment, "Our Common Inheritance", recognised that the safe development of biotechnology based on genetically modified organisms—GMOs—requires the agreement of satisfactory environmental safeguards, both nationally and internationally. Good progress has been made to date. In particular, the United Kingdom Government played an influential role in the adoption last year of two European Communities directives on GMOs and has made provision in part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for implementation of their environmental requirements.

  The United Kingdom is actively participating in work to secure wider international agreement on the safety of GMOs. An opportunity for further significant progress is
  472
  provided by the United Nations conference on environment and development to be held in Brazil in 1992—UNCED 1992. As part of the preparations for the conference, the UK Government have responded positively to a Netherlands proposal for a UN approach on biotechnology safety and are developing that proposal further in collaboration with their Dutch counterparts. The proposal aims to encourage the effective risk assessment and management of GMO activities worldwide through the development of international guidelines based on the exchange of information and expertise. The Government see this as a positive contribution to preparations for UNCED 1992 and hope that other countries will support the UK and the Netherlands in seeking to make this initiative a success.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available for local authorities under the urban programme in 1991–92; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am pleased to announce initial urban programme resource allocations for 1991–92 totalling over £264 million. The resources will be allocated to the 57 urban programme partnership and programme authorities in England. The money will be used to support a wide range of projects aimed at stimulating enterprise and the development of local economies, improving the environmental quality of inner-city areas particularly through greening, and improving the quality of life in inner-city areas.

  The urban programme has achieved a great deal over many years. I now want to build on that success. Our aim is to promote vital and self-reliant communities. The key, I believe, is to target resources effectively on those areas of particular need. I also want to encourage the partnerships that local authorities are developing with other local interests: local business, voluntary bodies, and of course the people in the inner city areas.

  The resources I am now making available will allow local authorities to extend this good practice already well established in many areas.

  A list of the allocations to individual authorities for 1991–92 is set out in the table.

  Urban Programme Allocations 1991–92

  £ million

  Newcastle/Gateshead

  17·096

  Hartlepool

  2·012

  Langbaurgh

  2·059

  Middlesborough

  5·450

  North Tyneside

  3·560

  South Tyneside

  5·025

  Stockton

  1·669

  Sunderland

  5·332

  Manchester/Salford

  21·749

  Blackburn

  4·010

  Bolton

  4·010

  Burnley

  2·173

  Oldham

  3·965

  Preston

  2·461

  Rochdale

  3·975

  Wigan

  2·722

  Liverpool

  19·115

  Halton

  1·537

  Knowsley

  4·177

  St. Helens

  1·882

  473

  £ million

  Sefton

  1·742

  Wirral

  3·713

  Birmingham

  23·535

  Coventry

  4·772

  Dudley

  1·637

  Sandwell

  4·776

  Walsall

  1·763

  Wolverhampton

  5·398

  The Wrekin

  1·009

  Derby

  1·312

  Leicester

  4·990

  Nottingham

  5·350

  Barnsley

  1·832

  Bradford

  4·711

  Doncaster

  2·000

  Hull

  5·120

  Kirklees

  1·136

  Leeds

  5·490

  Rotherham

  2·000

  Sheffield

  6·182

  Hackney

  5·585

  Islington

  9·240

  Lambeth

  9·084

  Brent

  2·680

  Greenwich

  1·536

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  2·625

  Haringey

  2·865

  Kensington/Chelsea

  1·860

  Lewisham

  2·584

  Newham

  3·061

  Southwark

  2·816

  Tower Hamlets

  4·910

  Wandsworth

  3·180

  Bristol

  1·715

  Plymouth

  1·380

  Outward Bound Funding

  Through Local Authorities

  0·270

  Special Regional Initiatives

  3·400

  Combined Heat and Power
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that his technical guidance accompanying the introduction of integrated pollution control will recognise and promote the environmental and economic benefits of combined heat and power.

  Mr. Trippier
  The chief inspector's technical guidance will focus on the requirements for authorisation under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, in seeking to establish the best practicable means not entailing excessive cost for preventing, minimising or rendering harmless polluting substances, and the best practicable environmental option to protect the environment as a whole, the guidance might identify the need to include conditions in an authorisation which an operator could in fact meet by the use of combined heat and power.

HEALTH

  Under-fives
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of(a) the secretariat and (b) the annual budget of the inter-departmental consultative group for under-fives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The secretariat of this group, which I chair, is found from administrative staff in the Department's community services division. There is no separate budget allocation for the work of this group. The group last met on 25 September 1990 when the main subject discussed was the Children Act 1989 and the draft guidance on day care services. The group's next meeting is arranged for 13 March, when it is intended to discuss quality systems for child care providers and consultants, and day care services on Crown premises.

  Maternity Units (Security)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requests he has had for support for the initiative taken by the Royal College of Midwives to improve the security of maternity units and hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None, but we are aware that the general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives wrote to the chairmen of all district health authorities on 13 December 1990 asking them to review the security system for their maternity services.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make available resources to improve security for mothers, babies and midwives in maternity units and hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is providing funding to the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts to update the NHS security manual which is the main source of practical guidance to health authorities on security matters.

  It is for health authorities to decide how to use the funds already allocated to them in the light of local needs and priorities. The cost and efficiency of security arrangements within any particular hospital or unit are matters for the relevant health authority and its general managers.

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Iraqi casualties from the Iran-Iraq war were treated in British hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  St. Thomas's Hospital, London
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ownership of the vacant buildings on the site of the old St. Thomas's hospital; how long they have been empty; and what plans exist for their future.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The site of the old St. Thomas's hospital in St. Thomas's street, London SE1 is no longer in the ownership of the NHS.

  Calorie Intakes
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Health Education Authority's recommended daily calorie intake from food for(a) an adult, (b) a child 16 to 17 years, (c) a child 11 to 15 years, (d) a child six to 10 years, (e) a child three to five years and (f) a child up to two years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Health Education Authority has not made any recommendations on daily calorie intakes. Advice on daily energy requirements is provided by the chief medical officer's independent Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy—COMA. Current advice —for males and females in different age bands from those requested—is contained in the COMA report "Recommended Daily Amounts of Food Energy and Nutrients for Groups of People in the United Kingdom" published in 1979. Copies are available in the Library. COMA is nearing completion of a re-assessment of the evidence and publication of an updated report is expected later this year.

  Nuclear Power Station, Dungeness
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to institute a full medical survey into the possible public health implications in respect of radiation levels as a result of the operation of the nuclear power station at Dungeness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In its third report to the Government, copies of which are in the Library, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—stated that investigations of the incidence of childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear installations would be difficult to interpret until the results of studies of the distribution of childhood cancer incidence on a nationwide basis become available. The committee will then be asked to participate in a review of the evidence relating to the incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations. If the hon. Member has any information that he feels may be relevant, perhaps he would write to me.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the privatisation of old people's homes in Leicestershire.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no such representations.

  Consultation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that community health councils are fully consulted by district health authorities and hospital trusts before NHS contracts are awarded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities are responsible for placing contracts with providers, including NHS trusts. They will be expected to seek the views of all interested parties including community health councils, on their overall contracting plans.
  476
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if community health councils will continue to be fully consulted before the disposal, change of use or closure of health authority and hospital trust premises and resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A district health authority considering a proposal involving the closure or change of use of a health building which it manages will be required to consult the relevant community health council and other interested parties about the proposal. Ministers will continue to make decisions on contested closures. NHS trusts have no duty to consult community health councils on how they manage their premises and resources.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if community health councils will retain the right to attend health authority or hospital trust meetings, including the confidential parts of such meetings after 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Community health council representatives will have the right to attend district health authority and NHS trust board meetings that are open to the public. As previously, it remains for a health authority to decide which of their discussions that are closed to the general public the community health council representative may attend. NHS trust boards will be free to extend similar invitations to their local community health council if they wish.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards he has considered to ensure that the regional health authority role in funding community health councils and as the employer of community health council staff does not undermine the independence and impartiality of community health councils.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Such safeguards have not proved necessary in the 16 years that community health councils have existed. We have no evidence to suggest they are necessary now.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve the community health council role of monitoring quality assurance in all health service provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have put quality at the top of the agenda for all National Health Service staff and managers. Health authorities have been urged to test the quality of their services through consumer surveys and by other means. The views of community health councils will be important and if a particular community health council has special expertise there is no reason why its health authority should not commission it to undertake such surveys.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if community health council representatives will have a right to speak at health authority or hospital trust meetings after 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's primary objective is that district health authorities should secure full, effective and early consultation with community health councils; the manner in which they do so is largely
  477
  for the authority's decision. National Health Service trust boards will decide for themselves whether to involve their community health councils in meetings.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of his Department's financial support for the work of the Association of Community Health Councils, for each of the last five years; and what the level of support will be in the next financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has provided funding as follows:

  Year

  Grant(£)

  1986–87

  40,000

  1987–88

  50,000

  1988–89

  50,000

  1989–90

  50,000

  1990–91

  50,000

  The level of funding for 1991–92 has yet to be decided.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will directly grant aid to community health councils.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to alter the funding arrangements of community health councils. Each CHC will continue to be funded by the regional health authority which covers its district.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the effects on human health of substances emitted from waste disposal incinerators.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment on 21 January at columns 97–98. The Government are currently funding the small area health statistics unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to investigate possible links between pollution from waste incinerators and ill health in the local community.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he envisages for community health councils in respect of the work of general practitioners who become budget holders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The responsibility of ensuring that adequate patient care is provided will rest with the family health service authority and the regional health authority. The patient will give the GP direct feedback about the service being provided. Patients will still be able to complain to a service committee whether a GP is a fund holder or not. No special role is envisaged for community health councils in respect of the work of GPs who become budget holders.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding for health services was provided in each year since 1985(a) nationally and (b) to the Doncaster health area.
  478
  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows total spending by Doncaster health authority from 1985–86 to 1989–90—the latest year for which information is available—and total NHS spending for the same years.

  Gross total expenditure

  NHS England

  Doncaster Health Authority (£ million)

  1985–86

  14,923

  48,842

  1986–87

  16,060

  53,520

  1987–88

  17,659

  60,197

  1988–89

  19,606

  68,670

  1989–90

  21,139

  73,298

  Notes:

  The source for the Doncaster spending figure is the annual accounts of Doncaster health authority. The figures in the table include the cost of capital schemes borne by the district and those borne in the accounts of Trent regional health authority for the district.

  HIV
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how long a person claiming payments, as a haemophiliac infected with HIV through NHS treatment, must wait before receiving full payment of the moneys awarded;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that haemophiliac payment claims relating to HIV contamination are dealt with quickly and in full; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The detailed provisions of the proposed settlement are under discussion with lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Payments will be made as quickly as possible once a settlement has been reached and agreed by the courts.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received concerning mosquitoes and other biting insects as vectors for HIV and other blood-transmitted conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no evidence that mosquitoes and other biting insects act as biological vectors of HIV or blood-borne hepatitis viruses.

  Cholesterol Tests
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of tests for high cholesterol blood counts carried out, and the corresponding number of such tests requested, for each health authority, for the latest available year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average cost of(a) building a hospital and (b) running a hospital for one year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The average capital cost of a 300-bed district general hospital designed in accordance with principles recommended by the Department would be about £32·5 million at current prices. The running cost of such a hospital would be about £15 million per annum.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the numbers of people waiting, by region, for kidney transplants and the trends in transplants and available treatment for those awaiting a donor kidney.

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The table gives the number of people waiting for kidney transplants by region as at 18 January 1991. The number of cadaveric kidney transplants performed in the United Kingdom has risen from 849 in 1978 to 1,732 in 1989; an increase of 104 per cent. The most common forms of treatment available for those awaiting a transplant are haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. The number of renal patients receiving such treatment has risen from 2,947 in 1978 to 7,751 in 1988; an increase of 163 per cent.

  Number

  Northern

  229

  Yorkshire

  187

  Devon

  321

  East Anglia

  321

  North West Thames

  207

  North East Thames

  419

  South West Thames

  292

  South East Thames

  78

  Western

  100

  Oxford

  81

  South Western

  220

  West Midlands

  397

  Mersey

  96

  North Western

  281

  Wales

  96

  Scotland

  436

  Northern Ireland

  76

  TOTAL

  3,620

  Source: United Kingdom Transplant Service.

  Heart Attacks
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men had heart attacks for each of the last three years for which figures are available aged(a) 20 to 30 years, (b) 31 to 40, (c) 41 to 50, (d) 51 to 60 and (e) 61 to 70 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives, by age, the number of deaths of men caused by acute myocardial infarction in the last three years for which figures are available.

  Age

  1987

  1988

  1989

  20–29

  20

  27

  27

  30–39

  307

  294

  246

  40–49

  1,744

  1,600

  1,441

  50–59

  6,163

  5,451

  4,861

  60–69

  14,454

  13,984

  12,955

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Dental Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of dental examinations in each of the last 12 quarters.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the number of dental examinations scheduled for payment under the general dental services in England and Wales in each of the last 12 quarters is provided in the table:480

  General Dental Services: Number of Examinations Scheduled for Payment (including Trauma) by quarter for England and Wales

  Quarter ending

  Number of treatments

  March 1988

  7,530,040

  June 1988

  7,433,470

  September 1988

  7,948,830

  December 1988

  8,292,230

  March 1989

  7,948,220

  June 1989

  7,793,040

  September 1989

  7,378,850

  December 1989

  7,449,590

  March 1990

  7,084,060

  June 1990

  7,738,310

  September 1990

  7,390,200

  December 1990

  Not available

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the costs of the general dental service came from patients' charges in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The proportion of gross costs of the general dental service in England met from patient charges is given in the table:

  Charge income as a proportion of gross cost

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  29·8

  1986–87

  29·9

  1987–88

  29·4

  1988–89

  30·7

  1989–90

  38·7

  New NHS Facilities
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify by district the new national health service facilities which are planned to be opened after 1 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information held centrally, 96 schemes each costing over £1 million are due for completion between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992. A list of these has been placed in the Library. The Department does not routinely collect information on smaller schemes or hold details of health authorities' plans for the opening of new facilities.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce NHS trusts' external financing limits for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The external financing limits for 1991–92 for all NHS trusts which will become operational on 1 April 1991, excluding that for the Northern Devon healthcare trust which will be announced later, are set out in the table. These limits do not include provision for medical audit and resource management developments in trusts which will be added subsequently.

  Capital expenditure by NHS trusts forms part of the public expenditure provision in the health programme. The NHS and Community Care Act 1990, however, provides no power for the Department to fund NHS trusts directly or to give them cash limits. Trusts can only obtain funding from the income they receive from purchasers or from borrowing. An annual external financing limit—EFL—controls access by NHS trusts to external finance in all

  481
  its forms. The EFL is a net financing concept measured by new loans taken out by the NHS Trust less loans repaid, plus or minus changes in deposits. The NHS Management Executive will monitor each NHS trust regularly to see that the EFL is not exceeded.

  NHS trust

  External financing limit £000's

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  2,151

  Norfolk Ambulances

  921

  Broadgreen Hospital

  -408

  Chester and Halton Community

  -200

  Crewe Acute

  -1,208

  R.A.C.T.U. Liverpool

  376

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital

  -1,028

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  -257

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1,425

  Wirral Hospital

  -2,369

  London Hospital Group

  -7,373

  North Middlesex Hospital

  -1,992

  Royal Free Hampstead

  -857

  Royal National Orthopaedic

  -718

  Royal National N T and E

  137

  Southend District

  -1,894

  Freeman Hospital

  -1,124

  Newcastle Mental Health

  -1,146

  Northumbria Ambulance

  293

  Central Manchester H and C

  6,809

  Christie Hospital

  351

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  -4,390

  Hillingdon Hospital

  -2,410

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  -1,116

  North Herts. Acute and Community

  -2,291

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre

  -812

  Guy's and Lewisham Hospitals

  8,586

  Bristol United Healthcare

  -1,161

  Cornwall Community

  -814

  Cornwall Mental Handicap

  -324

  East Gloucestershire

  -908

  East Somerset

  -1,601

  South Devon Health Care

  -1,348

  West Somerset Acute and Community

  -2,320

  Weston Health

  3,725

  Croydon Community

  -125

  Croydon Mental Handicap

  -1,151

  Kingston Hospital

  -1,428

  Mid Surrey General Unit

  -1,361

  South West Surrey Acute

  -2,913

  North West Surrey M.H.U.

  -763

  St. Helier and Sutton

  2,693

  Doncaster Royal and Montagu

  -1,666

  Lincolnshire Ambulance

  84

  Northern General Sheffield

  7,515

  Royal National Rheumatic

  165

  West Dorset Community

  -451

  West Dorset General

  -1,861

  West Dorset Mental Health

  -268

  Mid Staffs Community

  265

  Mid Staffs Mental Health

  -662

  Rugby District

  8,054

  Walsall Acute

  -2,487

  Bradford Acute

  11,476

  Leeds General Infirmary

  243

  St. James's University

  3,473

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners, Canada
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of British pensioners residing in Canada are in receipt of a full British state pension.
  482
  Mr. Jack
  We estimate that about 10 per cent. of British pensioners in Canada are receiving the same rate of pension as if they were in the United Kingdom. In addition, a large number of British pensioners who went to live in Canada during their working lives are receiving less than the full (100 per cent.) rate of pension because they stopped paying contributions when they left the United Kingdom and therefore their national insurance records are deficient.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state what the level of child benefit would be in April 1991 if it had been uprated in line with inflation since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The rate would be £9·55 a week for each child.

  "Children Come First"
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report his reply to the submission of Church Action on Poverty on the proposals in "Children Come First".

  Mr. Jack
  The submission from Church Action on Poverty has been acknowledged. So far, some 250 submissions have been received and it is not proposed to respond to each one in detail. We are grateful for all views expressed on the White Paper "Children Come First", they will be taken fully into account in finalising the policy and preparing legislation to give effect to our proposals.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the compliance costs of the provisions in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.

  Mr. Jack
  As at 25 January 1991, a total of 184 written representations, mainly from right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of employers and their organisations, had been received on the provisions contained in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of community charge benefit and transitional protection during 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the cost of rate rebates in each year since 1980, at current and at 1990 prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated expenditure on community charge benefit for 1990–91 is £2·25 billion. The estimate for 1991–92 is just over £2 billion, this takes account of estimated expenditure on the community charge transitional relief and reduction schemes for 1990–91 and 1991–92 of £384 million and £1,852 million respectively.

  The information requested on rate rebate expenditure is listed in the table. Before 1982–83 assistance with housing costs was through the supplementary benefit scheme administered by the Department, and the rebate and allowance scheme run by the Department of the Environment. Housing benefit was introduced for some

  483
  supplementary benefit claimants from November 1982 with full implementation for all claimants following from April 1983.

  The data for the years prior to 1982–83 are based on the rent rebate and allowance and rate rebate schemes only. The data for 1982–83 combine information from both the old and the new schemes.

  Current prices £ million

  1990–91 prices £ million

  1980–81

  270

  494

  1981–82

  390

  651

  1982–83

  560

  873

  1983–84

  1,220

  1,817

  1984–85

  1,354

  1,919

  1985–86

  1,479

  1,988

  1986–87

  1,635

  2,125

  1987–88

  1,714

  2,113

  1988–89

  1,373

  1,577

  1989–90

  1,261

  1,362

  Notes:

  1. In 1988–89 maximum rates rebate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent.

  2. Rates were replaced by community charge in 1989–90 in Scotland.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish the details of the poll tax benefit caseload, at the latest convenient date, for(a) Coventry, (b) Warwickshire and (c) each standard region;

  (2) if he is now in a position to give a substantive answer to the question from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, on poll tax benefit, to which a holding answer was given on Thursday 13 December 1990, written question 44.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 December 1990]: The latest available information, counting couples as one claim, and based on benefit caseload processed by 31 August 1990 is in the table.

  Caseload

  Coventry

  42,511

  Warwickshire

  45,864

  Standard Regions

  North (including Cumbria)

  499,000

  Yorks and Humberside

  658,000

  East Midlands

  486,000

  East Anglia

  223,000

  London

  675,000

  South East (excluding London)

  933,000

  South West

  466,000

  West Midlands

  664,000

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  963,000

  Wales

  381,000

  Scotland

  778,000

  Source: Community Charge Benefit and Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly stock count of claims at 31 August 1990.

  The August 1990 figures are likely to underestimate the current position because some authorities still had a number of unprocessed claims at that time.

  Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer given to the then hon. Member for Kensington on 14 July 1987,Official Report,
  484
  column 451, showing the number of pensioners with gross weekly incomes other than the state basic pension of up to £5, £5 to £10, £10 to £15, £15 to £20, £20 to £30, £30 to £40, £40 to £50, £50 to £60, £60 to £70, £70 to £80, £80 to £90, £90 to £100, £100 to £110, £110 to £120, £120 to £130, £130 to £140, £140 to £150, £150 to £200, £250 to £300, £300 to £400, £400 to £500 and over £500, distinguishing between single and married pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Numbers (000s)

  Married

  Single

  Up to £5

  130

  610

  £5 to £10

  110

  360

  £10 to £15

  120

  450

  £15 to £20

  150

  480

  £20 to £30

  330

  990

  £30 to £40

  230

  450

  £40 to £50

  180

  220

  £50 to £60

  130

  160

  £60 to £70

  120

  110

  £70 to £80

  110

  80

  £80 to £90

  120

  100

  £90 to £100

  70

  80

  £100 to £110

  50

  60

  £110 to £130

  110

  70

  £130 to £150

  100

  50

  £150 to £200

  120

  70

  £200 and over

  280

  120

  Note: The figures show respectively thousands of pensioner married couples and single pensioners. The income bands have been aggregated in some cases to provide a statistically adequate sample.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1987.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the claim of Mr. K O (Ref. RM 173P/C0999/71/83/3) for sickness benefit and the reasons for the delays in this case.

  Mr. Jack
  The office of determination of contribution questions now has the information required to give a decision. A notice of that decision, given on behalf of the Secretary of State by an authorised officer of the Department, will be sent to Mr. O's solicitor, together with an explanatory covering letter, within the next few days. Any delay was due to the complexity of the case and the need thoroughly to investigate Mr. O's national insurance and benefits position over a period of 21 years.

  Social Fund Loans
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of converting all outstanding social fund loans into grants.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The cost of converting all social fund loans outstanding on 31 December 1990 into grants would be £137 million.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated full year revenue effect in 1990–91 and 1991–92 of(a) abolishing the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions, (b) allowing personal allowances against such contributions and (c) (a) and (b) together.
  485
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The revenue effects of the measures described are estimated to be as follows:

  National insurance contribution revenue effect

  1990–91 £ billion

  1991–92 £ billion

  (a)

  +2·5

  +2·5

  (b)

  -1·5

  -1·5

  (c)

  +1·0

  +1·0

  The estimates assume a contribution-free band of employees' earnings up to a lower earnings limit equivalent to a single person's income tax allowance and a 9 per cent. contribution rate on earnings above that limit.

SCOTLAND

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. Lang
  A wide range of positive measures, including energy surveys of buildings and the active promotion of good housekeeping practices, has been, and will continue to be, undertaken. Very useful savings have been secured in recent years by positive management related to the setting of realistic but demanding targets. Because of changes in Departmental responsibility and limits on the data available it is not possible to give precise figures on a satisfactory basis for year on year comparisons of total expenditure.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each year since 1974–75(a) the total national health service expenditure and (b) the capital expenditure, in Scotland, giving the figures at constant prices.

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

  (a) Total National Health Service Expenditure in Scotland

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1990–91 prices

  1974–75

  458

  2,079

  1975–76

  603

  2,181

  1976–77

  685

  2,182

  1977–78

  777

  2,177

  1978–79

  893

  2,257

  1979–80

  1,064

  2,304

  1980–81

  1,343

  2,458

  1981–82

  1,531

  2,555

  1982–83

  1,660

  2,587

  1983–84

  1,773

  2,640

  1984–85

  1,901

  2,695

  1985–86

  2,015

  2,709

  1986–87

  2,144

  2,787

  1987–88

  2,328

  2,870

  486

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1990–91 prices

  1988–89

  2,591

  2,977

  1989–90

  2,819

  3,045

  11990–91

  3,102

  3,102

  1 Provision

  (b) Total Capital Expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1990–91 prices

  1974–75

  33

  150

  1975–76

  42

  152

  1976–77

  41

  131

  1977–78

  42

  118

  1978–79

  56

  142

  1979–80

  66

  143

  1980–81

  67

  174

  1981–82

  95

  159

  1982–83

  104

  162

  1983–84

  108

  161

  1984–85

  118

  167

  1985–86

  132

  177

  1986–87

  116

  150

  1987–88

  120

  148

  1988–89

  131

  150

  1989–90

  174

  188

  1990–911

  205

  205

  1 Provision includes f16 million for value added tax following the ending of exemption from value added tax of NHS capital expenditure.

  Health Service
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish gross domestic product has been allocated to the health service in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total national health service expenditure in Scotland as a percentage of Scottish gross domestic product is set out in the following table for the years for which information on Scottish GDP is available:

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  6·8

  1979–80

  7·1

  1980–81

  7·9

  1981–82

  8·2

  1982–83

  8·1

  1983–84

  8·0

  1984–85

  8·1

  1985–86

  7·9

  1986–87

  7·7

  1987–88

  7·7

  1988–89

  7·7

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the amount spent on advertising for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available from health boards' annual accounts about advertising costs is shown in the table:
  487

  Health board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Argyll and Clyde

  102,687

  90,722

  108,859

  Ayrshire and Arran

  71,459

  98,574

  103,198

  Borders

  36,331

  49,516

  36,727

  Dumfries and Galloway

  25,950

  24,141

  32,639

  Fife

  99,243

  65,989

  132,734

  Forth Valley

  50,248

  48,293

  93,632

  Grampian

  88,909

  126,015

  160,409

  Greater Glasgow

  153,086

  227,574

  616,149

  Highland

  49,565

  45,111

  95,380

  Lanarkshire

  55,872

  68,742

  102,528

  Lothian

  140,231

  160,636

  321,733

  Orkney

  1,848

  3,559

  1,990

  Shetland

  7,102

  12,065

  25,862

  Tayside

  79,968

  83,774

  126,956

  Western Isles

  21,956

  18,282

  21,664

  Total

  984,455

  1,122,993

  1,980,460

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of environmentally sensitive area-related grant paid out in each of the environmentally sensitive areas since their inception; what is the total number of individual grant recipients in each environmentally sensitive area; and what is the estimated total number of eligible individuals in each environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Area

  Estimated number of eligible Farmers/Crofters

  Total number of individual grant recipients

  Total amount of ESA payments made

  Breadalbane

  150

  96

  567,378·77

  Loch Lomond

  80

  35

  132,028·70

  Stewartry

  285

  127

  640,854·63

  Whitlaw and Eildon

  65

  17

  66,257·80

  The Machair of the Uists, Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  660

  419

  278,593·46

  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total budget available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the current financial year, broken down into constituent areas.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is not available.

  Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about new training measures in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Apart from the training credits pilot, which will become operational under the management of Grampian Enterprise Limited on 1 April 1991,488
  there are no new national training measures to be introduced in Scotland in 1991–92. However, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local enterprise companies will become fully operational on 1 April 1991 and will have full responsibility for administration of the Government's training programmes in Scotland.

  The local enterprise companies, in preparing their businees plans, have been encouraged to adopt an innovative approach to the provision of training in their areas; and it is clear from the business plans which I have seen that they have risen to this challenge and have developed many interesting new approaches to deal with training needs in their area. Decisions on development of these ideas into operational concepts have yet to be taken by Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and individual local enterprise companies, in the light of the resources available to them and their own priorities.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make additional funds available to health boards to ensure that hospital operations postponed because of the Gulf crisis can be carried out within a reasonable time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards have been promised that the full cost of treating Gulf casualties will be met. The resources available to them for treatment of their catchment population will continue to be available for that purpose.

  Student Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most up-to-date estimate of the amount spent per head per full-time equivalent student in public sector Scottish higher education colleges in(a) this financial year and (b) next financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I estimate that £4,150 of Government funding per full-time equivalent student was provided to the Scottish grant-aided colleges of higher education in 1990–91, including recurrent grant-in-aid and tuition fees paid through the student awards system but excluding grants for capital expenditure and maintenance awards. The figure for 1991–92 is not available since grant-in-aid funding for that year has not yet been announced.

  Penal Institutions (Governors)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish by institution the salary scales of the governors of penal institutions in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information, by institution on the complement and grades of governors and the salary scales appropriate to each grade is set out in the table.
  489

  Establishment

  Governor 1

  Governor 2

  Governor 3

  Governor 4

  Governor 5

  Aberdeen

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Barlinnie

  1

  1

  —

  5

  10

  Barlinnie SU

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Castle Huntly

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Cornton Vale

  —

  1

  —

  2

  4

  Dumfries

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Dungavel

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Edinburgh

  1

  —

  1

  3

  7

  Friarton

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Glenochil

  1

  —

  1

  4

  9

  Greenock

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Inverness

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Longriggend

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Low Moss

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Noranside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Penninghame

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Perth

  —

  1

  1

  3

  8

  Peterhead

  —

  1

  1

  3

  5

  Polmont

  —

  1

  —

  2

  6

  Shotts

  1

  —

  1

  4

  5

  Shotts AU

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Salary Scale

  39,747

  35,891

  30,857

  min 24,560 max 26,449

  min 22,514 max 23,930

  Performance point 41,147

  Performance point 37,041

  Performance point 31,757

  Performance point 27,199

  Performance point 24,530

  Prison Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the grades and salary scales applicable to the prison service in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Unified grades

  Salary £

  Governor 1

  39,747

  141,147

  Governor 2

  35,891

  137,041

  Governor 3

  30,857

  131,757

  Governor 4

  24,560

  25,505

  26,449

  127,199

  Governor 5

  22,514

  22,859

  23,930

  124,530

  Principal Officer

  17,760

  18,162

  18,736

  Senior Officer

  17,015

  Officer

  12,424

  12,768

  13,170

  13,572

  13,975

  14,490

  15,293

  12 year point

  15,580

  15 year point

  15,924

  Steward 1

  26,449

  490

  Unified grades

  Salary £

  127,199

  Steward 2

  24,560

  125,310

  Chief Clerk Officer

  22,859

  23,930

  124,530

  Principal Clerk Officer

  17,015

  17,358

  17,702

  18,046

  18,388

  18,736

  Clerk Officer

  13,105

  13,572

  13,975

  14,490

  15,293

  12 year point

  15,580

  15 year point

  15,924

  Higher Instructional Officer

  14,552

  14,851

  15,468

  Instructional Officer

  13,145

  13,415

  13,691

  114,259

  114,851

  115,468

  Trainee typists

  Age 16

  4,121

  17

  4,561

  18

  5,400

  19

  5,778

  15,977

  16,182

  491

  Unified grades

  Salary £

  Typist

  5,977

  6,395

  6,843

  7,322

  7,834

  18,104

  18,383

  Personal Secretary

  7,834

  8,383

  8,969

  9,598

  19,928

  110,270

  Trainee Telephonist

  7,049

  7,747

  Telephonist

  8,345

  8,575

  8,862

  Messenger

  Age 16

  4,438

  17

  4,891

  18

  6,098

  19

  6,447

  20

  6,791

  7,021

  7,309

  7,654

  7,942

  Stores Officer Grade B

  13,262

  13,821

  14,381

  14,956

  15,553

  16,176

  16,822

  117,496

  118,194

  118,925

  119,681

  Stores Officer Grade C

  10,466

  11,026

  11,586

  12,143

  12,704

  13,262

  13,821

  14,381

  114,956

  115,553

  116,176

  116,822

  Stores Officer Grade D

  9,348

  9,907

  10,466

  11,026

  11,586

  12,143

  12,704

  113,262

  113,821

  114,381

  114,956

  Senior Medical Officer

  32,551

  492

  Unified grades

  Salary £

  33,970

  35,451

  36,997

  138,610

  140,116

  141,681

  143,307

  Medical Officer (full time)

  24,997

  26,121

  27,299

  29,809

  32,551

  33,970

  135,451

  136,997

  138,610

  Part-time Medical Officer Basic annual rate per hour

  7·80

  Chaplin

  13,262

  Weekly pay £

  Storeperson

  154·50

  Tradesman

  164·17

  Senior Storeman/woman

  144·47

  Storeman/woman

  139·45

  Civilian Driver (HGV) Band 8

  139·45

  Civilian Driver (HGV) Band 6

  136·94

  Civilian Driver (Vehicle up to 2 tons)

  134·43

  Sewage Attendant

  134·43

  Stoker (Grade C)

  134·43

  Stoker/Boilerman

  131·93

  Storekeeper Assistant

  131·93

  Labourer and Watchman

  129·42

  Hourly rate

  Watchman/Porter

  3·318

  Weekend Watchman (casual)

  3·318

  Temporary Female Assistants (casual)

  4·513

  1 Performance points.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prison officers(a) joined and (b) left the prison service in each of the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows. The statistics for those leaving the Scottish prison service includes retirals, resignations and dismissals. The larger number of staff recruited in 1988 reflects the increase in manpower required to implement the "fresh start" initiative of eliminating overtime.

  (a) Joined

  (b) Left

  1986

  275

  160

  1987

  286

  141

  1988

  406

  184

  1989

  130

  192

  1990

  194

  74

  493
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by institution the establishment of all penal institutions in Scotland and the current vacancies, and at which grades in each case.

  Establishment

  Basic Grade (Discipline)

  Senior Officer (Discipline)

  Principal Officer (Discipline)

  Governor Grades

  Specialists1

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Aberdeen

  70

  5

  10

  —

  4

  —

  3

  —

  26

  1

  Barlinnie

  303

  12

  27

  —

  32

  —

  17

  —

  136

  1

  Barlinnie SU

  11

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Castle Huntly

  29

  —

  5

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1

  30

  2

  Cornton Vale

  111

  5

  18

  —

  10

  —

  7

  —

  44

  1

  Dumfries

  73

  —

  7

  —

  4

  —

  5

  1

  33

  —

  Dungavel

  26

  —

  5

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  29

  —

  Edinburgh

  209

  7

  29

  —

  24

  —

  12

  —

  100

  7

  Friarton

  28

  1

  3

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  18

  1

  Glenochil

  232

  13

  34

  —

  22

  —

  15

  —

  100

  3

  Greenock

  81

  5

  13

  —

  6

  —

  5

  —

  38

  4

  Inverness

  58

  —

  9

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  17

  1

  Longriggend

  93

  1

  18

  1

  6

  —

  4

  —

  28

  —

  Low Moss

  66

  1

  10

  —

  4

  —

  4

  —

  41

  —

  Noranside

  27

  1

  4

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1

  27

  3

  Penninghame

  13

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  17

  1

  Perth

  198

  —

  24

  —

  16

  —

  13

  —

  98

  6

  Peterhead

  202

  7

  24

  1

  16

  3

  10

  —

  55

  7

  Polmont

  130

  —

  23

  —

  23

  —

  9

  —

  52

  2

  Shotts

  209

  10

  16

  1

  16

  1

  11

  —

  94

  5

  Shotts AU

  17

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1 Including: Caterers, Works, PEIs, Nurses, Clerks, Instructors,

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will initiate a study of the causeway/barrage proposal put forward by Mr. Peter Findlay, as an alternative to the proposed Skye bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Both the Scottish Office and the Department of Energy are already aware of Mr. Findlay's proposals. Decisions on investment in additional electricity generating capacity are for the industry to take in the light of its own assessment of present and future needs, having regard to the quantity and diversity of plant already on the system as well as the economic viability of potential new developments. I will not therefore be initiating a study into any possible alternative to the bridge. The plans for the construction of the Skye bridge will not be delayed or put in abeyance as a consequence of Mr. Findlay's proposals.

  Gartcosh
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Development Agency to discuss the future development of the former British Steel Corporation site at Gartcosh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans for a meeting on this matter. The Scottish Development Agency has sold part of the site for redevelopment, and potential uses for the remainder are being discussed with interested parties.

  Land Compensation
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many owner occupiers and how many tenants received compensation due to displacement of their houses, under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, for each year since 1979.
  494
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information, by institution, is as follows. The complement figures are as at 1 April 1990 and the vacancy profile is as at January 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 January 1991]: Information on the numbers of owner occupiers and tenants who received compensation for the compulsory purchase of their houses is not held centrally. Details are however available on the numbers of home loss payments and disturbance payments made under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973. The figures are:

  Financial year

  Number of home loss payments

  Number of disturbance payments

  1979–80

  1,645

  2,034

  1980–81

  396

  928

  1981–82

  337

  192

  1982–83

  291

  673

  1983–84

  119

  342

  1984–85

  136

  2

  1985–86

  102

  3

  1986–87

  34

  45

  1987–88

  119

  64

  1988–89

  130

  150

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the staffing complement of the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland includes an education officer or adviser; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The allocation of duties to staff is a matter for the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. The promotion of education and advice on conservation is a key task for the new body.

  Steel Industry (Lanarkshire)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been lost in the steel industry in Lanarkshire since 1974; and how many people are still employed in the steel industry in Lanarkshire.
  495
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The net loss in employment in the steel industry in Lanarkshire between 1974 and 1989 is almost 10,000 jobs. Of this figure, just under half were lost due to closures and just over half due to contractions. The provisional employment figure for mid 1989 was 5,600.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to seek the advice of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds concerning the development and implementation of environmental education in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The views of the RSPB and other voluntary environmental bodies operating in Scotland on environmental education are of considerable importance to the development of a national strategy for environmental education in Scotland. This is the task of a working group, established by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) in September 1990, which I know is currently consulting the RSPB and other such organisations in Scotland.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pre-entry Closed Shop
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers he estimates will be affected by the provisions contained in the Employment Act 1990 to outlaw the pre-entry closed shop.

  Mr. Howard
  In 1989 there were some 1·3 million people working in pre-entry closed shops. As a result of the Employment Act 1990, pre-entry closed shops can no longer be lawfully established or maintained. That can be only of benefit to all employees and to all those seeking work.

  Tourism
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on investment in tourism projects in England of the termination of section 4 grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department commissioned consultants to look into projects which had been affected by the suspension of section 4 funding in England. The main finding was that, at the time the research was carried out, most of these projects had already gone ahead.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to alter the funding of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have agreed a number of changes in the way training and enterprise councils will be funded from April 1991. These changes, which have been warmly welcomed by the TECs, will result in TECs having more freedom to deploy their resources more effectively. May I add how very much I am looking forward to launching the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC this Friday.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase employment opportunities for disabled persons.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department provides a wide range of services and schemes specifically designed to help people with disabilities. Following an extensive consultation exercise my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is presently considering how to make the Department's services more effective for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many submissions he has received in response to the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  Mr. Jackson
  By 21 January my Department had received 353 replies.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in employment in June 1979 and June 1990.

  Mr. Howard
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 25,365,000 in June 1979 and at 27,336,000 in June 1990—an increase of just under 2 million over the period.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to alter the methods used to count the number of unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  The monthly unemployment figures will continue to be based on the claimant unemployed. These figures are supplemented by annual labour force survey information on the international definition. From 1992 the latter will be available on a quarterly basis.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for each month of 1990, by district, in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Jackson
  Seasonally adjusted unemployment figures are not available below regional level. Unadjusted figures for the local authority districts in Yorkshire and Humberside are available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total numbers of people on training schemes and not registered as unemployed for the latest available date.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are about 200,000 people on employment training and 350,000 on youth training. None of these people is registered as unemployed.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently on courses under the employment training and youth training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are about 200,000 people on employment training and 350,000 on youth training. I am pleased that so many people are taking advantage of the Government's significant investment in training.

  Small Shops
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the employment and economic implications for small shops of the proposals to amend the European Commission's working time directive to make Sundays and weekends compulsory rest days.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission has told the European Parliament that in view of different traditions and practices they do not recommend that weekly rest days should be harmonised across the Community. The United Kingdom Government believe a blanket prohibition of Sunday or weekend working would be extremely damaging to the interests of consumers and employers generally.

  Anthony Coombs
  25. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will announce current progress on the operation of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Howard
  Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in England and Wales are now in place, with 46 fully operational. By summer, the full network will be fully operational, almost two years ahead of schedule.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to help the long-term unemployed back into work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Long-term unemployment is at its lowest level for eight years and the number of claimants unemployed for a year or more has fallen by 849,000 since April 1986. We are helping long-term unemployed people get back into work through an extensive range of employment and training measures. These are kept under regular review and in November I announced that next year my Department will provide up to 100,000 additional opportunities for long-term unemployed people through programmes such as job club and the job interview guarantee.

  Computer Personnel, London
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has concerning the number of unfilled vacancies for computer personnel in Greater London.

  Mr. Jackson
  In Greater London in December 1990 there was one vacancy for computer personnel, which had been notified to a jobcentre. There may be many more advertised elsewhere.

  Employment Contracts
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what statutory provisions regulate the amount of notice employers must give before changing an employee's contract of employment without any discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In general, the terms and conditions contained in a contract of employment and changes to 498
  them are a matter for the parties to the contract and are not governed by legislation. Changes to contractual terms can only be made with the consent of both parties unless the contract of employment contains a term allowing the employer to make unilateral changes. An employer may give notice to terminate an existing contract and offer employment on new terms and conditions. In that case the employee will be entitled to the minimum notice laid down by statute or contractual notice, whichever is greater.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the organisations he consulted on the effect on small and medium sized firms of the new proposals on the reimbursement of statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Forth
  Consultation on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss this issue with small firms representative organisations and I have received a number of representations from them on the proposals. I have conveyed their views to the Secretary of State for Social Security and will continue to keep in touch with him on this important issue.

  Decency Threshold
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has received from the Council of Europe to establish a decency threshold for low paid work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No such proposals have been received. Pay is a matter for negotiators to determine in the light of their particular circumstances.

  Unemployment, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary State for Employment how many people are currently registered as unemployed in the SW2 and SW9 postal districts of Lambeth.

  Mr. Jackson
  In December 1990 the numbers of unemployed claimants, not seasonally adjusted, in Lambeth SW2 and SW9 were 3,183 and 3,189 respectively.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary State for Employment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy for dealing with low pay for women in part-time employment.

  Mr. Forth
  Pay for women in part-time employment, as for other workers, is a matter for negotiators themselves to determine in the light of their particular circumstances.

  Working Conditions
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary State for Employment how he intends to improve health protection and working conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond sets out the priorities of the commission and executive for this and the next two years. These priorities will be rolled forward into the commission's plan for work for 1991–92 and beyond.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total amount of industrial tribunal applications received in England and Wales during(a) 1989 and (b) 1990; what was the number which actually proceeded to hearing; and what was the average lapse of time between receipt of application and hearing taking place.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The information requested is recorded in financial years only and is as follows:

  Registered Applications

  Year ended 31 March 1990

  31,356

  Period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990

  27,698

  Cases heard

  Year ended 31 March 1990

  9,093

  Period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990

  7,018

  The information recorded by industrial tribunals does not make it possible to calculate the average time between the receipt of applications and hearing.

  However, the following table shows how long registered applications take to come to hearing.

  Percentage of cases coming to hearing in less than:

  Year ended 31 March 1990 per cent.

  1 April 1990 to 31 December per cent.

  6 weeks

  5

  3

  8 weeks

  20

  12

  10 weeks

  38

  27

  12 weeks

  52

  44

  16 weeks

  73

  65

  20 weeks

  82

  80

  26 weeks

  92

  90

  Some two thirds of all registered applications do not come to hearing. They are withdrawn or settled prior to hearing.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of industrial tribunal applications received in Scotland during(a) 1989 and (b) 1990; what was the number which actually proceeded to hearing; and what was the average lapse of time between receipt of application and hearing taking place.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The information requested is recorded in financial years only and is as follows:

  Registered Applications

  Year ended 31 March 1990

  : — 3,341

  Period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990

  : — 3,095

  Cases heard

  Year ended 31 March 1990

  : — 1,288

  Period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990

  : — 1,218

  The information recorded by industrial tribunals does not make it possible to calculate the average time between the receipt of applications and hearing.

  However, the following table shows how long registered applications take to come to hearing.
  500

  Percentage of cases coming to hearing in less than:

  Year ended 31 March 1990 per cent.

  1 April 1990 to 31 December per cent.

  6 weeks

  1

  0

  8 weeks

  4

  13

  10 weeks

  20

  31

  12 weeks

  43

  48

  16 weeks

  72

  69

  20 weeks

  85

  83

  26 weeks

  91

  88

  Some two-thirds of all registered applications do not come to hearing. They are withdrawn or settled prior to hearing.

  Part-time and Temporary Workers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) of 20 December 1990,Official Report, column 315, what concerns the British Government had about proposals from the European Community for directives under articles 100 and 100A of the treaty designed to regulate the rights and benefits available to part-time and temporary workers.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The directives would unnecessarily increase directly the cost of employing part-time and temporary workers and they would add to the burden of regulations on employers. The Government believe that the response of employers to such increased costs and regulation would be to reduce the number of people employed and that the directives would therefore have the perverse effect of reducing total employment and increasing unemployment.

  In addition, one of these directives has been proposed by the European Commission under the wrong article of the treaty of Rome. Article 100a of the treaty explicitly excludes matters relating to the
  "rights and interests of employed persons".

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force; and how many are non-combatant.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were 303,003 service personnel employed in the armed forces as at 30 September 1990, including 12,677 non-combatants. The numbers employed in each service, together with the numbers of non-combatants are shown in the table.

  Total personnel

  Non-combatants1

  Royal Navy

  54,859

  2,462

  Royal Marines

  7,474

  Army

  151,764

  7,218

  Royal Air Force

  88,906

  2,997

  1 Medical and dental personnel, as well as chaplains, are regarded as non-combatants. Musicians have also been included in the figures for non-combatants, given that they generally have medical roles.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on which weapons being used by Iraq against allied forces were supplied by(a) the USSR, (b) Great Britain, (c) the United States of America, (d) France and (e) Germany; and whether he will consider an embargo on all arms sales from the United Kingdom and recommend the United Nations to call for an international cessation of arms sales.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of this and previous Administrations not to comment on such matters relating to other sovereign states or on specific United Kingdom exports to other countries. As to the rest of the hon. Member's question regarding possible United Kingdom and international cessation of arms sales under UN auspices, I can confirm that there are no such plans.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enumerate by nationality the merchant seamen now serving on ships chartered by Her Majesty's Government for use in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested, but I understand that British, German, Belgian, Danish, Filipino, Spanish, Dutch, Italian and Greek seamen are employed on merchant ships chartered by Her Majesty's Government for use in the Gulf.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by numbers of vessels, the countries in which merchant ships chartered by Her Majesty's Government for use in the Gulf are registered.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Country of registration

  Number of vessels

  United Kingdom

  7

  Norway

  11

  Antigua

  7

  Spain

  2

  Italy

  1

  Belgium

  1

  Denmark

  26

  Cyprus

  16

  Bahamas

  6

  Greece

  2

  St. Vincent

  1

  Honduras

  1

  Holland

  22

  Germany

  7

  Panama

  5

  Finland

  2

  Iceland

  1

  Sweden

  6

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels have been chartered by Her Majesty's Government for use in the Gulf; and how many are registered in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total number of merchant vessels chartered by Her Majesty's Government for use in the Gulf, as at 25 January 1991, is 123, of which seven were registered in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether any escape of nuclear material has occurred following the reported destruction of Iraq's nuclear facilities.
  502
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been reported that damage has been caused to the buildings housing Iraq's two operational nuclear reactors as a result of allied air activity. The design and construction of both reactors is well known; they are small reactors and their cores are surrounded by water below ground level. We assess that any significant radioactive contamination resulting from damage would be confined to the Tuwaitha nuclear research centre.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take immediate action to ensure that the public are made fully aware of the arrangements made to allow parcels to be sent to the service men in the Gulf; and if he will ensure that accurate information is given to the relevant charitable organisations and the media.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed information on forces concessionary rates for sending parcels to service personnel in the Gulf has been published through official, welfare and media channels.

  Within BAOR, from where the majority of personnel deployed, the information has been publicised through forces radio, television and newspapers as well as information sheets at forces post offices and through discussions with wives' clubs.

  Within the United Kingdom, similar information has been provided through unit families officers and welfare services, Post Office posters, TV statements and press releases by both the royal mail and the Ministry of Defence. A further MOD press release is in hand. In addition a royal mail parcelforce hotline has been established specifically to deal with inquiries from members of the public.

  Homosexuality (Services)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women in the year 1990 were (i) administratively discharged and (ii) dismissed from the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force as a result of their homosexuality or homosexual behaviour; of those discharged or dismissed, how many faced (x) no formal charges, (y) summary discipline and (z) courts martial; how many of those who faced summary discipline or courts martial were (1) fined, and (2) sentenced to custodial imprisonment; and what were the fines and lengths of imprisonment imposed in each individual case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Browning Automatic Pistol
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace the standard issue Browning automatic pistol used by British forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to replace the standard Browning automatic pistol on general issue to British forces.

  HMS Sandpiper and HMS Petrel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to dispose of HMS Sandpiper and HMS Petrel.
  503
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Sandpiper and HMS Petrel were paid off on 31 December 1990. No decision has yet been made concerning their final disposal.

  Tornados
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current replacement cost for the total number of Tornado planes lost in the Gulf both during hostilities and during training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The question of replacing Tornados lost so far will be considered in the light of total losses sustained in the Gulf.

  Desert Boots
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when British soldiers were first deployed to the Gulf; when appropriate desert boots were supplied to British soldiers; when all soldiers in the Gulf requiring desert boots will be supplied with them; where the desert boots now being supplied to British forces were made; and at what total cost of manufacture and supply;

  (2) what complaints he has received from British forces in the Gulf about their boots issued at the time of deployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The first significant deployment of ground troops to the Gulf followed my right hon. Friend's announcement on 14 September 1990. A report from 7 Armoured Brigade at the end of October 1990 indicated that some individuals were experiencing discomfort with their combat boots because of the heat and steps were at once taken to procure desert boots. Following trials, the first orders were placed in November 504
  1990. Issues of desert boots have already been made and it is intended that all troops requiring desert combat boots will have at least one pair by mid-March. All desert boots for our forces have been ordered from United Kingdom manufacturers. The cost of these boots is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  RN Detention Quarters
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is proposed to transfer the functions of the Royal Navy detention quarters at Portsmouth to the combined Army and Royal Air Force facilities in Colchester.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future of the Royal Navy detention quarters at Portsmouth is under consideration, but no decisions have yet been made.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to ensure that his officials and scientific advisers are using the most up-to-date medical and scientific knowledge to study the relationship between radiation exposure and subsequent illness for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: The National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund are accepted authorities in the fields of radiological protection and epidemiology. The methodology they used in the first test veterans study, which will also be used for the follow-up study, was subject to review by other experts in the field of epidemiology and no criticism was made by them.

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

Lord White of Hull
Sir Vincent Gordon Lindsay White, KBE, having been created Baron White of Hull, of Hull in the County of Humberside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hanson and the Lord King of Wartnaby.
Lord Amwell —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Drink-Driving
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional proposals they have to deal with drink-driving.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Road Traffic Bill at present before Parliament provides tough new penalties for drink-drivers who kill and for an experiment in the use of rehabilitation courses. We shall build on the success of the Christmas campaign with further publicity campaigns against drinking and driving.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is welcome news. However, as more than 800 people are killed and 22,000 injured on the roads every year in road accidents involving drink-drivers, will the Government recognise that the most important step to be taken now is to increase the perception of being caught? Is the Minister further aware that the most effective way of doing so, which can be seen in a number of other countries, is to give the police the power to carry out roadside breath tests? That will ensure that the testing is strictly random. Will the Government at least consider that on a trial basis?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we believe that existing police powers to stop and test drivers are sufficient. The Christmas campaign showed that they are being extensively used by the police. Over the Christmas period 15 per cent. more tests took place, with the result that the number of drivers over the limit was 10 per cent. less than last year.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, with regard to the breathalyser keeping people within limits, why is it not possible to allow people facilities for testing themselves before they get into the driving seat? Would that not achieve the same objective?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is nothing to stop people testing themselves if they purchase the testing equipment which I understand is on the
540
market. However, we do not wish to encourage that because we believe that drinking and driving should not go together.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not at present a disparity over the way in which the police carry out their powers in relation to breath testing in different parts of the country? That disparity is undesirable but would not the proposal advanced by my noble friend Lord Dormand remove it? Further, does not the experience in other countries where random breath testing has taken place give every indication that it would work in this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have no doubt that we shall come to random breath testing when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House. Therefore, I do not wish to pre-empt too much the discussions that may then take place. The issue has been raised in another place and I have no doubt that it will be raised again. As for statistical comparisons, the facts from New South Wales, for example, where random breath testing operates, show that our approach in seeking to change public attitudes has been more successful in reducing drinking and driving.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are still happy with the level of alcohol in the blood permitted to drivers? Does the present situation prompt the Government to think that a lower level might be more appropriate, or the prohibition of drinking and driving altogether?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the present limit is the level at which, for most drivers, the chances of being involved in an accident start to rise sharply. Priority must therefore continue to be given to enforcement of the present limits. We consider it more productive to work on attitudes towards drinking and driving than to reduce the limit.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us believe that those who drive badly at 8 o'clock in the morning cannot be drunk? Will he consider introducing a penalty for bad or inconsiderate drivers who give no indication when turning? They should be penalised, possibly more than those who are drunk.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are already a number of offences of bad and dangerous driving in the law. They are also the subject of a Bill which will come to your Lordships' House. I point out to the noble Baroness that it is quite possible to be drunk at 8 o'clock in the morning.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, does the noble Lord agree that at least five out of six road fatalities are caused by perfectly sober drivers who drive too fast, overtake on blind bends, drive without lights in misty conditions, fail to maintain their vehicles, take tranquillizers or antihistamines, or who have been up all night at a party drinking nothing

541
stronger than orange juice? Is it not time that we abandoned the notion that alcohol is the root of all evil?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the figures to confirm the five fatalities out of six. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, drink-driving kills about 800 people each year. It is the biggest single cause of accident casualties. Nevertheless, I am pleased to report to the House that the number has halved over the past 10 years.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not a fact that over the Christmas period the police in many areas were carrying out random testing? Is it not unfair to expect the police to invent an excuse for stopping a motorist when he is challenged? Would it not be better to give them the power to carry out random tests?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said earlier, we believe that the existing police powers to stop and test drivers are sufficient.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is dangerous for people to drive with one hand on the wheel with the other holding a portable telephone?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a different Question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that under the present system the police tend on occasions—perhaps in a minority of cases—to indulge in pretexts in order to stop drivers and breathalyse them? Is that not totally unsatisfactory?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think it is. I quoted the figures earlier. It seems to have had reasonably good results.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no one welcomes more than I the slight improvement over the Christmas and new year holiday? However, the improvement was tiny and patchy throughout the country, as the Minister probably knows. Will he deal with the main thrust of my Question, that we should now increase the perception of being caught? Unless we have strictly random testing on roads I must say that the annual slaughter of 800 people, to say nothing of all the injuries, will continue for a long time yet.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we should certainly increase the perception that it is bad to drink and drive. We have been reasonably successful in doing that as can be seen from the figures I quoted earlier. The deaths caused by drinking and dangerous driving have halved over the past 10 years. However, I am the first to admit that we have further to go.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not an aimed shot rather more effective than one vaguely shot into the ground? Does that not dispose of the case for random testing?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point. However, I repeat that we shall have ample opportunity to debate the issue in time to come.

Long-stay Mental Patients: Care
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards long-stay mental hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government recognise that there continue to be some mentally ill people who require long-term in-patient care and supervision. Facilities for them will increasingly be provided in small hospitals or psychiatric units with district general hospitals, as part of the wider range of district-based mental health services.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Will she also take the long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped into consideration in the future? Does the Minister agree that it is important to consider the severely multi-handicapped people who are kept in the long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped?
Does she accept that among those patients are some who suffer from sensory handicap, including the blind and deaf who receive no help at present with their handicaps? If there are to be smaller hostels or similar places, the Government should seek the co-operation of people who are experienced in dealing with physical as well as mental handicaps? In other words, will the Government seek the co-operation of experts in blindness and deafness?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned a particular problem in the needs of long-stay patients. The basic training of all nurses offers an introduction to the needs of sensorially deprived people. I also understand that blindness does not present the same problems as deafness, as blind people can communicate verbally. However, there are three specialist units within the National Health Service which provide psychiatric services for the deaf. The general approach for long-stay patients is that a consultant, backed up by a multidisciplinary team, reviews the needs of each patient, including the special needs of those who are mentally ill but also have additional handicaps.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend not concerned that the removal of 25,000 mental illness hospital beds in the past two years in England may produce more cases than can be taken on effectively by the new community care system which is due to start in April?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the run-down and closure of hospitals should not proceed faster than the build-up of alternative local services. Our guidance to health authorities makes that absolutely clear. There is also a formal consultation procedure which district health authorities will follow when they are considering the closure of hospital buildings. It is true that since 1975, when the community care approach began, the number of beds available in specialist mental hospitals has decreased by more than 50 per

543
cent. and a number of large mental hospitals have been closed. In 1990 one hospital was closed and 32 hospitals are planned for closure by 1996, but that is always subject to suitable alternative provision being made.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the replies given by the Minister both in her original Answer and to supplementary questions, but I hope she will now give us an assurance that the progress on the discharge of mental patients from long-stay hospitals will be linked with the provision of residential and day-care services in the community. Further, will the Minister elaborate on her remarks made to me on 17th January in the course of replying to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when she said that funds of £75 million per annum for local authorities' requirements in this area would come from the taxpayer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the community care White Paper and in our ongoing discussions on the subject during the passage of last year's Bill, the Government emphasised that the number of mental illness beds should be reduced only as a consequence of the development of new services. We have made it clear that Ministers will not approve the closure of any mental hospital unless it can be demonstrated that an adequate alternative has been developed. A number of special funding initiatives have been established in this respect.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of my question in relation to the funding of the £75 million required by local authorities to cover the provision I was discussing?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is another question. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the funding of the special initiatives that I mentioned includes a supplementary credit approval of £10 million for 1991–92 which was announced in the Autumn Statement on 8th November.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in the Epsom area where my wife and I have lived for many years there are several mental hospitals in a large cluster. Is my noble friend aware that there is much concern about the future of these clustered hospitals and also about the community care available to the patients of the hospitals? When will a decision be taken on the future of those hospitals? I declare an interest as the president of the association of friends of one of the hospitals.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the specific information he has asked for. However, I refer back to a reply that I gave earlier when I said that some 30 hospitals are due to close by 1996.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that too many people in our community who have suffered mental breakdowns cannot obtain access to mental health institutions or to mental health hospitals and finish up in prison? They are discharged back into the community after perhaps a weekend spent in prison. Is not that
544
situation quite disastrous? Is it not time that we tackled it seriously? There are too many people in prison who should never have been sent there and who should be given more suitable provision.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my honourable friend in another place has already made an announcement on this subject. He has announced the commencement of a review, the purpose of which is to determine whether changes are needed in the current level, pattern or operation of services and how such changes might be promoted with specific reference to prison conditions. Regular progress reports will be made to Ministers.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have spent 15 minutes on two Questions. Your Lordships' Procedure Committee has recommended that Question Time should last for 20 minutes as far as is possible. I hope we can move on to the next Question now.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of the questions that she has answered—
Lord Denham: My Lords, the request that I have just made is usually accepted. I hope that we can move on to the next Question.

SERPS: Cost of Opting Out
3.6 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the cost to the National Insurance Fund over the period 1988–93 of the special incentive to contributors to opt out of the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government Actuary estimates that the revenue forgone by the National Insurance Fund in respect of the 2 per cent. incentive for the period 1988–93 will be £3.7 billion. This is on the assumption that by the end of 1990–91 the number of people with personal pensions reaches 4.5 million and the number of members of newly contracted-out occupational pension schemes will be 1 million and that these figures remain unchanged through to 1992–93.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it not deplorable that the Government, in their desire to damage the state insurance scheme, have expended nearly £4 billion of public money in bribing contributors to contract out? Many of the latter seem likely to contract in again.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject what the noble Lord has said. The Government's incentive was a perfectly valid one to bring forward when we were introducing new proposals in the pensions field. The success of the policy is shown by the fact that some 4.2 million people have already taken out personal pensions. As I have said on earlier occasions, the noble Lord might congratulate the Government on that achievement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those who opt out opt in to other schemes which are on the whole more generous? As a result there is a substantial increase in savings and investment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. It gives me great delight to agree with everything he says, which makes a refreshing change.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Will he tell the House what the Government's attitude is to the future of the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme as they have bribed people to opt out of it and have substantially worsened it in social security legislation? I am particularly interested in the Government's attitude in view of a statement by a former Secretary of State earlier this week, who said that the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme should disappear altogether. What are the Government's intentions for the scheme for the future?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I have already said, we have not bribed people to opt out of the scheme. We produced an incentive in much the same way as the government which the noble Baroness supported did in 1975. We have produced an incentive that allows people to widen their choice of pensions. As I have said, some 4.2 million people have taken up that choice. I cannot of course speak for my right honourable or honourable friends in another place who might put forward their own proposals on SERPS even though they are not members of the Government.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do the Government now propose to legislate further? How will they get out of the muddle which they have created?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no muddle. As the noble Lord knows, the rebate will be reconsidered with the quinquennial review by the end of April 1992. A new quinquennial review will come into effect from April 1993 and the incentive will then be phased out.

Pentachlorophenols
3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will prohibit the importation of substances containing the fungicides pentachlorophenols, which are difficult to remove and which pollute industrial effluents.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government do not believe that an import ban would be appropriate. In some cases there is no alternative to the use of pentachlorophenols.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I understand that there are difficulties. Is he aware that finishers in the British textile industry cannot extract PCPs because the technology is not yet available, but they are subject to
546
prosecution over their effluents although other EC countries are proposing a moratorium of several years for their industries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, certain European governments, including West Germany and the Netherlands, have banned PCPs. However, there is an existing directive which refers to the aquatic environment and a further directive is proposed for 1992 which includes four derogations to reflect some of the problems that exist.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government, in anticipation of a possible future ban on pentachlorophenols, will consider suggesting to the food industry that greater use is made of plastic rather than wooden pallets?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, to some extent there is a dichotomy. Perhaps I may give another example—historic and listed buildings. PCPs are seen as the only effective means of controlling dry rot. Alternatives existed until last year when the Government banned TBTOs, so there is now no alternative to PCPs. As a result the Government and other groups have requested the Commission to provide derogations from future regulations.
It is also true that plastics consume oil-based products. Do we ban the use of new timber products? To take the noble Lord's example further, do we ban the use of all new timber which is treated with PCPs in the construction of new homes?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not a fallacy to say that there is no alternative to a substance which the human race did without for untold centuries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Earl is entirely correct. However, I have it on the best authority of the Building Research Establishment that alternatives are being tested but that today there is no proven alternative. The Government believe that it is more prudent to allow the continued, very restricted use of PCPs in certain circumstances until a proven alternative is available.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the issue of PCPs was investigated by Sub-Committee F of this House your Lordships' Select Committee came to the conclusion that the derogation sought by the Government should not be accepted because, according to the evidence of Department of the Environment witnesses, there were several alternatives for the treatment of dry rot, one of which was the traditional treatment of providing proper ventilation and keeping damp away from buildings and structures susceptible to dry rot?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am, as always, grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, I am sure that there are many residents of listed buildings who would complain—particularly if they were employees—if the proper ventilation as prescribed by the Department of the Environment were used. I am also well aware that bats are victims of PCPs and are unable to read the labelling which is provided for their protection! Until

547
we have proven alternative chemical options, it would be unrealistic to require the protection of old buildings from dry rot without the continued use of PCPs.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill will be taken.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
3.14 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Planning obligations]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 19, line 45, after ("(a)") insert ("subject to any agreement to the contrary").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 78 I understand that the Committee will also be considering Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 in my name, Amendment No. 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, and the government Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 88 and 90.
Amendment No. 78 is intended to make the operation of planning obligations more flexible. The amendment is drafted to apply to planning agreements but the principle applies equally to unilateral undertakings.
Subsection (3) of new Section 106 would make the planning obligation enforceable against the person entering the obligation and any person deriving title from that person. If one takes the case of a freeholder who has entered into a planning obligation, he may grant a lease of the development site to a developer and convey away the freehold reversion to an investment company. Under the terms of the Act as amended the planning obligation would be enforceable against all three of those people to a greater or lesser extent.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for the agreement with the planning authority to release one or more of the persons who might otherwise be liable from liability for the matters which are never likely to concern them.
Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84 relate to the proposed new Section 106A of the 1990 Act which provides for planning obligations to be modified or
548
discharged by agreement between a person against whom the obligation is enforceable and the planning authority. In that respect Section 106A replaces the inappropriate procedure of application to lands tribunals by which it was found possible to have some planning agreements discharged in the past.
The proposed new section is to be welcomed as an aid to flexibility, which leads to efficient planning. It is welcomed by the Law Society and other interested organisations. However, the Bill would provide that the procedures cannot be exercised for five years after the planning obligation is entered into or after such greater or smaller number of years as regulations may prescribe.
I can see no reason of principle why the hands of developers and planning authorities should be tied by any such time limit. The effect of Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 is to delete the time limit from the Bill altogether. The effect of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, is to allow planning obligations to be varied but only when the terms of the original agreement so provide. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is no great reason of principle why Amendment No. 84 should be preferred to the more flexible amendments, Nos. 81 and 83, which I propose or why there should be a time limit imposed by the statute to cover the period during which planning agreements may not be modified or discharged. I submit that it can hardly matter how long ago an obligation was entered into. The question at any time must be whether it is still appropriate. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Ross of Newport: The Committee has many amendments to discuss and I shall therefore be brief. I welcome the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I agree that it is important to have more flexibility in obligations than in conditions to a permission. All that is sought is to try to achieve that aim by inserting the words after "prescribed" into this clause which covers Section 336 of the 1990 Act.
Baroness Blatch: In responding to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 88 and 90 which appear on the Marshalled List under my name. Amendment No. 78, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, would allow the parties to a planning obligation to agree between them that any burdens on the developer, as original covenantor, should be extinguished once he disposes of his interest in the land. However, as we have drafted the new Section 106, this amendment is unnecessary since subsection (2) already allows obligations to be entered into with conditions.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 are linked. They would, as the noble Lord said, enable a local planning authority to discharge or modify a planning obligation at any time without waiting for the five-year period that we have provided to elapse. Because the provisions of new Section 106A largely carry through to new Section 106B, the Secretary of State would at appeal also be able to agree to modification or discharge at any time.
The Government quite deliberately concluded that there should be an interval between an obligation

549
being entered into and the right to apply for its discharge or modification. The whole basis of our policy is that the grounds for such discharge or modification should be that the obligation no longer serves a useful purpose; we thought that a time interval was entirely consistent with these limited grounds of appeal. Nothing in these provisions would prevent the local planning authority discharging an obligation by deed at any time. We shall consider clarifying this point on the face of the Bill by an amendment at a later stage in its passage.
I now turn to Amendment No. 84. While I understand the reasoning that has led to this amendment being proposed by the noble Lord, I hope that he will not press it. I believe that it is mistaken in what it seeks to achieve.
Notwithstanding its brevity, the amendment is of some substance. New Section 106A provides that an application for modification or discharge of a planning obligation may be made after a period of five years has elapsed since it was entered into or such other period as may be prescribed by regulations. This amendment would require instead that the period should be prescribed in the obligation itself.
I suggest that this amendment is mistaken for three reasons. First, I think it is largely redundant because under new Section 106 (2)(b) obligations may be created for a limited period only. Secondly, the amendment would create inconsistency and confusion, with rights of application and appeal arising after varying periods. Thirdly, there would be scope for abuse, with developers seeking to minimise and local authorities seeking to maximise the period concerned.
Amendment No. 85 enables an authority, on application, to discharge a planning obligation which no longer serves a useful purpose. Thus an authority to which application is made under new Section 106A(1) for a planning obligation to be modified or discharged has three options: to determine that the obligation shall continue to have effect without modification, or to discharge it, or to modify it.
Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 establish a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a local planning authority which fails to give notice of its determination of an application to discharge or modify a planning obligation. The amendments make it clear that there is a right of appeal against a deemed refusal of the application. I believe these amendments give greater certainty to an applicant, who could otherwise be left in limbo by an authority which chose to determine his application but then failed to give notice of its decision.
Amendment No. 90 fulfils the pledge that I made during the Second Reading debate that the Government would bring forward an amendment to enable the Crown to enter into planning obligations when disposing of its land, enforceable against someone who later acquires a private interest in that land. That provision parallels Section 299 of the 1990 Act which enables the Crown to dispose of its interest in land with the benefit of planning permission. It will enable the Crown, when disposing of its land in this
550
way, to restrict its future use to protect its own interests or to meet a planning objective of the local authority—or in fact both. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a useful reform. The amendment also ensures that the local planning authority may not enforce a planning obligation against land which for the time being is Crown land without the consent of the "appropriate authority".
With the explanation that I have given I hope that the Committee will not press Amendments Nos. 78, 91, 83 and 84 and that Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 88 and 90 will be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had thought that in dealing with this group I should speak mainly to Amendment No. 90. I was taken aback by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to the effect that in moving Amendment No. 84, which seemed reasonable to us, he would also be supporting Amendments Nos. 81 and 83, which are certainly not reasonable and certainly we should not accept and agree very strongly with the Government's arguments.
I suggest that the advantage of Amendment No. 84, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is that it removes the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe a general period during which appeals could not be made. I appreciate the point made by the Minister; namely, that it is undesirable to have too many different periods in which appeals can or cannot be made. But the power given to the Secretary of State by this section as drafted is rather general and it would be desirable if it were amended in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
However, the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 seem to us to be thoroughly undesirable, very much for the reasons given by the Minister; namely, that if one enters into a planning obligation, it seems to cast doubt on its value if those who have entered into it can immediately say that they want it removed or modified. In the Minister's speech she made the point that there should be a reasonable time interval, which seems to me to be entirely just. I hope that the Committee will not press the amendments because in such circumstances we should be obliged to support the Government.
I turn to Amendment No. 90. We are in favour of the principle of extending these obligations to Crown land. We welcome the offer that was made in the consultation paper in 1989 that government departments should be able to enter into such agreements. However, the wording of Amendment No. 90 leaves something to be desired. For most planning obligations there are three ways in which enforcement can be achieved: by an injunction, by specific performance and by provision for damages. But in subparagraph (aa) (i) of Amendment No. 90 the opportunity for an injunction is specifically removed. It may well be that there is a legal —I might even say legalistic—argument that it is difficult for the Crown to obtain an injunction against itself. I do not know what lawyers would say about such a proposition.

551
However, I suggest to the Committee that some way must be found to ensure that the obligations with respect to Crown land are as strong as they are with respect to other land and other applications. If one cannot proceed by way of an injunction, some other way must be found. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that she understands that this matter deserves further consideration.
Another problem with Amendment No. 90 is the way in which it restricts the exercise of the power to enter land in relation to Crown land. That provision is found in Section 299A(3) (b) (toward the bottom of page 3 of the Marshalled List). Surely again the power to enter should be as strong for Crown land as it is for other land. If there are reasons of national security to be considered, then they should be spelt out in the amendment. That restriction should be far more specific and limited than it is in the present wording of the amendment.
So although the principle behind this very important Amendment No. 90 is a good one, there are defects which we should like to see remedied before the Bill takes its final form.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is an objection to the grant of an injunction against the Crown. In that case a declaration would ordinarily be wholly sufficient.
Lord Roskill: I have not checked but I believe that the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 prevents the grant of an injunction against the Crown. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, one overcomes the difficulty by providing for a declaration against the Crown. Bearing in mind all the difficulties that used to arise before the Crown Proceedings Act was passed by the Attlee Government, the then Government insisted that there should not be jurisdiction in the courts to grant injunctions against the Crown. That is my recollection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad to have provoked the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord into debate on the matter. Perhaps in response the Minister will say whether there is any reason why a declaration should not be provided for instead of an injunction.
Baroness Blatch: I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord opposite. A number of technical points have been raised. I hope that the amendment and the thrust behind it will be accepted by the Committee. I shall ensure that we take the advice of counsel about the points raised during the course of our discussion on Amendment No. 90.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish to respond to the Minister's comments on Section 82 and my Amendment No. 84. I take on board the point that the provision might lead to an unacceptable increase in the number of applications for modifications. It is all very complicated, but it has been suggested that the increase could be dealt with under Section 70 of the 1990 Act. I did not wish to give the impression when I followed the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that he
552
was necessarily supporting what I was putting forward or that I was supporting what he was putting forward. He gave the Committee a description of the meaning of Amendment No. 84. I wished to curtail the discussions because we shall be here until a very late hour.
Baroness Blatch: I stand by the explanation that I gave of Amendment No. 84. However, I shall go back and seek advice on the point that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Coleraine: I do not propose to press any of the amendments standing in my name. Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 merely provide that there should be no hidebound time limit on applications to vary, modify or discharge planning obligations. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, believes that the provision is a licence for anyone who has entered into a planning agreement immediately and without planning ground to apply for it to be discharged or modified he is slightly over-exaggerating the eggs in his omelette.
I go a long way in supporting Amendment No. 84 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. It goes part way towards my amendment except for the fact that allowing the time limits to be prescribed in agreements would be an invitation to planning authorities to seek to impose their planning agreements over a long period—perhaps 99 years. If one allows the parties to planning agreements to fix their own limit of time during which the agreement must be sacrosanct it would be right to set down in statute an overall limit prescribing the maximum length of time during which a planning agreement shall be inviolate.
I was pleased to hear from my noble friend that Amendment No. 78 is unnecessary. I hope that it is unnecessary and that her comments apply as much to obligations under unilateral undertakings as they do under planning agreements. I suspect that to be the case. I shall read what she has said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("in whose area the land is") and insert ("by whom the obligation is enforceable").
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("in whose area the land is") and insert ("so identified").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 20, line 43, after ("authority") insert ("by whom the obligation is enforceable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 21, line 13, leave out ("have effect subject to the modifications specified in the application") and insert ("be discharged").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 21, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 22 and insert:
("(8) The decision of a local planning authority under this section shall be final, subject to the provisions under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land).").
The noble Lord said: This is a thoroughly conservative amendment in the best sense of the word. In other words, we are seeking to preserve a provision in existing legislation which appears to be thoroughly desirable; namely, that under the Law of Property Act 1925 a proposal to allow planning obligations to be modified or discharged on appeal applies to the Lands Tribunal. It applies only where agreement is reached with the local planning authority or on application to the Lands Tribunal.
The Bill proposes that there should be an appeal to the Secretary of State. We believe that such an appeal should take place only if there is a failure on the part of the local planning authority to determine an application for modification or discharge of a planning obligation. In all other circumstances, since an obligation has or should have been entered into by agreement between the local planning authority and the applicant, the local authority's consent should be required on any modification or discharge. That decision should be final. We seek to preserve the existing situation and not to bring into play the modifications proposed by the Bill.
I must explain to Members of the Committee who were not present in the Chamber 10 days ago at 11 o'clock, that the amendment is put forward in the context of our general opposition to the proposal that planning obligations can exist without the consent of the local planning authority. We still take the view that there should be planning agreement between applicants and the local planning authority rather than unilateral undertakings made by applicants and agreed to on appeal by the Secretary of State. However, we must return to that matter on Report because it is a broader issue into which it is inappropriate to enter at length at this stage. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 87 and 88.
Lord Renton: It is not merely because I am a Conservative that I support the amendment. I must disclose that in respect of later amendments I shall suggest that the decision of the local planning authority should not be found. However, in the existing circumstances relating to planning agreements it is only right that there should be a degree of finality and certainty. Therefore, the amendment is worthy of my noble friend's consideration.
I am glad to see that in the proviso relating to Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 the power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants will be retained. That is most important because, whatever degree of finality is given to the local planning authority in such matters, there must be a degree of flexibility with regard to restrictive covenants which
554
may cease to be necessary. Therefore, subject to what my noble friend may say, I support the amendment. I should add that it commends itself to the Association of District Councils and I understand also to the CPRE.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will not reject it. If she is uncertain, then I hope that she will think about it and return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 86, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would remove the provisions for an appeal to the Secretary of State and restore the right to apply to the Lands Tribunal under Section 84 of the 1925 Act, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out. Such applications may only lie on the ground of legal obsolescence and Section 84 encompasses restrictive covenants only.
The Government's intentions, embodied in Clause 12, are to provide for appeals on the grounds that an obligation no longer serves a useful purpose and that such appeals should lie in relation to positive as well as restrictive covenants. Our proposals were widely supported when we consulted about them, and we see this as a wrecking amendment.
In response to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Renton, it is worth noting that the proposal to provide for modification and discharge of planning obligations was supported by 135 respondents; it was opposed by 40; and 54 made no comment. As has been mentioned, the proposal was opposed by the local authority associations except for the ADC and the Law Society. Support in principle came from the RIBA, the RICS, the RTPI, the Local Government and Planning Bar Association, the CBI and the house-builders federation. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The weight of opinion which the Minister expressed must carry us to a certain extent. We must be aware that even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly said, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is in favour of the amendment, there is substantial disagreement about what we are trying to achieve with the amendment.
With the leave of the Committee, I shall take away the amendment and think about it again. I may return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 21, line 41, leave out ("determine an application within a period prescribed under") and insert ("give notice as mentioned in").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 21, line 45, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purposes of an appeal under subsection (1) (a), it shall be assumed that the authority have determined that the planning obligation shall continue to have effect without modification.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 22, line 12, at end insert:
("Register of planning obligations.
106C.—(1) Every district planning authority and the council of every metropolitan district or London borough shall keep, in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order, a register containing such information as may be so prescribed with respect to planning obligations, their modification or discharge.
(2) A development order may make provision—

(a) for the entry relating to any planning obligation, and everything relating to any such obligation, to be removed from the register in such circumstances as may be specified in the order; and

(b) for requiring a county planning authority to supply to a district planning authority such information as may be so specified with regard to planning obligations enforceable by the county planning authority.

(3) Every register kept under this section shall be available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
(4) A local planning authority shall not confirm any planning obligation before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date that it was placed on the register under subsection (1); and shall take into account any representation relating to the planning obligation received in the 21 day period.").
The noble Lord said: Although the amendment is a fairly lengthy one, I intend to be brief. The amendment would establish a register of planning obligations entered into under the new Sections 106 to 106B. Since planning controls are exercised in the public interest, the public should be able to find out details about obligations which affect them. Furthermore, the authorities should consider such public comments on proposed obligations before they confirm them.
I suspect that in reply the Government may say that that would be covered by the registration of the obligation as a land charge. However, information about land charges is not readily available to the general public. One has to go to some considerable trouble to find it. The Government should take this matter on board and I hope that they will treat my amendment sympathetically. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It is true that I have some sympathy for the objectives of the noble Lord's Amendment No. 89, which would create a register of planning obligations for inspection by the public. But again, I do not think such a separate register is necessary. It would be more logical to extend the existing planning register which local planning authorities must keep under Section 69 of the 1990 Act. The main problem I see with that is that not all planning obligations are associated with a grant of planning permission; some are merely private agreements between a landowner and the local planning authority.
More importantly, however, new Section 106(9) provides that all planning obligations shall be local land charges, recorded on the local land charges register. As many Members of the Committee will know, under Section 8 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 any member of the public has a right of access to that register already. Local land charges registers are widely known. They are the registers in which we, or
556
our solicitors, conduct a search if we are purchasing property. The registers are maintained by every London borough or district council. A local land charges register contains a description of the charge, including a reference to the relevant statutory provision. It will also say where relevant documents may be inspected. Those may be documents, maps or plans, without which the nature and effect of the charge cannot be readily understood. From what I have said, the Committee will conclude that I think the right of public access is already covered.
I am perplexed by the Section 106C(4) in the amendment. That suggests that a planning obligation shall be registered but not confirmed by the local planning authority until a 21-day period has elapsed, during which it shall take account of any representation received. This would be an odd provision. It does not sit well with provision for entering into obligations by undertaking, which would not require the agreement or confirmation of the local planning authority.
Neither does it fit in with obligations entered into by agreement. Once the parties have entered into an obligation by agreement, it is hard to see what inviting representations would achieve or how account could be taken of them. Once the obligation was in being, the local planning authority could not alter it without the consent of the other party. There is certainly no provision for an obligation needing to be confirmed. The principle of local authorities keeping the public informed about such obligations is a good one; but they cannot simply change their terms in response to representations received; and to think that they could do so would create entirely false expectations. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to my feet out of some degree of ignorance about the local land register. I hope that the Committee will forgive me and I hope that I am not wasting its time. I have looked into the availability of the local land register. It is true that that became available for the first time either earlier this month or last month. However, it is available in a most inconvenient form. It is not true that the register is held by each local authority. It is held at the offices of the land registry; for example, the registers of some London boroughs are held in Harrow, in Croydon and some at quite a distance outside London. They are by no means as accessible as they should be. The forms to be filled in in order to obtain information from the register, other than when there is an interest of the person making the inquiry —in other words, the general access which is talked about —are very complicated. It has almost become a professional business, as though it were confined to solicitors.
I wonder whether the availability of the local land charges register is an adequate answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, addresses a point about the mechanics of rather than rights to access. I hope that he is not challenging what I said about the right to see the registers. It is possible for me to take back to the department a request that

557
the registers should be made more widely available or access made easier to them. However, rights of access are embodied in the law.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly was not accusing the Minister of misleading the Committee. However, a right of access is no use unless it is possible for that to be enforced. My own anxiety is that because of the way in which the land registry has organised itself and the way in which it has grudgingly allowed public access, it is not as convenient as it should be. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will take back this matter for further consideration.
Baroness Blatch: It would not be in my mind to take back the amendment for further consideration. I shall be happy to take back to my department the issue of easier access to the existing register. However, I could not reconsider the issue of the creation of a new register.
Lord Ross of Newport: This has been a helpful debate and I am very grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and for the undertaking which I accept is nothing to do with my amendment. I can think of problems regarding access; for example, where I used to live one planning authority represented three councils. I can see that people may go to the wrong offices in the first place. It should be well advertised as to exactly where the register can be inspected. However, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 22, line 12, at end insert:
("(2) In section 296(2) of that Act (exercise of powers in relation to Crown land) after "authority-" there is inserted—
"(aa) in relation to land which for the time being is Crown land—

(i) a planning obligation shall not be enforced by injunction; and

(ii) the power to enter land conferred by section 106(5) shall not be exercised;".

(3) After section 299 of that Act there is inserted—
"Crown planning obligations.
299A.—(1) The appropriate authority in relation to any Crown interest or Duchy interest in land in the area of a local planning authority may enter into a planning obligation enforceable by the relevant planning authority against any person with a subsequent private interest deriving from the Crown interest or the Duchy interest, to the extent of his derivative interest.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a private interest is a subsequent private interest if it is acquired after the planning obligation is entered into.
(3) The consent of the appropriate authority must be obtained to—

(a) the enforcement by injunction of a planning obligation against a person in respect of land which is Crown land; and

(b) the exercise, in relation to Crown land, of the power to enter land conferred by section 106(5) (as applied by subsection (4)).

(4) Subsections (2) and (4) to (9) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to an obligation entered into under that section.
(5) In this section—
558

(a) "a planning obligation" means an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1); and

(b) "the relevant planning authority" means the authority identified in accordance with section 106(7) (d) (as applied by subsection (4))."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Coleraine: I should like to raise with my noble friend one or two anxieties which have been expressed to me by the Law Society since we last dealt with Clause 12. They concern the new concept of unilateral undertaking and how it fits into the new clause. It presents a number of problems. I gave my noble friend some notice, though not a great deal, that I wished to raise these matters. If she is not able to reply to them this afternoon I hope that she will do so before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
The first point relates to drafting, and arises from the fact that unilateral undertakings are novel forms of planning obligations. Judging from the way they were received with such distaste 10 days ago and late at night by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh,—to which he referred this afternoon—they form a significant part of the Bill. Therefore I must ask why the parliamentary draftsman has been so secretive regarding the way in which he has incorporated them into the Bill, leaving them to be understood from the catch-all words, "or otherwise" in the phrase, "by agreement or otherwise" in line 17 at page 19. That is unnecessarily secretive drafting. I hope that my noble friend will propose something better at the next stage. We have been using the expression, "unilateral undertaking" and that expression, therefore, should be introduced into the Bill.
That is a small drafting point. I hope I will persuade my noble friend that other amendments are needed which would render the clause unnecessary. That would enable us to keep separate the concepts of planning agreement and unilateral undertaking, and to dispense with the awkward and clumsy "planning obligation" which does not sit well either with what practitioners are used to or, in my opinion, with the other subsections of the clause.
To combine planning agreements and unilateral undertakings together as planning obligations is unfortunate. It obscures the fact that planning agreements and unilateral undertakings are quite separate beasts. The planning agreement forms part of the normal decision-making process of the planning authority, whereas the unilateral undertaking is properly treated as part of the appeal procedures. I favour separate treatment for the two types of obligation, or at least that the unilateral undertaking be taken away from the planning agreement and inserted later as a come-back for the applicant should he fail to obtain planning agreement. To put the two together is misleading to those who deal with this kind of legislation and is not appropriate to that which is being provided. If one did that one could keep the old concept of planning agreements. I know that the Law Society and practitioners generally would favour that course.

559
Other points that occur to me are that in bringing both planning agreements and undertakings together in one clause and calling them planning obligations we are losing several aspects of the old Section 106, which I believe it is desirable to retain. Planning obligations under the new section will be enforceable only by planning authorities. That certainly seems to be the case with unilateral undertakings. However, I am advised that planning agreements in some cases impose obligations on planning authorities. I believe it would be right not to restrict planning agreements in future so that they can only be enforced by the planning authority; but that the matter should be left open for developers, if the need arises, to enforce those parts of planning agreements which the authorities inserted for the benefit of the developer.
The existing Section 106 of the 1990 Act is more liberal than the Bill regarding what may be included in a planning agreement. It is not restricted to the four points with which the Bill deals. It may be right and proper to restrict the Secretary of State to certain specific points that can be put into a unilateral undertaking. But it seems to me that it would be right for planning agreements to continue to be the more flexible tool that they were in the past rather than their being restricted to contain only certain specified obligations.
I hope that my noble friend will take those points on board and reconsider the clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made a helpful and cogent intervention. I confess that I had not put the debate of 10 days ago together with the debate of this afternoon and considered in full how defective Clause 12 was. He has performed a service in reminding the Committee of the debate which took place at the first Committee session to which I referred only briefly this afternoon.
The fundamental objection to the concept of unilateral undertakings is clear; namely, that the Secretary of State and an applicant between them can agree on obligations which affect the local authority but to which the local authority has not consented. When I put to the Committee last time that that might involve a local authority in expenditure or activities to which it would not otherwise have given priority, a satisfactory answer was not received.
A unilateral undertaking could involve local authorities in expenditure for the provision of physical access, services, the maintenance of facilities such as parks, public conveniences, car parks and so forth. That seemed to both us and the local authorities to be a serious derogation from their responsibility to the local inhabitants; that they should only be involved in expenditure to which they had consented.
Therefore it is a fundamental principle that is involved in the introduction of the unilateral obligation. We sought to overcome it in an earlier amendment by taking out the words, "or otherwise", to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, rightly objects, and replacing them with the words, "with the authority". The provision would then read,
"by agreement with the authority".
560
Even if that were not accepted the noble Lord is right in saying that there are many differences between a unilateral undertaking—which is what the Government seek to introduce—and the old-fashioned planning agreement. They are different in the scope which ought to be permitted for them; they are different in the way in which they ought to be enforced and in the timescale; they are different in many ways which have arisen in the discussion this afternoon.
Noble Lords opposite indicated support for an amendment which would seek to preserve a different regime for modification or discharge of such an agreement. They and we would have found it easier to persuade the Government of the validity of our argument if there had been the distinction between the planning agreement and a unilateral undertaking as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
On looking at Clause 12 as a whole I am bound to say that I find it profoundly unsatisfactory. The amendments which have been made by the Government do not go any significant way to relieving the problems which arise. Unless the Minister can give very good answers to the points raised I think, with apologies to the Committee for not having given notice, that I may find it necessary to seek the opinion of the Committee.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: In commending to the Committee that this clause stand part of the Bill I have to say that the clause enables a planning obligation to be entered into by means of an undertaking as well as by agreement. I also start from a very real understanding that noble Lords opposite do not like this arrangement in the clause. I do not see this as a developer's charter but rather as a mechanism to enable a log jam to be broken. Where there are planning objections to an otherwise acceptable development it seems altogether reasonable to allow the developer to bind himself to remove them.
The clause removes planning obligations that no longer serve a useful purpose to be discharged by the local planning authority or, on appeal, by the Secretary of State. We have quite deliberately limited the scope of an appeal and set down that an application under these provisions may not be made for five years or such period as may be prescribed by regulations.
Nothing in these provisions would prevent the local planning authority discharging an obligation by deed at any time. Such a deed could be accompanied by a second planning obligation in different terms from the first. But we will consider clarifying this point again on the face of the Bill by an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
I have some details of instances where local planning authorities have been unable or unwilling to negotiate a reasonable planning agreement with a developer in order to overcome a planning objection to a development proposal, or have delayed the conclusion of such an agreement. There are limits to

561
what I can say and it would not be right for me to identify the parties to an appeal. I know of at least one case which is likely to go to the High Court.
Two cases centred around highway improvements. In one of these the inspector's report referred to an impasse over the adequacy of approach roads to the appeal site. He commented that the highway authority was holding out for an unnecessary level of provision and for an excessive contribution. There being no reasonable prospect of an agreement, he dismissed the appeal. In the second case the appeal was dismissed solely because of the lack of concluded agreements covering drainage works and highway improvements.
In my final example, the Secretary of State shared the inspector's view that access was a planning problem and his conclusion that a planning agreement would resolve it. In November 1989 the Secretary of State gave the parties 28 days to confirm the completion of an agreement. Over four months later the council wrote to say that it was not minded to enter into such an agreement. The Secretary of State had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. I consider that in a number of these cases the local authority put obstacles in the way of resolving a planning objection to development; but they are evidence that undertakings may have a useful longstop role to play in breaking log jams of that kind.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine raised two important points. First, he believes that there should be separate legislative treatment of planning agreements and unilateral undertakings. Planning obligations are a useful umbrella concept. They embrace both planning agreements and unilateral undertakings. One may argue about how proposals should be enshrined in legislation but I believe that it makes sense to have a single provision covering the whole area of planning gain.
My noble friend's second point concerned the difference between Clause 12 and the present provision under Section 106. There is no substantive difference between Clause 12 and the present position under Section 106 of the 1990 Act. The specific provision to allow financial payments to be made is perhaps a little wider than the present provision, but it reflects practice. However, if my noble friend has particular examples of what can be done under the present provisions, but not under the Bill, I shall of course be very happy to consider them. I commend to the Committee that this clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Coleraine: I thank my noble friend for her reply to the points that I raised in my intervention and of course I shall try to deal with that between now and the next stage. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that I acknowledge and return the complimentary words addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He is endeavouring to wreck the clause whereas I am trying to improve it. Therefore, it will not surprise the Committee to learn that if he decides to divide the Committee I will support my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not expect anything else. The situation is unsatisfactory in two ways. Of course, we must be grateful to the Minister for the care she has taken to respond both to my points and to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. The trouble is that the clause she described is not the clause which is now to be on the face of the Bill, as amended. She described the planning obligation procedure as a longstop. It is not a longstop; it is an alternative to the planning agreement. The suspicion must be that, since it is not given longstop status—in other words, since there is not adequate incentive for developers to enter into agreements with local planning authorities—the planning obligation, the unilateral undertaking, will take over from the planning agreement rather than act as a longstop.
That is the fundamental difficulty with the clause as drafted and nothing that the Minister said, despite all the care she has taken to represent the issue fairly to the Committee, overcomes that difficulty. The kind of amendments that would be required if the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, were to be satisfied would be quite far-ranging amendments, because they would set up these two separate concepts of a planning agreement and a planning obligation or a unilateral undertaking. If they were to be fulfilled they would require very major changes to the clause, which would have to come in the form of comprehensive government amendments at Report stage.
We have already expressed our deep dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have presented a Bill and then sought at a very early stage—indeed the first stage—to amend and add to it dramatically. Surely the right course now is for the Government to take this clause back, to recognise the concerns that have been expressed from all sides of the Committee, and then bring forward a new Clause 12, or the equivalent, which provides adequate reflection of the anxieties expressed today and 10 days ago. It is only right that we should oppose the proposal that Clause 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 172; Not-Contents, 52.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Airedale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Allerton, L.

Brightman, L.

Alport, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ampthill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Caldecote, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Blake, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

Blyth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

563

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Marsh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Cross, V.

Meston, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Derwent, L.

Mountevans, L.

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northbourne, L.

Erne, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Falkland, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Flather. B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peel, E.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gisborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Porritt, L.

Grey, E.

Quinton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Hampton, L.

Renwick, L.

Hanson, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Romney, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Roskill, L.

Harvington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Haslam, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hesketh, L.

Shannon, E.

Hives, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hood, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooson, L.

Strange, B.

Hunt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Ironside, L.

Swansea, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Terrington, L.

Joseph, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tordoff, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Tranmire, L.

Knollys, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lawrence, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Layton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

White of Hull, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lurgan, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lytton, E.

Wynford, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Young, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Attlee, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Blackstone, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Blease, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

564

Dean of Beswick, L.

Manchester, D.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Galpern, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Peston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shackleton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ilchester, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Walston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 12, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment N o. 91:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Right to appeal against planning decisions
(" .—After section 78 of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Right to appeal against planning decisions.
78A.—(l) Where a local planning authority—

(a) grant an application for planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan; or

(b) grant an application for planning permission under the provisions of section 316 as amended by section 17 of this Act,

any party which has made representations to the local planning authority may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State stating the grounds on which it is made.
(2) Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and manner as may be prescribed by a development order under section 59 of the principal Act.
(3) The time prescribed for such a notice must not be more than 28 days from the date of notification of decision.
(4) Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the grounds of an appeal are clearly without substance he may serve a notice on the party summarily dismissing the appeal." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Norrie inserts a new clause dealing with the right to appeal against planning decisions. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 92 and 133A which deal with the same matter of rights of appeal but which go much wider than this modest new clause. I should remind the Committee that the only right of appeal at the moment is against refusal of planning permission. There is no right of appeal whatever against the grant of planning permission, however unreasonable or improper it may seem to be.
We have a modest proposal in this new clause in which there would be a right of appeal in only two limited circumstances. The first is where planning permission has been granted that does not accord with the development plan; which is, after all, the local planning authority's own affair. Therefore, if they

565
grant planning permission inconsistently with their own development plan they are really denying their own previous decision and departing from it.
The other circumstance in which we suggest that there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State is where local planning authorities give planning permission for the development of their own land or for the development that they intend to carry out themselves on somebody else's land. We suggest that in each of those circumstances there should be a safeguard against the local authority blowing hot and cold in the first case and pursuing too strongly their own interest in the second case.
I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Norrie has some interesting views on this and he will no doubt put them before the Committee, but I shall just mention one or two of the subsections that come into this new clause. Subsection (3) provides that the appeal must be made within 28 days. Subsection (4) states:
"Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the grounds of an appeal are clearly without substance he may"
summarily dismiss the appeal. That is a safeguard against nutcases who have objected but who have not got a really substantial point to make. I should have mentioned that it is only those who made representations to the local authority before planning permission was granted who will have this right of appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: It is strange that however unfair a local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission may appear to be there is no right to challenge it even when it conflicts with a previously approved structure or local plan which has been through extensive public consultation. This amendment would resolve that problem by introducing a right to appeal against the granting of planning permission in carefully defined circumstances. Such rights already exist to appeal against a planning refusal. The Government have expressed concern that this extra right of appeal would introduce undue delays, but I fear that the main point may have been missed.
The amendment does not propose that all planning permissions should be subject to a right of appeal. It is likely to reduce the number of damaging applications submitted in the first place. What it does is to ensure that the decisions expressed in approved structure and local plans are actually followed through by local authorities. This is entirely consistent with the emphasis the Government are now placing on forward plans and the welcome comments in the recent White Paper about the importance of voluntary organisations in challenging government decisions at local and national level.
Planning decisions should be based on carefully defined policies that have been developed with widespread public consultation—in other words, the policies contained within structure and local plans. In my view a clear departure from these plans should be subject to a right of review and that is the purpose of the amendment. It also deals with the problems that result from local planning authorities being seen as
566
judge and jury on their own planning applications. Unless the Bill is strengthened in this direction, playing fields will continue to disappear and council land will continue to be used for development that would not otherwise be permitted.
The only safeguard under the current system is for the Secretary of State to call in the application, but I fear that this power is not used to its full potential. The House of Commons Environment Committee report entitled, Planning Appeals, Call-in and major public inquiries, in 1986 confirms this view. It said:
"We are strongly impressed by the strength of feeling and unanimity of opinion outside the Department that the Secretary of State uses his call-in powers far too sparingly … We believe that there is justifiable disquiet over the present system".
The committee recommended that a wider approach be taken to call-ins but the Council for the Protection of Rural England advises me that it detects no real change. I hope that when my noble friend responds she can give a commitment that the Government will look favourably on the recommendations of the Common's report.
The introduction of a limited third party right of appeal would not create undue delays. The number of appeals would be a tiny fraction of the applications submitted and the necessary short delays it would create would have long-term benefits for the countryside and the wider environment. Even now where developers have an automatic right of appeal only 4 per cent. of applications end up as appeals. I fully recognise that we cannot open up a right of appeal to all third parties on all planning decisions.
The amendment contains provision for the Secretary of State to refuse to consider frivolous appeals and I hope that he will discourage these further by awarding punitive costs. The amendment carefully defines the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged and encourages private developers and local authorities themselves to submit applications in line with approved development plans. If this amendment is not carried through, the environment and the public credibility of the planning system will be put in jeopardy. I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 92 which is grouped with this amendment and Amendment No. 133A. This is a very much more modest amendment than that which has just been moved. Like Amendment No. 91, it applies only to those who have already made objections at the beginning and to the cases where the granting of permission is not in line with the local plan. It provides a further restriction in that it shall be open only to the council of a parish or community to intervene at this stage and appeal against the grant of permission. Villages throughout the country have expressed to us the view that it seems unfair that a developer can appeal against a measure which has been successfully opposed by the community, but when it is overriden by the district council there is no opportunity for appeal. It is felt that that is contrary to natural justice. I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view.
I suggest to the Committee that there should be this very limited opening up of the right of appeal; and that this right would be used only in extreme cases. It

567
is worthy of consideration and support. I have difficulty with the proposition of the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Renton. One would like to give supremacy to the development plan if the amendment were restricted to permission which is in accord with the provisions of the development plan; in other words, if the word "and" appeared at the end of subsection (1) (a) rather than "or" we might consider the matter with more sympathy.
Against that we must consider the efficient conduct of the planning system and that somehow decisions must be taken and adhered to. It cannot always be a matter of appeal to the Secretary of State against either a grant or a refusal of planning permission; otherwise many decisions which are already too long in the making would almost never get taken, or be taken after a more extended delay. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has cast doubts on the efficacy of the right of the Secretary of State to call in applications which are contrary to the development plan. I have no doubt that he has a case. He quoted correctly from the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on that subject.
Surely the remedy is to ensure that the Secretary of State calls in applications which are contrary to the development plan. We should be looking for a remedy to amendments later on in today's business rather than to this amendment. The balance is very fine between trying to avoid unnecessary delay in planning procedures and trying to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done in every single case. On balance, we take the view that Amendment No. 91 is too wide and we shall be unable to support it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may briefly and in principle support the spirit of Amendment No. 91. It is of limited application. It affords the only effective safeguard to preserve the sanctity of the local community. Furthermore, it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say that we have to see that the Secretary of State does this or that. There is no effective way in which one can see that the Secretary of State does anything as far as I can make out. One can produce absolute discretions, which is all that one can do. Having done that, one cannot do anything about them if the Secretary of State does not take action. That is an important point for the reasons given by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Norrie. Although,
"any party which has made representations",
may be a little wide, perhaps there is some way in which one can exclude the nutcases. As a matter of principle this amendment must surely be right. I support the spirit of it. I hope that it will not be rejected out of hand.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman: I too support Amendment No. 91. I rise to speak for the sole reason that it may be said by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government that judicial review already provides an adequate remedy where planning permission is wrongly granted. I do not know whether that will be said, but judicial review is not an adequate remedy in these
568
circumstances. It will only succeed where planning permission is unlawful or where it has been granted perversely. A proper approach would be that which is proposed in Amendments Nos. 91 or 92.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak to Amendment No. 133A as it is linked to these amendments. In Amendment No. 133A, which covers a slightly different point, I seek to introduce the concept of controversial development. The latest example of that is the case of the Dorset Heath 23 acres. I am not accusing the local authority in any way of going against the county structure plan or local plan. I have not inspected the plan, but I suspect that the 23 acres were properly scheduled for a residential development and although they were owned by the local authority in this case they gave themselves their own consent. Of course it is land that has higher value. It comes under the Berne Convention. It is land with which certainly the Nature Conservancy Council and many other bodies involved with conservation in this country have been very concerned for a number of years because it is one of the last remaining parts of heathland in Dorset and a lot of rare species occupy it.
I know that the Government may be slightly restricted in their response to this amendment and that the matter is still under consideration by the department, but the fact is that in this case judicial review was sought. In a decision by the High Court very recently that was refused. We consider that such action can now be brought only if the applicant shows bad faith by a council, corruption or an obvious error on the face of the record. I am certainly not suggesting that in the case of the particular local authority. Thus a conservation body or local action group has no redress against a decision it still feels is wrong; and since that decision was taken, the Berne Convention has said that they think this country is wrong.
It would be in the public interest for some decisions to be open to question. With the growing environmental concern, there is a need for a forum to allow organisations or individuals which are involved to secure a hearing for their objections. A local planning authority may, for political or financial reasons—and I suspect there are financial reasons in this case—grant permission for something which would otherwise be undesirable. This amendment would allow objectors a right of appeal against a limited class of controversial developments, which are all listed in the amendment.
New Clause 225A defines controversial developments. Section 65 developments are bad neighbour developments that have to be advertised, such as sewage works, waste disposal sites, mineral workings, and such like. The other types of development listed are self-explanatory. Other classes may be added in a development order. The aim here is to specify only developments that may have a major effect on the environment.
New Clause 225B would require authorities to specify reasons for a decision to grant permission for a controversial development. This would allow objectors to see why the permission had been granted, to see if the council had acted lawfully, and give them a basis for any appeal. Anyone who made

569
representations to the authority about the application for permission would have to be notified about the authority's decision and its reasons for it.
New Clause 225C would give any person who made representations about the application a right to appeal against the grant of permission. This allows those with a continuing interest to appeal. The Secretary of State could make orders as to costs if he felt that the appeal was frivolous.
I realise that this is taking us into a wider field, but I suggest it is an opportunity that the Government might take, or at least reasonably consider, rather than be landed with the situation in which they are now with the Dorset Heath case. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I should like to join other noble Lords in expressing the hope that my noble friend will turn down neither of these amendments out of hand. It has long been a cri de coeur that the rights of third parties in planning appeals are not sufficiently looked after. This has always been the Government's line on these points. But there comes a time when such points must be rethought, so I hope that the Government will consider both amendments very carefully. The Law Society advises me that it considers that in principle both amendments should be considered very carefully indeed.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to support Amendment No. 92 in particular. As the President of the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils, I notice that Amendment No. 92 does not make provision for town councils. I do not know whether that is automatic. I certainly like the feel of Amendment No. 92, and also of Amendment No. 91; and I join other noble Lords in hoping that my noble friend will pay proper regard to the arguments that have been advanced. Even if the Minister cannot accept any of the amendments at this stage, perhaps he might tell us that he will come back with something on Report.
Amendment No. 133A seems to be rather out of keeping with the other amendments, and I am surprised that it is grouped in this way. I am sorry to have to say that I am advised by the Confederation of British Industry in relation to Amendment No. 133A that the planning system is complicated enough without introducing a new class of development under the objectionable title of Controversial Developments and ascribing new duties in relation to it. In making any planning decision, the planning authority has to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the project and give those affected the opportunity to state their case. There are further opportunities for public comment when, for example, environmental assessment has to be carried out.
The proposed new Clause in Amendment No. 133A will undermine the authority's ability and willingness to take balanced decisions leading to even more initial refusals as well as to a great number of new appeals to the Secretary of State. Accordingly, the CBI believe that this would be a retrograde step. I therefore hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I hope that the Minister will resist all three amendments. I appreciate that I am the only one to speak in that regard, but perhaps it would be useful for us to consider that although we may be able to talk about matters rather subjectively in this Chamber, there are many people outside upon whom our decisions actually have an effect. Surely one of our reasons for bringing forward the Bill and for being involved in planning at all is to make things happen, not to stop them happening. In all these clauses I see another system that actually makes things less likely to happen. What has brought about this Bill and what makes the whole development of it work is the fact that we create some enthusiasm, some development, investment and support to make things happen.
Already in this Bill and in previous Bills connected with planning we have long procedures to ensure that every view is put into the planning procedure. The decisions are made by elected people. They have to put forward every opportunity for various bodies to make their decisions, and ultimately if the wrong decision is made the Minister can call it in, review the matter and ask for further opinions. We do not want further delays and possibly objections. There may not be many "nutters", as my noble friend suggested,—and perhaps we can eliminate some—but at what balance or at what level is a person a "nutter" or a "non-nutter"? Who decides where the balance lies? You may say, "This man is an idiot; but this fellow has some good ideas". However, that in itself is going to create more delay in reaching decisions.
I feel that we have already created the right balance of giving everybody the opportunity to bring objections when they want but at the same time of allowing something to happen. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept any of these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may attempt to clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. My amendment was drafted by the National Association of Local Councils. That seeks to represent parish or community councils—a phrase used in the amendment—and I believe that that includes town councils. I hope that it does, as that was the intention.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): I shall not attempt to define where "nutters" end and "non-nutters" begin. I shall merely address myself to the three proposed new clauses which would for the first time provide three distinct, but by no means identical, areas in which a right of appeal for third parties against the grant of planning permission could be provided.
Amendment No. 133A would allow third party appeals against a new class of "controversial developments". It also imposes a new requirement on local planning authorities to notify anyone who had made representations about such a development proposal of their decision and the reasons for it.
I believe it is important to refer back to the 1947 Act which, as many Members of the Committee will

571
appreciate, substantially strengthened controls over the use and development of privately owned land. However, it also took away the rights of the individual to develop his property as he wished. It is for that reason that applicants were first given a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
Third parties lost no rights as a result of the 1947 Act. However, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities must have regard to all material considerations, which can include views expressed by third parties in so far as they relate to land use planning matters. Authorities must also take account of development plans, which do of course reflect the views of residents revealed in consultation.
The present system gives both certainty and local choice. The Government want to see as many planning decisions as possible taken locally. We do not wish to extend further the powers of the Secretary of State and his planning inspectors who at present are responsible for the grant of just 4 per cent. of permissions.
There are also practical objections to extending the right to appeal. There were 88 per cent. more planning appeals last year than in 1984–85, and about 30,000 appeals are being received each year. Any extension of the right to appeal to third parties would add to the burdens on the system and would serve to delay—and, in some cases, to scupper—new development. It would clearly not be right to give any individual third party the right to hold up new development simply because he or she did not agree with it.
What appears to be immediately attractive in the proposed new clause, put forward by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Norrie, is that it seeks to restrict the right of appeal by third parties. In other words it would only be open to challenge where the permissions were,
"contrary to the development plan".
The Government are not convinced that such a restriction would be successful. But determining whether a decision is contrary to the development plan would not always be an easy matter. I appreciate that the Secretary of State in terms of the new clause is to have a right to dismiss appeals that are, "clearly without substance". But in order to dismiss an appeal in such a way, the Secretary of State would undoubtedly have to study it very closely. Moreover, in many circumstances he would no doubt need to seek the views of the parties involved before so doing. That would seem to come perilously close to a full hearing of the appeal.
In any event, the development plan is not a set of hard and fast rules which must always be followed. That is not to underrate its importance. When we come to deal with Clause 22, Members of the Committee will hear from this Front Bench the importance which the Government attach to such plans. But, from time to time there are changes of circumstances which were not envisaged when the plan was first drawn up: sometimes the plan is out of date; and, sometimes, although the proposed development conflicts with the plan, the harm to the
572
plan's objectives is clearly outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development. In any of these circumstances it may be right for an authority to grant permission contrary to the plan's provisions. The plan must not be disregarded, of course, but taking the plan into account is not the same as a slavish following of it.
The arguments advanced against a right of appeal for third parties are, I believe, equally powerful when the development concerned is by a local authority or on local authority land. It is quite proper that the special arrangements for local authority development should be hedged about by safeguards. We shall deal with that aspect of the matter when we come to consider Clause 17. But, in the Government's view, third party appeal rights are not the right way to go about the matter.
Amendment No. 92 would allow parish and community councils to appeal against the grant of planning permission if they had commented on the original application, unless it is consistent with the development plan. As the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, recognises, parish councils already have the right to have their views taken into account by the local planning authority. I do not believe that this right needs to be extended. Local planning authorities must remain responsible —and democratically accountable—for their own planning decisions.
It may be considered curious by some that what is proposed is that a dispute between elected local authorities should be passed to the Secretary of State, or even to an unelected planning inspector. As I indicated earlier, the Government promote local choice in planning policy wherever possible. We feel that the noble Lord's amendment runs directly counter to that principle. However, I certainly do not suggest that the remedy of judicial review is in any sense a substitute for giving a third party the right to appeal; it is undoubtedly a right which can only be exercised in the very limited circumstances which have already been outlined to the Committee.
I now turn to address the wider provisions of Amendment No. 133A. This would impose still further burdens on local planning authorities. They would be required to prepare a formal statement of their reasons for any grant of permission for a controversial development, and to notify all of those who made representations of their decision.
Most local planning authorities are already unacceptably slow in processing planning applications. The proposed new clause would add another large slice of work. Following the argument which has already been advanced, I fear that its effect would be to slow down further the process of development control. I believe that it would make the process more expensive. I am also of the view that it would be virtually impossible to produce a definitive list of controversial developments as the amendment seeks to do.
The definition of "controversial developments" which appears in the amendment could also give rise

573
to side effects which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may not have contemplated and which he may even find undesirable. His definition includes the words,
"any development for which an environmental statement has been prepared".
As many Members of the Committee will appreciate, the 1988 environmental assessment regulations require developers to submit environmental statements on their proposals if they fall within certain defined categories of development and are likely to have significant effects on the environment. However, many applicants who, strictly speaking, are not obliged to produce environmental statements under the regulations, do in fact do so voluntarily. Such statements are very valuable additions to the evidence which local planning authorities have before them when determining applications.
However, if the amendment were allowed to go forward, any applicant who voluntarily prepared such an environmental statement would put himself at risk of having to face an appeal initiated by a disgruntled third party, even though his proposal had been accepted by the local planning authority after full consideration of all the material factors, including the environmental statement which he has voluntarily supplied. In such circumstances, the flow of voluntary statements could dry up completely and a very useful source of information might be lost.
Reference has already been made to the 1986 report of the Environment Select Committee in another place in connection with the calling-in powers afforded to the Secretary of State. That matter will be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, I should say that it seems to be correct that the Secretary of State should only use such power to call in sparingly. However, the Select Committee concluded that it would not be appropriate for third parties to have the right to appeal against the grant of a planning permission. That conclusion follows from the need for local choice and for certainty and efficiency in the planning system.
I have taken some time to respond to the three proposed new clauses. Clearly there is a point of concern in the matter. However, during the debate we have identified the fact that the approaches adopted by each of the three proposed new clauses are markedly at variance with one another. Having given the Government's reasons for declining to accept any of the amendments, I hope that Members of the Committee will also reject them.
Lord Ross of Newport: Before the noble Lord replies perhaps I may say that I shall obviously study everything that the noble and learned Lord said about Amendment No. 133A, which I realise is itself probably controversial. I had hoped that it would strengthen the Government's resolve on this matter which I know is of concern to all parts of the Committee.
Lord Renton: I am sure that all Members of the Committee are grateful to my noble and learned friend for his full reply to this wide-ranging debate. I thank
574
all Members of the Committee who have taken part, especially those who supported Amendment No. 91. Everyone who spoke, except my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, was in favour of one or other or some of the amendments. I find the conclusion reached by my noble friend Lord Wade strange. He said that at present we had balance in our planning system: He said, "Let us leave it alone". The trouble is, we do not have balance. The only right of appeal is the right of those who have applied for planning permission to appeal against refusal. Those objectors who may have a good case on environmental, social, or whatever grounds they may be, have no right of appeal whatever.
None of us has suggested that there should be a general, or very general, right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, went into a fairly wide field. I must say that he was pretty daring.
I return to Amendment No. 91 and to my noble and learned friend's comments. The fact mentioned by my noble friend that there are already a vast number of appeals against planning refusal has, with great respect, nothing to do with the case. It may have a certain amount of administrative content, but where we come to the justice of the matter it has nothing to do with it at all. We must bear in mind that those who are refused development are often developers with a big vested interest. Of course they will appeal if they can—they are allowed to at present—because of what they have at stake. No, there is no balance whatever in the present system.
The question is to what extent the present system might be modified. I do not want to rehearse the arguments again, but I join with my noble friend Lord Mottistone in asking the Government to bear in mind what has been said in this case and to consider it all carefully.
On the substance of Amendment No. 91, I feel obliged to add just two points. It was my noble and learned friend who prompted me on the first point. He rightly pointed out that Clause 22 is intended—we see this from the heading—to streamline development plans. If we are to make development plans more real, more important and better administered, then surely it is all the more important that local planning authorities should pay even greater regard to them. They are more likely to pay regard to them if objectors have a right of appeal where there is a bad departure from the development plan.
The other point—my noble and learned friend ducked this point as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when commenting on Amendment No. 91; subsection (1) (b) of the new clause refers to it—is that where the local planning authority has a vested interest in the development and it is a matter of controversy locally—there have been objections—the local authority should not remain the judge in its own cause; there should be an opportunity for further thought by way of appeal to the Secretary of State. That seems to me to be a reasonable and strong argument.
I do not wish to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 91. I do not know what noble Lords intend to do with their amendments, but I hope that

575
we have not heard the last of this important matter and that the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone commends itself to the Government. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Notice etc. of applications for planning permission]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 22, line 13, leave out ("to 68") and insert (", 67 and 68").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to my Amendment No: 97. Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contains a valuable long-standing provision preventing local planning authorities from entertaining applications for planning permission unless the applicant furnishes certificates stating that the owners and agricultural tenants of any land in question have received notice of the planning application.
Under Section 71 the local planning authority must take into account any representations on those applications from owners and tenants of agricultural holdings and must give notice to them of its decision.
Clause 13 seeks to remove those safeguards for owners and occupiers of agricultural land by allowing for such notifications to be required under development orders. No doubt my noble friend will argue that the Government have every intention of replicating the present safeguards contained in primary legislation in future development orders. However, those hard-won safeguards could then be abandoned at the stroke of the Minister's pen. That is clearly unacceptable and, accordingly, the amendments retain the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act.
It is worth noting that the Government appear to be treating England and Wales inconsistently compared with Scotland. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser has tabled Amendment No. 106 to the Scottish planning law which retains a reference to the rights of owners and agricultural tenants to be notified of planning applications, although I have to say that it is not an absolute statutory guarantee. One day the Department of the Environment might just have a word with the Scottish Office.
Finally—this is the most important point—the right of tenants to be notified is of crucial importance to them as they can be served with an incontestable notice to quit if planning consent is granted. Yet they could miss the opportunity to object if they were unaware of the application. I can fully understand that the Department of the Environment might not have been aware of that agricultural facet to its clause. I believe that my noble friend Lord Astor is to reply to the amendment, I hope sympathetically. He will realise, of course, that the principle behind the amendment involves our old friend Henry VIII. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I speak to Amendment No. 94 which is included in this group. Before I explain the purpose of the amendment I should like to point out a drafting error for which I apologise. The word "copy" in the
576
third line should read "summary". Clearly a requirement to distribute a copy of every planning application, including diagrams and maps, would be too burdensome on a local authority. I hope that my noble friend will take that point into account when he replies.
It is probably not widely appreciated that in England and Wales there is no requirement to publicise the vast majority of planning applications. A house can be erected and an extension built or a building society can be converted into a fast food store without any member of the public, including neighbours, being told of the application. This amendment resolves that anomaly as it places a statutory requirement on the local authorities to notify neighbours of planning applications. It would ensure a bare minimum of public participation where local authorities are reluctant to advertise planning applications on a discretionary basis. It would not prevent local authorities advertising more widely if they so wished.
My noble friend informed me by letter that the Government believe that local planning authorities are best placed to decide how the great majority of planning applications should be publicised. However, the compulsory notification of neighbours by developers is a formal requirement in Scotland. I do not believe that we should assume that the Scottish authorities are less likely to exercise their discretion responsibly.
It is clear that the current discretionary arrangements do not work well enough. Disputes over neighbourhood notification are perhaps the most common cause of complaint about the planning system. The number of complaints on planning received by the ombudsman has more than doubled in the past three years. No less than 30 per cent. of these complaints are on the specific issue of neighbourhood notifications. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I am aware of the local ombudsman's support for efforts to make neighbourhood notification a legal requirement.
Certain developments require public advertisement, of which the so-called bad neighbour developments and those which depart from an approved development plan are the most common. There are problems even in that respect. First, there is a worrying trend towards advertising in obscure local free newspapers which are not available for public sale and have a notoriously unreliable distribution. Secondly, the choice as to whether a development is a departure from the plan is astonishingly made by the district council even where the county council's structure plan is being breached. There are too many occasions where departures from development plans are not advertised as they should be.
Thirdly, some changes are automatically permitted without needing a planning application. This can result in bad neighbour development being established without any publicity at all, or even without the local authority being aware of it.

577
The system for publicising planning is not as it should be. A basic system of neighbour notification is long overdue in England and Wales and would be achieved by this amendment. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness David: I support the amendment on publicity for planning applications tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The Nature Conservancy Council also strongly supports it. The Council says in its notes about the Bill that:
"The NCC supports the proposal for wider notification of planning applications. Whilst the NCC is already consulted over any applications for development on an SSSI, there are other areas of nature conservation interest which, while they do not reach SSSI standard, are nonetheless of great local importance. They are often owned or managed by local wildlife groups and those groups should automatically be consulted over applications in those areas … Secondly, a development which takes place adjacent to or in some instances some distance from an SSSI might have an effect on that site. The proposed alterations to the principal Act and consequent order should take account of this fact".
I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, deals with that.
I now speak to Amendment No. 95, in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, which requires that neighbour notification, if made mandatory under Clause 13, is defined. I should like to make clear that this is a probing amendment. It is designed to establish the reasons for Clause 13 and the purpose to which it will be put. The amendment attempts to ensure that, should the Secretary of State make an order requiring a local authority or developer to publicise the fact that an application for planning permission has been made, he should clearly specify to whom notice should be given. The persons to whom notice should be given should be established after consultation with the local planning authority.
There is need for a clear definition of "neighbour". This term could relate narrowly to the property next door or, in the case of a road, it could apply to all the properties along the line of the road. Prior consultation with the local planning authority is required in order to ensure that the Secretary of State accurately identifies the properties affected by the development before notification.
I speak also to Amendment No. 98 which has been put forward by the National Association of Local Councils. It proposes a new clause headed:
"Notification of applications to adjoining occupiers".
Neighbours of a site which is being developed, even where the works are quite small, may be the ones most seriously affected. Yet no one is under any duty to tell them about proposals for properties which might dominate their garden, spoil their outlook or inhibit the use of their premises.
The amendment puts an obligation on the developer to notify every adjoining occupier and allows the planning authority to notify where it is not happening, with the developer's reasons for failure to notify. The amendment adapts the legal certificate system already in use to notify those with legal interests in the land to be developed.
Viscount Astor: I first deal briefly with the one government amendment in this group, Amendment No. 106. It extends to Scotland a similar regime to that which Clause 13 applies to England and Wales. It provides an enabling power to prescribe by order the publicity and arrangements for notifying owners and agricultural tenants of planning applications.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 93 and 97, tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, would be to retain in the 1990 Act the detailed provisions for notifying planning applications to owners and agricultural tenants which Clause 13 proposes should be prescribed by order. The amendments would reduce the scope for clarifying and streamlining this aspect of planning application procedure.
We are not simply dealing here with bureaucratic tidiness but what I believe to be a helpful move towards making the development control system easier for applicants to understand. The Department of the Environment undertook public consultation on the principle of this streamlining in a 1989 consultation paper Efficient Planning. The consultation paper clearly indicated the Government's view that the present arrangements are onerous for users of the system, who are required to find their way through two documents to understand the effect and requirements of the notification provisions. The responses to the consultation paper indicated overwhelming support for the Government's view.
I fully appreciate the misgivings expressed by my noble friend and I agree that to have detailed provisions in primary legislation represents the maximum safeguard against any potential future change by whim. Nevertheless, if all such misgivings were to be the paramount consideration in shaping planning legislation, the planning Act would be vastly more complex and lengthy than it is today. It is salutary to consider that the 1947 Act comprised 120 sections and 11 schedules, and the 1990 Act contains 337 sections and 17 schedules.
It is not the Government's intention to abolish the requirement to notify owners of land or agricultural tenants of relevant planning applications. Indeed, we have said that owners and agricultural tenants should not only be informed of planning applications but should at the same time be advised of their rights. The Department of the Environment is at present drafting amendments to the general development order which will give effect to this commitment. Our proposals will not provide tenant farmers with protection from notices to quit when planning permission for non-agricultural development is granted; nor do they enjoy such protection now.
I assure the Committee that in introducing Clause 13 the Government have no intention of disadvantaging tenant farmers. The inclusion of provisions in subordinate legislation does not mean that proposed amendments are lost from view. It is the Government's policy to undertake public consultation on substantive changes to the general development order and to take full and careful account of the course laid before Parliament.
I now wish to deal with the concern expressed that we should not use secondary legislation as a means of

579
avoiding parliamentary scrutiny of government proposals. However, at the same time we must improve the efficiency of the planning system. We consulted widely and found overwhelming agreement on the need to streamline the notification procedure. At present notification procedures are subject to a muddling combination of primary and secondary legislation. Our proposal represents an essential first step towards ending that muddle. It would always be open to Members of the Committee to pray against our detailed proposals for implementation through the general development order if they thought we had made an error. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The aim of Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 98 is to require the owners and/or occupiers of land neighbouring or abutting a site which is the subject of an application for planning permission to receive individual notification of that application. Amendment No. 94 tabled by my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton would place the responsibility for such notification on the local planning authority. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 95 and 98 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be to require such notification to be undertaken by the applicant, who would need to certify to the local planning authority that he had done so. Although Clause 13 would enable these requirements to be made by a development order, it is a step which the Government consider undesirable and unnecessary.
The amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton would place a considerable additional administrative burden on local planning authorities, many of which are already falling well short of meeting the Government's target of deciding 80 per cent. of applications within eight weeks. The task of determining the extent of "neighbouring land" and of identifying all those with a notifiable interest in it for each of the 600,000 or so planning applications submitted each year in England and Wales would be daunting. Although the burdens on local authorities would be reduced if applicants were required to notify occupiers of abutting land, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, local authorities would still have the added task of checking that the applicants' certification was in order.
To put the principal burden for notification on the applicant would be unwelcome to the business applicant and to the householder proposing to erect an extension. The Government have consistently sought to make planning procedures more streamlined and user friendly for applicants, many of whom represent small businesses and who have been daunted by a range of statutory requirements.
I believe that local planning authorities are best placed to decide how the great majority of planning applications should be publicised. Local authorities are free to undertake the notification of neighbours where they feel that would be appropriate. Furthermore, details of all planning applications, including all the submitted plans, must he placed by the local planning authority on the planning register, which is available for public inspection. No publicity arrangements for planning applications can be
580
foolproof. But generally speaking, I believe the existing arrangements work well and provide a fair and appropriate balance between the need to safeguard the public interest and the need to keep bureaucracy and delay in the planning process to a minimum. In view of this I hope the noble Lords will agree not to pursue these amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I am not sure whether the Minister answered my point as regards a clear definition of "neighbour". If he did not, will he do so?
Viscount Astor: I said that the task of determining the extent of neighbouring land and of identifying all those with a notifiable interest in it for the many applications that are submitted would be daunting.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My noble friend has said that my amendment is too complicated. If officials were asked their opinion on such a matter, they would always vote for less work and more pay. I would do the same myself if I had the chance. My noble friend gave me no assurance whatsoever regarding the ability of some future Secretary of State to change the rules by statutory instrument if he so wished. I did not like my noble friend's reply at all. I shall write to him on the subject and I hope he will change his mind. If he does not, I may well have to return to the matter on Report.
Baroness David: I must repeat that the Minister did not give me a satisfactory answer. I shall read all that has been said and consider whether it is worth trying to get a better explanation on a later occasion.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("3") and insert ("5").
The noble Baroness said: This is a modest amendment. At present applicants seeking planning permission are required to submit honest information when filling in the statutory certificates on interest and property under Section 27 of the new codified legislation. Alas, it is not unknown for applicants to be less than truthful, especially as the potential gains in terms of planning permission can be so large. We believe that raising the level of fines for the giving of false information would help to police untruthful applications. This amendment seeks to raise the fines from level 3 to level 5; that is, to £2,000.
As the Bill stands, the fines available to the courts are lower than the fines currently imposed for false information under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which permits imprisonment for up to two years or a statutory maximum fine at level 5 for virtually identical offences. This amendment seeks to bring this offence into line with Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act. We believe it is useful, fair and consistent. I hope it is also transparently virtuous. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The effect of Amendment No. 96 would be to increase the maximum penalty for a person guilty of an offence under the proposed new Section 65(6) of the 1990 Act from a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is at present £400, to a fine not exceeding level 5, which is at present £2,000. The offence in question is the issuing by an applicant for planning permission of a certificate to the local planning authority in respect of the publicity or notification requirements for planning applications which either deliberately or recklessly contains a false or misleading statement.
The Committee may be aware that the Criminal Justice Bill, which is being considered in another place, proposes a general up-rating of the standard scale. Increases to £1,000 and £5,000 respectively are proposed for levels 3 and 5. The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could therefore increase the maximum penalty for an offence under Section 65(6) to £5,000. I am inclined to think that the proposed up-rated level 3 fine of £1,000 represents an appropriate maximum penalty for the offence in question. However, I recognise that Clause 1 of this Bill proposes that a person on whom a planning contravention notice has been served and who is guilty of making a false or misleading statement purporting to comply with a requirement of such a notice is liable to a fine not exceeding level 5. I am therefore prepared to consider this matter further.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that response. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Power of local planning authority to decline to determine applications]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 23, leave out lines 29 to 46 and insert:

("(a) within the period of five years ending with the date on which the application is received the authority has refused an earlier similar application or the Secretary of State has refused a similar application referred to it under section 77 or has dismissed an appeal against the refusal of a similar application; and

(b) in the opinion of the authority there has been no material change since the earlier refusal or dismissal of appeal.

(2) For the purposes of this section an application for planning permission for the development of any land shall only be taken to be similar to a later application for development if the development and the land to which the applications relate are in the opinion of the local planning authority without material significant amendment.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with repetitive applications. Repetitive applications along with twin tracking, which is the subject of the next cluster of amendments, add significantly to the strain on the planning system and, as a result, build in delay for other and first time applicants. Professional planning staff are hard to get and, given charge capping, they are not always easy to afford. Local authorities are trying to deal with an increased number of applications with, for the most part,
582
reduced staff. Repetitive applications and twin tracking help to account for the fact that only 50 per cent. of applications are determined within eight weeks and not the 80 per cent. of applications that is the desired figure. Amendment No. 99 has the support of the Association of District Councils, the National Housing and Town Planning Council and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It proposes that similar applications may not be resubmitted within five years rather than the two years specified in the Bill. That is a period which is broadly coterminous with the commonsense life of a local plan.
We also suggest in the amendment that applications should not be resubmitted not only if the Secretary of State has refused the application on appeal but also if the local authority has refused it and the developer has not challenged that refusal by going to appeal, presumably because the developer does not expect success.
We all know of garages, golf clubs and garden centres having two or three attempts at obtaining planning permission without necessarily going through to appeal. The amendment would signal clearly to developers that they will not be able to wear down a local authority by persistent, repetitive applications which they are not willing to take to appeal during the life of a local plan. It will stop them clogging up the system and therefore, and importantly, allow local authorities to put their scarce resources into dealing speedily with first-time applications. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): If the amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 100 to 103.
Lord Ross of Newport: Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 appear in my name and are almost identical to those so ably moved from the Labour Front Bench a moment ago. As I indicated in my Second Reading speech I greatly welcome the Government's decision to install a two-year ban. However, extending that to five years would substantially improve the effectiveness of the planning process.
The Government's proposals, however, would not resolve the problem of repetitive planning applications which are not taken to appeal but which may eventually wear down the authority to the point where planning permission is granted. Those of us who have taken an interest in planning matters over the years know that unfortunately that happens. I therefore support the amendment to allow local planning authorities to decline to determine a planning application which they have refused within the previous five years rather than limiting that provision to applications turned down on appeal within the previous two years.
A vital measure to complement both the amendment and the government proposals is the power to refuse to determine repetitive planning appeals. Otherwise developers could simply appeal against decisions. The cost mechanism, if properly used, might be a deterrent but the option of leaving an appeal on the table should be open. I should like clarification from the Government as to how an

583
appeal to the Secretary of State on the basis of the application not being determined by the local authority would be dealt with. I believe that a paper has just been issued by the Government on that very subject and the matter of cost. It may be that that is what the Government seek to do, and I await further information in reply.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 102A and 106A which are grouped with the amendments. Amendment No. 102A relates to Clause 14 and applies to England, and Amendment No. 106A relates to Clause 37 and applies to Scotland, but both amendments are exactly the same. I have been advised by the CBI on the amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is to introduce some discipline into the way in which a local planning authority deals with an application which superficially might appear to be a repeat of an earlier one but in respect of which circumstances have significantly changed. Business does not object to the principle that identical applications in identical circumstances should be refused. It does object to a planning authority having the unbridled power to refuse to entertain an application without any right of appeal on the grounds that it was the same or substantially the same as previously. The development and the land can remain the same but the planning policy for the area may have changed.
The applicant may have different views from the authority as to what "substantially the same" means. Those differences need not be tested under the clause as currently drafted. My amendments are designed to put that right by putting the planning authority under a specific legal obligation to make sure that circumstances have not changed before refusing to entertain the application and by introducing a right of appeal in the case of dispute.
The amendments are intended to introduce some discipline. In practical terms the effect would be to make a planning authority think twice before refusing an application. The number of occasions on which such a provision would apply would be very limited, but it would make the planning authority think about the matter. In due course I may beg to move the amendments.
The Earl of Lytton: It will be seen from the Marshalled List that my name is down as opposing the Motion that Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say my piece at this juncture rather than later.
Before doing so I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and the members of her department who spent considerable time with me and a delegation which accompanied me discussing various aspects of the Bill. I appreciate that very much.
Repetitive applications can be seen as a significant log jam but the matter boils down to some extent to the quality of the planning policy and decision-making process of the local planning authority concerned. Therefore, while I am sympathetic in broad principle I believe that the problem arises from the planning system as it is currently conducted. I am concerned
584
that as yet I have no evidence regarding the statistical frequency of the problem. I have been unable to unearth any.
As the Bill stands the clause would apply to only a very limited category of repetitive applications following the dismissal of an appeal by the Secretary of State. Other amendments in the grouping would extend the categories which would fall into that exclusion provision so that it would relate to the refusal of a previous application by the local planning authority. I agree with what has already been said. I am reluctant to see a provision go forward which would allow the planning authority to be judge and jury in its own cause.
The Committee's attention has been drawn to the difficulty of interpretation. I have very grave doubts as to whether
"the same or substantially the same"
can be interpreted accurately on all occasions. It would be a legal minefield. In any event, in leaving it to the local planning authority to determine what is in accordance with the words
"the same or substantially the same"
or other wording such as "similar application" or "significant change" which also appear on the face of the Bill there is a real risk that it will be interpreted in favour of the local planning authority. I do not believe that that is how the Committee intends the matter should be dealt with hereafter.
I am also concerned at the lack of clarity regarding the wording of any rights of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has suggested that there should be a right of appeal. I agree, if it is intended that the clause should stand part of the Bill, in that it is a useful safeguard. However, that creates a further level of difficulty in the administration of an already complicated system, and on administrative grounds I have grave doubts about it.
I do not know the background to Clause 14 but I suspect that it is intended to placate vociferous community groups who are worried and frustrated about what they see as repetitive planning applications. But if the purpose of the exercise is to placate them, I think that they will be very frustrated. When looking at what on its face is a repetitive planning application, a local planning authority is likely to accept the application either because it does not strictly fall within the definitions and the authority is unsure of its position or because the authority wants to play safe and avoid fuss and bother. From the point of view of the community which may be disaffected by the decision, as it sees it, the proposal may be exactly on all fours with the one that it thought it had just defeated and seen off. There is a problem about implementing this measure.
It is only fair to touch on a general point that has surfaced at various times throughout the course of the Bill so far. I have written to the noble Baroness about this matter. I do not want to dwell on it in detail but it centres around the broader activities of local planning authorities in their planning and other functions. We all know of situations in which local planning authorities have used the system to their advantage—that may be the easiest way to put it—in

585
a manner that is seen by those who may be closely affected as overtly unfair. The authorities may see themselves as guardians of the public good in this matter but there is an undeniable conflict of interest between the planning activities of the local planning authority and the role of that same authority as landowner and developer in its own right. A number of significant abuses have taken place about which I do not want to go into detail. I have written to the noble Baroness and hope to receive her reply.
I am concerned about this issue. It is a matter that attracts increasing public attention and anxiety. I feel that it ought to be addressed at some stage. I am not certain whether the answer is in some way to have safeguards such as additional rights of appeal. I should be hesitant about clogging up the system in that way. Perhaps there should be some decoupling of the planning function from the other functions of local planning authorities. Obviously, all these matters have resource implications, so I cannot say. But I am concerned to ensure that the system is operated fairly and equitably. I feel that anything that can be done to achieve that goal is worthy of consideration. I do not consider that Clause 14 takes that aim any further. That is why my name is on the Marshalled List to oppose the Motion that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 would make three changes to the proposed arrangements. First, Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 would allow a local planning authority to decline to determine a second application even if the first refused application had not been taken to the Secretary of State on appeal or been the subject of a call-in. However, the requirement in Clause 14 that the new power can operate only where a similar proposal has already been rejected by the Secretary of State is an intentional and necessary safeguard.
The planning system already restricts the rights of owners to develop their properties as they would wish. The introduction of the proposal in Clause 14 to remove in certain defined circumstances the right of developers to have certain of their planning applications determined is not a step that we have taken lightly. In the Government's view such a restriction on developers' rights could be justified only where the development is clearly unacceptable and further consideration of the proposal would simply be a waste of everyone's time. It seems to us that the rejection of a proposal by the Secretary of State would present sufficient and reasonable grounds to define a proposal as unacceptable for these purposes and to justify use of the proposed new power.
Secondly, both Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would extend the period during which repetitive applications were barred from two to five years. The Government proposed a period of two years because it offers a reasonable balance between the need to prevent the uncertainty associated with repetitive applications and the importance of minimising the infringement of people's rights to develop their land.
586
I suspect that if the period were extended as the noble Lords propose, the provision which disbars use of the power if there has been a material change in circumstances would come into play more frequently. Thirdly, Amendment No. 99 changes the wording of the requirement that there should be no significant change in circumstances and the definition of "similar" applications.
The text of the noble Lord's revised version of subsection (1)(b) does not make it clear in what matters there must have been no material change. However, I think that noble Lords from the Government and the Opposition have similar intentions on this point, and I suggest that it is a matter of choosing the best wording. I believe that the concept as set out in Clause 14 of a significant change in considerations material to the application is more appropriate here. The revised wording of subsection (2) similarly conceals no difference of principle between us. I think that there is little to choose between the two formulations, although we should perhaps trust to parliamentary counsel's form of words.
In summary, the Government take the view that the noble Lords' amendments have some technical shortcomings. But, more importantly, they would introduce an unacceptable change in the delicate balance between the rights of developers, local planning authorities and residents. I therefore hope that the noble Lords will agree not to press Amendments Nos. 99 to 101.
Amendments Nos. 102A and 106A are intended to give applicants the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a local authority's refusal under Clause 14 to consider an application. Amendment No. 103A, which we are to discuss shortly, will do much the same thing. However, the Committee will appreciate that such a right would negate much of the purpose of the provision, which is to provide certainty for a period after a decision is made. The new power is intended to prevent developers from wearing down the resistance of local planning authorities and communities. We believe that allowing a right of appeal would undermine that objective.
Any abuse of that power will be open to review by the courts. In particular they will ensure that the safeguards built into the clause are respected. The applications must be "similar" (which the clause defines as "the same or substantially the same"); the previous application must also have been refused by the Secretary of State and not just by the planning authority; and the power cannot be used if there has been any significant change in a consideration material to the application.
Any appeal against the decision under the clause would turn on whether the power had been exercised properly and not on planning merit. Such questions are properly decided by the courts and not by my right honourable friend.
We do not agree that widespread litigation is likely. Authorities have a generally good record of staying within the boundaries of planning law. The new provision is clearly drafted and we should expect very few difficulties to arise.

587
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised a number of points. First, he mentioned the statistical frequency of repetitive applications. We do not have systematic figures to indicate how many repetitive planning applications are put forward each year. However, Ministers receive a significant flow of correspondence from individual members of the public, Members of Parliament and local amenity groups who are completely worn down by developers putting in repeated proposals for the same site. Self-evidently such repeated applications waste the time of all concerned. We are well seized of the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was concerned about repetitive appeals. It is difficult to see in what circumstances appeals would be repetitive if, following the enactment of Clause 14 of the Bill, developers are precluded from submitting repetitive applications.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the conflict between the planning activities of the local authority and its role as landowner. We shall discuss that issue when we come to Clause 17.
Most Members of the Committee agreed with the principle of the original clause but I have noted all the comments that have been made and the objections raised. It is true that we are concerned that some developers use repetitive planning applications. I have said that that can be a serious wearing-down process. I repeat just once more, because it is important, that safeguards are built into the clause. The applications must be "similar", which the clause defines as,
"the same or substantially the same",
the previous application must have been refused by the Secretary of State and not just by the local planning authority and the power cannot be used if there has been any significant change in a consideration material to the application. That change can be on the part of the local planning authority: a change of circumstance in the way in which the planning application was considered or, indeed, something material specific to the planning application itself. I have listened carefully to all the arguments. However, I hope that with that explanation the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Mottistone: With regard to my Amendments Nos. 102 and 106A I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said and consider whether her comments meet the requirements. I reserve the right to come back on Report if I am not happy.
Lord Ross of Newport: In moving the amendment I was trying to point out that a second planning application might be sent to the local authority, which may refuse to deal with it and let it lie on the table. The application becomes out of time and then the applicant appeals to the Secretary of State because planning consent was not given in time. Will the Minister take the appeal or not? That situation is not covered in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am not certain of the specific circumstances. The whole thrust and purport of the Bill are to avoid the kind of delay that leaves applicants sitting around feeling absolutely frustrated and with no right of appeal.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As regards subsection (2) of Amendment No. 99 I defer to the opinion of the Minister's parliamentary draftsmen and do not wish to challenge her. As regards paragraph (a), however, the period of two years as opposed to five years is a matter of judgment. We are concerned that, for example, the neighbours to a golf course are never off duty because they are fighting continuous applications for housing development on land. Whether two years is sufficient or whether five years would be a fairer time limit is obviously a matter of judgment. I hope that the Minister is right in saying that two years gives the planning system a chance to put its resources where the priorities lie and gives those who live close to land which is the subject of unsatisfactory applications a breathing space between repeated proposals. But I doubt it and I may wish to return to the matter at a later stage. However, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 23, line 40, at end insert:
("(1A) A local planning authority may decline to determine an application for planning permission for the development of any land if at the time of the application, or within eight weeks thereafter, the applicant submits a similar application on appeal to the Secretary of State, and for the purposes of this subsection a similar application shall be taken to mean an application falling within subsection (2) below.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 103 which is consequential. The Committee will be aware that twin tracking occurs when a developer submits two identical planning applications to the local authority. While negotiating with the local authority in respect of one he submits the other to appeal on the grounds of non-determination after eight weeks. These amendments will check that practice.
I urge the Committee to consider the problem, because it is most serious. The number of appeals has risen by 30 per cent. per year. Nearly 80 per cent. of enforcement notices go to appeal, yet 40 per cent. are subsequently withdrawn. In the meantime the same members of staff who should be determining the application within the eight-week period that we should like to see are simultaneously trying to fight off the appeal. As the Minister has rightly said in respect of Clause 1 of the Bill, local authorities are not so well endowed with professional staff that they can afford to be overstretched in this way. No one wishes to limit the right to appeal. On the contrary, noble Lords on this side of the Chamber believe that it is an important protection for applicants. However, we wish appeals to follow and not to parallel an application.
Perhaps I may give an example from my own local authority. During the past year in the outer area of Norwich—that is outside the historical core in a smaller, less contentious area—there were eight duplicate applications. Of those, seven were refused, five went to appeal and four were dismissed. For the most part the practice is about manipulation. For

589
many years twin tracking has been a process common in large shopping developments. It is done in the somewhat cynical belief that the planning process is a formality with which developers can dispense. The process is increasingly used in small bids such as for a service station on a bypass.
Following her earlier and helpful letter I suggest that the Minister might respond in one of three ways. She might say that in Clause 24 the Government are taking a firm line to discourage the late withdrawal of appeals. Presumably they are withdrawn because the applicant realises that he has little chance of success. That is helpful but, although a late withdrawal may save the cost of the inquiry, it will not save the cost of the work of the local authority in fighting off a potential appeal which does not come to realisation. I am led to believe that Bedfordshire County Council spent £100,000 of poll tax payers' money preparing to fight a major development application on the twin-tracking principle even though the appeal was subsequently withdrawn. Not only did it cost £100,000 but it caused weeks of delay to other applicants in the planning system.
Secondly, the Minister might argue that Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to dismiss an appeal where the ultimate delay is unreasonable. That clause is also welcome but the circumstance is not our concern. Our concern is where the appellant fails to delay but instead twin tracks.
Thirdly, the Minister may wish to push her case hard by rightly arguing that the decision should have been made within the eight weeks and in that case there could be no ground for twin tracking. Clearly, the eight-week period is desirable but I argue that it is obtainable only where the staff resources match the planning workload, on the one hand, and where the cases are straightforward or in conformity with the local plan, on the other hand.
Let us consider a large and complex retailing proposal of perhaps 100,000 square feet. It will have major traffic implications requiring negotiation with the adjacent local authorities, with the police and, in the case of a district council, with the county council's highways authority. It will have major implications for shopping patterns, rightly requiring consultation with high street traders and the chamber of commerce. It is likely to be a noisy and late-night business. Local residents will require not only consultations but exhibitions and displays. It will have streetscape implications and the local architects' conservation panel will expect to be consulted. It will have employment implications which may need reference to other committees of the council.
It may also be entirely proper to consider planning gain; for instance, a subway under a street to link it to the main shopping centre, additional car parking above and beyond operational car parking, additional landscaping and possibly a crèche for toddlers while mothers shop. All that must also be negotiated and considered by all the committees of the council. For such consultation to be effective one is likely to need pamphlets, graphics, exhibitions and questionnaires.
590
We are talking about large developments which might last for 80 years and which will have considerable economic impact on the locality. Does the Minister really believe that in respect of a sensitive, complex and large development all that can be done within eight weeks? If it cannot, there remains the invitation to the developer to twin track.
Sensitive, complex and large developments such as major retailing outlets which need the longer time are precisely those which have the financial muscle and resources to submit a twin track application. Effectively they are using that muscle to push their way to the head of the local authority planning queue. They wave the sword of Damocles and appeal over the heads of the local authority—and who pays? That muscle deforms the planning system to the disbenefit of the smaller and less powerful applicant who cannot command such clout.
I suggest that an orderly planning system is faster, and that is what everyone wants. Twin tracking distorts it. I emphasise that overwork in the planning process brings delay; delay brings twin tracking; and twin tracking creates overwork. The losers are the small, first-time applicants to whom, if the Minister is minded to support the amendment, we can give proper priority. In a proper and orderly way we can protect the interests of first-time applicants as we all would wish. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Baroness is very persuasive. I am not sure that she has entirely convinced me. My worry is that she is looking after the planning authorities rather than the speed with which an application goes through. However, I shall listen to what my noble friend says. I am inclined to ask her to resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It goes without saying that we all wish to see an end to the worst abuses of this practice. The Bill must be seen as a package. It aims to strike a balance between constraints which address the abuses and flexibility to allow the applications to be dealt with fairly and speedily.
These amendments seek to outlaw twin tracking. I say that because there is a flaw in the drafting of the amendments. They refer to the appeal being submitted within eight weeks from the date of submission of the first application. In cases where the two applications are submitted simultaneously it would be more than eight weeks before the submission of the appeal. The amendments as drafted would therefore fail in their purpose. I shall nonetheless address the remainder of my remarks to what I believe to be the intention behind the amendment.
The Government are familiar with the arguments against twin tracking. The practice can create confusion for local residents, as the noble Baroness so eloquently said. It can also give rise to some wasted effort in the Planning Inspectorate, although this should be reduced if Clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to dismiss an appeal if the appellant delays unduly, is enacted. It is also true that it makes life complicated for local authorities' planning

591
departments which must prepare for an appeal with one hand while continuing to consider the application with the other.
However, we must bear in mind that the planning system already involves significant constraints on the individual's freedom to develop his property as he would wish. We should therefore need to consider very carefully the introduction of any further restraint which impinges on the important freedom to make a planning application. It is a question of balance. My noble friend was considering whether one should be more concerned about the planning authority than the rights of an applicant. On balance, the Government believe that Clause 14 as it stands can be justified in this way because it seeks to prevent the abuse of that freedom. It gives local planning authorities the power, for a period, to decline to determine an application which is the same, or substantially the same, as one that has recently been refused by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is designed to eliminate a practice that is clearly a waste of everyone's time and effort. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 cannot be justified in this way. They seek to prevent behaviour which, although perhaps inconvenient to others, does not represent a blatant abuse of the system.
As in many areas of the planning system, it is a matter of achieving a sensible balance. The Government consider that it is important that applicants should continue to have the remedy of an appeal against non-determination to ensure that their proposal can be decided within a reasonable time. Twin tracking is a useful side-effect of that remedy because it allows some choice to remain at the local level even after the submission of an appeal. It also provides some discipline on local authorities to consider applications speedily. On the other hand, twin tracking can give rise to the abortive use of scarce resources. Again, that was a point well made by the noble Baroness. On balance, we should like to see the use of this practice decline, but it would be wrong to achieve this by undermining important freedoms.
We are in danger of dealing here with the symptoms and not the cause. The most effective remedy for the difficulties caused by twin tracking is in the hands of the authorities themselves. An authority which determines applications expeditiously should not find itself under any pressure from twin tracking. It will determine the simpler applications within the eight week period, and the more complex ones long before any appeal against non-determination can be decided.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that eight weeks may be too short for major applications involving very time-consuming consultations. We fully accept that eight weeks may be too short a period for some applications. The Government have set local authorities a target of dealing with 80 per cent. of applications in eight weeks. We believe that that is achievable with good management and taking into account the manning of departments. However, major development proposals are a small minority of the applications. Of course, this amendment would apply to all applications. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the Minister tell me whether anything in the Bill allows longer time for such major developments because that is the point which impressed me most in the moving of this amendment. I do not oppose twin tracking. In fact, I have often advised small people to use it because some councils do not get on with planning applications. However, I believe that the noble Baroness made a very relevant point about the length of time required for consultation.
I know that for some major developments—and I have had personal experience of this—the council asks for a delay while consultations take place. However, if the developer says that he is not prepared to do that then it is impossible for the required degree of consultation to take place. Is there anything in the Bill which allows for those circumstances in which further time is required?
Baroness Blatch: I have made the point that the applications referred to by my noble friend are in the minority. However, I take the point about their time-consuming nature. We have included a number of measures in the Bill—Clauses 12, 14 and others—which will speed up the process, minimise abuse of local authorities and address the problems of wilful or intentional delay.
Our view is that if one takes out of the equation both the 80 per cent. of applications dealt with within the normal time, if the system is efficient, and also those applications which do not resort to twin tracking because the system is better and more efficient, then one is left with a very small number of applications which will be subject to abuse. One must ask whether this amendment needs to be accepted in order to address a difficulty arising on an even smaller minority of applications. That does not minimise the particular difficulties, referred to by both noble Baronesses, of the time-consuming nature of some applications.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Like my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I have listened to the debate on the amendment. I sympathise very much with the case made out, although not necessarily the amendment moved, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
When I had to deal with these matters I took the view that the major retail applications and certain other very large planning applications were such that the planning system choked on them. Indeed, that was a phrase once used by one of my officials. A system designed for the vast majority of small and medium-sized applications did not seem to be able to cope with the very large applications within the parameters of the legislation.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the amount of consultation which must take place before such an application can be considered by a committee is very strong. And yet, what is the position of the applicant? Unless some pressure is put upon the local authority to get ahead with the consultation and not just appear to yield to the clamour from the vocal local groups which always resist these major applications, the temptation to delay is substantial.

593
I have tried to see whether this matter could be dealt with through costs. However, sometimes in the last resort councillors on the local authority may feel that the authority may incur costs which it must pay. There cannot be a surcharge for unreasonable delay on a major proposal because that would be absurd. However, I am left with the uneasy feeling that there exists here a serious problem. My noble friend on the Front Bench is right to say that the problem concerns only a tiny proportion of the whole, but the applications are often large, conspicuous and very often controversial. Somehow the balance is not right and the eight week period is not appropriate for those applications. Therefore, the temptation to twin track, as was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is very strong.
It may not be the right amendment; it may not be right to abolish the procedure altogether. But a problem exists and the legislation and the Bill does not address it. I hope my noble friend will be able to take the matter away and reconsider it. Other procedures, such as the use of a planning commission, could be used. Special planning procedures could be found for the larger applications. It may be that that is the right way to deal with the problem.
We cannot expect permissions to be given within eight weeks. In those circumstances, developers being aware of the pressures on local authorities and the likelihood of delay, will seek other means. The noble Baroness used the phrase "Sword of Damocles". That is exactly what the developer is trying to use. The present procedures are not appropriate; they are not apposite for some applications.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I made the point that the Government see this specific amendment as being flawed. I also made the point that for the vast majority of applicants, where a local authority is sluggish in its treatment of a planning application, the Bill provides a useful tool. It may not be widely used, but nevertheless the freedom and right exist.
I am entirely seized of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that a tiny minority is involved and that the minority will be even smaller by the time the Bill is enacted. Nevertheless, the time consumed by that minority on the part of planning authorities is disproportionate both in terms of manpower and costs.
As I have said in regard to a number of other amendments, the amendment should not be accepted. However, I shall give considerable thought to it between now and Report stage, and read carefully what has been said during the course of the debate. I shall speak with my officials in the department on the specific point of addressing the small minority which nevertheless take up the time of local planning authorities. In those circumstances, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I not only thank the Minister, but also the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of
594
Parkes, for the helpful comments that they made. It is clear that all sides of the Committee share the concern regarding these large, time-consuming and disproportionately demanding applications.
I intended to ask the Committee to divide, but given the support and recognition of the Committee that a serious issue exists for a small number of applications, and given the Minister's response, I do not propose to do that. However, I should like to mention one or two matters.
I am not clear about the legal drafting of the amendment. That is something I shall need to discuss. But returning to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I wish to emphasise that this issue is not about the applicant versus the self-interest of the local planning authority. The local authority is not a private interest. The local authority is seeking, according to its best judgment and within the framework of the development and structure plan, to adjudicate between conflicting goods; the rights of a developer for development, and the rights of other people very often not to have their peace, their traffic, and so forth, congested by that development.
It is not a question of the local authority's self-interest. It is a question of balancing two interests. That is why so many people recognise that consultation is important. Therefore I am uneasy when listening to phrases such as, "the vested interest of the local authority". The local authority is seeking to maintain the right balance for the entire community against development and non-development, or possibly and preferably some negotiated development.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, regarding costs is right; it was only recently brought to my attention and I am not sure whether other Members of the Committee are aware of it. One of the incentives for both repetitive applications and twin-tracking is that if the second application is submitted within 28 days of the first, the fee attached is only one quarter of the cost. It may be that the Minister could resolve that matter so that at least the fees are commensurate with the workload imposed.
Would the Minister consider whether there is any other way round the problem, perhaps by introducing a 16-week period of consideration or by the Secretary of State referring back to the local authority on appeal precisely those major development applications identified by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding? That would give it further time to consider the points raised. That might be a way forward. We shall want to return to this matter at Report stage. If the Minister could find an amendment which has the support of the Committee to deal with that category of the significant, the substantial, the sensitive and the complex development, and which does not give a red light to sluggish local authorities, we shall consider ourselves satisfied.
With those comments, with the consent of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, given the support of the Committee to the issue behind the amendment as moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102A and 103 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 24, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) After section 78(2) of that Act (right to appeal to Secretary of State) where local planning authority have failed to take a decision on an application insert—
"(2A) Where a local planning authority decline to determine an application for planning permission the applicant may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision on the ground either that the condition in section 70A(1) (a) has not been met or that the opinion of the authority mentioned in section 70A(1)(b) was incorrect".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 103A. I am conscious of its similarity to Amendment No. 102A which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I hope that the amendment will be seen as adopting a slightly different approach to the same question.
I accept that a local authority should be able to turn away a repetitive planning application if the second application is similar to the first, and if there have been no significant changes in any material considerations in the meantime. However, these criteria are essentially matters of opinion, as is stated in the Bill in the proposed new Section 70A (1) (b), in the phrase,
"in the opinion of the authority there has been no significant change".
That being the position, I suggest that there should be some right of appeal against a local authority decision to exercise its powers to determine an application on those grounds. It should be possible for such an appeal to be handled fairly simply, since the developer concerned will need to identify either reasons why the second application is not similar to the first or what significant change has arisen in the local circumstances since the earlier application was submitted. It should be possible for the Secretary of State to decide such an appeal on the basis of a written notice by the developer and written comments on that notice by the local authority. Such a procedure should entail little or no cost and little delay.
I recognise that under the present proposals in the Bill it would be open to a developer to seek judicial review of a local authority decision. However, as we know judicial review is an expensive procedure and can be time-consuming unless one is able to indicate urgency. Furthermore, the burden of proof based on the well-known Wednesbury decision is a heavy one; the applicant needs to show that no reasonable local authority could have reached the decision it did on the basis of the information available to it at the time. Therefore I suggest that judicial review is not a satisfactory basis for challenging local authority decisions under Clause 14 as it presently exists. A straightforward written procedure should be included in the clause. It is an appeal procedure which will concentrate on, if not be confined to, a change in circumstances or other new considerations. It would not enable the developer to do what it is accepted he should not be allowed to do; namely, to go over the same ground again.
Baroness Blatch: As the noble Lord has said, most of these issues have been addressed in speaking to Amendments Nos. 102A and 106A. This amendment
596
is intended to give applicants the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the local authority's refusal again under Clause 14. As I said earlier, such a right would negate much of the purpose of the provision, which is to provide certainty for a period after a decision is made. The new power is intended to prevent developers from wearing down the resistance of local planning authorities and communities. Allowing a right of appeal would undermine that objective.
I have noted the noble Lord's cynicism about judicial review, but I have to say that the courts will be able to review the use of the new power and local authorities will be mindful of that fact in using it. We believe that that is the proper safeguard. If we agree with this amendment, we shall remove the protection that the clause seeks to give to communities threatened by repetitive planning applications. I hope that with those remarks, and with what I said in response to Amendments Nos. 102A and 106A, the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord Meston: What I had hoped to suggest was a straightforward, simple appeal rather than a method of making representations, which I think was suggested in the earlier amendment. It was certainly not my intention to negate the purpose of Clause 14 itself, nor to enable developers to wear down planning authorities, as the noble Baroness suggested.
I am not cynical about judicial review. I know its limitations. But I should like to think about this matter further and read not only what the noble Baroness said in relation to my amendment but what was said in the earlier debate, not all of which I was able to hear. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Lytton: I have already spoken to this clause and there is nothing more that I need do other than thank the noble Baroness for her comments to which I listened with great interest. I still feel that it is something which in practice will not work particularly well, and there are plenty of opportunities for circumventing it. But other than reserving my position in the event of there being an appropriate moment later to raise the matter again, I have no further comment to make.
Clause 14 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Objection by conservation bodies
. In section 77 of the principal Act—
(a) after subsection (2) (b) there is inserted—
"(c) must be given if there is an unresolved objection from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, the National Rivers Authority, English Heritage or the County Council for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;

597
(b) in subsection (5) after "wish," there is inserted "or any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) (c),".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 104 is a new clause in the names of my noble friend Lord Norrie and, I am glad to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, also, as well as myself. It deals with objections by conservation bodies and I must stress that they are statutory conservation bodies. I shall deal with that aspect further in a moment. Amendment No. 104 is grouped with Amendment No. 105 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. They overlap to an extent but they are quite different in structure and purpose. Amendment No. 104 is also grouped with Amendment No. 148 and that, too, deals with the question of what is to be done with the statutory conservation bodies when there are planning applications.
Noble Lords will see that it is suggested that when there is an unresolved objection from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, the National Rivers Authority, English Heritage or the county council for the area—there is legislation by reference here, but perhaps I may briefly explain the effect —the Secretary of State is required to issue a direction regarding a planning application referred to him by one of those bodies.
I should remind your Lordships that each of the bodies mentioned is given various responsibilities by statute to protect the environment in various ways, and if the local planning authority ignores or rejects the views put forward by the statutory body the will of Parliament is indirectly frustrated. There is a conflict and it is a conflict which surely Parliament should try to overcome. This amendment and Amendment No. 148 attempt to do that although in slightly different ways.
I should mention that the National Rivers Authority is particularly keen about this amendment and I should like by way of example to explain some of the situations which can arise in which Parliament has given the National Rivers Authority and its predecessors various responsibilities. For example, there is sometimes undesirable development in a river catchment area which is liable to flooding or pollution, and the development may add to the risk of flooding or pollution. Then sometimes developments in flood plains have been allowed by local planning authorities against the advice of the NRA or its predecessor bodies.
Of course, the social and practical costs, as well as the economic costs, of flooding and indeed of increased pollution are considerably more if development has taken place without proper precautions being taken than if advice by the river authority about how a development should be sited or designed has been accepted. Sometimes some infrastructure capital works—at some public cost, admittedly—are necessary to avoid those situations.
In most cases the local planning authority and the National Rivers Authority, or any of the other bodies mentioned, will come to an agreement which is
598
satisfactory to both sides, but there have been cases where they have failed to do so and there may be occasional cases in future. This is not likely to lead to an enormous volume of work in the Department of the Environment, but it is a situation that we should envisage, anticipate and guard against.
I should refer to the method in the two different amendments. In Amendment No. 104 we state that the Secretary of State, having called in the case, should hold a public inquiry if any of the statutory bodies request it. In Amendment No. 148 it is stated that where the local planning authority seeks to adopt a local development plan to which one of the statutory bodies has raised an unresolved objection, the particulars should be sent to the Secretary of State and the development plan should not be adopted until he has given his authority, his approval, for it to go ahead with or without the objection being accepted; with or without it being modified.
I should have thought that each of the two amendments is necessary in order to drive sense and consistency into our statute law. Otherwise Parliament will say that it is not doing its duty. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I support Amendments Nos. 104 and 148 because they will provide new and important safeguards to protect national environmental interests and prevent them from being ignored. It is a considerable anomaly in the planning system that the views of official government advisers on the countryside, nature conservation, water and heritage issues can be ignored by a local authority either when faced with a planning application or when adopting a local plan.
It is even more surprising that even when a government quango objects to a development proposal the Secretary of State does not have to be made aware of it. The serious damage that has been caused to our sites of special scientific interest, to our national parks and to our archaeological and historical heritage can, in no small way, be put down to the weak role of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, English Heritage and the National Rivers Authority in the planning system, and I welcome their support for efforts to increase their stature.
This amendment does not mean that no development would ever be allowed because these bodies object. Far from it. It would merely ensure that the most serious threats to our heritage would have to be looked at closely by the Secretary of State and that he would be fully aware of the effect of his decisions.
I have already expressed concern about the over-selective use of the Secretary of State's call-in powers, and it is said that he will only call in applications of national or regional significance. Surely our sites of special scientific interest, our national parks and our ancient monuments are of national significance, yet the Secretary of State has refused to call in almost one third of the cases where English Heritage has asked him to intervene. This is despite the fact that English Heritage does not involve him in 99 per cent. of the applications that it considers.

599
The Committee will be aware of the recent controversy over the granting of planning permission for housing development at Canford Heath in Dorset. That heath is an SSSI. It is also protected by the United Kingdom's international obligations under the Berne Convention, but the local authority was free to give itself planning permission for the development. I have seen reports from a recent meeting of the Berne Convention that the Government promise to consider strengthening the planning protection for sites covered by the convention. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able to give us an indication of what this new protection might be.
The general strengthening of the role of the Government's own advisers would be an important first step towards recognising the need to take environmental considerations fully into account before authorising irreversible damage. This amendment would also give a much-needed boost to strategic planning. One of the most welcome features of the Bill was the assurance of a continued role for the county structure plan at the heart of the planning process. However, there has been a problem in implementing these plans when county councils are not responsible for making most of the decisions on planning applications.
This amendment would ensure that the county council's fears could not be lightly dismissed. There is particularly widespread support for this amendment, and I hope that my noble friend can give the Committee a positive response when she makes her reply.
Baroness Nicol: We support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I would remind the Committee that the Government agreed, during the passage of the Environmental Protection Act, that it was desirable that conservation criteria should have consistent values throughout the United Kingdom. The Countryside Commission, English Heritage, the Nature Conservancy Council and the National Rivers Authority are all responsible for ensuring that standards are maintained. It is therefore essential that unresolved objections should be examined by the Secretary of State to ensure that matters of national importance are determined according to national rather than local criteria.
There is evidence of serious damage to important features in developments that have been given planning permission, and if I may I shall just give the Committee an example from the Nature Conservancy Council's annual report. The example concerns damage to sites of special scientific interest in the year April 1989 to March 1990. As regards activities in respect of which planning permission was granted one site was completely lost, partial loss was suffered in five sites, and long-term damage was done in nine sites. I should particularly like to draw to the Committee's attention the long-term damage figure because it covers an area of 1,031 hectares.
The farmer is often held up as the bogeyman of the site of special scientific interest. However, in that same report we find that long-term damage done by agricultural activity to sites of special scientific interest
600
was confined to 16 sites. There were no sites lost and no partial or complete loss, and it covered 189 hectares. Therefore, one can see that the damage done by developments with planning permission was considerably greater during that year than the damage done by agriculture. I have to say, of course, lest the farmers feel too complacent, that there was a considerable amount of short-term damage, but that is not in the same category.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities opposes these amendments, which it sees as fettering the Secretary of State's decisions, but surely the contrary is true since the Secretary of State will be given extra opportunities to express his views. The AMA is rightly concerned that economic needs should not be ignored, but neither should environmental needs. The facts revealed in the Nature Conservancy Council's statistics cannot be ignored, and must be viewed in the light of the new approach to conservation of the environment now being built into every government department.
These amendments will help to ensure that in the comparatively small number of cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, drew attention where unresolved objections exist, a better balance may be struck. If our Amendments Nos. 104 and 148 failed, then I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would be a useful strengthening of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. However, I feel that our amendments would do a more useful job, and I hope that they will be supported.
Lord Chorley: I had not intended to intervene on this particular amendment, but I listened with the greatest of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and as chairman of the National Trust I should like to support his amendment. The National Trust is not a statutory body, but we are a national institution and I would suggest that our objectives are national public interest objectives. Of course we enjoy close relations with the statutory bodies listed in the amendment.
I see the amendment being, on occasion, of great benefit to our purposes, which I say are national purposes. I support the amendment, and I hope that we shall get a sympathetic reception from the noble Baroness when she replies.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to be linked in this amendment with the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. My amendment is No. 105, to which reference has been made. The purpose of Amendment No. 105 is to provide for automatic reference to the Secretary of State of unresolved objections by the Nature Conservancy Council to the granting of planning permissions that would affect sites of special scientific interest.
We have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the Front Bench and I have to say to him that we are extremely worried about the situation in Scotland following the decision recently taken in your Lordships' House on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. We see a real challenge to SSSIs in the amendment that was carried, and I hope that the

601
Government will stand firm on that issue. I hesitate to comment on Scottish affairs although I have a Scottish name and Scottish ancestry, but in my view Scotland is three-quarters of the heritage of the British Isles and the most important part of it. I hope that the Government take the same view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out the problems of planning consents that have damaged so many SSSIs. To put her comments into perspective, nearly 40 per cent. of the cases of loss or serious damage to SSSIs for the year ending 31st March 1990 resulted from conscious decisions taken by planning authorities. In addition, 373 hectares—I prefer acres, but I suppose that we must now talk in terms of hectares—of SSSIs suffered short-term damage for the same reason.
SSSIs form a national, mutually supporting system of independent sites selected according to well-worked, nationally agreed criteria. Sites are not included just at someone's whim. Loss or damage to any SSSI is a loss to the national nature conservation resource as a whole. That is especially true of biological systems including mobile animals such as migratory birds.
It may be thought that a prima facie case exists for refusing planning permission for developments that would damage the integrity of any SSSI. The only mitigating circumstances might be where an overriding national need exists for the development proposed. I would like it to go on record that I am totally in favour of planning. I support very strongly the amendments I am putting forward to this Bill. I believe that the Bill is moving very much in the right direction. However, I do not want to be seen as anti local authority planning. I thank God for the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. I wish that we had stuck with it. If that were the case, all land would now be changing hands at existing use value. However, we changed the provision and, unfortunately, we mucked it up. When one goes to Japan or Southern Ireland one sees what problems arise when there is no form of planning. The situation goes completely awry.
I am grateful that the Government are now looking towards planning in order to protect our environment. We have gone through a period when we suspected that would not be the case. Perhaps I should not go much further. Nevertheless, conflict does arise between national values which underlie decisions taken by local planning authorities which unfortunately allow—and under pressure in many cases—damaging developments on SSSIs. These pressures inevitably loom larger than matters of wider concern. It is the Secretary of State for the Environment, whether the issue involves Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, who has to go to Brussels or wherever to defend this country as regards the Berne Convention. That is the reason why we have problems such as those in Dorset.
Because local planning authorities have no statutory obligation to preserve the natural environment but have an explicit duty under the planning Acts to plan for the improvement of the physical development, they are caught in a cleft stick. All the
602
urging in government circles to have regard to nature conservation is worth little in the hard light of day where statutory decisions have to be taken at a local level and subject to local political pressures. I shall not say any more. I very strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that the Government will at least take some note of the amendment to which I have just spoken.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I do not think that there is justification for special powers of this nature to be given to these bodies. In effect, the amendments would put these bodies in a stronger position in the planning system than any other group, including the elected local authorities, such as parish and community councils, and the individual members of the public. That would unjustifiably unbalance the planning system. Planning authorities are already required to take into account representations made to them whichever quarter they may come from, and that includes the bodies which have been mentioned.
Lord Moran: I support these amendments, which have been so ably spoken to by three noble Lords and the noble Baroness. They are very important. Amendments Nos. 104 and 148 include the county councils among the bodies from which objections would trigger a requirement for planning applications to be called in. The statutory bodies mentioned in these two amendments are very responsible bodies. I am sure that in the great majority of cases the differences will be capable of resolution in discussion. That means that, in the few cases in which a planning application is put forward to which one of the bodies objects strongly, the matter will not be decided by them but put to the Secretary of State. That is entirely right.
I am particularly glad that Amendments Nos. 104 and 148 include the National Rivers Authority among the bodies concerned. During an earlier stage of this Bill I spoke about fish farming and the need for the National Rivers Authority to be consulted at an earlier stage and the advantages that that would bring. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made about flood plains is extremely important. The building of houses may be allowed by planning authorities in areas which are subject to flooding. There is then a tremendous fuss when flooding occurs and great expense and difficulty is incurred which could have been avoided had the National Rivers Authority been consulted earlier as required by these amendments. Amendments Nos. 104 and 148 are the more desirable amendments because they are wider, though the thought behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is equally valid.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I share the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about some of the decisions taken by your Lordships during the passage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill the other day. I was anxious about that. As regards the present matter, I agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. One has to look at the issue from the point of view of the planning authority which takes a

603
position on an application when one of these bodies or the county council objects. There is a discussion and an attempt is made to resolve the matter. If Amendment No. 104 is adopted the planning authority is automatically overridden and the decision to call in is made by an unelected quango or by the county council.
If one is elected to be a member of a planning authority the person who should decide whether to overrule that authority's decision is another elected person; namely, the Secretary of State. I am very anxious that these bodies should have their say. I was very surprised to hear the Labour Front Bench speak as it did. The relationship between conservation quangos is a very delicate matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, put the point of view of the National Trust. These expressions of opinion have to be listened to with great care. It is wrong to allow an unelected quango completely to overrule a decision and for the application to be sent directly to the Secretary of State. The decision comes in the wrong place. The right person to decide whether a matter should be called in is another elected person. That is absolutely basic to our planning system. I was very sorry to hear the suggestion that has been made.
Lord Renton: There is no question of the automatic overruling of a local planning authority. In the rare cases in which the statutory body (which has duties imposed on it by Parliament) has been unable to persuade the local authority, then under Amendment No. 104 the matter would be called in by the Secretary of State. He can hold a local inquiry at which all views can be heard. His inspector would report back to him. There is no question of the democratically elected local authority simply being overridden.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not mean that. I meant that the decision to call in is made by the quango. I do not believe that that is right. The decision to call in should be made by an elected person —the Secretary of State.
Lord Ross of Newport: I welcome the first comment made by the noble Baroness. Does she accept that Scotland is regarded as the jewel in the crown as regards nature conservation?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Scotland is the jewel in the crown so far as everything is concerned.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I support noble Lords who have said that the Government should not accept these amendments. I do so because of the very well explained position put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, concerning the role of the planning authority. She was extremely clear and effective in explaining that it is the planning authority which has to take in the range of views expressed and, having considered all those various views, make the final decision. There is no question that the statutory bodies will play a very important part. What is being suggested is that certain bodies have a second bite at the cherry, because they can come back again. But what about all the others who might equally disagree or find that they cannot accept the decisions that are
604
made? They might be extremely important for the area, such as whether the employment is correct, whether investment can take place or whether consumers can be satisfied. It would be wrong to accept these amendments as suggested.
The Earl of Lytton: Before the Minister rises to reply, if I may take up the time of the Committee, I should like to raise an important point in connection with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. At the risk of crossing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it would be fine if all the various bodies spoke with one voice; but they do not do so. Very often they cannot agree among themselves. For instance, I know of a situation where the National Rivers Authority, on the one hand, and the Nature Conservancy Council, on the other, are at loggerheads because they cannot agree on the correct policy for dealing with a certain area of land. Thus I see the situation opening up a complete débâcle of the planning system where these bodies, with all their various interests which do not coincide, may have rights in the way that is proposed by these amendments. It is right and proper that such bodies should have an input of which great regard is taken, but, for the reasons that I have stated, I question whether these amendments are the right vehicle.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 104 concerns the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers to call in an application for his own determination under Section 77 of the principal Act. It would reduce his discretion, because objections to a planning application by a range of conservation bodies or the county council would require automatic call-in of the application concerned.
The Government have the greatest respect for the wisdom and judgment of conservation bodies. We recognise too the vital role played in the planning system by the county councils; but we do not believe that we must invariably defer to their judgment. To do so would be an abdication of our responsibilities.
We are anxious about the amendments on three counts. First, if we breach the principle that the decision to call an application in is the Secretary of State's alone, we would give a privileged position to only some of the bodies on whose advice we rely, while others would feel justly aggrieved. That point has been well made by a number of noble Lords. Secondly, conservation bodies and others have specific roles to play in the planning system and specific interests to promote. But planning decisions should be taken in a wider context than that, in the light of all material considerations, and in the public interest. Thirdly, the Government's approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the local planning authority unless this is absolutely necessary—again a point well made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. We are very selective about calling in cases for our decision and in general do so only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.
Amendment No. 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, relates only to sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), or land subject to a nature conservation order. The Government attach great

605
importance to nature conservation. DoE Circular 27/87 advises local planning authorities to have proper regard to nature conservation considerations in determining planning applications, and to consult the NCC not only—as they are legally required to do—on developments within SSSIs, but also on those which affect SSSIs indirectly. The environment White Paper announced that the Department of the Environment would be issuing further policy guidance to help local planning authorities. It is my intention to continue to pursue that document, and the hope is that it may be available, if not before this Bill passes through the House of Lords, certainly before it does so through the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State has shown that he is prepared to call in planning applications on SSSIs: for example at Lydd Airport, at the Isle of Sheppey and at Chichester Harbour. The Government are considering making more explicit the criteria relating to such call-ins, but we believe that the question of call-in is a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State, taking account of all material considerations. He will pay very careful regard to the views of the Nature Conservancy Council and to other advisory bodies in reaching his decision. But the decision to call in should be his and it should not be dictated by another body's views.
Amendment No. 148 would provide that where the named organisations had objected to local plan proposals and the planning authority did not propose to modify them to take account of the objection, the authority would be obliged to send the objection to the Secretary of State, together with their reasons for not modifying their proposals, and could not proceed to adopt their proposals until authorised by the Secretary of State. Where the organisation maintained their objection, the Secretary of State would be obliged to call in the proposals for his own decision.
Clearly any objection raised to a local plan by any of the bodies listed in the amendment is something which needs to be considered very seriously by the local planning authority. But the local plan procedures for objection at deposit stage, for their consideration by an independent inspector at inquiry, and for objection at proposed modification stage, already provide ample opportunity for objections to be fully considered. The further power proposed in the amendment for the named organisations to require the Secretary of State's intervention at adoption stage would only serve to create delay in the plan process. If an organisation were unhappy at the council's decision following the public local inquiry, they could ask the Secretary of State to use his reserve powers to direct modification or call in at that stage; and the Secretary of State would consider their representations very carefully. But I am sure it is right that the decision whether to call in a local plan should be a matter for judgment, and not something automatically triggered by the lodging of an objection, even from one of those bodies. It has been pointed out to me that if, say, four of the named objectors agreed and only one disagreed that would still trigger off automatic call-in. There is no doubt that one of the
606
main problems about this amendment is that it would make some bodies and some interests more equal than others.
A very important point was raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, concerning the issue of development in river catchment areas which adds to the risk of flooding. The Government have recently invited the National Rivers Authority to consider whether there is any need for updating the DoE, MAFF and the Welsh Office circular giving guidance on development in flood risk areas. That has been taken into account by my department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to statistics. It is important to put on record some statistics which need to be taken into account regarding these amendments. The NCC's 60th annual report may have been the document used by the noble Baroness. It is a fact that during the 1980s there was a decline in damage to SSSIs. I must emphasise that that is not a reason to be complacent. The report indicates that 418 SSSIs were added to the network in 1989–90, increasing the coverage from 1,414,335 hectares to 1,618,641 hectares, which was an increase in Great Britain of 204,306 hectares. Before a noble Lord says, "Yes, but that is the gross figure, not a net figure" I would say that nevertheless the net figure is still an increase of 116,590 hectares.
The NCC also indicated that there had been a sharp increase in short-term agricultural damage, which I think was a point made by the noble Baroness. There were 122 sites compared with 71 sites in 1988–89, but this was partly due to better monitoring and the difficulties encountered in reaching agreements with commoners. As monitoring and the system for negotiating agreements improve, the hope is that we shall see an overall improvement in the system. The importance of this subject is not under-estimated by me or by my department; nor is it by the Government. However, it must be said that this amendment is calling for special consideration for special interests and special organisations. But, as I said, only one of the named organisations can trigger off automatic call in.
The Environmental Protection Act, this Bill when it reaches the statute book, many of the statements in the White Paper This Common Inheritance and much that will flow therefrom, are all placing many duties on local authorities. A significant duty is the obligation that they must take into account and have regard to, the environment and areas of special scientific interest, outstanding natural beauty and so on. The Government take such matters very seriously, but this amendment is unacceptable.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am somewhat encouraged by it. In moving Amendment No. 104 and speaking also to Amendment No. 148, I must confess that I felt that this would be a test of the environmental friendliness of Her Majesty's Government and indeed of noble Lords. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, some of whom revealed greater environmental friendliness than others. I also felt that

607
consideration of the two amendments to which I referred would be a test of the credibility of the Government's White Paper.
The somewhat differing views which we have heard today—if I may say so with the deepest respect, as noble Lords who spoke have in many cases much greater experience than I have in such matters—revealed a misunderstanding about what goes on and about the intention behind the amendment. However, I should not weary the Committee by answering all those points. I shall simply say that these amendments have achieved something considerable: they have made my noble friend at the Department of the Environment and her colleagues think about what more they ought to be doing in order to ensure that these statutory bodies with their responsibilities—that is, the quangos—are not utterly frustrated in what they do.
My noble friend has made it clear that the Secretary of State does call in cases where there is a conflict or a likely conflict. She has also listed various further steps which the Government intend to take to protect the environment. In view of all that, I feel thankful enough to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Planning applications in respect of certain land
After section 77 of the principal Act there is inserted—"
"Planning applications in respect of certain land.
77A.—(1) Where a local planning authority receives an application for planning permission in respect of a development which would affect land within any area notified under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the subject of an order under section 29 of that Act, and where—

(a) the Nature Conservancy Council have objected to the grant of planning permission and have not withdrawn that objection; and

(b) the local planning authority proposes that planning permission should be granted, the application shall be referred by the local planning authority to the Secretary of State for determination by him.

(2) An application for planning permission referred to the Secretary of State under this section shall be determined as if it were the subject of a direction given under section 77, and the provisions of that section shall apply with any necessary modifications." ").
The noble Lord said: I wish to God that I still shared the belief in local planning expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. That is no longer the case. I now believe that there has to be a radical reform of local government. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Loud Fraser of Carmyllie Loud Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 106:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Notice etc. of applications to owners and agricultural tenants
(".—(1) For section 24 of the 1972 Act (notification of applications for planning permission) there is substituted—
"Notice etc. of applications to owners and agricultural tenants.
24.—(1) A development order or regulations may make provision requiring—
608

(a) notice to be given of any application for planning permission, and

(b) any applicant for such permission to issue a certificate as to the interests in the land to which the application relates or the purpose for which it is used,

and provide for publicising such applications and for the form, content and service of such notices and certificates.
(2) Notice under subsection (1) of this section shall be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was—

(a) the owner of; or

(b) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

the land to which the application relates.
(3) A development order or regulations may require an applicant for planning permission to certify, in such form as may be prescribed by the order or the regulations, or to provide evidence, that any requirements of the order or the regulations have been satisfied.
(4) A development order or regulations making any provision by virtue of this section may make different provision for different cases or different classes of development.
(5) A planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission unless any requirements imposed by virtue of this section have been satisfied.
(6) If any person—

(a) issues a certificate which purports to comply with any requirement imposed by virtue of this section and contains a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular; or

(b) recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with any such requirement and contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(8) In this section "interest in land" includes an interest in any mineral in the land.
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any time within the period of two years following the commission of the offence."
(2) For section 26(3) of the 1972 Act there is substituted—

"(3) Where an application for planning permission is accompanied by such a certificate as is mentioned in subsection (1) (b) or (3) of section 24 of this Act a development order or regulations may—

(a) provide that a planning authority shall not determine an application for planning permission before the end of such period as may be prescribed;

(b) require a planning authority—

(i) to take into account in determining such an application such representations, made within such period, as may be prescribed; and

(ii) to give to any person whose representations have been taken into account such notice as may be prescribed of their decision.

(3A) A development order or regulations making any provision by virtue of this section may make different provision for different cases or different classes of development."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power of planning authority to decline to determine applications]:
[Amendment No. 106A not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Dismissal of appeals in cases of undue delay]:
[Amendments Nos. 106B to 106E not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Dismissal of appeals in cases of undue delay]:
[Amendments Nos. 106F to 106J not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Limitations on duration of planning permission
.—(1) For section 91(1) (b) of the principal Act (general conditions limiting duration of planning permission) there is substituted—
"(b) five years beginning with such a date (whether specific or by reference to the completion of other development consisting of the winning and working of minerals which is already being carried out by the applicant for the planning permission) as the authority concerned with the terms of the planning permission may direct."
(2) In section 91(4) paragraph (d) is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be aware that on receipt of ordinary planning permission in the case of, for example, an extension to one's house or something of that nature work must begin within five years, or such other time as specified; otherwise it lapses and the applicant has to re-apply.
The amendment proposed refers to minerals such as peat and gravel extraction. The objective is to ensure that the same conditions apply; in other words, that the work should begin within five years of the permission being granted or within five years of completion of the mineral extraction from an existing site, or if the work has not been started, a new application would have to be made.
My reasons for putting forward the amendment are that I believe that the public perception of environmental priorities has changed considerably. There is now a much greater wish among the public to protect the environment from unnecessary change than there was some years ago. The same applies in respect of planning authorities. Decision-makers in the planning machinery are rightly under pressure to minimise damage to the environment and to pursue sustainable development objectives.
Therefore, against that background, it seems to me that a developer should not be allowed to take more than five years to decide whether to begin a development for which planning permission has been granted. I say that because over a period of five years the acceptability of such a development in environmental terms may change. Indeed, people may become more aware of the environmental value of a piece of land, or there could be changes in planning policy.
In the mineral field at present a planning authority has no means of revoking the original planning
610
permission before it is time-expired other than by a complex bureaucratic process which involves the payment of compensation. In practice, local authorities are reluctant to withdraw planning permissions which may make them liable to pay very high sums of money in compensation.
The idea of putting forward such an amendment came to my mind primarily because of my interest in the preservation of our peat resources, about which I initiated a debate on 9th May of last year. Members of the Committee may be aware of the case involving planning permission to extract peat from an area known as the Fens and Whixall Mosses in the Welsh Borders. In that case the planning authority was not made aware of the nature conservation importance of the site until several years after permission had been granted. To have revoked planning permission could have resulted in compensation of up to £1.5 million. That is the sort of case I had in mind when I tabled the amendment.
I wish to create a safety net which would limit the duration of the permission to a period of five years. However, the amendment has been drafted to recognise the fact that special consideration needs to be given to mineral developers who need to secure the continuity of, say, aggregate supply for building developments. That is the object of the amendment. I very much hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I strongly support the amendment. I became very much aware of the problem when the noble Lord, Lord Moran, tabled his Unstarred Question about peat resources last May. It was quite clear how much damage was being caused as a result of these old planning permissions which had been allowed to continue for over 40 to 50 years in some cases. During that debate I said that only new legislation revoking licences issued before a certain date and laying down much stricter conditions for new ones could stop the rot which looks likely to finish our supply of peat by the middle of the decade. Are the Government alive to the problem and, if so, do they propose to do anything about it as Germany has done?
The NCC strongly supports the review of mineral workings and says that there should be a once-and-for-all cut-off for long-standing planning permissions, including those granted under interim development orders. Linked to Amendment No. 107 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, are Amendments Nos. 114A, 115A, 120A and 129A. I shall refer to those amendments because they are linked and I shall try not to be too long. Three of them have been suggested by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, which welcomes the amendment to make all mining sites subject to review by the local authority. That plugs the loophole where local authorities can avoid their duty to review early planning permissions (such as interim development orders which have a planning permission) which have been operated for a time but have been dormant for more than five years.
However, about 39 reviews only have been started by mineral planning authorities and few have been

611
completed since the reviews were introduced by the 1981 Act. Section 105 should be further amended to take account of that failure and to make the duty to review all sites every five years a requirement. That would bring us into line with other European countries such as Germany, as I said in my speech last May and which I quoted again this evening. Amendment No. 114A would achieve that objective.
Amendment No. 115A relates to the special basis for compensation in respect of orders affecting mineral workings. At present, the mineral compensation modifications made by regulations under Schedule 11 do not apply if the order for which the compensation is offered imposes any restriction upon the winning and working of minerals. In other words, full compensation has to be paid if any substantial changes to a mineral extraction site are made. That makes it impossible for mineral planning authorities to deal effectively with any of the post-war planning permissions which were granted over indeterminate areas and which can be reactivated after 30 years' or 40 years' dormancy.
The interim development order permissions granted between 1946 and 1948 are of concern. They cover extensive areas which are valuable wildlife habitats. The threat of reactivation of those permissions causes considerable disruption to people's lives and to the countryside. The case of Carmel Woods in Dyfed shows how an IDO has caused years of conflict between local people and McAlpine's, the quarry operators. Dyfed County Council, which is the mineral planning authority, has been unable to resolve the dispute over the extent of the claimed permission or to arrive at satisfactory arrangements for the operation of the quarry. The case is now going to the High Court where the extent and the validity of the permission will be determined. The reason for the dispute is that the original maps which were attached to the permission are claimed to have been lost. Three farms are threatened by the claimed permission and also a nationally important woodland SSSI with caves supporting Greater Horseshoe Bats.
Amendment No. 115A has been produced to try to change that situation. Since the review of planning permissions for minerals are statutory reviews, it would be appropriate to make the EC directive on environmental assessment applicable to the reviews of those permissions. The EC directive did not exist when the 1981 Act was passed, and the Bill is an opportunity to bring mineral planning law into line with European law. Environmental assessment is a useful means of considering the steps needed for the protection of the environment.
Amendment No. 129A does not come from the RSNC. It deals with interim development orders and tries to bring them under planning control. Those orders are interim permissions for mineral developments which were required by the Town and Country Planning Acts during the period July 1943 to July 1948, when the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 came into force. They were preserved by that Act, and
612
now, by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990, no fresh planning permissions are needed to implement IDOs.
There are two major problems: under the 1947 Act there was no requirement to register the IDO permissions. There is therefore uncertainty as to how many of those orders exist or how much land is affected. As there is no requirement to register the orders, they do not show up in land searches. As a result, significant distress can be caused to those people whose property is affected by extensions to quarries, or new mineral developments, who often bought their properties while being unaware of the existence of IDOs. IDOs often relate to large areas of land and not to particular sites, such as the immediate environs of quarries extant in the 1940s. I have further examples of such sites but I shall omit them because I do not have the time to give them.
Amendment No. 129A seeks to do three things because of all those problems. First, it repeals the relevant provisions of the 1971 and 1990 Town and Country Planning Acts which preserve the planning permissions granted by the IDOs in the 1940s. Secondly, it gives the Secretary of State, following consultation with interested bodies, the power to review the IDO permissions and to grant planning permission for those developments which he feels would be appropriate today, subject to whatever conditions he may impose. Thirdly, where planning permissions granted by IDOs are not renewed or are subject to more stringent conditions than those imposed under the original permission, the occupier may apply to the mineral planning authority for unrestricted planning permission to carry out the development to which the relevant permission relates. An application will be lodged with the local planning authority and recorded on the planning register when the occupier of the land gives a copy of the original IDO to the mineral planning authority.
The amendment will remove some of the worst effects associated with the IDOs. In particular, those IDOs which are not presented to the mineral planning authority within a specified time will lapse, removing much uncertainty and potential environmental damage.
Amendment No. 120A is a further amendment put forward by the RSNC. It relates to the aftercare conditions imposed upon grant of permission. To put it briefly, the amendment imposes an obligation upon those who have abandoned mineral sites which become important wildlife habitats. It would be sensible to make a nature conservation after use, the deemed restoration condition; for example, where peatlands, gravel pits and small limestone quarries are concerned.
I am afraid that I have given a rather hurried explanation of the amendments because I am aware that everyone feels that we should be making progress. That does not mean that I do not feel strongly about them. This is an important nature conservation matter. For instance, when peat was extracted in the 1940s, it was more or less done by hand, spade or whatever the instrument was. We now have huge

613
machines that ravage the earth, which is something that we should try to stop. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this raft of amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am sure that the Government are aware of the problems which have given rise to the amendments, which I support. My attention was drawn to them by the BBC programme "Country File" which is broadcast at 12.30 p.m. on a Sunday, to which I give great credit, and which dealt with a problem that is arising in South Wales. I wrote immediately to the BBC and asked for a copy of the handout which came from the RSNC. A number of farmers and landowners suddenly found that their land could be excavated for minerals due to a consent which was granted before 1947. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has explained the background to such events.
My attention has also been drawn to what is happening in Lancashire in the constituency of my honourable friend—I call him my friend—the Minister for the Environment, Mr. David Trippier, where a large amount of gravel is being extracted from quarries which date back to before 1947. One problem occurs when people buy properties in such areas. Their solicitors make searches but those facts do not turn up. The people are unaware of the fact that they have bought a property which may suddenly become part of a great quarry. The County Planning Officers Society—and for once I am on the right side of the local authorities—which represents planning officials in England and Wales joins the CPRE and the RSNC in calling for legislation to end the validity of these consents.
I realise that these permissions are banked in large companies which need to extract the minerals. We have a big building programme in roads, railways and similar works and minerals are needed. However, we should rectify the situation and make sure that we take them from the areas that cause the least damage.
Amendment No. 116A which appears under my name would amend Schedule 9 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Compensation is normally paid under Section 116, where old mineral permissions are revoked or modified under Section 97 of the Act and paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Some of the compensations could be in the millions, but the Bill introduces a power to make regulations to restrict the compensation. My amendment will allow the specific problem of the pre-1948 provisions to be addressed.
Amendment No. 118 deals with the definition of waste. The courts may interpret "waste" in planning law differently from its definition given in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In R v Rotherham MBC ex parte Rankin the court gave "waste" in planning terms its ordinary meaning. While this may not lead to great differences at present, the complexity of definitions in European Community directives would be made worse if there were a difference between "waste" for planning purposes and
614
"waste" for environmental control purposes. That is nitpicking but I hope the Government will be able to deal with the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Any appreciation of what is provided for by Schedule 1 should lead to the conclusion that the Bill already covers fully a number of the problems that undoubtedly exist in relation to mineral workings and other voids. It is clear that there is a good deal of concern about the adequacy of the provisions that were introduced by the 1981 Minerals Act to deal with old permissions. The amendments grouped together here all have that common theme.
I recognise the increasing concern about old planning permissions for mineral workings, including those for peat extraction and especially those granted under IDOs which are unlikely to have conditions attached that would meet today's standards. The powers introduced by the 1981 Minerals Act providing for mineral planning authorities to carry out reviews of mineral sites in their areas and to make appropriate orders revoking and updating the permissions to modern standards were intended to deal with the problem. We are disappointed that more progress has not been made.
It was announced in the environment White Paper that we intended to review the operation of the provisions introduced by the 1981 Minerals Act and the compensation arrangements under it. We shall look at the method and timing of the duty to review sites, the provisions governing time limits on mineral permissions; the order-making powers and the entitlement to and amount of compensation; and the adequacy and effectiveness of restoration and aftercare conditions. The particular issues raised by IDO permissions will clearly form an important part of this review. The comments made during the course of this debate will undoubtedly be taken into account.
However, as I have indicated from that summary, the review will be necessarily a wide-ranging one covering all aspects of the 1981 Act, including consideration of the special problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, had particular regard; namely, peat extraction. Work has already started on that review, but it is expected that such a review would take 18 months to complete, given its necessary complexity.
I have some sympathy with the overall intention behind these amendments but a careful balance must be struck between our concern to protect the environment and the legitimate rights of mineral operators to exercise what are today valid planning permissions. The removal of existing development rights with no compensation would be a fundamental change in the principles of the land use planning system which should not be made hastily.
Nevertheless, I wish to emphasise that the concern about IDOs is recognised and in the light of the amendments that have been tabled and that we are discussing now, the Government are considering whether some action should be taken in advance of the findings of the review to which I have just referred. It is hoped to be able to announce the Government's

615
conclusions during the passage of the Bill. In any event, I hope that mineral developers will recognise that it is in their own interests to take heed of the concerns that have been expressed and will make every effort to ensure that all their operations are run on the basis of best possible practice and that their activities pay due regard to the environment.
Perhaps I may turn specifically to Amendment No. 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I understand the reasons for his amendment. I trust that after what I have said he will accept that it is not necessary.
The proposals in Schedule 1 to the Bill have two broad objectives. The first objective is to ensure that the creation or enlargement of a mineral working deposit is treated in the same way as the winning and working of minerals for the purpose of planning legislation. The second is to extend, for use in suitable circumstances, the power to impose aftercare conditions to all planning permissions for waste disposal and to revocation, modification and discontinuance orders.
However, we do not otherwise intend to alter provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to the deposit of such materials. In those provisions, for example, Section 55(3) (b) uses the phrase:
"the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land".
The phrase is unaltered from the 1971 Act and although not defined for the purposes of planning legislation, it has been used in tandem with the predecessor of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It has been so used for many years without, so far as we are aware, causing problems of definition for the statutory authorities or the industries concerned. It is arguable that in certain circumstances, adopting the definition that the noble Lord has advanced might have a constraining effect rather than allowing for a better use, as he anticipated.
Given what I have said about the review and what I further indicated we anticipate will be possible before the passage of the Bill is concluded, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am trying to find something helpful and hopeful in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate stated. When he said that legislative action may have to be taken in advance of the review, is he speaking in code? Does he mean that action may have to be taken during the passage of the Bill?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It was not intended to be coded, but I will repeat what I said. We hope to consider many of these matters in advance of the wider review which will take 18 months. We hope to announce our conclusions during the passage of the Bill.
The noble Lord will appreciate that when one deals with matters of compensation and restricting the rights of compensation that are otherwise available
616
under existing law, one has to proceed very cautiously indeed. Courts beyond this land might suddenly show an interest in what is done. It is not intended to be a coded or vague indication. The strength of feeling over this is clearly understood. It is complicated, but I intended to convey to the noble Lord in my remarks that we hope to announce our conclusions before the Bill has completed its passage.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the full and comprehensive reply that he has given to my amendment and those grouped with it. I am encouraged by what he said about the progress of the review and the intention to announce the Government's conclusions, possibly during the passage of the Bill and also by the recognition in what he said that there is a serious and difficult problem on which many Members of the Committee have strong views.
I look forward to hearing the Government's conclusions. Having said that, it is obviously appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 109:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Meaning of development
. In section 55(2) (e) of the principal Act (meaning of development) after "afforestation)" there is inserted ", other than agricultural or forestry operations prescribed by development order." ").
The noble Lord said: I wish to deal with this amendment briefly as I do not intend to divide the Committee on it. I wish to clarify a comment that I made in our previous debate on Thursday 17th January about agricultural buildings. I have given notice of my intention to discuss this matter to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Unfortunately the noble Lord is not present at the moment. On 17th January we had a slight difference of opinion as regards present planning consents for agricultural buildings. As understand it, the planning consents are covered by part six of the general development order of 1988 which makes it clear that no consent is needed for buildings of less than 5,000 square feet, provided the building in question is to be used for agriculture and is not within 25 metres of a classified road or 400 metres of a dwelling house, or more than 12 metres in height.
However, the point I sought to clarify was whether a further building of less than 5,000 square feet could be added to an existing building of less than 5,000 square feet without the need for further planning permission. Apparently such a building can be erected after two years have elapsed, or in any event if it is more than 90 metres—that is about 100 yards—from the existing building. Furthermore, the size of the holding need not be more than one acre in extent.
The Government have issued a discussion paper which suggests that this size may be extended to five hectares—I believe that is about 12 acres—provided the building in question is for agricultural use. The current situation is profoundly unsatisfactory and

617
must be reviewed. I wished to get the matter straight as we did not get it straight when we first debated the matter. I hope that what I have said is correct and I look to the Minister to respond. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: When this matter was discussed in a previous debate I was rather silent. The discussion took place mainly between the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I allowed the noble Lords to get on with the discussion as I was not certain of the answer to the problem at that stage. However I can confirm that the broad understanding of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, of permitted development rights for agricultural buildings is correct. I could go into details if the noble Lord wishes, but in the interests of time I hope I may leave the matter at that.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was not present earlier. However, he is present now and I shall talk to him later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 109A:
Before Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Common Land
.—(1) Part 1 of this Act shall apply to common land to the extent that any use, operation or activity on the land does not fall within the terms of a management scheme drawn up in accordance with Schedule (Common Land).
(2) Schedule (Common Land) (which provides for the exclusion of planning controls by management schemes) shall have effect").
The noble Baroness said: I am not sure of the wisdom of moving this amendment at this hour but I shall do my best to be brief. Amendment No. 109A and the others grouped with it would implement those recommendations of the Common Land Forum which are concerned with access and management. I fear that it is necessary to supply some background as this is a long and tortured story.
The Royal Commission on Common Land worked for three years from 1955 to 1958 on this matter. In 1958 it published a report which stated its recommendations on access. I have been unable to obtain a copy of the report, which is now unavailable, except in the Library. Paragraph 314 stated:
"We recommend that all common land should be open to the public as of right but subject to the general conditions in paragraphs 318 and 319".
The conditions state that access should he as set out in Schedule 2 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and should be subject to any by-laws for the prevention of nuisance and the preservation of order.
There were many other recommendations in the report, including those for registration, but we are not dealing with those this evening. The Commons Registration Act was passed in 1965. I shall refer to that Act briefly later. It was found to be defective and has been quite disastrous in its operation. In 1975 to 1978 a Department of the Environment-led interdepartmental working party largely upheld the Royal Commission's report. In June 1983, concerned by the
618
lack of progress, the Open Spaces Society convened a national conference of all the parties who were interested in the matter. That was so successful that in the autumn of 1983 the Countryside Commission set up a forum to review the report of the Department of the Environment's working party and to formulate proposals for future legislation which would command the support of all forum members.
It is important at this stage that the Committee should know the identity of those forum members. They were the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the British Horse Society and the Byways and Bridleways Trust, the Council for National Parks, the Council for British Archaeology, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Country Landowners' Association, the Countryside Commission, the Crown Estate Commissioners, Ian Mercer, an officer of Dartmoor National Park who is now the chief executive of the new Countryside Council for Wales, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Farmers' Union, the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Trust, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers' Association, the Sports Council, the Association of Welsh Commoners and an English Commoner. All those bodies were under the chairmanship of Mr. Maurice Mendoza. Mr Mendoza is aware of the amendments we are proposing tonight and he supports them.
The Committee will therefore appreciate that the forum was a representative body. It met from January 1984 until May 1986, when it published its report. The report gained widespread acceptance. It was signed by all those who had taken part in the forum and there was no dissent. In 1986, after the publication of the report, the Moorlands Association was formed—that may be a coincidence—with the objective of,
"The conservation of heather moorland in England and Wales for the lasting benefit of all those entitled to enjoy it".
I shall say no more about that at this stage.
In May 1987 the Conservative Party was so keen on the findings of the forum that it incorporated them into its 1987 election manifesto. However, after that the story becomes rather unclear. Constant questioning in this Chamber and in another place gained the answer "When parliamentary time permits" or similar replies. Rumour had it that a working party was attempting to sort out differences, mostly raised by the newly formed Moorlands Association. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, was a member of that association. He was consulted during the passage of the forum's investigation. He insisted towards the end of 1990—at that time I tabled yet another Question about commons—that the differences of the association had been resolved.
On 26th July 1990 in response to pressure in both Chambers a statement was issued reiterating the Government's commitment to legislation. However, at that point there was a subtle change of emphasis which led Dr. Clarke of the Countryside Commission to comment in a press release that,

619
"the implications of the statement for the public use of commons were as yet unclear: the recognition of the importance of public access to common land is welcome. But the statement seems to signal that under any new legislation public use of a common could be restricted (eg to rights of way) by a local decision of the main legal interests in the land in each case. We too want access and management issues tackled at the local level —that was what the Forum recommended—but within clear, nationally agreed guidelines on what sort of restrictions are likely to be reasonable in what circumstances.
These guidelines should be based on the premise that people should be free to walk on all commons unless there is a good reason, connected with the management of the land, for that freedom to be curtailed. There should also be proper representation of the public interest when local decisions are being taken. Otherwise the practical effect of a Bill might be to make the public less welcome on some commons than they are now".
The amendments which we have put before the Committee implement those aspects of access and management which the forum agreed on and which the Countryside Commission supports—at least it did so until that date and so far as I know it still does so. We believe that the need for legislation is urgent and that the recommendations of the forum are the best possible basis for such legislation. The amendments fulfil all of the requirements.
Commons are being lost at an alarming rate. Privatisation of water, electricity and parts of the Forestry Commission has contributed to a loss of land to which we have had a right of access. That makes the commons even more precious.
Thanks to the defective 1965 Act, up to July 1990 5,238 commons have been enclosed and rights of common and of access have been lost. The amendments would secure rights of access to what is left and still respect the rights of owners and commoners. It would be a start. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Middleton: The noble Baroness has made a most interesting speech on what ought or ought not to happen in relation to the commons and the history of the discussions which have taken place about commons. However, the Bill is intended:
"to amend the law relating to town and country planning; to extend the powers to acquire by agreement land which may be affected by carrying out public works; to amend the law relating to compulsory acquisition of land and to compensation".
I wonder whether this Bill is the correct vehicle for very wide-ranging legislation on commons.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps it may be helpful if I try to put the noble Lord's mind at rest on that point. It is not our intention to extend any of the present planning laws. However, we feel that it is perfectly proper to bring the matter forward in the Bill. The reference in Amendment No. 109A to the "use, operation or activity" relates to special terms in planning law to make it clear that no extension of controls is envisaged beyond those which would currently apply if there were no agreement. If it is felt that that is not clear, we could make a consequential amendment that would clarify it.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I want very briefly but very strongly to support the amendment. It is
620
designed to help the Government—an activity in which I often engage. It helps the Government in this way. The Government made a very solemn election pledge. In their 1987 election manifesto they declared that:
"Only the Conservatives have a serious costed agenda for further environmental action for another 5 years of government".
Under the same general heading they continued:
"We will … legislate to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum".
They have not done so yet. They have let three and a half of those precious five years slip by. In putting forward the amendment we are pointing out that there is absolutely no reason for any further delay in implementing that part of the Common Land Forum's recommendations.
As my noble friend, Lady Nicol, pointed out, a great deal of thought has been given by the Common Land Forum to the problem of common land. As she made clear to the Committee, the forum did not just represent the Ramblers' Association or conservation interests. It was deliberately given a very representative membership, which included the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union and local authorities as well as all the other bodies to which my noble friend referred, so that all the difficulties could be ironed out in discussion. And they were, very intensively, over a period of two years. The result was agreement on a model management scheme and on rights of access.
The Government cannot do better than that, however long and complicated the consultations they may say that they want to have. Those consultations have taken place, in the most representative forum one could have. Those recommendations are embodied in our amendment.
The Government need to be reminded of two points. They have at most only 18 months left of those five years in which they were going to show that they were the only party which had a serious, costed agenda for the extension of environmental safeguards and public rights. They will have to hurry up if they really meant what they said in order to win votes in 1987.
I also want to point out to the Government that if they stray from the model agreement they are straying from a carefully worked out compromise and balance of views. Why should they want to do that? What hidden minority vested interests are trying to make them betray or modify in any way the model agreement that has been reached?
I look forward confidently to the Government thanking us tonight for giving them the opportunity to avoid betraying their election promise. I look forward to hearing them say, "Yes, just as we pledged in 1987 that we would accept proposals on the basis of the Common Land Forum so we accept this amendment wholeheartedly".
Lord Roskill: Perhaps I may begin by disclosing an interest. In 1905, before I was born, my parents bought a house on the edge of a large common in north Hampshire. I still live in that house. Since my parents' death 50 years ago I have owned it. The

621
history of that common can be traced back, so I am told, to 1214, the year before Magna Carta. It is an historic common.
Under the 1967 legislation I registered common rights over that common. Thank goodness I did, because, in view of some of the things that have been happening and the unfortunate failure of the Government to take any steps to remedy the chaotic state of the present law on commons, only those rights which are registered seem available to protect the commons in the South of England, of which there are many in north Hampshire and west and central Berkshire, from the activities of those such as developers who seek to acquire manorial rights and then turn those manorial rights—which used to belong in the past to the lord of the manor—to possible private profit for themselves.
It so happens in the case of the common in which I am interested that until very recently the lord of the manor was my noble friend Lord Carnarvon. He disposed of the manorial rights. Indeed, I understand that down to 1925 my father paid two shillings a year by way of copyhold tenure for a small portion of our land. I often wondered which bit of land it was that someone some time back must have stolen off Newtown Common.
However that may be, what is happening now is that people are understandably anxious to get rid of manorial titles. Other people who are less interested in the preservation of the countryside buy up those titles in the hope that in so doing they will obtain rights which they will be able to exploit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned the enormous area of common which has been lost. In its judicial capacity your Lordships' House a few months ago decided a case over a common in central Hampshire. I was not a party to that decision and I can say it was right. Happily that decision prevented that bit of common in that part of Hampshire from being exploited for development purposes.
Almost the only way in which the present state of the law can protect the rights of those who want to have access—and there are many commons over which it is extremely doubtful whether as a matter of law the public have any right of access whatever—are the existence of certain registered common rights which were registered under the 1960 legislation. But as the noble Baroness said, that legislation has failed dismally in its purpose. One can only hope that the amendment of the noble Baronesses may—if I may be forgiven the colloquialism—put pins in the Government to do something about this problem.
I must say that I respectfully question whether this amendment has the right form to achieve the intended result. There is much in its detail which is wrong and I venture to suggest that a planning Bill is not perhaps the right place to secure a much needed reform of common. What is needed is a new commons Act. It is to be hoped that such an Act will not come only after another Royal Commission because it took years after the last Royal Commission to put the 1967 legislation
622
on the statute book. However, unless something is done more and more common will be lost to the public.
I notice that the noble Baronesses propose that there should be rights given to casual riders. I am all in favour of those who ride on marked paths over commons, but the casual riders are a menace to those who otherwise enjoy the commons because they cut up the footpaths and destroy the general amenity. But that is a matter of detail. What is important is that urgent steps should be taken.
If one lives on the edge of a common it is impossible not to sympathise with the movers of this amendment in what they seek to do. Whether it is right to try to achieve their aim in that way is another matter and, as I said, I venture to question that. The Committee will be very grateful to the noble Baronesses for having raised the matter within this Bill in order that the present most unsatisfactory state of the law can be explored and remedied as soon as possible.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: I agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton. I find it strange, to say the least, that such an amendment should be tacked on to the Bill that the Committee is discussing at the moment. It seems to me quite clear that the complexities of common land and its future legislation are such that they must be dealt with in a separate Bill. As I understand it, the Government made a clear Statement in July this year to the effect that legislation would be forthcoming. To take a piecemeal shot—the part legislation that is being attempted at the moment—is not the right way forward. I go so far as to claim that it does not do justice to those many parties and individuals who have been involved in this prolonged common land discussion. They, above all, deserve the Bill that the Government have proposed. I believe I am right and that the Bill in question is likely to contain at least 100 clauses. That perhaps puts the prospective Bill into its right form and demonstrates that to try to solve these problems in the way suggested by the noble Baronesses is not the right way forward.
Apart from anything else, I am quite convinced —I am well advised—that the amendment is technically incorrect and could lead to all kinds of problems. I do not propose to discuss them now because it would entail a long and protracted debate for which I believe the Committee is not ready. However I make that point because I believe that it would be almost impossible to implement the proposed amendment at the moment.
I agree with everybody that there is undoubtedly a need for legislation and a need to safeguard common land. I am sure that nobody disagrees with that basic principle. There is certainly a need to improve the management structure on many commons, principally those in the South of England. The northern commons are now on the whole effectively and well managed. There is no question but that there are many anomalies deriving from the 1965 Act which need to be sorted out in such a piece of legislation.
I take the opportunity to mention yet again the Moorlands Association, of which I am a member and

623
which I know has been criticised in many quarters for perhaps being responsible for the delays that have occurred. We make no apologies for that because we believe that the measure was not right in the first instance. I make the point that we seek legislation along with everybody else. I agree that there are some differences, in particular on the issue of public access. That is principally where we differ. But we want legislation and urge the Government to bring legislation forward as quickly as possible.
I should like to make only one point on the issue of access. Again, I do not propose to enter into a prolonged debate on this point. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke about a framework in which a general right of access could operate on commons. The association differs, and agrees with the Government that each common is different. Each common needs to be able to construct its own framework. Public access may be perfectly acceptable on some commons but it may be extremely detrimental to the management of other commons and their wildlife.
My last point concerns the 1979 bird directive, in which certain protected species were given special status, as the Committee will know. I am quite convinced that uncontrolled access to common would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the principles behind that 1979 directive. I shall say only that I quite understand why the noble Baronesses have brought forward this amendment. I hope that they will not press it. This is not an appropriate place to bring in such a measure. But I agree that we must press the Government to bring forward proper and comprehensive legislation as soon as they think fit.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Peel. There is no doubt about it; this Planning and Compensation Bill is a totally inappropriate vehicle for the wide-ranging legislation on common land which would have to take place and which would need its own Bill.
There is an enormous difference between the southern commons and the northern commons; and as my noble friend said, even within them there are big differences. The southern commons are often not maintained and do not have to be. On the northern commons a great deal of maintenance is needed. That would fall if they were to lose their value and become open to all.
The North Yorkshire Moors Report was published three or four months ago. It is interesting to note that 84 per cent. of walkers prefer to walk on footpaths. Therefore, we are talking about the needs of only 16 per cent. of walkers. I was also interested to hear it said that people should be allowed to walk on commons, but that they should not be allowed to ride anywhere that they wish. No doubt the riders would say that it is all right to ride anywhere but motorcyclists should not be allowed to go anywhere that they wish. That goes on for ever, with everyone saying that they should be allowed to do as they wish but that others should not.
624
I wish to draw attention to Eston Moor, an upland heather moor near Middlesbrough. It is open to the public and I walk on it occasionally. It is intercrossed by paths. There is no heather, the bracken is taking over and a massive birch scrub is growing everywhere. One might be hit by a motorcyclist or a pellet from an airgun because there is no control. That is what happens when public pressure is put on common land to be open to full access. There is not a single bird on the moor. And the moor is covered in mud.
Lord Chorley: As Chairman of the National Trust, I warmly welcome the amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on the extremely cogent but moderate way in which she put forward the argument. Predictably it has been said that the subject of common land has no place in this Bill and that it should be dealt with by separate legislation. That may be so but we have had no other legislation. I find encouraging the fact that from all sides of the Chamber there has been a recognition of the need for a degree of urgency for legislation.
The noble Baroness briefly but succinctly outlined the history and experience of the past 30 years, in particular of the past five years. It all points to the dangers and damage that has been done by the delay and fickleness of government. The Common Land Forum was remarkable in its achievement. Many different parties, including the National Trust, were brought together and were able to agree. The recommendation was welcomed by the Government and was contained in the 1987 election manifesto. In 1990 there was a retreat on crucial points. Members of the National Trust wrote to the Minister requesting clarification. His reply dated 20th September 1990 stated:
"I am unable at present to comment on the form and content of such legislation or to give any commitment about timing".
That kind of reply has engendered dissatisfaction on all sides of the Committee. In the light of that retreat, we must take this opportunity to move forward because we cannot wait. The amendment may not be perfect but it fairly reflects the Common Land Forum Report. I hold certain reservations about the amendment but I shall not go into them now because they are minor and the hour is getting on.
Since 1987 we in the National Trust have tried to follow the precepts set out in the Common Land Forum Report. We have made a start by setting up management associations and schemes on the commons owned by the Trust. However, in the main we must rely on voluntary agreements. We need powers to set up associations and to secure agreements that can be enforced. That is why we need legislation. We could promote our own legislation but surely this is a national issue. The right and only proper way forward is through a Government Bill.
Lord Moran: I intend to speak briefly because all that I intended to say was said so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill. I agree entirely with his remarks. I am sure that the Government will not accept the amendment despite the eloquence and persuasiveness with which it was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. However, I hope that it will

625
smoke out the Government because, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I read the Government's statement as not indicating their intention about legislation. In particular, the deregistration of so many commons, which is taking place at an alarming rate, is a haemorrhage which must be staunched most urgently. I agree that the subject of access is difficult and complicated. I sympathise with the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel. However, such views can be dealt with in legislation. I hope that tonight we shall hear what the Government intend to do and that it will be done soon.
Baroness Blatch: Many of the provisions in the new schedule are based on the recommendations of the Common Land Forum. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, was right to remind us that in January 1987 the Government announced that they accepted the case for legislation based broadly on the forum's report and intended to introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permitted.
Following an extensive consultation exercise, my colleague the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside, Mr. Trippier, in a further statement issued on 26th July last, indicated our policy concerning the safeguarding of common land and the arrangements needed for better management. It stated that improvements to public access of common land could best be achieved by local agreement wherever possible. That could result in various access arrangements varying from general access through a range of management and access solutions to reflect the individual character of commons up to and including improved access through extension of the public rights of way system. Only where agreement could not be reached locally would it be necessary for a decision to be taken by the Secretary of State. The statement also indicated that we should be embarking on detailed discussions to work out the proposals.
Since then officials from my department have had such discussions with a wide range of bodies. They include other government departments, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, local authority representatives, land owning and farming organisations, voluntary nature conservation group bodies and a number of the access groups including the CPRE, the Open Space Society and the Ramblers Association. The work done by my department since last July on the proposed management and access arrangements, and our discussions with the various interests, have confirmed our view that the arrangements outlined in the July statement would be appropriate and workable.
However, the major national access bodies have expressed opposition to our access proposals. They have pressed us to ensure that, in particular, comprehensive legislation should include a general right of access to all commons. These interests have urged on the Government not to proceed with comprehensive legislation on the basis of the arrangements proposed in the July statement and have recommended that a Bill should be introduced
626
instead. Its main purpose should be to safeguard the status of properly registered common land while enabling incorrectly registered land to be deregistered.
As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, when she raised the subject of common land legislation in the debate on the humble Address last November, the Government are committed to improving public access to the countryside. However, as regards common land, that can be achieved only in the context of a better management which will take full account of the proper interests of owners and other important factors, including the nature conservation interests and the European Community birds directive. I said then that we were reviewing the situation in the light of reactions received to the statement of 26th July. That is still our position.
The sponsors of this new clause and schedule have shown considerable ingenuity in endeavouring to link management of and public access to common land with enforcement, development control and other provisions contained in this Bill. However, the provisions in these amendments go a long way beyond the aims of the Bill and conflict with the policy for management and access to common land set out in the 26th July statement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, said that there was unanimity on the forum's recommendations. There are clearly reservations by a number of bodies as regards some of those recommendations. The Moorland Association is not the only body to express opposition. Some of the nature conservation bodies, such as the Royal Society for Nature Conservancy, have said that they are not content with some of the recommendations of the Common Land Forum.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, was anxious about a number of points and supported the amendment. There appears to be little real evidence available on loss of common land. In the course of this debate there has been some exaggeration and it is important to obtain real evidence for our debates. However, the noble and learned Lord referred to the judgment in this House by the Law Lords about a site in Hampshire. The decision in that case has stopped up a potential loophole by means of which common land might have been deregistered. It appears that there is now only a trickle of deregistrations taking place.
In the 26th July statement my right honourable friend Mr. Trippier said:
"I am confident that in the overwhelming majority of commons satisfactory arrangements for proper management and improved public access can be achieved through local agreement. Such agreements will, however, need to take full account of special circumstances … I want to restate the Government's commitment to improved public access to the countryside. Access to common land is an important element of this but improvements may best be achieved by local agreement. The result could vary from general access, through a range of management solutions to reflect the individual character of commons up to and including improved access through the extension of the public right of way system".
That is a positive statement which aims to achieve many of the objectives of the supporters of these amendments.

627
It must be recognised that there is tension regarding management of land and access to it. During the course of this debate, that tension has been much simplified. It has been said that this Bill is not the vehicle by which the issue of common land and access to it should be addressed. It deals principally with planning, enforcement and compensation and does not deal with common land.
It has been mentioned also that the amendment is flawed. Given the real intentions of the Government to address the issue of access to common land and the promise of a Bill to address protection of common land, I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Nicol: I am disappointed with that answer although I expected it. The amendments were accepted as appropriate to the Bill and I have been advised since that time that they are acceptable in terms of the Bill. Therefore, I do not accept that part of the Government's argument.
The problem is that the Government did not make a clear statement that they would legislate as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, seemed to think they had. That is the nub of the problem. Every time this subject is raised we are given vague promises about forthcoming legislation but we are never told when it will come forward. The Department of the Environment has been working on this matter since 1975, long before the forum. I cannot believe that in that time a workable solution has not been reached. We are now told that we must continue to wait.
The statement of 26th July to which the noble Baroness referred demonstrated a change of emphasis, as I said in my opening remarks. I do not believe that it is acceptable in those terms. The management and local interests about which the noble Baroness is anxious would be catered for by the management bodies set up for each common with the brief to look after local interests and to meet local needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, made the case for the right to roam when he pointed out that very few people wish to exercise that right. Most people are quite happy to walk on paths but surely the small number of people who feel the need to roam should be allowed to do so. The amendments before us give every opportunity for restrictions on the right to roam at times when it is inconvenient for the owners or managers of the land.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to give an example to the noble Baroness of one person who likes to roam. He is a hawker. He likes to roam wherever he can in order to spot the nests of the kestrel so that he can go back later to steal the birds. I do not know how he does that. I could continue with many examples of people who would like the right to roam in order to act in such a way.
Baroness Nicol: I believe that the noble Lord's example is rather unusual. I do not believe that there are very many people behaving in such a fashion.
However, I do not wish to prolong the debate. It is quite obvious that we shall make no progress on this amendment. I should have been happier if the noble Baroness had given the Committee the timetable
628
which is in the Government's mind. It seems to me that, although she may say that this Bill is not the right place for this amendment, I should test the feeling of the Committee.
8.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 109A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chorley, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moran, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Roskill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ross of Newport, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Hacking, L.

Walpole, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Lytton, E.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clinton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Palmer, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Peel, E.

Downshire, M.

Plumb, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stockton, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vestey, L.

Joseph, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage on the Bill be resumed at 14 minutes past 9 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When my honourable friend Richard Holt, the Member for Langbaurgh, rose to move the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place on 15th March last year I hazard a guess that trust ports were something of an unknown quantity. In the eyes of many noble Lords they may have been a reliable late-bottled vintage, but of no more significance.
That is no longer the case. Since then both this Bill, promoted by the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority, and the identical Bill promoted by its sister, the Clyde Port Authority, have successfully passed Second and Third Readings in another place, and the reading in this House on 8th October last. Finally, a ports Bill has been brought forward by the Government and it received its Second Reading in another place yesterday. Consequently, the characteristics of trust ports have been widely discussed over the past 12 months. I should like to touch on only one, but that one is central to the debate that has been taking place.
Trust ports are commercial undertakings directed to the generation of profit. When the major estuarial trust ports came into existence in the 1960s—the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority being formed on 1st January 1967, exactly one year after the Clyde Port Authority—the possibility of profit was only a distant hope. In the 25 years since then the situation has altered radically.
Many of the larger trust ports are now fully profitable, not least the THPA. They have, of course, pursued systematic and long-term investment programmes in their core port activities. THPA itself is in the process of completing a three-year programme involving £30 million of capital investment, completely remodelling the docks at Hartlepool, doubling the roll-on/roll-off and lift-on/lift-off container capacity at Tees Dock, replacing and refurbishing its entire craneage throughout both docks, refurbishing the old Smith's Dock Shipyard as the Tees Offshore Base, and replacing its entire harbour radar system. It can be said with pride that the ports of Tees and Hartlepool are equipped to meet the market demands of at least the next 20 years.
However, as profitable and dynamic commercial undertakings, some ports, and in this THPA has been in the lead, have identified the need further to develop their business activities in the face of the dramatic changes which have overtaken the transport industry in recent years. Such changes include the UK's accession to the EC and the gradual development of
630
an integrated European market, the increasing dominance of European-scale transport operators, the technical advances of unitised handling and electronic data transfer, and of course the ending of the Dock Labour Scheme in 1989.
Clearly, the constitutions of these ports, framed as they were 25 years or more ago, were not established with those further developments in mind. Having been established as a commercial organisation and developed commercially, THPA can now go no further within its existing constitution. The Government recognised that problem, and in 1988 the then Secretary of State for Transport encouraged ports like Tees and Hartlepool to deal with the constraints of their constitutions by promoting private Bills to privatise themselves. Clearly, the Government felt that the right constitution for a dynamic, commercial, profit-making undertaking was in the private sector.
THPA reflected on the Secretary of State's advice. It reviewed its plans for developing its undertaking; its plans for developing its skilled cargo handling services beyond Hartlepool and the Tees to other customers in the UK; its plans to provide its customers with a wider range of distribution services in warehousing, freight forwarding, materials handling and road haulage; and finally its plans to build on its position as a significant property landlord to establish a wide property development and investment business: all plans that allowed it to build on its strength as the premier port in the North East, and to build on the skill and assets of its existing business.
Having considered, THPA decided that its duty to develop its undertaking required it to follow the route of privatisation so clearly pointed out by the Secretary of State. It has been an arduous task, not only in parliamentary terms. Alongside its parliamentary timetable, it has set out to build its business to ensure its successful progress after privatisation. That building has taken place around the framework which the Bill now before your Lordships is expected to provide.
First and foremost, THPA is building a business dependent upon the quality of service that it provides to its customers. Six months ago it therefore adopted a total quality initiative to transform itself into a provider of services of a standard and consistency equal to the very best names in the European transport industry. It is the first port operator in the United Kingdom to take that step, which goes far beyond simple implementation of the quality standard BS5750.
Secondly, as a provider of services it recognises that the commitment of its whole staff is essential to its success. It is aware of the tremendous success which has been achieved by the National Freight Consortium since its privatisation through a staff-led consortium. A similar consortium is a key ingredient of its plans which depend upon this Bill, and it has gone to great lengths to secure the commitment of its staff to share ownership on this basis.

631
Thirdly, it has recruited management able to deliver the performance required for its new developments. The willingness of the managers concerned to throw in their lot with THPA reflects their confidence in the undertaking, its plans, and the parliamentary progress of this Bill.
Finally, those managers have already secured the first property and distribution projects for the privatised business to build on. For example, agreement has been reached with the borough of Stockton, from which I take my title, for THPA to invest £2 million in redeveloping an old bakery in the borough owned by the council but for which no other developer has previously emerged. That development is scheduled to proceed just as soon as the necessary powers are available through this Bill for the purpose.
I have spoken at perhaps greater length than I should have done, in order to convey to your Lordships the intimate relationship between the progress of the Bill before the House and the process of building THPA as a commercial undertaking, to be owned by a staff-led consortium, with major benefits for employment and wealth creation in the North East.
Clearly government are now promoting their own Bill, the Ports Bill, which has started proceedings in another place. As the Secretary of State made clear during its Second Reading in another place last night, its purpose is not to supersede the Bills of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority and the Clyde Port Authority. Its purpose is to provide an easier route to privatisation for other trust ports who now wish to follow the example of those two pioneers. THPA welcomes that Bill. Its fundamental ingredient is the same as THPA's; namely, that the successor privatised undertaking should be bound by all the duties and obligations which previously bound its predecessor authority.
An issue upon which there has been much debate is the destination of the proceeds of privatisation. In the case of the Clyde and the THPA, the legislation to settle that question has already passed through this House in the shape of the Finance Act 1990. That provides for 50 per cent. of the proceeds to be remitted to the Exchequer and 50 per cent. to be re-injected into the privatised undertaking to secure its further development. The amount of the proceeds themselves is fixed by reference to the market value of the undertaking, determined in accordance with the capital gains tax legislation and assessed by the Secretary of State for Transport. A similar 50 per cent. levy is also projected in the Ports Bill, which also contains additional provisions with regard to property gains.
No doubt this slight difference between the two levy regimes reflects the view expressed by Government at the time of the Finance Act, that the amount of proceeds to be secured for the taxpayer should reflect the initiative of the THPA and Clyde Port Authority in promoting their own Bills. Understandably the promoters endorse that view.
632
I have to report to your Lordships that the Bill was petitioned against in another place by four local councils and by the Transport and General Workers' union. All five petitions opposed the Bill in principle. The Bill safely passed Committee, but the promoters were asked for three undertakings, which they willingly gave.
The first undertaking was to amend the Bill to stipulate that the company incorporating the ports of Tees and Hartlepool will retain its headquarters in the County of Cleveland. The second and third undertakings given were to ensure that an employee share ownership plan would be implemented on privatisation and that employee shares had ordinary voting rights. As I have said, it is in any case fundamental to THPA's plans that the business should be acquired by a staff-led consortium to emulate the pioneering success in this regard of the National Freight Consortium.
One other point raised at Committee in another place can also now happily be met. Concern was expressed at the impact of privatisation on those large areas of the unreclaimed Tees estuary which presently have the status of sites of special scientific interest. I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment has now ratified an agreement reached by THPA with the Nature Conservancy Council to lease those areas for a nature reserve for at least 50 years.
This is an agreement which I believe is unique in the ports industry and which was commended by the Secretary of State as an example to be followed elsewhere in resolving competition between commercial and environmental objectives. That the agreement was pioneered by the THPA speaks volumes, in my opinion, both for its public spirit, as well as its foresight.
Nevertheless, although two of the four local authorities have dropped their petitions, the other petitioners remain. Subject to the outcome of this debate, this Bill will go forward to consideration by your Lordships in Committee, which I understand is scheduled to commence some time next month. The promoters look forward to the opportunity of ensuring through that Committee that your Lordships are fully acquainted and satisfied with all aspects of this Bill.
These concerns and others will no doubt be voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I shall listen most attentively to the points that he will raise. The noble Lord and I were in full agreement earlier in this Parliament during the passage through your Lordships' House, of the Tees Barrage Bill which will do so much to improve the environment of the River Tees upstream of Stockton-upon-Tees. I am hopeful that I have been able to reassure him that these proposals will do as much materially to assist the economic future of the mouth of that great river.
On that basis, I commend the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill to your Lordships for its Second Reading and seek your full support for the Bill today.

633
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Stockton.)
8.28 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wish to oppose the Bill. There is a great deal which can be said in criticism of it but as this debate is being held during the dinner break, and a very late dinner break at that, it is necessary for me to curtail my remarks. It is of the utmost significance that Cleveland County Council and Hartlepool Borough Council are petitioning against the Bill in this House and that Stockton and Middlesbrough Councils have passed resolutions against it. The measure, therefore, does not command much support from the representatives of the people in the area.
I place on record that I am deputy chairman of Teesside Development Corporation. I do not see any obvious conflict of interest in holding that position, but the Department of the Environment has recently issued fresh guidance on the declaration of interests to members of development corporations. In the circumstances, it is perhaps advisable that I make that declaration to the House. Perhaps too I may mention that when I was a Member of another place I had a large area of Cleveland in my constituency, and I retain a deep interest in that county and an admiration for the manner in which the local authorities and others deal with their problems.
I am also concerned that a measure of this kind should be going through Parliament at a time when the Government have just published their own Bill to deal with precisely the matters contained in the Bill before us this evening. It is surely a matter of plain common sense that every person and every organisation, not least the local authorities, should be able to study the Government's thinking on an issue as important as this before allowing Bills relating to individual ports to come before both Houses. As the noble Earl said, the Government's Ports Bill got its Second Reading in another place last night. If he has had the opportunity to read the Commons Hansard today he will have seen that, not unexpectedly in my view, it came in for considerable criticism.
The first question to be asked is; why privatisation? The port is highly profitable. It has some £23 million in cash, and I understand that its assets are worth some £60 million. Its returns are of the order of 18 per cent. The former Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Channon, when talking about the privatisation of ports said:
"I admit that not all ports find it appropriate".
When the noble Earl was speaking he referred to some previous Secretary of State, but it was not clear that it was Mr. Channon, so I think it is legitimate that I should make that quotation. I am pleased to see that the noble Earl agrees with that.
It is said that there will be benefits from the privatisation of the THPA, but it is necessary to say— or for somebody to say, presumably the promoters— exactly what those benefits will be. With the present undeniable success of the THPA your Lordships are entitled to ask for specific clarification concerning the
634
benefits of privatisation and to determine who are the experts and specialists who are to bring about this magical new world on the Tees and at Hartlepool.
I was greatly impressed—and I have to say I was frightened by it—by the speech made by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Stuart Bell. He cited examples of some of the investments made by the THPA. Time does not permit me to repeat them, but on that evidence (contained in the Commons Hansard of 15th March this year at cols. 705 to 711) one wonders what calamities would occur if the powers contained in this Bill were to be extended to the people concerned.
These extended powers have little or nothing to do with the successful running of this port. The port, judged by any criteria, is already successful, and tremendous risks would be involved in pursuing the proposals made by the promoters. The point I have just made relates directly to the question of the independence of the port authority. Parliament followed the guidance—I have seen it called the "inspiration"—of the Rochdale report. It was to have an authority that would be single minded and able to devote itself wholly and completely to promote the success of the port. Anything other than that would detract from that one aim.
At present the authority has independence, freedom and its own money. If this measure becomes law, all of that will disappear and the welfare of the shareholders in the company will be supreme. It may be argued that those shareholders would be concerned about the success of the port. That may be marginally the case, but shareholders are normally, and I have to say understandably, concerned with maximising profits. This is surely the nub of the case. Any port-related benefits are already within the remit of the port authority and they can carry on as they are now doing, and doing it very successfully.
I turn to another aspect that is a matter of deep concern to me, and that is the loss of community links. I say "deep concern" because, as many of your Lordships know, I am a north easterner born and bred. I have lived in the area all my life and believe that those who live in the north eastern counties are fiercely proud of their heritage. I have seen it from many points of view during my various experiences in the region.
The present regulations require the Secretary of State to,
"have regard to the desirability of having members who are familiar with the area",
and that those members have experience of matters, including employment, with which the port has to deal. That is a most valuable structure—indeed, I would say an essential structure—but there is nothing new about it. It is repeated in many areas of the political, economic and social life of our country, and that is proof of its value based on many years of experience.
If this Bill is enacted all of that would disappear. In recent years we have had, more than ever before in our history, the sight of shares being dispersed among millions of people. The noble Earl correctly made reference to this in his speech. The Government boast

635
about it, even though the position is not as they say it is, many of the shares going eventually to the financial institutions. But there is no denying that there is wider share ownership.
So we come to a fundamental change. The change is from an independently controlled port, concerned only with the success and progress of that port, to that of the parent company concerned only with the interests of the shareholders. Among the other consequences, that could mean control moving completely out of the area. If control were to move out of the area it is inevitable that local issues, large and small, would not receive the attention they deserve.
I give one example, and it is of major importance to the North East. I refer to the importing of coal. Your Lordships will be aware that the wholesale closure of pits has caused devastation to the coal communities throughout the country and to the North East in particular. I find it incredible that while the closing of pits is taking place coal imports continue to increase.
I have here the answer to my recent parliamentary question, which shows what is taking place. Of course the argument is that British Coal should produce more competitively so that there would be no need to import cheaper coal. That is a simplistic argument that takes no cognisance whatever of the conditions in which foreign coal is produced. Nor does it recognise the need to ensure security of supply from our own pits —mines that can provide coal, at the present rate of extraction, for at least another 200 years. Perhaps I should add that British coal—and I am sure the Minister is aware of this—is now being produced more competitively than ever before.
If this Bill becomes law many of us have no doubt whatever that more coal will come into the Tees and into Hartlepool. Last year the THPA authorised a feasibility study by PowerGen. It would be interesting to know what has happened to that report. One thing is certain: surely the only purpose for such a study was to see how facilities for increasing coal imports could be improved.
The three-year contract between British Coal and the CEGB is due to end in about 12 or 18 months' time. That contract has sustained our coal industry, with thousands of jobs safeguarded. What happens then? More coal imported into the North East, with more north eastern pits closing, and no alternative employment available for redundant miners. It is a bleak picture indeed for one of our major industries. I said that I would give one example and that is one. Time precludes me from giving others.
The importance and spirit of the 1966 Act, on which the existence of the THPA is based, cannot be overemphasised. It intended that the authority should devote all of its actions on the port to the exclusion of everything else. It is now turning its back on that and looking at other factors which are simply not port-related. I am no legal expert. Indeed I am not legally qualified in any shape or form. But it appears to me that the proposals contained in this Bill could well be ultra vires, not least because the authority would cease to have autonomy and independence and
636
would not be self-supporting financially. I can think of nothing more opposed to the spirit and letter of the Act than that.
I repeat for the sake of emphasis that the shareholders would be supreme and that their interest in port-related matters would only be a part, and probably a small part, of their much wider commitment to maximising profit over a much wider field. I believe I am correct in saying that there is a legal duty placed on directors to serve the interests of the shareholders to the exclusion of every other interest. For the welfare of the port to coincide with the welfare of the shareholders at every point in the context of this Bill is for me at least an impossible concept. There will inevitably be a conflict of interests.
The local authorities, the community of Teesside, the trade unions and, I suspect, many employers in the area are not only satisfied with the work and standards of the authority but are proud of its achievements. They regard the area and the port as an organic whole. It will be nothing less than a tragedy if all of that success were destroyed or diminished in any way by this ill-advised measure before us tonight.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise personally rather than in any party capacity, because this is a private Bill, to support the eloquent observations made by my noble friend Lord Dormand, who has the significant advantage of being very familiar with the port which we are debating tonight. Of course that is not to diminish the knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton.
I believe that this is an unmeritorious Bill. It is a Bill which should not proceed. It is at odds with the principles adumbrated by the former Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Paul Channon. They are principles which are highly germane to this Bill. I believe the Bill fails those tests. I shall come to that later. I believe that the Bill is unwanted by, and potentially damaging to, local interests and community links, notwithstanding what was said earlier in support of this Bill. I believe that for no very good reason it threatens the independence of the authority. By its very nature, as my noble friend has demonstrated, the interests of shareholders and the maximisation of profits accruing to them become of paramount concern, to the potential detriment of the port and, to use the words of my noble friend,
"to the exclusion of all other interests".
That is a potential hazard. I believe that there was a distinct lack of credible evidence, or indeed any evidence, before the House of Commons Committee as to the alleged benefits which are now proclaimed for the Bill. One has to ask the very relevant question posed by my noble friend. Why this Bill now and why the enormous expense which has gone into it? Thousands and thousands of pounds have been spent and more is to come though yesterday in another place we had the Second Reading of the Ports Bill.
I come back to the five principles laid down by the then Secretary of State. He said, first, that privatisation is not appropriate in all cases. He stated

637
that it is only a "prima facie option". Secondly, he said that ports must study "their own circumstances". Thirdly, the objective should be to improve the industry. When we talk about that in this context we are talking about this port and not the industry as a whole. Fourthly, there must always be "proper safeguards". Fifthly, no port must "end up worse off'. I say that this Bill fails, or at least seriously runs the risk of failing, all those five tests.
Obviously, the first two points that I made, concerning privatisation not being appropriate in all cases and the circumstances of each individual port, are inter-related. Underlying all five points made by Mr. Channon is the common theme that he was speaking in the interests of the port in question. It follows that to pursue that interest it is necessary to examine the specific port in each case of legislation dealing with privatisation. Let us examine the evidence in this case. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, conceded all this. The evidence is clear and unrebutted that this is a successful port. It has not found itself impaired—he gave no evidence of that—by legal restraints on investment policy. In that respect I do not condone all the investments that were undertaken to which my noble friend Lord Dormand alluded.
The port is profitable. It has £23 million in hand in cash balances besides other assets. It is also efficient. All that is conceded. There is no evidence of waste at all. So my noble friend rightly asks: why embark on this Bill at all? It is a capricious enterprise. The promoters have been extremely coy about a number of relevant issues. They say that wider benefits can accrue. But why did they undertake no systematic strategic study of the opportunities which are supposed to be opened up by this Bill? Why did they decline to offer a review of principles? Why has there been no authoritative forecast of profits? Why did the chairman of the authority fail or refuse to give evidence? Perhaps he might have given evidence about his aspirations and dreams. Perhaps for him they would be dreams, but they would be nightmares for others.
The truth is that this Bill has been demonstrated not to be about the interests of the port. Indeed that has been conceded in evidence by the promoters. It is short-termism at its worst. It is a reversal of the purposes created by the 1966 Act based on the widely acceptable Rochdale Report. It is about a clearly admitted desire to embark on investments which may be wholly unrelated to the port and wholly detached from cargo handling and which are directed into property development and speculation. One has to ask —it is clearly stated in the evidence—what experience has the authority revealed to justify these expeditions into these broad trading fields?
So far as one can judge, the evidence suggests that some of the authority's enterprises outside the port have been far from successful. To add insult to injury, the £23 million in reserves built up for use in the port, together with considerably greater sums which are alluded to in the evidence, are to be used in
638
investments elsewhere. As leading counsel for the petitioners against the Bill, Mr. Charles Sparrow, QC, said:
"You could not put forward a scheme in the City to dispose of up to £100 million of an enterprise without a prospectus".
Yet that is precisely what the promoters are seeking to do in this case.
Turning to the third principle, what improvement will accrue to this particular industry? Will it encourage further enterprise so far as the port is concerned? My noble friend has referred already to the loss of independence on the part of the authority; the loss of autonomy over financial matters and the loss of community links. As he said, the concepts of governance put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, are not here challenged by the promoters at all. Their main objective can be summed up in the following way. It is the establishment of an authority able without conflicts of interest to devote itself wholly to the welfare of a specific port. Yet in this case all these functions are to disappear. The authority is to become a subsidiary of the holding company, and the holding company has absolutely no legal responsibility for its subsidiary, as my noble friend said. The interests of shareholders in the holding company are to be paramount, and the interests of the port and the welfare of Teesside will be subordinated to those interests as a matter of law. I do not deny that there may be benefits, but those will accrue to the shareholders rather than to the port.
The point has been conceded on behalf of the authority by the director of the port, Mr. Hackney, who gave evidence, when he said that the group will use the funds of the core business for group interests. That extends to all the assets of the port and is not confined to the £23 million. That is as plain as a pikestaff.
My noble friend dealt with the loss of community links, and I will not develop that further, but I want to turn to the fourth principle of the former Secretary of State, and to the matter of proper safeguards. Where are they? There is no legal obligation on the holding company to continue to run the port through its subsidiary. There is no acknowledgment of the very real risk that the port could be taken over by a competing European port, maybe with the intention of running it down rather than expanding it. These are matters of profound concern to local authorities, to the people they represent and, indeed, to employees who, unlike the authority, see the port as a vital part of the tapestry of the Teesside economy.
Another point made by Mr. Channon was that no port should end up worse off. What assurances are written into the Bill about that? Virtually all the evidence has gone the other way. In terms of investment policy by the present members, who presumably are going to stay, the evidence is, according to Mr. Aldous who appeared as a witness—admittedly on behalf of the petitioners—that the authority has simply been taking a punt. That is not good news so far as further investment is concerned.
In conclusion, I ask: why take risks with a port that is efficient and which, apart from rather disastrous

639
investments which do not go to the root of the matter, has been well managed? The Bill fails to honour one of the claims made in favour of privatisation, even if it is a claim made by way of lip-service only. Because no benefit for this scheme can be guaranteed to accrue to the port—it is, in fact, a claim made by those who believe in privatisation that there should be such benefits—there is no such strategy here. I should like to know what consultation took place with the workforce, because the noble Earl referred to that earlier.
In the debate yesterday in another place Mr. John Ward, the Member for Poole, said: "I hope I have said enough"—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord may not quote directly from speeches of Members of another place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I learn something every moment of the day, and I am obliged to the noble Lord. In effect, Mr. John Ward was saying that so far as Poole was concerned he did not want it to fall into the hands of a commercial organisation whose sole motive would be to make a profit for its shareholders, but he thought that it would be even worse if an asset stripper got to work there: he could in a very short time ruin the work that had been accomplished over many years to protect the harbour and its surroundings. That could equally be said of this port. I believe this to be a bad Bill and I certainly do not wish it well.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be helpful at this point if I intervene to give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill. The principles which underline this Bill and the parallel Bill being promoted by the Clyde Port Authority have the Government's support. Although the measure before the House is a private Bill, it is in many respects a close parallel to the provisions in the Transport Act 1981 which converted the former British Transport Docks Board into Associated British Ports Ltd. The new company to be created will be the harbour authority, with just the same responsibilities and powers as the present Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority: no more and no less.
There is, however, one important difference. Trust ports have no explicit owners. The introduction of these two Bills therefore raised the issue of who should get the proceeds from the sale of the shares when a trust port is turned into a public company. That was a matter for Parliament to decide. The Government proposed that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of shares following enactment of these Bills should go to the Exchequer. Provisions to that effect were approved by Parliament and, as noble Lords will know, are incorporated in the Finance Act 1990.
As noble Lords have said, since the introduction of this Bill and the Clyde Authority Bill, the Government have been able to bring in their own Bill to enable all trust ports to privatise themselves, as was announced in the Queen's speech. The Ports Bill was recently introduced and, as noble Lords have said, it received
640
its Second Reading only yesterday. Therefore there is no need for me now to go into a detailed comparison of the Government's Bill with the Bill being promoted by the Tees and Hartlepool authority. Though by no means identical, they both work towards the same result: to free the ports industry from restrictions and in so doing increase its efficiency through the privatisation of individual trust ports.
It is understandable, however, that the Tees and Hartlepool authority has decided to go ahead with its Bill. If the Bill successfully completes its progress through Parliament, it will find the initiative it has shown recompensed by the lead it will have gained over other ports which will be seeking privatisation under the Government's legislation. This seems only fair, and the Government would not wish to see this Bill prevented from going forward.
As has been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Dormand, and indeed by my noble friend, there are a number of petitions against the Bill in this House. The petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. I submit that the Select Committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to Committee for this detailed consideration.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. He referred to local authority opposition. It has in fact been muted as a result of the assurances that were given by the promoters in that two of the petitioners in another place have withdrawn their petition. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord for not being specific as to the Secretary of State. It was of course Mr. Channon, as he rightly pointed out. I trust that your Lordships will forgive me for that lack of precision.
As far as small company investments are concerned, to which he referred, the small company investment portfolio operated by the authority was raised in another place by Mr. Stuart Bell, the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, at Second Reading. He raised it in a way which might be taken to have suggested some impropriety on the part of Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. Certainly, poor management was alleged and it was suggested that the existence of the portfolio was evidence that the THPA did not require wider powers to develop its business. The chief executive of the THPA therefore dealt with this portfolio at great length in Committee in another place. The noble Lord can be assured that the same information will be provided at Committee stage in your Lordships' House. Suffice it to say that thereafter the matter was not pursued by Mr. Bell or the petitioners, and it was expressly acknowledged by the latter in Committee that the management of the THPA was first rate and the additional powers it sought were in fact required.
The control through shareholding being held on a wider basis was further raised by the noble Lords,

641
Lord Dormand and Lord Clinton-Davis. I fail to see that the interest and support of financial institutions outside the area, in the City of London or anywhere else, is necessarily a disadvantage for any business. In fact, I put it to the noble Lord that the support given by the financial institutions to other businesses in Teesside, such as British Steel and ICI, have hardly done anything but good for the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, also raised the question of the coal import terminal. The promoters are well aware of the arguments surrounding the possibility of major additional coal imports through the Tees for power generation purposes. Indeed, the matter was raised in another place. Moreover, in the past the promoters have responded to the noble Lord on that question. I believe that they made their position clear and it has not changed since that time. Power generation and construction interests are still examining the possibilities for the Tees. Its depth of water is ideal for the purpose and several million tonnes of coal are already imported through it by British Steel at Redcar.
The THPA has made no secret of the fact that it would welcome a new coal terminal on the Tees promoted by those interests. Its existing statutory objectives include the promotion of trade through the river. It would be a gross abuse of its position if it were to veto a terminal project put forward by bona fide interests. The position does not change whether or not it is privatised. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there are no current plans to promote such a terminal.
I believe that I should also refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. With his experience, I think that the noble Lord should accept the fact that the transport scene in Western Europe is changing rapidly and that the development of the single market increases rather than decreases the need for the keenest management and the most competitive approach towards port and transport.
Of course, I do not share the noble Lord's rooted objection to privatisation. However, I cannot let him get away with his assertion that success today automatically assumes success in the future. Many companies in the past have proved that their development has gone downhill from a high point when they have not made sufficient change or investment in the future.
I must call the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to book for his unwarranted personal attack on the probity of the chairman of the authority. I really had hoped to hear better from him. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, did the chairman actually give evidence and, further, was he exposed to cross-examination? Moreover, when did I say that one could rest on complacent management? I gave no indication of that view; indeed, I do not hold such a view.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, the noble Lord did not in fact say that we could rest on complacent
642
management; he simply implied that success today automatically bred success for tomorrow and that, therefore, there was no need for change. The question of whether or not the chairman gave evidence is irrelevant. The noble Lord said that the chairman was not prepared to make clear his dreams and then, in an undertone, he referred to such dreams as being "nightmares for others". I regard that as being a serious imputation against the probity of the chairman of the authority. However, I accept the noble Lord's assurance that he did not impute that in his remarks.
As regards the control of the company, I refer the noble Lord to undertakings which have been given stating that the shareholders will be led by a staff consortium. I can give him the absolute assurance that full consultations were held with the staff and that they are involved at all stages of the process.
So far as concerns taking a punt, I prefer to say that you cannot expand and develop a business without taking risks. I accept the fact that risks have to be taken. As one who has tripled the size of his own business over the past 10 years, I have experience of such punts and I know that they can be very beneficial.
I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his exposition of the Government's position on this Bill and its relationship to the Ports Bill. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.14 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.4 to 9.14 p.m.]

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 17 [Land of interested planning authorities and development by them]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 25, line 13, after ("concerned") insert ("or where there is concurrent jurisdiction").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113. The purpose of the amendments is to deal more effectively than is proposed by the Government with what is perceived as the problem of deemed planning consent; that is, planning consent given by a local authority to itself for developments on its own land. That has always been a contentious matter, and in many cases, more for emotional reasons than for any real reason.
Local authorities are sensitive about the issue and feel that they should not be thought to be exceeding their reasonable powers. In the amendments we seek

643
to provide procedural controls which would make it clear to the public that justice is not only being done but is seen to be done.
Amendment No. 110 is a precursor for the following amendment. It deals with the issue of concurrent jurisdiction between more than one council. Amendment No. 111 is consequential upon it. Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 113 before Amendment No. 112. The significance of Amendment No. 113 is that it puts forward proposals which are in line with the ministerial statement made by Mr. Michael Spicer on 25th July 1990. It is proposed that applications for deemed planning consent should be widely advertised; and that they should be determined in public by a committee of the authority other than the committee submitting the application. In other words, if a report were submitted by an operating committee which needs the land, a separate committee should determine the application. That would cause some difficulty when a council has chosen to set up, for example, a lands and planning committee to deal with estates matters and with planning control. It would have to find a way around that problem. It may be difficult but it is not impossible.
It may be thought that the requirement is redundant because all local authorities are supposed to behave reasonably. There is a general requirement that an authority should act reasonably when determining any such application. It is no bad thing to put that requirement on the face of the Bill.
I shall return to Amendment No. 112 which gives the Secretary of State broad powers to set up a code of practice for the handling of applications for deemed planning consent. The amendment does not set any limits on what the Secretary of State might do, except to say that "it" should do so,
"after consultation with such persons as appear to it to be concerned".
We have here a modest and reasonable way to deal with the supposed problem of deemed planning consent and to ensure that justice is seen to be done. That is better than taking a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. I hope that the amendments will find favour with the Government and the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 form a package intended to improve Clause 17. While I disagree with the terms of these amendments, I recognise that there is no appreciable difference in objectives between the noble Lord and myself. We both want development by local authorities or on their land to be sensibly regulated, but not in a way that will hinder them in carrying out their statutory functions. We both want safeguards to increase the accountability of local authorities and to demonstrate their probity.
I believe Amendment No. 110 is simply unnecessary. New Section 316(3), when read with Section 316(6), already establishes that the regulations to be made may provide for the application of one "interested planning authority" to be determined by another. Thus, the regulations may provide for a district council's applications to be determined by the county council and vice versa.
644
Amendment No. 111 would prevent the regulations from prescribing that applications for local authority development or on local authority land shall be made to the Secretary of State. It is most unlikely that we shall want the regulations to so prescribe. But we should like to keep the reserve power to do so as an ultimate sanction, and in this respect Clause 17 is in identical terms to the longstanding existing power in Section 316 of the 1990 Act.
Amendment No. 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, provides for a code of practice and for regulations to be made in accordance with it. In my view such a code of practice is unnecessary. The regulations to be made under the new Section 316 will set out in some detail the procedures to be followed. We shall consult the local authority associations and other representative bodies about the regulations before we make them. They will he accompanied by a circular giving guidance from the department, as happened in 1976.
The mechanism provided by this amendment is rather odd, for the regulations to be made would have to be in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State after consultation. This would mean that the regulations made by statutory instrument in accordance with parliamentary procedures would be subservient to an official code of practice. I believe that to be inappropriate from a constitutional point of view.
Turning to Amendment No. 113, the regulations will require applications to be fully advertised and determined by a committee, sub-committee, or officer not responsible for managing the land or buildings concerned. We would ensure that committees take these decisions in public by making an order under the Local Government Act 1972.
The proposal that a code of practice should include a general requirement on authorities to act reasonably is misplaced. Whenever authorities determine planning applications, including their own, they are under a duty to act fairly. I have explained why I consider these four amendments are necessary, although I understand why the noble Lord tabled them. I invite him in the light of my comments not to press them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that response. I am interested in the comments about the constitutional issues for a code of practice. I thought that it was we on this side who were constantly pressing for more effective codes of practice. When we introduce one that has rather more powers than is usually expected, the Government turn round and object to it. Oh well, you cannot win them all!
I am reassured to learn that it is the view of the Government that these precautions which are designed to protect local authorities from unjust speculation about their motives or procedures, are unnecessary rather than undesirable. I am reassured to learn that we are on the same side on these matters and that we look towards the same objective. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 113ZA:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of engineering operation: floating structures
.In section 55(3) of the principal Act (meaning of development) there is inserted—
"(c) the placing of a structure in a lake, pond, river or other inland water involves an engineering operation notwithstanding that the structure is not fixed to the land except by means of ropes, cables or other mooring devices." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 252A which stands in my name. This amendment returns to the issue of fish farming which was debated at a rather late hour on the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill. As I understand it, there are three categories of fish farming, each requiring a separate reform of planning law to secure a satisfactory degree of control. First, there are land-based fish farms which usually consist of ponds or tanks constructed in river valleys. Those fish farms already constitute developments under the terms of the planning Acts. The reforms which the County Councils Association and the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place would like to see, require changes to statutory instruments rather than to primary legislation. That is a somewhat controversial matter which was raised in the Chamber in the previous debate. This kind of control should be brought within primary legislation rather than be left to statutory instruments. Nevertheless, that is the situation at present.
The second category of fish farms are those situated in inland waters. The fish are controlled by means of moored cages or other floating structures. They are the subject of disputed interpretation. It is not clear whether the installation of those cages or structures constitutes development. Amendment No. 113ZA, which seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 18, would make it clear that these operations constitute development.
The third category of fish farming is marine fish farming that is undertaken in estuaries or other coastal waters. Those waters lie outside the jurisdiction of local planning authorities and are administered by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The Commissioners have a conflict of interest in that they are responsible for exercising control over development of the foreshore and coastal waters, but they have an incentive to maximise that development and the income which they derive from the licences which they authorise.
Amendment No. 252A seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 26. It would rectify this anomalous situation by extending the jurisdiction of the ordinary planning authorities to a mile offshore, thus giving them control not just over marine fish farming but also over other activities such as the dredging of aggregates from the seabed. That can have a major
646
impact on the environment of the locality. I say amen to that from my knowledge of what goes on in the Solent off the Isle of Wight.
I am aware that a great deal has been written on this subject of fish farming within the past year or two. In March 1988 the Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link published a discussion paper which made various recommendations. That body is concerned particularly with the situation in Scotland, which is the major area for fish farming. I have just dined with Scottish colleagues in another place and I wish to put it on record that I am not trying to be anti-Scottish. However, the fact is that a major part of the fish farming industry is situated in Scotland.
The Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link produced an update in October 1990 which dealt with marine salmon fishing in Scotland. I shall return to observations on that document in a few moments. The Select Committee on Agriculture in another place considered the whole question of fish farming in the UK and published its findings on 23rd May last year. The committee made certain recommendations, some of which fall within the remit of the amendments I propose and some of which do not. The Select Committee suggested that planning permission should be required for the creation or extension of fish farms in national parks. I understand that the Government have accepted that proposal. However, they did not go along entirely with the idea that local authorities should exercise planning control over other matters concerning fish farming. But they wished to strengthen the body which they set up to control the affairs of the Crown Estate Commissioners.
In 1988 the Scottish Office conducted a review of the consultation procedures of the Crown Estate Commissioners. In December of that year the Secretary of State announced the establishment of an advisory committee to serve the Crown Estate Commissioners. That committee was required to consider contentious cases that encounter objections from one or more of the relevant statutory bodies and to introduce an independent element into the decision making process. The chairman and vice-chairman of that committee were appointed six months later. A year after the announcement of the setting up of the committee it has not met to discuss proceedings.
The noble Lord may be able to bring us up to date and say that the committee has met. When I had a meeting with the Nature Conservancy Council—some months ago, I admit—the matter was raised. It was a subject of great controversy that the committee had not even met despite requests by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Highland Regional Council for cases to be referred to it.
The Select Committee in another place wanted to strengthen the role of that advisory committee. It suggested that there should be a local authority member who would exercise an effective right of veto giving the planning authorities and the Crown Estate a broadly equal locus in the planning process.
The committee should also have a specific remit to take environmental factors into account. Again, as I

647
understand it, in the Government's response—which was published only on 12th December last—that has not been taken on board.
I think that I am right in saying, however, that in the case of Scotland an amendment has been made recently to the general development order to clarify the law and ensure that buildings, works and uses associated with freshwater fish farming now come within planning control. I do not believe that that is the case in England and Wales. Why cannot that be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?
I have said enough on an issue which should be debated more widely. I am a great believer in the Select Committee procedures of the other place, having served on one of the committees. I have to acknowledge that the Select Committee did not say at the time that the planning laws should apply to fish farming wherever it takes place, although it said that that might have to come. On the other hand the local authorities in this country, and certainly in Scotland, believe that that should be the case. They are very unhappy. That view is supported by the Select Committee. The role of the Crown Estate Commissioners is causing considerable concern. I do not believe that the matter can be left as it is for very much longer. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have doubts about the amendment. I am sorry that today I seem to be saying "No" to everything. However, as I understand it the amendment would mean that any fish cage would become an engineering work and be subject to planning control. If that is the case I have a feeling that mooring any boat—dare I say a lifeboat, in which I have an interest—or even the erection of a pig arc could come under the restriction.
It may be that I am wrong or the noble Lord could redraft the amendment to avoid that. As the noble Lord said, the Select Committee did not approve this particular measure.
Lord Moran: I, on the contrary, should like to support the amendments. As the Committee will know, I moved an earlier amendment which related to fish farming itself. The amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has put forward are more limited in that they are directed at controlling the structures involved in fish farming.
I suggested earlier that the whole question of the relationship of planning to fish farming was in a state of considerable muddle. I hope that in the time that has elapsed since I moved the earlier amendment the Government have addressed themselves to the problem and will be able to clarify the position as it is now or as it will be. I think that it needs tidying up. Personally I believe that anything that we can do to extend the operation of planning control to all forms of fish farming would be highly desirable and in many cases necessary.
Baroness David: I, too, had my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which was moved late on the first day of Committee. If the
648
Government do not give a warm response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, perhaps he and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, can get together with the Government and come up with a proposal that is acceptable to everybody. It seems to me that this is an area which needs some action.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, indicated, his two amendments cover fish farming in both inland waters and fresh waters and in a marine context. The first amendment, Amendment No. 113ZA, would bring within planning control fish tanks and cages in inland waters which would normally at present be exempt from planning control because they are simply attached to the land by a mooring rope or chain.
The issue of floating fish tanks and cages in England and Wales has been considered in the context of the recent report of the agriculture committee on fish farming in the United Kingdom. The committee recommended that in national parks all fish farm proposals should require planning permission, whether land based or using floating structures. In their response, which was published last December, the Government announced that they would withdraw permitted development rights for fish farming in national parks. However they were not convinced of the need to bring all floating structures used for fish farming within the scope of development.
The committee did not discuss floating structures at any length in its report. The ACC which requested the change in respect of national parks addressed the question in its evidence. It mentioned that the Lake District National Park had resisted such a proposal at Ullswater. Although it had apparently been successful in doing so, it was concerned that fresh proposals might be made which would be outside planning control.
I appreciate that there is concern. Nevertheless it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence of difficulties arising from the use of floating structures in England and Wales to justify a change in the primary legislation.
I turn to Amendment No. 252A, which is concerned with fish farming in seas. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has already indicated, this subject has been considered very thoroughly by the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place. That committee did not recommend that planning controls should be extended in this area.
The Government agree with that committee in promoting an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach to marine fish farming. The consultation and decision-making procedures have been improved over the past few years, among other things by the establishment of the advisory committee. I accept in part what the noble Lord said. There was some delay in setting up that committee and, as he indicated, it has only slowly had the opportunity to deal with particular cases. I understand that to date there has been only one disputed case. Be that as it may in terms of its past history, it is certainly true that it will now have an important role. It will be a valuable

649
mechanism for both open and independent consideration of more contentious applications, and procedures involving the advisory committee will be kept under review.
I can tell the noble Lord that preparations are in hand for national planning guidelines for the location and siting of marine fish farms in Scotland in consultation with interested parties. Those guidelines will provide a benchmark for the work of the Crown Estates and the advisory committee in ensuring that the industry develops in full harmony with proper environmental consideration.
The terms of the amendment are such that not only would they bring marine fish farming into planning control but also a range of other developments such as oil-related development and sand and gravel extraction. Careful thought was given to the matter by the Agriculture Select Committee in another place and changes have recently been introduced. While we appreciate that it is a matter of concern, I hope that in the light of action already taken and opinions expressed the noble Lord will allow matters to stand as they are and not press his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: It would be pointless to press my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, was correct in saying that the Select Committee was not in favour of planning controls. However, at paragraph 23 of its report it admitted that the view of CoSLA—the local authorities' association in Scotland—and the Association of County Councils was that local authorities should be able to control developments in their coastal waters. That view was shared by the majority of other bodies which gave evidence. It is true that the Select Committee did not endorse it, but it said that in its view it should be a matter of evolution. It stated that it did not endorse the solution "at this stage".
I accept that the Government have agreed to planning control in respect of national parks, and presumably there will be an amendment to the Bill. Am I right in believing that the Scottish Office has recently removed the permitted development rights for fresh water farms in Scotland but that the provision does not apply in England and Wales? If so, why should it not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I hope that the debate has been useful. The voluntary bodies will wish to see a little more action by the committee that has been set up. At least it has met once. I am told that a number of issues have been raised by NGOs and others but they have had difficulty in getting the committee to meet. I hope that the Government will fall in behind the organisations and ensure that the committee which is supposed to investigate objections becomes active. There is a strong feeling that the Crown Estate Commissioners are dragging their feet on the issue and they cannot be allowed to get away with that for much longer. Perhaps the Minister will answer my question before I decide what to do about the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: First, I wish to clarify a matter raised by the noble Lord in order to ensure that
650
he understands the situation. While in Scotland engineering and building works associated with fish farming and inland waters are the subject of planning control, the tanks or the cages within the water are not within planning control, and that is the position in England too. Secondly, I advise the noble Lord that it is unnecessary to table an amendment to the Bill in order to allow for the control that will be introduced in the national parks. That can be achieved through the general development orders.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Perhaps there is greater control of engineering works in Scotland than in England and we should consider that. However, in response to his remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113A not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Mines and waste]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 63, line 29, at end insert:
("4A. In section 100 (revocation and modification of planning permission by the Secretary of State) for subsection (8) there is substituted—
"(8) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 97 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115 to 117, 119, 120, 121 to 129, 131 and 270. These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 114A:
Page 63, line 34, leave out, (""site" to the end there is substituted") and insert (""(a)" to the end there is substituted "to undertake every five years reviews of every").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. That amendment was concerned with mineral workings and development orders. I thought that the Minister's reply was moderately encouraging. I shall read that with great care. Unless something positive emerges, we shall bring forward further amendments on this matter at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 114A not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 63, line 34, after (" "site" ") insert ("where it first occurs").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[[Amendment No. 115A not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 64, line 3, at end insert:
("6A. In section 107 (compensation where planning permission revoked or modified) in subsection (5) for "1(2)" there is substituted "1(3)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 64, line 30, at end insert:
("7A. In section 117(2) (general provisions as to compensation for depreciation under Part IV) after "under", where it first occurs, there is inserted "section 116(2) and".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120:
Page 65, line 11, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 65, line 14, leave out (""the winning or") and insert (""winning and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120A not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 129:
Page 65, line 25, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 65, line 34, leave out ("to whom such functions are assigned by or under Schedule 1") and insert ("entitled to discharge such functions").
Page 65, line 39, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 66, line 25, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 66, line 27, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 67, line 14, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 67, line 21, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 67, line 26, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 68, line 6, leave out ("to whom such functions are assigned by or under Schedule 1") and insert ("entitled to discharge such functions").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129A not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 130:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Hedges
.—(1) In section 198(1) of the principal Act (power to make tree preservation orders) after "woodlands" in both places where it appears there is inserted 'or hedges'.
(2) In Part VIII (Special Controls) Chapter I of the principal Act (Trees) (other than in section 198(1) and in the phrase "tree preservation order") the word "tree" in every place in which it appears includes "hedge" and the word "trees" includes "hedges".").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 130 seeks to apply to hedges the same protection currently enjoyed by trees. I am aware that the rate of hedgerow destruction has slowed. By means of grants, farmers and land owners are being encouraged to plant new hedges. However, there is still a net loss each year and perhaps more importantly, ancient hedges, often valued for their historic and landscape importance as well as for wildlife protection, can be cleared without reference to anybody.
A tree or group of trees with corresponding value has a number of protection measures available. I am aware of the consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment in December 1990 which proposes hedgerow management orders as recommended in the Batho Report. However, acceptance of this amendment would be simple and
652
effective and would mean that farmers and land owners would not have to master yet another set of separate regulations.
This amendment is supported by the National Association of Local Councils and by the AMA. The Hampshire Association of Parish Councils has written to say:
"Intensive farming in Hampshire and elsewhere has resulted in elimination of hedgerow boundaries. That has led to soil erosion; a decrease in shelter; loss of mature trees; loss of many species of plants and animals; and harm to the natural landscape in the reduction of features of local identity and history provided by hedgerows. HAPC strongly supports hedgerow protection orders.
The Nature Conservancy Council too wishes to see greater protection for hedgerows. In its response to the Bill at paragraph 5.4 it points out that there has already been widespread support for the concept and suggests that there would appear to be no necessity for further delay.
Amendments Nos. 130A to D are supported by the Royal Town Planning Institute as a means of simplifying procedures for protecting trees. The RTPI feels that simplification is needed for the following reasons, which form the basis for that whole raft of amendments:
"At present, the Act provides for the protection of trees of special value to be by order; and a sample order is prescribed by Regulations. It is the order, not the Act or the Regulations, which requires consent to be obtained. This has a number of disadvantages. Firstly, much of the relevant law is highly inaccessible, being in a schedule to a sample order that is itself a schedule to regulations made 21 years ago—prior to the 1971 Act. Secondly, it means that a vast amount of paper has to be prepared by the authority, and served on all those affected by the order. That in turn results in the part of the order that really matters—the schedule and the map—often being not prepared properly by the authority, nor studied properly by the recipient. Thirdly, any changes in the law are not reflected in the order, and thus do not apply to works to trees protected by orders made prior to the changes".
These amendments would have the effect of incorporating the requirement for consent into the regulations rather than into the order. The Department of the Environment consultation document to which I referred earlier recognised the need for streamlining and shortening procedures. However, it seems to be relying on a continuation of the present status of orders with all their current defects. We believe that this group of amendments will provide a better way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am afraid once again I have to say no. I hope that it will be the last time tonight. I do not believe this is the right way forward. The method mentioned by my noble friend earlier is a better way. I have removed some hedgerows and I am not sure whether or not they should have been taken out. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness but I believe the way forward is that suggested by the Government.
The amendment is tabled in the form of a tree preservation order. Hedgerows are not trees. I think this time the noble Baroness is wrong.
Lord Gisborough: There have been some appalling abuses concerning hedgerows. We have seen great tracts of flat farmland stripped of hedgerows, and they

653
look terrible; nobody can deny that. However, there is a demand in farming for rationalisation. Councils tend to try to control everything. If the amendment were accepted we should see more and more controls; it would be a battle between farmers trying to rationalise their fields and councils trying to control them.
We then come to the question of maintenance. Preservation orders can be placed on hedgerows, but who will maintain them? If one allows a hedgerow to grow it will become a series of trees running in line, and it will be worthless. It will look worse than nothing at all.
One must remember also that during the time of the enclosures there was an outcry against the hedgerow. The cry was, "These awful hedgerows". There were hedgerows, which people hated, sprouting up all over the countryside.
Why do we not have a campaign to divide up the parks using hedgerows? Why, if we like hedgerows, do we not have a campaign to put hedgerows across the downs? This demand does not make sense. There is a public demand for the status quo; whatever exists now we want to keep. If we have hedgerows, we want to keep them; if we have not got them, the cry is, do not plant them. That is not logic and I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Baroness David: I must say that I have never heard such a load of rubbish as has come from the Benches opposite in the last few minutes. Everybody agrees that hedgerows need management and there are places that ask for hedgerows. Dr. Batho suggested that local authorities should have a new power to make hedgerow management orders to protect important ones. The DoE in its response agreed to this proposal and proposed that compensation would be payable on the use of an order at the rate of £300 for 100 metres of hedgerow.
I think that the AMA is concerned that the requirement of compensation may discourage the use of hedgerow management orders and prevent local authorities making use of an excellent new power. So there is clearly something to be sorted out. Something needs to be done and I certainly say that hedgerows need management, just as much as the land generally needs management. A hedgerow needs looking after or something will go wrong with it. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask why it is that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is so expert on country matters such as hedgerows?
Baroness David: Its members take an interest in places around their areas and people who live under the metropolitan authorities enjoy going to the countryside.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is an old saying as you travel north through the Midlands to Yorkshire and onwards,
"Where the hedges stop, the stumps begin."
Lord Gisborough: If the metropolitan boroughs want to design hedgerows for the sake of having good looks in the countryside, why should not the farmers be allowed to design the towns, in order to try to stop all this awful architecture going up? The metropolitan authorities have ruined their own towns with appalling architecture.
Lord Ross of Newport: May I come in on the act? The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will agree with me that if we do not have hedgerows there will be no one who can lay hedgerows properly. There are some left in my part of the country and it is marvellous to see a well laid hedge. I want the people from the cities and towns to see a well laid hedgerow.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is clearly a controversial matter. The first of the amendments that has been spoken to would extend the scope of tree preservation orders to hedgerows, enabling local authorities, where appropriate, to safeguard this feature of the landscape. The other amendments would have a number of effects. There would be a transfer to regulations of various provisions relating to applications for consent under tree preservation orders, both to help reduce the latter's length and to ensure that any future changes in the law are applied automatically to orders made prior to such changes. The amendments would also vary the existing law in other respects where problems are known to exist.
Amendment No. 130B concerns the replacement of trees under such orders, making further new provisions. Amendment No. 130C relates to conservation areas and also makes substantive changes.
What is important here is not to look to the detail of these amendments, however interesting they may be, but to make this broad observation: the Government are engaged in a comprehensive review of tree preservation policies and legislation. This is not a customary or traditional stance for the Front Bench to take, as I think the noble Baroness will appreciate.
It is not so long ago that the Batho Report was first published. Then on 17th December last year a consultation paper was issued by the Government free to all those who wished it. At present, we are awaiting detailed comments. That paper includes a wide range of proposals, including plans to introduce hedgerow management orders and measures to simplify the form of tree preservation orders.
I suggest to your Lordships that it would clearly be quite wrong to anticipate at this stage the results of the consultation exercise in particular respects. Certainly to adopt a piecemeal approach in this detailed and very important area of the law would be perilous.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough has been accused of speaking complete rubbish, but, if I may come to his support, in what he had to say on the maintenance of hedgerows he made a very valid point. It is our intention that in the making of hedgerow management orders, if they are to be made by local planning authorities, there should be some link with payments to farmers by the authority concerned to help offset the cost of cutting and maintenance. Clearly that cost is not something which can be considered purely negligible. There would also need to

655
be certain new procedural provisions—in particular relating to appeals under such orders—to reflect this rather different context.
I concentrate on that particular point because it seems to me to indicate most clearly and sharply, in the context of the short debate that we have just had, that it is premature to deal with these matters pending receiving the detailed comments that doubtless many people will want to make on the consultation paper that is presently out. In the circumstances, I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol: The noble Lords, Lord Gisborough and Lord Stanley of Alderley, both missed the point. We are not talking about whether there should be hedgerow preservation orders. As the noble and learned Lord has just told us, they are coming. It is a question of how and when. My pressure on this matter
656
results from my feeling that it is urgent. I felt also that the amendment that we put forward would be more effective than the Batho Report's recommendations. I take the point that has been made, however. When this new legislation about tree preservation is eventually drawn up, I hope that the comments of the RTPI about the complexity of the present legislation will be taken into account and that some attempt will be made to make it more clearly understood.
Finally, to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, I would not expect farmers to be asked to undertake anything in these hard times without being paid for it, and I am relieved to hear that there is going to be some form of grant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130A to 130D not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 131:
Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Mines and waste
(" . Schedule (mines and waste - Scotland) to this Act (which, among other things, provides for after-care where permission is given to deposit refuse or waste materials) shall have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Trees]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 50, leave out lines 39 to 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Advertisements]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 29, line 17, at end insert ("colour scheme").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It would bring the displays of house colours, or colour schemes, which are so often associated with petrol filling stations and large retail chains, within the scope of planning control. One of the most relentless trends in advertising in recent years has been the growth of house colours and logos intended to identify a particular company or type of business immediately to the public eye. I am sure that we can all think of examples of petrol filling stations in residential areas or open countryside or of retail warehouses or do-it-yourself centres that dominate the scenery because of the distinctive and intrusive way they are coloured.
I was shocked to find that such colour schemes are entirely outside the control of the planning system, and indeed that the Government did not even consider them to be advertisements. Some noble Lords may recall the problems caused by advertising hoardings in the countryside and the great campaigns of the 1930s to bring them under control. I fear that we are faced with a similar sort of problem today.
If you care to walk down the high street of Chichester or other historic towns you will see the dramatic benefits of planning control over shop fronts. All the major chain stores and fast food outlets tone down their advertisements for these special areas. However, no such control is possible over the highly intrusive colour schemes which are being allowed to destroy the environment of both town and country. Logos and colours designed for the convenience of the advertiser are being imposed on different environments without any degree of control over their impact on the countryside or residential areas.
In July 1989 the Department of the Environment published proposals to extend the statutory definition of advertisements to remove any doubt that certain modern forms of outdoor advertising come within the definition, and the results are evident in Clause 20. I welcome the inclusion of awnings and blinds within the definition of advertisements. However, the Bill fails to remove the doubts expressed in 1985 by the
658
Department of the Environment's own working party about colour schemes as an example of another modern form of outdoor advertising.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Civic Trust and other local authority associations represented on the working party argued emphatically that colour schemes should be regarded as advertisements and be subject to control. The working party concluded that doubts on the matter should be cleared up and that the Secretary of State should consider the merits of bringing house colours and colour schemes within the scope of advertisement control.
The Bill provides the best opportunity for clearing up this problem. There is a widespread feeling that colour schemes are advertisements and in need of control. They are distinctive and they convey a particular message that is the essence of an advertisement. They cannot be considered to be acceptable in all circumstances by a reasonable planning authority. That is the essence of a development in need of planning control. Extending the definition of advertisements to include colour schemes would ensure that they were appropriate to the local environment. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I support this amendment in principle. I ran a Civic Trust scheme at my own home in 1966. The whole street frontage was painted to a colour scheme policy. That remained for some time. The street became a conservation area. Recently some of the houses have been painted in garish colours. It has ruined the whole street. There has been an outcry against it. In principle any possibility of initiating colour scheme policies rather than colour schemes should be encouraged so that people can choose within a range of colours which are compatible. I have made inquiries about that recently.
I understand that any local planning authority has the power to make an Article 4 direction subject to appeal and to confirmation by the Secretary of State. That has the effect of clawing back any part of the planning permission otherwise granted by the general development order. Painting may be one such example. I do not know whether that is true because my planning officer says that he has no control over painting. I shall be very interested to hear something about the Article 4 direction.
Baroness Nicol: We support this amendment. Great distress is caused especially in conservation and other sensitive areas by the use of garish colours. There is a slavish attachment by many establishments to what they call their house colours. I was associated with a retail establishment which had a wishy-washy blue as its house colour which it insisted on putting everywhere. Eventually we came up against a local authority in a conservation area which put its foot down and said, "No, you will use brown and gold". We used brown and gold and our customers were delighted and wrote a number of complimentary letters about it. So much for keeping the corporate image. I hope that this amendment will find favour with the Government.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am very confused. Who is the expert on colour? What is the standard by which one says "This person knows what the colour ought to be, but that person does not"? I should be grateful if someone could answer that.
Lord Gisborough: Perhaps I can help here. When a Civic Trust scheme is initiated, normally a grant is requested from the local authority to employ an architect. He is carefully chosen. He selects a certain number of compatible colours and uses certain techniques such as painting a whole house the same colour rather than dividing it in two, and things of that nature. It is the architect who produces the colour scheme.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think it should be appreciated that the effect of this amendment is to insert the words "colour scheme" into what is the statutory definition of "advertisement" to be found in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In practice, this alteration to the statutory definition would bring within the scope of planning control over outdoor advertisements any display of a colour, or a combination of colours, if it could reasonably be held to be displayed for the purposes of advertisement, announcement or direction. The local planning authority would thus be enabled to exercise control over a colour scheme displayed on any premises in the same way as it controls any outdoor advertisement in its administrative area.
While I fully understand the impulse behind my noble friend's wish to ensure that garish or unsightly colour schemes are not applied indiscriminately to buildings, I am bound to say that I do not think that bringing all colour schemes, whatever their nature or purpose, within the scope of advertisement control by local planning authorities is an acceptable way of achieving his purpose. The advertisement control system is intended to enable planning authorities to control the enormous variety of posters, placards, hoardings, signs and fascia boards which advertisers use to communicate with their actual or potential customers. Colour schemes or combinations of colour do not by themselves advertise or communicate information in the way that normal methods of outdoor advertisement communicate.
We think that colour schemes should be dealt with in two main ways, depending on the circumstances in which the colours are displayed. First, if the colour scheme is part and parcel of an outdoor advertisement—for example, if a company's symbol or trade-mark is superimposed on standard colours on all its premises—it is obviously an integral part of the advertising matter. In that event, the whole display is clearly an outdoor advertisement and can be controlled as such by the planning authority. Secondly, if colours are simply applied to the walls or wall-coverings of a building, the question is whether that colouring scheme amounts to development by virtue of Section 55(2) of the 1990 Act because it materially affects the external appearance of the building. That is always a question for the planning authority to decide as a matter of fact and degree, especially when it is considering a planning
660
application. But I am bound to say that the application of any colour scheme is very much a subjective matter—a point which has already been made—in which it may often be appropriate to leave the decision to the common sense of a developer and his advisers.
We have no evidence that garish and unsightly colour schemes are causing widespread harm to amenity, although no doubt individually we could all cite one or two unhappy examples. What is being suggested would be a highly regulatory approach to a matter in which individual taste varies greatly. On balance, we do not think it is a matter on which there should be legislation. It is best left to the good sense of owners and occupiers themselves, influenced by the educational efforts of such bodies as the Civic Trust. In any event, as I have indicated in certain respects such colour schemes may be the subject of a planning control.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I hope I have given him an adequate explanation of the Government's stance.
Lord Norrie: I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving such a full explanation. I shall study it carefully. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for their support and understanding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 21 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances]:
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 133B:
Page 68, line 17, at end insert:
(" . After section 8 of that Act shall be inserted—
"Certificates of authorised works
Certificates of authorised works.
8A.—(1) If any person wishes to ascertain whether any works that have been carried out for the demolition, alteration or extension of a listed building are authorised, he may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the building and describing the works.
(2) If, on an application under subsection (1), the local planning authority are provided with information satisfying them that all or some of the works were authorised at the time of the application, they shall issue a certificate to that effect.
(3) If, on an application under subsection (1), the local planning authority are provided with information satisfying them that some or all of the works were at the time of the application not authorised, they may grant consent under section 8(3) for some or all of those works.
(4) If any person wishes to ascertain whether any works proposed to be carried out for the demolition, alteration or extension of a listed building are authorised, he may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the building and describing the works.
(5) If, on an application under subsection (4), the local planning authority are provided with information

661
satisfying them that, were the works being carried out at the time of the application, they would be authorised, they may issue a certificate to that effect; and in any other case they shall refuse the application.
(6) A certificate under this section shall—

(a) specify the building to which it relates;

(b) describe the works in question;

(c) give the reasons for determining the works to be authorised; and

(d) specify the date of the application for the certificate.

(7) Where a certificate is in force under this section, it shall be conclusively presumed that the works described in the certificate, if being carried out at the time of the application, would be authorised.
Certificates under section 8A: supplementary provisions.
8B.—(1) An application for a certificate under section 8A shall be made in such manner, include such particulars, and be verified by such evidence, as may be prescribed in regulations or required by any direction given by the local planning authority.
(2) Provision may be made by regulations as to the manner in which applications for certificates under that section are to be dealt with by local planning authorities.
(3) In particular, such regulations may provide for requiring the authority—

(a) to give to any applicant within such time as may be prescribed such notice as may be so prescribed as to the manner in which his application has been dealt with; and

(b) to give to the Secretary of State and to such other persons as may be prescribed by or under the regulations, such information as may be so prescribed with respect to such applications made to the authority, including information as to the manner in which any application has been dealt with.

(4) Where an application for a certificate under that section specifies two or more works, a certificate—

(a) may be issued for all of them or some one or more of them; and

(b) shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(5) A local planning authority may revoke a certificate under that section if, on the application for the certificate—

(a) a statement was made or document used which was false in a material particular; or

(b) any material information was withheld.

(6) Provision may be made by regulations for regulating the manner in which certificates may be revoked and the notice to be given of such revocation.
Offences.
8C.—(1) If any person, for the purpose of procuring a particular decision on an application (whether by himself or another) for the issue of a certificate under section 8A—

(a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular;

(b) with intent to deceive, uses any document which is false or misleading in a material particular; or

(c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

662

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.

(3) Notwithstanding section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a magistrates' court may try an information in respect of an offence under subsection (1) whenever laid."").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 133B, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to all the amendments listed en bloc. Amendments Nos. 143A, 143B, 143C, 143D, 143G and 143J are miscellaneous technical amendments which on this occasion I am not moving. I have given the Minister notice of this.
The whole group of amendments deals with that part of planning relating to listed buildings and conservation areas. On Second Reading the Minister said:
"Apart from some technical changes to listed buildings enforcement procedure consequent to the main provisions on planning enforcement, the Bill is not concerned with matters relating to listed buildings, conservation areas or the powers of the English Heritage".—[Official Report, 27/11/90; col. 945.]
In our opinion, that is taking an unnecessarily and, I believe, an unjustifiably restricted view of the matter. The Long Title of the Bill describes the legislation as being, among other things,
"An Act to amend the law relating to town and country planning".
The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 was,
"an Act to amend the law on planning".
The Housing and Planning Act 1986 was,
"an Act to make further provision in regard to housing, planning and local inquiries".
Neither Act in its Long Title contained any reference to listed buildings, conservation areas or heritage. However, each contained a substantial number of clauses relating to listed buildings and conservation areas. That is not surprising, as such matters were until 1990 contained squarely within the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, along with all other mainstream planning legislation.
When the 1971 Act was consolidated in 1990, although it was recast in three separate Acts—one dealing with mainstream planning, one with listed buildings and conservation areas and one with hazardous substances—they are, nevertheless, treated as one package, under the title of "the planning Acts" and not as three separate codes. Amendments relating to listed buildings and conservation areas are thus entirely within the scope of the Bill and not a different species of heritage amendments as, for example, amendments relating to ancient monuments would be.
The proposed group of amendments seeks to make a handful of adjustments to this area of planning law. None of them is controversial. Indeed, each is merely rectifying one or more apparent infelicities of drafting in the law as it stands. Perhaps I may quickly go through a short description of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 133B, 135A and 138A all refer to enforcement. Amendment No. 133B introduces a procedure to enable any person to discover whether

663
listed building consent is required for works which have been carried out or which are proposed to be carried out to a listed building. That is achieved by inserting three new sections into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Together they provide for the issuing of certificates of authorised works to listed buildings.
At present there is no procedure available other than carrying out the works and waiting to see whether the planning authority chooses to prosecute. That is especially unfortunate as the definition of which works require consent is so subjective. Consent is required if the works,
"affect the character of the building".
It is not always clear whether consent is required for, say, the replacement of old windows by modern ones, the cleaning of a building by sand-blasting, the re-painting of the building in a slightly different colour or the replacement of slates with asbestos tiles. Examples of where such a provision may be useful are where a prospective purchaser wishes to find out whether works which have been carried out to a listed building by the current owner are authorised or where he or she wishes to discover whether consent would be required for proposed works. There is a corresponding provision available to determine whether planning permission is required for a proposed development under what used to be Section 53 of the 1971 Act and what is now Section 64 of the 1990 Act. That section is being replaced as a result of Clause 10 of the Bill. The proposed amendment introduces provisions equivalent to those in Clause 10 for listed building consent.
Amendments Nos. 135A and 138A also deal with the application of the enforcement provisions of the 1990 Act to the listed buildings code. Thus, Amendment No. 135A deals with matters to be specified in listed building enforcement notices. It is a technical amendment with two purposes. First, it would enable a listed building enforcement notice that required two or more steps to be carried out by way of remedial works to specify different time periods within which they must be carried out.
Secondly, it enables the Secretary of State to require that anyone served with a listed building enforcement notice is notified of his or her right to appeal against it. Again, corresponding provisions exist in relation to planning enforcement notices in Sections 174(5) and 177 of the main Act. For some reason they have not been applied to listed buildings. It is possible they were just forgotten and left out.
Amendment No. 138A requires planning authorities to maintain registers of listed building enforcement notices. It is important that such notices should be available for inspection in the same way as are enforcement notices. Again, in Section 188 of the main Act there is a corresponding requirement for a register of planning enforcement notices and stop notices to be maintained. Again, for some reason, that provision has not been extended to listed buildings, and the Bill gives us an opportunity to right that matter.
I now come to the amendments relating to applications for listed building consent and planning
664
permission. Amendment No. 143E requires planning authorities to maintain registers of applications for listed building consent. As with the previous amendment, there is a corresponding requirement in Section 69 of the main Act for a register of planning applications to be maintained. It is important that listed building consent applications should also be available for public inspection.
The following two amendments (Amendments Nos. 143F and 143H) deal with the matters that must be taken into account by planning authorities when dealing with applications. At present, when considering applications affecting a conservation area, planning authorities and the Secretary of State must consider the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. However, when an application affects a listed building or its setting, the duty is merely to consider its preservation, not its enhancement.
The mere preservation of a listed building is not always enough, as most Members of the Committee will agree. In an appropriate case, it must, if at all possible, be enhanced. Thus, Amendment No. 143F relates to applications for listed building consent, and Amendment No. 143H relates to application for planning permission. Each ensures that when considering whether to grant consent or permission for any work an authority is obliged to consider positive enhancement as well as mere preservation.
The second of the two amendments (Amendment No. 143H) also has another purpose. Under Section 66 of the Act, when determining a planning application for a development which would affect a listed building or its setting, the planning authority is required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting. Under Section 67, when it receives such an application, it is to give special publicity to it, and (in England) to notify English Heritage.
Amendment No. 143H widens that twofold duty in several ways. First, it extends the duty to developments affecting scheduled monuments and registered gardens. At present there is almost no linkage between the scheduling of ancient monuments and the planning system. There is no statutory duty to consider archaeology, and yet there is increasing anxiety over the threat to archaeological sites posed by unsuitable developments. Similarly, at present there is no duty in regard to registered gardens; that is, gardens included in the register maintained by English Heritage under Section 8C of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953.
Secondly, the amendment—the proposed new subsection (1A) —extends the type of application to which the duty applies so as to include applications for approval of details and for approval required under a development order. The latter would include those situations where a Private Bill grants consent for works, but subject to detailed approval by the planning authority. Thirdly, although in Wales the Secretary of State, through the vehicle of Cadw (the Welsh Office listed buildings section) has a role similar

665
to that of English Heritage, there is no requirement for planning applications to be sent to him for comment or call in.
The situation is rectified by the new Sections 5A and 5B. I must stress that although the amendment relates to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, it deals entirely with planning applications rather than applications for listed building consent. It is thus, even more than the others proposed in the group, very much a mainstream planning amendment and in no sense a heritage amendment.
The remaining amendments in the group relate to the acquisition of buildings, repairs and grants. Amendments Nos. 143K to 143S and Amendment No. 395 are designed to rationalise and extend the provision in Chapter V of Part I of the 1990 Act relating to the acquisition of buildings, the carrying out of urgent repairs and the giving of grants and loans for repair and maintenance. They largely finish the job of consolidating this area of statute law, but the opportunity is rightly taken to deal with the inconsistencies that exist at present.
The amendments affect seven sections of the 1990 Act and insert three new sections. However, they also enable the repeal of 13 sections of other statutes and one whole statute. The proposals form a series of eight interlocking amendments which fall into two categories: first, Amendments Nos. 143K to 143P deal with the acquisition of property and of special architectural, historic or other interest. They provide that English Heritage shall be an appropriate authority under Section 47 in respect of any property in England, rather than, as at present, merely in London.
They then extend to the appropriate authorities powers to buy property by agreement under Section 52 and to carry out urgent works under Section 54. This reflects the enhanced powers for English Heritage suggested in the Government's 1989 consultation paper. The amendments also extend the scope of the property that may be acquired under the 1990 Act to accord with the provision currently in the 1953 Act. Finally, the amendments extend to appropriate authorities the power of English Heritage to accept endowments. They are extended to the Secretary of State by Section 58A.
Amendments Nos. 143Q, 143R and 143S rationalise and clarify the procedures relating to the provision of financial support for repair and maintenance. These are currently spread between several different statutes, including the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, the Civic Amenities Act 1967, the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, the National Heritage Act 1983 as well as the 1990 Act. This has an unfortunate effect, since the wording of the different provisions is not consistent. It also causes unnecessary confusion both to those administering the system and to those on the receiving end.
Thus under the Act as modified by these proposals grants by English Heritage to authorities—the National Trust, the Architectural Heritage Fund and individual building trusts —for the acquisition of property would be in Section 56A. Grants by appropriate authorities including English Heritage for repair and maintenance would be in Sections 57 and 58 and grants by the Secretary of State in Section 58A.
The last amendment in the group, Amendment No. 395, provides for the repeals that will be possible following from this series of amendments. This indicates the advantage of the amendments. By the introduction of only three new sections into the 1990 Act, it is possible to repeal 13 sections of other statutes. It may also be possible to repeal paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1985 concerning grants by English Heritage in greater London.
The extent of these repeals indicates also that essentially a large part of the value of the last set of amendments is to complete the job of consolidating this area of statute law.
I apologise for taking some time, but I assure the Committee that it is much quicker to move the amendments in this way than to take one amendment after another and argue them all out. It also gives the picture of what we are trying to achieve.
Before I sit down, I must reiterate that these amendments are wholly within the purview of the Bill. I suspect the Minister will say that we should await the advent of a heritage Bill. That is like waiting for Never Never Land. I speak from the heart on that matter as I have been a Minister in the department of the noble Baroness and therefore I know how long it takes—irrespective of the government in power—to get colleagues to agree and for a heritage Bill to be produced. In the meantime a great many buildings that we want to conserve may be destroyed. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is evident that a great deal of detailed thought has gone into the preparation of these amendments, and that the advisers on the amendments have a close knowledge of the legislation relating to planning generally and to listed buildings. Some of the amendments may give us food for thought at more leisure, while a couple strike chords as being points which we already have in mind, but for which we do not see this Bill as the right vehicle. We have, it is true, used the opportunity of the Bill to reflect in respect of listed buildings, so far as we consider appropriate, the changes relating to planning enforcement following the report by Robert Carnwath QC. It would have been illogical not to do so. But, by and large, this is not a Bill about listed buildings: it is one primarily about enforcement, controls over development, development plans and land compensation. I am reluctant therefore to overbalance it by extending it to deal with the details of the listed building regime generally, including consents, grants and acquisitions.
Indeed, I attach such importance to our heritage legislation that in my view any changes to it would

667
deserve proper consideration in a specific legislative vehicle, rather than being tacked on to a Bill about other matters, unless they are of pressing and immediate importance. The Committee will understand, however, that I am not in a position to give any commitment as to the timing or content of any future legislation.
That said, however, I must also say that there are a number of amendments on these topics which the noble Baroness has laid before us which we either do not view as being necessary, or which we considered when consolidating the legislation but thought inappropriate, or in which we see positive disadvantage.
The Committee may know that in 1989 the department consulted on changes to the heritage legislation. These included proposals similar in scope to those of Amendments Nos. 143H and 143N. One such was to require local planning authorities or the Secretary of State to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving a scheduled monument when planning applications which affect such monuments are being considered. Amendment No. 143H would, in part, cover that. However, it is not essential to put it into legislation at this stage. The desirability of preserving a scheduled monument or its setting is already established in case law, and only last November we underlined this message very strongly in our guidance note on archaeology and planning, PPG 16. Nevertheless, we shall want to consider this further for legislation when the time is ripe.
We also consulted on the proposals to give English Heritage powers to issue urgent repairs notices in its own right, although subject to some form of consultation with, or approval by, the department. At present if the Secretary of State wishes to serve such a notice, he must authorise English Heritage to carry out the works for him, but he must also specify precisely what works he is authorising it to do. In practice this means prior consultation with English Heritage to agree on the works which are necessary. The procedure is awkward and time consuming and we see benefit in changing it. This would also implement a recommendation from the 1987 Select Committee on the Environment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, dealt with this in Amendment No. 143N—and it was ably dealt with by the noble Baroness—although he does not deal with the prior approval point.
Although we have not been out to consultation on the matter, we also have some general sympathy with the proposals to extend English Heritage's grant-giving powers so that it may aid building preservation trusts who wish to acquire buildings in poor repair and sell them on. This is covered in Amendment No. 143Q. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, indeed raised this point on Second Reading. We are broadly sympathetic to this although we might well need to go out to public consultation. We should also need to consider the interaction between the extension of this power and English Heritage's existing power to grant-aid the Architectural Heritage Fund, which itself grant-aids building preservation trusts.
668
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that general philosophy. This is not the right Bill to deal with those points, and even if it were we would need to consider the drafting very carefully. However, I emphasise again that although I cannot commit the Government regarding the timing we are aware that amendments need to be made to heritage legislation and we shall wish to bring them forward at the earliest possible opportunity.
The amendments moved tonight, which we find unacceptable in principle and which we would wish to resist however long we spent debating them tonight, cover two different areas. Amendment No. 113B would introduce a procedure for any person to seek a certificate from the local planning authority that particular works were or would be authorised. While it seeks to mirror the procedure for planning applications which we are introducing in Clause 10 of the Bill, it is not appropriate for listed building control. It also introduces unnecessary complexity into the system and a confusing overlap with the existing listed building controls.
Finally, although we look favourably on Amendment No. 143N we do not accept Amendment No. 143F, which would give English Heritage the right compulsorily to purchase buildings in need of repair. With the greatest of respect to English Heritage, it would be difficult to justify giving that Draconian power to a non-elected body. We have sometimes been asked in the past to set up registers for listed building consent applications as proposed in Amendments Nos. 138A and 143E. We have hitherto resisted such requests on the grounds that they are unnecessary. We could not accept them without consultation with local authority associations because of the extra bureaucracy involved.
The remainder of the amendments seem to be drafting and tidying-up amendments or rationalisation of the grant-making powers. While it might be appropriate to consider some of those amendments if the heritage legislation were being consolidated, there is no need to take them on board now. Indeed, consolidation is really a matter for the Law Commission, not individual departments. As we found when the planning legislation was being consolidated, it is a time-consuming and complex business to ensure that all the cross-references are correct and all the necessary provisions covered. We cannot, therefore, accept them now.
For all those reasons, I cannot support the amendments at this time. I trust that in the light of what I have said—which I hope will have left the noble Baroness not entirely without hope—she will not press the amendments.
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. As was said in a different context on a more famous occasion, "Well, she would, wouldn't she?"
I cannot accept that the amendments cannot be considered in a planning context, which is the most important aspect of the Bill. The Minister has given

669
me no hope of there being a heritage Bill in the future. I quite understand that she could not have done so in any event.
The numbers of the amendments may have been mixed up because there were so many of them. I have a feeling that the number the noble Baroness mentioned when replying to one amendment was not the number that appears on the Marshalled List, but that is a detail that can be sorted out. I shall read what she said and consider what to do at the next stage. In the meantime I do not intend to press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 68, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 19 and insert ("In section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (offences: penalties)—
(a) for subsection (4)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 134 to 138 and 140 to 146A are all amendments to Schedule 2 to the Bill in respect of listed buildings and hazardous substances enforcement provisions. They amend further the changes made by that schedule to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. The amendments for the most part reflect changes made to the planning enforcement provisions by Part I of the Bill and will ensure consistency with those provisions. They also include some minor drafting corrections.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 229 and 271 is to introduce a new clause and schedule making provision for listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances for Scotland in equivalent terms to that made for England and Wales by Clause 21 and Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I shall be happy to describe the amendments in more detail if Members of the Committee wish. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: Am I right in thinking that the noble Baroness spoke to Amendments Nos. 144 and 146?
Baroness Blatch: I apologise. I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 229 and 271.
Baroness Birk: In that case perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness why this Section 55(6) of the 1990 Act, which enables the expenses of the authority carrying out the work to be recovered as a civil debt - a useful provision and not used very much - is being taken out and repealed.
Baroness Blatch: That was a specific question on something like a dozen amendments. I believe that we are referring to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, and I have been helped to find the answer very quickly. These provisions are being repealed on the advice of counsel that they are unnecessary because Section 16 of the County Courts Act 1984 applies to expenses made recoverable under Sections 42(6) and 55(6), and the High Court has inherent jurisdiction over such
670
claims. With hindsight it would have been better to remove those sections when the planning Acts were being consolidated last year.
Baroness Birk: I was concerned that the provision would be lost altogether. If it is covered by different legislation, I am quite happy about it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 68, line 25, at end insert ("and
(b) in subsection (5) "on indictment" is omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 135A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 136 to 138:
Page 70, line 9, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 13 and insert:
("(2A) 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.").
Page 70, line 15, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("this section").
Page 70, line 16, leave out ("in his power") and insert ("he could be expected to do").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 138A not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 71, line 12, at end insert:
("8A. After section 76 of that Act there is inserted—
"Alteration and extension in conservation areas.
76A—(1) No person shall, notwithstanding any provision of a General Development Order, without authorisation execute or cause to be executed any works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building in any manner which would materially affect the character or appearance of the building itself, or the character or appearance of the area as a whole as an area of special architectural or historical interest.
(2) Works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building are authorised if—

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

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

(3) The provisions of Part 1 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 shall apply to any alteration or extension of a building falling within this section." ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It seeks to protect non-listed buildings in conservation areas. As I am sure the Committee will be aware, at the moment non-listed buildings in conservation areas are protected against demolition and against very little else. I suggest that this is a growing and serious problem concerned with the defacement and mutilation of our country's conservation areas.
Whereas in previous decades our small stone-built villages and later 19th century Victorian terraced houses were at risk from neglect, damp, decay or slum clearance, in the past 15 years or so those houses have faced the opposite problem - the defacement that has come from the rash of do-it-yourself improvements, which sadly often wreck the external character of a house or terrace. For example, there is the replacement of Derbyshire stone slate roofs with concrete tiles, boundary walls with ranch fencing, sash windows with plate glass or painted wood doors with doors of exotic hardwood and neo-Dublin fanlights. Rough cast houses are painted and repointed in dark cement mortar to look like crazy paving, or rose brick is painted and then pointed in bright white. I am afraid that these excrescences have been worsened by the general development order of the Secretary of State which has widened permitted development beyond the scope of planning. We receive reports from the Midlands, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire and the South West of the damage done to our townscapes and villages of historic and aesthetic interest.
There are almost half a million listed buildings in England which are secured against demolition and alteration by Sections 7 and 8 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. There are also some 7,000 conservation areas in towns and villages. Approximately 40 per cent. of listed dwellings are within conservation areas but about 85 per cent. of all buildings and conservation areas are not listed and, therefore, are not protected against alteration. They are historically interesting, they are of significant streetscape value and their quality depends as much on their pleasing and well-mannered neighbourliness as on their individual quality.
The replacement of a roof on a set-back, modern bungalow probably will not affect the streetscape. However, the replacement of Huddersfield stone slates with concrete tiles on a Victorian terraced house will irreversibly damage the entire terrace. Being in a conservation area will protect a property from demolition but from nothing else. As regards alterations or do-it-yourself, conservation area status means virtually nothing. Any conservation that occurs is more by luck and goodwill than by law or education.
How, then, do we protect our traditional villages and our Victorian and Edwardian terraces from damaging alterations while not wishing to interfere too unreasonably with people's proper and natural pride in their homes? I suggest three possible ways of which the amendment is the third and probably the most useful way. The first is to re-invent Grade III listing and extend protection to all. I do not suggest that as a path to the Committee because it debases the language of listing. It would involve 1.5 million buildings and put a huge workload on all concerned.
The second path is to opt for Article IV directions; in other words, to ask the Secretary of State to revoke the permitted planning powers under GDOs for individual houses or parts of streets, thereby giving them greater protection. The problem is that as a procedure Article IV directions are cumbersome; the
672
local authority must apply to the Secretary of State; they are time consuming; they are partial, applying only to individual houses, terraces and parts of streets (certainly not to a conservation area as a whole); and they are uncertain in their outcome. They are hard to obtain because often the Secretary of State refuses them.
Indeed, it is ironic that the Secretary of State has, on occasions, refused Article IV directions on the grounds that in conservation areas do-it-yourself improvements have gone so far that the quality of the area has so deteriorated that there is nothing left that is worth preserving and conserving. Within Article IV the Secretary of State also requires that there must be a real or potential threat to put a building at risk. In other words, the whole pressure of an Article IV direction presumes against a direction which will save the buildings from, in some cases, irreversible defacement. As presently constituted, Article IV directions do not protect our conservation areas. They are an unwieldy way forward.
But there is a third way; namely, the path of this amendment. It takes its wording from the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 but with the important addition of material. After helpful discussions with the Minister I am happy to make it explicitly clear that we are talking about the external appearance of buildings. The amendment would not revoke general development orders but it would provide that, where development—that is alteration—materially and significantly affected the external character and appearance of a building or its area, planning consent would be required. I hope that in discussion with local authorities the Secretary of State will issue a code of guidance as to what constitutes "material". We do not want unreasonable and over-zealous bureaucracy. However, I suggest that "material" might consist of blocking up and moving doors and windows as would be adding a porch but altering paintwork would not. Obviously altering a roof covering would be "material".
It may be argued by Members of the Committee that this would be an unreasonable imposition upon owners; but I suggest otherwise. When people buy a modest house in a conservation area, they are not only buying that house but they are choosing to buy into the character of that area, whether it is presently a conservation area or one yet to be designated. They like its streetscape and the repeated rhythms of its doors and roofs. They do not want neighbours damaging that; nor do they want property values to fall as a result. This amendment would protect the value which young couples put on their first home by ensuring the good behaviour and manners of adjacent homeowners.
By seeking planning permission and perhaps with the bait of a local authority grant, owners of non-listed buildings in conservation areas are encouraged to improve their homes as they wish but in ways which enhance and do not mutilate the areas and which would help also to cherish our heritage.
I ask the Minister and Members of the Committee to recognise this problem. If this amendment does not provide the answer, at least we can flag this matter as

673
an issue so that we can see how best we can save our conservation areas which are in danger of alteration beyond saving. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I strongly support the spirit of this amendment. I hope that the Minister will do all she can to try to meet the point in order to preserve our village scenes.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Speaking on behalf of English Heritage, I have enormous sympathy for the amendment. It may well be that my noble friend is unable to accept it this evening. However, I hope that she can express sympathy for it and if this is not the right time to legislate on this matter, perhaps a similar provision can be contained in a future heritage Bill.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment would remove the permitted development rights in the general development order from all unlisted buildings in conservation areas. It would require a specific application for planning permission to be made for any development involving the alteration or extension of such buildings, I appreciate that the noble Baroness has suggested that the requirement might be confined to works which affect external character or appearance. However, in practice excluding the effects on interiors would make little difference to the numbers of cases that would have to be handled by local planning authorities.
I understand the noble Baroness's concern that unsuitable developments, such as the installation of UPVC windows, in conservation areas can have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, the all-embracing approach adopted by this amendment would impose an unacceptable burden on local planning authorities which would have to deal with the increased numbers of planning applications for quite minor items of work.
There are almost 7,000 conservation areas in England and every local planning authority has designated at least one conservation area within its area. The areas vary in size from small squares or individual terraces to whole city centres. To remove permitted development rights from all alterations or extensions of any kind, in all conservation areas, would slow the planning system to an unacceptable extent and could even prove counter-productive by discouraging authorities from exercising their responsibilities in relation to conservation areas properly. It would also have an unfortunate effect upon householders who wished to make very minor, and possibly quite acceptable, alterations to their houses.
The general development order provides in Article 4 for local authorities to be able to make a direction for the removal of permitted development rights for development where there is a known or potential threat to an area. This power is not restricted to conservation areas. These Article 4 directions must be confirmed by the Secretary of State but he will generally be in favour of confirming Article 4 directions relating to conservation areas where a special need for them can be shown.
674
There have sometimes been suggestions that the Secretary of State is not sufficiently positive about confirming Article 4 directions in conservation areas. Clearly, I am not able to comment on individual cases. But we must strike a balance: we do not wish to remove permitted development rights lightly; but equally it is important that the powers are used where it is appropriate to do so. However, I urge local authorities to look carefully at their case for an Article 4 direction. In many cases, persuasion and education—so that people understand the special characteristics of the area in which they live and how their own actions can help to preserve or enhance that area rather than detract from its character—may be more effective in the long run than blanket controls.
The Government believe that the Article 4 direction procedure can give a reasonable level of protection to unlisted buildings in conservation areas without overloading the planning system. Nevertheless I recognise the noble Baroness's anxiety. We are considering proposals from English Heritage which may result in further guidance to local planning authorities on the use of Article 4 directions, and some clarification of the Secretary of State's criteria for approving them.
In her presentation the noble Baroness said that she felt that any conservation in a conservation area was a matter of luck. Conservation area designation places a duty on local authorities to bring forward proposals for preservation or enhancement of their area. Therefore its fate should not be one of luck.
I have listened carefully to all that the noble Baroness has said, and indeed to the support for the amendment. If the Committee is content, I and my ministerial colleagues will give careful consideration to all that has been said, and report back at Report stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank, first, the noble Lords, Lord Gisborough and Lord Montagu, for their support, and the Minister for her helpful reply. However, in case there is a misunderstanding I should emphasise that the amendment does not seek to catch "all" alterations, nor does it seek to pick up "minor changes", nor to be "blanket". All three descriptions were used by the Minister. That is the path of the existing control over listed buildings. I had hoped to make clear that my amendment instead followed the path of "material" changes, as opposed to the listed building path which catches the alterations described by the Minister. Material in this context means significant, substantial, irreversible; the very areas of anxiety shared by the Committee. I suggest that the word "material" strikes the balance which the Minister was anxious to explore.
Given the helpful response of the Minister, and her willingness to reflect on the matter and perhaps bring it back at Report stage, with the leave of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 140 to 143:
Page 72, line 3, leave out ("level 2") and insert ("level 3").

675
Page 72, leave out line 44 and insert:
("9A. In section 23(4) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (offences)—

(a) for "the statutory maximum" there is substituted "£20,000", and

(b) for the words following paragraph (b) there is substituted—

"(4A) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence".
10. In section 24 of that Act").
Page 73, line 29, leave out ("26A") and insert ("26AA").
Page 74, line 34, leave out ("level 2") and insert ("level 3").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 143A to 143S not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 146A:
Page 75, line 37, at end insert:
("17A. Section 55(6) of that Act is omitted.
17B. In section 82 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (1) for "39(6), 42(6) and 55(6)" there is substituted "and 39(6)", and

(b) in subsection (3) for "sections 39(6) and 42(6)" there is substituted "section 39(6)".").

Page 75, line 38, at end insert:
("18A. In section 90(6) (b) of that Act "and 42(6)" is omitted.
18B. In section 92(2) (b) of that Act "and 42(6)" is omitted.
18C. In Schedule 4 to that Act, in paragraph 5—

(a) after "38" there is inserted "38A",

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) for "and 88(2) (a) and (b)" there is substituted "44A, 88(2) (a) and (b) and 88A".").

Page 75, line 40, leave out paragraph 19 and insert:
("19. In section 25(1) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990—

(a) in paragraph (b) (v) for "175(1) to (4)" there is substituted "175(1) to (3)", and

(b) in paragraph (c) "(1) to (5) and (7)" is omitted.").

Page 75, line 42, leave out ("26A") and insert ("26AA").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved amendment No. 147:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Status of development plan
. For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
"(2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall have primary regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall have regard to any other material considerations." ").
The noble Lord said: A large part of this Bill and of recent government policy relies on development plans being central to the operation of the planning system. There has been a spate of new planning policy guidance notes on forward plans, on housing and on the countryside. There have been important appeal decisions relating to new housing, quarrying, extraction and other commercial and industrial development. These decisions, and recent ministerial
676
statements, have focused on the importance that the Government attach to structure and local plans. The Bill itself proposes to make the preparation of local plans a statutory requirement and to speed up the process of structural plan review.
No one should be in any doubt about the Government's views on the matter, and I unreservedly welcome the new priority being attached to development plans. Unfortunately, despite all the welcome noises, this Bill does nothing to strengthen the importance attached to development plans. Welcome changes in policy have not found their way into legislation. This amendment would change that. It is very simple and yet it would have a wide ranging and thoroughly beneficial impact on the planning system.
The amendment would make structure and local plans the primary consideration when dealing with planning applications and appeals, and I submit that this is very much in line with recent Government thinking. At present, structure and local plans are just one of many material considerations to be taken into account. This amendment would give them a higher priority, but without meaning that every development or appeal should stick inflexibly to the plan. Other considerations would still count.
My noble friend indicated in a letter to me after Second Reading that my amendment might be considered unreasonable, because a measure of judgment is always needed and account has to be taken of all material considerations. I agree that local authorities and the Secretary of State should be able to take account of all material considerations, and this is not ruled out by the amendment. It would simply ensure that greater weight would be attached to the development plan when balancing these considerations.
My noble friend also indicated that the Government preferred to stress the importance attached to development plans through guidance rather than through inflexible legislation. I hope that this reluctance is not because the Government might want to withdraw their support for development plans at some future date. A change to the statute would give us a categorical assurance that development plans will be central to the planning system, whatever the short-term priorities of any one administration.
However, I welcome my noble friend's support for a change in policy and hope that she will take the opportunity of her reply to this amendment to confirm that the Government have replaced the general presumption in favour of development with a presumption in favour of development in accordance with the development plan. I shall also be grateful if she can assure the Committee that the Government will amend planning policy guidance accordingly at the earliest opportunity.
Without this amendment, many of the benefits from the Bill's proposals to extend to local plan coverage will never be realised, and unless these new plans, along with structure plans, are given new weight, then their benefits in reducing the appeals work load and in renewing confidence in the planning

677
system will not be maximised. I urge noble Lords' support for this amendment. It has the widest support outside this House and is central to the future operation of the planning system. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. It is a very simple and valuable amendment. At the moment, as constituted the Bill requires local authorities only to produce development plans, but, as the Minister said at Second Reading, development plans help to ensure a proper environmental framework within which competing claims can be resolved.
But such a role for local plans will arise only if those local plans are given the proper weight both by local authorities in determining planning applications and by the Secretary of State on appeal, as I am sure the Government intend that they should be. This amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, clarifies their standing and makes it clear that there is a presumption against applications and against appeals which contradict the development plan in ways that are consistent for all to see.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, referred on Clause 91 to the importance which the Government attach to such plans. If that view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, is shared by the Minister this evening, then I am sure that she will wish to support the amendment. I second it.
Viscount Astor: Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act at present requires that where a planning authority is considering a planning application, it shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material to the application and to any other material considerations. The effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, would be to require the authority to have primary regard to the provisions of the development plan.
How much difference this would make in practice seems to me to be a nice legal point. The wording of the existing subsection conveys the implication that the planning authority should first have regard to the development plan, as well as to other material considerations. I am frankly not sure that the noble Lord's amendment would add much to what is already there. If the purpose of the amendment is to create a strong presumption that proposals in accordance with the development plan will be approved and those not in accordance with the plan will be rejected—in other words, if the intention is that the development plan should to a large extent override other material considerations—we certainly would not be happy to make this change.
We have given new emphasis to the role of the development plan over the last two or three years. One of the purposes of this Bill is to ensure that all parts of the country have a comprehensive and up-to-date local plan or unitary development plan within the next few years. We believe that the preparation of these plans will provide important opportunities for local choice in planning matters; and that where there is an up-to-date local plan which has been the subject of
678
public consultation it can greatly increase the local community's confidence in the planning system and simplify the process of day-to-day development control. We have made clear that the Secretary of State and his inspectors will be guided by an up-to-date local plan, particularly where a planning application or appeal raises purely local considerations.
But that is rather different from making the plan the primary consideration which is normally presumed to override other considerations. Local plans cannot provide for every eventuality, nor can they be expected to anticipate every need or opportunity for economic development that may arise; and inevitably, they cannot always be fully up to date. Moreover, the general presumption in favour of development remains: planning authorities are expected to show good planning reasons why development should be refused and that should be more than the purely mechanical application of a zoning policy in a plan.
In the light of this I believe that the existing legislation achieves a better balance between the development plan and other material considerations than would the noble Lord's amendment. The flexibility of our planning system, and its ability to judge individual proposals on their merits, has always been one of its strengths. We need to guard against over-rigidity and against any tendency to treat development plans as a rigid zoning mechanism. In answer to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, made about planning policy guidance, it has already been adjusted to take account of the changes on the development plan.
Lord Norrie: I was struck by the great degree of support from the other side of the Committee. I was a little disappointed by my noble friend's response. I shall study it with great care because it was quite a complicated reply. In view of that and the lateness of the hour, I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendment No. 148 not moved.)
Schedule 3 (Development Plans):
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Schedule 3, Amendment No. 149: if Amendment No. 149 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 150.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 76, leave out lines 7 to 12.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment 149 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 151. I hope that they will, at least in one respect, gain the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the sense that they take text out of the Bill without seeking to put anything in its place. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 is quite extraordinary when you read it through from one end to the other. It is concerned with unitary development plans; in other words, those development plans that deal with borough and district-wide issues in metropolitan authorities or single-tier authorities.
If Members of the Committee will look at the text of Schedule 3 paragraph 2(3), it will be seen that there are constant references to interference by the Secretary of State in the preparation and purpose of Part I of these unitary development plans. I refer in particular to paragraph 2(3) because that is a part which we are not proposing to take out. I shall indicate how far it goes in giving the Secretary of State control over unitary development plans. Sub-paragraph (3) states:
"(6) In formulating the general policies in Part I of a unitary development plan the authority shall have regard to … any regional or strategic planning guidance given by the Secretary of State … current national policies … the resources likely to be available … and such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe".
One may think that that gives the Secretary State in itself, without any further reference to his powers, adequate power to do what he likes with a unitary development plan. But no, these powers are preceded by a provision in paragraph 2(1) which says that, regulations made by the Secretary of State,
"may prescribe aspects of such development and use with which the general policies in Part I of a unitary development plan are to be concerned, in which case the policies shall be concerned with those aspects and no others".
After saying,
"such ether matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe",
sub-paragraph (3) says,
"or, in a particular case, direct them to take into account".
Sub-paragraph (4) says,
"Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and shall be subject to any direction given, in a particular case, by the Secretary of State".
That is not simply laying down the rules of behaviour for the formulation of unitary development plans. It is tying down the local authority hand and foot. It is saying three times over at least that a local authority cannot do anything at all except with the explicit authority and approval of the Secretary of State.
I hope that the Committee will take the view that unitary development plans should have some possibility of diversity and of expressing and reflecting local and regional needs. It is true that these restrictions apply only to Part I which is concerned with the general policies, but responsible local authorities will see to it that Part I meshes with Part II of the plan which is supposed to deal with detailed land use. If they are tied down in the way proposed, what is being said is that the unitary development plans might as well be produced by the Secretary of State. All that the local authorities are being asked to do is to act as scribes rather than playing any real and significant part in the preparation of the plans.
I suggest to the Committee that these sections which we propose to delete by Amendments Nos. 149 and 151 show what the soldiers call "massive overkill". There is no need for them. They are repetitive and complicate the Bill. They grossly exceed the degree to which guidance and direction should be given to local authorities in the preparation of development plans. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I can assure the noble Lord that it is not our intention here to restrict the scope of unitary development plans unnecessarily. What we are
680
concerned to do is to prevent them straying away from genuine land-use issues into the realms of corporate planning, or even politically-motivated propaganda such as nuclear free zones. Of course, we can foresee instances where an authority may have to deal with special circumstances. The provision which Amendment No. 151 seeks to delete will allow the Secretary of State to make specific exceptions in such cases. These are important provisions which should be retained and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that a totally unsatisfactory answer. If the Government are keen to say to the local authority that development plans should not contain elements which are not concerned with land use, why should the Bill not say so? That is not what paragraph 2 says at all. Paragraph 2 says that a unitary development plan, which is about general policies controlling land use, shall be drawn up in accordance with regulations which prescribe the aspects of development use and the policies in accordance with the guidance given by the Secretary of State—which we are not proposing to take out—and subject to directions about any individual point in the unitary development plan.
I have not been convinced at all that this is not overkill and a very bad example of repetition and the view that the man from Marsham Street knows best. I am disappointed in the Minister's reply, and it is only the lateness of the hour that prompts me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 76, line 8, after ("omitted") insert (" , and after "measures for" is inserted "the conservation of natural beauty and amenity," ").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment and the others grouped with it is to include conservation considerations in the context of unitary development plans, structure plans and local development plans. The simplified definitions in the Bill, as against the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, are welcome but they still include measures from the 1971 Act which require local authorities to include among policies referred to in the plan the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. We feel that it is important to include the conservation of the natural environment. Environmental issues are involved in every controversial planning application and yet the local authority has no duty to consider them as a policy at early planning stages.
The study of development plans by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to which I referred during Second Reading, drew attention to the new importance being attached to the role of such plans. There is no doubt of the increasing importance of conservation in our daily lives, and this should be spelled out in our planning procedures.
The RSPB is particularly concerned at the threat to internationally important bird sites. On a sample of 96

681
areas identified for protection under the Ramsar Convention on the conservation of wetlands or the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds, no fewer than 51 in number—that is, 53 per cent. of those surveyed—are in danger from development under one plan policy and 33 are under threat from two development plan proposals. Clearly local authorities are not giving sufficient weight to nature conservation.
The duty which we seek to lay on planning officers should develop a new perspective in regard to natural beauty and amenity. That phrase is recognised as meaning the conservation of flora, fauna and landscape features.
The Government must acknowledge that the present system is not working, and I hope that they will therefore feel able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I rise merely to say that, superficially at any rate, the amendment has something to commend it. I hope that my noble friend will have considered it carefully.
Baroness Blatch: We welcome the intention underlying these amendments. Conservation and amenity are of course issues which development plans already address. But we accept that it would be desirable to revise the present wording of the legislation so as to give this aspect of land use planning a new prominence.
I am advised, however, that the detailed wording of the amendment needs further consideration, partly to ensure that there is consistency with any similar references in countryside and environmental protection legislation. I would, therefore, like to take these amendments away and consider them rather than accept them immediately as they stand, on the understanding that the Government will table amendments to have substantially the same effect at a later stage. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press this amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I am, of course, delighted with that reply; indeed, I could not have asked for anything better. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 152 and 153:
Page 76, line 24, leave out ("them to take into account").
Page 76, line 24, at end insert:
("(3A) After subsection (7) of that section there is inserted—
"(7A) In formulating their proposals in Part II of a unitary development plan, the authority shall have regard to such information and other considerations as the Secretary of State may prescribe or, in a particular case, direct."").
The noble Viscount said: In moving these two amendments, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 155,156,158,161,165,168,170,172,174,175,179,186,187,188,189,190,191,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,203,208,211,213,216,218,219,220,221,
682
369, 370 and 374. These are all essential drafting amendments. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In my view, Amendment No. 221 is not quite a drafting amendment, although I accept that that is largely the case as regards the other amendments. With that amendment the Government are removing the specific requirement for the results of public examination into the structure of local plans to be publicised, with provision for a reasonable charge to be levied if the regulations will allow it.
I am not clear about why the Government have put forward such a provision. Surely the results of a public examination into a structure or local plan could establish whether the Secretary of State has been taking decisions on policies against the recommendations of the assessors who advise at an examination in public. What is happening is that a curtain is being brought down over the public consideration of structure and local plans. I find that contrary to what governments say about open government, especially when they refer to local authorities. I do not accept that it is a technical or a drafting amendment. In my view, it deserves a better defence than the one it has received.
Viscount Astor: I shall be delighted to answer the noble Lord on Amendment No. 221. Paragraph 29(2) (d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill inserts a new paragraph (fg) in Section 53(2) of the 1990 Act, specifying a particular requirement that may be made by the regulations. The amendment deletes this additional paragraph as the requirement is adequately provided for by the existing regulation-making power of Section 53.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall read the noble Viscount's reply very carefully and consider whether to return to the matter on Report.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 76, line 29, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Lord said: I had great pleasure in spending part of last week at a conference in Venice attacking the London Docklands Development Corporation. I attacked it for various reasons which are not relevant to the consideration of the Bill. I shall not inflict those reasons upon the Committee nor indulge in a travelogue; but one of the arguments used by those who were defending the LDDC was that it was a short-life corporation and that a UDC's intention is to get in, get something done and get out as fast as possible. Indeed, many of a UDC'S powers are short-life powers just as the powers of an enterprise zone are short-life powers.
Under those circumstances, I find it strange that the Government should be providing even the possibility that the UDC should be, by direction of the Secretary of State, excluded from unitary development plans. That means in effect that there is a possibility, which the Secretary of State could implement, that the

683
unitary development plans of local authorities which have UDCs in their areas may have great big black holes in them. The whole purpose of UDCs, as the Government put them forward, is to provide large-scale developments—for example, millions of square feet of offices or homes for sale or rent. If they are to be successful, those plans will inevitably have an effect upon the transportation, traffic generation and service provision that the local authority will have to consider when preparing the rest of its development plan. If the UDCs are to be successful, that applies not just to the authority itself but sometimes to the whole region. There is no sense in having a UDC unless, in the Government's view, it will have a positive effect on the economy and environment of the area in which it is situated.
Under those circumstances, and especially because the UDCs are supposed to be on a short-life basis and to abolish themselves when they have achieved their immediate objectives, it is a serious defect in the proposals for unitary development plans that they can so easily be flouted by the Secretary of State. It is for that reason that we propose in Amendment No.154 that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 should he deleted. That paragraph provides:
"The Secretary of State may direct that a unitary development plan—(a) shall not be prepared; or (b) shall not operate, in relation to the area of an urban development corporation".
I cannot see how effective unitary development plans can be prepared if that provision for a direction by the Secretary of State appears in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I envy the noble Lord's trips to foreign parts such as Venice. I visit sewage farms and sludge factories.
The Committee may recall that in our White Paper on The Future of Development Plans, published in January 1989, we put forward the proposition that urban development areas, and other areas with special planning regimes such as enterprise zones, should be excluded from detailed development plans; that is, from unitary development plans and local plans. That proposition became known in the planning world as the "black hole" approach to development planning. It was almost universally criticised: it was pointed out that there are important planning relationships between those special areas and the areas which surround them, and neither could be properly planned for without looking at the area as a whole. Moreover, our impression was that the UDCs themselves did not on the whole favour their being wholly excluded from the development plan process.
In the light of those comments we have dropped the "black hole" approach. The normal situation will be that a development plan which includes land within an urban development area will cover that area, taking due account of the UDC's proposals for the area. We should expect close consultation between the local planning authority and the UDC, which is of course generally the development control authority for the urban development area.
Nevertheless, we believe it right to retain as a precautionary measure a power to exclude UDCs from development plans. There may exceptionally be
684
circumstances in which that will be the sensible approach. For instance, one can envisage circumstances in which the UDC will recently have completed extensive public consultation on its own development proposals for the urban development area. If it were then an inflexible requirement of the planning legislation that the local planning authority should replicate those proposals in its development plan, and repeat the process of public consultation (to which all development plans are subjected), the result could be much time-wasting duplication of effort, and a reopening of issues which had been satisfactorily dealt with by the UDC. There may be other cases where there is conflict between the planning authority and the UDC, though such cases will, I hope, be very exceptional. Again, it may be sensible to deal with such cases by excluding the UDC's area from the local authority's plan, rather than by extensive use of the Secretary of State's power to modify the local plan or UDP. I have to say that in practice local authorities are working very closely with the UDCs. Therefore we do not see that the reserve power will need to be used at all frequently.
We have accepted that urban development areas should normally come within the scope of local plans and UDPs. Nevertheless, it is sensible to have this reserve power to deal with the kind of situations I have described, exceptional though they may be. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an interesting reply which does not seem to bear much relation to the Bill. If the noble Baroness is saying to us that the power will only be used exceptionally, then she must be precise about the exceptional circumstances in which it will be used. She has been quite precise in her reply, but that precision is not reflected in the text of the Bill. We are told by the Minister that it would be appropriate for a UDC area to be excluded from a unitary development plan if, for example, it has already produced its own plan which has been subject to public consultation. Why does the Bill not say so?
We are told that it could be used when there is a conflict between the local authority and the urban development corporation. The Secretary of State is required to sort it out. Why does the Bill not say so? It does not.
I am not sure what the other examples are but they were intended genuinely and helpfully to be limited examples in order to show that the Government have genuinely abandoned the "black hole" approach to the planning of urban development corporations. But that is not what the amendment says. It allows the Secretary of State, for any reason that may please him, to direct that:
"A unitary development plan…shall not be prepared; or … shall not operate in … the area of an urban development corporation".
In the light of what the Minister said, I believe that the right course is for me to take the amendment away and to propose at a later stage amendments which give effect to the Minister's speech and which will restrict

685
the powers of the Secretary of State much more closely than the Bill does at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 155 and 156:
Page 76, line 34, at end insert:
("(2) The Secretary of State may direct that proposals for the alteration or replacement of a unitary development plan shall not be prepared in relation to the area of an urban development corporation.").
Page 77, line 15, after ("by") insert ("or determined in accordance with").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 157:
Page 78, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: With the consent of the Committee, I shall not move Amendment No. 157 and the related amendment, Amendment No. 212. However, at the appropriate time I wish to come back to Amendments Nos. 164, 167, 176, 177 and 192.
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 78, line 6, at end insert:
("7A. In section 17(1) (direction to consider proposals) for "consider modifying" there is substituted "modify".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 78, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) All local planning authorities in Greater London shall, before 1st January 1993, prepare a joint unitary development plan for the whole of Greater London; such plan to be in addition to the unitary development plan prepared by each authority in respect of its own area." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to prepare a joint unitary development plan for the whole of Greater London and to persuade all the planning authorities in Greater London to get together to prepare such a plan.
I recognise that this is a second best option. What is really needed is a strategic plan along the lines of the structure plans of the shire counties, but we do not have an overall local government body for London. I must be a little careful at this point because the former opposition leader of the GLC is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. He, no doubt, has strong views on what should happen in London. However, there seems to be general agreement across the board that the present situation is totally unacceptable.
The lady who leads Westminster Council seems to believe that there should be a Minister for London. I believe that the present Secretary of State for the Environment seems rather in favour of an elected mayoral system. I totally support that system. I believe that we should elect mayors in our cities who have real power, rather than elect a mayor for the City of London who happens to be there as a result of his
686
wealth and who is elected by a small number of people. I should prefer to see an elected mayor who had real power, and who was responsible to a council, looking after the wider affairs of Greater London. Unfortunately that situation does not exist. If there is a change of government at the next election, I hope that County Hall will be saved so that we can put back in there an administration that can really look after London's affairs. At the moment London's affairs are in an utter mess. As one of those who has considered the transport problems of London, I know that that is true.
However, the amendment I am moving would require all the London boroughs to come together to produce a unitary development plan for the whole of Greater London. That would be prepared by the London boroughs rather than by the joint planning committee for Greater London which I know will be established under Section 3 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. That committee has no powers to prepare a plan. Furthermore, a plan of that nature would probably lead to a public inquiry so that issues concerning London as a whole could be dealt with openly. The strategic guidance given by the committee would form a useful basis for the plan and would make the process of preparing it easier and cheaper than would otherwise be the case.
I regret very much that we cannot debate this matter at greater length. We cannot do so because of the lateness of the hour. However, I believe that nearly everyone accepts that the whole situation in London is chaotic and the sooner it is put right the better. I suppose the Government will not admit that they were wrong to abolish the GLC as the overall authority for London. However, that is what the Government did. Whatever the faults of the GLC, the Government should have let the populace decide the fate of that body. We believe that in a democracy, if the populace is not satisfied with the body that is running its affairs, it should kick it out and put another body in its place. Such a body should not be abolished by a government who do not agree with the actions of that body.
We should all be proud of this city of ours, but I am not so proud of London today as I used to be although I was brought up in North London. I find the present situation sad. Nevertheless there should be some kind of development plan for the whole of Greater London. This amendment is an attempt to put that into effect. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although I appreciate the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in moving the amendment, I must confess I have some doubt as to whether within the Greater London area—that is what we are really talking about—it would be possible to get assimilation and cohesion. After all, the City of London, Richmond and Dulwich, for example, are totally different localities and we could not hope that the motives which apply to the preparation of the development plan in each of those areas could bear any relationship to what ought to happen in the others. Therefore I would be very surprised if my noble friend on the Front Bench accepted the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I, too, would be surprised if the Government accepted this amendment. I am being incited to intervene in this debate as a former opposition leader of the GLC. However, that is unnecessary as anyone who knows what has happened to London since the GLC was abolished will agree that things are conspicuously worse. That is not a party political point; it has been made by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the CBI and everyone who is concerned with public transport and traffic in London.
Only this week it has been announced that in the past five years traffic speeds in London have declined by one mile an hour in peak periods and by two miles an hour in off-peak periods. When one is talking about traffic that is travelling at only eight, 10 or 11 miles an hour that is a very significant reduction in speed. It represents a significant increase in inconvenience for Londoners and in the costs of commerce and industry in London.
It is clear that there is no body in the country, whether central government or any other body, which has the power to make sense of London government. There is no body which has the power to make sense of the problems which London faces in terms of traffic and transport in particular and in terms of the deterioration in the condition of the housing stock, the increase in homelessness and the vast and irrational differences between boroughs in the provision of social services, education and many other aspects of public policy.
Unfortunately, with all the good will in the world, the London Planning Advisory Committee is not able to do more than give strategic planning advice which need not be adopted by the individual boroughs. I very much fear that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, does not take us much further along the road. The kind of unitary development plan he proposes for the whole of London would require consent among the boroughs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out, it is most unlikely that there will ever be consent of that kind.
The only way in which we shall bring some sense back into London is to have city government in London. We shall not achieve that by half measures. I applaud the motivation and the spirit behind the noble Lord's amendment, but we need a change of government, not just an amendment to the Bill, to bring some sense back into London.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his comments on the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to raise the issue of the adequacy of strategic planning arrangements in London, but it could hardly be described as a fully articulated proposal for strategic planning in London. It conveniently sidesteps all the practical problems of how 32 London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London would co-operate in preparing a joint plan; how political disagreements would be resolved; what arrangements would be made for public consultation and objection; and so on. It also
688
overlooks the question of what relationship would be established between the new plan and the individual unitary development plans for each borough.
I mention those points because the reality is that a statutory plan for the whole of London would necessarily imply a strategic planning authority. We would, in effect, be re-inventing the GLC and the Greater London development plan. While that might be welcome to some noble Lords opposite I need hardly say that it is not the Government's intention. We have no intention of resurrecting planning arrangements in London which were notorious for the size of the documents produced, the time it took to produce them and the manpower those processes absorbed.
It seems to me that the arrangements for strategic planning which we now have in place in London effectively meet the concerns underlying the noble Lord's amendment in an economical and more effective manner. Undoubtedly there is a need for an overview of strategic planning issues affecting the capital: it cannot be planned on a borough-by-borough basis alone. We have strategic planning arrangements in place to ensure that that is done, and all the boroughs are involved. Through their joint planning mechanism—known as the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC)—they prepare advice to the Secretary of State which he then takes into account in preparing strategic guidance. That advice is regularly reviewed and new proposals are put to the Government and the local planning authorities each year through LPAC's annual monitoring reports. Additional advice on new topics is prepared as necessary.
The Government's strategic guidance for London was issued in July 1989, after wide public consultation. It now forms the framework within which each London borough is expected to prepare its own unitary development plan. Part 1 of each UDP is required to address strategic planning issues as they affect the particular borough in question.
Clearly the guidance we have issued will need to be revised and updated from time to time and to be augmented. We are currently consulting on the arrangements for protecting the strategic views of St Paul's Cathedral and the Palace of Westminster, which will form part of the strategic guidance. The mechanism that we have developed is able to cope with change without the long delays that have been the bane of other attempts at strategic planning for the capital. The Committee will not be surprised that I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether we could give a moment's further thought to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the movement of traffic in London. As I understand it, there are no development plans for London which would deal with that matter. That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. The major roads and the ring road in London are his responsibility and the movement of traffic in and

689
through London depends entirely upon the arrangements that he makes for it which can override any borough development plan. Is that not the position?
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is absolutely right. This is not the time to go into the details of the investment plans and the way in which that problem is being addressed. My noble friend is absolutely right in what he says.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the Minister would be well advised to avoid agreeing too much with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If the noble Lord thinks that the problems of transportation in London can still be dealt with by more road development, he is further back in transportation history than I should have thought possible.
Surely by now it is understood, even if not by the Department of Transport, that traffic and transport problems in London will not be resolved by road building and development. They will be resolved only by the improvement of public transport in particular and certain kinds of restrictions on private transport. If that is not understood, we shall not get anywhere in improving transportation in London.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that my noble friend was suggesting that traffic management includes addressing congestion, which is not just about road development; it is about traffic management in London. I think that that was the point that he was making.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must not go on about this matter because it is not part of the Bill. But is it not conspicuous that in nearly five years of not having a city government in London matters have got worse and they have worsened despite the pious words uttered about the role of the Department of Transport?
The Department of Transport does not understand what is going on in London and is clearly incapable of change. The failure of central government and the Department of Transport to deal with the transportation problems of London is plain for all to see. I must say that the Minister's response to that amendment was impudent - I mean politically impudent of course and not personally impudent. She said quite rightly that it is impossible for 33 boroughs to get together and agree by assent a development plan for the whole of London. But whose responsibility is it that there are only 33 boroughs and no city government? It is the responsibility of this Government. That is why I say that we shall have to change the Government rather than change this Bill if we are to have any improvement.
Lord Ross of Newport: I must say that I am delighted that we have had this small debate. I despair about London. I cannot believe - forget all party political differences - that there are many people in this Chamber from any party who do not agree. There is no question but that London transport has deteriorated enormously since the demise of the GLC, whatever its faults. Nationalising London Transport and the London Underground was a disaster. To put
690
them under a former Secretary of State was an even bigger disaster (although I had better shut up about that because I have been ticked off for saying that before).
The fact is that we shall not get any sense in London matters until there is an overall authority. The City must be dealt with as well. There is the ridiculous situation of the Lord Mayor of London travelling the world as if he is in charge of London. He is not. He looks after a small and very wealthy area in the overall city. I do not want to abolish the City, but it is time that we returned to the facts. There is not a worth while city in the world that does not have proper government which is able to deal with the situations that arise. The Mayor of Paris is able to take action immediately. For example, when someone says, "For goodness sake, clear the streets of dog mess", he can take on a whole load of people to clean up the town.
No one in this country can do that. The situation is absolutely hopeless. Different boroughs, such as Richmond, control individual bridges and do not co-operate with each other. In central London half a dozen bridges are closed on Sundays because there is no overall authority. That situation is daft and the sooner we put it right the better. If it means a change of government let us have a change of government. We have a Secretary of State for the Environment who believes in a directly elected mayoral system. If he can introduce that in London, God bless him and the sooner the better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 160:
page 79, line 8, leave out paragraph 15.
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223. These are essential drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Amendment No. 160 deletes paragraph 15 of Schedule 3. The Nature Conservancy Council was worried because paragraph 15 proposed a power to make local plans available only to district planning authorities instead of to any planning authority, as is the present situation. That is covered in Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Can I be assured that the situation within Section 36 will pertain?
Viscount Astor: The amendment deletes paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. It was to insert a new subsection (2) in Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, defining references to a local planning authority in the sections of the Act dealing with structure and local plans. This material is incorporated elsewhere in a revised form by Amendment No. 222. The amendment makes county planning authorities responsible for certain functions which relate to structure plans and waste local plans outside Wales and national parks. Paragraph (2) (b) would make district planning authorities responsible for local plans covering the whole of their area except in national parks.
Lord Ross of Newport: I must study that reply but I shall accept it for the moment.

691
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 161:
page 79, line 20, leave out ("consist or) and insert ("contain").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 162:
page 79, line 22, after ("area") insert ("and adjacent tidal waters to territorial limits").
The noble Baroness said: I regret that I must move such an important amendment so late at night. There are arguments to be made but I shall keep them brief. This group of amendments is supported by the Marine Conservation Society and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I declare an interest, in that I am a vice-president of the MCS and a member of the council of the RSPB.
The amendment seeks to establish a coastal zone management plan. In the words of the Marine Conservation Society, the aims of such a plan are to minimise the conflicts of use at the coast and to make best use of coastal resources without causing environmental problems. The jurisdiction of local planning authorities generally stops at low water, although there are a few exceptions. Beyond that point, where planning exists, it is activity related and in many cases it is evolved and implemented without any attempt at integration with other interests.
An illustration of the difficulties that can arise is provided by the experience of Lancashire County Council. I shall quote briefly from a long letter. Planning application was submitted for above ground parts of development—head works, pumping stations and so on. This is a scheme for discharge of sewage effluent into the sea. The application was submitted in 1988. That short section of the outfall out as far as the low water mark accorded with planning law as it stood then and now.
The letter states:
"the most significant environmental impact by far, would have occurred as a result of effluent from the end of the pipe, and its effect upon the surrounding marine and coastal areas. None of these effects could be considered as part of the planning process, because this part of the proposal was excluded from the application. This anomaly was further exaggerated by the fact that an Environmental Impact Assessment had been submitted with the planning application, which did address the impact of the effluent. But in determining the application before them, the local planning authority felt unable to take this material into account, because it did not relate to the precise subject of the application and was not a 'planning matter'".
Clearly that is quite ridiculous.
On the more general picture, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will have a great deal to say about the difficulties which have occurred on special bird sites. The attempt to establish marine nature reserves has failed. Two have been designated since 1981. The procedures for designation are bureaucratic and almost unworkable. Clearly a new approach must be found.
I now turn briefly to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 162, 166 and 180 would improved the co-ordination of planning and management between the land ward and seaward sides of the coastal zone
692
and would also ensure that planning authorities take account of activities in the territorial waters adjacent to their coasts. Amendments Nos. 183 and 185 are intended to give specific priority to physical planning for intensively used sea areas.
Amendment No. 201 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, requires local authorities to prepare specific coastal zone plans. No doubt other Members of Committee will supply more evidence which supports the need for these amendments. I am aware that the Government have promised a review of the need for coastal zone planning. However, a planned review is often a euphemism for a stay on the back-burner. The need for action is becoming daily more urgent. These amendments would provide a framework. This Bill provides a rare opportunity to make progress. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has raised a very interesting but somewhat technical point. Where does land end around the island which we have the enormous advantage and pleasure of inhabiting? She has used the expression
"adjacent tidal waters to territorial limits".
That may be right and well understood. But going back to my school-boy days I have always understood that the land ended at the high tide watermark at the mean spring tide. When the noble Baroness refers to territorial limits, that may be well understood to be coincidental with what I have described, but it will be interesting to hear the official view of this matter.
12 midnight
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 201. I am sad that the matter is being dealt with at this hour. The amendment seeks to cut through the confusion by preparing a statutory basis for the strategic management and wise use of Great Britain's coastal zone. Subsection (1) places a new duty on local planning authorities to draw up coastal zone plans. Subsection (2) allows that a coastal zone plan may be prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities. That is fundamental to the need for a special form of development plan as many of the most seriously threatened coastal areas are estuaries which form boundaries between administrative areas.
I have heard statistics mentioned in the Chamber about how many of those areas are threatened by development; it was around 100 out of 155. Of the 155 estuaries in Great Britain, four are divided by national boundaries, 20 by county or regional boundaries and 60 fall between two or more district authorities. For example, the estuary of the Welsh Dee is partly in Wales and partly in England. It is bounded by the counties of Clwyd, Cheshire and the metropolitan borough of Wirral; it includes parts of the three district council areas of Alyn and Deeside, Ellesmere Port and Neston, and Delyn. The Dee estuary requires special protection. It has been declared by Her Majesty's Government to be a protected site under the Ramsar Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands. It has also been designated as a special protection area under Article 4 of the EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds.

693
Subsection (2) will encourage close liaison between neighbouring planning authorities by allowing them to produce coastal plans on a joint basis. In their zeal to simplify the planning system, the Government intend to remove Section 36(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is the only provision which could possibly facilitate co-operative statutory subject plans on estuaries bounded by more than one local planning authority. Hence there is desperate need for the amendment.
By analogy with similar provisions in the Bill for structure, local and local mineral plans, subsection (3) spells out the essence of a coastal zone plan. The definition includes particular reference to the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the plan area. The Committee will be aware that "natural beauty" is interpreted in the Countryside Act 1968 and its Scottish equivalent as including reference to flora and fauna. Subsection (4) is straightforward. It defines the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe or direct certain matters to be taken into account by a planning authority in making a coastal zone plan. Subsections (5) and (6) pick up the necessary provisions as they apply to local plans and enact them as if a coastal zone plan were a local plan.
Adoption of coastal zone planning in Great Britain will provide a sound basis for the future development and wise use of our coast and marine environment. The United States has recognised the need for a statutory basis for coastal zone planning since 1972 when the US Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act. Coastal management in Britain will be a success only if it is given legal backing, hence the need for the new clause in the Bill.
I realise that the time is late. The Secretary of State has expressed interest in the matter, and I hope the Minister will be able to give some help in her reply.
Lord Moran: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is essential that we should establish some broader planning protection for our coastal environment, which is under threat by a range of activities including tidal barrages, marinas, fish farming, recreation, bait digging and many other things.
From the point of view of birds, our coastlines and estuaries are of enormous importance. Every winter 2 million ducks, geese and wading birds depend on our estuaries for their survival; over 40 of the UK's estuaries each hold more than 10,000 wading birds in the winter months. All that is threatened. In practice, the establishment of SSSIs has not been an effective protection
The introduction of coastal zone planning of the sort proposed by the amendment, which will require local planning authorities to adopt a strategic approach to planning and to safeguarding the environment, will be a great step forward. The last three years of my diplomatic service were spent in Canada. The Canadians have operated coastal zone strategic planning on a statutory basis since the early 1970s. It has been highly successful in encouraging the
694
sustainable development of coastal areas. More recently, the government department of conservation in New Zealand wrote to the RSPB asking for advice on how to encourage local authorities to manage coastal resources in a strategic fashion because its efforts had failed in the absence of detailed national policy and guidance from the government. If you look around the world - and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned the United States - the experience of other countries shows that it is necessary to have a national policy for coastal protection, and this amendment suggests exactly that. I strongly support it.
Lord Norrie: I, too, support this amendment. Our present planning system provides for a strategic overview through county structural plans, unitary development plans and local subject plans. Unfortunately, this strategic approach to land use ends at the foreshore, where a piecemeal hotchpotch approach takes over. For example, shipping and harbour matters fall under the Department of Transport; sand and gravel extraction are under the Department of the Environment; oil and gas exploration are under the Department of Energy; fisheries are under MAFF, and so on. In addition, there are various statutory and public bodies involved, including harbour authorities, the Nature Conservancy Council, local tourist boards, the Countryside Commission and sea fisheries committees, to name but a few. Add to that landowners and voluntary conservation bodies, and strategic planning of the coastal zone without an integrated approach becomes a confused nightmare.
An integrated approach is therefore required. This amendment proposes the preparation of statutory coastal zone plans by local authorities. This is only one part of a wide scope of initiatives that would be required. In addition to coastal zone plans, Britain should have a national coastal strategy.
The conservation movement and the public at large are waiting for the Government to signal their commitment to marine conservation with tougher action over activities affecting the environment of our seas and coastline. Acceptance of this amendment would be a major step in promoting the sustainable use of our coastal fringe and setting an example for other nations to follow. I, too, commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Renton: We should not omit from this discussion a tribute to the National Trust for the wonderful work which it has done in acquiring various parts of our coastline and appealing for funds in order to preserve it. I am sure that noble Lords will wish that to be put on record.
Baroness Blatch: If I may deal first with the specific question of my noble friend about the limits of the planning control areas, may I say that it normally ends at the low water mark but there are certain cases in certain estuaries, for example—
Lord Renton: I said high water mark.
Baroness Blatch: I am saying low water mark. We are not dismissive of the issues underlying these

695
amendments—far from it. We accept that the scale and multiplicity of the demands being made on our coastal zones raise major and complex planning issues which need attention.
There is the general pressure for development in coastal areas which is particularly acute in our southern and south-western counties. But there are many other factors as well. On the landward side there is the need to protect the beauty of the remaining unspoilt coastline, among the most beautiful in Europe; the need to make adequate provision for increasing recreational demands—for instance, for marinas and other boating facilities; and the need to take precautions against the threat of sea-level rise which may be one of the consequences of global warming.
Below the high water mark, and particularly in congested inshore waters, there are potential conflicts between some of the many uses we make of the sea: recreational and commercial marine activities; the need to tackle pollution and protect the marine environment; and, at the same time, the need to make sensible use of the considerable mineral resources in the sea bed.
We recognised the importance of coastal issues in our recent White Paper on the environment. We acknowledged that valuable action is already being taken; for instance, by the Countryside Commission through its heritage coast designations, and by the National Trust through the Enterprise Neptune campaign. We also recognised the need to conserve wildlife habitats, both on shore and out to sea; and we set out a timetable for action to achieve major reductions in sewage pollution of bathing beaches, and to implement the comprehensive package of measures to reduce pollution of the sea which we have agreed at the North Sea Conference and in other international fora.
So we are far from complacent on this issue. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the approach to coastal zone planning proposed in these amendments is the right way forward, for the following reasons. First, we do not accept the need for separate coastal zone plans. Planning policies for the coast can, of course, be incorporated in structure and local plans as appropriate—we hope they will be. Separate plans would tend to destroy the clarity of the framework that we are aiming for in this Bill. They would, in effect, reintroduce the notion of the "subject" plan, dealing separately with a specific topic. But if there is to be a subject plan for the coast, why not for other topics too—for the countryside perhaps; or for the Green Belt; or for heritage policy? There is in our view a great deal to be said for sticking to a clear and simple planning framework—structure and local plans, supplemented only by minerals and waste plans. The particular need for separate plans for minerals and waste disposal is of course the fact that the county, not the district, is the development control authority for those functions, save for non-mineral waste matters in Wales.
Secondly, the extension of development plans to territorial limits—that is 12 miles out to sea—would only make sense if there were a similar extension in the
696
scope of planning controls, and we have no plans to do that: there are separate mechanisms already in place. The issues raised by development and other activities beyond the coastline are different in kind from those with which the normal local planning department is concerned; the necessary expertise would be lacking. Moreover, how would extended planning controls relate to the existing responsibilities of other bodies —for instance, for navigation and for management of the sea bed? In this connection, it is worth noting that the sea itself has no owner. Some developments below high water mark may be authorised by Private Bills. The Government have announced that they support the amendment of Standing Orders to require environmental assessment in appropriate cases, in line with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedures.
On one point I can reassure the noble Baroness. One of her amendments would require structure plan authorities to have regard to activities taking place in adjacent coastal waters. To the extent that such activities raise genuine land use issues, I can confirm that authorities can and should take account of them. Moreover, if in a particular case there were failure to do so, the Secretary of State would have power to direct that the matter should be taken into account. On this point, therefore, any amendment of the Bill is unnecessary.
I am not by any means arguing for inactivity on coastal planning issues. As I have said, there are important issues to be addressed. To the extent that these are issues of land use, they can be addressed through structure and local plans. We are giving thought to the preparation of new planning policy guidance on coastal planning issues, and I hope that we shall be in a position to publish draft guidance for consultation before the end of the year. We are also considering, with MAFF and the National Rivers Authority, whether existing guidance to planning authorities on flood risk and coastal protection needs to be updated and expanded.
We shall be looking at the wider issues too. Later this year we shall be commissioning research to clarify the main issues for consideration. My department is also playing an active part in a working group convened by the European Commission, which is reviewing coastal zone issues in the broader context of European environmental policy generally. We are therefore taking action on a number of fronts. But this is a very complex topic, which needs careful study before we decide on the case for legislative change and the form any change should take. The changes proposed by these amendments would be premature. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to develop a little the answer that the noble Baroness gave to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not think he quite realised what a can of worms he was opening when he asked about territorial limits. I can tell him that the jurisdiction of the local planning authority, as the noble Baroness said, stops at low water. But then we come to sea fisheries committees whose jurisdiction extends for three miles; the National Rivers Authority

697
water quality extends for three miles; the National Rivers Authority salmon fisheries extends for six miles; and the Nature Conservancy Council extends for three miles. I shall not go on, but there is a long list of the different jurisdictions which affect what is happening around our coasts.
I find it difficult to accept the statement of the noble Baroness that this is just like any problem on land: it is not. The problems of the sea coast are quite different, and it only needs a little reflection to realise that. As I said in my introduction, I feel that a promised review is an excuse for putting it on the back burner. However, the noble Baroness gave me a long and full answer and I should like time to consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, let me say that if she believes that I implied that this was simple and that the issues involved were just like land issues, she misinterpreted what I was saying. I said that they were complex and different from land issues. In my view we should get away from purely subject plans and there should be proper co-ordination. Indeed, the point that
698
the noble Baroness has just made highlights and emphasises the need for co-ordination in such planning.
Lord Renton: In this schedule we are dealing with the development plans of local authorities. That is quite a different responsibility from that of the other bodies which the noble Baroness has mentioned.
Baroness Nicol: That is the whole point of these amendments. The present use of the coast is activity related and we feel that it should not be. We feel that there should be an overall plan. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her extra explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
Recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past midnight.

  VICTIMS OF CRIME, NORTHERN IRELAND: REVIEW OF NEEDS
  VICTIMS OF CRIME, NORTHERN IRELAND: REVIEW OF NEEDS
  COMPANIES' OVERSEAS PROJECTS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
  COMPANIES' OVERSEAS PROJECTS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
  DIOCESE OF GUILDFORD (EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS): FOUNDATIONS
  DIOCESE OF GUILDFORD (EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS): FOUNDATIONS
  DIOCESE OFGUILDFORD (EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS) ORDER: SALES OF PROPERTY
  DIOCESE OFGUILDFORD (EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS) ORDER: SALES OF PROPERTY
  WILDLIFE CONVENTIONS: CROWN DEPENDENCY RATIFICATIONS
  WILDLIFE CONVENTIONS: CROWN DEPENDENCY RATIFICATIONS
  GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
  GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
  URBAN PROGRAMME: RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
  URBAN PROGRAMME: RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
  PART-TIME AND TEMPORARY WORK: RESPONSE TO ECC REPORT
  PART-TIME AND TEMPORARY WORK: RESPONSE TO ECC REPORT
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION, NORTHERN IRELAND
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION, NORTHERN IRELAND