Sitting of 8 July 1991

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

    Tourism
    Mr. Grist: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends holding a meeting with the chairman of the tourist board for Wales to discuss problems with tourism.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend frequently meets the chairman of the Wales tourist board. The next occasion will be on Monday 15 July.
    Mr. Grist: May I urge my right hon. Friend on that occasion, and on others when suitable, to support the chairman's efforts vastly to improve the number, availability, cleanliness and visibility of public conveniences, the lack of which is a public disgrace?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I know that my hon. Friend has had correspondence on this subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will know that under the Public Health Act 1936, responsibility lies with local authorities which have the discretion about where and when to provide these facilities. We are certainly prepared to take the matter up with the chairman of the tourist board.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Why is the Wales tourist board denied the right to advertise Wales, its people, culture and scenic beauty independently overseas?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: That was considered, but the hon. Gentleman will know that prime responsibility for attracting visitors to Britain lies with the British Tourist Authority. The Wales tourist board works closely with the BTA, and a report was recently commissioned on how the whole operation could be improved. I am glad to say that the report has now been received and that it envisages progress being made over the next three years. We should not underestimate the benefit that we get from using BTA facilities overseas.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that visitors are being sent to Scotland, London, Oxford and Stratford, but have never heard of Wales? Under the present arrangements they are never likely to.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he visits any BTA offices abroad, he will see that Wales
    630
    is prominently presented. Of course, there is no accounting for foreigners' ignorance of Wales or of any other part of the United Kingdom.

    Further Education for the Deaf
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of further education for the deaf in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Twenty-one colleges of further education in Wales make provision for students with special needs, including partially or profoundly deaf students. During the 1989–90 session, 35 students with a specific hearing impairment were studying in Welsh colleges.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that places for the deaf at colleges of further education must be backed by a team of professionals who can cater for the full range of communication and linguistic needs of their students, and that even that is no substitute for a college that caters specifically for the deaf within a supportive and signing environment, such as Doncaster college for the deaf?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, under grants for education support and training, funds are available to meet the cost of in-service training for further education staff who teach students with special educational needs, including deaf students. Some £50,000 is available for this purpose in the current financial year, and further support will be available in 1992–93. Our White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" states that the new further education funding council will be placed under a duty to secure provision for students with special educational needs.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the money available at colleges of further education to cater properly for deaf students and other students with special educational needs is totally inadequate? There are cases at the college of technology in Bridgend where it looks as though students will be unable to benefit from the courses, simply because of the additional expense of making sure that they can take the courses. I ask the Minister to look into this matter urgently and to provide the money needed.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Mid Glamorgan certainly takes a substantial share of that £50,000—£11,150 to be precise. I must stress the reply that I gave: 21 out of the 31 colleges of further education provide for students with special educational needs.

    Defective Housing
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Swansea city council and tenants on the nature of the tenancy and rent levels following the redevelopment of pre-cast reinforced concrete houses in Blaenymaes-Portmead and Clase estates in the city.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): These are matters for consultation between Swansea city council and the tenants.
    Mr. Anderson: The Under-Secretary of State will know that the tenants were most grateful to the Secretary of State for his readiness to see them this morning. However, they were intensely dissapointed by the lack of specific financial commitments and the apparent unwillingness to recognise the urgency and exceptional nature of the problem that faces the city. Tenants in Orlit houses are seeing their houses crumbling around them and regard them as a fire risk. Will the Under-Secretary of State consult Tai Cymru to make sure that rents are not pitched at such a level that tenancies are effectively available only to those on housing benefit? Will he also devise a formula so that the land that the city council is giving free to Tai Cymru can be taken into account in reducing rents to levels that can be afforded?
    Mr. Bennett: Housing associations have a policy of setting affordable rents. It is for the housing benefit system to deal with people who are in need. Therefore, I do not accept that we ought to adjust housing association grants in this respect.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that the policy that he prefers means that for the next four or five years all the new housing that might be built by Tai Cymru in Swansea will be used not to reduce the housing list queue, but to provide homes for those who live in houses that will have to be demolished? In that context, and in view of the length of the housing list, does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that this, in Swansea terms, is a housing disaster which requires special financial provision?
    Mr. Bennett: As I said in answer to questions at the last but one Question Time, we gave Swansea city council all that it asked for when it came to Orlit houses. I said at the time that we would sympathetically consider in coming years any further requests that were made. This year Tai Cymru is giving £9 million towards housing in Swansea. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we had a meeting about that this morning. We shall write to him further on the subject.

    Hospital Reorganisation
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss hospital reorganisations.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We have no plans at present to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss this matter.
    Mr. Morgan: Now that the South Glamorgan health authority seems, on the quiet, to have dropped its proposals for a £70 million third district general hospital in South Glamorgan, what influence will that have on the Minister's decision regarding the proposal to expand the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, in my constituency which, if it were given half a chance by the Minister, would eliminate the waiting list for artificial knees and hips, and carry out up to 1,000 operations a year for the very small capital expenditure of £ 160,000, instead of the 250 operations that it carries out now?
    Mr. Bennett: I understand that the South Glamorgan health authority is reviewing the need for a third district hospital, but that it has not yet come to a decision. I shall make decisions on treatment centres and other matters in the light of that decision, when it is made.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does not the Under-Secretary of State accept my hon. Friend's contention that it is a disgrace that the specialist treatment centre at Rhydlafar hospital has already used up its quota for knee operations this year? It is also close to its limit of 160 hip replacements per year. Is not there a desperate need for extra funding, so that the number of operations performed there can be increased, to make that a superb regional orthopaedic centre?
    Mr. Bennett: I am always interested in improving the productivity of treatment centres and I am happy at the way that they have functioned. They have reached the target set for them. Clearly, we shall have to consider future allocations of waiting list money, but I can give no guarantee about that aspect at present. It is for district health authorities to reach agreement with treatment centres on the number of patients that are treated at any particular centre.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is it not desirable, in general terms and particularly in respect of the issue in question, to deal in facts? Can my hon. Friend say how much health spending increased in South Glamorgan over the past 10 or 12 years and what that has meant for improving the quality of patient care?
    Mr. Bennett: In 1979, South Glamorgan health authority received in cash terms £59 million, compared with £180 million this year. That represents a 30 per cent. increase in real terms, after taking inflation into account. As to figures for the Welsh health service, there has been a 36 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated, a 29 per cent. increase in out-patients and a 200 per cent. increase in day surgery. Under the Labour Government, the number of out-patients fell.

    Patient Care Targets
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the patient care targets which he has given to the health service in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: After consultation with directors of public health medicine, preliminary targets of each of our 10 health gain priority areas have been issued to the service to inform the development of local strategies for health.
    Mr. Michael: Will not the Under-Secretary of State accept something that is obvious to everyone else in the health service—that the Government are not setting targets but merely describing health changes predicted in the normal course of events, without providing any new resources or fresh initiatives? Will he face the fact that the way to set and to meet real and meaningful improved health targets in Wales is in partnership with doctors, nurses, health visitors, community health councils and everyone else involved? Will he, as a first step, withdraw the Government's divisive plans for hospital opt-outs and end the crazy experiment in creating a so-called market for health care in Wales?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is the last person still to believe that anything in the reforms is about hospitals opting out. They do not; they remain NHS trust hospitals, paid for out of the generality of taxation and free at the point of service to patients.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Nonsense.
    Mr. Bennett: There is no use the hon. Gentleman shouting "Nonsense". Those facts are enshrined in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman runs down the excellent work done by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the strategies, which were formulated in consultation with all the people working in the health service. It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff. South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) questioning the targets. The first of them has already been reached, but as one goes further and further, such as when dealing with cancer treatment, it becomes more difficult to deal with intractable cases.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that the difference in waiting times as between NHS patients and those who are treated privately—often by the same specialist offering to provide identical treatment in a fraction of the waiting time—is unacceptable? Should not the Welsh Office set itself the target of eliminating that disparity?
    Mr. Bennett: I certainly want waiting times to shorten and waiting lists to be reduced. I am grateful that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs examined the question of elective surgery. As part of my evidence to that Committee, I said that I had visited the five hospitals with the worst waiting lists, which between them account for nearly 50 per cent. of the waiting lists in Wales. My officials are currently preparing further information on how we might tackle that situation.

    Cardiff Bay Redevelopment
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the potential number of jobs to be created as a result of the redevelopment of Cardiff bay.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): It is estimated that if the proposed barrage is constructed, a total of 30,000 jobs will be created over a 15 to 20 year period.
    Mr. Butler: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show the project's tremendous potential for Cardiff and, despite the opposition of some Labour Members, for the valley communities?
    Mr. Hunt: It is a vital project and I am concerned that there is as yet no unified approach to it among Opposition Members. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledge that the barrage is a major flagship project for our capital city of Cardiff, and one which would put us firmly on the world map.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: What percentage of those 30,000 jobs will be in the non-productive service sector and what percentage will be in the wealth-creating manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Hunt: I cannot predict exactly how those jobs will divide up. I referred to an estimate. Not one of the people
    634
    to whom I have spoken who have studied the project's job potential disputes the total of 30,000 jobs or the fact that this is a marvellous project for Wales.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a spectacular own goal for the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to seek to block the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and stop the creation of those 30,000 jobs, some of which could have been created already if the Bill had made progress as planned?
    Mr. Morgan: Ask my constituents.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position, "Ask my constituents". I hope that everyone who represents our capital city of Cardiff will recognise the project's tremendous potential for Wales, particularly for Cardiff. It is about time that people studied the detailed assurances that have been given. Whenever I have referred to that project, I have said that it will go ahead provided that there is a satisfactory outcome to the groundwater studies. I repeat those words today.

    Rural Aid
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on rural aid in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: I announced the allocation of £5 million to 36 special rural projects on 19 June. I shall now be considering how best to proceed with rural strategy by publishing my objectives.
    Mr. Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman publishes his objectives, I hope that he will explain why £400,000 of the £5 million, about which he bragged to the Welsh Grand Committee on 19 June, is being spent in inner-city Bangor on a floodlit plain? Will he explain whether and, I hope, deny that that has anything to do with the fact that the area is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)?
    Mr. Hunt: I am appalled at that comment. It is a libel on the people of Bangor. The project was put forward not by Ministers but by the local authority on behalf of local communities. All the projects that came before me were important and of direct benefit to rural areas. On that basis, therefore, I confess that I found selection difficult. I congratulate everyone concerned on drawing up those imaginative and innovative projects.
    Mr. Livsey: Given that only about 36 out of nearly 250 applications in central Wales have been approved, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, such is the crisis in agriculture—with farm incomes at their lowest since the war—he should consider introducing legislation to ensure that the Development Board for Rural Wales brings agriculture within its remit?
    Mr. Hunt: Last month I prefaced my announcement with the promise that I would find £5 million, and I fulfilled my undertaking. I agree that there were many exciting projects. In considering the objectives of the rural strategy, I shall wish to think about how best to take the matter forward in the light of some exciting schemes which are still to be put into effect. As the hon. Gentleman

    635
    knows, agriculture is a matter for the Welsh Agriculture Department. Welsh Office Ministers answer on agriculture matters.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member to put his question. Get on with it, please.
    Mr. Rogers: I shall do so, if my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will stop spluttering.
    Does the Secretary of State accept that the sums that will be available to help the rural economy of Wales will be greatly affected by the hundreds of millions of pounds that will be poured into the development of a barrage in the Cardiff bay system? [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those who live in rural areas and those of us who live in the valley communities completely support the principle of the Cardiff bay development? Our only objection is to wasteful expenditure on a barrage that will not create one extra foot of land or one extra job in Cardiff.
    Mr. Speaker: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, his comments are a bit wide of the question, but we had better hear an answer from the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hunt: I have been waiting with great anticipation. I strongly support rural Rhondda's claim to put forward views on rural policy. However, I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the project proposed for Cardiff will not only do much to sustain Cardiff into the next century, but will be a tremendous fillip for the whole of Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: All of us want to build a sound economy for rural Wales. I remind the Secretary of State that recruitment to Her Majesty's forces is one way in which the people of rural Wales can get employment and training. I want a commitment from him that he will fight hard for the Royal Welch Fusiliers even though he represents a Cheshire constituency. I want an unambiguous commitment that he will fight for the Royal Welch Fusiliers to remain a free-standing regiment.
    Mr. Hunt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to respond to that question. First, I represent not a Cheshire constituency, but a Merseyside constituency which has nothing to do with this subject. Secondly, as soon as I returned from north America, I contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the future regimental structure of the Army. The Minister of State kept in close touch with all Ministers at the Ministry of Defence in my absence. I was assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he had not yet received any specific proposals from the Army about reductions in the number of regiments. He assured me that no final decisions had been taken. He is aware that many people have extremely strong feelings about the future of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to influence his party's Front-Bench defence spokesman who recently said that there was no future for the regimental structure in the Army.

    ICI
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet representatives of ICI in Wales to discuss Government assistance towards its future investment policy.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend met ICI representatives on 23 January when he visited the plant at Pontypool. We are always ready to discuss assistance towards any investment project which ICI may wish to put forward.
    Mr. Murphy: The Minister of State is aware that more than 1,000 Welsh men and women work for ICI and that many thousands more are ICI pensioners, all of whom are deeply suspicious of a possible Hanson bid for ICI. As the Secretary of State has been untypically silent about what should happen about the bid—as he is again today—does not the Minister think that either he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should make a statement in the House condemning such a bid, or do they both continue to play the role of Pontius Pilate while a vital aspect of Welsh industry is under threat from such a predator as Lord Hanson?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that no takeover bid for ICI has been made. It would be wholly inappropriate to make a statement about a hypothetical situation. The hon. Gentleman referred to pensioners, and that issue is very much a matter for the trustee company and its directors who administer the fund under the trust deed. On 3 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry replied extremely well to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), and I can add nothing to what he said then.

    Unemployment
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about a change in the level of unemployment during the last year (a) in Pontypridd and (b) Wales as a whole.
    Mr. David Hunt: 772 and 29,043 respectively.
    Dr. Howells: In view of the Secretary of State's habit these days of claiming credit for just about every job created in Wales, including the appointment of a rat catcher in "Under Milk Wood", does he realise that there is a great deal of suspicion about today's announcement that 15 jobs are to be created in my constituency in a chlorofluorocarbon refrigeration recovery plant? There is a general suspicion that Wales is being regarded increasingly by other countries as a convenient place to which their poisons can be shipped and in which they can be treated and dumped.
    Mr. Hunt: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in this context. I should have thought that he would welcome the £2·6 million investment in his area. It is an exciting development which will help to stem the escape into the environment of potentially damaging gases. The protection of our environment has never been as important as it is today and I am delighted that the project, for reclaiming packaging and distributing refrigerant gases, will create new jobs in the area.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Fabian Society and with such leading trade unionists as Gavin Laird and Eric Hammond that the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage would be disastrous for employment in the United Kingdom, including the Principality? Does he further agree that the introduction of such a statutory minimum wage could destroy as many as 55,000 jobs in the Principality, including 1,400 in my constituency?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important subject about which the Opposition have been distinctly silent. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of disquiet about Labour's proposals for the statutory minimum wage and there is evidence to show that it would bear unduly harshly on the Principality. My hon. Friend's figure of 55,000 jobs is probably an underestimate. I shall bring my estimate of the losses, which will probably be higher, before the House at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that this has been an extremely difficult year for young people in particular to obtain employment. In fact, if the evidence of local technical colleges and other colleges of further education is taken into account, it is the worst year for five years. Is not this, therefore, another opportunity for us to consider how we educate and train our young people? The Secretary of State knows that I have made strong representations to ensure that the whole responsibility for education and training is transferred to the Welsh Office. Will he consider that again?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is precisely the moment at which we should look carefully at our education and training policies to ensure that we give every possible job opportunity to people and especially to the younger members of the Principality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give credit to the training and enterprise councils. The first network was set up in the Principality, ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is addressing the matter in practical terms and I strongly support its efforts.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the past 12 years have seen such an economic miracle in Wales, why are the Government still having to squeeze out inflation by destroying more and more jobs in our economy, especially as our communities could scarcely be said to be enjoying high wages or making high wage demands? We are the lowest wage economy. If low wages mean more jobs, we should have many more jobs than we have at present.
    Mr. Hunt: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are more people in employment now than there were in 1979. He sometimes forgets that statistic. We in the Principality cannot isolate ourselves from the recession elsewhere in the world. I have recently returned from north America. The United States is in its 10th successive month of recession and Canada has just completed a 14-month period in recession. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the difficulties are unique to Wales or to the United Kingdom. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Those answers will not reassure Welsh business men who see the economy lurching downwards. Is not it time for an immediate cut in interest rates to stem what is becoming a frightening recession? Does the Secretary of State agree that Wales needs interest
    638
    rate cuts, investment in our schools, investment in training and investment in industry so that we can have real jobs to face the challenge of the next century?
    Mr. Hunt: Sometimes I wish that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that although we have serious difficulties in Wales with the recession, the medium to longer-term prospects for our Principality are still as good as ever. I am sorry that he did not welcome the package of £33 million of investment which I announced today. Fourteen separate industrial projects will create 300 new jobs and will safeguard many more. That is further good news for the Welsh economy and the sheer size of the investment demonstrates clearly that international and home-grown companies in Wales are confidently committing themselves to a better future.

    Welsh Assembly
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with whom he consulted, and over what period of time, before concluding that there is no case for an elected Welsh assembly; and whether he will consider any further representations that any all-Wales forum should have some directly elected component.
    Mr. David Hunt: My discussions with the local authority associations began in January. I have received a number of representations since then which I have been considering. The hon. Gentleman will know the conclusions that I have reached. With regard to any further representations, I hope that he will accept that I have not tried to stop him making representations to me.
    Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that answer. I assure the Secretary of State that I would make any representations that I felt were appropriate. Does not he consider it very odd that when £5,000 million is spent by the Welsh Office, when there are 70 or 80 quangos and when he appoints 1,200 people to nominated bodies, we do not have any directly answerable structure in Wales? When will there be an end to the Secretary of State's role as governor-general? When will we have what every other country has—elected democracy?
    Mr. Hunt: The fact that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question and that I must stand here in the mother of Parliaments and answer it shows that I am democratically accountable for what happens in Wales. With regard to the assembly, I must confess that I considered it very carefully. There is a very wide range of proposals. However, none of them explains satisfactorily what would happen to the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. There is a deep suspicion that if Labour's proposals were implemented —the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) may or may not support them—that all-important seat in the Cabinet might be denied to Wales.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the calls from the Opposition Benches for a Welsh assembly and for a guided economy and the opposition to service industries are reminiscent of the 1970s and show that the Opposition parties have learnt absolutely nothing during their period in opposition? Should not they learn some lessons in the future?
    Mr. Hunt: They certainly have not learnt the lesson of the referendum in 1979 when the people of Wales rejected

    639
    the concept of an elected assembly by a four to one majority. I agree with my hon. Friend: the Opposition do not learn the lessons. People do not want to return to the policies of the 1970s and to that shabby Labour Government who were propped up by an equally shabby Lib-Lab pact. They do not want to return to socialism at a time when the USSR is removing the word socialist from its title and the rest of central and eastern Europe is throwing off socialism. It is remarkable that the Labour party wants to return to just that.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Is not there a more recent example of what the Secretary of State has just told us about? Is not the poll tax a better example for him to cite? The Government were trying desperately to hold a line against the overwhelming majority of public opinion and against the views of all the Opposition parties in Wales and a sizeable minority in the Conservative party. Given that the poll tax was ultimately swept away, will the Secretary of State be as consistent in opposing devolution as he was in advocating the poll tax?
    Mr. Hunt: I certainly will not support a return—as the Labour party would have us return—to an unjust and inequitable domestic rating system and then to proceed to a revaluation. I strongly condemn the Labour party for failing to enter into consultations, unlike the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, on the future of local government structure, functions and finance. The door is still open and will always be open. It is about time that the Labour party valued the results of consultation.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of securing inward investment for Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: For inward investment, the 12 months ending March 1991 was a record year with 147 projects secured, promising 15,000 new and safeguarded jobs and an investment of £585 million.
    I have recently returned from what I believe to have been a successful inward investment mission to north America, following which I was able to announce a further four projects. I expect a number of other projects to flow from the visit.
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend could be forgiven for being somewhat exasperated at the way in which, every time he announces good news, the Luddite left in the Opposition reacts most contemptuously to it. Is not this the opportunity to say that Wales has been very successful in securing inward investment? Would my right hon. Friend care to suggest why he and everybody else involved in securing that investment have been so successful?
    Mr. Hunt: I suppose it is because Opposition Members are trying to make party political points that they do not recognise the important progress that has been made. Since January alone, I have been able to announce support by the Welsh Office for more than 4,500 new jobs and nearly £352 million of investment for the Principality. I believe that the figures represent not just our outstanding record in attracting investment and jobs from overseas, but the setting up and expansion of many home-grown
    640
    businesses. With the partnership that we have in Wales, I am confident that we will continue that winning record into the mid-1990s and beyond.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the public consultation process before an NHS hospital applies for and acquires trust status.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The requirements on public consultation are set out in section 5(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Local residents, health service staff involved and community interests would be consulted before any decision was taken.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that, in his constituency, Pembrokeshire health authority intends to carry out a leaflet drop to persuade people that a hospital trust is a good idea? Is not it improper for a health authority to pay for a leaflet drop that obviously has strong political connotations? Should not the money for that leaflet drop come from the coffers of the Conservative party or, better still, from the Minister?
    Mr. Bennett: It is quite in order for a health authority to explain to the people who live in its area the proposals that it is making to become a national health service trust. Indeed, it is vital for it to do so, because in recent weeks there has been misleading publicity in the local paper. That publicity, which was produced by the Labour candidate for Pembroke and supplied by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), was incorrect and he had to apologise. The article was headed "Labour Apology for Health Chief', and related to information provided by the hon. Gentleman, which he leaked from a Select Committee hearing whose minutes have not been published.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Barristers' Investigations
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the scope of privilege enjoyed by barristers investigating alleged criminal behaviour on behalf of individuals or organisations.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Legal professional privilege relating to the discharge by a lawyer of instructions received from his client exists for the protection of the client and forms part of the general law of evidence.
    Mr. Dalyell: What discussion took place between the Certification Officer and Government officials before the decision was taken to prosecute Mr. Scargill, Mr. Heathfield and the National Union of Mineworkers last September? Was there or was there not collusion? Have the Government advised the Certification Officer, Matthew Wake, to appeal? Why do the Government allow the Treasury Solicitor to work for the Certification Officer when he is meant to be independent? What is the cost of the case? Why did the Government pass information to the sequestrator?
    The Attorney-General: The Certification Officer is an entirely independent statutory office-holder for whom I have no ministerial responsibility whatsoever. The prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was brought by the Certification Officer in the exercise of his independent discretion. The Treasury Solicitor undertakes work for certain independent bodies and office-holders —for example, magistrates—and the staff are well aware of their obligation in that activity to exercise an independent professional judgment.
    I am unable to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question for which, again, I have no responsibility. As to the cost of the case, I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment gave a written answer on that the other day.
    Mr. Fraser: When judicial inquiries such as the Scarman or Woolf inquiries take place, neither the conclusions of the inquiry nor the evidence that is given to it are used as evidence of other offences against those giving the evidence—that is a matter of practice and sometimes a matter of law. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it might be wise of him to issue similar guidelines for inquiries that are carried out by, say, a trade union or a local authority so that the setting up of such internal inquiries is not discouraged, and to ensure that witnesses who give evidence to such inquiries are not later prosecuted?
    The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I follow the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not for me to lay down guidelines about the instructions that a trade union or any other body gives to the professional people who carry out investigations on its behalf. There is no special rule relating to the admissibility in subsequent proceedings of the evidence that is given on such occasions. The ordinary rules of the general law of evidence govern that matter.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the Crown prosecuting service continues to rely on outside agents for the conduct of prosecution work in the magistrates courts.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the first three months of 1991, the proportion of cases handled by agents fell to 31 per cent. of sittings and I hope that it will fall further in the remainder of the year.
    Mr. Carrington: The reduction in the reliance on agents is greatly to be welcomed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that that is caused at least partly by the satisfactory increase in recruitment to the Crown prosecution service?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. It is much more satisfactory for the Crown prosecution service to be able to handle a higher proportion of cases itself. That is more satisfactory for the lawyers in the Crown prosecution service and raises their morale. My hon. Friend is right that the reduction in the use of agents stems substantially from the improved recruitment of the past year. During the past four years, there has been an increase of 604 legal staff in the Crown prosecution service, with a net increase of 212 in the past year alone.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of cases referred to the Crown prosecution service resulted in criminal proceedings being commenced, during each year since the creation of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Solicitor-General: The commencement of cases is normally for the police. In the four years to 1990–91, the proportion of cases in which the Crown prosecution service, in the exercise of its review function, decided not to proceed in the magistrates court was 7·3, 8, 8·9 and 9·4 per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: The Solicitor-General will be aware that there is often distress for the families of people who have died or for those who have been the victims of an accident or an injury when no proceedings follow. We have all encountered such cases and the aggrieved relatives. Is there any way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could formalise the review procedure or institute an appeals procedure at the behest of the families so that they can know that their case is being looked at again and can be involved more publicly in the procedure?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that that would be a dangerous course to pursue. However, I fully understand the sensitivity with which any case that involves death has to be treated. The Crown prosecution service takes immense care when considering whether it is right to bring a prosecution in such cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in a free society, it is essential that the prosecution decision should ultimately be taken entirely independently—as it is.

    Small Claims Court
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General what is the current jurisdiction of the small claims court.
    The Solicitor-General: From 1 July 1991, defended money claims for an amount not exceeding £1,000 are referred to arbitration in a county court under the small claims procedure. Claims above £1,000 may be referred to arbitration if one of the parties so requests and the district judge agrees.
    Mr. Marshall: Can cases for personal injury be referred to the small claims court in the same way as cases for minor debt?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir. Personal injury cases can be dealt with in the small claims court either if the plaintiff recognises that the damages will be genuinely small and limits the claim to £1,000 or if an application to do so is made to the district judge and he agrees.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office continues to make an increasing contribution to the detection and prosecution of commercial fraud.
    Mr. Banks: Many people feel that the Government do not take white-collar crime seriously. Perhaps if the Serious Fraud Office had the necessary resources, the fraud surrounding the Bank of Credit and Commerce

    643
    International would not have taken place. Even if the office were to acquire the extra resources, what would be the point of its putting all that effort into arresting white-collar criminals such as Ernest Saunders and Gerald Ronson if, once such people have been put in prison, they are let out soon afterwards?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has asked about five questions, not all of which deal with areas for which I am responsible. As I pointed out in an answer a few weeks ago, the Serious Fraud Office has brought some 54 cases to trial in its first two years of existence, and more than two thirds of the defendants have been convicted.
    I am not aware of any significant shortage of resources. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the BCCI case. The papers were sent from the Bank of England to the Serious Fraud Office on Friday and today formal acceptance of the case by the Serious Fraud Office has been announced. As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentences are not a matter for me.

    Enforcement of Covenants
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the enforcement of covenants.
    The Solicitor-General: The enforcement of covenants is essentially a matter of private law. There may be instances, for example section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in which Parliament gives a public authority a right to enforce a restrictive covenant as if the authority were an adjoining landowner.
    Covenants relating to land may confer rights on the public, in which case it is open to the Attorney-General to lend his name to a relator action for their enforcement.
    Mr. Thurnham: Where local authorities have a duty to enforce planning covenants, will my right hon. and learned Friend remind them that they have a duty to do so responsibly and robustly, and that they should not run up the white flag and run away at the first signs of aggressive development?
    The Solicitor-General: I am well aware of the deep interest in my hon. Friend's constituency about such matters. His views will have been heard and understood.

    Weapons Protocols
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what further representations he has received seeking changes in international protocols on the use of weapons; and what response he has made.
    The Attorney-General: I have not received any representations further to those made by the hon. Gentleman on 17 June.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Attorney-General had the opportunity to study annex VII of the presidency conclusions of the recent European summit and seen the splendid recommendations there about avoiding the over-armament of the world? A new arms race is taking place which threatens the stability of the world and world peace. It threatens, too, to impoverish many third-world countries. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we are to achieve the aims and fulfil the recommendations of the European summit, there must be
    644
    some changes and that there must be some new negotiations on the protocols concerning weapons of mass destruction?
    The Attorney-General: I have not had the opportunity to read the publication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I certainly agree that if there is over-armament, by definition it is a bad thing. Whether we move towards making more changes in any international instrument is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, not for me. Although I have numerous responsibilities, they do not extend that far.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid given to Zimbabwe since its independence.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Gross bilateral aid disbursements totalled over £257 million up to December 1990, including loan disbursements by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the Government on the amount of money given to the people of Zimbabwe. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the most effective growth policy for Zimbabwe would consist of the adoption of a social market economy and the abolition of price controls?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we welcome the commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe to the economic reform programme. They have a hard road ahead, but during my talks last week with the President, the Minister of Finance and others I was convinced that the proposals that will emerge on 25 July will encompass exactly what my hon. Friend wishes to see. It is good news that the lifting of the price freeze which began in 1988 is to be extended.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that the best way in which to bring immediate and significant benefits to third-world countries such as Zimbabwe would be to roll back restrictions on trade and address the debt crisis? Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister, at the G7 summit next week, to urge positive action to help developing countries, by implementing and extending the Trinidad terms, relieving debt owed to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, setting in train a new international initiative on reducing commercial debt and reducing interest rates worldwide?
    Mrs. Chalker: On the subject of trade, the hon. Lady will have heard me say in the debate on 14 December last how critical it is for developing nations that the GATT round should give them the opportunity of access to all the major markets of the world, particularly those of the EC. The Government are actively pursuing that aim.
    I can tell the hon. Lady, too, that, as it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who first proposed the Trinidad terms, she need have no fear that we have not been working non-stop to try to ensure that they will not only be discussed at the G7 meeting but, I hope, accepted, even by those nations that were not so committed as we

    645
    have been from the beginning to relieve debt and to extend the relief for those countries that are undertaking economic reforms so that they can have a real chance for the future.

    Good Government
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on progress in implementing the policy on good government since his speech to the Overseas Development Institute in June 1990.
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the policy on good government since June 1990.
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said in my speech at Chatham House on 25 June, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, good government in support of sustainable development is an essential approach in our aid programme. Other donors, including the EC and multilateral agencies, are following similar policies. We are committed to a target of £50 million in the coming year for direct assistance towards projects promoting good government.
    Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will receive and deserve the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for this important initiative. Is she achieving any success in persuading her counterparts in the EC to adopt a similar policy on a co-ordinated basis? Will she note that, although the policy has been extremely successful in respect of Ghana, it has been most unsuccessful in respect of Burma?
    Mrs. Chalker: We spent Saturday and Sunday discussing good government and aid in an EC context at an informal Development Ministers meeting in Holland. I am glad to say that our concern that good government should be encouraged is shared by all our 11 partners in the European Community and even more widely than that. The Scandinavian nations, the United States of America, Canada and nearly all the major donors now believe that good government must be among the ways in which we encourage developing countries to improve their performance. It is true that Ghana has made some brave steps and there are encouraging signs, particularly now that the Provisional National Defence Council has invited political exiles to return. With Burma, in respect of which we have no Government aid programme, the outlook is very bleak indeed.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from promoting good government, the initiative also means that money from the British taxpayer is more likely to be spent correctly in third-world countries than was the case in the past?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we can get recipient Governments to show positive accountability to the people and to be transparent in their conduct of affairs, we can be far more sure that our money has reached the place for which it was intended.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Would not it aid good government and sustainable development if Britain gave humanitarian aid to Cambodia rather than military aid to the allies of the
    646
    Khmer Rouge? Is not it a scandal that Treasury counsel spent five hours in the High Court of Justice on Friday arguing that details of the military aid given to the allies of the Khmer Rouge should be kept from the British public?
    Mrs. Chalker: I suppose that I should no longer be surprised at the hon. Gentleman. All that I can say to him is that the British Government have never supported the Khmer Rouge and never will support the Khmer Rouge. The British Government help the people of Cambodia through some non-governmental organisations. We do not have a government-to-government aid programme. I only hope that, with other donors, we shall soon be able to help the Cambodian people as a result of the comprehensive political settlement on Cambodia that we hope will be achieved.
    Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Lady is being disingenuous. She knows as well as everyone else in the House that the Government have been providing military and other aid to terrorists who are allies of the Khmer Rouge. I appreciate that that is not directly her responsibility, but when will we start aiding the people in Cambodia who are helping to rebuild that country rather than the people who are helping to destroy it?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said in response to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I have said, and I repeat, that we are ready and willing, with other donors, to help the people of Cambodia in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. We have never given aid to the Khmer Rouge. We will not give aid to the Khmer Rouge. That is exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and I have said it before in the House.

    South Africa
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to aid development in poor areas in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: We are already doing so. Our bilateral aid programme for black South Africans is designed to benefit people disadvantaged by apartheid throughout South Africa. We are involved in education, housing, community development and health.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome ending of apartheid must mean—
    Mr. Tony Banks: It has not ended.
    Mr. Greenway: The approaching end of apartheid—I accept the hon. Gentleman's point—must mean that the South African economy will develop more rapidly and strongly? Will not that benefit all sections of the community and if there is any danger of its not doing so, will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that it does?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have repeatedly stressed that the lifting of the apartheid legislation in South Africa should pave the way for investment into South Africa. The one thing that the black South African needs more than anything is investment in industry and training. That should happen as soon as possible. We have made good

    647
    progress in the European context. Good progress is being made in South Africa. I welcome the announcement at the ANC conference that there was a need for flexibility in the lifting of sanctions.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kenneth Baker—statement.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had just been told that I take points of order in their usual place immediately after statements.
    Mr. Williams: I thought that it was after questions.
    Mr. Speaker: No, not after questions—after the statements.

Brixton Prison (Escapes)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the escape of two category A high-risk prisoners from Brixton prison using a firearm on the morning of 7 July. They were awaiting trial at the central criminal court for serious offences, including conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.
Yesterday moring the two prisoners, named Pearse Gerrard McAuley and Nessan Quinlivan, attended the first Roman Catholic mass of the day in the prison. The service began at 9.15 am and finished at about 10.5 am. Since both were high-risk prisoners, they were subject to the usual security precautions. Accordingly, they underwent a rub-down search before leaving their secure unit for the chapel. They were escorted there by three officers.
After the service, and again in accordance with the usual procedures, the prisoners were escorted by three prison officers to return to their unit. A dog patrol supervised them between the chapel and the main prison building. Once inside, and in a narrow passageway, one of the prisoners produced a firearm and took one of the escorting officers hostage, holding the gun to his head. He fired a shot above the officer's head, and the other prisoner took the keys of the hostage officer and used them to gain access to the prison centre. In the centre a further shot was fired, which passed through the clothing of another officer. The prisoners and their hostage went through two other gates, entering a building yard.
In the yard, another shot was fired to keep pursuing staff at bay, and the prisoners reached the prison wall at a point where they were able to scale it despite the razor wire at the top. They then escaped into the married quarters area outside the prison and threatened a prison officer who was cleaning his car. They took possession of the car, but abandoned it when they found that their route was blocked.
They were at that point within a few yards of Brixton hill, where they stopped a private car. The driver was ordered out and shot in the upper right leg and the woman passenger got out unharmed. I am pleased to say that the driver is recovering in hospital. The car was driven into Brixton and abandoned in a side street. With the money that they had taken from the car driver, they used a taxi to take them to Baker street tube station.
I am deeply disturbed by this grave lapse of security, and by the associated risk to members of the public, have decided that we must have a swift and independent inquiry into the circumstances of this deplorable incident, so that any necessary lessons can be learnt promptly. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, his Honour Judge Tumim, to carry out a full inquiry with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the circumstances of the escape of prisoners McAuley and Quinlivan from HM Prison Brixton on Sunday, 7 July, and in particular to review the security arrangements for handling high risk prisoners in this prison; to assess how those arrangements were operated on the day concerned; and to make recommendations".
I spoke to Judge Tumim this morning, and he told me that he will be starting the task immediately. He will be assisted by the police. I have asked him to submit an interim report by the end of this month. Subject to the
650
need to protect sensitive security material, and to the possibility of criminal charges being laid, I intend that the chief inspector's findings should be published.
When Judge Tumim inspected Brixton last year, his report referred to certain comments on security matters which he had put directly to the director-general of the prison service. These dealt with matters of physical security, including the position and coverage of closed circuit television. I shall be asking the inquiry to pay particular attention to the progress made in these areas.
Judge Tumim also recommended that we should reconsider holding category A high-risk prisoners in Brixton when new accommodation became available at the new Belmarsh prison in Woolwich. The director-general accepted this recommendation. The new unit at Belmarsh for all category A prisoners in London who are designated as a high risk has been recently completed. It had been planned to use this as from November, but I have decided to bring this forward to next month.
In the meantime, I have taken the following action. All governors of prisons which hold category A prisoners, other than dispersal prisons, have been asked to review urgently their procedures for handling category A high-risk prisoners whenever it is necessary for them to leave their secure units. In particular, governors must consider immediately whether religious services can be provided for such prisoners in their living areas rather than allowing them to move to chapels. I have asked the director-general of the prison service to report to me on this as a matter of urgency.
I have also given instructions that other prisoners awaiting trial on terrorist charges should be moved immediately from Brixton to high-security dispersal prisons.
This was a very serious incident and no time must 13e lost in finding out exactly what happened and taking all possible measures to prevent such an event re-occurring.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary will know that the public response to yesterday's escape of men charged with such serious crimes has been a combination of anger and incredulity that such a thing should happen. We certainly welcome the promise of a full inquiry and we insist that the Home Secretary report its findings to the House. However, there are questions that can properly be answered and must be answered today.
Before I ask those questions I express our sympathy for the man who was wounded during the escape and our admiration for those prison officers who attempted to recapture armed men.
I shall ask the Home Secretary specific questions so that he may, as he must, answer them directly. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons told the Government that high-risk category A prisoners should not be held in Brixton. He said:
"It did not have the physical defences necessary for the job."
Why were men on terrorist charges not moved out of that prison at once? Why did the Home Secretary wait until two other escapes had occurred? Why is the Home Secretary now taking action that he should have taken last year, and how does he justify such incompetence?
Her Majesty's inspector went on to make recommendations about improved security at Brixton. Why were his

651
comments on the dangers of overcrowding ignored, and why were his recommendations on improved physical security not implemented?
The Home Secretary referred in his statement to "two other gates." Will he confirm that one gate in the prison was open because its security locks had not yet been fixed? He also spoke of the prisoners scaling the wall in spite of razor wire. Will he confirm that all that was necessary for that task was a conveniently placed dog kennel and a wheelbarrow? Will he also confirm that those two category A prisoners charged with terrorist offences were not even kept in a security wing but were held—incredibly— together in an annexe overlooking the builder's yard from which they escaped?
Lord Justice Woolf said in his report on prison disturbances that break-outs were most likely at weekends because of reduced staffing levels. Why has the Home Secretary not even responded to Lord Justice Woolf's recommendation on those matters? Why has action been taken, specifically at Brixton, to increase activity, such as visiting, at weekends while staffing has been left at levels considered inadequate by Lord Justice Woolf six, eight or even 10 months ago? Can we now expect the Home Secretary to take belated action on that subject?
Yesterday the Home Secretary chose not to make a statement himself but to allow an official to represent the Government's point of view. That in itself showed the Home Secretary's attitude. That official response was terrifyingly complacent, for the official described arrangements at Brixton as "adequate", even though that morning two men on terrorist charges had escaped. Nothing that we have heard from the Home Secretary this afternoon suggests that, even now, the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation or that the Home Secretary begins to accept a jot of responsibility for what happened. His response—his wish to skip away from all responsibility for what occurred yesterday—shows that he is entirely unfit to occupy his office.
Mr. Baker: I am not slipping away from any responsibility in this matter. I answer to the House and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I want the report of Judge Tumim published when it becomes available. I have asked that it should be available by the end of this month, which case will make it the fastest report on any prison incident in recent years.
First, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the securing of high-risk category A prisoners in Brixton. Judge Tumim's report referred to the possibility of other accommodation becoming available as a result of Belmarsh opening, and we have accepted that recommendation. The accommodation has only just been completed: it was to be ready in November, but I have now made it available next month, at the earliest possible opportunity.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked where the individual prisoners were kept. They were kept in A wing. The responsibility—
Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary still sliding away from responsibility?
Mr. Baker: Perhaps I may answer the right hon. Gentleman's original question. The matter will have to be examined by the inquiry, but where individual prisoners are kept is the direct responsibility of the governor.
652
The right hon. Gentleman asked about overcrowding. I do not believe that yesterday's incident had any bearing on the overcrowding problems in Her Majesty's prisons. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have increased the size of the prison officer force by some 4,200 in the past three years, at a time when the prison population has fallen by 5,000. He should at least recognise that that means that there are now two prisoners for each prison officer. When we came to office, there was one prison officer for three prisoners, and in the 1950s there was one prison officer for six prisoners.
We have totally shown our commitment to increasing resources in that way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the incident that occurred yesterday, deplorable as it was, had any relationship to overcrowding.
Mr. Hattersley: What about the gate?
Mr. Baker: The question of the gate will be a matter for the inquiry to examine, as indeed it should be. I have already heard different evidence from other people about that, and it will be for the inquiry and Judge Tumim to resolve. The right hon. Gentleman is unfair to say that staffing levels have any bearing on the issue. Staff at the secure units in Brixton yesterday were fully up to strength.
Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what priority the Government give to security in prisons and how much money the Government spend on security? Does he agree that the prison officers in Brixton, in my constituency, do a remarkably fine job, given the antiquated Victorian building in which they have to work? Does he agree that to avoid entirely incidents as lamentable as yesterday's would take a draconian regime such as that at the Lubyanka under Stalin, which would be unacceptable in a civilised country such as this?
Mr. Baker: On the last point, the first responsibility of any prison governor is to ensure that those prisoners submitted to his care and custody are kept in custody. That must be the first responsibility, and he must take measures appropriate to fulfil it.
As for expenditure on security, this year we are spending £13 million on schemes to improve specific aspects of security in prisons, compared with £8 million last year. I must emphasise that that applies only to specific security work. Security protection, and improvements to it, are implicit in almost every facet of the building programme, from major refurbishment of prisons or parts of prisons—which this year alone will cost £81 million—down to quite minor building works carried out at the discretion of individual prisons.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the work of prison officers, to whom I also pay tribute. I accept that working in an old prison such as Brixton is much more difficult than working in a modern one, which is why we are committed to the largest prison building programme that this country has ever known. We are currently building 12 new prisons, which will come on stream in the next two to three years.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that Judge Tumim's report drawing attention to the security dangers of Brixton was available to him as long ago as last August but it took him five months to accept the recommendation that high-security prisoners should be moved to Belmarsh

653
in December, the Belmarsh accommodation being opened in April, but the prisoners not being moved then? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in announcing that prisoners are not to be moved until next month, he is showing a dilatoriness and an attitude to the security of our citizens that is wholly unacceptable in a Home Secretary?
Does he also acknowledge that Judge Tumim's earlier recommendations spoke of the security dangers in having such a depleted staff? Unless and until Judge Tumim contradicts himself, we shall have to hold the right hon. Gentleman personally responsible for not having acted on that advice. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is now asking Judge Tumim to consider whether or not his recommendations on security, made to the director-general, are progressing appropriately. Why did he not ask those questions before the escapes?
Mr. Baker: Various measures were mentioned in Judge Tumim's report in December last year, and specific recommendations were made to the director-general. One recommendation was made to me about the possibility of moving prisoners when Belmarsh became available. I confirm that next month will present the earliest opportunity for Belmarsh to be available, but by then it will be fully equipped and provided with the specialist officers necessary for high-category prisoners.
As to the other recommendations, I was advised by the director-general of the prison service that they were all considered and that action was taken. It will be for the inquiry to decide whether further action should have been taken.
Sir John Wheeler: I know that my right hon. Friend accepts the seriousness of the incident, and he rightly advised the House that Judge Tumim's inquiry will investigate management failings, or whatever went wrong, and will report accordingly. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Brixton prison, despite its deficiencies, has a special unit for high-risk category A prisoners, although whether or not that unit was in use at the time of the incident is a matter for the inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that Brixton's establishment of prison officers is up to strength?
Mr. Baker: Yesterday, about 150 officers were available in the rest of the prison, and in the security unit the number of officers dedicated to category A prisoners—that is, high-risk prisoners—was fully up to strength.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Home Secretary is responsible for policy. Is it the case that there has been an increase in recent years in the number of provisional IRA prisoners in our gaols? If so, has that been discussed with the prison service? If there are more PIRA prisoners, we are growing nearer, if not close, to the situation in Northern Ireland. Would it not be a good idea to talk to the Northern Ireland Office prison department, which has for many years faced the problem of containing PIRA prisoners who, if they escape, are prepared to injure and to murder, as we saw yesterday?
Will the right hon. Gentleman quickly review the situation at all establishments holding PIRA prisoners, because even if there are only one or two such prisoners at each, the same problems are created? Will he allow the anti-terrorist squad to advise prison officers, because they
654
know more than ordinary prison officers, in the same way as Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in Northern Ireland do?
Will the Home Secretary investigate, in particular, prison perimeters? Yesterday's events proved that security measures suitable for ordinary prisoners are not sufficient to contain persons determined to escape with the aid of a gun.
Mr. Baker: I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's comments, because he has borne responsibility both for prisons and for Northern Ireland. There is a great deal to learn from the Irish penal system and from the Irish prison system. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there was once a much larger escape than that which occurred yesterday, and we have learnt from such experiences over the years.
As to the question of convicted IRA terrorists, and terrorists generally, yesterday I passed an instruction through the system that particular measures should be taken to review the security of all terrorist prisoners. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, most such prisoners are held in dispersal prisons, where the degree of security for the whole prison—not just for secure units, as in a remand prison such as Brixton or a local prison—is much greater. Their features include a series of walls and dog patrols.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a big prison such as Brixton presents particular problems because it contains a large number of remand prisoners who expect their families and their legal representatives to be allowed access to them. That creates considerable problems when high-risk category A prisoners are being held on remand in the same establishment—as was the case with the two who escaped yesterday. There are two secure units in Brixton, but the men managed to escape when they were in transit from one part of the prison to another. That is why I specifically asked all prison governors immediately to review the situations in their prisons. The problem does not arise in a dispersal prison, but it does in prisons where there are remand prisoners.
Mr. Michael Shersby: My right hon. Friend's initiative in commissioning an immediate inquiry is welcome. Is it normal practice for visitors to Brixton prison to be adequately searched, given that Brixton contains high-risk category A prisoners? Will my right hon. Friend invite Judge Tumim to consider whether such prisoners should still be allowed to attend acts of collective worship, or whether it would not be more satisfactory for them to be provided with facilities allowing them individual acts of worship, bearing in mind other prison disturbances in the past year?
Mr. Baker: In certain instances, going to chapel has provided an opportunity for prisoners to engage in activities other than spiritual devotion. I have therefore asked all prison governors immediately to examine whether the religious service can be provided in the secure units themselves. That is a sensible suggestion. My hon. Friend asked about visits. All visitors have to be cleared under special arrangements. Their identities have to be verified by the police, and visits are subject to close supervision. Visitors are not allowed to take any hand luggage to the visit, and they are screened by a metal detector. The inmate is searched before each visit, usually

655
a rub search, and he is strip-searched after each visit. The visit is supervised by two prison officers who remain in the same room within sight and hearing.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Home Secretary impress upon all concerned the damaging effect on the morale of the police and the security services whose members risk their lives to put behind bars ruthless men who, when they get out or are let out, quickly revert to their murderous activity?
Mr. Baker: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I think that the general feeling in the country is of considerable annoyance and anger that this breach of security has led to the escape of two suspected terrorists.
Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will give all possible assistance to the police and security services in their efforts to capture these two criminals? Further charges relating to yesterday's incident and not to what these two men may have been arrested for before seem likely. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the publication of Judge Tumim's report will not be delayed and changes in security arrangements held up because of any case against these two men?
Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was careful in my description to the House not to identify which of the prisoners was engaged in which action, because it is possible that criminal charges will be laid when these two men are apprehended.
Mr. Alan Williams: Since these men were outside the secure unit yesterday, can the Minister clarify an earlier answer and say whether that was normal on a Sunday for those two men? He said that the secure unit was fully up to its establishment of prison officers. Rather differently, he said that in the rest of the prison 150 officers were on duty. Is 150 the establishment figure and, if not, how much is it short of establishment?
Mr. Baker: Yesterday another nine or 10 officers should have been on duty in the rest of the prison. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the complement for what is called the A secure group was up to strength and that the number needed to escort category A prisoners was also up to strength yesterday.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prison officers in this country have better wages and terms and conditions than prison officers anywhere else in Europe? Instead of complaining about underfunding would it not be better for the Prison Officers Association to consider whether its members acted competently in this matter?
Mr. Baker: That is really not a matter for me. I think that it is a matter for the inquiry under Judge Tumim, who will clearly wish to identify the way in which a small firearm and bullets could be smuggled into a prison and used by the two prisoners in their escape.
I confirm my hon. Friend's general remarks about prison officers. I again remind the House that in the past three years we have increased the number of prison officers by more than 4,000 which is the largest ever increase in
656
prison officers. Some 2,500 prison officers are currently being trained, which is the largest ever number undergoing training. That shows our determination and commitment properly to protect the public.
Mr. John Cartwright: In the light of yesterday's events, does the Home Secretary accept that my constituents will not be exactly overjoyed to hear that high-risk prisoners are to be moved to Belmarsh? Having visited that prison, however, will the Home Secretary confirm my view that high-risk prisoners are likely to be a great deal more secure there than at Brixton? Furthermore, is it normal for high-risk prisoners on terrorist charges to be allowed to associate with each other to the extent that they can concoct an escape plot of this sort? If that is the case, will that matter also be examined by the inquiry?
Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that matter will be looked at by the inquiry. As I said earlier, the disposition of prisoners around a particular prison, once they have been allocated to it, is entirely the governor's responsibility. Belmarsh is a very secure prison. That is why we have decided to bring forward the opening date of the secure unit so that high risk category A prisoners can be moved from Brixton at the earliest possible time.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is grotesque for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to come here with a bellyful of outrage when he has consistently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and when both he and his party are pledged to repeal it?
Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. The right hon. Gentleman and his party refused to vote for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. They also never funded the prison service or the police service properly when they were in office. The right hon. Gentleman's outrage is entirely bogus.
Mr. Ken Eastham: The Home Secretary reported today on what took place on a Sunday. May I remind him that the last serious prison incident, which was at Strangeways, also took place on a Sunday? Does that point in any way to an insufficiency of officers and personnel on duty on Sundays? Were any lessons learnt from the Strangeways inquiry? Will the Home Secretary also comment on the fact that it is now claimed that there has been no random search at Brixton prison since 1987?
Mr. Baker: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. Both prisoners were searched thoroughly on 28 June and 3 July, and on 3 July their cells were changed. I fully recognise that there is a problem with high-risk security A prisoners when they go to chapel on Sundays. That is why I have asked governors throughout the country with high-risk security A prisoners to examine whether church services, if prisoners wish to attend them, should be provided in the prisoners' own secure living quarters.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Would it be fair to assume that shooting an innocent motorist is a criminal offence and not a political offence? Therefore, should the fugitives find their way to the Irish Republic,

657
may we assume that there will be no difficulty whatever in bringing them back to this country under the extradition procedures?
Mr. Baker: The short answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: As previous inspectors' reports have suggested that weekends are a time of high risk, can the Home Secretary state categorically whether staffing arrangements and levels in Brixton and other prisons are the same at weekends as during the week, or even increased to take account of that danger—or is there a reduction in staffing levels at weekends?
Mr. Baker: The practice for many years in all our prisons has been to reduce staff at weekends because there is less circulation of prisoners, education does not take place, and workshops are not open.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that the Opposition spend most of their time worrying about prisoners' rights rather than about their own responsibility to the public? Does he agree that if these prisoners had been left in their cells over the weekend, without the right to have visitors or the right to a so-called church visit, we should not be discussing today what happened at Brixton?
Mr. Baker: If that had been the case, there would have been tremendous complaints to the Home Secretary about what was available to prisoners. There is no doubt whatever about that. A balance has to be struck but, as I made clear to the director-general of the prison service today, the first responsibility of the prison system and of the governors is to ensure that prisoners are held in secure custody.
Mr. David Winnick: Would the Home Secretary be good enough to answer my question if he can? What does he feel that Sir Thomas Dugdale would have done if he had been Home Secretary? Given all the incompetence of which we have learnt today, does the Home Secretary feel that he has some responsibility for what happened?
Mr. Baker: I accept responsibility, as the Home Secretary must. As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the Home Secretary is responsible for policy in prison matters. The administration, development and running of the prisons are the responsibility of the director-general and of individual prison governors.
Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the understandable concern and shock felt at this news, which will partly be reduced by the news that there is to be a full and published report. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be ridiculously premature and facile to apportion blame at this stage, in advance of that report?
Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. Already this morning, I have received reports from people who witnessed what occurred in the prison. I specifically did not refer to those reports, which do not confirm many of the points and allegations which have been made. It would be appropriate for Judge Tumim's inquiry to investigate because, as I said, criminal charges are a possibility. One
658
should not, therefore, be too quick to apportion blame or to say that certain events took place when there are question marks over them.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary make sure that Judge Tumim's report is published before the House goes into recess around 25 July, so that we have an opportunity to discuss its contents? Would not pressure on the prison authorities at Brixton as a remand prison be relieved if some of the prisoners on remand were brought speedily to trial? There are still a large number of people there who have served longer on remand than they would have served in gaol if they had gone to court and been convicted of crimes.
Mr. Baker: In this case, the evidence was being accumulated in order to bring a prosecution. In general, I agree that it would be better to telescope the time spent on remand. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are considering various changes in procedure which will accelerate that process.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is something of a red herring to complain about a shortage of prison officers at weekends, as some Opposition Members did, when in reality those men would not have escaped if they had not had a gun? It is important for the inquiry to get to the bottom of that security lapse and find out how the gun came to be smuggled into the prison. Will my right hon. Friend also ask the inquiry to look into the effectiveness of the razor wire, over which the men were apparently able to climb without injury?
Mr. Baker: I am sure that that point will feature strongly in Judge Tumim's report and that he will investigate how it was possible for that event to occur. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that a wheelbarrow was used, but the evidence that I received this morning shows that such a device was not used in the escape. Reference was made to the proximity of dog kennels to the wall, and the inquiry will certainly investigate that.
Mr. John Fraser: As the hon. Member for a constituency adjoining the prison, I remind the Home Secretary that he has had the advantage not only of Judge Tumim's report but of an earlier report on the escape of two suspected serious terrorists when, in similar circumstances, Lord Whitelaw assured us that such incidents would never occur again. How much personal responsibility does the Home Secretary accept for this disgraceful incident?
Mr. Baker: I am not trying to shirk any personal responsibility. As Home Secretary, I am responsible for the prison service. It is right that Judge Tumim's inquiry should establish what happened to ensure that such events do not recur.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Have not the Government employed increasing numbers of prison officers in recent years to provide an increasing number of searches? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there will be regular searches not only of the cells of category A prisoners but of the prisoners themselves so as to lessen the possibility of such incidents recurring?
Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that high-risk prisoners are searched very frequently. As I said, whenever they have had a visit—a prisoner on remand has the right to a visit once a day—they are strip-searched. Their cells are also searched, and high-risk category A prisoners are moved from cell to cell randomly and at short intervals.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I commend my right hon. Friend not only for the speed with which the inquiry is to report, but on the manner of his statement? Does he agree that, although staffing levels are properly a subject that the inquiry will wish to consider, it is the height of irresponsibility for those who ought to know better to jump to the easy conclusion that staffing levels must have been responsible, even though such conclusions may be politically convenient for them?
Mr. Baker: It is quite clear that staffing levels are not one of the factors involved in this incident. Judge Tumim will explore all the circumstances to try to throw light on how it was possible for a small firearm and bullets to be smuggled into a prison and to be used by prisoners in their escape, which is unacceptable not only to me but to the House and to the country.
Mr. Hattersley: I note that the Home Secretary does at least accept responsibility for policy matters. Why has he been so dilatory in responding to the Woolf recommendation and the Tumim recommendation about weekend staffing? When will he be ready to make recommendations on an issue which, as he has already been warned, causes increased danger on Saturdays and Sundays?
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman also said that I had not interpreted the findings of the Tumim inquiry correctly with regard to Belmarsh. We are discussing weekend staffing with the Prison Officers Association. At present, there are disputes about manning levels at about 40 prisons. Given the tremendous increase in prison officers and the fact that we are currently training 2,500, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the Prison Officers Association—if it listens to him, which I doubt—to engage in the disputes procedure to resolve those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked me earlier by saying that I had not acted quickly enough on Judge Tumim's recommendations in relation to Belmarsh. I refer him to section 6.11 of the report, which states:
"The need for high risk category A inmates to be held in Brixton should be re-examined in the light of (a) the opening of Belmarsh and prevailing security arrangements."
That is exactly what I have done.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International
4.12 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Bank of Credit and Commerce group.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is today attending a meeting of the Economic and Finance Council in Brussels, which is discussing a number of issues that occupied the recent meeting of the European Council. He has asked me to give his apologies to the House for being unable to make this statement himself.
The Bank of England, along with the authorities in a number of other jurisdictions, took action on Friday to secure control of the assets of the Bank of Credit and Commerce group.
The BCC group operated in this country through a Luxembourg incorporated company, BCCI SA, which had a number of branches in the United Kingdom, mostly in the London area. On Friday, the directorate of the Luxembourg Monetary Institute took action under Luxembourg law to secure control of the assets of the company. This was done in consultation with other regulatory authorities concerned, which have taken appropriate action against other subsidiaries and operations of the BCC group.
The effect of these actions was to place the assets and liabilities of the entities concerned under the protective control of the supervisory authorities or of the courts, as appropriate, of each country. In the United Kingdom, following a petition made by the Bank of England, the United Kingdom courts have appointed Touche Ross as provisional liquidator. The effect of this action is that deposits with the United Kingdom branches of BCCI SA are frozen.
The action taken by the regulatory authorities resulted from prima facia evidence, contained in a report commissioned by the Bank of England and recently received, of widespread fraud in a number of jurisdictions stretching back over a number of years. The action was taken in order to safeguard the interests of depositors, other bona fide creditors and the shareholders of the BCC group. A copy of a press notice issued by the Bank explaining its action has been placed in the House Library.
The principal supervisory authorities are seeking the co-operation of other authorities in other countries in which BCCI has been in business, with a view to securing a rundown of the group. They are seeking co-operation to identify and take appropriate action against those responsible for any wrongdoing. Relevant papers have been passed to the Serious Fraud Office.
Within the United Kingdom, the immediate effect of the supervisors' action is that United Kingdom depositors cannot withdraw their funds. Sterling deposits in the United Kingdom branches are covered by the deposit protection fund to the extent of 75 per cent. of deposits up to £20,000—that is, up to£15,000 per depositor. The Bank of England has issued a notice explaining the position of United Kingdom depositors and the operation of the funds. A copy has been placed in the House Library. The

661
deposit protection fund will be activated as soon as a winding-up order is made in the United Kingdom courts. Claims will be processed as quickly as possible.
The Bank held a meeting with the main high street banks and the liquidator this morning. As a result, arrangements are being set in place for the liquidators to aid the banks in their assessment of applications from small businesses for alternative facilities. Although that assessment is a commercial matter for the banks, I hope that they will respond as sympathetically as possible. The banks are also urgently discussing with the liquidators whether comparable arrangements can be made for small depositors who find themselves in immediate difficulties. In addition, Touche Ross is willing for six weeks to give free advice to any small business affected by the BCCI winding-up.
Under the Banking Act 1987, the Bank of England has sole responsibility for authorising and supervising banks and the Government have no locus in its decisions. The Government were, however, kept fully informed of the proposed action and it has our full support.
Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that the most disturbing feature of the whole affair is that the system of regulation which applied to the BCC group appears to have failed with serious losses for individuals—and companies—who were the customers? In a world in which, following the deregulation of the 1980s, money is permitted to flow in colossal amounts across continents and frontiers, is it satisfactory for financial institutions to be able to minimise scrutiny by locating parts of their operations in jurisdictions in which regulation is deliberately less rigorous? Will the Government pursue at international level through, for example, the Bank for International Settlements and the European Community, the need to make supervisory controls more effective so that a sad outcome is made less likely in future?
On the bank's depositors, do the Government consider that the deposit protection scheme is sufficient, bearing in mind the limitation that only 75 per cent. of the first £20,000 lost can be recovered? Is it not anomalous that the investors' compensation scheme pays far more generous compensation—the first £30,000 in full and 90 per cent. of losses between £30,000 and £50,000?
Can the Minister explain why the audits of the bank do not appear to have revealed the problems that are now apparent? Should there not be a tightening of the audit requirements in respect of banks, for which the regulatory system is rendered less effective by international complications? Can the Minister tell the House when the Bank of England first became aware of the serious problems at the bank? Can he assure us that it is not necessary for a complaint to be made before action is taken?
Does the Minister appreciate that many firms, especially among our enterprising Asian community, which have already had to face the ravages of the recession may now be put out of business through no fault of their own? Given that it was not their fault that regulation failed in this case, what action do the Government propose to take to help those businesses to survive the disaster that has befallen them? Does the Minister appreciate that it is impossible for people to run a business if they have lost the bank that they used and they do not have another bank to
662
provide the facilities? Surely it is possible for the Government to do more than ask the liquidators to advise the banks to accept applications from those business men.
Is not the situation near to a disaster in many Asian business communities? Is it not necessary for the Government to take emergency action, perhaps in co-operation with the Bank of England and the clearing banks, and to give emergency assistance to the businesses? The most important facilities that they need are banking facilities so that they can carry on. Does the Minister appreciate that it is not enough to get free advice from Touche Ross for six weeks? Something more substantial is needed to help businesses, especially Asian businesses, in this community, which are in difficulty through no fault of their own and which are responsible for many thousands of jobs, especially in our inner cities.
Mr. Maples: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be quite so dismissive of the generous offer of Touche Ross to provide advice about making alternative banking arrangements to businesses that are in difficulties. The Bank of England and the liquidator are trying to put in place arrangements to help businesses in that position. This morning the Bank of England and the liquidator had a meeting with the nine major high street banks to discover what can be done.
Although there are technicalities which must be overcome—I hope that it will be possible to overcome them—the banks are trying to put together a scheme whereby if a business which is in difficulties and is trying to establish alternative banking facilities approaches one of the nine major banks and releases the liquidator from the requirements of confidentiality, the liquidator will then act as quickly as possible to make available to that bank details of how the business has conducted its affairs with BCCI and their status, and generally provide a substantial amount of information.
As to whether the other bank would be prepared to take on that business, we must bear in mind that different firms may be in different positions. They could be borrowers, have deposits with the bank or simply be seeking alternative banking facilities. However, in all those circumstances, I hope that the arrangements will be brought to fruition. If they are, they would help to deal with the serious problems described by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there were problems with the way in which the group was organised, that international co-operation was necessary to supervise international groups and that the system of regulation has not performed as well as it might have done. He also wanted to know when the Bank of England first knew about the problem.
As we all know, there had been rumours surrounding BCCI for a very long time, but there had been no hard evidence—of which the Bank has said it is aware—of any reason for it to withdraw its licence. The evidence of very serious fraud came to light about 10 days ago in the Price Waterhouse report, about which there has been a good deal of publicity in the newspapers. The Bank acted extremely quickly after that.
There is certainly difficulty with international supervision; that is what the current efforts on the second banking directive and co-ordination of those matters at Bank of International Settlements level is about. However,

663
the Bank of England played the leading role in putting together the international college of supervisors which for the past two years supervised BCCI's affairs.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that the deposit protection scheme was insufficient. The level of compensation under that scheme was set by the House deliberately to protect small depositors and not to give a carte blanche Government guarantee on all deposits. It would be extremely expensive and somewhat foolhardy from a prudential point of view if the Government were to give very extensive guarantees. The scheme guarantees everyone 75 per cent. of their money up to a maximum of £15,000 and that can be said adequately to cover small depositors. Larger depositors are, of course, in a very unfortunate position and they will have to wait for the outcome of the liquidation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the audit procedures. There are difficulties in auditing an international group like this, but the Bank of England took the lead in insisting a few years ago that the group should have one auditor, and that has played a large role in bringing the problems to light.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the protection fund does not cover commercial deposits? As it is not a British bank, will my hon. Friend confirm that the contributory institutions will all be liable to contribute to the fund, unlike the situation under the Banking Act 1987? Will he publish a list of those in the Official Report? In light of the overall situation, will he keep the House informed?
Mr. Maples: I will certainly continue to keep the House informed if there are any developments about which I think the House would be interested to hear.
The deposit protection fund covers all sterling deposits with the bank up to a maximum compensation of £15,000. It covers non-resident sterling deposits and commercial sterling deposits, but it does not cover resident non-sterling deposits. As I understand it, the deposit protection board can raise the necessary money either by borrowing it or through a levy on the other licensed banks in the United Kingdom which would share that in proportion in some way to their size. It would hope to recover the bulk of any money disbursed from the liquidation in which it would be an unsecured creditor.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister said that the major purpose of the Bank of England's action was to safeguard the interests of depositors. Clearly the action that has been taken and the compensation available will not be sufficient to safeguard the interests of depositors. It is not simply a case of individual savings being limited to compensation of £15,000. Small businesses, which clearly use sums of money in excess of that, will face grievous losses. A substantial part of the Bangladesh cyclone relief fund had been deposited in that bank and that is now to be limited to £15,000 compensation. Will the Minister again look at the regulations in the Banking Acts 1979 and 1987 and see whether they can be adjusted to a more realistic level to take account of the undoubted needs and problems of thousands of people, savers and small business men, particularly in the Asian community?
Mr. Maples: I said that that action had been taken to protect the interests of depositors, because, if it had been allowed to continue and serious fraud had continued, the interests of the creditors of the bank would have been seriously endangered. The action protects their interests.
As to small businesses, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that many of them have a very serious problem. That is why I outlined the arrangements which the Bank of England, the liquidator and the main high street banks are trying to put in place to help those people. I said that I hope that the banks would look at that sympathetically. I outlined what the arrangements would be, but there are some technicalities which must be overcome. I hope that they will be overcome very shortly.
On the adequacy of payments under the deposit protection arrangements, I said that they were deliberately set by the House in such a way as to protect small depositors. It would be very unwise if the House and the Government were to underwrite at public expense all the depositors with a bank in the United Kingdom. That could be very expensive indeed. Depositors of large amounts of money should perhaps be aware that they will not qualify for compensation whereas small retail depositors will.
Sir Peter Tapsell: While no one, I think, would suggest that deposit protection arrangements should be unlimited, will my hon. Friend give further thought to whether they are sufficient at a level of £15,000, bearing in mind that the United States equivalent is $100,000? Also, is the Abu Dhabi investment authority following these matters very closely and has it said whether it accepts any responsibility in view of the fact that it is the controlling shareholder of the bank?
Mr. Maples: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the adequacy or otherwise of the deposit protection fund, but I can only reiterate what I have already said twice. The level was deliberately set by the House in such a way as to offer protection to small depositors. One should think very carefully before extending that on a much wider basis. I do not think that we would want to be in the position that the United States is in, with lavish deposit insurance which effectively underwrites any banking activities.
The major shareholder has played a constructive role in the bank over the past few years and has injected capital on several occasions. The Bank of England is, of course, in contact with it, and it expects tonight to meet representatives of the shareholders, the Government of Abu Dhabi and the central bank of the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Earlier this afternoon, I met members of staff and investors outside the Bank of England. They were desperately worried because they had not been kept informed of the decisions that had been taken. Will the Minister urge the Governor of the Bank of England to keep the staff and investors informed of precisely what is happening? Will he look also at the emergency relief procedure? The procedure that he outlined will take several weeks. I met a person who believed that his life savings had gone because of the decision of the Bank of England. Frankly, in my view, he was potentially suicidal. What action are the Government proposing to take to help such people on an emergency basis?

665
Will the Minister confirm whether the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, together with the federal reserve bank and the Bank of England were, until very recently, negotiating the possibility of launching a new bank? How was that possible at the same time as an investigation was going on into BCCI?
Mr. Maples: Negotiations have been taking place for some time between the supervisors and the shareholders to see whether the bank could be reconstructed in an acceptable way, but that was before the evidence of the serious frauds came to light. In the opinion of the Bank of England, it is now quite clear that no such reconstructed bank could possibly be acceptable to the supervisors involved. Therefore, that line of thought is no longer being pursued.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the staff. The liquidator met the staff at 2.30 pm today and hopes to be able to pay them last week's wages as soon as possible. For the time being, all those people are still employed by BCCI. The liquidator will clearly need to keep some of them on, but the others will be entitled to whatever they would have been entitled to under their terms of redundancy if the bank had not been liquidated. I understand that employees are preferred creditors for overdue wages and for some, if not all, of their redundancy rights. Therefore, although there is obviously considerable concern and uncertainty among the employees, at the end of the day, they are likely to be looked after as well as can be expected in the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about small depositors, as well as about small businesses. The bank is attempting to put in place similar arrangements for small depositors to those that I have described for small businesses. That issue was discussed at the same meeting with the high street banks. If a BCCI depositor gives the confidentiality release to one of those banks—so that BCCI can inform the new bank of the size of the deposit and whether it was secured in any way against a loan or was a free deposit—it is hoped that it will be possible to construct arrangements under which part of the compensation which the depositor could expect to receive from the deposit protection fund could be advanced to the depositor if he or she is in serious need of funds. Again, there are considerable technicalities to be overcome. 1 t is a big and difficult job—
Mr. Vaz: How long?
Mr. Maples: 1 shall deal with the question of how long in a moment.
The scale of the problem means that it is a big and difficult job. We do not know how many depositors there are, but as there are certainly several thousand, it will be a substantial job. Again, I hope that the banks will look at that matter sympathetically and that it will be possible to construct such a scheme.
On the question of a timetable, the deposit protection board cannot be activated until a winding-up order has been made by the courts. The moment that the Bank has a provisional winding-up order, there is a statutory minimum period of 15 days before the application can be made, although an expedited hearing has been applied for. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we and the Bank will do everything that we can to ensure that that hearing takes place as soon as possible. Immediately the hearing is held,
666
the deposit protection board will announce the procedures for making claims and, again, we shall try to ensure that the claims are processed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Patrick Ground: In conjunction with the Department of Employment, will my hon. Friend look into the issue of work permits for this and other foreign banks in this country? Will he pay particular heed to the representations that have been made on the subject by employees in the banking industry?
Mr. Maples: I am not quite sure what point my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to make, but I shall ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment are aware of what he said. My understanding is that foreign employees who have work permits from banks are in exactly the same position as foreign employees on work permits from any other organisation. I am sure that they will be treated similarly.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister said that there have been rumours about BCCI for some time. Has it slipped his mind that BCCI was successfully prosecuted in the United States for laundering drug money on a massive scale? Does he accept that, while reservations about BCCI might have been common knowledge in City establishments, they could not have been known by the small investors and the small business men, many of whom are Asian, who put their money into that bank in good faith? Will he now answer the question that he was asked earlier about the Bangladeshi cyclone relief fund? Does he accept that the arrangements that he has outlined for helping small business men are not adequate and that the regulatory bodies have failed and now owe a responsibility to the people who are facing bankruptcy because of mismanagement and misaccounting?
Mr. Maples: I am sorry that I omitted to deal with the Bangladeshi cyclone relief fund earlier. It is in exactly the same position as any other depositor. It will receive compensation—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh, no.") Well, I do not think that it would be right for the Bank of England or the Government to have to pick and choose between the relative merits of different depositors. I understand from what I have read in the newspapers that the sum involved is about £50,000. The fund will be entitled to £15,000 compensation and will then rank as an unsecured creditor, along with the others, in the liquidation. It is far too early to have any idea what, if anything, those depositors will receive, but I hope that there will be some payment for them out of the liquidation.
I turn now to the question whether the Bank of England should have known about this matter earlier. The hon. Lady cited the case of the two people who worked at a branch in Florida and were prosecuted. Under American law, companies are vicariously liable for the criminal activities of their employees in a way that they are not in this country. On that basis, the bank was also prosecuted and pleaded guilty. As I understand it, there is no connection with those who are responsible for running the bank's affairs in the United Kingdom, so the information was not thought sufficient for taking the matter further. I also point out that those convictions took place at the beginning of last year—not all that long ago.
Sir Peter Hordern: Was it wise to allow the bank to open retail branches? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the degree of co-operation among European central bankers on the matter? Should there not be a full inquiry?
Mr. Maples: I am satisfied with the degree of co-operation among European central banks—that is what has brought the matter to its present conclusion. When the supervisory European authorities—some of them central banks, some of them different authorities—became aware of the problem, they acted quickly, within a week, to achieve the result that we now have.
We can discuss whether the bank should have been allowed to open so many branches, but when it started business it was authorised in Luxembourg and, as I understand it, the Bank of England had no powers to stop it opening branches here. Under subsequent legislation, the extent of the bank's activities was restricted because it was felt that the group was too complex and was opening branches too fast.
My hon. Friend asked a third question, but I cannot remember what it was.
Sir Peter Hordern: A full inquiry.
Mr. Maples: Our first priority is to get an orderly rundown of the group's affairs under way. Further investigations are being carried out by the Bank and presumably considerable further investigations will be undertaken by the liquidator. As I have said, the papers have been passed to the Serious Fraud Office, which will investigate the possibility of criminal prosecutions. It is far too early to say whether we need to go further.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Minister aware that, when the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee visited the bank regulators, including the Governor of the Bank of England, four or five years ago, I told them that, if they looked into BCCI's books, they would find a financial cesspit, only to be met with the reply, "You are aware, Mr. Sedgemore, that this is not a British bank." Does that not suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with bank supervision?
Mr. Maples: I do not know what facts the hon. Gentleman has to back up that assertion, but if he had facts and he presented them—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is in the habit of making unsubstantiated assertions in the House and I should not be surprised if he did so at the Bank of England as well. I am sure that if he had had substance to back up his allegation, the Bank of England supervisors would have investigated.
The situation was complicated because BCCI operated in several countries, but with regard to the operation in England, the Bank of England had the necessary powers to act. As soon as it was satisfied that it had the evidence to justify taking such action, it took it.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that two questions out of many arise? One concerns the deposit protection scheme. Bearing in mind the fact that many small traders and depositors are at risk, if the money can be reclaimed later, should we not, as as matter of urgency, at least help those people in the short term?
The second question is about the problem caused by the fact that any bank that opens in Europe under European
668
regulations can open a branch here at any time and at its will. As the European schemes are all different, before we allow foreign banks to open here, which means that money can come and go without the Bank of England knowing where it is, should we not make certain that all our regulations are the same? Otherwise, fraud can take place, as we have seen time after time.
Mr. Maples: The problem in this case went well beyond Europe, but part of the second banking co-ordination directive, to which I believe my hon. Friend refers, whereby a bank authorised in one EC country can open branches in others, aims to ensure that common standards of prudential supervision are established. There is already close co-operation among the supervisory authorities and my hon. Friend is right that it is important to ensure that that part of the arrangements is in place, to ensure common supervisory standards.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems of small customers—both businesses and depositors. I have described the arrangements that the Bank of England, the liquidator and the high street banks are trying to put into operation. There is no point in repeating what I said, but I hope that those arrangements will be possible. If they are, it will be a considerable help to those two groups of customers. The deposit protection board will be activated very shortly—as soon as the winding-up order is obtained.
I cannot give a timetable for that. I have said that it would be difficult—although perhaps not impossible—to have a hearing within two weeks, but I certainly hope that the deposit protection board arrangements will be activated very shortly.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have some dates? Can the Minister tell us when Price Waterhouse was first aware of irregularities, whether the Department of Trade and Industry was informed and on what date, and on what date the Bank of England was first informed of irregularities?
Mr. Maples: The Bank of England obtains information in respect of banking supervision which it then has to treat with considerable confidentiality. It is not open to the Bank of England simply to give the information out to people unless there is legitimate cause, and the person receiving the information then becomes subject to the same sanction. As far as I know, therefore, there was no communication to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the information was received. As I said, the Bank of England received Price Waterhouse's report disclosing the extensive fraud at the end of the week before last—about 10 days ago.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have more than 144 Lords amendments to debate this afternoon. I therefore ask hon. Members to ask brief questions and not to repeat questions that have been asked before.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Has it not been apparent for some time that those who deposited money with the bank needed their heads testing? It is only because the Government changed the laws governing banking in 1987 that the Bank of England could investigate and close down BCCI and that the auditors were able to deliver important information about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, so far from our needing to increase the

669
compensation due to depositors, the sum is quite adequate for the large range of small depositors, and that the larger depositors should have known better?
Mr. Maples: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that there is any reason to believe that the Bank's supervisory arrangements and powers under the 1987 Act are inadequate.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What can the Minister say to the House about the link between BCCI and Barlow Clowes on which, as he will know, there has been some sharp public comment? When did his Department and/or the Department of Trade and Industry know of that obviously very disturbing link, and also the Bank of England?
Mr. Maples: These are two different cases. What unites them is that large amounts of money were stolen in both instances. I do not think that there will ever be a system of bank supervision that will stop sophisticated frauds taking place. One hopes that one can limit the incidence of frauds by trying to ensure that only suitable people run banks, that their affairs are properly audited and that proper supervisory powers are in place. I am afraid, however, that it will not be possible completely to eliminate fraud, and in this case the fraud was extremely sophisticated and complex.
Sir Ian Stewart: Having introduced the Banking Act 1987, may I, through my hon. Friend, commend the Bank of England on the way in which it conducted its role on the international scene in bringing this unfortunate matter to a head? Does my hon. Friend recognise, however, that there are genuine concerns about the fact that a bank whose management and business have widely been known to be in a mess for such a long time should have been able to remain in business for so long?
Will my hon. Friend look again at the provisions of the banking legislation which make it automatic that authorisation in one member state of the European Community is effective in every other member state—irrespective of the fact that, in this case, it was clear that the authorisation procedures in Luxembourg were inadequate to deal with the bank?
Mr. Maples: Under the second banking co-ordination directive—as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)—it will be important to ensure that those common standards of supervision are in place. That is an essential ingredient of the arrangements and I do not think that it would be satisfactory simply to allow branch banking on the basis of a home country passport unless we were all satisfied with each other's standards of supervision.
I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about the conduct of the Bank of England in this matter are passed to it, and I am sure that those concerned will be happy to hear them.
As to my hon. Friend's strictures on the way in which the bank has operated in the past, I must point out that, although there has been a good deal of rumour, there has not been very much fact, and it is not possible for the Bank of England to operate on anything other than evidence. If the Bank decides to exercise the draconian powers conferred on it in the Banking Act 1987 to put a bank into liquidation or revoke its licence, its decisions are subject to
670
appeal to a banking appellate body and it has to be able to justify its decision by reference to hard evidence. The Bank acted as soon as it felt that it had that evidence.
Mr. Bob Cryer: But is the Minister telling us that anyone can come to Britain with a bank from Luxembourg and rip off depositors without any intervention from the Bank of England? As it has become clear from comments in the Chamber that a large number of people had informed the Bank of England, the Bank of England must have been aware of BCCI's shortcomings, so why was no action taken? Does the Minister agree that it would be handy if the depositors who are being short-changed as a result of this fraudulent operation sued the accountants—whose attention the complexity of the fraud apparently escaped because of their incompetence or complicity?
Mr. Maples: That is a travesty of the facts. It is not for me to comment on the accountants' role in the matter. I am sure that they are more than capable of defending themselves—and no doubt if the hon. Gentleman repeats his remarks outside the House, he will find that they do so.
On the question of small depositors being ripped off. I repeat that there are compensation arrangements, which. I have already described, under the deposit protection fund arrangements.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Peanuts.
Mr. Maples: I do not think that £15,000 is peanuts. Anything under £20,000 should be compensated. That decision was taken by the House deliberately to protect small depositors. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I do not think that it will ever be possible to institute supervisory arrangements that preclude any chance of complicated, sophisticated fraud taking place.
Mr. Iain Mills: May I ask my hon. Friend a simple question? As a result of the Bank of England's decision, the high street banks will have to provide large sums of money under the protection scheme. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that will not affect those banks' policies towards other small businesses that they fund locally in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not see why that business should be affected, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are communicated to those concerned. Any funds that the banks have to advance to the deposit protection board are recoverable out of any proceeds available on liquidation and one therefore hopes that funding that they might have to provide to the deposit protection fund will be by way of a loan. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's point is communicated to the Bank of England.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Liberal Democrats join hon. Members on both sides of the House who have urged the Minister to take further steps, particularly to help those small Asian businesses threatened by bankruptcy at present—not least because Lord Harris, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, raised his concern about BCCI on an unstarred question more than a year ago. No action proceeded from that. Does the Minister agree that, in view of the obvious failure to stop the fraud taking place and in view of the long timescale in which concerns were being expressed—particularly from

671
the Liberal Democrat Benches—it would be appropriate to have a full independent inquiry into why the Banking Act appears to have failed in this case?
Mr. Maples: The points made by Lord Harris in the other place were to do with the prosecutions in Florida of those involved in laundering drug money. Lord Harris made no suggestion that a complex fraud was taking place at the bank; that came to light only very recently.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was appropriate to have an inquiry. As I said, the priority at the money is to ensure that an orderly running down of the bank's affairs gets under way. That is the priority of the Bank, the liquidators and, I hope, the shareholders. The Bank, the liquidators and the Serious Fraud Office will be conducting further investigations. There is already a lot on the agenda and it is too early to decide whether it is necessary to do anything else.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry the BCCI insurance group, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of BCCI? As the DTI, a Government Department, is the regulator of that company, will he have some conversations with it, if he has not already done so, and seek to reassure the House that BCCI insurance group's investors—many of them, in all probability, the same people who had investments with the bank—are secure?
Mr. Maples: The Bank has communicated the grounds for its action to the DTI, and it is in that Department's power and up to it to decide what to do about the associated insurance company. I am sure that it will take whatever action is appropriate under its regulatory powers to protect the interests of customers and clients of that insurance company.
Mr. Peter Hain: This is a case in which the Government have watched with abject complacency while a group of shady bankers walked off with millions of pounds of ordinary people's money. Yet those who indulge in what in south Wales is called "hobbling"—topping up one's benefit with a tenner or so from gardening—immediately invite the attentions of fraud officers. Why are the Government so keen to regulate and prosecute the poor while they are so indifferent to a proper regulatory mechanism for the financial world?
Mr. Maples: It seems to me that we spend half our time in this House discussing regulatory arrangements for the financial world. What the hon. Gentleman describes is not recognisably the position with which we are dealing. I said that the papers had been passed to the Serious Fraud Office. It seems clear from the evidence that serious criminal offences have taken place. If so, the people responsible will undoubtedly be brought to justice.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that many successful businesses, including many in Leeds, which are financed by borrowings from BCCI, will now look to other bankers to set up new financial arrangements and will have heard with interest my hon. Friend's comments today? One problem they face is that their assets are charged to BCCI. Will my hon. Friend ensure
672
that the liquidator acts promptly to implement any change in banking arrangements made by those companies so that they can survive?
Mr. Maples: I said that certain technicalities had to be ironed out to enable the arrangements to be put into effect. The point that my hon. Friend made is one of them. It may be necessary for the new bank to advance to its new clients sufficient money to discharge the debt to BCCI and thereby have the security released so that it can be charged to the new bank. Alternatively, it may be necessary for the new bank to put a second charge on those assets. That is a technicality which needs to be ironed out I am sure that the liquidators and the banks will address that problem constructively. I hope that that will result in the type of action that I have described.
Mr. Alan Williams: In which year was the £15,000 figure felt to be adequate? What would be the equivalent real value of that money today? Will the Minister confirm that, if the figure was set in 1987, the figure now would be nearer £20,000 and that, if is was set in 1979, it would be over £30,000? As adequacy seems to be the criterion, would not it have been logical for the figure to reflect changes in the value of money?
Mr. Maples: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the date on which the figure was set. It would have been since and under the powers of the Banking Act 1987, so the figure would certainly have been set during the past four years. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know when it was set.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not the case that, although many people said that BCCI was dodgy, obtaining hard evidence was difficult? Is it not also the case that, of the 69 countries in which the bank operated, including its home base of Luxembourg, it was Britain which finally uncovered the serious fraud? Does not ultimate responsibility for helping depositors lie with, not British taxpayers but the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, whose large shareholding in BCCI instilled the confidence in it without which BCCI would not have been able to operate on the scale that it did?
Mr. Maples: I am sure that the Bank of England will be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the role that it played in the international supervision of the bank. It put together the college and, as he said, uncovered a fraud. The shareholder to whom my hon. Friend refers has a constructive record with the bank. He has injected additional capital on several occasions. As I said, representatives of the shareholders, the Bank of England, the liquidator, the Abu Dhabi Government and the United Arab Emirates central bank are meeting this evening. It remains to be seen what will come our of those discussions.
Dr. John Reid: May we return to the question of dates and in particular what the Minister knew and when? The Minister said that the report with some conclusions was presented 10 days ago. Can he confirm the statements made at the end of last week that there was hard evidence aroung the beginning of the year and, as we have heard today, suspicions and rumours for a considerable period before that? Can he tell us exactly when Price Waterhouse first alerted the Bank of England and/or the Department of Trade and Industry that there

673
were prima facie grounds for suspicion and an investigation? When was the first time that Price Waterhouse told either of those bodies?
Mr. Maples: There certainly were rumours such as the hon. Gentleman describes about BCCI, but few were substantiated by any fact.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Some of them were.
Mr. Maples: I will come to the point—[Interruption.] As far as I know, none of the rumours was substantiated by the sort of facts that would be required to enable the Bank of England to act. The facts which eventually came to light and the grounds on which the Bank has acted were evidence of a sophisticated and complex fraud which was not part of the rumours and which, by its nature, could not be evidence of rumour. A new officer of the bank told the Bank of England that she thought that there were some strange goings-on and unrecorded transactions in the bank at the beginning of this year. Very shortly afterwards, Price Waterhouse was asked by the Bank of England to conduct an investigation. As I said, it reported to the Bank of England about 10 or 12 days ago. The Bank acted within about eight days of receiving that report.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend may know that one of the unusual characteristics of this bank is its considerable international network of banking branches, notably in Africa, and that in some of those countries it is a large player in the local commercial banking market. Could he perhaps bring it to the attention of the Bank of England and the other international regulatory authorities that in winding up the institution they should do their utmost to avoid damage to growing private enterprise in such countries and to local economies?
Mr. Maples: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the Bank of England will also hear what he says. The lead liquidator is the liquidator of the holding company in Luxembourg—Touche Ross. The liquidators in the various other countries are—perhaps this is not a proper, technical, legal description—their agents. The Bank of England is fully occupied with looking after matters in Britain and with the depositors and customers of the business here, who were referred to in other questions. However, I am sure that the bank will have heard what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was it not a little more than rumours—to go back to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)? Was not the issue raised in questions from the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan? That should have alerted the authorities. Will the Minister clearly confirm that Price Waterhouse told the Bank at the beginning of the year? What did he mean in his answer to my hon. Friend when he referred to "strange goings-on"? Could he explain that phrase? If there were strange goings-on in the bank, is it not odd that there was such a lack of curiosity on the part of the Government?
Mr. Maples: I went on to say that there were unrecorded transactions. Immediately after that was reported, drastic action was taken which has resulted in the bank being put into liquidation.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware that BCCI appears on the Bank of England's list of approved banks for investment. Will he consider the position of the 10 local authorities which have substantial investments in the bank? What priority will be given to them when they require funds for local authority services?
Mr. Maples: One clearly appreciates and sympathises with the difficulties in which any depositors find themselves. However, I am afraid that, in the liquidation, large depositors such as the local authorities to which he referred will rank as unsecured creditors, alongside the other depositors. They will be entitled to £15,000 compensation from the deposit protection fund if they meet the relevant criteria. I hope that the liquidation will result in some pay-out to those depositors, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to make special arrangements for one group of depositors.
It would be invidious for the bank, the Government, or, for that matter, the liquidators to choose on some grounds of objective merit between categories of depositors. There are only two categories. There are small depositors who will receive perhaps the bulk of their money back—up to £15,000. Larger depositors will also receive £15,000, but for them it will represent a much smaller percentage of their deposit.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Don't this Government ever learn? In September 1984, a similar incident occurred with Johnson Matthey. Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), raised the matter. We raised the very question of whether auditors and accountants should act as whistle-blowers in order to let the people and the Government know about banks which were still touting for custom when they had almost gone down the pan. Yet here we are seven years later with a repeat exercise of almost the same thing that happened then. The truth is that this bank would not have been told by the Bank of England to stop trading if it had not been for the Americans—just like in the Guinness scandal—realising that it was uncomfortable and sensitive for them with the drugs scandal and Noriega and deciding to tell the British Government that they had better pull their finger out. That is the reason why the bank was closed.
Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman suggested at the time of the Johnson Matthey scandal that auditors should be allowed to blow the whistle on their clients, it must be one of the few constructive suggestions that he has made in the House. It must be of some satisfaction to him that his suggestion was acted on and that, in the Banking Act 1987, auditors were given the power to do exactly that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the questions on the statement I am sure that you noticed the repeated suggestion from my hon. Friends and Conservative Members that something major was wrong with the bank. I wonder how it is possible then that Conservative Members did not exert pressure on the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who has been an adviser to that bank for years?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day
  Road Traffic Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Road Traffic Bill
    Clause 5

      DISAPPLICATION OF SECTIONS 1 TO 3 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 FOR AUTHORISED MOTORING EVENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 15 after "be" insert "included among those"
      5 pm
      The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Chope: These are technical amendments to the clause which disapplies sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for authorised motoring events in public places.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

      After clause 19
      Lords amendment: No. 3, to insert the following new clause—Exception from requirement of third-party insurance—

      (".—(1) Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

      (2) In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third-party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for "£15,000" there shall be substituted "£500,000".

      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

      "(1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

      (1B) No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament." ")

      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment responds to concerns expressed in the House on behalf of the Motor Insurers Bureau—the guarantee fund, funded by the insurance industry—which provides for the victims of uninsured and untraced drivers.
      Ms. Joan Ruddock: I understand that this amendment is the Government's response to pressure from their Back Benchers who tabled amendments on Report, which were not debated.
      Have the Government sought simply to increase the sum of money required? It is not clear to us why the provisions should exist at all, and the Minister has not made it clear today. We believe that it would have been better to remove the provision altogether.
      Mr. Chope: The Government believe that it is reasonable to allow some organisations—for example, the Automobile Association—to place a deposit rather than have to take out a specific insurance for their risks. That has been the position since 1930, and there has not been a single occasion since when someone operating in that way
      676
      has not been able to meet his debts. That is the rationale behind the amendment. The sum has not been increased since 1930, and we believe that it is now time to increase it and to take powers to increase it further by affirmative order should that be necessary.
      Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We welcome the fact that the sum has been increased considerably and that powers will exist to increase it further. Given that undertaking, we will support the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 24

      INTERIM DISQUALIFICATION
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 22, leave out lines 6 to 14.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Chope: The amendment simply clarifies the effect of a period of interim disqualification on the length of disqualification which is ordered on sentence.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

    Clause 26

      PENALTY POINTS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO OFFENCES
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 23, line 31, after "offence" insert
      "in the last column of Part I"
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 81.
      Mr. Chope: These technical amendments result from the change to the penalty points attributable to offences that involve obligatory disqualifications.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 33

      CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 34, line 20, leave out ("75(6)(a)") and insert ("75(8)(a)").
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment corrects a drafting error.
      Question put and agreed to.

      Before Clause 34
      Lords amendment: No. 8, to insert the following new clause—Disabled persons' badges—

      (".—(1) Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below.

      (2) For subsections (2) and (3) there shall be substituted—

      "(2) A badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description resident in the area of the issuing authority for one or more vehicles driven by him or used by him as a passenger."

      (3) In subsection (4), the words "and any badge" onwards shall be omitted.

      (4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—

      "(4A) A badge issued under this section may be displayed only in such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed.

      (4B) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988) at a time when a badge of a form prescribed under this section is displayed on the vehicle is guilty of an offence unless the badge is issued under this section and displayed in accordance with regulations made under it.

      (4C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4B) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

      (5) In subsection (5), the words "and in the case" onwards shall be omitted.

      (6) In section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (wrongful use of disabled person's badge) for subsections (1) and (2) there shall be substituted—

      "(1) A person who at any time acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any provision of an order under this Act relating to the parking of motor vehicles is also guilty of an offence under this section if at that time—

      (a) there was displayed on the motor vehicle in question a badge of a form prescribed under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and

      (b) he was using the vehicle in circumstances where a disabled person's concession would be available to a disabled person's vehicle,

      but he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if the badge was issued under that section and displayed in accordance with regulations made under it.".")

      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will also be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 53, 92, 130 and 137.
      Mr. Chope: The amendment responds to concerns expressed in this place and in Committee in another place about the misuse of the orange badge scheme, particularly by able-bodied people. There is a problem in enforcing the existing offence, because section 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 depends upon the fraudulent use of a disabled person's parking concession. The amendment is intended to supplement the existing offence to enhance the deterrent effect.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: The orange badge scheme derives from clause 21 of my private Member's Bill which became law as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The scheme now benefits more than 1 million disabled people. For many of them the scheme has meant all the difference between seeing only their own four walls, day by day, and independent living worthy of the name.
      That there would be abuse of the scheme was argued when I first proposed it in 1970. My view then, as now, was that the scale of any abuse depends, to no small extent, on the severity of penalties for abusing the scheme and the effectiveness or otherwise of their enforcement.
      This important Lords amendment should lead to more effective enforcement of the penalties available for dealing with abuse. It should lead to fewer allegations of abuse and to an environment in which the benefits conferred by the
      678
      scheme can be developed and improved. The amendment is therefore one of very considerable importance and will be widely welcomed here as it was in another place.
      I pay tribute today to the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People on its work to secure the amendment, and also to the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, the Disabled Drivers Association and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation for their extremely well-informed briefing on the working of the scheme.
      Can the Minister tell the House when we shall be given an implementation date for the Government's proposed more extensive changes to the orange badge scheme, including the introduction of a passport-style badge? Is he aware of the very deep concern that has been caused by the growing practice of towing away disabled people's vehicles, even where no hazard is involved? Clamping of their vehicles is not allowed, but should the Minister not be acting urgently to stop the towing away of vehicles in cases where the disabled person can be left totally immobile on the street?
      In another place, an amendment was moved to end any linkage between the pay of traffic wardens and the number of tickets they issue. That amendment did not succeed, and it is now widely felt that, in consequence, linkage between pay and the number of tickets issued by a traffic warden has been given some legitimacy. What are the Minister's comments on this issue, which, as he will know, is of considerable importance to disabled people as to other drivers?
      Will the Minister also make it clear that the aim of public policy in regard to the scheme must not be to reduce the number of beneficiaries, but to ensure that there are sufficient penalties for abuse and the power to enforce them? Again, I welcome the action taken in the Lords, and pay tribute to all who have been concerned in framing the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on his part in introducing the orange badge scheme in the first place. As well as the committees that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I am sure that the House would also want to recognise the work of the Department of Transport statutory advisory committee to the Secretary of State, and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, its chairman Sir Peter Baldwin and committee members.
      About six years ago, I had the pleasure of travelling around the Netherlands with a civil servant, Neville Rees, who has done a great deal of work on the orange-badge scheme. I am sure that the House would wish him comfort in his present state of discomfort.
      The House would welcome a word from my hon. Friend the Minister about whether we can expect further action outside the legislation. We would also welcome his comments on the points raised on the new clause.
      As well as the problem of abuse, there is the problem that many people do not understand how vital it is that the orange badge should be issued to those who need it most. I hope that issuing authorities will not feel that they are doing anyone a favour by loosening the criteria for which an orange badge is designed. It is critical for those who cannot move more than about 50 m without it, and is not designed for those people for whom it will simply make shopping more convenient. If we reach the stage of

      679
      degradation when 5, 10 or 15 per cent. of the population can have a badge, its use to those who are virtually immobile, or who need a wheelchair to become mobile, becomes diminished.
      When the scheme was introduced, the problem of how to stop it becoming too slack or being abused was discussed. Without wishing to appear unsympathetic to those with other kinds of handicap, the orange badge means most to those who need to be driven as passengers or to drive themselves, to be as close as possible to their place of work or their shops or to visit people in other services or businesses.
      I hope that my remarks will be conveyed through my hon. Friend the Minister to the disabled transport unit of the Department and to those in the private and voluntary sectors who came together to make the Mobility road show at Crowthorne such a glorious success. The Department's response to the International Year of the Disabled and the way in which Ann Frye and her team have done so much are a tribute to the partnerships between the statutory and the voluntary, and the extra-statutory and the committed in the private sector. I also welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), whose work for the disabled has done a great deal to put the Conservative party on a par with the individual efforts of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who did so much when he was a Minister.
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I had the pleasure of moving several amendments for disabled organisations at the Committee stage, when I asked many questions about the rights of disabled badge owners on red routes. Will all disabled badge holders have the right to stop and park on existing red routes and those that will be introduced in the future? There is only one red route at present but I understand that more will be introduced. Will the orange badge become universal throughout the country? Some London boroughs, such as Westminster and Kensington, do not observe the scheme.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I should like to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about the importance of orange badges for disabled people who could not otherwise get out of their homes and carry on their work or participate in other activities in the community.
      The scheme's problems are caused by its success. There are now more than a million orange badge holders, and in my borough there are now 8,000. That represents 4 per cent. of the adult population, which is rather more than the figure of approximately 3 per cent. for the whole country, so the scheme seems to be more successful in Bolton than elsewhere. However, that brings its problems, and the people of Bolton are concerned about those who abuse the scheme and use the badges when they should not do so. In the past week, there has been a front page story in the newspaper about the concern felt in my area.
      I thoroughly agree that local authorities need to crack down much harder on that abuse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear to local authorities that they should act strongly, and give them more powers if necessary.
      680
      At a recent Motability scheme meeting, I was shocked to hear that junk shops in Blackpool have been selling bogus orange badges. That shows the extent to which the abuse is growing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into any abuse on that scale. It seems to be a sick joke that anyone should attempt to sell the badges in that way. One also hears of second-hand cars being sold for a higher price if there is an orange badge in the car.
      The best way to crack down on such abuse is to have a photograph in the orange badge. I was pleased to see a specimen of a new type of orange badge, which I understand that my hon. Friend intends to introduce. It will have a photograph inside it, which will stop people using it when it does not belong to them. Everyone to whom I have spoken about the new-style badge has said that it is very good, and I look forward to its introduction. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any reason for delaying its introduction further. If so, I hope that he can overcome any problems and introduce it as soon as possible.
      5.15 pm
      The restriction of the issue of orange badges presents many problems. It would be wrong simply to restrict them to those who receive a mobility allowance. It would reduce the numbers, because only 670,000 people now receive mobility allowance, but that number will increase with the new disability living allowance, under which there are two categories of mobility allowance. We must be careful how we restrict the number of badges issued.
      It is proposed that the present wording, which says that the badge should be issued to those who experience
      "very considerable difficulty in walking",
      should be changed to those who experience "extreme difficulty in walking". I presume that that still leaves a great deal of discretion to general practitioners in interpreting it. We must be careful not to restrict the badge in such a way that those who have a reasonable degree of movement will be prevented from going out and playing an active role in society.
      It is no use our saying that people can go out, if they are not in a fit state to go out anyway. Rather, those who can go out and make good use of their mobility should be encouraged to do so. Therefore, I do not support any draconian measure to limit orange badges to a small number of people. A year ago, there was an outcry when it was suggested that thalidomide victims should be denied orange badges. That shows that we must be careful how we interpret the measure.
      I received a note from a constituent who suggested that the issuing of orange badges should be linked to a computer index run by the registrar of deaths, so that, when people died, they would automatically have the orange badge removed. Otherwise, the deceased person's family may be tempted to continue to use it, or his or her car may be innocently sold with the orange badge still in it.
      Equally, people who have successful operations—for example, on their hips—may become fully mobile again but be reluctant to give up their badge. Although, in the first few months, they may feel unsure of the success of their operation, once it is clear that they are fully mobile, they should give up their orange badge and not be tempted to continue to use it.
      I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister pressing ahead with his proposals. I particularly look forward to his

      681
      new-style orange badge coming into effect, and hope that the scheme's success will continue to grow, but with some limit on the numbers.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to all those who have participated in this short debate for supporting the amendment. It is obvious that, if we are to have such a scheme, it must be properly enforced and those who try to avoid the regulations must be subject to deterrent penalties. That is the great virtue of the amendment.
      I share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the need to ensure that the scheme is not unduly restricted. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to reduce its scope. When he first introduced the scheme, he predicted that some 30,000 people would benefit, I understand that, at the end of last year, no fewer than 1,160,000 people were benefiting from it. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else must be delighted with that.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may remember that, in 1969–70, we were very uninformed about the numbers and needs of diabled people. I was arguing the case of the organisations of and for disabled people who wanted a national orange badge scheme. We appreciated that it would have to be phased in to ensure proper administration. I had no doubt that more than 30,000 people would ultimately benefit from what all the organisations of and for disabled people now regard as an important aid to independent living.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining that. I am not sure whether he was predicting that more than 1 million people would benefit from the scheme, but that is certainly the position today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to a distinguished member of the Department of Transport, Neville Rees. I saw Neville last week; he is as well as can be expected in the circumstances and is enjoying reading the latest best seller, "Gridlock", an appropriate title for someone working in the Department of Transport to read.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to red routes, as he did several times in Committee. There are no concessions involving the red lines themselves, but, as a result of the red routes, we shall be able to provide more loading bays where, with appropriate signing, disabled people will be able to park. One benefit of the pilot scheme is that it will now be possible for people visiting Moorfields eye hospital to park outside it, which they were unable to do under the old regime.
      The debate has, understandably, ranged wider than the amendment, but I hope that I shall be able to introduce regulations to deal with the passport-style badge in the not-too-distant future. While the Government are absolutely committed to the introduction of a passport-style badge, they want to try to ensure the maximum consensus on the other amendments to the scheme.
      Some people are worried that, as expressed at present, the proposals could result in a number of people with orange badges finding that they were unable to renew them when necessary. I am sure that, due to the scheme's popularity and the extra mobility it affords, if we were to adopt such proposals, we should do so only when we fully understood the implications of doing so. I am
      682
      reconsidering that issue at present, and next week I have a meeting with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, when it will be on the agenda.
      Mr. Fearn: The Minister will recollect that I asked about the authorities that do not observe the orange badge scheme. Has he any proposals for them?
      Mr. Chope: That must follow on from the review of the scheme. In the other place, Lord Boyd-Carpenter explained, in a form that was well understood by their Lordships, the difficulties faced by a borough in the centre of London when administering a scheme where, prima facie, more than 1 million people with orange badges would be able to park on the streets. Some central London boroughs have experienced that difficulty—Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster and parts of Camden. I know that we are in discussion with those councils, but I cannot promise that those discussions have reached a final and successful conclusion—much will depend on the final form. I assure the House that our commitment to introduce a passport-style badge is absolute.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be aware of the efforts of the parliamentary committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the secretary of which is my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). In his further considerations, will my hon. Friend the Minister give serious thought to cases where there is a dispute between those who are most severely handicapped in mobility terms and those who are somewhat handicapped? Will he ensure that the needs of the most severely handicapped are always taken into account, and, if it comes to a choice between the two levels of need, where necessary, priority is given to those who need help most?
      Mr. Chope: I think that what my hon. Friend is saying is that the person making the decision should have the wisdom of Solomon. I hope that that will be so.
      Question put and agreed to.

    After clause 38
    Lords amendment: No. 9, to insert the following new clause—Variation of charges at off-street parking places—
    (".After section 35B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted—

    35C.—(1) Where an order under section 35(1)(iii) of this Act makes provision as to the charges to be paid in connection with the use of off-street parking places, the authority making that order may vary those charges by notice given under this section.

    (2) The variation of any such charges by notice is not to be taken to prejudice any power to vary those charges by order under section 35 of this Act.

    (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed by any local authority giving notice under this section.

    (4) the regulations may, in particular, make provision with respect to—

    (a) the publication, where an authority propose to give notice, of details of their proposal;

    (b) the form and manner in which notice is to be given; and

    (c) the publication of notices.

    (5) In giving any notice under this section a local authority shall comply with the regulations." ")

    Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment adds a new clause and introduces a further section into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

    683
    The new section has the same effect as that provided by clause 39, except that it applies to variations of charges of off-street parking places. It has been introduced in response to a request from the local authority associations.
    Question put and agreed to.

    After Clause 39
    Lords amendment: No. 10, to insert the following new clause—Permitted and special parking areas outside London

    (".—(1) Schedule (Permitted and special parking areas outside London) shall have effect for the purpose of making provision with respect to areas outside London corresponding to that made with respect to London, and areas within London, under sections 57 to 69 of this Act.

    (2) In this section "London" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of this Act.")

    Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 82.
    Mr. Chope: When we last debated the parking provisions of the Bill in this House, I said that the Government would introduce amendments in the other place to allow for specified, non-endorsable parking offences to be decriminalised in specially designated districts of London, and to be enforced by local authority parking attendants. Amendments were introduced in Committee in the other place which now appear as amendments Nos. 72 and 73. They will enable my right hon. Friend, on application by a London authority, to make an order decriminalising specified parking offences in the district to which the order relates. Those areas will be known as special parking areas.
    The first of the two new clauses introduced by the amendments specifies the offences to be decriminalised. It enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the police and the relevant local authority associations, to add to the list of decriminalised offences to apply in special parking areas. If my right hon. Friend is made aware of further offences that could be covered by the parking area orders, subject to consultation with the police and the local authorities the list of decriminalised offences may be added to without the need for further primary legislation.
    The second new clause applies the provisions of the new system of penalty charges developed for the enforcement of permitted parking in London to the decriminalised offences within the special parking areas. The London authorities will have extended powers to wheel clamp and remove vehicles in the special parking areas. There is a power for the Secretary of State to modify in the order any of the provisions of part II of the Bill in respect of their application in special parking area.
    The principle of the amendments was widely welcomed when it was discussed in the House, and the amendments were given a similar reception in the other place. The Government were therefore pleased to respond to calls to consider the issues involved with the provision of a general enabling power providing for extension to other parts of the country of the new arrangements for permitted parking and special parking areas in London. Our considerations
    684
    led us to conclude that such an enabling power was both possible and desirable. The amendments, which were carried in the other place, now appear as Nos. 10 and 82.
    Ms. Ruddock: We regard the amendments as extremely important. They provide for highway authorities outside London to have an additional tool to use in their efforts to deal with the growing problems of congestion and environmental difficulties brought about by illegal parking. The fact that the Government introduced the amendments in the other place shows what an effective Opposition working in conjunction with representative organisations can do to influence the shape of legislation.
    It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's decision to amend the Bill in this way, but it would also be wrong not to remind the House that in Committee and on Report the Government strongly resisted Opposition amendments designed to have a similar effect. The Government's change of heart is particularly welcome to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which has been pressing for the change for six years in the face of what it regarded as unhelpful conclusions in the report of the Home Office working party on enforcement, unfruitful meetings with Ministers and strong ministerial resistance during the earlier stages of the Bill.
    However, we should like to move forward, not backward. In moving the amendments in the other place, the Minister—Lord Brabazon of Tara—said that while the Government envisaged experience being gained in London they took advantage of the powers in relation to authorities outside London. That approach appears to have merit, but while the general adoption of powers outside London should not take place before there has been some experience in the capital, we believe that there would be considerable merit in some authorities outside London also being given the go-ahead, so that experience could be gained in other areas on a pilot basis.
    That suggestion was made on Report in another place, when the Minister said:
    "I said in my speech that probably we would wish to see the experiment in London before other authorities in the country try to implement the provisions. That is our opinion at the moment. However, if any local authorities outside London wish to come forward with schemes, we shall be very willing to discuss them, provided that the police are also satisfied with the proposals. That is an important proviso."
    5.30 pm
    In the light of those remarks, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is currently discussing with its members the scope for a number of them to volunteer as guinea pigs in the deployment of powers outside London. Proposals for such trials are likely to be submitted to the Department later this year, and we hope that Ministers will be keen to discuss them positively with the association and the authorities involved.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: About six years ago, some local authorities in London and elsewhere were rather more loopy and left-wing than they are today. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) commented fairly that the Home Office was not the first to be convinced that this was a sensible concept.
    One of the problems of enforcement for the police was that they did not receive the recycled receipts in respect of penalties imposed on those motorists who parked in the wrong place, or who stayed too long at a parking meter. Today, we have in effect a net cost regime, whereby some

    685
    of the income from penalties can be used towards the cost of enforcement. Without wanting to break the Treasury rule against hypothecation, there are great benefits to be gained from effective enforcement, which are shared by the motorist trying to find somewhere to park legally. We know that Westminster, for example, declares a £3 million gain from effective enforcement.
    I personally believe that effective parking control leads to a reduction in unnecessary traffic. One finds fewer people driving around trying to find a space to park where there are yellow lines because they know that if they do so effective enforcement will bring the consequences of inconvenience and expense. One finds also that fewer people occupy a meter for half a day or more, because they know that an attendant will soon be along to impose a penalty if they overstay their time. The balance of convenience is outweighed by greater enforcement.
    I support the hon. Member for Deptford in her remarks about pilot schemes outside London. Experience in London will not always be duplicated elsewhere. There are many towns and cities where it would be possible to run experimental schemes with the agreement of the local police and of the Home Office.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the pragmatic way in which he has advanced matters. Motorists have the most to gain from a stricter system of parking enforcement. Road pricing would be a daft way of achieving the same ends. We ought to emphasise that, for people who earn a great deal of money, sitting in traffic jams is a waste of their time.
    If we suggest that people with enough money should pay to buy some road space, that may be taken up by those working for local authorities—who will expect them to meet the charge—or for big business, who have no problem with money but only with time. Such an arrangement would penalise teachers, for example, living in one area, dropping their children off in another area, and driving to work at a school in a third area. However, perhaps that is straying off the subject of parking control.
    Mr. Fearn: Am I right in thinking that, before a local authority can implement any scheme, it must make an application to the Secretary of State and receive his approval?
    Mr. James Hill: I fully support the amendment to the extent that it tidies up certain points of law. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister counts it as only the first tidying up, because much remains to be done in respect of the law on wheel clamping outside the metropolitan area. A profitable business has been created by private companies clamping cars outside hospitals and in private car parks, when the motorists concerned are often unaware that they are forbidden to park there. Wheel-clamping firms impose incredible charges. The most recent example I know of involved a penalty of £45, in the city of Southampton.
    I believe that the Association of Wheel Clamping is acting because of the general weakness of the law as it applies outside London. My hon. Friend the Minister would be right to argue that the law of trespass prevails, but the imposition by private companies of large fines on private motorists in not within any law that I know of outside the London area, and it is something on which my hon. Friend the Minister might usefully comment.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and to the whole House for supporting the amendments. Sometimes, it takes longer for the Government to reach the right conclusion, but I am sure that we have done so in this case. That has been possible because of co-operation between my Department and the Home Office.
    Ms. Ruddock: And the Opposition.
    Mr. Chope: Certainly, but the Opposition have always been of the same opinion as the Government supporters. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends also pressed me hard in Committee for the common sense behind the amendment.
    Knowing as we do how stretched are police resources for allocation in London, it does not make sense to deploy them on parking offences when they could be directed at preventing crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, if local authorities or their agents enjoy sufficient income from penalties, it can be used to increase the level of enforcement. Consequently, when people drive into London, they are more likely to find a parking space, rather than be tempted to cause an obstruction.
    The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is right to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider individual applications. The procedure is set out in detail in the amendments.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) raised the fraught question of wheel clamping on private land. Nothing in the Bill deals with that issue, and the law relating to it is subject to a certain amount of dispute. In the High Court recently, a motorist appealed against a conviction for criminal damage after he forcibly removed a wheel clamp that had been applied to a vehicle left on private land. The court found that in the particular circumstances of that case the conviction should stand because warning notices were clearly displayed on the land and that the individual who trespassed on it with his vehicle was deemed to have accepted the risk that his vehicle would be wheel clamped. However, I have no views on the definitive law. One or two other test cases are in the offing, although in one instance the defendants in a civil case withdrew. There is some difficulty in securing a definitive ruling on the civil aspect of wheel clamping because the courts can adjudicate only on cases that are brought before them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Test will be aware that Southampton has one of the best-known wheel clamping firms in the country. I do not know whether anything that he said was meant as implied criticism of that firms activities. Hon. Members will welcome the code of practice or guidance produced by wheel dampers which specifies the maximum recommended fees for the removal of a clamp.
    In Southampton there is much evidence that wheel clamping on housing estates has made it easier for tenants there to keep their parking spaces. Some private organisations seem to be making good use of wheel clamps. As I have said, one of the largest wheel clamping firms is based in Southampton. The legislation is a revolution in parking enforcement. It will begin in London, but bids from authorities outside London will be assessed on their merits.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 40

      PARKING ATTENDANTS
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 39, line 27, leave out from ("may") to end of line 30 and insert
      ("provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants.

      (1A) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.

      (1B) A parking attendant shall be—

      (a) an individual employed by the authority; or

      (b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant.

      (1C) Parking attendants in Greater London shall wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine when exercising prescribed functions, and shall not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform.")

      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment involves privilege. With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 76.
      Mr. Chope: The amendment inserts a new clause after section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide local authorities with a clear general power to appoint parking attendants to supervise parking places. The amendment will enable parking attendants in London and elsewhere to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas as well as the new permitted parking controls for which part II of the Bill provides.
      Mr. Fearn: We welcome the amendment but query its powers, because they seem to apply only to London. However, the Minister spoke about "elsewhere", which could mean that the powers will apply outside London. I sympathise with the noble Lords who attempted to find an amendment that would introduce some guidelines on the method of payment for parking attendants. I understand that the Government disapprove of remuneration to parking attendants being based on the number of penalty charge notices issued. I agree that that would be entirely wrong.
      Mr. Chope: I have nothing to add to what was said in the other place about some parking attendants being paid on the basis of the number of tickets that they issue. The Bill contains new and valuable safeguards which will enable people who feel aggrieved to go to an adjudicator. Some people feel that they are being penalised not because they overstayed the meter time but because the attendant has gambled on their not coming back to the car until the meter had ticked past the excess charge. The amendments contain the power to extend the legislation outside London, and that will be done by order when application is made. That has been considered by the Government.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 41

      VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 39, line 36, leave out "In"
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16, 83 to 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 121, 131, 133 and 139.
      Mr. Chope: The amendments are largely technical and are designed to improve clause 41, which provides for variable speed limits to be imposed by highway authorities in certain circumstances.
      Ms. Ruddock: In connection with amendment No. 14, what other subjects, apart from the variable speed limits, might the regulations he used to deal with?
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Minister says that the amendments are technical, but it is only by getting technicalities right that local highway authorities, which look after 94 to 96 per cent. of our roads, will have the opportunity to take traffic calming measures and protect the living cells, such as people on foot and on bicycles, who have as much as if not more priority than drivers.
      Hon. Members will know about the number of times it has been necessary to change regulations and incorporate speed-reducing features and contributions from road traffic engineers. Such features cut speed by working sometimes on the psychology of the drivers and sometimes on the urban environment. It is important to emphasise to consumer groups, residents' groups and tenants' groups that they should campaign not for signs indicating lower speeds, but for traffic management and engineering which leads to vehicles travelling more slowly. That was one of the lessons that people learned from potholes. It has been learnt by the Danes and the Germans and, most importantly, by people in the Netherlands. Many local authorities, including some in London, have been pushing for such measures for some years.
      5.45 pm
      In the boroughs of Wandsworth and Bromley on two occasions the regulations did not allow the arrangements to come into force. However, traffic was moving slowly and there was no risk if the highway was changed to inhibit people travelling at speed.
      I think that the amendments and the clause have all-party agreement and that they will make it possible to continue adapting what highway authorities do to keep traffic on through roads and away from routes used by people on foot. Such journeys constitute half the journeys in the country. It should be possible to require traffic going through residential or shopping areas to go much more slowly. A person in a one-and-a-half tonne steel vest should not feel that he has an automatic right to shove to one side an elderly person, a child or some other road user.
      I pay tribute to the many highway engineers who work as agents for the Department as well as principals in their own right for the advances that they have made. I hope that we shall reach the stage at which Britain is the safest country in the world not just for drivers but for pedestrians, especially children. We must use the contributions of highway engineers. The erection of a sign

      689
      saying 15 mph or 20 mph is a reflection of their work rather than just an indication to motorists to drive more slowly.
      Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend. About a fortnight ago, I was in Exeter visiting Devon county council, which in the past month published a book—it is more a book than a pamphlet—giving examples of traffic calming measures that have been introduced not just in Devon but in Wandsworth, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. There is no need for local authorities to keep reinventing the wheel. I commend that publication to those who are interested in traffic calming measures.
      Wandsworth is not the only London authority to reduce casualties on the roads in residential areas and its success is due in no small measure to its enlightened attitude on traffic calming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, as well as putting up a sign one must introduce highway engineering measures.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) I can say that the regulations will not cover other subjects. They cover speed limits and associated matters such as signing. For example, Lords amendments Nos. 83 and 94 make it clear that the Secretary of State may authorise road humps that do not conform with the regulations. The amendments go slightly wider, in that context, than pure speed. They are related to other matters that one can describe as ancillary matters.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) raised an important point. Am I right in thinking that, if a local highway department wanted to introduce road humps or any other speed-limiting feature that did not comply with the regulations, the Minister would be happy to receive an application from it and to consider whether the regulations needed to be adapted so that what made sense on the ground would also be legal?
      Mr. Chope: That is very much the case, yes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    After Clause 41
    Lords amendment: No. 17, to insert the following new clause—Tramcars and trolley vehicles—
    ".—(1) After section 141 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (tramcars and trolley vehicles) there shall be inserted—

    After Clause 41

      Tramcars and trolley vehicles: regulations.
      141A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications—

      (a) to all tramcars or to tramcars of any specified class, or

      (b) to all trolley vehicles or to trolley vehicles of any specified class.

      (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above are the provisions of sections 1 to 14, 18 and 81 to 89 of this Act.

      (3) Regulations under this section—

      (a) may make different provision for different cases,

      (b) may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and

      (c) may make such amendments to any special Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations or in consequence of the
      690
      application to any tramcars or trolley vehicles of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above.

      (4) In this section—

      "special Act" means a local Act of Parliament passed before the commencement of this section which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles;
      "tramcar"includes any carriage used on any road by virtue of an order under the Light Railways Act 1896; and
      "trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads without rails under power transmitted to it from some external source (whether or not there is in addition a source of power on board the vehicle)."
      (2) After section 193 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (exemptions for tramcars, trolley vehicles etc) there shall be inserted—

      Tramcars and trolley vehicles.
      193A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications—

      (a) to all tramcars or to tramcars of any specified class, or

      (b) to all trolley vehicles or to trolley vehicles of any specified class.

      (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above are the provisions of—

      (a) sections 12, 40A to 42, 47, 48, 66, 68 to 73, 75 to 79, 83, 87 to 109, 143 to 165, 168, 170, 171, 178, 190 and 191 of this Act, and

      (b) sections 1, 2, 7, 8, 22, 25 to 29, 31, 32, 34 to 48, 96 and 97 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (provisions requiring warning of prosecution etc. and provisions connected with the licensing of drivers).

      (3) Regulations under this section—

      (a) may make different provision for different cases,

      (b) may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and

      (c) may make such amendments to any special Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations or in consequence of the application to any tramcars or trolley vehicles of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above.

      (4) In this section "special Act" means a local Act of Parliament passed before the commencement of this section which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles." "

      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 101, 138, 143 and 144.
      Mr. Chope: This new clause fulfils an undertaking given in Committee in another place to consider an amendment on the application of road traffic law to tramcars and trolley vehicles which received unanimous support there.
      Ms. Ruddock: This is an important amendment, which we very much support. It provides, as the Minister said, for the application of the road traffic law to tramcars and trolley vehicles. It is important that the Bill should provide for this type of regulation, due to the planned opening in October of the Manchester metrolink and light rail systern that includes an element of street running, which we support. As transport policy develops and as the Government join the common-sense consensus about new modes of transport, there will be more and more

      691
      opportunities to use this measure to complement the provision of light rail systems that are used on roads, and also tramcars and trolley vehicles.
      We support the amendment and are grateful to the Government for tabling it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 18, to insert the following new clause—Applications for licences to drive hackney carriages etc.—

      ".—(1) Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (including that Part as it applies in any area at the commencement of this section) shall have effect with the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1) of each of section 51 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) and section 59 (qualifications for drivers of hackney carriages)—

      "(1A) For the purpose of satisfying themselves as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence, a council may send to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the council is situated—

      (a) a copy of that person's application, and

      (b) a request for the chief officer's observations; and the chief officer shall respond to the request."

      (2) Where any local Act contains a provision requiring a district council to be satisfied as to the fitness of an applicant to hold a licence to drive a private hire vehicle or a hackney carriage, the council may send to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the council is situated—

      (a) a copy of that person's application, and

      (b) a request for the chief officer's observations;

      and the chief officer shall respond to the request."
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment concerns the licensing of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers by district councils. At present under the law governing the licensing of these drivers, district councils have to satisfy themselves that an applicant for a driver's licence is a fit and proper person. The council may require the applicant to disclose any past criminal convictions, but it has no power to check that information against police records.
      The effect of the amendment is that when a district council has to decide whether an applicant for a licence to drive a taxi or private hire vehicle is a fit and proper person the council may copy the application to the local chief officer of police with a request for his observations. The chief officer must respond to that request.
      The origins of the amendment are to be found in early-day motion 667, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), which relates to the subject. It was signed by, I believe, 180 other Members of Parliament. Although it will not be possible to bring the new clause into force immediately, for reasons that were explained in the other place, the aim is to complete the necessary process of consultation by 1 April 1992.
      Ms. Ruddock: The Minister claims that one of his hon. Friends deserves credit for the amendment. However, it represents the successful conclusion of a long-running campaign by the local authority associations to enable them to obtain information from the police about whether applicants for taxi licences are fit and proper persons. The amendment is the Government's response to an amendment tabled by the Opposition in the other place.
      692
      The amendment is very much supported by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, an important organisation that has been campaigning, particularly on behalf of women but also on behalf of everyone in society, for greater personal security in the use of taxis and car hire. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he agrees with the trust that the police will require extra resources to carry out this task effectively. We very much support the amendment and are pleased that it has been tabled by the Government.
      Mr. Hill: May I correct a few of the words of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock)? I am grateful for the tremendous help from the Association of District Councils. After I communicated with it, the association wrote to many local authorities. They were only too willing to make sure that Members of Parliament in their area signed my early-day motion. At the last count it had been signed by 193 Members of Parliament. An amendment was tabled that said virtually the same, except that those hon. Members who supported the amendment wanted the legislation to be in force before the summer recess. As I know how tight the schedule is, I thought that they were going a little far. In total, 220 Members of Parliament of all parties signed the early-day motion. I am grateful for their help.
      The first real breakthrough came when the national association of taxi and private hire licensing and enforcement officers conducted a survey of 136 councils. When they replied, it was discovered that, in an 18-month period, 148 people who were already holding a taxi driver's licence had criminal records. That was but the tip of the iceberg.
      The metropolitan area is well covered. It receives details of criminal records, but it is difficult for the chairmen of outside licensing authorities to reach the correct decision. For example, at a critical time, Southampton gave a taxi driver's licence to a person who had just been released from prison for rape. The chairman of the licensing authority, a Labour councillor, felt that it was his duty to resign. The licence was rescinded.
      Such terrifying decisions, reached without knowledge of the facts, led me to believe that I should take up this important matter. The method is that every established taxi driver is sacrosanct; he will not need reassessing and it will not be necessary to go back into history. The chief constable is put under tremendous pressure. He will need not necessarily more police but more office staff to work the mainframe computers. Apart from obvious crimes, such as rape, who would want to hire a taxi driver who had been in prison several times for grievous bodily harm, child molesting, child battery or a sexual offence of any kind —even exposure to the public of his person? The chairman of the licensing authority will need a great deal of information.
      I thought it unfortunate that the wording states that a request will have to be made for the chief officer's observations. It could have been beefed up a little, by making it mandatory for chief officers to obtain the names of applicants and to give the details of any criminal background to the chairman of the licensing authority without a request having to be made, but so be it. This is very good news for all of us.
      I have in my hand a computer printout of the names of all hon. Members who signed the early-day motion. It makes an impressive list. Members of Parliament, of all

      693
      parties, are very concerned about this issue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that this measure will come into operation in the not-too-distant future. I hope that he is not thinking of 12 months hence.
      My local newspaper, the Southern Evening Echo, went to great efforts to find out about the rapist. One cannot do without such knowledge. Local people must know what is going on, and further information about other applicants must be disclosed.
      Co-operation was shown by the East Anglian Taxi Association, whose secretary, Mr. Richmond, is here, and the Southampton Taxi Association, whose representative, Mr. Lankford, did much valuable work. Local authorities brought pressure to bear on me and other hon. Members. The Government should be congratulated on this measure. There should be no harping by the Opposition. The Lords amendment will be welcomed. It is the most important amendment to the Bill.
      6 pm
      Mr. Fearn: The Lords amendment applies to those who grant hackney carriage licences. In time, will it be extended to minicabs?
      Mr. Simon Coombs: I am delighted to take part in the debate. This issue has concerned me for 15 years since the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 came into force. In 1976, I became chairman of Reading borough council's local transport committee and was almost immediately faced with this issue. It was said to us at that time that the legislation was an attempt to tidy up even earlier legislation, the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
      Almost immediately, there was a feeling that this loose end created danger for our citizens. I am delighted that borough councils such as Reading, where I served, and Thamesdown, part of whose area I represent, will feel that this loose end has finally been tidied up.
      There is no doubt that women are afraid of using taxis at night because a taxi driver may have a criminal record and therefore be a potential threat. It is sad that taxi drivers with no criminal record and no possible problem in this respect are tarred with the brush of uncertainty. Women may choose not to use a taxi to get home at night because of that fear and therefore put themselves into greater danger.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond positively to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and tell us that the provision will be brought into effect as quickly as possible. There could be an incident today, tomorrow or the day after which might have been avoided if the legislation had been on the statute book a few months ago.
      Let us not forget the balance of the rights of ex-offenders. Much was said in this place and in the other place about the need to protect passengers—of course that is right—but offenders have rights which must be respected.
      What observations does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State expect the chief officer to provide in response to a request by a local authority? Does my hon. Friend expect the whole criminal record of an applicant to be revealed to the local authority or only the parts that may be considered germane to the application? Will the chief officer merely be asked to say, "Yes, this is a fit person," or "No, this is not a fit person"? That is not clear
      694
      from the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will make clear precisely what information chief officers should provide that will enable a local authority to decide whether someone is a "fit and proper" person to hold a taxi licence.
      I warmly welcome the Lords amendment and I hope that it will soon be part of our legislation.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the Lords amendment. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Test and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that we will implement this measure as quickly as possible. I mentioned the aim of doing so by 1 April next year, and that remains the Government's objective.
      Of course, a cost will be associated with this provision. Work will be done on the details, and that is why we are consulting. The measure has wide-ranging application. A large number of taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers in England and Wales operate outside London—35,000 taxi drivers and 50,000 private hire vehicle drivers.
      The provision will not apply to minicab drivers in London because, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) probably knows, at present there is no licensing system for those drivers. For that reason, the Government asked the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to consider whether we should introduce a licensing system for such drivers and, if so, what form it should take. I agree with what the hon. Member for Deptford said about the fine work that that trust does.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend answer my question? Will the chief officer reveal the whole criminal record or only part of it, or will he state whether, in his judgment, an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence? It would be helpful to have an answer to that question.
      Mr. Chope: Of course, that matter will be subject to discussions with the district councils, but at the moment we believe that the chief officer should disclose all convictions about which information is held nationally at the national identification bureau.
      Mr. Hill rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that hon. Members do not have the right to speak again, having addressed the House once. If the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) wishes to intervene, that may be permissible.
      Mr. Hill: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to intervene. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary return to his statement on the commencement date of 1 April next year? Could not several pilot schemes be started? I think particularly of Southampton in this case. By 1 April, several dozen more ex-criminals may be licensed.
      Mr. Chope: I cannot go further than I have gone already. I am sure that my hon. Friend's efforts will have gained their reward, in the sense that people who have been able to tell an untruth will realise that the day of reckoning is nigh. I am sure that that will inhibit applications from those with convictions which will soon materialise. I have no doubt that taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers with criminal convictions will wish to look for another profession before this measure comes into effect.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: If one person in four, or 25 per cent. of the male population, has already been convicted of an indictable offence by the age of 20, and one person in three, or 33 per cent. of the male population, has been convicted of a serious offence by the age of 30, it may be worth publicising which of those offences will disqualify an applicant and which can be admitted.
      If one accepts the principles involved in the rehabilitation of offenders and wishes to make applicants more open about their convictions, people should know the ground rules. It is fine to give people a warning, but it may be useful if the Department of Transport and local authorities will consider publicising the details so that applicants can decide what information to give, knowing that they will confirm their honesty in giving their convictions and that those convictions will not necessarily disqualify them.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 45

      THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
      Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 41, line 22, after "Commissioners;" insert—
      "( ) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;"
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 20, 22 to 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 37 to 39 and 77.
      Mr. Chope: The Government have a long-standing commitment to promoting the improvement of transport facilities and opportunities for people with disabilities. When the subject has been raised during the passage of the Bill, we have said that, given those commitments, the needs of people with disabilities will be dealt with in the Secretary of State's traffic management and parking guidance and will therefore be taken into account when part II of the Bill is implemented. That is now incorporated in the Bill in specific amendments which are comprehensive and consistent with other parts of the Bill.
      Ms. Ruddock: For the record, we support the amendments that are being introduced at this stage. In Committee and at all stages, the Opposition have pressed for people with disabilities and for the organisations that represent them to be properly consulted. We regret that our other amendments dealing with organisations which represent persons who use any road to which the order relates—by which we meant organisations representing pedestrians, cyclists, or, indeed, the general public—did not find favour with the Government, although they were pressed in another place. The Government have chosen to single out people with disabilities, and we appreciate that positive discrimination, although other groups of road users should properly have been represented. However, we support the giving of a statutory right to disabled organisations to be consulted.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Clearly, I am pleased that the Government have accepted amendments
      696
      that allow for groups representing people with disabilities to be consulted on a mandatory basis on the introduction of red routes. However, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said. We pressed in Committee for other groups to be consulted and I should have thought that they also have an important role to play.
      Thus far, the experience of the introduction of traffic management schemes through red routes in London has been an unhappy one for many people with disabilities. On the opening day of the red route through Islington, the police attempted to take away the car of a disabled person. The stopping restrictions in operation along that route mean that many people with disabilities cannot get into shops which might have specific disabled access, because the stopping places are in the wrong place. If the Department of Transport had had the foresight to consult the Islington Disablement Association and other such groups at the time of the introduction of the route, much heartache would have been saved and many problems avoided. However, the Department's approach was arrogant—it decided what it was going to do and then waited to see what the effect would be. The effect has been greater speed and a higher volume of traffic and people with disabilities are now unable to go into shops that they should be able to use. Many small shops and businesses along the route are going out of business.
      People with disabilities are one group that has been affected, but the removal of the right of people with disabilities to stop along much of the red route means that they try to park in side streets. However, the heavy emphasis placed on policing the red routes has meant that traffic wardens have been taken away from policing the side routes, so specifically designated disabled persons' parking bays on side routes adjoining Upper street, Holloway road and Archway road are often now congested by the vehicles of other people who park illegally. As all the emphasis is on getting traffic along the route, the real purpose of parking restrictions and facilities that benefit people with disabilities is lost.
      What form does the Minister expect the consultation to take? How will organisations in specific localities be consulted about the possible introduction of a red route or about the parking facilities in neighbouring streets? To judge from our experience, there will be a lot of trouble for people with disabilities in other parts of London as the schemes are introduced.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Chope: It was hoping for too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to be persuaded even at this stage of the success of the red route pilot scheme. I introduced new evidence which shows that as a result of the operation of the pilot scheme, there has been a significant reduction in road casualties during the two months that have so far been monitored. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. In addition, more traffic is able to use that route with greater reliability and, as a result, less traffic uses unsuitable residential roads.
      In Committee, we debated at considerable length the allegations and counter-allegations about the facts relating to individual disabled people on the route. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that many amendments have

      697
      been made to the route as a result of consultation before and after the initiation of the scheme and that all road users are the beneficiaries of the red route.
      Mr. Corbyn: One cannot say that all road users are the beneficiaries of that route. Only last week, I met a group of young mothers of small children who frequently have to cross that road, and they are alarmed at the speed of the traffic along it because of what I suppose can be called the effective policing which ensures a greater movement of traffic. The principle behind the opposition in the locality to the red route has been that emphasis is placed on getting more traffic more quickly through a densely built-up urban area. We believe that the Department of Transport should place the emphasis on getting more people to use buses and trains and on persuading fewer people to use cars, which congest central London, docklands or the City.
      I hope that the Minister will not ignore the fact that the facilities for people with disabilities have often been impaired because of the way in which the policing is carried out. How does the Minister propose to consult local groups that represent people with disabilities before the introduction of such routes elsewhere?
      Mr. Chope: In the first instance, the consultation will be with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and with any other groups which are recognised to represent the needs of disabled people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
      Many people use buses and as a result of the effectiveness of the red route the time taken for bus journeys has declined, which makes the bus a more attractive option. The evidence that I have given to the House about the reduction in the number of road casualties counters the hon. Gentleman's allegation—or his implication—that pedestrians on the route are at greater risk than before.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 54

      PROPOSED ACTION BY LONDON AUTHORITIES LIKELY TO AFFECT PRIORITY ROUTES
      Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 49, line 34, leave out from second "affect" to end of line 39 and insert "a priority route".
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 36, 126 and 140.
      Mr. Chope: The amendments concern the quick procedures available to the London authorities under clause 54 and under paragraph 5 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 to notify the traffic director of their proposals for minor, unforeseen road improvements on priority routes or designated roads.
      Ms. Ruddock: I support the amendments. The Opposition tabled similar amendments in Committee, but they were rejected by the Government. We are especially delighted that the Government have now seen fit to accept our argument and the argument made in the other place, which is that the measures were originally too widely drawn. It is now clear that local authorities should notify
      698
      the traffic director of their plans only if those plans affect priority routes. The restriction in the power of the traffic director to intervene in borough's road plans is very much appreciated by the local authorities that would be affected by the powers of the traffic director. The authorities, especially through the Association of London Authorities, have repeatedly expressed their concern about the way in which that person will operate. I am pleased to support the amendments, which will make life easier for those who will have to try to co-operate on transport planning in the city with the newly created traffic director as a consequence of the Bill.
      Mr. Corbyn: I, too, welcome the small reduction in the potential powers of the traffic dictator for London. The Minister is smiling, so he must remember that those words were used often in Committee. The amendments introduce a minor change in an especially unpleasant piece of centralised government being imposed on the people of London. London lacks an elected local authority. Almost all the local authorities in the areas most affected by heavy traffic in inner London are poll tax-capped or restricted in some way. We now have a traffic director who is given enormous powers over traffic movements through those boroughs. That is fundamentally undemocratic.
      Although I welcome the fact that the director's powers have been slightly curtailed in that he cannot now deal with every road that he may think fit to be affected by the introduction of a priority route scheme or a red route, we should put on record the fact that the traffic director is a wholly unwanted being. Instead, the people of London want an elected, democratic local authority which can make decisions in the interests of the people of London as a whole. They do not want a traffic dictator whose sole aim is to force yet more traffic through unwilling inner-London suburbs into an already overcrowded centre.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 59

      CONTRAVENTION OF CERTAIN ORDERS RELATING TO PARKING PLACES IN LONDON NOT TO BE CRIMINAL OFFENCE
      Lords amendment: No. 40 in page 53, line 9, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment corrects an error.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 60

      PARKING PENALTIES IN LONDON
      Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 54, line 3, leave out "25 per cent." and insert "the specified proportion".
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 42.
      Mr. Chope: The amendment introduces some flexibility for local authorities over the amount of the discount that they can provide for prompt payment of the penalty charge.
      Mr. Corbyn: I do not disagree with the amendment, but I believe that the principle is ridiculous. Local authorities should not be penalised by the director, who is not answerable to the people of London. A fundamentally undemocratic principle is being foisted on the House, yet again. Although I accept the modification of the original proposal because it is not as bad as it might have been, it does not mean that we willingly accept the principle of the right of the director to penalise local authorities.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 61

      RECOVERY OF VEHICLES OR OF PROCEEDS OF DISPOSAL
      Lords amendment: No. 43, in page 54, line 33, leave out from "storage" to end of line 34 and insert—
      "of the vehicle—

      (i) as the authority may require; or

      (ii) in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local authority, as may be prescribed,"

      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
      Mr. Chope: The amendments are technical. They make it clear that when a vehicle has been removed by the police in London, the recovery charges should be those applicable in respect of the police and not the London authorities.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 62

      CHARGES FOR REMOVAL, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES
      Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 55, line 16, leave out "9 or section" and insert "6, 9 or".
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Wtih this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 135.
      Mr. Chope: The amendments introduce further changes to section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 so that London authorities can charge owners for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles that have contravened any order designating an on-street parking place or which are parked illegally at any local authority off-street parking place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 63

      IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES IN PARKING PLACES
      Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 55, line 46, leave out "parking attendant" and insert
      "person authorised by the relevant authority to give such a direction."
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 90, 91, 122, 123, 134 and 136.
      Mr. Chope: The amendments fall into three main groups covering the flexibility of the London authorities and the police over authorising the release of vehicles from wheel clamps, new powers for the police to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles from suspended parking places and changes in the scope of regulations governing removal and wheel-clamping action by the police.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 66

      APPOINTMENT OF PARKING ADJUDICATORS BY JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE LONDON AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 59, line 15, leave out "statutory instrument make regulations" and insert "regulations make provision".
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69.
      Mr. Chope: Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are technical. Amendment No. 69 requires the joint committee to publish a statutory annual report to the Secretary of State on the discharge by the parking adjudicators of their functions.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Before Clause 69
    Lords amendment: No. 74, to insert the following new clause—Enforcement—

    (".—(1) In this section

    "certificated bailiff", means any person authorised to act as such under subsection (6) below; and

    "a Part II debt" means any sum which is—

    (a) payable under, or by virtue of, any provision of this Part of this Act; and

    (b) recoverable as if it were payable under a county court order.

    (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—

    (a) for warrants of excution in respect of Part II debts, or such class or classes of Part II debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs;

    (b) as to the requirements which must be satisfied before any person takes, with a view to enforcing the payment of—

    (i) a Part II debt; or

    (ii) such class or classes of Part II debts as may be so specified,

    any other step of a kind specified by the order.

    (3) Any such order may make such incidental and supplemental provision (including modifications of any

    701
    enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by that order under subsection (2) above.

    (4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in connection with the certification of bailiffs under this section and the execution of warrants of execution by such bailiffs.

    (5) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

    (a) as to the security (if any) to be required from certificated bailiffs;

    (b) as to the fees and expenses payable with respect to executions by certificated bailiffs; and

    (c) for the suspension or cancellation of certificates issued under this section and with respect to the effect of any such suspension or cancellation.

    (6) For the purposes of this section, a person is a certificated bailiff if he is authorised to act as such by a certificate signed—

    (a) by a judge assigned to a county court district; or

    (b) in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, by a district judge.

    (7) Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.")

    Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment sets out in more detail the arrangements for the recovery of unpaid penalty charges and sums ordered to be paid by a parking adjudicator.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 2 TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988
    Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 69, line 6, at end insert—
    (".In the entry relating to section 143 of that Act (using vehicle while uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks) in column 4 for the words "Level 4" there shall be substituted the words "Level 5".")
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment relates to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who expressed concern about the scale of the problem of driving without insurance and asked for an increase in the penalties. The amendment is a positive response to his representations.
    Mr. Roger Gale: I appreciate the action that has been taken. It will be greatly appreciated by those who have expressed concern.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 98, in page 75, line 3, at end insert—

    ".—(1) Section 41 of that Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) shall be amended as follows.

    702

    (2) In subsection (2) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be added the words "(by means of the fixing of plates or otherwise) and the circumstances in which they are to be marked,".

    (3) In subsection (2) after paragraph (j) there shall be inserted—

    "(jj) speed limiters,".

    (4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—

    "(4A) Regulations under this section with respect to speed limiters may include provision—

    (a) as to the checking and sealing of speed limiters by persons authorised in accordance with the regulations and the making of charges by them,

    (b) imposing or providing for the imposition of conditions to be complied with by authorised persons,

    (c) as to withdrawal of authorisatiions." "

    Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 142.
    Mr. Chope: In the interests of road safety and fuel efficiency, we already require coaches to be fitted with speed limiters, and we have recently proposed that new heavy goods vehicles over 7·5 tonnes gross weight should be fitted with limiters.
    The reason for introducing this amendment is to enable us to exercise control over the way speed limiters are calibrated. If they are to fulfil their function of restricting the speed of vehicles to the motorway speed limits, or to any lower speed selected by the vehicle operators, they must be properly installed and calibrated to the characteristics of the particular vehicle. That is best achieved in a workshop specially equipped for the purpose.
    The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to require the checking and sealing of speed limiters only by persons authorised by him. That means that only an authorised person would be able to seal the system against tampering, but before doing that he would have to ensure that the speed limiter was properly connected and also that it had been calibrated at or below the speed limit. It would enable the Secretary of State to impose conditions to be complied with by the people authorised to check speed limiters; to set charges; and to withdraw authorisations —for example, if they failed to meet the necessary standards.
    In addition, the amendment would make it an offence to forge a speed limiter seal or any plate containing particulars required to be marked by the construction and use regulations. It would also make it an offence to impersonate a person authorised to check and seal speed limiters.
    I commend the amendments to the House as a necessary means of ensuring that speed limiters function correctly in practice and that there are reasonable safeguards against tampering or other interference.
    Ms. Ruddock: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate the consensus that has been arrived at during the passage of the Bill and the way in which the Opposition have been able to support and commend the amendments from the other place. This may be my last opportunity to express an opinion on the measures remaining in the Bill. I therefore wish to record the Opposition's support for Lords amendment No. 98.

    703
    We have no doubt that the limiting of the speed of heavy goods vehicles and coaches has been an important step in terms of road safety. All of us who use our roads are constantly concerned about the way in which speed limits are breached. Such breaches are more serious where large numbers of people are being carried, as on coaches, or where the weight of vehicles is important, as with heavy goods vehicles. Any measures to ensure that proposals to limit speed work effectively are welcome. The Opposition very much welcome the amendment.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). There have been significant improvments to the Bill and amendment No. 98 about speed limiting is important, but its importance must be kept in perspective.
    The number of people who have been killed and seriously injured has fallen dramatically over the decades —there has been a 25 per cent. drop in the number of serious injuries in relation to the distance travelled over the past three or four years—and that is a tribute to using measures that work. One of the things which distinguish this country from other European countries is that we tend not to have a blind political response to every tragedy that is drawn to our attention.
    There are times when, sadly, people are killed, but in circumstances that are unlikely to recur and in circumstances where legislating against behaviour would not make much difference. It is also important to realise that, when the Transport and Road Research Laboratory or other bodies carry out pilot schemes or collect data for analysis—it is analysis rather than proscription that is important—it is possible to introduce measures which are likely to receive more public understanding and more likely to have an effect because they will work.
    Limiting the speed of heavy vehicles is unlikely to reduce the number of crashes, but it is likely to reduce the consequences of those crashes. As we discussed earlier, some measures will reduce the number of crashes. Mixing together the virtue of reducing the causes and consequences of crashes is part of the job of people working in the area of road casualty reduction.
    It is important to continue to exert as much effort as possible and to devote as many resources as possible to identifying the changing and continuing patterns of crashes and of people's behaviour leading to 5,000 to 5,500 deaths and 270,000 to 300,000 injuries every year.
    About five or six years ago the Government set a target of cutting the number of injuries and fatalities by one third by the year 2000. I now believe that that target was mistaken. It should have been a reduction of one third in relation to distance travelled and a reduction of one third, if possible, in absolute numbers of deaths and serious injuries.
    The number of slight injuries will be determined by the number of vehicles on the road, which may cause the numbers to increase, but we can continue to have a great deal of success in dealing with the number of deaths and serious injuries. I do not wish to stray beyond the bounds of amendment No. 98 by saying more than a word about the dramatic decrease in the incidence of drink-driving since 1967, when Barbara Castle first began to take the issue seriously. It took the public some years to catch up with the legislation.
    704
    It became law for adults to wear seat belts in the fear of vehicles a week ago. That will not just save 100 lives; it will save half the lives that would otherwise be lost if people sitting in the rear of cars—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line. I do not see it anywhere in the amendments.
    Mr. Bottomley: The second part of that sentence—to take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to continue what I hope to say—applies equally well to cutting the effective speeds of heavy goods vehicles, which is the point of the amendment. When the United States lifted its federal ban on legal speeds of more than 55 mph, in some states in the first six months the number of deaths on the equivalent of our motorways rose by more than 40 per cent.
    We have a high disregard for speed limits in this country. In general, people will not pay attention to them unless there is a semi-automatic enforcement, such as speed limiters or cameras on motorway bridges so that someone who drives at excessive speed from, say, Bristol to Birmingham will receive a ticket or account stating, "You have persistently exceeded the speed limit—please pay £100 for the journey." That is the kind of excess speed road pricing which might work.
    It is unacceptable for 12 to 14 people to die on our roads each day. It is very boring to say common-sense things, whether or not they apply to the families who tragically died in a crash in Scotland at the weekend, but we must continue to make the point that those 12 to 14 deaths per day, most of which never even make the newspapers, matter just as much as deaths on the railways or in air crashes.
    I do not want to say that the Government could do a great deal more—the Government and local authorities are doing an immense amount—but, within the bounds of order, I wish to make it plain that heavy goods vehicles which do not exceed the speed limit will make as much difference as persuading all cyclists that it is not just good style but common sense to wear helmets, because whoever caused the crashes, 80 per cent. of dead cyclists died only because of head injuries, and 80 per cent. of those head injuries could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Motorcyclists, especially those under 21, could find themselves as safe as drivers of heavy goods vehicles with speed—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the Lords amendment, please.
    Mr. Bottomley: On the speed limit, inexperienced drivers seldom drive heavy goods vehicles at or above the speed limit. What they tend to learn through experience could be shared by others. If we could find ways not just of lecturing pedestrians who are involved in crashes, not necessarily with heavy goods vehicles travelling at more than their legal speed limit, we shall find that this is the safest country in the world, leaving aside those in which people do not drink and do not have motor vehicles. We could continue to cut the casualty rate by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. year after year. In a relatively civilised country, we should be able to get road deaths down to below 4,000 a year by the year 2000. We shall not know which families will have been saved tears, but we shall be able to say that our statistics prove that we have been effective.
    Mr. Fearn: This is an excellent Bill. We did an awful lot in Committee. The Minister will recollect that I referred to speed limiters and their manufacturers. I asked whether speed limiter inspections are to be made in factories or whether they will be left to inspectors from the Department of Transport, who will wait until speed limiters are fitted to vehicles before determining that a speed limiter is accurate and working.
    Mr. Gale: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the amendments that he has been able to accept and for his undertakings in Committee and in the House, which have been honoured in another place. There is no doubt that they have made a considerable improvement to the Bill.
    As a Kent Member, I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about the speed at which heavy goods vehicles travel on our roads between the channel ports and London. The matter seriously affects our constituents. For that reason, I certainly welcome the steps that were taken in another place to tighten controls on heavy goods vehicles and to introduce the limiters that we believe will assist in the control of lorries within the United Kingdom.
    My hon. Friend the Minister has taken this point on board and I hope that he will pursue it in future, but it will not be enough simply to control the speeds of United Kingdom lorries—we must make sure that the speeds of heavy continental lorries, in particular, are also controlled if our roads are to be genuinely and fully safe, as we would all wish them to be.
    Mr. Corbyn: Like others, I welcome any improvement in road safety and anything that can be done to reduce the speed of heavy goods vehicles and coaches in particular. I cannot be the only person who, when travelling along a motorway, has been truly frightened by the size and speed of very large double-decker buses swaying in the wind in the third lane and travelling at obviously excessive speeds. Bearing in mind the timetables of some coaches, they have to break the speed limit to adhere to them. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind and consider the commercial pressures on some coach operators.
    Additionally, there is a large number of heavy freight vehicles, not just on motorways but on dual carriageways and urban roads. Those vehicles are powerful—they have to be—and they are fast. They often travel at way over the speed limit, which is incredibly dangerous. The speeds at which they travel and their distance from each other are extremely dangerous. Also, cars or lorries overtaking on the inside are dangerous.
    6.45 pm
    I hope that, in accepting the amendments, which will obviously improve matters relating to speed, the Minister will give us some hope that there will be vigorous prosecution of offences and investigation of background causes, which are often pressure on lorry drivers to maintain unrealistic timetables and the unrealistic expectations that are imposed upon them. Exactly the same often applies to coaches operating to timetables.
    Although the amendment does not refer to speed limiters on cars, there is something slightly odd in that we not only advertise but encourage the advertisement of cars and other road vehicles which are capable of travelling at more than twice the speed limit on major roads. Something must be done about that. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, when speed restrictions on
    706
    motorways in the United States were lifted, the casualty rate went up. That was inevitable. Those who talk about raising speed limits on British motorways should consider the statistics in the United States. It is a crazy notion. We should not allow the number of deaths on our roads to continue.
    It has been pointed out that little publicity is given to road deaths. That is an important point. If there is a train crash and 20 people are killed, quite rightly there is outrage. Quite rightly, there is deep concern about the safety of the railway system and the competence of the operators, inquiries are mounted, and so on. That is absolutely right, but the same attitude is not taken to road deaths. If there is a major crash involving a coach carrying a large number of civilian casualties, there is some publicity for it, but the average death on the road might just get a footnote in a local paper—it is not regarded as a serious matter. I hope that we can encourage the media to be much more vigorous in reporting the number of deaths which occur on our roads as there is carnage on a massive scale.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman helpfully mentioned the media. Does he agree that it might be sensible to have a closer association between the cause and the consequence? Does he agree that it would be very sensible for such issues to be a matter of public knowledge? If there is a crash, fatal or otherwise, and if there is evidence of a vehicle, especially a heavy goods vehicle, in line with the amendment, travelling above the legal speed limit, should not that information be made publicly available as soon as it is known to the police or the authorities, rather than being kept back to produce as a surprise at a coroner's inquest or a court case?
    By extension, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would also be sensible for the fact that a driver had been drinking to be put on the public record within hours or days of the crash rather than waiting until everyone has forgotten and the crash has moved from the front page to page 5 of the local paper?
    Mr. Corbyn: That is a good point. I can think of horrific accidents which, it has later transpired, have been caused by drunken driving. That fact has not appeared until a long time later, when the issue has passed from the public mind. One must be cautious that the papers do not prejudge whatever prosecution may take place against a driver, but it is reasonable to publicise the fact that a charge of speeding or drunken driving has been laid.
    The media should think much more carefully about this issue. As I have said, there is rightly great concern about rail and other transport crashes, but little concern about the deaths on our roads or about road safety. Perhaps the Minister will consider publishing the statistics in a different form, and detailing the causes behind road accidents. If his Department used a different form of publicity, people might be more aware of the problem. It is only when one meets a family who have been bereaved by a road crash, whatever the cause, that one begins to realise the real horror of the situation.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate for their support for these road safety provisions. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for their support throughout

    707
    the passage of this important Bill. I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for both her kind comments and her co-operation—
    Mr. Corbyn: What about me?
    Mr. Chope: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
    It is not every day that the House can consider 144 amendments in such a relatively short time.
    I should now like to thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for his considerable contributions to our debate. We have not agreed on everything, but his contributions have always been succinct and to the point. I am grateful to him for that. Nor shall I forget the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who has been in his place throughout our debate today and was a persistent and regular attender in Committee. Nobody could ask for more.
    I hope that the House will accept the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is there any possibility of the Minister's Department changing the form of its presentation of road accident statistics so that there can be greater public understanding of the danger and loss of life resulting from road accidents?
    Mr. Chope: We are always prepared to look at new ways of presenting statistics. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham is joining the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in holding a celebration at the Royal Automobile Club either next week or the week after specifically to draw attention to the enormous progress that has been made in the past three or four years in reducing the terrible toll on our roads. Neither my hon. Friend nor anybody else is complacent about the situation. If we can further draw the attention of the public to the need to adopt road safety measures, that is all the better.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 5

      PARKING PENALTIES
      Lords amendment: No. 104, in page 89, line 3, leave out from "serve" to end of line 4 and insert "a notice ('a notice to owner') on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 105 to 120.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my hon. Friend advise the House whether the amendment was one of the recommendations of the North committee and, whether or not it was, will he take this opportunity to place on the record what was said earlier in the Bill's passage—that many of those who gave advice to the Government should be pleased with the progress that has been made because their detailed work has been the foundation of much of part I? That fact should be recorded as we approach the end of our deliberations on the Lords amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

      RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

      HUMAN FARTILISATION AND EMBRYLOGY
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Special Exemptions) Regulation 1991, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved,—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

Computer Services for Members
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
6.54 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Many of those interested in the provision of computer services to hon. Members will probably have groaned inwardly and silently when the Leader of the House stated that the House would debate the fourth report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1989–90 tonight, on the grounds that it would come on at a late hour. Clearly, the Leader of the House knew something that we did not.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for finding the time to debate the report, because I know that many Select Committee and other reports vie for time for debate on the Floor of the House, and not all are successful. Therefore, speaking as the Chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate this evening.
I know that we are debating this matter on a motion for the Adjournment, but I hope that we shall hear from the Leader of the House that, as long as there is general approval for the unanimous recommendations of the report, the right hon. Gentleman will move to expedite its recommendations and to put into motion the work that can be started immediately to improve services for hon. Members.
Almost exactly six years ago—in July 1985—the House debated an earlier report from the Services Committee on the same subject, also on the motion for the Adjournment. Sadly, no action was taken on the recommendations in that report, but I hope that we shall have more success following our deliberations this evening. Six years on, we are debating a much more modest set of proposals about the use of computers by hon. Members.
The report originated with the Computer Sub-Committee, the Chairmanship of which I inherited from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Sub-Committee is concerned with the provision of computer services for Members and Officers. It meets only rarely, but nevertheless it has done important work on behalf of the House. It is worth noting that the budget for expenditure on computers for staff in the House totals £3·2 million for the current financial year, but that there is no budget for the provision of computers from central funds for Members. That is an eloquent comment. We are obviously willing to invest significant sums for services for Officers, but nothing like the same approach has been taken yet on behalf of Members.
I have described the report as "modest"—and it is certainly much more modest than I would have liked. I make extensive use of computers in my own offices, here and elsewhere. I know that some people manage without them, but I find it hard to understand how. As Chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, I was persuaded to seek a unanimous report—to go for a consensus report—and to achieve the support of hon. Members of all parties; that is what I did, and we are now considering the report.
The appearance of the motion on the Order Paper a full year after the report was approved—I suppose that by parliamentary standards that counts as expedition—encourages me to think that, on the one hand, I am fortunate, but that, on the other hand, the other Select
710
Committee proposed by the Leader of the House—a Committee on procedures in the House—cannot come a moment too soon.
The report builds on the work of the Computer Sub-Committee during the 1983 Parliament. That Sub-Committee was ably and enthusiastically chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (:Mr. McWilliam), and its report, "Information Technology: Members' Requirements", was agreed in December 1984 and debated in July 1985. The report drew on the results of a detailed study by The Economist intelligence unit on Members' information technology needs.
The 1984 report proposed the phased introduction of a local cable network based on broad-band cabling throughout the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings, with a view to giving all Members, their staff and the Departments of the House access to centrally generated information services such as POLIS and a wide range of commercial services and databases.
During the debate on the report, suggestions were made that the Sub-Committee had not consulted widely enough among Members at large. Other criticisms, too, were made, including some rather cranky views, such as that Members did not really need computer systems or word processing, and that those who did were a tiny minority. It would be nice to think that those ideas had bitten the dust, not least because, for our most recent study, we again examined Members' circumstances so as fully to inform the work of the Sub-Committee before producing our report.
For example, we conducted another survey along almost identical lines to the earlier survey. The results are summarised in paragraphs 14 to 16 of our report, and are set out in more detail in page 13, at the back of the volume. They show what can be described only as a staggering increase in the use of computers by Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Simon Coombs: As the hon. Gentleman said, the report is already a year old. Does he have any more recent information on that trend?
Dr. Cunningham: I have only anecdotal evidence, but it all suggests increasing use of computer systems of various kinds by Members and their staff. It is impossible to keep updating the information in reports in the hope that one day they might be debated on the Floor of the House. I take the intention of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) to be supportive, in that he agrees that those important developments continue to gather momentum.
Of the 355 Members who returned the questionnaire, 293 were already using computerised equipment of some kind and a further 21 were planning to do so. Even if no account is taken of the non-respondents, more than a year ago 48 per cent. of all Members and a clear majority of Back Benchers had entered the world of the late 20th century and introduced some kind of information technology appliance into their offices. In other words, the use of computers and word processors had increased threefold in the five years between the earlier report and the report now before the House.
The basic point is clear. When the Sub-Committee discusses Members' information technology needs, we are not hypothesising about something that will happen in the future: we are talking about what has already happened and is a continuing trend. A majority of Members now, use

711
computer systems, as, of course, do all modern businesses, educational establishments and people in industry, commerce and administration throughout Whitehall. The House is engaged in a catching-up exercise on behalf of Members, in the interests not only of more efficient offices here—and, one hopes, more effective scrutiny of Ministers from time to time—but of providing a more efficient service on behalf of our constituents.
Computers and word processors are now almost a routine part of office life in Westminster, and I hope that we shall agree tonight that we need to take certain steps—I emphasise that they are modest steps—to regularise the situation. The House has a responsibility to decide how best those formidable services can be provided for Members, and what we can do collectively to help colleagues to take full advantage of what computer systems have to offer.
We accept that the priority is the need to provide proper offices for Members. Like many other Members in the Chamber today, I have been in the House a long time, yet we still have not achieved the modest goal of providing an office for each Member. I accept that as an objective of the House administration, but we should also accept the need to provide proper computer and information technology systems for all Members.
I acknowledge the debt that we owe the Leader of the House and his immediate predecessor for adopting a new and more energetic approach to improving the workings of the House in all its aspects. However, in this case, the most remarkable aspect of the growth in the use of computers by Members is that it has happened entirely as a result of individual decisions. Members have acted on their own behalf, not because of any collective decision or provision at Westminster.
Of course, the piecemeal approach has had a price in terms of public expenditure. First, there is no guarantee that the equipment bought through the office costs allowance is the best available, the most suitable in the circumstances, or the best value for money. Secondly, piecemeal individual purchases of computers, word processors and fax machines guarantees that, in terms of public expenditure, the worst bargain is probably struck.
As paragraph 31 of the report explains:
"no other large scale user of computers (whether in industry or in government) would countenance off-the-shelf purchase at standard retail prices when contemplating the acquisition of many hundreds of machines."
Yet that is how equipment is provided here. People make individual decisions and go out and acquire what they think is the best buy off the shelf. If bulk purchasing were available, the cost to the public purse would be significantly reduced, without necessarily eliminating choice for Members. The same considerations apply to the maintenance of equipment.
Page 34 of the report describes the Computer Officer of the House as suggesting that savings of at least 30 per cent. could be made by central purchasing of computers. He cites a saving of almost 70 per cent. in maintenance costs if there were some collective provision.
Thirdly, Members buy expensive equipment, yet often use it only in routine and basic ways, such as for word processing, keeping personal records and filing, whereas
712
they could use the same equipment to tap into the vast amount of information available on public and commercial databases.
That happens because we have failed collectively to provide an efficient system whereby all our machines could talk to each other and use the computerised information systems available in the House, in Government and in the outside world. So there is huge under-utilisation of even the resources that we have.
The Sub-Committee's report makes a number of proposals to address the inadequacies of the present system. As I said, they are extremely modest proposals. My personal preference would be for the House to accept full responsibility for the provision of computers and associated equipment for all Members' offices and to establish a comprehensive network to support the machines. However, I have been persuaded that, for the time being, we should not seek such an all-embracing and comprehensive approach—hence the line taken in the report.
Our first proposals are designed to ensure that there is proper provision in the Palace and outbuildings for the transmission of computer data between Members' offices, and between Members' offices and the wide range of data services now available. We therefore propose, at paragraph 44, that discussions should be held between the Parliamentary Works Office, the Computer Officer—to whom I pay tribute for his excellent work in servicing the Committee and in providing advice and information to the House more widely—the Communications Manager, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and appropriate commercial contractors, to identify the type and capacity of cable required to meet the long-term needs of the House for the transmission of both data and television signals.
A consultants' study of the recabling of the House and surrounding buildings for staff services and the annunciator service has already been commissioned. That is an important and useful development, but it is also important to recognise that we shall need to recable the House for the annunciator and Library services and for other services. It would be nonsense and short-sighted not to take into account, before that decision is made, the needs of hon. Members for information technology services. We would expect the consultations to lead to an early decision to introduce a new broad-band cable throughout the Palace and the outbuildings which would meet the needs of the House for the foreseeable future.
There are additional reasons for introducing such a cable, not directly connected with computers. The Services Committee has recently been under great pressure from hon. Members who understandably want access to terrestrial, satellite and cable television in their offices. Some hon. Members already have access to some of those services in existing buildings, but the majority have not. Moreover, from October, those hon. Members who are lucky enough to have palaces in phase 1 of the new building—[HON. MEMBERS: "Palaces?"] I meant "offices"; it was a slip of the tongue. It may be a palace, but it is no prize.
Such hon. Members will already have annunciator screens doubling as conventional television sets that can carry all terrestrial television services and one or two satellite services. In the rest of the buildings, the annunciator system is now antique and is extremely expensive to operate and maintain, especially given that

713
every single replacement has to be tailormade because the existing annunciator screens can no longer be bought off the shelf.
A new cable throughout the buildings would therefore serve three separate and important functions: to link Members' computers into what could develop into a computer network; to provide all Members' offices with access to commercial television services; and to provide the framework for the replacement of the annunciator system.
The Committee's second main proposal, at paragraph 57 of the report, is for the establishment of a working party to draw up specifications for the interfaces required between Members' work stations and the cable system, and to draw up a list of approved types of computers, word processors and other standard office equipment. Among others, the working party would include representatives of the Library, whose POLIS system is the most obvious readily available database to which hon. Members may wish to have access. The vast majority of hon. Members who replied to the questionnaire last year wanted access to the POLLS service.
Such provision may in itself cut public expenditure by reducing the cost of Members' gaining access to the information that they require. For example, many questions may not need to be tabled, and the necessity for reports to be commissioned on behalf of Members' may be eliminated. That means that there is a potential benefit in cost terms, too.
A list of approved equipment would be the first tentative move towards the standardisation of equipment in Members' offices and, as the report says at paragraph 60,
"would be an interim stage towards the likely ultimate objective of transferring responsibility for the purchase of Members' basic equipment from the individual Member to a central fund".
At that interim stage, we could begin to see the advantage of central purchasing and maintenance under an arrangement which allowed Members to buy equipment through a central agency, preferably the Computer Officer, and to buy into standard maintenance and training contracts, thus saving considerable sums.
The report goes on to say that the House may well wish in future to take the "final step" towards the central ownership and maintenance of computerised office equipment, but that is not recommended now; nor is it an inevitable consequence of what the Committee proposes.
I remind the House, however, that such a move would not exactly be revolutionary. It is the common practice in many Commonwealth and European Parliaments, and as long ago as 1987, the Top Salaries Review Body expressed the view
"that there would be considerable advantages in the central provision of equipment by the House, especially in terms of standardisation and bulk buying".
For the time being, we do not propose that the House should go down that road, and we respect the right of those hon. Members who wish to continue to bang out their constituency mail on ancient manual typewriters or to have the right not to be connected into any on-line information system. The fact that the equipment is there in Members' offices and ready to tap into does not mean that Members are obliged to use it.
However, an agreement that only certain types of equipment may be purchased through the office costs allowance would be a small step in the right direction, because it would mean that we could move towards
714
compatible systems throughout the House. It would also probably not be that painful for individual Members. Our survey last year suggested that the overwhelming majority—93 per cent.—of computer equipment was already IBM PC-compatible, so a good deal of basic standardisation is already taking place through hon. Members' own decisions.
The House will be wondering what all this will cost. When I took over the chairmanship of the Computer Sub-Committee, I was warned that cost would be the big stumbling block in the way of anything that we thought of proposing. Since then, the Parliamentary Works Office has done some basic sums for us in March this year, it concluded that about £1·5 million would provide us with a new cable, completely new annunciators capable of carrying television pictures, and facilities for connecting all equipment to the cable. Given that the annunciator system is now life-expired and will have to be replaced, by the Government's own admission, in the next few years, the total sum about which we are talking is relatively tiny.
Let me put the sum of £1·5 million into a wider context. The Members' pay and allowances vote for 1991–92 is £57·5 million. The vote for the House of Commons administration is £44·25 million and the parliamentary works vote is £29·36 million. Set beside those sums, £1.5 million to purchase the kind of cabling that we suggest—some of which will be necessary in any event—is a modest sum, and no one could describe it as an outrageous drain on public expenditure.
In return for that sum, the House would acquire the basic framework into which we could build a computer and communications network to suit the changing demands of Members during the next few decades. It seems to me a small price to pay, and the taxpayer would be getting better value for his money than under the present arrangements for such expenditure. Of course, the ultimate objective—which may not gain favour with every hon. Member—is more effective scrutiny by Members of what happens here, and more effective representation of our constituents.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that spending that amount of money would undoubtedly bring significant savings? For example, telephone bills would be much smaller because people would use far fewer outside lines to get back into what they could access internally.
Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to agree with that point, although it is difficult to quantify the gains at this stage. When I was elected 21 years ago, Members did not even have their own telephones. There may even have been a time when Members provided their own telephones. I do not know whether that is the case. Perhaps I should ask the Library to check. It seems preposterous now to propose that a telephone cabling system should not be provided for our use and the use of our staff. I am sure that, in a few years, when people look back, they will see that we took an inordinately long time to modernise the way in which we provide information to Members and researchers.
I believe that the Leader of the House will want to respond positively to the report, as he has responded positively to other suggestions for improvements and progress in the way in which the House manages its affairs. I certainly hope that he will respond positively. The most positive step that he could take would be to make it clear

715
that, following this debate, he will initiate the necessary action with the House of Commons Commission and other committees to make progress on implementing the recommendations.
The report concludes in paragraph 68:
"The House cannot continue to adopt a wholly amateur approach to the use of new technologies which are already the standard tools of work in industry, business, education and government services of all kinds throughout the developed world".
Members' actions show that we believe that there is a need to move forward and become more professional in our approach. All that is needed is the collective will on the part of the Government and the House of Commons Commission to allow that more professional approach to be adopted.
We do not expect Members to rig up their own telephone lines, as I said a few moments ago. We should no longer expect them to rig up their own computer systems. From time to time—indeed, more regularly than ever as the general election approaches—I talk to business men and women who look forward to a change of Government. While they do not all necessarily support my view, they have one view in common when they come to the House. They never cease to be amazed at the quaintness and faded gentility of the place and the appalling lack of services and facilities in the offices in which we work to represent them, their employees and our constituents. In the main, they go away thinking that Parliament is always at the forefront of demands that other organisations, establishments and groups reform themselves. In this respect, as in some others, they think that it is about time that we reformed ourselves for a change.
7.22 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Until he made his last few comments, I had been about to say that I entirely agreed with everything that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. Clearly, I must dissociate myself from the only mistake in his whole speech. He will not win the next election. However, I am sure that he will take everything else in the spirit that I intend. I support everything that he said about the matter that we are debating.
When I first entered the House in 1987, I was luckier than many of my colleagues, in that I had used a word processor before. Apart from that, I was computer-illiterate. I suppose that there are those who would say that I am illiterate, but for the purposes of this debate let us settle for computer-illiterate.
As all my colleagues will know, when I first arrived I was provided with a desk, a telephone, two filing cabinets and a not ungenerous office allowance. But otherwise, I was utterly and completely on my own. Four years later, I have two Amstrad minicomputers, a word processing package, a database and a modem link to the Parliamentary On-Line Information System. I hasten to add that I am one of just 49 Members who have taken advantage of the opportunity to be linked up directly to POLIS. To this day, I am slightly amazed that all that technology works. Whether it works well is a different matter, but I am constantly amazed that it works.
It is clear to me that my computer equipment enables me to do things that I could not possibly do otherwise.
716
However, I am conscious that I am not getting the best even from my fairly small basic personal computer. There are still things that I do not understand about my word processing package. Many a time when I am using it, someone comes along and says, "Why are you doing that? All that you need to do is the other." I am still learning, four years on.
I know now that, when I set up on my own small database which I had bought off the shelf, I did not do it properly. Some 10,000 records later it is rather difficult to alter. But perhaps someone knows different and can tell me how to alter it—one of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I have yet to get to grips with POLIS.
To obtain all that equipment set me—or the taxpayer—back £5,000. I have not the faintest idea whether it was good value for money. I have no means and no knowledge to test that. Such a tangle does the mother of Parliaments no credit whatever. When other people can put men on the moon, many an office in the House still has steam-driven typewriters, as the hon. Gentleman said. It really is not good enough.
Therefore, I welcome the debate and I support the proposals in the report. However, I am appalled that nothing seemed to be done after the debate in 1985. I hope that this time we shall not have a rerun of what happened then. In supporting the report, I wish to explain three matters as they seem to me. I shall state, first, why I believe that we need to change; secondly, what seems sensible for us to do; and, thirdly, how we should make those changes.
The reasons why we need to make the changes have been well set out in the report and by the hon. Gentleman. If we follow his Committee's recommendations we shall end up as better legislators and better representatives of our constituents, irrespective of our party. We and other people will be able to judge whether the money we spend gives us value for money.
How would we become better legislators? First, we would be better informed. It is amazing that events can take place in the world outside and we do not know about them. My leg is always pulled when I complain that I do not have access to television. People say that all that I want to do is stay up late at night and watch what I read about in the newspapers. But I can work here all day and not know the first thing about some major news item, because I am confined to the Chamber or my office. I do not regularly have access to the world outside. If we were better informed, we should be better legislators.
Secondly, it would be easier for all of us to do research. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be fewer demands on House of Commons staff. I am convinced that that is right. I am very conscious of how often I ask other people to do something which I know could be done more simply if only I had the means to do so. There would be enormous savings. We would also be encouraged to do more research. Sometimes I am reluctant to use the time of a member of the Library staff to research a matter which I consider interesting but relatively trivial compared with the demands of others. We would be able to do more and better research if we could do it ourselves.
One advantage about which the Government—whatever party is in power; this is not a party political point—may not be so keen is that we would be better legislators because the system would bring us closer to the Government and the Departments. It would make us much more able to ask questions, exchange information and go back and ask again. We would no longer have to

717
exchange interminable letters and wait a long time for the replies. We would be better legislators if we were closer to the Government.
Why would we be better representatives? I am sure that, given a system that we all understood and could plug into, we would give our constituents a quicker and fuller response to their inquiries. We would be in a much better position to seek help from them if we could communicate with people. We would find it much easier to communicate with our constituents. How often are we criticised for being remote and out of touch? It would be easier for constituents to communicate with us.
I know of 10-year-old constituents who are capable of faxing information who are amazed when I look blank and say that such things do not happen here. We have all known occasions when people want to fax important information to us and we have scratched our heads and replied that we are not sure how that could be done. If we had a cabling system, as proposed by the hon. Member for Copeland, we should be better able to communicate with our constituents and they with us.
Value for money is important. If the proposed system was installed, we could make better use of our time. At the moment, there is a quaint tradition of pieces of paper rushing around the Palace after us. I pay great tribute to those who try to find us in appalling circumstances, but it does us no credit that we communicate with each other in this place by means of little bits of paper. Sometimes they do not catch up with us for several days.
The new system would also make better use of the time of our staff. How many of us have had to dispatch someone from Abbey gardens, to Dean's yard, Norman Shaw North or to the Palace? If one totted up the amount of time spent obtaining information it would be clear that obtaining it via the cable system suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland would represent a sensible saving of taxpayers' money.
I am equally convinced that we would use our allowances in a different way if the new facilities were introduced. Bulk purchasing would save money, as would the standardisation of equipment. I am also sure that there would be less wastage. I do not know whether some of the things that I did were a waste of money, but I am sure that others have done what they thought to be right only to discover, through no fault of their own, that their system is not compatible with others. They may discuss the matter with colleagues and discover that, had they done so earlier, they would have done things differently.
We may argue about whether we can quantify the cost of telephone calls—the hon. Member for Copeland is right that we may be unable to do so—but I am certain that the proposed new system would result in getting more from the same amount of expenditure. I am sure that that would happen even if we did not reduce the individual allowance to pay for the central funding of the system. I believe that, under the new system, we would get more from the current level of expenditure and that is just as important as a value-for-money exercise, as is one to discover ways in which to spend less.
What should we do? Certainly we should do more than we did in 1985. However, we should do nothing until we have wired up the system. No matter how hard an individual may beaver away, we cannot do anything until we are linked with the central system. The wiring up of the system must be top of the list.
718
Standardised, specially designed equipment is just as important as the ability to bulk purchase. The word processing packages, mail boxes, message systems and diary systems should be specially designed for us and centrally available. We must also have a comprehensive database system. POLIS is all right up to a point, but it simply tells us where to look in Hansard for what we want—it does not tell us what is in Hansard. A comprehensive database system would go way beyond POLIS, useful though that is.
We should ensure that all the facilities can be accessed from each of our constituencies—that important point was not stressed in the report. Increasingly, individual Members are taking the view, often rightly, that a better service to constituents can be given if staff are based in the constituency rather than here. Whatever we set up in the Palace, it must be readily accessed from our constituencies.
We must ensure that help is provided for all hon. Members. When I came to the House, I considered myself lucky, as I knew a little about word processing. We must establish a proper system to help hon. Members make better use of the equipment available. They should understand what they might need in the future. The starting point for that system must be an invitation for bids for its design and development. Despite what the report says, I do not want another in-house Committee to be established which will run for years. It is no good lion. Members scratching their heads about what will happen next. We should go to the experts straight away. They should design and develop what we need for the future.
We should set up a central purchasing system as quickly as possible because, even if we do not follow some of the other proposals, that would be a sensible step ahead. We must establish urgently advisory as well as training services for hon. Members and their staff—it is probably more important to train our staff to use the equipment. That training and advice must be basic as well as advanced and readily accessible to all.
I have explained why I believe that we should support the report and why the Government should take firm action. I believe that that action will make us better legislators and better representatives. It would also help us to achieve better value for money. It only remains for me to comment on when we should act—in a word, now. If we leave it just for a moment, it will be too late. The longer we wait, the greater the waste. The longer we wait, the longer constituents will go on receiving less than the ideal service that they have every right to expect. The longer we wait, the longer we will miss an important opportunity to enable us to ensure that our legislation is of the highest quality. We pass up such an opportunity at our peril.
7.36 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: My speech will echo largely what has already been said. The work that has been done by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his Sub-Committee is to be warmly welcomed. It is not typical of him to have such radical notions about making fast progress—that is in no sense a criticism—but I wish that he had used his considerable energy and resourcefulness to push the conclusions of the report further. However, he has explained his reasons, and I accept them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that we are not talking about a minor, technical

719
matter. We must decide whether such new services would make us better legislators and more readily acessible to the outside world. I have been a Member of the House for two Parliaments—other hon. Members have been here much longer—and even in that time I have noticed a dramatic increase in the volume of paper that is pushed across our desks. It is difficult to be sure that one has dealt conscientiously with all that paper unless one has the best and most modern information technology systems available.
I do not believe that it is particularly difficult to work out what we need. The work of the Committee has been signal in that regard, as it has identified that we need a broad-band cable network throughout the precincts of the Palace and outstations such as Norman Shaw North.
The hon. Member for Copeland was right to say that some of the work could be done in parallel with other projects—for example, the replacement of the annunciator system. I hope that the Government will be able to take decisions quickly enough to achieve the cost benefits that would accrue from cabling the network and replacing the annunciator system quickly. Presumably that means that that would be done within months rather than years.
We have already had a delay of six years since the last report, which is a great shame. I do not know who is to blame for that, and I know that processes in this place work exceedingly slow, but we shall stand condemned of unconscionable delay if we do not seize the moment to make the progress that the Committee indentified as possible.
The Committee report makes a telling point when it alludes to what is being done in sister parliaments on the other side of the Atlantic and in Europe. Although the precedent may not be entirely in point, it is clear that there are many lessons to be learned. In the main, those countries are miles ahead in terms of what is available to us. It is a great shame that the mother of Parliaments should not at least try to keep up with the times.
As a Scot who represents a rural area in south-east Scotland, I find it most frustrating that, for many weeks of the year, I am at home. I am not on holiday, but Parliament is in recess. Everyone understands that there is a substantial difference. I find it frustrating and difficult to continue the amount of work that I can achieve in Westminster when I am in my constituency for the long summer recess. If I had the advantage of the technological facilities that are now readily available, as a matter of course, even to medium-sized businesses in my constituency, I would be better able to continue the work that I would like to do. Increasingly, people seek access to me by fax machine or electronic mail, but I cannot respond to electronic mail. Although POLIS has limitations, access to it would allow us better to scrutinise the Executive which, after all, is what this place is supposed to be about.
I should not like anything that I have said to be taken as a suggestion that information technology can replace the invaluable personal service that we receive from the Library, the Computer Officer and others. However, much of the strain could be taken from them if hon. Members could use the machinery and the information technology themselves.
I am less worried about staff being trained. Staff have more time than we have and, in my experience, they are
720
more concerned with text generation. I am interested in having more access to data. Therefore, although I accept that training is an essential part of the whole package, when I try to persuade my colleagues to move into information technology and supply themselves with IBM-compatible personal computers, those who have had no access to information technology are confronted by a fear barrier.
Once one has established the difference between a disk operating system and a piece of software, one is halfway there. It takes no more than two hours if one applies one's mind to it. Most of my colleagues are intelligent enough to master that. A wee bit of push and access to a couple of hours' training by experts, just to cross that initial fear barrier, would generate not simply the threefold increase noted in the report—dramatic though that is—but much more.
The hon. Member for Copeland is absolutely right to say that the standardisation and centralisation of the hardware would have massive advantages in terms of system commonality. There may be a price to pay—and I note that the report rightly says that that would not necessarily mean limiting ourselves to a single supplier, which would be wrong. Apricot and Compaq—both well established firms which produce machines in this country to a high standard—provide a range of machines.
However, if we could achieve some sort of standardisation and if serving Members knew that there were three or four industry-standard software packages, they could be given a great deal of help and become confident. If they found that there was a quirk in their software package, a quick telephone call would sort it out because they would be dealing with only two or three industry-standard software packages. So a great deal could be gained from standardising the hardware and some of the software packages.
I spend some time following developments in information technology as best as I can. I must confess to the hon. Member for Copeland that I was among those who did not return the last questionnaire because I was too busy trying to move the paper across my desk. To that extent, I stand condemned. However, the hon. Gentleman can add me to the list of people who have machines and try to stay at the forefront of the technology. I must admit that even I find it difficult to work out whether there is an advantage to acquiring DOS 5 as apposed to DOS 3.3, but the experts would no doubt argue for hours about the relative merits.
If I could telephone an expert and say, "I have the standard hardware package and a couple of standard word processing and software packages—is this sensible?", the answer would be yes or no. That would avoid my having to spend hours reading computer magazines on train and plane journeys between my constituency and Westminster, so there are massive advantages to be had.
The Committee's work is valuable, and I hope that we shall not waste any more time. There are many reasons for proceeding, as the Select Committee suggests, as soon as possible. I almost said that I have only an academic interest in who is in Government after the next general election, but that is not true. If I have any influence in the next Government, one of the first measures that we should introduce to this place is a longer-term, more visionary approach to providing facilities for hon. Members who are re-elected.

721
I hope that tonight's debate will make it easier for those of us who are re-elected and any new Members to start afresh and be confident that, in the four or five years of the next Parliament, facilities will be available to enable us to act in a modern way, represent our constituencies and scrutinise the Executive to the limits of our power. I hope that that will be provided centrally by the Services Select Committee with the information technology that best enables it to do so.
7.46 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was right to suggest that he had only an academic interest in the outcome of the next general election. I am confident that my colleagues and I will still be on this side of the Chamber and that the hon. Gentleman will still be on the other side gazing across at us. That is the only note of dissent which I wish to enter with the hon. Gentleman.
I join the general welcome that has been given to the report on computer services for hon. Members. It is unusual for me to become enthusiastic about a Select Committee report, but perhaps I am jaundiced by my membership of the Welsh Select Committee. I must admit that I read the original report when it was published in 1984. I was then a new Member of Parliament, and I was struck by what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) described as the faded gentility of the old-fashioned way in which we carry on our business.
I was excited by what I read in the original report, and thought of the possibilities that the new world of technology would open up. I hoped that it would equip us all and make us better legislators. Inevitably, press coverage of our consideration of the matter at that time was typified by a journalist who picked up a comment in the report about an hon. Member who said that his greatest need in new technology was to have a working telephone.
I was fascinated to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is linked up to the POLIS system. In 1984, I thought that we could have such links and indulge in our justified professional curiosity in pursuing matters about which some hon. Members are reluctant to trouble the excellent staff of the Library. We do not want to bother them with every question that occurs to us and some ideas are inevitably left behind. To have an opportunity to fish through POLIS or, better still, an expanded database, to pursue all the questions that hon. Members with a lively genuine interest should want to pursue would be a real addition. I express no criticism of the service that we receive from the House of Commons Library, which provides us with excellent briefings, but, six years after the original report, nothing has happened.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Copeland said about money, of necessity, being spent on providing computer services for staff and Officers of the House, but not for Members. I also noted the validity of his comment that better value for the taxpayer could be achieved by the use of common equipment from which hon. Members could select how to meet their needs.
Those of us whose secretaries and research assistants are not based here, in the Palace of Westminster, but who choose for good reasons to locate them in our constituencies provide a saving to the House. However, it
722
is not a total saving to the taxpayer, because we make provision for our secretaries and research assistants in our constituencies from our office costs allowance.
I have long noted that there is a difference in cost share—those Members who, like me, choose to base their staff outside the Palace of Westminster end up being treated unfairly, because they are making office space available in the Palace by purchasing or renting it elsewhere. We also provide the heating, lighting and cleaning in those outside offices, so that it does not have to be provided for us within the Palace. If they were based here, our secretaries and research assistants would have the basic issue of equipment—a desk, a chair, a filing cabinet and carpet to walk on—for which the cost of provision and maintenance would be borne by the Palace. That issue should be examined, and consideration given to whether the office cost allowance should be extended for those Members who choose to provide those expenses outside the Palace.
Another issue closely linked to the provision of computer services is the opportunity that could be taken to provide the Government telephone network for all of us with staff in our constituencies. The most common telephone call I make is to my secretary in the constituency. I try to take advantage of the GTN by dialling 7, so that the cost falls on the Palace of Westminster switchboard as a local call. However, that does not work the other way, and my secretary's call to me is her most frequent telephone call. If all Members were provided with a GTN system in their constituencies, that would provide a saving. Such an operation must be introduced if the report is to be implemented and we are to derive the benefit of the equipment and technology, both here in the House and in our constituencies.
I listened with the greatest of interest to the news that the new offices will have annunciators the double as commercial televisions. The absence of the availability of commercial televisions to us when we are in our offices or in the Chamber inevitably leads us to be in an ivory tower—often on the wrong occasions. We need the source of information on which so many of our constituents depend.
I am sure that Members have often returned home to their constituencies at the weekend to be asked whether they saw a certain television programme such as "Question Time"—one of the most obvious examples. Obviously, many Members will not have seen it because they were in the Chamber or travelling home on Thursday evening. That gap in our knowledge probably leads people to suspect us of being in an ivory tower, because it is not one known to our constituents.
A couple of years ago, I visited the new Parliament in Canberra. In providing a brand new Parliament building which is designed to be good for at least another 200 years, the Australians have taken the opportunity to provide all the latest facilities. There is a television link to the Chamber in the office of every Member, and all the other channels are available. I should think that the Whips would very much want the same system to be introduced here. In Australia, they know in advance who is to speak next and have control of their own television camera so that they can pan round the Chamber to see if the next speaker is in his or her place. If panic sets in because he or she were not there, the problem can be easily overcome.
There are a number of such examples, of which that is but a small one, of how televising the Chamber and the other use of commercial channels would be helpful. The

723
only danger is what that system might do for attendance in the Chamber. If there were more opportunity to view it from outside, from offices, attendance in the Chamber might be as low as now or even lower, except at peak times when doughnutting might take place.
I am enthused about the way the report points the way forward, and I hope that we shall make progress, and not continue the lack of advance of the past six years. As other hon. Members have said, we should seize the opportunity to make progress—and the word should be "now", not "tomorrow".
7.56 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: When I first arrived in the House in 1983, I took as much advice as possible from colleagues already here on what it was essential to know in order to function in this place. I was told that, provided one found the loos, one would be able to function in all ways as a perfectly adequate Member of Parliament. Therefore, the range of knowledge that I did not immediately acquire was substantial, and among the information that I was not given early on was which computer one should buy to be an effective Member of Parliament.
I went to a person whom I thought could give advice, someone who had been a fellow councillor on Reading borough council. I said to him, "You know about computers, Geoff." He said, "Yes, I do. You need a Commodore." Therefore, I have been incompatible for the past eight years. As one who feels for those other Members who found themselves in a similar position, I felt it appropriate to say a word or two on this important subject.
I came into the House in the 1980s. With the exception of the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I think that all those participating in the debate come from the more recent intakes to the House. We have been struck by what the report says about the services available to parliamentarians in other countries. I could not help noticing what the report said about Italy. It stated:
"The situation in the Chamber of Deputies is very similar" to that in the Senate.
"The central computer is an IBM 3090 Model 120S (shortly to be replaced by a Model 150J). Linked to this are two smaller systems, an IBM AS/400 Model B60 and an IBM 4381 Model 91 with altogether around 150 terminals, dedicated to supporting substantive (i.e. non-administrative) Parliamentary work. And the 12 Party Group offices are equipped with IBM PS/2 Model 60 Personal Computers and printers (not all linked to the central computer). There are also personal computers linked to the central system in each of the 13 Permanent Commission offices. Finally, the Chamber Research Department has a Phillips P7000 computer with 20 terminals. Deputies have access to all these facilities. As in the Senate, they make no contribution to their cost."
There are many other examples in the report that illustrate how far ahead other legislatures are. Why? It is fairly obvious that there is a generally low level of service to Members of this House across the board, and the computer service is no exception. Equally, if the number of hon. Members attending this debate is anything to go by, one must admit that there is a low level of interest in the subject. Why?
724
It would have been interesting if the Committee had looked at the relationship between the use of computer equipment and length of Members' service. I suspect that the more recently elected Members are those more likely to use computer equipment. That means that, over a period, as Members retire, so the percentage of Members who understand and want to use computers will progressively increase. It may not simply be a matter of educating existing Members, but may also involve the gradual turnover as new Members come into the House with each general election. That must mean that the level of understanding of information technology is rising all the time.
Having said that, I agree with the Committee that we should not go down the road of exercising compulsion as to the equipment that right hon. and hon. Members should use. Instead, we should provide in every office the plug that will allow the right equipment to be attached. That is not to say that every Member of Parliament should have a computer of one type or another. I support bulk purchase, but only on the basis that it offers the full commercial advantage that usually accrues from that practice—and not because we want to dictate to right hon. and hon. Members, who must continue to be their own men and women in deciding what is appropriate for them.
Recently, we have seen an enormous growth in the number of fax machines in the Palace. Perhaps we should switch soon to the bulk purchase of that equipment, in order to give Members of Parliament the advantage of so doing. I see no reason why we cannot do that immediately, because it would not require any increase in the availability of networking. Perhaps the Chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Copeland, can comment. I hope that suggestion will find favour with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Right hon. and hon. Members also need a closed user group to operate a telemail system such as Telecom Gold. The antiquity of the methods that right hon. and hon. Members use to contact one another now is extraordinary. It is almost impossible to get a message to another right hon. or hon. Member, whether they are in the Palace or elsewhere, unless they happen to be answering their phones. It would be far preferable to leave a telemail message, which one could be certain of being received by either the Member of Parliament or his or her secretary.
All that would add to the potential use of a system. We must ensure that the broad band network under consideration will be of sufficient capacity to meet future needs, not only because, as years go by, more and more right hon. and hon. Members will want to use the system, but because the volume of the potential usuage will grow. There is a danger that sufficient capacity will not be provided in the broad band network to meet all the possible uses that will emerge. All offices in the Palace and in the outbuildings should be network-linked, and we should plan ahead for such an arrangement as it comes on-stream.
I do not believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) suggested, that the availability of Chamber television coverage in the offices of right hon. and hon. Members would result in a lower attendance in the Chamber itself. I recall the argument that the televising of our proceedings would have a bad effect on the behaviour of right hon and hon. Members. That has been shown not to be true. Nor do I take the view that the provision of televisions in our offices would affect our

725
attendance in the Chamber. Instead, that facility would allow right hon. and hon. Members to keep in touch. I share the view expressed by others that right hon. and hon. Members are often the last to know what has happened in the Chamber or elsewhere in the world.
In recent months, I have questioned my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the provision of Sky satellite television to right hon. and hon. Members who ought to have access to the full range of stations. United Artists recently made a proposal concerning parliamentary proceedings. That is a good step forward, and I hope that the proposal can be extended. I also hope that we may enjoy news coverage not only by CNN, as we did during the Gulf crisis, but by Sky News, which is the British 24-hour news station from British Sky Broadcasting.
Right hon. and hon. Members could also have access to the video recordings, and with the right technology, would be able to call up on their own screens a news item or coverage of a particular incident in the House. One would not have to wait until tomorrow's newspapers to try to catch up, learning at second hand what had happened, according to the media. Instead, one could quickly reference an incident to which another right hon. or hon. Member or a constituent had drawn one's attention. Not to put too fine a point on it, such a facility would allow a Member of Parliament to check whether he was attacked during his absence from the Chamber in the way that a news report alleged earlier the same day or the day before.
Work also needs to be done on developing software that will enable right hon. and hon. Members to enjoy the full value of the hardware that might be the subject of bulk purchasing. Other hon. Members have referred to software that can serve as an electronic diary, handle a Member of Parliament's casework and so on. We probably all share the same needs in that regard. I see no reason why work on the provision of such software should not begin immediately and continue apace.
I believe that the cost of such an operation would be perfectly acceptable in political and economic terms. Mention has been made of cabling costs of £1·5 million. The cost to the public purse of the necessary hardware and software would be greater—but still a relatively small sum in comparison with the figures suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland. Members of Parliament would then be able to do a better job of representing their constituents and of controlling the Executive. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that is sometimes advanced, to the effect that the Executive want to prevent Back Benchers from doing their proper job of monitoring the Government's work. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is anxious to reassure us that that has never been in his mind.
An opportunity to replace the ancient annunciator system would permit a move in the direction suggested by the Committee. I share the hope that the process of improvement can be speeded up. It is a long time since the issue was last raised in the House, and a long time since the report was published. In fact, it was 16 days less than one year ago.
When I was a newcomer to the House, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was then Minister of State for Information Technology. He set in motion a revolution that introduced information technology to primary and secondary schools throughout the country.
726
The first children to benefit from that development of the mid-1980s could be among those who become Members of Parliament in the general election after next. That generation will be amazed to discover that we have taken so long to reach technology conclusions that are so obvious, so right and so necessary.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not suggest the establishment of half a dozen working parties to analyse the findings of the Sub-Committee. In my view, its work is excellent and stands on its own merits, and it ought to be . acted upon without further delay.
8.8 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who drew attention to the fact that we are having this debate nearly a year after the report was published. If nothing else, that shows the lack of importance that right hon. and hon. Members—given all the other things that are happening—attach to computerisation. That is a great pity. My first thought on reading the report was that it was very difficult to discuss networks before considering office accommodation. Some of us share offices that are some distance from the Palace. However, I realise that that is often an excuse for doing nothing.
Before coming to the House, I was in the computer industry for some years where I learned that one cannot wait for the next development but that decisions have to be taken and acted upon. Networks are invariably changed a few years after they are installed. I was at the sharp end of the computer industry, buying machines and trying to predict consumer demand, and I found that it was difficult to predict the way in which industry would move.
Desk-top publishing hit us almost before we realised it. Portability took rather longer, but it is now gathering momentum and might have changed earlier decisions on the report. The development of the fax machine in the past year has been quite extraordinary in terms of cost and extra facilities. That creates new demands and new ways of looking at problems associated with computing.
We should first create a network which should at least cover all hon. Members' offices and be flexible and simple. It should contain a database which can be expanded to incorporate extra facilities. It could contain our electoral rolls, because at present we spend a great deal of time trying to find out whether someone who has written to us is a constituent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon spoke about messages. Our message systems are efficient in their own way, but it is extraordinary that we cannot make use of the advances in computer technology to provide a more up-to-date message system. Extra information through television and radio channels needs to be provided in a much more user-friendly way. The network must be created as soon as possible.
I entirely agree with what has been said about training and advice. The problem encountered when introducing a new computer system to a company is that people are ignorant about its potential and about the sort of software, hardware, printers and peripherals that are needed to do the job properly. I suggest some sort of advice centre so that hon. Members can discuss their needs in a meaningful and knowledgeable way rather than in the somewhat amateurish and ignorant way that people tend to go about

727
it at the moment, which is to ask a friend for advice. When one asks a friend about a good idea, one does not always get the correct answer.
Overall, the report is good, and I wish that we had taken action on it before now. Having installed the network and made use of the advice centre to gain more knowledge about what we want, a basic personal computer, obviously IBM compatible, and a printer should be made available to each Member, and that should not affect the secretarial allowance. Hon. Members can experiment with the system and decide what they need because London Members will probably require a different set-up from Members with constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
Whether we like it or not, over the next 10 years every hon. Member will spend more money on electronic apparatus of one sort or another. In five or six years, we shall be using devices that we cannot even imagine now. I am sure that, five or six years ago, many hon. Members had never even seen a fax machine let alone used one.
Beyond the basic provision, there must be an element of choice. A classic example is the huge advance in the memory capacity of portable computers. The other day, I saw one that had 70 or 80 Mb of memory on a 586 chip. Such a technological increase is quite astounding. Bearing in mind the needs of hon. Members' in their constituency offices, their offices in this place and in their homes, portability will become more and more important. With the basic system in place, hon. Members may wish to use their secretarial allowance to buy other highly portable electronic devices.
I hope that the debate will help us to arrive at a firm conclusion along the lines that I have suggested. As I said, we should make progress with the network and training and with the provision of basic computer facilities. When hon. Members have gained some knowledge, they can make their requirements known and will be able to buy peripheral equipment to fit into the system.
8.16 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke about the time at which the debate started. I had no idea when it would start. Given that we were dealing with Lords amendments and in view of the amount of business on the Order Paper, we might well have embarked on the debate in the middle of the night. I am glad that we did not, because this is an important debate, which deserves an appropriate time.
In holding the debate today, I was implementing a promise given to the hon. Member for Copeland that I would use my best endeavours to debate the report before the summer recess. As the hon. Gentleman said, compared with debates on some other Select Committee reports we have made rapid progress on this one by having the debate within the year in which the report was published.
My hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) complained about delay and said that we should move more swiftly. In endeavouring to hold the debate before the recess, I had it in mind that we would be able to make swift progress on the report's recommendations. I am delighted to see that
728
there has been general agreement on all matters except the result of the next general election. However, that is not material to the debate. Hon. Members feel that these are important matters and that it is imperative to get on with them.
The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Copeland and his Sub-Committee for their work in producing the report, in assessing the current use by hon. Members of computers and similar equipment, for making what the hon. Gentleman described as modest proposals for co-ordination in the use of such equipment, and for making progress in the House. The Sub-Committee has pointed the way in practical terms to the establishment of an information technology network which will enable hon. Members to communicate efficiently with colleagues and constituency offices. Other ways in which it will assist hon. Members have been mentioned in the debate. It will also enable hon. Members to take advantage of the powerful information services that are becoming available in the public and private sectors.
The hon. Member for Copeland referred to last year's survey of Members' computer equipment. That revealed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre pointed out, that many colleagues have used the opportunity of the improvement of the office costs allowance to increase the use of computers, word processors, fax machines and so on which are now penetrating the work of Members' offices. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, we are now talking about issues facing the average Member with an average office. We are no longer dealing with the frontiers of new technology but with the ordinary reality of the day-to-day work of most offices, most other business sectors and, as the hon. Gentleman said, education.
I have already said that most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate referred to the desirability of the House reaching decisions that would lead to early action to implement the recommendations of the Computer Sub-Committee. I fully support the Sub-Committee's proposals. I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Copeland for moving more quickly than his report advocates, although he made clear the reason for going at the pace he suggested—the need to obtain unanimous support. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I well understand that.
We are at a most important new stage in the evolution of the services provided for the House as a whole. The problems raised by the previous report of the Services Committee, to which reference has been made, were frequently quoted during the Ibbs inquiry to illustrate the need for the establishment of a more coherent structure for decisions concerning new services for the House. We already have in place a new director of finance and administration to implement part of the Ibbs report. If the House agrees, I hope that in the autumn we shall have the new Select Committees, including the Finance and Services Committee. That will enable sensible and coherent decisions to be made and full account to be taken of their costs.
Moreover, decisions will be made more quickly than has been the case in the past. My preference is for the more expensive decisions—I stress the more expensive decisions—that face us on the issue to be delayed until the new Ibbs arrangements can be in place and decisions taken through them. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who I know has had to leave the debate, that that is no reason for delay. He called for action now.

729
The Ibbs system will enable us to take those decisions more quickly and efficiently. I hope that the bulk of the decisions can be taken in that way. However, I believe that we can make useful progress towards implementing the report before we reach that point in the autumn. I shall return to this matter at the end of my speech.
As several hon. Members have made clear, there is now wide acceptance in the House of computers, word processors and so on. They are becoming increasingly normal in the day-to-day traffic between Members, Government Departments and officials of the House. The Computer Sub-Committee has also demonstrated that many Back Benchers—I suspect probably the majority by now—have made extensive use of their office costs allowance to purchase such equipment. Many would also like access to information services, such as the Library's POLIS service, and to some commercial information services. The steady improvement in the office costs allowance that has taken place during the lifetime of this Government has helped Members to make use of the new technologies. What we are talking about now is how to proceed further.
If I may follow up what the hon. Member for Copeland said in relation to the previous Services Committee report and the reaction to it, the feeling was that one had to bear in mind the fact that there are still some hon. Members who do not want the new technologies to be imposed upon them. My feeling, and that of most hon. Members who have spoken, is that the number of such Members of Parliament will decline substantially. However, their attitude has to be taken into account.
On the whole, I think that the Computer Sub-Committee has got the balance about right. It was right to say that the building will need to be re-cabled soon for the sake of the annunciator system. I share the Sub-Committee's view that it would be wrong to do so without making provision for the transmission of computerised information services. I am sure, too, that the Computer Sub-Committee was right to emphasise the potential advantages—a point made by the hon. Member for Copeland—of scale in the hulk purchase and maintenance of new office machinery through some sort of central agency. Equally, I am certain that the Sub-Committee was right not to suggest that we are ready to move over to a system in which office equipment is provided from central funds, with individual colleagues no longer having the choice about what equipment to purchase, let alone whether they want such equipment at all. My hon. Friends the Members for Swindon and for Wyre laid emphasis on the need for individual choice.
The overall aim of the Services Committee is set out in paragraph 28(c) of its report. I quote it because, although I was not a member of the Committee, its policy has my unqualified support. The Services Committee says that the objective is that
"the House should now adopt as long-term policy the aim of providing the best available information technology services for Members from central funds, while at the same time preserving a reasonable degree of individual discretion Kn the choice of systems for use by Members and their staffs."
That general aim was endorsed by all hon. Members who spoke in the debate. It represents an important declaration of intent by the House to accept responsibility for ensuring the best possible computer services for Members, in much
730
the same way as we have now accepted responsibility for providing a minimum standard of basic office accommodation for all Members and their staff.
As has been pointed out, we are not talking just about equipment for individual Members. We are talking about POLIS and various other services that can be plugged in. When I re-read the Computer Sub-Committee's report, I was struck by the wealth of communication and information services that would become available through the establishment of a network. The memorandum from the Library—reproduced on pages 40 to 46 of the report —mentions the vast range of services to which I have just referred. I agree with all those who have said that this will improve the way in which we do our jobs and how we communicate with our constituents.
The Sub-Committee's report also argues in favour of a new cable network for the very straightforward and practical reason that it would simultaneously provide the framework for information technology services and enable the annunciator system to be replaced and all Members to receive the whole range of public service television broadcasts in their offices. I am wholly in favour of that development, particularly since some Members—notably those who will have offfices in the phase 1 building from October—either have or will have access to such services.
Paragraph 47 of the Sub-Committee's report suggests that the main costs of the installation of a new broad-band cable should fall on the Vote of the House of Commons Commission rather than on the parliamentary works budget. The Sub-Committee may be right about that. Indeed, I suspect that it will be right, although discussions need to be held between the parties concerned. Until now, these costs have been seen as falling on the parliamentary works budget. It is likely that that budget will become part of the responsibility of the Commission in the near future. We shall still have to justify the expenditure and ensure that a proper attribution of costs is made, but I believe that that is the way that this matter will proceed.
That brings me to the point about which I was asked by the hon. Member for Copeland—the main proposals for immediate action, contained in paragraphs 44 and 57 of the report. They are for discussions to identify the kind of cable needed for a network and for a working party to recommend a shortlist of approved equipment. I believe that these matters could now be put in hand very swiftly. I take the general endorsement of the report by hon. Members as a clear indication that those hon. Members who have an interest in these matters approve of the report and want us to get on with it.
In the light of the debate, therefore, I propose to ask the House of Commons Commission to authorise the limited amount of expenditure that is needed to allow the initial studies proposed by the Sub-Committee to be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Once the various working parties have reported to the Computer Sub-Committee—or to its post-Ibbs successor—the way should be open for a firm recommendation to be made to the Commission, with the advice of the Finance and Services Committee, to allow planning for a new cable network to be put in hand. I am advised that these initial studies should be speedy affairs. Therefore, I hope and expect that serious plans for the cable network should be put in hand in the autumn.

731
I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Copeland the response that he sought. Again, may I say how grateful the House is to him for the work that he has done. On that basis, knowing that there is a different type of Adjournment debate to follow, I beg to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the Leader of the House does that, I see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) wishes to reply.
8.29 pm
Dr. Cunningham: The speech by the Leader of the House was excellent news for hon. Members, and I warmly welcome his positive response to the debate. In 21 years in the House, I cannot remember a single occasion on which everyone who followed me in the debate agreed with me —it is worth putting that, if nothing else, on record this evening. I suppose that I should enjoy it while it lasts, because I do not expect it to become permanent.
The speeches of the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and of the Leader of the House were well worth listening to. I am grateful for their kind comments about the report which reflect not only on me as Chairman of the Sub-Committee but on all members of the Sub-Committee, whom I thank for their work. It is appropriate also to place on record our thanks to the Clerk and to the advisers to the Committee. Clearly a report that can command such unanimous support as this one has considerable merit, if not a unique character.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for obviating what may have been a problem, in that this has been a debate on the Adjournment and not a debate on a motion to take note of the Committee's report. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman on the Commission and elsewhere in order to make the urgent progress which hon. Members so clearly desire.
Mr. MacGregor: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 6, Business of the House.
Mr. MacGregor: Not moved.
8.30 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Motion No. 6 was not moved. Will the Leader of the House explain why? The motion was on the Order Paper and there was no announcement, until recently, that it would be withdrawn. Did that happen because there would have been time to debate that normally procedural motion? It is almost certainly the truth that it could have been objected to after 10 o'clock, so the Government would not normally have withdrawn it.
As the main subject of the procedural motion, to limit the debate to an hour and a half, is to take place tomorrow night—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now seeking to debate the motion. The motion was not moved, so I am obliged to proceed to the next business. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order, I will hear it.
Mr. Cryer: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the motion be on tomorrow's Order Paper? The business for this week has been settled and announced by the Leader of the House. If the motion is on tomorrow's Order Paper, will time be allocated for debate in the usual way before we move on to the business that is to be regulated by the motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

PETITION

  Royal Welch Fusiliers
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to ask leave to present a petition from the length and breadth of Wales by the friends of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. The petition was instigated at short notice, but it encountered huge public support. The Royal Welch Fusiliers have won magnificent battle honours and I have found remarkable support for them throughout Wales, which perhaps demonstrates the respect and honour felt for them.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
  The humble Petition of friends of the Royal Welch Fusiliers showeth that the Royal Welch Fusiliers, part of the Prince of Wales's Division, is faced with possible amalgamation with an English regiment—a move which effectively amounts to the disbandment of the regiment and the ending of 300 years of tradition.
  Under the present plans, reduction in the strength of the Prince of Wales's Division and the virtual disappearance of the Royal Welch Fusiliers would leave Wales with 25 per cent. less than its fair share of the infantry. Disbandment will have disastrous economic consequences for Wales, with the eventual loss of up to 100,000 jobs and obvious implications for the whole Welsh economy.
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will support us by seeking assurances from the Government that the Royal Welch Fusiliers is not disbanded and that Wales is not treated less fairly than Scotland is. And your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray.
  The petition was signed by Brigadier Anthony C. Vivian, CBE, former colonel of the regiment, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, regimental headquarters, Hightown barracks, Wrexham, Clwyd.
  To lie upon the Table.

Bypasses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chope.]
8.35 pm
Mr. James Cran: I am glad to be able to comment on the Government's bypass programme, which affects almost every constituency, including my own and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who unfortunately cannot be here.
I do not wish to attack the Government's record, since there is no reason to do so. Having checked, I find that their record is good. For instance, transport supplementary grant for 1991–92 is £318 million, a 17 per cent. increase on the previous year. Today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a further 15 bypasses at a cost of £85 million. Therefore, I start from the premise that the Government understand why the construction of as many bypasses as possible is beneficial. Clearly, it reduces accidents. I note from an unpublished study by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory that rural bypasses result in up to a 32 per cent. reduction in accidents. They are therefore clearly desirable.
My village of Tickton in east Yorkshire is lucky enough to have a bypass, which brings me to another advantage of bypasses. That is simply that they separate me and my neighbours from all the heavy traffic which previously went through the centre of my village. Last, but by no means least, there is a gain to the environment. Less congestion means lower carbon dioxide emissions. I am predisposed to the view that the Government understand all that. Organisations such as the British Road Federation have told me that the Government should accelerate the programme. No hon. Member would disagree.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington has now been able to come to the House motivated no doubt by the importance of the subject. My constituency has moreover benefited from the Government's programme. Recently, the Humber bridge northern approach road was completed. It is not exactly a bypass, but it acts as one and alleviates traffic problems in all the villages in the Haltemprice area. Skidby is not in my constituency, but the recent bypass benefits my constituents, as does the southern bypass for Beverley.
As my hon. Friend the Minister understands, demand for bypasses is never ending. That is why Humberside county council proposes three major schemes for Government support in its transport policies programme for 1991–92. It proposed the Peakes Parkway scheme in Grimsby, the Leven-Brandesburton bypass, which is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), and the Great Union street improvement scheme in Hull. They are all very worthy schemes, and I am sure that—in the fulness of time—they will receive the approval that is being sought from the Government.
However, I shall deal specifically with the LevenBrandesburton bypass because it illustrates well why the Government have a road improvement programme at all. I quote from the consultative document of Humberside county council, which states exactly how the council feels about the need for a bypass in the area. It states:

735
"The A165 forms part of the primary route network within the County and it carries exceptional peak traffic in the holiday season."
A considerable amount of heavy vehicular traffic also goes through Leven and Brandesburton because the manufacture of mobile buildings for industrial use is carried out in that part of east Yorkshire. The caravans are wide, and all or nearly all of them have to be transported through those two villages.
Humberside county council's consultative document continues:
"The present route … is characterised by sharp bends, narrow carriageways, a large number of accesses, poor visibility and little safe overtaking opportunity. The road passes through Leven where there are substandard width footways for pedestrian access … there are parts of the road where forward visibility is very restricted and … crossing the road can be hazardous."
It is perfectly clear that Humberside county council is wholly convinced of the need for the bypass as it could not have used stronger language in its advocacy of this project. Indeed, the council's 1991–92 transport policy programme stated:
"The A165 has a high accident record and by bypassing the villages the scheme should show major accident savings."
That is very strong language.
It would be usual for an hon. Member now to plead with the Minister for funding for that project. Anyone listening to the debate might think that the Government had not already given approval or finance, but that is not so. The Minister for Roads and Traffic has been very patient—he met me, County Councillor Arthur Pollard and Borough Councillor Mrs. Pat Ablett and gave us a considerable amount of his time. He examined many photographs which show how difficult—almost impossible —it is for traffic to get through the two villages and on the basis of that and, I am sure, of independent assessment, he concluded that the bypass should be approved and given finance—and that is precisely what the Government did on 17 December last year.
It is entirely understandable that the inhabitants of both villages were delighted because it is no secret that they have been waiting for a bypass for many years. Industry, in the form of Lada cars, for instance, which take transporters through the village, and Transline, which transports the mobile buildings through them, were also utterly delighted because they do not want to pollute the villages or cause the difficulties that have undoubtedly existed until now.
That begs the question, why raise the issue at all? Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have given approval and finance for, I think, half the project, the county council—in this case, Humberside—has decided to cancel the bypass. I should perhaps use the word "cancel" carefully, because, after considerable public pressure, there are signs that the council might be rethinking its position on the subject.
The Minister and other hon. Members might be interested to know that what particularly irritated people was the manner in which the decision was taken which left much to be desired. The decision was not taken formally in the transportation committee or ratified by the full council although that may eventually occur. It was merely announced in a fairly brutal fashion by the chairman of the transportation committee and by the leader of the council. That is despite the fact that those gentlemen and the
736
council proposed the bypass in the first place and, indeed, highlighted the fact that they were to proceed with it in the community charge bills that we all subsequently received.
Therefore, I am not here to ask the Minister to defend that action because it is not his responsibility—
Mr. John Townend: Was political pique not the original reason for cancelling the bypass because the socialist leader of the county council objected to a very good speech made by my hon. Friend criticising the profligate spending of the council? I wonder if my hon. Friend agrees that it is no wonder that people in our part of the country have revolted against Humberside and demanded its abolition? We are very pleased about the result of the Boundary Commission report, which was published last week.
Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. With the unerring timing that he shows in the House, he has anticipated my remarks. We all find it difficult to understand why the county council took such a decision, because usually county councils complain that the Government have not given them the money to proceed with a proposal. That is not the case in this instance because the Government have done so.
To satisfy my hon. Friend, I may merely quote from the Hull Daily Mail of 21 June this year. That paper and, indeed, all the newspapers in that region of East Yorkshire have done a superb job in articulating the outrage felt by many people about an arbitrary and, as my hon. Friend said, clearly political decision. What did the leader of the county council say? One assumes that these are his words as I am quoting from a letter to the editor. He said:
"the Hull Daily Mail has come out in total support of an early start on the Leven bypass which will cost almost £10 million … Critics who suggest that the county council is being vindictive"—
it is, of course, quite clear that it is—
"over the Leven bypass fail to appreciate the difficulties we face … Our problem could be eased substantially with the support of Mr Cran. If he were to join us in pressing the Government to recognise the difficulties we face—and reflect them in our SSA this December",
the Leven bypass could go ahead. As that comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak, I would appreciate it if the Minister would address that particular point.
It is clear to all of us who have examined the decision that it was a political one. I suspect that no one will be surprised at the great disappointment in the villages of Leven and Brandesburton, where people are astonished and indeed feel that they have been treated unjustly. They are trying to rectify the position by speaking to the council and trying to get the council to change its mind. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington nor I have sought to dissuade them from that course. If they succeed, we shall all be delighted, but I suspect that that will not occur.
Who therefore protects the villagers of Leven and Brandesburton? It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members that those people look to the Government, as I fear that everyone does, and to the House to make a judgment about the natural justice —or in this case injustice—of what has happened. They look to the Minister to provide some help, although that may prove difficult as the Minister has already promised half the cost of the scheme. They also look to the Minister to answer a number of questions, if he can.

737
My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington want to know about the Government's attitude to the high-handed, cavalier and undoubtedly political decision. My constituents also want to know whether, in the Government's view, the county council's decision is legally based. Moneys have been committed in the current budget and, I am led to believe, those moneys are being spent. The whole exercise was advertised through the community charge bills to the whole community in the Humberside county council area and everyone there expects the bypass to go ahead.
My constituents look to the Minister to inquire into the arbitrary and highly irregular decision by the county council. Will my hon. Friend tell us how long the grant approval that he has given will last? Not unnaturally, my constituents are trying to convince the county council to change the decision. They would be wasting their time if the grant approval did not last for any length of time.
There should be no politics on this issue. The county council has conceded that it is a matter of safety. Anyone who considers the question of bypasses knows perfectly well that they are highly desirable. The Government are doing their best to provide bypasses at the speed at which they should, and I am satisfied that they are doing that. Against that background, can my hon. Friend the Minister suggest to my constituents what they can do to get a bypass in Leven and Brandesburton?
8.52 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I know better than to try to intrude in the affairs of Humberside. However, I thank the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), whose good fortune it is that this debate on an important subject of principle has come on rather earlier than he could have expected, for giving me a minute or two. He may have problems with the Humber bridge, but I have problems as the Member of Parliament representing the south side of the eldest of the three sisters of the Forth bridge. I wish to engage the Minister's attention on that subject. I have talked to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has direct responsibility for the matter at the Scottish Office. I assuage him with the observation that anything that I propose will be greatly to the personal convenience of the Secretary of State for Transport, who is my Parliamentary neighbour and who would benefit greatly from my proposals.
My first concern is the Barnton roundabout. As is the case with roundabouts in a number of cities, it gets choked, and to such an extent that on summer mornings, six days a week, the traffic tails back as far as the Forth bridge. It is one of Europe's biggest choke points. With all the talk about building a second Forth bridge, I ask those with access to Treasury strings whether it would not be better to help Lothian regional council at least to try at Barnton the kind of flyover which, I am told by James Provan, the recent Conservative Member of the European Parliament for North-East Scotland, has been tried with great success in Antwerp. Various European cities have met the problem and in a relatively short time have erected a series of flyovers which at least alleviate the problem even if they do not completely solve it.
If the alternative is a second bridge across the Forth, 1, as a person with considerable local knowledge, warn that it would be very much more difficult to build the third Forth bridge than it was to build the second—if the rail
738
bridge is the first—because the geology of crossing the Forth is, I am told, far more difficult at any possible site. The best site was taken by the bridge built in the 1960s.
The hon. Member for Beverley referred to carbon dioxide emissions. The gross bottleneck causes problems such as carbon dioxide, a waste of petrol, a waste of busy people's time, frayed nerves and hassle. It all mounts up to an environmental horror. None the less, one must ask to what extent part of the trouble is caused by the existence of tolls, which slow down the flow of traffic. I have never understood what the difference is between exacting money from the motoring public for going over water and not exacting money from them when they go over lengths of motorway which are almost as expensive and difficult to construct. I cannot see that there is a qualitative difference in what we are asking people to do.
Ten years ago—I do not see that it is different now—it was twelve and a half times more expensive to extract money in the form of tolls than from the collection of the standard rate of income tax. It is an extraordinarily inefficient way in which to raise revenue. The problem has become acute because tolls add to delays. I put a marker in the Minister's mind. Will the Department of Transport, along with the Scottish Office, consider the whole question of the Forth bridge? Will they talk properly to Lothian region to see whether the problem can be solved?
The second area that desperately needs a bypass is Newbridge. When I mentioned to the hon. Member for Eastwood what I was going to say tonight, he volunteered the information that it often took him rather longer to go from Newbridge, which is on the city outskirts, into the centre of Edinburgh than it did to go from his own city of Glasgow—indeed, from the other side of it because England is on the far side of Glasgow from Edinburgh —to the Edinburgh city boundary. That is how bad things have become. There should be discussions between Lothian region, the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport about what could be done in terms of a flyover.
I suppose that we must all register our personal convenience and not our personal interests. However, as I live in my constituency, I must travel here every Monday on the 7 am shuttle or the 7.10 am British Midland flight, or leave my journey until much later in the morning. It is not possible to travel from the west of the city without reckoning on a 30-minute or 45-minute delay, to catch the 8 am, 9 am or 10 am flight to London. The personal convenience of hon. Members or others is not the dominant factor. I just refer to that as an example of how acute the position has become in relation to Newbridge.
It would be remiss of me not to refer to the dreadful accident on the Al on the other side of the city that was reported on our television screens. Children were killed in that accident at 2.30 am as they travelled down from Alness. The accident occurred in one of those fogs that occur in the area. That stretch of road is very dangerous.
After every dreadful accident, I suppose people automatically say that something must be done about a road, but the issue is overtaken by other things and people forget about it. People also say that it is not the road that is at fault, but the driver. However, that stretch of road is particularly dangerous. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who appeared on television and said that he and the local authorities asked for something to be done about that road. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beverley for allowing me to participate in the debate.
8.59 pm
Sir John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on his far-sightedness in choosing a subject that is important for Opposition and Conservative Members. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he told the House about the problems concerning his constituency.
A short while ago, I was penning a letter to Mr. Speaker in the hope that I might be selected for an Adjournment debate on bypasses. I thought that I would take this opportunity to try to kill two birds very briefly with one stone and refer to the problems in my constituency which have been building up for some time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for being kind enough to send me not one, but two letters today. The first refers to road safety on the A47 at Skeffington. Skeffington has been the subject of a bypass programme and I am glad to learn today that the road improvement on the busy A47 east from the city of Leicester is to be transferred from the regional to the national roads programme. I was also delighted to learn that the scheme forms part of an £85 million national package of bypasses for local schemes that have just been announced.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic was kind enough to send me a copy of the press release and a note about the fact that Market Harborough in my constituency is one of the towns selected for the bypass demonstration project.
Like everyone else, I have every confidence in the generosity, kindness and good judgment of my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that the selection of Market Harborough's bypass, which is now being built—the A6 bypass north and south—is something for which we will all be grateful. However, it is not too clear what the selection involves.
In his letter today, my hon. Friend the Minister says that Market Harborough has been nominated for the much sought after demonstration project by the Market Harborough local authority. However, some of the enclosures to which he refers are difficult for the layman to understand. The press release refers to a traffic calming programme. What is that? I am extremely foolish not to know what such a programme involves, but that is part of the official announcement that, I am delighted to say, has been made today. I should be more than grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain briefly what such a programme involves.
I was going to write to Mr. Speaker to seek an Adjournment debate about a bypass for a project that has plagued my constituency for 30 years. The issue is not unrelated to the M1-Al link road, of which most hon. Members will be aware. Of course, all local authorities in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire are full supporters of the M1-Al link road, which is nearing completion. However, so great is the east-west traffic on the A427, which presently runs parallel to the link road, and so much is congestion increasing because the gap in the M1-A1 link road has not yet been filled, that some villages on the A427 in Leicestershire, nearly all of which are in Harborough constituency, are becoming very choked and in a dangerous state. For instance, in the village of Theddingworth, from which a deputation came to see me
740
the other day at my constituency interview session, there have been no fewer than 16 accidents on the A427 in the past half year.
My hon. Friend the Minister cannot know everything —although he knows an awful lot—but his officials will tell him that this matter has nothing to do with him; it is not a Department road, it is a county council road. The purpose of my Adjournment debate would have been to point out that I cannot remain silent any longer without a request for the taking over of many of the important trunk roads which are not adopted by the Department. I cannot remain silent any longer in face of the transparent need for that taking over to take place at an early date. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said that he supported the abolition of the north Humberside authority because of culpable misconduct.
I, too, hope that the review that is now taking place will lead to a careful reconsideration of the position of the Leicestershire county council, certainly in respect of transportation, which needs to be removed from it altogether. I can see no reason at all why the role of the effective and efficient district and borough councils in Leicestershire cannot be expanded and Leicestershire county council completely abolished.
I do not say that lightly. The reason why I say it is that, 22 years ago, Leicestershire county council promised a by-pass of Theddingworth. The route was approved by the county council, and £1 million or so was allotted. Work was due to commence, and then, lo and behold, the then Minister for Transport said, "We are going to build a wonderful MI-Al link road in Northamptonshire, just south of the A427." As soon as that announcement was made, all work on the Theddingworth bypass ceased and traffic was allowed to go through it. That was 22 years ago.
It has been pointed out to Leicestershire county council that there is a danger to life and limb on the A427. The situation is so intolerable that it should not be allowed to continue. It has now come up with another date, 1991, to build the Theddingworth bypass, but the latest announcement is that it cannot be at all sure of that date.
Quite frankly, I am fed up with the county council on this matter. It has behaved disgracefully. If ever there was a case for a unitary authority in respect of road traffic management matters and the recommendation of a bypass programme, it is the craven role of Leicestershire county council over Theddingworth and its population for the past 25 years. I am delighted that the Minister is kind enough to be present, and I hope that he will act on a matter of concern for all my constituents.
9.9 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on raising an issue that is important to many of us. I feel honoured to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). When I first became a Member of the House—a long time ago—as one of 158 new Members, my hon. Friend was exceptionally kind not only to me but to my secretary, who was also new to the House, and neither she nor I have ever forgotten it. My hon. Friend is very much loved by both of us and by many other colleagues. I am delighted to see him in his place.
Unlike many other parts of the country, my constituency of Derbyshire, South is now very busy, partly

741
because we have the largest building site in Europe—the Toyota factory, which is now being built right opposite my house. I am pleased to see it—there is no NIMBY in my area. The result is that unemployment in the area is below 5 per cent. and two-car households are now common in South Derbyshire. Indeed, if recent canvassing is anything to go by, families with three, four or more cars are increasingly common in south Derbyshire.
We are a rural area, with more than 50 villages, and our traffic problems have rapidly become acute. The problem is driving many of my constituents absolutely scatty. Most of the roads in the area are country lanes and we would be in some difficulties even without the growth in traffic that the increased economic activity has generated. The problem in many villages would be much worse if it were not for the weight restrictions on some of their roads. However, they mean that the traffic must go somewhere else—it cannot just disappear—and it tends to go through the slightly larger villages, where traffic restrictions are not in place.
The fact that the problem is substantially a local one —we do not blame anybody else for it—is shown by the recent speeding problem in the village of Repton. The Repton people complained bitterly to the police about the speeding and the police naturally responded by setting up a speed trap for a couple of days. Nearly 400 people were found to be exceeding the 30-mile an hour speed limit as they drove through the village; 90-odd of them received a ticket and the rest were cautioned. About 75 per cent. of those found to be speeding turned out to live in the village or its immediate vicinity. As one can imagine, that produced some rather red faces, but it proved that traffic in the area is considerable and that the roads are not coping with it.
A couple of years ago, I took a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) at the Department of Transport. We were most grateful to the Department and to my hon. Friend for the interest, concern and consideration that was shown to south Derbyshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, in a slightly puzzled way, that we were the first delegation that he had seen for some time to ask for road building rather than insisting that a road should be built somewhere else. We actually wanted a road built in South Derbyshire—and the quicker the better.
The result has been gratifying. One bypass is already under construction—for the substantial village of Etwall —and there are more to come. We are expecting bypasses for the villages of Hatton, Hilton and Foston. A public inquiry was held last autumn and a decision is expected this autumn. That bypass is part of a road connection system that is due to run from Stoke to Derby and then across to the M1—the M6 to M1 link, which will bring considerable relief to the M6 north of Birmingham and also provide a link to the Toyota factory.
The line for that development was dealt with at the same public inquiry last year that considered the bypasses for Hatton, Hilton and Foston. The total cost of the M6-M1 link will be £150 million or more. The link will entail constructing a new bridge across the River Trent, which will be a substantial undertaking. We do not underestimate the amount of effort, time, skill and construction and planning expertise that will be involved. I should like to put our gratitude for that on the record.
742
None of this was possible under the previous Administration. The developments were talked about for the first time more than 20 years ago. In 1976, the line of the new route was drawn, but it was one of the casualties of the previous Government's efforts at spending money that they did not have. As a result, in 1976, that line was left on the piece of paper and no further progress was made. On the other hand, we are now very pleased with the progress that has been made.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions. I recognise that he might not be able to respond to them tonight, but I hope that he will be kind enough to write to me about them. First, as I hope that I have hinted in my brief contribution, the new road is a matter of considerable urgency to my constituents. It is becoming increasingly difficult to explain to constituents why the road does not yet exist, why the traffic is still going through the villages and why, in villages such as Willington, there is a snarl-up every morning and every night extending right through into the dual carriageways.
We now have much more dangerous and lethal roads than we used to have. A series of my young constituents have been killed on roads in places where there should he bypasses. I find it as distressing as the local police and funeral directors do when we are obliged to try to explain to the families why there are no new roads yet, and why the bypasses have not been built.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we can speed up the decision-making as soon as possible and ensure that the programme for the link road between Stoke and Derby and the M1 does not slip in any way. It is becoming increasingly important that we hold to all the timetables.
On present estimates, the Toyota factory will produce 100,000 cars a year, but that figure is expected to increase to 200,000 by 1995–96. All the industry estimates show that by the end of the century the factory will produce 400,000 cars a year. Although I hope that many of those cars will be sent by rail, if we can get British Rail to co-operate —that is another fairly dodgy question—those estimates nevertheless imply an enormous amount of supplies coming in, and many staff coming in and out. On current estimates, the number of staff movements in and out of the factory by 1995–96 is likely to be about 6,000 a day. If the estimates are accurate—and I think that they are—we have to take on board the fact that the Toyota factory will generate an enormous amount of traffic on the roads.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that the present programme will not slip, and that the Department of Transport will accord the matter the same urgency as we do.
The second problem about which I want to ask my hon. Friend concerns connections to the new road. When new roads are built, especially the good quality dual carriageways for which we hope, land on either side of them becomes valuable. There are now a number of proposals on the books for developing sites that are otherwise of no special value. For example, there is an old airfield at Church Broughton, a Ministry of Defence depot at Hilton and one or two other such sites, which have suddenly become valuable and useful. They are close to the Toyota site; they would be connected directly by road and in one or two cases they might be connected by rail, too.
The difficulty is that the Department of Transport insists on two conditions. First, it insists that, if there is to be a connection to the new road, the whole works, the complete operation, must be there right from the start even

743
though it may be several years before the site will come into use. Department officials appear to be insisting that on one site the whole connection for a development covering 200-odd acres must be in place before the first acre is let. I understand their arguments, but the trouble is that that course of action is extremely expensive.
The second problem that the officials present is that they insist that the developer pays the lot. With a £4 million or £5 million connection for a site whose total infrastructure costs may be of the same order, that can make the whole development financially unviable. I should like to see more realistic attitudes, so that connections for sites could be developed partially on a stepped, staged basis. That would be helpful. The present all-or-nothing arrangements are unrealistic and unfair.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could enlighten me on the other matter that concerns me, as no hon. Members from any of the other parties are here. I am concerned about the comments on the road-building programme made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I have written to the hon. Gentleman about what he said but have had no reply. I understand that, speaking at a construction industry conference in Edinburgh in April, in a speech that was well reported in the construction industry press, the hon. Gentleman said that if the Opposition were elected, the first thing that they would do would be to slap a moratorium on all road building.
I can understand that one might want to review the road-building programme, but I am most alarmed at any proposal to introduce a moratorium. In my letter I asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East whether his moratorium would apply to my road in South Derbyshire, but I have had no reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) may be worried about the attitude of our hon. Friend the Minister to his new road, but he would have a heck of a lot more to worry about if the Opposition were in charge.
Mr. Cran: I must clarify the point. The Government have already given financial approval for the LevenBrandsburton bypass. The problem is not the Government but my county council, Humberside.
Mrs. Currie: I heard most of what my hon. Friend said. I put it to him again that financial approval is one thing but that, until the pennies are actually spent and the work done, the road is not built. If the Opposition got in, and if a moratorium were called immediately, the odds are that the bypass would go the same way as my road went in 1976: it would not get built. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw the problem to the attention of his constituents, especially those who think it would not matter much if they voted Labour next time. It would matter a great deal. That is a matter of considerable concern. Perhaps the Minister will check out the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in April, which was well reported in the construction press, and say whether there is anything that we can do about it.
Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, and I was interested to hear what she said about the Opposition. Can she tell us which Opposition
744
party she had in mind? Is she aware of the Liberal Democrats' views—or do they not have any views about road building?
Mrs. Currie: That is an interesting proposition. I share my hon. Friend's consternation at the apparent position of the Labour party. The remarks were certainly made in public, and the speech was handed out to the press. I am also somewhat alarmed because, for the first time in recent history, a Labour spokesman, talking about what the Labour party might do if it won power, was prepared to say that it would stop spending money. Most of the time, Labour spokesmen say that they will increase spending, and so far, the total bill amounts to about £40 billion. As for the Liberal Democrats, they will as usual try to determine on which side of the fence the grass is greener and jump over it at that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will check out the Liberal Democrats' policies and let the rest of us know.
We in south Derbyshire are very pleased at developments over the bypasses, which are urgently needed. I live in a very pretty, rural area. It is no longer quite as tranquil as it used to be. It is a busy area. My constituents are working. They drive to work, and in pursuit of their leisure activities, with their families. I am pleased about that, but there is a cost in terms of increased congestion and danger on our roads. I am convinced that the bypass programme that is under way will be of major assistance. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the points that I have made, both about urgency and about the necessity of creating decent business connections with the new road, and perhaps be kind enough to write to me?
9.22 pm
Mr. John Townend: 1 am pleased to have the opportunity, because we have some spare time tonight, to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on the question of the Leven-Brandsburton bypass. We should put on record the enormous amount of excellent work that my hon. Friend has done on that bypass. I am sure that all his constituents are very grateful to him for it. When the leader of the county council made that political decision, he may have thought that he would undermine my hon. Friend's position in his constituency, in fact, he did the exact opposite. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not need any additional support, but no doubt he will get significant additional support as a result.
As my hon. Friend said, the road will principally bypass a large village in his constituency, but it will end just outside a village in my constituency, and my constituency is interested for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. Friend said, there is a large industrial estate in Brandsburton which generates a considerable amount of traffic. Transline is a leading manufacturer of portable buildings. Its portable offices and homes have to be carried on large transporters, which go through Leven. At times, one wonders how they get through the main street when there is a large lorry coming the other way.
The bypass is also on the A1056 which is the main tourist artery from the west riding, Beverley and Hull into Bridlington. The tourist trade is very important to Bridlington. In the summer that road carries an enormous amount of traffic. I am afraid to say that it is a dangerous road. We have an awful lot of accidents on it, some of which have, regrettably, resulted in fatalities.

745
The road also has a major junction with the main road to Hornsea—again in my constituency. Hornsea is another seaside town which is dependent on the tourist trade. At Catwick, which is two miles down the road, there is another Sunday market. At the weekends the traffic is horrendous. There can be tailbacks, for several miles at this dangerous and congested place.
It was a great shock to the people of Leven, who have been waiting for the bypass for so many years, when the project was cancelled. Government approval had been granted and the Government had agreed to put up 50 per cent. of the money. The project was in the county council's budget. It was cancelled by the socialist leader of the council out of pique, because he objected to the criticisms of the council made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley.
If the Leader of the council had bothered to read my speeches he would have realised that I have been making the same criticisms as my hon. Friend for the past three or four years. Before I was privileged to be elected to this place I was the leader of the county council when the Conservatives were in control. During those years we never increased the rates by more than the rate of inflation. Since the Conservatives lost control, there has never been a year in which the rates have not increased by significantly more than the rate of inflation. Indeed, the community charge is excessive to the extent of about £90 per person.
The cancellation of the project was a bit much from Councillor Geraghty, because he has presided over one of the most profligate councils in the country. It wastes money which could well go towards the bypass on items such as fax machines for councillors, and a county council newspaper which is a propaganda publication for the Labour party.
The council has made enormous losses on an ice rink in Hull, which should never be run by the county council. It should be run by an efficient company in the leisure service. The council tried to prevent the school cleaning contract from being put out to private tender. The direct labour organisation put in a low bid and lost a fortune on the tender. Its bid was drawn up on the basis that it needed far fewer staff than were employed by the county council, but it then refused to make those staff redundant. That cost the county council about £1 million.
It is ridiculous for Councillor Geraghty to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and I have it in our hands to allow the bypass to be started by putting pressure on my hon. Friend the Minister to increase the standard spending assessment. The money was already in the council's budget.
This should not be a political matter. It is a matter of the environment, safety, people's lives and children's lives. The road is a death trap. It bisects my hon. Friend's village. The traffic is so bad that for many days in the year it is not a village but two villages. One hears many a time criticism from the Opposition Benches that we are putting money before people and before lives. This is a case in which the socialist county council is putting politics before people and the safety of men, women and children.
Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend remarked that the county council is spending about £90 per person over the figure that it should spend. Does he agree that if the county council undertook a proper review of its expenditure across its activities, both he and I would have no difficulty? In this case the county council has not done that. It has not
746
conducted itself in the proper business fashion. It has chosen one capital item to achieve such savings as it would like. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not the way to run a business?
Mr. Townend: I agree 100 per cent. The fallaciousness of the leader of the county council's position and, given his reason for not going ahead with the bypass, his dishonesty, have been revealed in the past two weeks when the county council decided to go ahead with a relief road for an industrial estate in south Humberside. If the county council did not have the money for the Leven bypass, which was provided for in the budget and for which the council has Government money, how can it go ahead with the other relief road?
One of the problems that I have heard about on the grapevine—there was also a clip in the local paper about it—is that the county council committees are grossly overspending this year's budget. That is terrible; no wonder there has been so much rejoicing in Humberside that that official region will come to an end. The people of South Humberside will join Lincolnshire, according to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and they will get the benefit of the efficient and carefully run Lincolnshire county council, which has a Tory majority. I am afraid that some of the rejoicing is premature, however, because under the present recommendations we on the north bank will still be under the iron heel of Councillor Geraghty. He has already said that he does not intend to take any notice of the Boundary Commission and that he will not change the name of Humberside back to East Yorkshire, which we all want.
Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the darter left-wing councils are busy talking themselves out of existence? Derby city council, which covers part of my constituency and is Tory-controlled, has said that it wants to be a unitary authority and shot of the county council. South Derbyshire district council, which covers the other part of my constituency and which is Labour-controlled, has also said that it wants to be a unitary authority and shot of the council. The local Labour party has expressed its belief that the county council should be abolished—the Conservatives certainly believe that it should be. The only people in favour of retaining the silly idiots on the county council are the silly idiots themselves.
Mr. Townend: I find that extremely interesting, as we have a similar state of affairs in our part of the world.
We have quite a sensible Labour leader in the city of Hull, Councillor Doyle, lie has taken a pragmatic approach to the abolition of the national dock labour scheme and he has encouraged private investment. Councillor Doyle and the Labour majority on Hull council —this is what happened with the district council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—want to do away with Councillor Geraghty and the idiots on the county council who are an embarrassment to the Labour party.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully, as this issue is part of his Department's responsibilities. Now that we are to get rid of Humberside, we want to scrap all the district and county councils. We want two new unitary authorities in North Humberside.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has been provoked to some extent, but we are talking about bypasses.
Mr. Townend: With respect, if we get the right form of local government, we will make sure that we get our bypass.
We would like a unitary authority in Hull—I have to admit that it would be Labour controlled for time evermore—and we would like another unitary authority based in Beverley covering the area of the old Holderness and East Yorkshire district councils. It would be the new East Yorkshire unitary authority. Our people would have East Yorkshire back and an efficient, Conservative-controlled council.
If my hon. Friend has any leverage that he can use on the county council to make it get on with the bypass, I beg him to use it. If he does so he will be the hero of all the residents of Leven and Brandesburton.
9.33 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: There are few areas of Government involvement at a local level which stir the indigenous population to greater emotion than the perceived or real need for a bypass—such emotions being exceeded only by those aroused when the proposed route is published, when a new set of emotions come into play as part of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome.
Listening to the previous speakers, I was tempted to think—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, obviously thought—that we were about to have a debate on the errors of local government. I could throw myself wholeheartedly into that subject, and I fully appreciate the feelings that have been expressed on the various local issues.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) for giving us the opportunity to debate the Government's bypass programme. I must qualify my initial remarks by making the obvious point that, although bypasses generate an enormous amount of discussion locally and on the Conservative Benches, it is incredible that only one solitary Member is present to represent the Opposition. He arrived halfway through the debate, but I am delighted to see him and give him full marks for staying. It is incredible that not even an Opposition Whip is here to record what is going on in a programme which involves not hundreds of millions but billions of pounds. My hon. Friend the Minister told me earlier that it will provide enough work to keep the Department busy for 20 years or more. That is a measure of the size of the programme.
I shall not come to the rescue of my hon. Friend the Minister because I am sure that he needs no rescuing but, whereas other hon. Members have been projecting the plights within their constituencies, I wish to say a few kind words to my hon. Friend about what is happening in my constituency.
A unique distinction can be drawn between the constituencies of all the other hon. Members who have spoken and my constituency. Every constituency—whether Beverley, South Derbyshire, Harborough, Linlithgow or Bridlington—has a multiplicity of choices of roads going in and out. Trunk roads go north or south into Bridlington, but in the constituency of Barrow and Furness, which is one hour's drive away from the nearest motorway, the M6, only one trunk road goes in and only one goes out, and it is the same one because we have the
748
sea on three sides. Therefore, the question of a bypass in my constituency, along the route of the A590 meandering its way to the M6, is of prime importance.
The old Dalton-in-Furness urban district council made its first plea for a bypass in 1937. After decades, it looked as though the bypass would finally be built in the mid-1970s. I remind hon. Members that Barrow is one of the three major industrial bases of the north-west—Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow. The shipyards and the engineering complex in Barrow form the largest heavy engineering complex in western Europe. That gives an idea of the volume of heavy traffic that goes up and down the solitary road from the M6 to Barrow. At one point along the A590, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the road literally goes through a farmyard.
At one stage, in the mid-1970s, the Dalton-in-Furness bypass was about to be built. Then, lo and behold, we had a Labour Government and a financial crises. The International Monetary Fund was called in, and out through the window went all the bypasses that had been in the programme for years. Once again Barrow was back where it started and Dalton-in-Furness was back where it started.
I was elected in 1983, so I am one of the class of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and I too remember the kindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). One thing that struck me as obvious when I was elected was that the only way to broaden the economic base was by improved communications. There is no other way to encourage small businesses and industry to locate themselves in a region unless two prime criteria are met. The first is a good local work force, who are reliable and available, and the second is mobility, which good communications bring.
I made it one of my top priorities to try to get the Dalton-in-Furness bypass proposal moving once again. There have been a succession of Ministers. My right hon. Friend the present Minister for Overseas Development came to visit Dalton-in-Furness in 1984. For the benefit of the local and national media, we arranged a photocall in Dalton. Such is the way of the world that, at 3 pm that Friday when all the press and photographers were present, there was not a lorry to be seen for the next 10 minutes. As soon as a lorry came, the photograph was taken and we all left. There was then a half-mile traffic jam at 3.30 pm as the shipyards closed and all hell broke loose. No traffic could move in either direction.
In 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) came to see the proposed bypass and made all the necessary promises. Once again, we arranged for a photograph—this time at 11 am, rather than 3 pm. That visit was followed by one from my hon. Friend the present Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who arrived by train. The chairman of my association and I met him at the railway station just outside Kendal. The chairman and I were astonished that the train was on time. The Minister was not astonished; he was delighted and told me how impressed he was. He was none too pleased when I said that it helped when the train driver knew that a Minister of State from the Department of Transport was on board.
We drove through the farmyard at High Newton, along the A590, at Ulverston and Dalton and eventually arrived at Barrow. Like all his predecessors, the Minister was

749
convinced of the need for a bypass. I hope that, in the fulness of time, in November, the present occupant of the relevant ministerial post will pay his respects to the town.
I compliment the Minister, who in June announced that the invitation to tender for the road would be made in August and the construction would start in November. We have had the line of route and the public inquiry and we are now at the stage when building can commence. To pick up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, I am also extremely apprehensive at the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston-uponHall, East (Mr. Prescott). If for no other reason than the Dalton bypass, the general election should be postponed until after November. I have checked with the hon. Gentleman and received no answer except the reaffirmation that if there is an election and a Labour Government came to power, there will be an immediate moratorium on bypasses. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of that.
Bypasses do not happen overnight, but take years and years. First, a bypass must be in a programme, then a line of route is published, then there is a public inquiry—because there are inevitably objections—eventually the inspector makes his recommendations, the Minister makes an announcement on the preferred line of route and then the invitations to tender are put out. That process does not happen overnight. I do not want to see happen in my constituency or in any other Member's constituency—irrespective of party—what happened in my constituency and so many other hon. Members' constituencies in 1976.
Mr. John Townend: Why does my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made that statement? Was it an indication that the Labour party is anti-car and anti-car-owner?
Mr. Franks: Labour has a kind of love-hate relationship with the public. It is producer-oriented rather than consumer-oriented, and it is in thrall to the unions. The motorist does not have a union, unless it be the Automobile Association and he is not a member of a group representing his interests which contributes money to Labour party funds. Therefore, that party is much minded to abolish private transport and to encourage everyone to use public transport instead. There is a place in any sensible society for both.
The number of motorists is growing simply because people want independence and to be able to travel to whichever destination they choose—in their own time, at their own pace, and at their own convenience. They would prefer to do that rather than to wait for trains that never arrive—or which do arrive, but two hours late.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister and thank him, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough for including the Dalton-in-Furness bypass as one of his Department's demonstration projects. Dalton-in-Furness and the borough of Barrow will greatly welcome it. When my hon. Friend winds up, perhaps he will elaborate on the funding that is available for the schemes that project teams recommend. I understand that they operate on a 50–50 partnership basis with the local authority. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such funds are available, and say whether they are available to a local authority to match funds from the Department of Transport?
I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister. My constituents are extremely grateful that construction is
750
about to commence on the bypass for which they have waited for 54 years. I hope that the 55th year will see its opening. I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister will follow his illustrious predecessors and come to see the little town of Dalton and cut the first sod of the bypass.
9.48 pm
Sir Anthony Durant: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on his Adjournment debate. It has ranged around the country and to the north of England, and I will speak for the south.
Reading's problem is that an important river—the River Thames—runs through the centre of the town, which presents a major traffic problem. Reading badly needs a third bridge because, despite its two existing bridges, it suffers major traffic congestion. Reading has to reach agreement with Berkshire and Oxfordshire on a line for the bridge, and that process has been under way ever since I first entered the House 17 years ago. My problems with that bridge—like those of my hon. Friends—go on and on.
We have at last succeeded in making some progress, with the A329M extension, which runs off the M4 into Reading. The Speyhawk construction company has built a tunnel under the Great Western railway into the estate, which runs right alongside the river. The problem of going over or under the railway has in that way been solved, with a route close to the river bank.
We have a developer who is prepared to pay for the construction of a bridge. Not many people are prepared to do such a thing. The bridge would cross the river right at the end of the A329M extension, but the problem is that its other end would be in Oxfordshire—and Oxfordshire does not want it. It has decided that the Oxfordshire county is a rural county, and should remain so. The county is terrified that any further encroachment by a bridge, road, or anything else will bring fresh development.
Eventually, the Department will have to arbitrate in the battle between Oxfordshire and Berkshire, or there will never be agreement about the location of the bridge. A developer is prepared to build the bridge and there are roads going to it and on the other side. The proposal is for the east of Reading but there have been proposals for a bridge on the west. There will be no agreement between the councils until the Government say that the traffic situation is so bad that a line will have to be decided. After that, there will be public inquiries and so on, and the bridge might be built.
The little village of Sonning has a bridge that was built hundreds of years ago and traffic rumbles through the village day and night on a single lane with traffic lights. If the bridge were built, it would relieve that village of enormous pressure. I ask the Government to see if there is some way in which they can intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) spoke about having meetings with Ministers and seeing photographs. I have had meetings and many promises, but I have never seen photographs or had any news from the meetings. The Department should consider a third bridge to relieve Reading's heavy traffic.
9.51 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on initiating a debate on such an interesting and

751
useful subject. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), because I know well the road that he mentioned. My hon. Friend has done an excellent job of lobbying for improvements which I am sure will benefit his constituents. The engineering centre of Vickers is one of the largest such complexes in Europe; I am sure that the industrial benefits of the road will be great and that it will also improve the daily lives of my hon. Friend's constituents.
The debate is an opportunity for me to remind the Minister of the need for a northern relief road in my constituency. His predecessors have been acquainted with that need. His immediate predecessor recently visited Bolton, was presented with a petition, and was able to see the line of the road and the great need for it. The predecessor of that Minister met a delegation from Bolton, when Councillor John Walsh and I came to see him to press upon him the need for the road.
The proposed road has a long history, going back to 1947 when Turton council prepared plans for the line of this northern relief road, which was much needed even then. Turton's successor, Bolton council, surveyed the route, and the Conservative-controlled council acquired the necessary land, cleared houses and was ready to build the bypass. Unfortunately, in 1980, control of the council passed to Labour, and at that time Greater Manchester council, which was also Labour-controlled and was ultimately responsible for the building of the road, turned down the plans. Later, when the Labour-controlled Bolton council acquired authority for roads from the GMC, it again turned down the plan.
There is stalemate. The land has been acquired for the road, but the council will not construct it. I do not know why it should adopt that attitude, because the need is greater now than when the road was first planned in 1947. Millions of transport supplementary grant are being spent on junction improvements on the Crompton way bypass which crosses the line of the two roads which need relief —the A666 Blackburn road and the Tonge Moor road. I hope that those improvements will alleviate congestion, but they are not the solution that people want.
The relief road is very much needed because of the effect on the quality of life in Blackburn road and Tonge Moor road, where there is very heavy traffic. It is like a wall of steel dividing the communities. In crossing that road, I know that one dices with death. Children have been run down, and adults injured, if not killed. A French articulated lorry ran over one of my constituents who was in his car, but he was unable to obtain any compensation. A great deal of suffering has resulted from the decision not to build the northern relief road.
I hope that my hon. Friend will visit my constituency, as his predecessor did, and see the line of the road. We could walk along it together. To go through the valley where the road is planned would make a very pleasant walk. I could show my hon. Friend how much the relief road would improve the quality of life for my constituents. It would also reduce congestion, which costs so much money. The chamber of commerce is in favour of the northern relief road. Constituents have complained about how long it takes them to get to hospital and also about how long it takes doctors and emergency services to get through, due to the congestion on the roads.
752
The relief road has been needed for a very long time. The Labour council is more interested in the Labour areas of the town than in what they look upon as the northern Conservative dormitories. The relief road would improve the quality of life of people in the inner part of the city as well as the quality of life of those who live in the outer parts, who so much need the new road. I hope that my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to visit my constituency and see the line of the new road for himself. I hope that he will also encourage the council to put in bids for the necessary grants, which I trust would be available, so that the council could build this very much needed road.
9.56 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on securing, at a very civilised hour, this timely debate, and for his excellent speech initiating a spirited discussion. My hon. Friend referred to what those who heard him will think of as an almost incredible story of perverse and vindictive behaviour by the Humberside county council—motivated, I understand, by the political pique of some of the socialist county councillors. What is going on in Humberside will probably be known to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I hope that, in due course, he will comment upon this saga and reply to the criticisms that have been made during the debate of the socialist programme for roads.
When my hon. Friend came to see me last autumn to discuss the case for the Leven and Brandesburton bypass, he brought with him, as he said in his speech, some photographs, together with some of the people who are directly affected. That evidence, coupled with other evidence, was very impressive. My hon. Friend referred to the evidence produced by Humberside county council in support of the bypass scheme and to the improvements to the environment that would result from it. My hon. Friend said that it would lead to major accident savings—a precise quote from the case put by the Humberside county council.
It is therefore extraordinary that the county council should now be at the threshold–perhaps it has already gone beyond it—of saying that it does not intend to pursue the scheme any further. As a result of the debate, I hope that the county council will have been shamed into including the Leven and Brandesburton bypass once again in its programme. It has the money for it; all it needs is the political will to implement it. If I may expand on why the county council has the money, when the scheme was accepted—in competition with many other schemes throughout the country—for transport supplementary grant in the current year, the Government said that they would be able to pay 50 per cent. in transport supplementary grant, and that the other 50 per cent. would effectively be provided by the national taxpayer, at no expense to the local charge payer. That is an important point.
Humberside county councillors are suggesting that going ahead with the bypass would impose an additional burden on Humberside charge payers. I assure the House that that is not so. In effect, the bypass would be 100 per cent. funded by taxpayers, because of the detailed way in

753
which we apply resources—half in the form of transport supplementary grant and half in the form of annual capital guideline cover. The extra annual—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chope.]
Mr. Chope: Annual capital guideline cover means that a council gets extra credit approval, which increases the authority's standard spending assessment above what it would otherwise be. That results in the authority getting more revenue support grant to cover the interest on and repayment of the capital. Anyone who suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley that the cost of the bypass would increase the burden on Humberside charge payers was totally wrong.
Mrs. Currie: We are all sitting here with our ears flapping. Do my hon. Friend's comments apply to other bypasses, or do these extraordinary circumstances apply only to Beverley?
Mr. Chope: This principle applies to all the schemes that are included when we make our announcement on TSG. This year, that included an addition of 17 per cent. in the sums being made available. This is not the only time that a socialist local authority has tried to misinterpret the rules and to imply that, because it has different political priorities, it will take its feelings out on part of the area and deprive it of a bypass which would otherwise be available.
My hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked what could be done and whether it was too late for Humberside to change its attitude. Because the council said that it no longer wanted to proceed with the bypass, they wanted to know if the money would not be available and if it could not be restored.
If Humberside county council quickly relents, the scheme can be brought back into the programme. The money is available this year, and it will continue to be available unless the county council tells the Department of Transport that it no longer wishes to proceed with the scheme. If the council no longer wishes to proceed or if it is slow in doing so, a process called "denaming" takes place, whereby the resources that were available for that scheme become available for another scheme. I hope that Humberside county councillors will not be so petty as to deprive their citizens of the benefit of the public expenditure which, because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley, is directed towards this much-needed bypass.
Many other subjects were covered in the debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) drew attention to the addition of Skeffington to the road programme, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced today, and to the inclusion of the A6 Market Harborough bypass in the demonstration project—one of six schemes in that project.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) asked for more detail on the bypass demonstration project. Reference was first made to it last year in the environment White Paper as a means of maximising the environmental benefit flowing from the large bypass programme which the Government brought about. The essence of the project is to introduce traffic calming and to conduct a study of circumstances
754
before and after work to ascertain the best way of ensuring that maximum benefits, in terms of quality of life and the environment, go to the people who use the town or village that is bypassed.
I can understand that hon. Members who do not follow the modern jargon used by roads traffic engineers would not be familiar with the expression "traffic calming". It means the introduction of road humps, road narrowing, additional pedestrian crossings and engineering measures designed to reduce the speed of traffic, to enhance safety of pedestrians and cyclists and to discourage fast through traffic from using that area.
We invited tenders for the by-pass demonstration project from all local authorities and we received many bids. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the six winners today. The towns that are to be bypassed have in common the need to maximise the benefits of the bypass once it is complete, and I am sure that that will be facilitated with the assistance of local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness asked exactly how much money would be available, and he referred to 50 per cent. being the norm. We have not yet decided the precise amount. It will depend on one scheme being compared with another, and no individual scheme will receive a specified amount of help from the Government. We hope that we shall receive support from the Civic Trust. Most of the central funding will go towards the cost of analysing the potential benefits of the project, and the local authorities that have agreed to participate have agreed to provide some of the funds for the engineering measures, but let us not forget that the principal cost of any bypass is borne by the national taxpayer through the national roads programme.
Mr. Franks: On the Minister's comments on traffic calming, a most unusual phrase about which some of us are now a little wiser, are there procedures in legislation whereby the Government can prohibit lorries from using the old road when a bypass has been constructed, or is that a matter for local authorities rather than the Government to determine?
Mr. Chope: If my hon. Friend is referring to the time during construction, it is possible for temporary traffic regulation orders to be made. For example, we are considering that at the moment on a scheme in east London, but it is a matter for local authorities to take in hand.
Mr. Franks: I was talking about the period after the bypass has been built specifically to take heavy traffic away from the town. Can the purpose of the bypass be enhanced or enforced by the prohibition of heavy traffic along the old road?
Mr. Chope: Yes, the answer to that question is also affirmative. When the bypass is complete, traffic regulation orders can be made to prohibit vehicles of a particular weight or size from using that road unless they need to do so to gain access to a premises along it. That will force them to use the bypass that has been provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough raised the important issue of the gap between the A1 and the Theddingworth bypass in Leicestershire, on which, he says, Leicestershire county council has neglected to act for about 25 years. I am afraid that I can do little more than

755
offer sympathy, because it is a local road scheme and not one for which the Department is responsible. I hope that my hon. Friend will be successful in persuading the county council of the need to include it in its programme. He says that there is a possibility of its starting in 1992, so perhaps that is a sign of his success in bringing pressure to bear on the issue over the years. I wish him well on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred to the importance of bypass construction in her constituency and sought an assurance that the Stoke-Derby link road programme would not slip. It is always difficult, especially for a Transport Minister, to guarantee that a road programme will not slip. However, I accept my hon. Friend's pressure about the fact that she does not wish that programme to slip, and I will write to her with more details about that and other issues that she raised.
One of the most interesting parts of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was the reference to the Opposition parties' policies—or lack of them—in relation to road building. She referred to the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in Edinburgh in April. She said that she had written to him as a result of it, asking what the implications might be for road investment in her constituency. I have also written to the hon. Gentleman and I have yet to receive a reply. I am sure that it is not because he has overlooked the matter and that a reply will come in due course. I asked him which of the 53 new schemes that the Government are introducing into their national road programme this year he would wish to stop. I hope that we shall receive a reply in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South also referred, in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, to Liberal Democrat policy on road investment. I confirm to the House that it very much depends on which audience is being addressed. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) when speaking to a rally of cyclists in London, as I heard him the other day, suggested that no more money needed to be spent on national roads other than perhaps to deal with some of the potholes. He said that the Liberal Democrates were not in favour of expanding the roads programme and, indeed, would be in favour of reducing it.
However, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has lobbied persistently and successfully for a widening of the bypass round Ilminster so that it can become a dual carriageway. I hope that I shall not get too much criticism from my hon. Friend when I tell the House that the Government announced today that the right hon. Gentleman's pleas for his own constituents had been acceded to and that the Ilminster bypass dualling is now included in the roads programme. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now adopt a slightly different attitude on whether he wishes the roads programme to be expanded or contracted. We wait to find out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness also referred to the attitude of the Labour party on these issues. The views of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East largely depend on which audience he is addressing. If he is addressing a group of railwaymen, he argues that all the investment needs to be put into the railways. If he is addressing a group of lorry drivers, he
756
says how important it is that there should be continued investment in the roads because lorry drivers have an important job. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness for exploiting the inconsistencies in the policies of Opposition parties.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) doubtless has many shortcomings, as do we all, but in my experience one thing that he does not do is tell audiences what they want to hear.
Mr. Chope: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the most effective defence that could be brought in the circumstances. We shall now follow the speeches of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East with even greater interest to see whether the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are borne out in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred, in a typically persuasive contribution, to the problem of the third river crossing which almost everyone in Reading wishes to see, but which nobody in Oxfordshire seems to wish to see. He asked the Department of Transport to arbitrate in the matter. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has visited one place nearby and that he has received representations on the issue, as I have. There is certainly the will to resolve the problem. However, we have not yet found a way to do that because the powers of the Department of Transport are not that extensive. We will continue to explore all possibilities because the traffic problems of Reading will not be resolved until that issue is properly and successfully addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) kindly invited me to visit his constituency. I should be happy to do that at some stage in the future, perhaps when the road problems to which he referred have been resolved to the extent that I can turn the first sod. I look forward to visiting Barrow-in-Furness in November to carry out such a duty with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness.
I waited till the end before referring to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, because I knew that he would be patient, as always. He referred to the need for additional road infrastructure investment in Scotland for roads and road junctions that he uses, although I am not sure whether they are in his constituency. He said that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was dealing with his representations because he is the Minister responsible for roads in Scotland. I cannot go into the details, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will consider the points that have been raised in this debate.
Mr. Dalyell: This is a grey area. All I ask is that, the next time the Secretary of State for Transport is locked in a traffic jam between his home in his constituency and Edinburgh airport and is desperate to get to a Cabinet sub-committee meeting, he at least thinks of my contribution today and wonders what can be done to alleviate the problem. Seriously, I ask the Minister to bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, who knows from first-hand experience exactly what the problem is. Someone will have to do something about it.
Mr. Chope: I will certainly do that, in the knowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport supports the principle that we need further investment in road infrastructure.
I was sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Linlithgow about the terrible accident on the A1. I do not know whether further investment in the road would have prevented the acccident. However, sadly, almost all the people who were killed in the accident were unseated in the back of the van. That is a matter of considerable concern, and the Department of Transport is considering the implications of the accident. If someone is seated and belted in a vehicle, that person is more likely to survive an accident.
The Government are committed to continuing investment in the roads programme and in the bypass programme in particular. We have made substantial investment over the past 10 or 12 years in national and local bypasses. Today has been a particularly good clay for those of us who believe in such investment. We have added
758
15 new bypasses to the national programme at a cost of £85 million, and we have announced the first six towns for the bypass demonstration project.
We have heard the case for even more investment in roads. By investing in roads, we can improve the environment and road safety and make a valuable contribution to improving the economy. That is why the Conservative party, alone among political parties, continues unashamedly to claim that we must continue to invest as much as we can afford in road infrastructure—not at the expense of investing in other forms of transportation, but as a complement to such investment. Only through long-term capital investment in transport can we improve our quality of life.
It is not too late for Humberside county council to change its attitude. If there is no other consequence of this debate, I hope that the county council and its leader will be shamed into restoring that much-needed Leven bypass scheme so that work can start on it this year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Terms
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to change the number of weeks children spend in school.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to alter existing arrangements which provide that schools—nursery classes and schools excepted—must meet for 380 half-day sessions in each school year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will arrange for the examining boards to reschedule examinations so that children spend more of the summer term in school.

  Mr. Eggar
  The GCSE and GCE examination timetables are a matter for the examining bodies concerned. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has recently discussed the matter of the GCSE examination timetable with representatives of the joint council for the GCSE, and we understand that the timetable is likely to start a week later in 1992 than it did this year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science how much of the school term remains unexpired after GCSE and A-level examinations have been completed: and what plans he has to ensure that the time is fully utilised.

  Mr. Eggar
  The dates of school terms are determined locally, while the dates of GCSE and GCE examinations vary according to both the examination boards' timetables and to the subjects taken by individual pupils.

  If pupils attending school after taking external examinations are not involved in courses required under the national curriculum, this time could with advantage be used constructively, for instance to secure careeers guidance or to gain work experience.

  As announced in the White Paper "Training and Education for the 21st Century"—Cmnd. 1536—the Government intend to legislate to abolish the present Easter and May school-leaving dates in favour of a single date at the end of the summer term.

  Examination Standards
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science What independent facilities exist to monitor examination standards since the inception of each current examination.

  Mr. Eggar
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council is responsible for approving all GCSE and GCE syllabuses and examinations as suitable to be offered in schools. In addition to the examining bodies' own extensive scrutiny arrangements, both SEAC and Her Majesty's inspectorate scrutinise the conduct of these 242
  examinations to ensure that standards remain appropriate and consistent between subjects and examining bodies and from year to year.

  Nursery Education
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the provision of each London borough for nursery education for each year since 1979 giving(a) the number of nursery schools and (b) the number of nursery classes with pupil numbers and participation rates.

  Mr. Eggar
  Tables detailing nursery provision in the maintained sector in each London borough for the period 1980 to 1990, the latest date for which information is available, are being placed in the Library. Information for 1979 and separate participation rates for nursery schools and nursery classes are not readily available.

  Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of children aged 16 to 18 years in Tower Hamlets remained in full-time education for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The proportion of young people in Tower Hamlets aged 16 and 17 at the start of the academic year who were in full-time education—excluding those attending independent and special schools—was 44 per cent. in 1989–90. Data are not available for earlier years, because Tower Hamlets is part of the Inner London education authority and data were collected only for ILEA in total.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number and percentages of full-time students in Tower Hamlets by(a) primary school, (b) secondary school, (c) sixth-form centre, (d) sixth-form college, (e) colleges and polytechnics, (f) universities and (g) other educational establishments for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Fallon
  The numbers and percentages of pupils and students domiciled in Tower Hamlets who were in full-time education in the maintained sector in England in 1989–90 are given in the table. Information on people from Tower Hamlets attending independent schools and colleges or universities is not available. Figures for earlier years were collected from the Inner London education authority and cannot be disaggregated to borough level.

  Establishment

  Full-time pupils and students

  Percentage

  (a) Primary schools

  17,254

  57

  (b) Secondary schools

  10,486

  35

  (c) Sixth-form centres

  —

  —

  (d) Sixth-form colleges

  —

  —

  (e) Colleges and polytechnics

  1,752

  6

  (g) Other educational establishments

  895

  3

  Total

  30,387

  100

  Teacher Vacancies
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his most recent assessment of teacher vacancies in London listed by education authorities for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The most recent figures available relate to January 1990, details of which are being placed in the Library. Vacancy figures for individual authorities for January 1991 have not yet been finalised and will be placed in the Library when confirmed.

  Examining Boards
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the extent of his powers vis-à-vis examining boards.

  Mr. Eggar
  The GCSE examining groups and GCE examining boards are independent bodies, but all courses of study leading to qualifications for pupils of compulsory school age are subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and their associated syllabuses are subject to the approval of his nominated body, the School Examinations and Assessment Council. As announced in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" the Government intend to use their reserve powers to extend these controls on standards to courses for 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for early retirement with enhancement have been approved and the costs met in part or in full by the teachers' superannuation fund in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Fallon
  During the year ending 31 March 1991, a total of 781 teachers aged 50 to 64 were awarded benefits under the teachers' superannuation regulations following premature retirement from educational establishments in Wales.

  Enhancement is a matter for employers, who are asked but not obliged to report details to the Department. Enhancement was reported in 560 cases, no enhancement was reported in 157 cases, and 64 cases were not reported.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has taken any action based on proposals made in the report of the business meeting on environmental education to which he referred in his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 27 June, column 533.

  Mr. Fallon
  The report in question makes no specific proposals for action by the Department. It will, however, be brought to the attention of the committee which is being established to advise on the future development of environmental education within further and higher education.

ENERGY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration is being given to resolving the regulatory problems faced by on-site generators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Regulatory issues are a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. I have however agreed to meet some members of the Combined Heat and Power Association to hear of their problems and ideas at first hand.

  Coal Industry Pay
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, (1) what was the average wage from each area of the United Kingdom coal industry for(a) coalface-trained miners, (b) miners employed elsewhere underground and (c) surface workers in 1990–91;

  (2) what was the average incentive and bonus pay in 1990–91 in each United Kingdom colliery;

  (3) what was the average earnings for the year 1990–91 in each area of the United Kingdom coalfield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Detailed information on average earnings, incentives and bonus pay is not kept by my Department. However, the two-year pay and benefits agreement introduced by British Coal in January this year puts mineworkers near the top of the industrial earnings league.

  Fissile Material
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, whether, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith),Official Report, 27 June, column 516, any nuclear material originally created in unsafeguarded reactors has been notified to the safeguards authorities as open to safeguards under INFCIRC-263.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There have been occasions when material originating from non-safeguarded reactors have been brought into safeguards. Such material has been notified to the safeguards authorities under INFCIRC 263.

  Plutonium Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 27 June, column 517, there have been any exports of plutonium to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in quantities of less than a few grammes in the past two years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I cannot for reasons of commercial confidentiality disclose the precise amounts of plutonium exported to individual countries. However, total exports of plutonium to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and its predecessors over the last two years have not exceeded 1 gramme.

  IAEA Safeguards Budget
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made of the increased demands on the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards budget of the decision by the Republic of South Africa to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This question will be considered as part of the agency's budgetary process.

PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister why he decided to require local authorities when setting their poll tax levels to cover the cost of unpaid poll tax bills; and if he has any plans to change this requirement.

  The Prime Minister
  As part of its budgetary process and in line with proper accounting practice, every local authority has to estimate the level of non-recoverable charges for the forthcoming year and then set a community charge which takes this into account. In this respect, the community charge is no different from the old domestic rating system.

  Government Bills
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on recouping losses arising from the non-payment of Government bills from the subsequent payers of such bills.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments are advised in "Government Accounting", the Treasury's guide on accounting and financial procedures for Government Departments, that all reasonable action should be taken to effect recovery of losses.

  Health Care Corporation Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what legal costs have been contributed by Her Majesty's Government either directly or indirectly towards the legal costs of either party in the case of Regina v. Elmridge Borough Council, ex parte Health Care Corporation Ltd. and another.

  The Prime Minister
  In civil cases the costs are a matter for the parties involved. There has been no Government involvement in this case.

  Holy Loch
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 9, if he will make public those parts of the agreement between the United Kingdom and United States Governments to establish the United States Navy base at Holy Loch in 1960 which pertain to (a) civilian safety in the area; (b) the local community and (c) the local economy; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 17 June.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Part III Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) whether residents of formal local authority part III homes, which are transferred to the private or voluntary sector between 25 June and when amending regulations regarding entitlement to income support take effect, will be eligible for higher levels of income support;

  (2) whether residents of former local authority part III homes which were transferred to the private or voluntary sector before 25 June are eligible for higher levels of income support;

  (3) whether residents of former local authority part III homes which are closed down are eligible for higher levels of income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for income support is defined by regulations. Decisions regarding claims to benefit are made at a local level by independent adjudication officers who are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer in the published adjudication officers' guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The chief adjudication officer has recently issued advice to adjudication officers to help them decide claims from residents of homes which are transferred from local authority ownership to the private or voluntary sector pending the amendment of the regulations.

  Where a local authority has accommodated a person under part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, responsibility for that person continues unless he no longer requires that accommodation. If a local authority home is closed the local authority would be under an obligation to find and pay for alternative accommodation for the residents.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies on child benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has confirmed on a number of occasions recently, child benefit is and will remain a strong element in the Government's policies for family support. Child benefit rose by £1 a week for the eldest eligible child in each family in April, and will rise by a further £1 a week for the eldest eligible child in each family in October, with an extra 25p a week for other children. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement, the Government are committed to increasing the new rates of child benefit in line with the movement in the retail prices index each year, starting in April 1992. We will announce in the uprating statement the allocation of the individual amounts between the eldest eligible child and other children.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms Certificates
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates were valid in the Metropolitan police area for(a) firearms and (b) shotguns by division for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available by division, but for the whole of the Metropolitan police area it is as follows:

  Certificates on issue at 31 December each year

  Firearms

  Shotguns

  1979

  9,504

  1—

  1980

  9,374

  28,990

  1981

  8,981

  29,528

  1982

  8,856

  28,504

  1983

  8,741

  29,747

  1984

  8,878

  30,293

  1985

  8,957

  237,147

  1986

  9,084

  41,814

  1987

  9,036

  44,299

  1988

  8,877

  45,835

  1989

  8,615

  43,436

  1990

  29,929

  42,362

  Notes

  1 Figures for shotgun certificates on issue on 31 December 1979 are not available.

  2 Computerisation of records of shotgun certificates in 1985 and firearm certificates in 1990 brought to light previous under-recording.

  Source: Annual Reports for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 1979 to 1990.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 168, if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of guidance to local authorities on emergency planning procedures.

  Mr. John Patten
  Mr. David Brook, the civil emergencies adviser, is preparing guidance on preparing for and responding to peacetime disasters. This guidance will be based on the lessons learnt from recent disasters and the experiences of those involved. It will complement the emergency procedures manuals prepared by the emergency services. The guidance will not be issued until all those agencies upon whose responsibilities it touches, including local authorities, have been consulted about its contents. This process is currently under way.

  Home Office guidance aimed solely at local authorities, currently contained in the "Emergency Planning Guide to Local Authorities", will be revised in the light of the outcome of the review of emergency planning announced on 16 October at column 769.

  Jury System Reform
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to bring forward proposals for reform of the jury system.

  Mr. John Patten
  We do not rule out further reform of the jury system, but there are no present plans for legislation.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  All office telephones in the headquarters buildings of the Department have a bar to restrict access to premium rate services. The same bar is being progressively introduced to the provincial offices and into prison establishments.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his replies to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon),Official Report, 24 June, column 355, on terrorism in Northern Ireland, if he will set out the reasons why the information requested is not available; and if he will make it his policy to ensure such information is made available in future.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not available because police forces do not in general make information from custody records available to anyone but the suspect or his or her legal representative. However, a forthcoming study by the Home Office research and planning unit is likely to show that out of the 214 suspects who were detained in England and Wales between 22 March 1989 and 11 November 1990 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in connection with Northern Ireland terrorism, 95—45 per cent.—requested notification under section 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and notification was delayed for over 36 hours in six cases; and that 103 —48 per cent.—requested access to legal advice under section 58 of the Act, which advice was delayed for over 36 hours in eight cases. Legal advice was delayed for the full 48 hours permitted by the Act in only one case. There were no cases in which notification under section 56 was delayed for 48 hours.

  Mr. King Obe Quoi
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to answer the letters of 23 February, 28 April and 17 May from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, regarding Mr. King Obe Quoi and his family; what are the reasons for the delay in providing a reply; what is the usual time taken by his Department to reply to a Member about an urgent constituency case; what action he is taking to deal with such cases with greater expedition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 4 July. The delay in replying is a direct result of the tenfold increase in the number of applications for asylum being received by the asylum division since 1988 and the heavy workload of subsequent inquiries from applicants and hon. Members which has been generated. The Home Office would normally expect to provide hon. Members with a reply within 16 days. However, exceptional difficulties prevail in the asylum division. On 26 April my right hon. Friend announced our intention to increase the number of staff in the asylum division from about 120 to more than 500. This process has begun and should in due course improve the division's ability to respond more quickly to hon. Members' inquiries.

  Migration
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in each of the last 25 years, or for as many years as he has information,(a) emigrated from Britain and (b) immigrated to Britain; and for each year what was the net position.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available data on migration to and from the United Kingdom are the estimates produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from the international passenger survey. This defines a migrant as a person leaving one country where he/she has been resident for more than a year with the intention of residing in a new country for a year or more. These data include British citizens and are on a different basis from the figures of people subject to immigration control accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom. Data for 1964—89 are given in table 2.1 of the 1974, 1979 and 1989 issues of the OPCS publication "International Migration", copies of which are in the Library. Corresponding data for the 12 months ending 30 September 1990 are given in the table.

  Migration to and from the United Kingdom in the 12 months ending SO September 1990

  Number of persons, in thousands1

  Inflow

  Outflow

  Net inflow

  All citizenships

  257

  219

  37

  British citizens

  107

  132

  -25

  Non-British citizens

  150

  88

  62

  1 Figures are provisional estimates, and have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Underground Facility, Drakelow
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has for the use of the underground facility at Drakelow in Wyre Forest; and what is the annual cost of maintaining this facility.

  Mr. John Patten
  The facility has been developed as an administrative centre for use in a possible emergency. Running costs for 1990–91 were £122,000.

  Criminal Records
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have completed the process of the computerisation of the national collection of criminal records; and whether from that time it will be possible centrally to vet applications from individuals seeking to become licensed taxi drivers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The police national computer holds information on the convictions of those whose first reportable offence occurred after 31 December 1980. This information is available on-line to police forces. Plans to computerise earlier records which are held on microfiche at the national identification bureau, New Scotland Yard, have not yet been finalised. Records of convictions for other offences are held by police forces.

  Criminal records have recently been the subject of a scrutiny which examined arrangements for, and the scope of, a fully computerised national criminal records system and the use of such a system for the purposes of vetting. The scrutiny recommendations are currently being
  250
  considered and no decisions have been made on a national criminal record system or the purposes for which it may be used.

  EC Frontier Controls
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 215, to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Schengen agreement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have nothing to add to the earlier answer to which the hon. Member refers in the question.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  IAEA Publications
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the "Inventory of radioactive material entering the marine environment: Sea disposal of radioactive waste", document IAEA-TECDOC-588, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in March.

  Mr. Curry
  We already have one.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by county or region, in England, Scotland and Wales for the period 1 January to 30 June.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information, calculated by date of confirmation of disease, for the period I January to 30 June 1991, is as follows:

  Country, region and county

  Confirmed number of cases

  England

  Cleveland

  9

  Cumbria

  212

  Durham

  29

  Humberside

  37

  Northumberland

  40

  Tyne and Wear

  2

  Yorkshire North

  358

  Yorkshire South

  28

  Yorkshire West

  40

  Total: Northern region

  755

  Cheshire

  318

  Derbyshire

  156

  Hereford and Worcester

  155

  Lancashire

  242

  Leicestershire

  205

  Manchester

  17

  Merseyside

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  51

  Salop

  200

  Staffordshire

  147

  West Midlands

  4

  Warwickshire

  87

  Total: Midlands and Western region

  1,585

  251

  Country, region and county

  Confirmed number of cases

  Bedfordshire

  29

  Cambridge

  26

  Essex

  40

  Hertfordshire

  34

  Lincolnshire

  67

  Norfolk

  176

  Northants

  84

  Suffolk

  108

  Total: Eastern region

  564

  Berkshire

  45

  Buckinghamshire

  84

  Hampshire

  297

  Isle of Wight

  72

  Kent

  150

  London

  8

  Oxon

  111

  Surrey

  63

  Sussex East

  116

  Sussex West

  219

  Total: South East region

  1,165

  Avon

  201

  Cornwall

  683

  Devon

  1,061

  Dorset

  762

  Gloustershire

  219

  Somerset

  989

  Wiltshire

  568

  Total: South West region

  4,483

  England total

  8,552

  Wales

  Clwyd

  155

  Dyfed

  457

  Glamorgan Mid

  20

  Glamorgan South

  16

  Glamorgan West

  4

  Gwent

  59

  Gwynedd

  24

  Powys

  86

  Total: Wales

  821

  Scotland

  Borders

  26

  Central

  6

  Dumfries

  73

  Fife

  15

  Grampian

  53

  Highland

  16

  Lothian

  6

  Orkney

  2

  Shetland

  1

  Strathclyde

  75

  Tayside

  20

  Total: Scotland

  293

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy(a) in England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales up to 30 June.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information up to 30 June 1991 is as follows:252

  Number

  England

  28,024

  Scotland

  976

  Wales

  2,401

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the pesticide active ingredients for which the agro-chemical companies are not submitting data for review, giving the year of their initial approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Agro-chemical companies have, so far, taken commercial decisions not to submit data for review in respect of 20 pesticide active ingredients:

  Active ingredient

  Date of first approval

  Aluminium Silicate

  1969

  Anthraquinone

  1962

  Barban

  1980

  Benzethonium Chloride

  Pre 1986

  Carbophenothion

  1966

  Chlorthiamid

  1962

  2, 4-DES

  1968

  Di-allate

  1978

  Ditalimfos

  1974

  Fenchlorphos

  1975

  Fenoprop

  1965

  Flamprop-methyl

  1980

  Fluoroacetamide

  1980

  Mevinphos

  1980

  Oxine Copper

  1961

  Quinonamid

  Pre 1979

  2, 4, 5-T

  1962

  Tar acids

  1970

  Thionazin

  1981

  Thiourea

  1983

  Approval for the advertisement, sale, supply, storage and use by the approval holders—and their agents—of pesticides based on these active ingredients was revoked on 1 March 1991. Since no safety concerns relating to approved uses of these pesticides have been identified, approval for up to two years has been given to allow stocks already on the market to be used or disposed of safely.

  Where necessary, action will be taken to revoke approvals for any products where reasonable steps are not taken to support continuing use.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement in respect of his assessment of the current nuclear weapons potential of Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is clear that, prior to the Gulf conflict, Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme. United Nations Security Council resolution 687 required Iraq to submit to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency details of its nuclear weapons usable material.

  Iraq made two initial declarations, which gave some of the information required, but were deficient in some

  253
  respects. The IAEA, with the special commission set up in accordance with resolution 687, is working to verify these statements and to remove nuclear weapons usable material from Iraq.

  Kuwait (British Citizens)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations to ensure that compensation is paid to British civilians who were in Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion; and when he expects the first payments to be made.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom representative at the United Nations is working actively with other members of the United Nations Security Council on arrangements for establishing a United Nations compensation commission and fund as envisaged in UNSCR 687 and UNSCR 692. The governing council of the commission is to be based in Geneva. It is not yet possible to indicate when the first payments will be made.

  Kurdistan
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours),Official Report, 24 June, column 349, on allied forces in Iraq, if he will seek to obtain the information requested.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to supply a reason to Members on each occasion his Department is unable to provide a substantive answer to future questions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is already our policy to do so.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote the implementation of United Nations resolution 425 concerning the withdrawal from southern Lebanon of the occupying Israeli army, following the recent activity of the Lebanese army in re-establishing government control in and around Sidon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We strongly support the efforts of the Lebanese army to impose their control. Their success further strengthens international calls, which we have consistently supported, for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon in accordance with UNSCR 425. It is most important that neither the Israeli defence forces, nor their surrogates, do anything to impede the Lebanese army.

  Information Services
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 350, how he determines whether the market information inquiry service and the overseas status report service are being run at a profit or loss.
  254
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Provisional estimates of the cost of supplying the range of charged information services to exporters suggest that these services are heavily subsidised at present. Work is currently in hand to identify the costs involved in the Department of Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office overseas in providing individual services. Our aim, in the longer term, is for our pricing structure to evolve to a position where charges and costs are aligned as far as possible, consistent with continuing to provide a high quality service to serious United Kingdom exporters that they regard as good value for money.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 627, if he has any plans to propose legislation under which the bodies acting as recognised supervisory bodies will be required to publish the number of complaints which they receive against their members.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans for such legislation. Under the Companies Act 1989, a recognised supervisory body must have effective arrangements for the investigation of companies against persons who are eligible under the body's rules to be appointed company auditor.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will propose legislation under which auditing firms could be required to explain audit failures to representatives of shareholders and creditors.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Shareholders can already seek explanations of audit work at AGMs, and if they are unhappy can change the auditor. A company already has means of legal redress against negligent auditors.

  EC-EFTA Negotiations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the expected timetable for the completion of the EC negotiations with the European Free Trade Association.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Council on 29 June endorsed the Community's commitment to work wilth EFTA to try and complete the negotiations on the European economic area this month, with the objective of enabling the agreement to enter into force on 1 January 1993.

  ICI
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to pay an official visit to the ICI factories at Pontypool, Penrhyndeudraeth and Barry.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have no present plans to visit these factories.

  Egypt
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Uxbridge concerning unfair
  255
  competition in trade with Egypt resulting from subsidies provided by the United States of America via its bilateral aid programme; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has received representations about alleged unfair competition from the United States of America in connection with a business contract in Egypt. We are looking into these allegations as a matter of urgency and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Insolvency Service has now achieved a full realisation of the cash and estate accounting records up to 31 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: No. The Insolvency Service now estimates that work on the cash and estate accounting records to 31 March 1991 will be completed by end of July 1991. However, flowing from the problems outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his report on the insolvency services account for 1989–90 relating to the old accounting systems and the transfer of estate records to the new system, a full reconciliation may not be achievable. I have asked the inspector general and chief executive of the Insolvency Service, who is the agency accounting officer for the account, to let the hon. Member have a further report at end-July. In the meantime, the inspector general is advising the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the position. The new system is succeeding in eliminating many of the problems apparent in the old.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the average penalty imposed in the cases taken by the Insolvency Service; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The Department of Trade and Industry prosecutes a variety of offences following investigations by the Insolvency Service. Such prosecutions comprise offences for which, on conviction, both custodial and non-custodial sentences are imposed. It is therefore not possible to calculate an average penalty.

  Every decision to prosecute is taken with legal advice and the lawyer will have regard to the code for Crown prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. That code, in addition to providing criteria as to the sufficiency of evidence, contains criteria concerning whether the public interest requires a prosecution. One of the criteria is the likely penalty, and it is stated that the prosecutor should carefully consider how best the public interest would be served where a nominal penalty is likely.

  Composite rate tax on building society interest

  All amounts in £ million

  Receipts in

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  IRS edition in:

  1985

  Not shown separately

  1986

  Not shown separately

  1987

  1,217

  1,425

  1,583

  1,550

  1,844

  2,608

  2,545

  —

  —

  —

  256
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last reviewed the code for Crown prosecutors regarding the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: Any revision of the code for Crown prosecutors is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  The Insolvency Service has guidelines which, when read with the code for Crown prosecutors, gives more detailed guidance regarding the investigation of possible offences in insolvencies. These guidelines were reviewed by Ministers in June 1991.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the annual cost of the Insolvency Service in Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Official receivers' offices located in Yorkshire are at Leeds and Sheffield. The running cost budgets for this financial year 1991–92 for those offices are £884,000 and £468,000 respectively.

  The official receiver, Hull, and the official receiver, Stockton, also have responsibility in parts of Yorkshire. The running cost budgets for 1991–92 for those offices are £454,000 and £312,000 respectively.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when it was decided to propose legislation to obtain additional tax from building societies for the financial year 1985–86; and when and how an estimate was published of the financial effect on total tax receipts and on the tax to be paid by societies;

  (2) what was the best estimate of the revenue effect at the time it was decided to propose legislation to obtain additional tax from building societies for the financial year 1985–86.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to him on 15 April, at columns 9–10, and 22 April, at columns 300–1. The 1986 legislation changing the way building societies account for tax on interest and dividends paid did not involve additional tax.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table of Inland Revenue statistics for each year since 1985, showing the schedule for composite rate tax on building society interest for each year since 1980–81.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The information requested is shown in the table:
  257

  Receipts in

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1988

  1,217

  1,425

  1,583

  1,550

  1,844

  2,608

  2,539

  2,694

  —

  —

  1989

  1,217

  1,425

  1,583

  1,550

  1,844

  2,608

  2,539

  2,694

  2,686

  —

  1990

  1,217

  1,425

  1,583

  1,550

  1,844

  2,608

  2,539

  2,694

  2,678

  3,713

  Note: Receipts of tax subsequently repaid as the result of decisions by the courts are included.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish indices of Welsh, Scottish and United Kingdom planned total spending, excluding privatisation receipts and the reserve, since 1978–79, with 1978–79 = 100.

  Mr. Mellor
  Indices for identifiable planning total expenditure—excluding privatisation proceeds—in Wales, Scotland and the United Kingdom for the years 1985–86 to 1989–90 are set out in the table. The figures for the United Kingdom are based on the part of the planning total—about three quarters—which could be allocated to individual territories. The data on which the indices are based reflect the planning total outturn at the time when the data were collected for the 1990 territorial analysis of expenditure. Corresponding data for 1984–85 on a consistent basis could he provided only at disproportionate cost. Data for other years are not available.

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1985–86

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986–87

  109·7

  106·4

  107·4

  1987–88

  117·6

  112·7

  113·7

  1988–89

  126·0

  118·3

  118·9

  1989–90

  133·4

  127·5

  127·6

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to prevent British companies making large investments in horse racing and bloodstock from writing down this investment to zero in one year for tax purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  It is not clear what sort of investment my hon. Friend has in mind. However, if he can provide further details I shall be glad to consider his question again.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the new forms of alternative working patterns introduced into Her Majesty's Customs and Excise since its reorganisation on next steps lines; and give a breakdown by grade of the number of staff taking up each new working pattern.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs and Excise have for some time used a variety of alternative working patterns, in particular part-time working, job sharing and fixed-term appointments, and will continue to do so following its reorganisation into executive units. I regret that detailed information on numbers and grades can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil service grade 6 officers there were in each year since 1979.
  258
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Figures for the number of civil servants by grade from 1984 to 1990 can be found in table 4 of "Civil Service Statistics". Copies of this publication are held in the Library. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Unified grade 6 was created on 1 January 1984 as part of an expanded open structure by the assimilation of the senior principle grade and some equivalent grades. Published figures for the period prior to that date refer only to senior principal and since since 1984 further grades have been assimilated to UG6. Figures for UG6 on a consistent basis could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Telephones in my Department are already barred from connection to premium rate services.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the liquidation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement I made earlier today.

  Tax Assessments
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much assessed tax on income in 1989–90 had been assessed by 31 July 1990.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The amount of tax assessed on income in 1989–90 by 31 July 1990 cannot be ascertained, as the Inland Revenue keeps records by reference to the collector's accounting year ending in October.

  P11D Forms
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many P11D forms were outstanding on the most recent date for which this information is available.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: There were 1·15 million P11D forms on hand on 13 June 1991. The bulk of these forms are received in the first part of the tax year and dealt with in a targeted programme finishing in December.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Horn of Africa
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made in ensuring aid arrives at the destination where needed in the Horn of Africa with the minimum of delay.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The established relief routes in northern Ethiopia continue to deliver food to those in need. In northern Sudan the relief routes are operational. Problems persist over the provision of food to southern Sudan and to those parts of Ethiopia still affected by conflict. However, new mechanisms, including air drops, are being introduced to deal with pockets of acute need.

  European Community Aid Policy
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average percentage of gross domestic product spent on overseas aid in other EC member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Figures are available only for those member countries of the European Community which are also members of the development assistance committee of the OECD. The overall average percentage of gross national product given in overseas aid by these seven countries, excluding the United Kingdom, was 0·56 per cent. in 1989.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist to discuss overseas aid with EC counterparts; and what proposals are envisaged for the development of a single EC policy on aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have regular meetings with my EC colleagues on all aspects of aid policy. I have just returned from an informal Development Council which met in the Netherlands over the weekend. A wide range of issues was discussed.

  Animal Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what animal conservation schemes are currently under consideration for financing by his Department.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Several possible projects are under consideration, in which animal conservation will be an important element. They include the following:Bangladesh: study of impact of flood control on aquatic ecology.
  Bhutan: management Plan for Jigme Dorji wildlife sanctuary.
  Brazil: conservation of flooded forest areas.
  India: wetlands conservation in Manipur valley.
  Indonesia: conservation adviser.
  Nigeria: development of Gashaka Gumpti game reserve.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed during the Minister for Overseas Development's visit to Zimbabwe.
  260
  Mrs. Chalker
  I had separate meetings with His Excellency the President and a number of his senior Ministers. The subjects we covered included arrangements for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to be held in Harare, Zimbabwe's economic reform programme, our bilateral aid and other matters of mutual concern and interest to our two Governments.

  Farewell to the Third World-
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response his Department has made to the report by the export group for the construction industries "Farewell to the Third World", a copy of which has been sent to the Minister for Overseas Development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our response to the Export Group for the Construction Industries referred to the clear statement of ODA's strategy in the 1991 departmental report to Parliament (Cm. 1502), the importance of supporting economic reform in many developing countries, the good record of British contractors in gaining business from bilateral and multilateral aid, and the continued real-terms growth in the aid programme.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral aid Her Majesty's Government have given to Nicaragua since President Violetta Chamorro took office.

  Mr. Chalker
  We started a bilateral technical co-operation programme in March 1990; this is now running at about £200,000 a year. We subsequently pledged £600,000 of grant aid as part of the international effort to help restore the Nicaraguan economy. Since Mrs. Chamorro took office we have made commitments totalling £260,033 for six new NGO projects in Nicaragua. Our largest financial contribution continues to be through the British share of European Community assistance to Nicaragua; there are no figures yet available on this for 1990.

  The Gulf (Medical Aid)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom medical aid is being given to Kuwait and Southern Iraq.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 17 June at column 32. We are keeping the situation under close review.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the grants made by Her Majesty's Government to Bangladesh through the Bangladesh aid consortium since 1972 was devoted to programmes designed(a) to protect coastal areas from cyclone damage and (b) to prevent flooding within Bangladesh.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The Bangladesh aid group is a forum for discussion of

  261
  Bangladesh's development policies and financing requirements, at which donors indicate their aid intentions. It is not a mechanism for channelling aid, which is provided on a bilateral basis.

  British aid statistics do not separately identify the amounts spent over past years on cyclone or flood protection. Since the 1989 Bangladesh flood conference we have committed £4·5 million towards the cost of studies identified as part of the flood action plan. Under that plan work on cyclone protection is also being undertaken with finance from the European Community.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss company crime; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall next meet the director very soon, when we shall of course discuss commercial fraud among any other matters of departmental interest.

WALES

  Health Provision
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the health authorities in Wales to discuss health provision in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met health authority chairmen on 31 January and hope to do so again in the autumn.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next be meeting the chairmen of the health authorities to discuss the future of the health service in west Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend hopes to do so in the autumn.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the change in the level of unemployment during the year to May 1991 in(a) Neath and (b) Wales as a whole.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of unemployed claimants in the Neath constituency and Wales increased by 731 and 29,043 respectively in the year to May 1991.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of unemployed males and females in May 1989 and 1990 in Ogmore, Mid Glamorgan and the present recorded number.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Ogmore constituency

  Mid Glamorgan

  1 South Wales

  May 1989

  Male

  2,045

  15,406

  47,679

  Female

  656

  4,992

  16,150

  May 1990

  Male

  1,801

  13,952

  41,929

  Female

  497

  3,784

  11,964

  262

  Ogmore constituency

  Mid Glamorgan

  1South Wales

  May 1991

  Male

  2,533

  19,620

  59,019

  Female

  621

  4,788

  14,630

  1 South Wales is defined here as Mid, South and West Glamorgan and Gwent.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men and how many women, showing full and part-time separately, were in employment in January 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available, in Wales and Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Employees in employment data below national level is available only in census of employment years. The following table therefore shows data for June 1978—the nearest to January 1979—and the latest available—September 1989—containing both Mid Glamorgan and Wales:

  Thousands

  Mid Glamorgan

  Wales

  June 1978

  Male full-time

  106·6

  587·9

  Male part-time

  3·3

  25·3

  Female full-time

  48·8

  249·6

  Female part-time

  27·5

  152·5

  September 1989

  Male full-time

  79·8

  484 5

  Male part-time

  4·1

  37·2

  Female full-time

  44·7

  255·2

  Female part-time

  36·4

  209·8

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proportion of inward investment projects attracted to the United Kingdom which have resulted in jobs created in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Wales continues to attract very significant levels of inward investment from overseas. The recent announcement that Sony was to create 1,400 jobs at a new manufacturing facility at Bridgend and Northern Telecom etc. is further evidence that Wales is now one of the most attractive locations in Europe for internationally mobile investment.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1989–90 current expenditure per pupil in secondary schools in Wales was £1,817. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £1,243.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in combating coronary heart disease in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In May 1991 the Department published comprehensive and authoritative advice to the
  263
  NHS in Wales entitled "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Cardiovascular Diseases" which has been well received.

  In addition, the Heartbeat Wales programme, which is run by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, continues to combat the high incidence of coronary heart disease in Wales. The authority has distributed advice to GPs and other health professionals on the management of blood cholesterol levels and is organising seminars to outline cholesterol guidelines. Preliminary evaluation of the first five years of the Heartbeat Wales programme shows encouraging trends with smoking and excess drinking decreasing and more people in Wales taking exercise.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether residents in private nursing homes in Wales are eligible for free NHS services including chiropody and physiotherapy.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, the person responsible for a private nursing home is required to provide adequate support services such as physiotherapy. Consequently, health authorities would not normally provide such services to patients in such homes.

  The Government's policy on chiropody is that treatment should be available under the NHS, free to all who need it. However, it is for the individual health authority to decide the level of provision required in its area and detailed priorities within available resources.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales from which organisations he has received representations so far concerning local government reform in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received written or oral representations from the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts, the Wales Association of Community and Town Councils, members of the Conservative party, Plaid Cymru, and the Liberal Democrat party, a number of individual local authorities and councillors. I have also received a large number of letters from members of the public.

  European Co-operation
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the authorities in Baden-Wiirttemburg, Rhone-Alpes, Catalonia and Lombardy during the coming six months to discuss economic co-operation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department and the Welsh Development Agency are actively pursuing practical links with all these regions. I have already visited Rhone-Alpes and plan to visit Baden-Wurttemberg later this year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited Lombardy and plans to visit Catalonia later this year.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he plans to announce to help the unemployed.
  264
  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment recently announced a substantial package of additional measures to help unemployed people back into work. This includes expert advice and help in looking for a job, extra training and a new work experience programme—employment action. This new package, together with the wide range of programmes already in place, amounts to the most comprehensive range of measures we have ever had to help unemployed people back to work.

  A5 (Dualling)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposed dualling of the A5 across Ynys Môn.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Following the public consultation exercise last October we expect to make an early announcement of the preferred route for the dualling of the A5 across Ynys Mon. The preferred route for the Holyhead improvement was announced last November and design work is proceeding with ground investigation and topographical surveys due to begin shortly. The A5 schemes are included in the Roads in Wales programme.

  Engineering Qualifications
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people currently training for a British national technical engineering qualification(a) in Mid Glamorgan and (b) in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There were 505 students enrolled on Business and Technician Education Council engineering courses at higher education level in Mid Glamorgan in 1989–90, the last year for which figures are available. The corresponding figure for Wales was 2,516. At further education level the number of students enrolled was 558 for Mid Glamorgan and 3,497 for Wales.

  Royal Welch Fusiliers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the future of the Royal Welch Fusiliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received 188 written representations and a petition containing 35 signatures calling for the continuation of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in their present form. I have also received a number of personal representations.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. It is my Department's practice to do so where it is technically feasible.

  Dioxins and Furans
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the maximum permissible levels and monitored levels of (a)

  265
  tetrachlorodibenzofuran, (b) tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, (c) pentachlorodibenzodioxin, (d) pentachlorodibenzofuran, (e) heptachlorodibenzofuran and (f) octachlorodibenzodioxin, respectively, in parts per million found in the Pontypool area; and what information he has regarding the risks of dioxins and furans to human health.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We have engaged the services of the university of East Anglia to undertake an in-depth survey to establish the levels of contamination by PCBs and their degradation products, dibenzo-dioxins and furans, in the Panteg area of Pontypool. The results of that survey will be available in about 18 months and will be widely published on completion.

  We have also appointed Professor Lewis Roberts (former Wolfson professor of environmental risk assessment at the university of East Anglia) as our independent adviser for the survey. His role will be to advise us on the methodology and conduct of the survey and, at a later stage, to provide us with advice on its implications.

  We have available to us pollution paper No. 17, "Dioxins in the Environment", which is a report of an interdepartmental working group on dioxins and furans. The conclusion of the working group is that a number of adverse health effects have been noted following accidental and occupational exposure to these chemicals, most commonly chloracne. The committee noted that no deaths had been attributed to these chemicals.

  The Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has not found any convincing evidence of a link between exposure to these chemicals and cancer, but recommend a continuing review of the work being undertaken in this field.

  Redundant Miners (Training)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of redundant British coal miners who have received training or retraining following redundancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government do not identify separately the number of redundant miners who have received training or retraining on Government training programmes. However, since it was set up in 1984 British Coal Enterprise has helped over 500 redundant miners to receive training and helped to create nearly 9,000 job opportunities in Wales.

SCOTLAND

  Appointees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the annual cost of reimbursements and fees to each of his appointees to agencies, commissions and boards for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Table 1 shows the annual remuneration at 1 July 1990 to my appointees in paid appointments. Table 2 provides the same information in respect of appointments made jointly with other Ministers. Information for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate 266
  cost. However, the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" published each year since 1982 and available in the Library, lists the public bodies to which appointments are made, including the remuneration paid.

  Information on expenses paid to members of such bodies is not held centrally.

  Paid appointments for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible as at 1 July 1990

  Table 1

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  ARGYLL AND CLYDE HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  16,005

  AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  13,415

  BORDERS HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  10,810

  CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE

  Chairman

  15,000

  7 Members

  4,500

  CENTRAL SCOTLAND WOODLANDS LTD.

  Chairman

  Fee Paid

  COMMISSION FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY ACCOUNTS IN SCOTLAND

  Chairman

  7,939

  Deputy Chairman

  5,030

  6 Members

  2,500

  2 Members

  2,650

  COMMON SERVICES AGENCY FOR THE SCOTTISH HEALTH SERVICE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

  Chairman

  12,355

  COUNSEL TO SECRETARY OF STATE ON PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE

  1 Member

  10,994

  1 Member

  7,568

  COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND

  Chairman

  15,365

  Deputy Chairman

  6,422

  CROFTERS COMMISSION

  Chairman

  36,848

  6 Members

  9,393

  CUMBERNAULD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy Chairman

  7,804

  7 Members

  3,525

  1 Member

  3,735

  DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  10,810

  EAST KILBRIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy Chairman

  8,272

  5 Members

  3,525

  2 Members

  3,735

  FIFE HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  13,415

  FORTH VALLEY HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  13,415

  GLENROTHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Chairman

  18,202

  267

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Deputy Chairman

  7,804

  8 Members

  3,525

  GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  18,250

  GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  22,730

  HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (replaced by Highlands and Islands Enterprise from 1 April 1991)

  Chairman

  56,540

  Deputy Chairman

  52,130

  1 Member

  46,695

  1 Member

  41,500

  3 Members

  8,123

  HIGHLAND HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  13,415

  HORSE RACING BETTING LEVY APPEAL TRIBUNAL FOR SCOTLAND

  2 Members

  109 per day

  IRVINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy Chairman

  8,272

  7 Members

  3,735

  LANARKSHIRE HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  16,005

  LIVINGSTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Chairman

  17,172

  Deputy Chairman

  8,272

  5 Members

  3,525

  2 Members

  3,735

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND

  Chairman

  4,691

  Vice Chairman

  11,122

  3 Members

  1,573

  LOTHIAN HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  20,490

  ORKNEY HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  6,510

  PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS

  3 Members

  varied daily fees paid

  RED DEER COMMISSION

  Chairman

  15,173

  RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL FOR SCOTLAND

  President

  12,471

  Vice President

  7,863

  SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD

  Chairman

  137 per day

  3 Members

  87 per day

  SCOTTISH DENTAL PRACTICE BOARD

  Chairman

  33,991

  SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (replaced by Scottish Enterprise from 1 April 1991)

  Chairman

  38,836

  Deputy Chairman

  19,665

  5 Members

  5,330

  268

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  SCOTTISH HOMES

  Chairman

  30,719

  Deputy Chairman

  13,957

  7 Members

  5,330

  SCOTTISH HYDRO-ELECTRIC PLC (no longer Secretary of State's appointments)

  Chairman

  39,750

  3 Members

  4,860

  3 Members

  60,000

  1 Member

  79,700

  SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD

  Chairman

  17,170

  14 Members

  8,529

  SCOTTISH POWER PLC (no longer Secretary of State's appointments)

  Chairman

  66,900

  4 Members

  4,860

  1 Member

  66,000

  1 Member

  63,000

  1 Member

  57,000

  1 Member

  54,000

  SCOTTISH SEED POTATO DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

  Chairman

  7,110

  SCOTTISH TOURIST BOARD

  Chairman

  28,048

  5 Members

  5,330

  SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP

  Chairman

  64,610

  Deputy Chairman

  12,922

  1 Member

  6.804

  3 Members

  5,184

  SHETLAND HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  6,510

  STATE HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

  Chairman

  11,955

  TAYSIDE HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  18,250

  WESTERN ISLES HEALTH BOARD

  Chairman

  6,510

  Paid appointments made jointly by Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers as at 1 July 1990

  Table 2

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DISTINCTION AWARDS

  Chairman

  21,450

  Deputy Chairman

  7,900

  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING BOARD

  Chairman

  6,589

  Deputy Chairman

  6,041

  BRITISH WOOL MARKETING BOARD

  3 Members

  5,675

  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

  269

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Chairman

  22,650

  DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

  71,000

  FOOD FROM BRITAIN

  Chairman

  30,000

  Deputy Chairman

  4,290

  1 Member

  4,290

  9 Members

  1,895

  2 Members

  1,804

  HOME GROWN CEREALS AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  15,441

  Deputy Chairman

  5,330

  19 Members

  2,660

  HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

  Chairman

  21,138

  Deputy Chairman

  3,830

  20 Members

  25 per day

  INTERVENTION BOARD FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE

  Chairman

  5,477

  MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION

  Chairman

  45,453

  Deputy Chairman

  22,465

  1 Member

  10,840

  9 Members

  5,330

  NATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BOARD

  Chairman

  9,310

  12 Members

  66 per day

  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  25,490

  10 Members

  5,330

  UNITED KINGDOM SEEDS EXECUTIVE

  Chairman

  6,689

  4 Members

  6,689

  Enterprise Budgets
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the alterations made to the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise since the publication of "Meeting Scotland's Needs"; and what directions were given about the spending of those additional sums.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The alterations made to the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise which are subsequent to the determination of the figures published in "Serving Scotland's Needs"—Cm 1515—are set out in the tables.

  Scottish Enterprise

  Amount of adjustment (£ million)

  Date announced

  Activities supported1

  +9·1

  2 February 1991

  Enterprise

  Environment

  Employment Training

  Youth Training

  +13·6

  26 February 1991

  Employment Training

  +15·0

  10 May 1991

  Industrial and Environmental Renewal in Lanarkshire

  270

  Amount of adjustment (£ million)

  Date announced

  Activities supported1

  + 10·1

  19June1991

  Employment Training

  Employment Action

  +47·82

  1 No formal directions were given to Scottish Enterprise regarding the additional sums, which were however allocated in support of the functions listed.

  2 The total gross budget of Scottish Enterprise for 1991–92 is now £454.748 million.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Amount of adjustment (£ million)

  Date announced

  Activities supported1

  + 0·4

  —2

  Enterprise

  +1·75

  8 February 1991

  Employment Training

  Youth Training

  Enterprise Training

  Administration

  +1·4

  26 February 1991

  Employment Training

  +0·6

  19 June 1991

  Employment Training

  Employment Action

  +4·153

  1 No formal directions were given to Highlands and Islands Enterprise regarding the additional sums, which were however allocated in support of the functions listed.

  2 Amounts allocated to Highlands and Islands Enterprise in respect of Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance and Agricultural Development Programme following publication of Serving Scotland's Needs.

  3 The total gross budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise for 1991–92 is now £74·878 million.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the study commissioned by the Scottish management executive into the perception of health service staff on the contribution made by general management to the running of the national health service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The management executive is charged with improving the performance of the NHS in Scotland in serving patients. This task is informed by users' and staffs' perceptions of the service. No formal reports exist.

  GP Budget-holding Practices
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the management fee for the pilot scheme, general practitioner budget-holding practices, of size(a) 3,000 to 6,000 and (b) 6,000 to 8,000.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The same administrative tasks are undertaken by all practices involved in fund holding, regardless of their list size. The standard management allowance will therefore be available to those practices that participate in the smaller list size pilot scheme. The standard management allowance currently stands at £16,500 during the preparatory period and £33,000 per annum when fund holding commences.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Mr. Lang
  The vast majority of telephones in my Department are at present barred from connection to premium rate services. There are some telephones, however, which are connected to equipment which is not technically capable of individual call barring at present.

  AIDS
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the membership and terms of reference of the AIDS task force for Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that the following persons have agreed to serve on the task force, which I shall chair:

  Dr. G. E. Bath—Consultant in Public Health Medicine and AIDS Co-ordinator, Lothian Health Board.

  Dr. J. S. Berkeley—Consultant in Public Health Medicine and AIDS Co-ordinator, Grampian Health Board.

  Mr. J. Chant—Director of Social Work, Lothian Region Council.

  Mr. J. Christie—Deputy Director of Education, Tayside Regional Council.

  Professor F. Edwards, Director of Social Work, Strathclyde Regional Council.

  Dr. L. Gruer—Consultant in Public Health Medicine and AIDS Co-ordinator, Greater Glasgow Health Board.

  Dr. D. H. Kennedy—Consultant Physician, Greater Glasgow Health Board.

  Mr. A. M. Macpherson—Scottish Advisory Committee, National AIDS Trust.

  Mrs. M. Moore—Director, Scottish AIDS Monitor.

  Dr. K. A. M. Porter-Boveri—Consultant in Public Health Medicine and AIDS Co-ordinator, Tayside Health Board.

  Dr. J. R. Robertson—General Medical Practitioner, Muirhouse Medical Group, Edinburgh.

  Mrs. J. Roulston—Projects Manager, The Aberlour Child Care Trust.

  Dr. A. Tannahill—General Manager, Health Education Board for Scotland.

  Miss A. Thomson—Clinical Nurse Specialist, Greater Glasgow Health Board.

  The terms of reference of the task force are as follows: In the light of existing and emerging data on the incidence of HIV and AIDS in Scotland:

  —to review current activities to prevent the spread of the virus;

  —to consider what further practical measures might be taken; and

  —to access the effectiveness of the present arrangements for co-ordination of action at national and local level.

  I am confident that the task force, which will meet for the first time on 19 July, will make a significant contribution to our efforts to tackle the problem of HIV and AIDS in Scotland.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when, following the recent completion of the review into environmentally sensitive areas, he expects to be in a position to announce further designations of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: My right hon. Friend's first priority has been to consult on proposals for development of existing environmentally
  272
  sensitive areas designated in 1987 and to evaluate those designated in 1988. He hopes to build on their achievements. There are no plans, currently, to designate new environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. However, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland have been asked for advice on priorities should further designations be decided in the future.

  Salmon Farming
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish salmon farming industry is on the agenda at the forthcoming meeting of the Fisheries Council of the European Commission on 8 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The Scottish salmon farming industry is not on the formal agenda for the Fisheries Council next week. However, United Kingdom Ministers will certainly be raising our concerns with the Commission and other Fisheries Ministers at that time.

  Training (Employment Contracts)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many youth training and employment training people had contracts of employment in December 1990 in Scotland; and how this was calculated.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July]:I regret that this information is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Minister for London
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received seeking the appointment of a Minister for London within the Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Several.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use the information collected in the 1991 census in his calculations to determine standard spending assessments for local authorities in the financial year 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Information from the 1991 census will be incorporated into standard spending assessments (SSAs) as soon as possible, allowing for proper consultation and discussion with local authority representatives. Information for individual local authorities will not be available until the summer of 1992.

  Greenwich Borough Council (Finance)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the London borough of Greenwich about the calculation of the council's standard spending assessment; and what reply he has given.

  Mr. Key
  The London borough of Greenwich has made a number of representations on its standard spending
  273
  assessment and has on a number of occasions discussed these matters with local government Ministers. All the issues raised have received most careful consideration.

  Lone Parent Households
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how dated is the information for each local authority on the proportion of children in lone parent households used in assessing standard spending.

  Mr. Key
  The most up-to-date information, which is consistent and reliable at local authority level, is used

  Outstanding loan debt for London boroughs: 1983–84 to 1989–90

  £ million

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Barking and Dagenham

  90·796

  91·597

  94·641

  128·796

  130·475

  134·434

  116·499

  Barnet

  168·662

  167·530

  179·125

  203·094

  216·509

  213·112

  n·a·

  Bexley

  105·807

  111·556

  116·195

  136·309

  139·596

  124·624

  139·525

  Brent

  329·510

  347·212

  379·385

  n·a·

  444·069

  467·566

  462·458

  Bromley

  120·007

  119·202

  118·970

  167·851

  173·606

  151·918

  165·270

  Camden

  523·704

  558·684

  585·574

  658·361

  672·604

  676·274

  689·516

  City of London

  246·562

  245·621

  235·975

  232·952

  202·205

  68·045

  55·679

  Croydon

  142·412

  151·699

  148·270

  184·046

  185·054

  171·971

  170·512

  Ealing

  263·253

  274·688

  282·009

  301·698

  315·160

  n·a·

  n·a·

  Enfield

  192·764

  198·840

  203·839

  228·055

  242·652

  235·612

  252·900

  Greenwich

  337·785

  356·276

  376·920

  391·708

  410·791

  426·997

  469·118

  Hackney

  368·901

  400·131

  427·820

  n·a·

  n·a·

  n·a·

  n·a·

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  178·203

  227·770

  237·826

  316·313

  n·a·

  n·a·

  306·851

  Haringey

  391·505

  421·275

  458·089

  509·071

  n·a·

  n·a·

  n·a·

  Harrow

  107·549

  123·380

  133·241

  139·389

  180·165

  189·685

  200·719

  Havering

  114·815

  119·789

  128·366

  156·992

  164·144

  158·936

  169·607

  Hillingdon

  221·419

  228·911

  234·414

  257·343

  260·309

  251·866

  245·739

  Hounslow

  221·881

  232·752

  240·506

  267·551

  283·263

  304·448

  310·041

  Islington

  560·469

  n·a·

  619·434

  667·081

  685·998

  835·483

  842·117

  Kensington and Chelsea

  247·803

  252·758

  254·861

  293·992

  263·625

  263·173

  266·744

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  68·048

  73·113

  70·372

  78·655

  93·068

  95·157

  94·763

  Lambeth

  410·736

  528·882

  686·885

  n·a·

  n·a·

  n·a·

  n·a·

  Lewisham

  315·292

  337·081

  349·117

  451·500

  481·012

  484·707

  494·683

  Merton

  135·523

  144·982

  175·259

  183·851

  177·003

  198·865

  217·038

  Newham

  376·797

  372·853

  382·150

  n·a·

  507·068

  518·949

  546·055

  Redbridge

  115·537

  133·887

  111·487

  164·684

  157·495

  n·a·

  210·103

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  76·741

  82·331

  83·594

  105·173

  101·464

  n·a·

  108·314

  Southwark

  530·337

  550·306

  577·487

  783·297

  819·068

  n·a·

  n·a·

  Sutton

  86·107

  87·157

  86·742

  100·565

  99·652

  105·716

  113·585

  Tower Hamlets

  179·264

  184·188

  188·279

  517·865

  535·690

  587·418

  568·284

  Waltham Forest

  174·974

  182·655

  199·776

  223·417

  224·654

  n·a·

  n·a·

  Wandsworth

  321·192

  334·683

  346·155

  433·070

  459·064

  467·999

  492·421

  Westminster

  231·856

  234·179

  237·005

  295·546

  250·794

  n·a·

  n·a·

  n.a. Not available.

  Source: Returns to the Department.

  Community Charge
  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions govern the number of monthly instalments in which a local council may request their community charge must be paid.

  Mr. Portillo
  Our regulations provide that the charge is payable in 10 monthly instalments or, if less, the number of whole months remaining after the issue of the notice, less one. However, these regulations have recently been amended so that when a demand notice is issued in May the number of instalments offered may be 10 or nine. These provisions are contained in schedule 1 to the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989 No. 438) as amended by the Community Charges and Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1127).
  274
  throughout standard spending assessments. In the case of the proportion of children in lone parent households this is information from the 1981 census.

  London Boroughs (Loan Debt)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the loan debt for each London borough for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Key
  The outstanding loan debt for each London borough for 1983–84 to 1989–90 is given in the table. The figures relate to outstanding loan debt as at the end of each financial year. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Palace of Westminster (Buying Policy)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require those placing orders for capital equipment including catering equipment, in all parts of the Palace of Westminster, to buy British wherever possible.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes, while at the same time observing international agreements on tariffs and trade.

  Inner City Partnership Scheme (Hackney)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the annual allocations to the area of the London borough of Hackney through the inner city partnership scheme since its inception, and the projects supported.
  275
  Mr. Key
  The annual allocations of urban programme resources to the London borough of Hackney, including the district health authority, are as follows:

  Year

  Final allocation (£ million)

  1979–80

  111·800

  1980–81

  115·400

  1981–82

  115·000

  1982–83

  12·100

  1983–84

  12·500

  1984–85

  13·000

  1985–86

  12·000

  1986–87

  11·600

  1987–88

  10·750

  1988–89

  9·660

  1989–90

  6·269

  1990–91

  6·000

  1991–92

  5·585

  1 These allocations were to the Hackney-Islington joint partnership and are not directly comparable with the subsequent allocations to Hackney.

  Individual projects started each year within the programme since 1985–86 are listed in annual reports available from the council.

  Meetings with Local Authorities
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the meetings held by himself and other Ministers from his Department with local authority representatives over the past six months in each case showing(a) the date, (b) venue, (c) subject areas discussed, (d) Ministers present and (e) local authorities and their political control.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Ministers meet regularly with local authorities on a wide range of subjects.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure that council tenants are receiving equal treatment under the disabled facilities grant system; and what is the tenure breakdown of disabled facilities grant approvals.

  Mr. Yeo
  Council tenants may apply for disabled facilities grants on the same terms as owner occupiers and private-sector tenants, and the local authority must approve or refuse an application within six months of the date it is made. Information on the tenure breakdown of disabled facilities grant approvals is not yet available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will consider adjusting regulations surrounding the test of resources for disabled facilities grants to enable the test to be applied solely to the disabled person for whom the adaptation is required;

  (2) if he will consider adjusting the regulations surrounding the test of resources for disabled facilities grants to enable mortgage responsibilities to be taken into account.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received a number of representations from local authorities, grant applicants and others on these matters and will be considering them as part of our review of the house renovation grant system later this year.
  276
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has for helping home improvement agencies extend the service previously provided to elderly people to younger disabled people.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under the new arrangements for funding home improvement agencies introduced on 1 April 1991, such agencies are being encouraged to help all those in need including younger disabled people.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to ensure all new houses are accessible to disabled people.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have done much in recent years to widen the field of organisations providing housing for the disabled, especially within the housing association movement. The Housing Corporation now requires all new build and, if possible, rehabilitation schemes to be built to mobility standards wherever practicable. We have also supported initiatives to encourage private-sector housebuilders to make it a priority that all new housing is built to be accessible to disabled people, to `visitability' standard.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures of the fourth quarter on disabled facilities grant approvals and payments.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is published in table 2.19 of "Housing and Construction Statistics: Great Britain, December Quarter 1990, Part A copy of the table has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to meet the accommodation needs of carers of disabled people living independently in the community.

  Mr. Yeo
  Currently, it is for local authorities and individual housing associations to decide whether to take account of carers' needs when allocating tenancies to disabled people. However, from 1 April 1993, or sooner if local authorities are able, social services departments will be obliged to take account of carers' needs when assessing the needs of disabled people as part of the community care planning process.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to consult organisations of and for disabled people in the forthcoming review of the disabled facilities grant system.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes. Officials plan to meet a range of disability organisations shortly to discuss the operation of the new grants system. They will also be inviting written comments from disability groups with an interest in the review.

  International Atomic Energy Agency Publications
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his Departmental library a copy of "Low Level Waste Disposal: An Evaluation of Reports Comparing Ocean and Land Based Disposal Options", Document IAEA TECDOC-562, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Where telephone exchange equipment allows, all telephones in central DOE, including Property Holdings, have already been barred from connection to premium rate services.

  Samuel Thomas Antonelli
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the activities of Samuel Thomas Antonelli and his company; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have had 39 representations from hon. Members and a few from leaseholders themselves since January 1988. The representations allege harassment and intimidation in various forms against leaseholders of properties whose freeholds are owned by the companies. The existing statutory framework is intended to protect leaseholders against abuse. Their rights under statute have been explained to them. We nevertheless intend to review the present position to see if any further action is necessary.

  Quayside Developments
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent so far by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation on progressing(a) the Newcastle Quayside development in east Newcastle and (b) the Royal Quays development in North Shields.

  Mr. Key
  To 30 June 1991, £5·547 million had been spent by the Tyne and Wear development corporation at east Quayside, and £9·944 million at Royal Quays.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to revise the regulations governing fees for planning applications.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has today issued a consultation paper seeking views on several proposals to amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989 (as amended). The paper covers three categories of proposal:

  (a) amendments to the regulations which the Government undertook to make during the passage through Parliament of the Planning and Compensation Bill. These would remove the present 75 per cent. fee concession for a planning application which duplicates another submitted by the same applicant, and would double the fee for the deemed application which may accompany an enforcement appeal;

  (b) small amendments to resolve practical difficulties which have come to light in operating the present regulations; and

  (c) an invitation to consultees to suggest ways in which the present regulations might be
  278
  simplified, possibly by restricting the scope of some of the existing concessions and exemptions from the fees.

  The paper also refers to the Government's intention to propose a general increase in application fees. The requisite regulations would be laid before Parliament in the autumn and, if approved, could come into effect in January 1992.

  Separate but parallel consultation is being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pollution Control
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration he has given to arrangements for pollution control.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", Cm 1200, last year proposed a number of steps aimed at co-ordinating more closely the pollution control activities in England and Wales of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority. The Government have decided that the time is now right to go further by bringing together the related functions of HMIP and the NRA to create a new environment agency. As foreshadowed in "This Common Inheritance", the agency would also have responsibility for regulating the handling and disposal of waste—currently a local authority responsibility. The creation of this agency will be a major step forward. The agency will be a non-departmental public body with a board appointed by the Government. It will provide more effective pollution control through greater integration of the staff involved; produce a single body which will be simpler and easier for industry to deal with; and ensure that arrangements for enforcing pollution control remain strong and independent and are seen to be so. It will have responsibility for monitoring the state of air and water, as well as regulating waste disposal, making proposals to Government on standards and regulating emissions and discharges to achieve the standards set by Government. The new agency will not affect the present division of work between the pollution control agencies and the Health and Safety Commission/Executive. Primary legislation to set up the new body will be required. The development of detailed proposals will require close co-operation between my own and other Government Departments and the other interests involved. I am asking Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the NRA, Dr. David Slater, chief executive of HMIP and the leaders of the local authority associations to work closely together and I shall make a further announcement shortly on arrangements for taking forward this work. I shall be issuing later in the year a consultation document setting out our proposals more fully. Meanwhile, the agencies involved will continue their existing work with the full backing and support of the Government.

  Planning and Compensation Bill
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to advise local authorities of the provisions of the Planning and Compensation Bill; and on what date he expects the Bill to come into force.
  279
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: My right hon. Friend expects to make an order under clause 67 of the Planning and Compensation Bill appointing a day about two months after the date of Royal Assent on which many of the provisions of the Bill come into force. Different days will be appointed for those provisions which require subordinate legislation to be made before they can be operative. My Department will be issuing a general circular to local authorities before the first appointed day and further circulars and planning policy guidance notes will be issued as the provisions of the Bill are brought into force over the next year or so. My Department will invite comments on drafts of this guidance where appropriate.

  Bass Site (Preston Brook)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance Bass at Preston Brook received from new town development corporations to locate, expand or restructure on the site.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: The former new town development corporation at Runcorn leased a 98-acre site to Bass in 1971. Subsequently some smaller associated sites were also leased to the company. In 1985 Bass purchased the freehold reversion of the site. Apart from certain infrastructure works carried out by the corporation in the normal course of opening up areas for development, I am not aware of any other assistance provided to Bass by the development corporation. I understand, however, that Bass received a regional development grant from the Department of Trade and Industry for its development at Runcorn.

HEALTH

  European Private Patients Group
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Private Patients Group in marketing NHS services in other European countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The European Private Patients Group presently consists of about 30 NHS hospitals across the country. The group is in the process of carrying out a feasibility study to see if the sale of NHS private patient facilities to other European countries is a viable opportunity, and the results should be available in the autumn.

  If this venture goes ahead, the group plans to utilise spare capacity in NHS private patient wards and the consultants concerned would treat European private patients in their own time—that is, at times other than when they are contracted to work for the NHS. Profits from the scheme would be available to help fund NHS waiting list initiatives or other developments in local NHS services.

  Natal Costs
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the costs of having a baby in a national health service hospital, ante-natal care, delivery costs and post-natal care.
  280
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which figures are available, the average total cost per birth in the national health service was £1,170.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take early steps to ensure that medical details relating to named patients are not disclosed in hospital invoices; and if he will propose legislation to make illegal breaches of confidentiality to or by accounts staff.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Medical details are encoded and means are being investigated for encrypting names in exchanges of data by computer and, in the longer term, eliminating the use of a name altogether. Strict procedures are already in place to protect confidentiality of personal health information by NHS staff and a breach of these is a disciplinary offence. Further legislation is unnecessary.

  NHS Reforms
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all programmes currently under way designed to evaluate the national health service reforms introduced in April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS management executive is undertaking an extensive programme of development work on the health service reforms. Its aim is to assess the effectiveness of alternative approaches to realising the full benefits of the reforms, to develop and disseminate good practice, and to identify any areas where action may be necessary to ensure that the desired effects of the reforms are achieved.

  The Department has established a joint NHS review committee with the general medical services committee. This committee will undertake a joint evaluation of the general practitioner fundholding scheme and provide a means for the profession to put forward views on its future development.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what areas of local authority service provision for which he is responsible local authorities are empowered to make payments to individuals who are not employees(a) in the form of a grant or one-off payment and (b) on receipt of paid invoices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the area of child care, local authorities have a statutory duty under the Child Care Act 1980 to promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into care or to bring them before a juvenile court. The assistance given under this Act is normally in the form of services, but, in exceptional circumstances, may be in cash.

  RU486
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he granted a licence to the manufacturers of RU486 for sale and use of the drug in the United Kingdom; and if he will publish the conditions attached to the licence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The licence for mifepristone (RU486) was granted on 1 July 1991 as a prescription-only medicine with the following clinical indication:
  281
  Medical alternative to surgical termination of intra-uterine pregnancy of up to 63 days gestation based on the first day of the last menstrual period and/or ultrasound scan.

  Its use is restricted to NHS hospitals and places approved by the Secretary of State under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967.

  I have today placed copies of the company's data sheet in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the provision of full funding for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: At a meeting on 26 March the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) acknowledged the need for improved scientific and technological advice to be made available to Members and gave instructions for questionnaires to be issued to all individual Members, and to select committees, in order to estabilish the extent of demand for services of the kind offered by Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—POST.

  Replies to these questionnaires are now being examined, and in the light of these the Committee will consider whether to proceed towards more detailed proposals for the funding of POST and, if so, what further information and evidence may be required to support such proposals.

  Any recommendation from the Services Committee for the provision of substantial public funding for POST will of course need to be submitted to the House.

DEFENCE

  HMS Onslaught
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decommissioned submarine HMS Onslaught was disposed of; to whom; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  HMS Onslaught was paid off from the active fleet at the end of December 1990. Invitations to tender have since been issued to prospective purchasers, but no decision concerning her final disposal has yet been taken.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has of tanks and other military equipment deteriorating as a consequence of inadequate maintenance or protection while awaiting sea transport from Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The condition of tanks and other equipment returning from the Gulf was consistent with their having been used on an operation in a harsh desert environment, but the great majority were fully operational.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how long the structural survey to be carried out on HMS Endurance will take; and when the proposed structural survey on HMS Endurance is due to begin;

  (2) when the last structural survey was carried out on HMS Endurance; and what were the results;

  (3) for what reason the structural survey of HMS Endurance was not begun at an earlier stage of her current period in port.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Endurance is now 35 years old and is not built to the standards which would be required in a new ship for operation in ice. HMS Endurance has been subject to periodic structural surveys, but following the collision with an iceberg in 1989, which holed the ship and caused other structural damage, a system of full annual structural surveys was instituted. The last structural survey was carried out in 1990, following which the condition of the ship was judged acceptable for deployment to the Antarctic for the 1990–91 austral summer season. HMS Endurance returned from this deployment on 31 May and, following a period of leave and ship preparation, entered dock on 26 June. The 1991 structural survey commenced as planned on 1 July and initial results should be available within the next few weeks. The results of the survey will be considered in conjunction with the results now available of a metallurgical analysis of plate removed when the ship was repaired following the 1989 collision.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vessel is planned to replace HMS Endurance on ice patrol in the South Atlantic should the proposed structural survey prove her unsound.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Endurance is the only Royal Navy ship of suitable design for the ice patrol task. No decision has been taken on her replacement.

  Guardsman Hicks
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the weekly income announced to the House on 1 July,Official Report, column 45, received by Guardsman Hicks, would have been paid to him as a result of his service and his unemployment, regardless of the injuries he sustained on the Batus firing range on 7 July 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  About 16 per cent.

  Defence Cuts
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the projected cash savings in the defence budget for 1992–93 and 1993–94 which will be achieved as a result of his projected cuts in the strength of the British armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cash plans for defence announced last autumn are being reviewed in this year's public expenditure survey in the light of the development of our plans for the restructuring of the armed forces. The level of funding required in 1992–93 and the two following years will be announced in the autumn statement.

  Transportation of Explosive Materials
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has now reached a decision on whether future transportation of explosive materials to Ministry of Defence establishments will be by road rather than by rail.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The policy regarding the movement of explosive materials to Ministry of Defence establishments will not change. Where practicable and cost effective, movement of explosive materials by rail is the preferred option. However, there will still be a degree of movement of explosives by road when these criteria are not met.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has already taken technical and procedural measures to bar access to these services.

  Royal Navy Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies exhibiting products or services at the Royal Navy equipment exhibition being held in Portsmouth in September.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is our practice not to provide such a list until the exhibition catalogue is published.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visitors are expected at the Royal Navy equipment exhibition in Portsmouth from 1 to 6 September.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Based on previous attendances, we would expect a total of around 20,000 visitors.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of organising the Royal Navy equipment exhibition being held in Portsmouth from 1 to 6 September, including the salaries of the military personnel.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All additional costs incurred in relation to the exhibition will be recovered from participating companies.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel will be on duty during the Royal Navy equipment exhibition in Portsmouth in September.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  One hundred and seventy-seven military personnel will be on duty during the Royal Navy equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be opening the Royal Navy equipment exhibition in September.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This has not yet been decided.

  HMS Challenger
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the bids received for HMS Challenger; and when he expects the vessel to be sold.
  284
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not the practice of this Department to disclose details of bids which were submitted in commercial confidentiality. Marketing of HMS Challenger continues and it would be premature to give a date by which final sale may be expected.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has carried out on the comparative stringency of the controls on(a) toxic waste and (b) hazardous waste incinerators in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) the rest of the United Kingdom, (iii) the other countries of the European Community, (iv) Canada and (v) the United States of America.

  Mr. Needham
  Published research information from around the world is, of course, available to the Government on incineration practices and controls and officials have visited facilities in other countries. Controls over waste incineration exercised in Northern Ireland must comply with the policy and standards of the United Kingdom which are governed by the requirements of the European Community.

  Environmental Audit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for which plants he intends to have an independent environmental audit carried out in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Environmental audits are to allow a company to examine its performance in terms of emissions to atmosphere, discharges to sewer and in the production and disposal of waste. There are no proposals for the Government to require independent audits of this nature.

  Coronary Heart Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make it his policy to allocate resources to coronary heart medicine according to the extent of the problem; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what measures will be adopted to reduce the waiting list in respect of operations for coronary heart care in each of the health and social services boards.

  Mr. Hanley
  Cardiac surgery is, and will continue to be, a priority for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. The Government are well aware of the extent of heart disease in Northern Ireland and are committed to reducing the time that those requiring heart surgery have to wait for an operation. Over the past two years, significant additional resources of £300,000 have been invested to increase the level of operations. A capital scheme costing £1·5 million to extend the cardiac recovery area at the Royal Victoria hospital is due to be completed in October. This will permit the appointment of a fourth cardiac surgeon and supporting team and I recently announced that, as part of the development in regional medical services this year, a further £300,000 would be made available to meet the costs involved.

  In the longer term, the Government are committed to working to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease in Northern Ireland through health education and

  285
  promotion and several years ago launched the "Change of Heart" campaign. This 10-year programme is now being carried forward throughout the Province by the four health and social services boards.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died as a result of heart problems in each of the health and social services boards in each of the last five years who were on a waiting list for a coronary heart operation.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently waiting for operations in respect of coronary heart care in each of the health and social services boards.

  Mr. Hanley
  All patients in Northern Ireland waiting for cardiac operations are included in a single cardiac surgery waiting list at the Royal Victoria hospital which provides the service for the whole of Northern Ireland. Separate waiting lists are not therefore maintained for each board. At 31 March 1991, the number of patients on the waiting list was 869.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current waiting time for operations in respect of coronary heart care in each of the health and social services boards.

  Mr. Hanley
  All patients in Northern Ireland waiting for operations for coronary heart care are included in a single cardiac surgery waiting list at the Royal Victoria hospital which provides the service for the whole of Northern Ireland. Separate waiting lists are not therefore maintained for each board. At 31 March 1991, the number of patients on the waiting list by waiting time was:

  Months

  Number

  0–2

  111

  3–5

  90

  6–8

  44

  9–11

  53

  12–23

  162

  24+

  409

  Total

  869

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many reported cases of BSE there have been in each of the last six months; how many cattle have been killed; and from what number of farms in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Month

  Reported "Suspect" Cases

  Cattle Killed

  Number

  Farms

  January

  23

  21

  20

  February

  21

  17

  17

  March

  13

  18

  18

  April

  15

  8

  8

  May

  18

  12

  11

  June

  22

  14

  14

  Totals

  112

  90

  88

  286
  In Northern Ireland there are some 1·5 million cattle in 26,000 herds.

  Historic Monuments and Buildings
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the historic monuments and buildings which are registered by the historic monuments and buildings branch of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland; indicating in each case whether they are(a) listed buildings, (b) owned and maintained by a public body, (c) otherwise protected or (d) unprotected.

  Mr. Needham
  As there are currently more than 7,800 buildings listed and 1,100 monuments scheduled by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, including 170 in the Department's care, it is not practical to provide the information as requested. However, the lists of buildings and monuments are open for inspection by the public at the offices of the historic monuments and buildings branch of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland in Hill street, Belfast. All listed buildings are afforded a degree of protection by the Planning (NI) Order 1972 and scheduled monuments by the Historic Monuments Act (NI) 1971. Information on current ownership of listed buildings or monuments is not held in every case by the Department.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the membership of the proposed executive committee and advisory committee for the management of Strangford lough will be subject to consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Committees of this kind are not the subject of consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland under the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

TRANSPORT

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received representations from Stockport metropolitan borough council urging delay in the construction of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current timetable for the building of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  A start has been made on the diversion of some statutory undertakers apparatus. Subject to the satisfactory clearance of the remaining statutory procedures, work on the main contract should start in the spring 1993.

  Motoring Offences
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a system for recording the type and make of vehicles involved in motoring offences and road accidents and publish them periodically; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We published earlier this year the first of a new statistical series showing casualty rates by make and model of car—"Transport Statistics Report—Car and Driver: Injury Accident and Casualty Rates, Great Britain 1989", HMSO, May 1991. We have no plans to extend this to recording offences by vehicle make and model.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made concerning the compulsory fitting of speed governors to heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on 4 July at column 174.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the provision of bypasses.

  Mr. Chope
  Bypasses are an important part of our commitment to civilising road transport. We know that they make a significant contribution to improving the quality of life in our towns and villages.

  I am pleased to announce that we propose to add to the roads programme a further 15 schemes which are new or extended bypasses or related improvements, and three scheme identification studies, at a total cost of £85 million. The package includes new bypasses for Christleton and Waverton near Chester, Turvey in Bedfordshire, Kilkhampton in Cornwall, and Bishop Burton in Yorkshire. Other components are improved bypasses for Ilminster in Somerset, Guestling Thorn and Icklesham in East Sussex, Woofferton in Shropshire and Skeffington in Leicestershire. Studies will consider alternatives to the A40 through Cheltenham, and the possibility of relief for the A45 through the south of Coventry and for the A663 Broadway in Manchester.

  The bypass programme has made a major contribution to improving urban conditions over many years. One hundred and three trunk road bypasses have been built in England since 1979 and over 170 are planned. Twenty-one are now under construction, with a further 19 due to start this financial year. In addition, since 1986–87, a total of 191 local authority bypasses supported by transport supplementary grant have been completed, 64 are under construction, and 30 more are due to start this financial year.

  Bypasses in themselves achieve great environmental benefits by redirecting traffic to more suitable routes. A new bypass can have a much bigger impact on the quality of the local environment if complementary measures are implemented at the same time which take advantage of the fresh opportunities which arise if through traffic is removed or significantly reduced.
  288
  These opportunities can include the introduction of traffic calming measures, improved provision for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, landscaping and environmental enhancements.

  Last year in the enviroment White Paper we announced our intention to set up demonstration projects in a number of towns to link the provision of a trunk road bypass with measures in the bypassed towns. I am pleased to announce that the towns selected for the demonstration projects are:

  Berkhamsted

  Dalton-in-Furness

  Market Harborough

  Petersfield

  Wadebridge

  Whitchurch

  Local authorities responded enthusiastically to an invitation to nominate towns for the project, and it has not been easy to choose just six from the many interesting possibilities put forward. But the towns selected offer a good range of issues and opportunities, and in each case the local authorities already have proposals to build on the contribution being made by the trunk road bypass.

  The bypass demonstration project will explore the possibilities in these towns, together with the local authorities, the Civic Trust and community interests. It will show what can be achieved in specific locations, and provide new ideas and useful guidance for the many local authorities whose towns will benefit from bypasses over the next few years.

  Road Accidents
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the road accident fatality rates for Great Britain, other EC countries, the United States of America, Canada and Japan.

  Mr. Chope
  The fatality rates expressed as the number of fatalities per 100,000 population in 1988 are published in "Road Accidents Great Britain" and are set out in the following table.

  Fatality rate per 100,000 population, selected countries: 1988

  Country

  Rate

  Great Britain

  9

  Belgium

  20

  Denmark

  14

  France

  21

  West Germany

  13

  Greece

  17

  Ireland

  113

  Italy

  13

  Luxembourg

  23

  Netherlands

  9

  Portugal

  33

  Spain

  21

  Canada

  116

  Japan

  11

  USA

  19

  1 1987 figure.

  Comparable fatality rates expressed as the number of fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres depend upon the availability of estimates of traffic in individual countries. Not all countries make direct estimates of road traffic, nor are the published estimates on a consistent basis. However, the Netherlands Road Safety Research Institute has recently published the following estimates:

  289

  Fatality rate per billion vehicle km, selected countries: 1988

  Country

  Rate

  Great Britain

  13

  Belgium

  36

  Denmark

  20

  France

  29

  West Germany

  19

  Greece

  72

  Ireland

  21

  Italy

  126

  Luxembourg

  28

  Netherlands

  15

  Portugal

  106

  Spain

  83

  Canada

  15

  Japan

  23

  USA

  15

  1 1986 figure.

  Speedlink
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what services will be commencing on 8 July to replace Speedlink.

  Mr. Freeman
  From 8 July British Rail will be running 125 trains a day to replace the Speedlink wagonload and related trainload services. Tigerail will be running freight train services from Cornwall and from Hampshire to Scotland and British Rail will commence a container service from north-east Scotland to Glasgow on a trial basis. About 70 per cent. of the domestic Speedlink traffic has been retained on rail. British Rail will also be running dedicated services to the Dover train ferry from all principal industrial locations in Britain for European traffic. Eighty-five per cent. of existing train ferry traffic has been retained to encourage and build up European business prior to the opening of the channel tunnel. I very much welcome this achievement.

  Cycle Lanes (London)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress has been made in implementing his policy of creating 1,000 miles of cycle lanes in London; and what is his policy regarding the creation of cycle lanes through royal parks.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the seminar hosted by my Department last November, a group of cycling officers from the London boroughs has been set up and continues to meet regularly with the object of co-ordinating the provision of cycle facilities in London.

  The London planning advisory committee has endorsed the results of consultation with the boroughs on the 1,000-mile network and that information is being used to produce the maps of the network which will be ready for distribution to boroughs in the autumn.

  I am discussing the provision for cyclists in the royal parks with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment.

  Explosive Materials
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional safety precautions he intends to take to ensure the safe transport by road of explosive materials to Ministry of Defence bases.
  290
  Mr. Chope
  The transport by road of explosive materials is subject to the Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations 1989 with which the MOD must comply. I have no plans to require additional precautions.

  Transport Single Market
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to hasten the creation of a single market in transport in the European Community.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The creation of a single market in transport is a key objective for the Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic attended the EC Transport Council in Luxembourg on 21 and 22 June and secured agreement to a directive on the development of Community railways which will allow access by individual rail companies to other member states' railway systems for the purpose of combined transport operations. In addition my right hon. Friend stressed the pressing need to fulfil the legal requirement to liberalise international road passenger transport, while my hon. Friend emphasised that progress had to be made on liberalising maritime cabotage.

  The June Transport Council is but a recent example of the many meetings in which the Government have pressed our Community partners for more rapid movement in establishing a genuine single market in transport. The Luxembourg European Council on 20 June made a new series of commitments to liberalisation in the various transport modes.

  London Buses
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been received on access and provision for disabled people in response to the consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London".

  Mr. Freeman
  The consultation paper, "A Bus Strategy for London" did not deal specifically with the provision of bus services for disabled people. Nevertheless, a number of those who responded to the paper—including the hon. Lady—commented on this point. Their views have been fully taken into account. A statement on the conclusions reached following the consultation exercise will be made shortly.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to meet representatives of the Greater London Association of Disabled People to discuss the implications of bus deregulation for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I should be pleased to meet representatives of the Greater London Association for Disabiled People to discuss their views on access to public transport for disabled people.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the recommendations in paragraph 130 of the third report of the Select Committee on Energy on Energy Efficiency, HC91.
  291
  Mr. McLoughlin
  A response to the Select Committee on Energy's recommendations on energy efficiency has been sent to the Committee. I understand that it will be published shortly.

  Nuclear Waste (Accidents)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the incidents reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency under the auspices of the 1972 convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, concerning accidents at sea involving radioactive materials(a) involved nuclear materials originating in the United Kingdom, (b) involved nuclear materials destined for the United Kingdom and (c) took place in or near to United Kingdom territorial waters; and if he will obtain a copy for his Department library of the IAEA report on these matters.

  Mr. Mcloughlin
  None of the incidents reported, concerning accidents during transport at sea, involved nuclear materials originating from or destined for the United Kingdom or took place in or near United Kingdom territorial waters. Several incidents have been reported, however, involving sealed radioactive sources, details of which have not yet been incorporated into the IAEA database. The Department has a draft copy of the IAEA report on these matters.

  Newhaven-Dieppe Ferry Service
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will discuss with his French counterpart the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry service;

  (2) what steps he is taking to secure the resumption and long-term future of the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry service.

  Mr. Mcloughlin
  The Newhaven-Dieppe ferry service has been suspended because of an industrial dispute between French seamen and the Sealink ferry company. Commercial negotiations are under way to resolve the dispute and the French authorities have appointed a mediator. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to seek to become involved at this stage. We are, however, monitoring the situation closely.

  Ships (Specifications)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British-registered ships are built to STAB 90 specifications.

  Mr. Mcloughlin
  The information is not available at the moment in the form requested. The damage stability characteristics of all United Kingdom roll on/roll off passenger ferries are being urgently assessed in accordance with procedures adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May. The level of their compliance with STAB 90—SOLAS 90—specifications will be available when that exercise is complete.

  Port Inspections
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of port state control inspections over the past 10 years, the percentage of inspections as a total of vessels using British ports in each year, and the number and percentage of ferries inspected using British ports in each year.
  292
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of foreign ships given port state inspections at United Kingdom ports from 1983 to 1990, and the numbers of inspections as a percentage of the numbers of foreign ships using United Kingdom ports in those years were:

  Year

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  1983

  2,557

  40

  1984

  2,529

  39

  1985

  2,532

  39

  1986

  2,439

  32

  1987

  2,250

  35

  1988

  1,839

  30

  1989

  1,692

  127

  1990

  2,118

  134

  1 Based on the 1988 figure for ships visiting, which is the latest available.

  Figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of inspections of foreign-registered roll on/roll off passenger ferries at United Kingdom ports from 1988 to 1990 were:

  Year

  Number

  1988

  136

  1989

  134

  1990

  82

  Most foreign ferries were inspected twice in each of the three years and the numbers of inspections consequently exceed the numbers of such ferries available for inspection at our ports. The number of foreign ferries using United Kingdom ports varies considerably during the year. At March 1990, a total of 49 such vessels were operating. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Air Services (Gibraltar)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his present policy relating to the liberalisation of air services to and from Gibraltar.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of moves to liberalise air services arrangements in the European Community. It has been agreed within the Community that Gibraltar airport will be able to benefit from the EC liberalisation packages when the Gibraltar airport agreement is implemented.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in Tower Hamlets on employment training schemes or other schemes operated through the training and enterprise council network.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table shows numbers of people employed on the main training programmes operated by the London East TEC, of which Tower Hamlets forms part.

  LETEC—participants on TEC operated schemes at 24 May 1991

  Number

  Employment training

  3,153

  Youth training

  4,052

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  782

  293
  Note: LETEC covers Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Havering, Barking and Newham.

  Chemicals Haulage
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the grades of officers involved in the recent north-west roadside check of lorries carrying chemicals; and whether this activity is part of the job descriptions of all the officers so employed on that day.

  Mr. Forth
  The following grades of staff in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) were involved in the Chemcheck North West exercise on 26 June:

  Band B inspector

  Band D inspector

  Band E inspector

  Band F inspector

  Higher professional technical officer

  Administrative officer

  One of HSE's main objectives is to promote and secure compliance with relevant health and safety legislation and this extends to and includes the legislation that applies to the transport of hazardous substances or goods by road. All staff in HSE's field operations division are responsible for ensuring that this main objective is met and contribute either directly or indirectly by a variety of means including the inspection of work activities, enforcement, giving advice and information and the provision of clerical support. However, their job descriptions do not include specific reference to undertaking roadside checks on lorries carrying chemicals.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in Tower Hamlets in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment estimates for local authority districts are available only from the censuses of employment taken in 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. Data for Tower Hamlets are given in the table below. The estimates relate only to employees in employment; they exclude the self-employed and also members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Employees in employment in Tower Hamlets

  September each year

  Numbers (000s)

  1981

  84·3

  1984

  81·1

  1987

  96·3

  1989

  104·0

  Employment Schemes (Hackney)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the annual allocations to the area of the London borough of Hackney through his Department's special employment and inner cities schemes since their inception, and the projects supported.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Department's programmes are not allocated to its regions on the basis of local authority boundaries, and it is not therefore possible to provide the information requested. All Employment Department programmes are available in urban programme areas, including Hackney.

  Pregnant Workers
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress was made on the draft directive on the protection of pregnant workers at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 24 and 25 June; what were the voting figures on the directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave on 4 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell).

  Youth Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies formerly members of the national training providers unit which have withdrawn from the provision of youth training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following companies which formerly contracted through my Department's TECs and national providers unit have withdrawn from the provision of youth training: ASDA Stores Ltd, B and Q plc., Dairy Crest Ltd., Habitat Designs Ltd., Newey and Eyre Ltd., Whitbread and Co. plc (Hotel and Catering), Wolsley Centres Ltd., and Woolworths plc. This represents only a small percentage (5 per cent.) of those national organisations currently delivering youth training through local contracts with training and enterprise councils.

  Employment Statistics, Congleton
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women are currently unemployed in Congleton; and what percentage these figures represent of the local work force.

  Mr. Jackson
  In May 1991 the number of unemployed claimants, not seasonally adjusted, in the Congleton parliamentary constituency was 1,403 males and 654 females.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have been employed in Congleton in each of the past 12 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment estimates for parliamentary constituencies are available only from the censuses of employment taken in 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. Data for the Congleton constituency are given in the table below. The estimates relate only to employees in employment; they exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Employees in employment in Congleton

  Numbers (thousands)

  September each year

  Males

  Females

  All

  1981

  n.a.

  n.a.

  27·7

  1984

  15·3

  11·8

  27·1

  1987

  17·3

  13·2

  30·5

  1989

  17·8

  14·2

  32·0

  n.a. = Separate estimates for males and females are not available for 1981.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage and by what numbers unemployment in Congleton has risen over the past 12-month period.
  295
  Mr. Jackson
  In the parliamentary constituency of Congleton, unemployment, not seasonally adjusted, increased by 769 or 59·7 per cent. in the 12 months to May 1991.

  Training for Disabled People
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the training of disabled people.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 11 June at column 776 to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

  Industry Training Organisations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the work of industry training organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s" (Cmd 540), set out the roles that were expected of 296
  industry training organisations (ITOs) in the national training framework. It also announced that there was to be a review of progress in each industry sector.

  The results of this independent review are now available. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library. The findings point to the level of performance having generally improved since the last review in 1987. There was evidence of greater commitment within sectors to the key tasks of ITOs, particularly to the development of occupational standards that underpin national vocational qualifications and their Scottish equivalents. The researchers took the view that the training system continues to need a network of effective industry training organisations in order to operate, and the Government are happy to endorse that conclusion. We shall be examining the detailed recommendations made in the report to see how we can help in improving the effectiveness of these independent organisations.

  The Government welcome this endorsement of our approach to sector-based training of removing the compulsion and bureaucracy of the statutory system and replacing it with voluntary arrangements.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAT RMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

EC: Money Laundering Directive
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in the Council of Ministers to prevent money laundering within the EC.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Council of Ministers adopted the money laundering directive on 10th June. The directive has to be implemented by member states before 1st January 1993.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reassuring Answer, because these measures are aimed chiefly at the evil of drugs. Are the British Government completely confident that by the beginning of 1993 it will be possible to enforce the agreement under which all deposits in banks and similar institutions of more than 15,000 ecus (approximately £10,000) must have a full explanation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall seek to ensure that we comply with all our obligations under the directive by that date. The requirement to which my noble friend refers is that concerning the identification of customers. Institutions are required to obtain evidence of the identity of their customers when they enter into business relations with them; for instance, the opening of an account. Identification requirements also apply to one-off transactions between institutions and customers; for example, the purchase of travellers cheques involving sums in excess of 15,000 ecus. There is no requirement in the directive for the compulsory explanation of deposits.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the United Nations has estimated that up to 500 million dollars are laundered in the industrialised world every year. Can ere Minister give the figures, first, for the European Community and, secondly, for this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the estimated figures for either this country or the European Community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister will recall the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee of this House which was submitted to us last year. It also made certain estimates. Can he assure the House that the report's recommendations are being implemented by the Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise for not having the details of the report in front of me. I shall look into the matter and ensure that the recommendations are being acted upon.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the provisions of the original directive were amended in June this year and that they do not appear to present any difficulty in the exercise of the directive? Is there any reason why its implementation should be deferred until 1st January 1993? If the Minister's answer is that there appears to be a necessity for primary legislation, will he explain exactly where in the amended directive appear the clauses which give rise to that? If there is to be primary legislation, why has it not been presented previously?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, major changes will not be required of this country because to a large extent existing United Kingdom law and practice are already compatible with the provisions of the directive. However, there must be some legislative changes to ensure that we comply with our obligations and we shall bring forward appropriate measures. As regards other countries I understand that more substantial legislation is required. That is why the directive cannot come into force before 1st January 1993.

Mr. John Witney: Release from Prison
2.41 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why and on what authority Mr. John Witney, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for participation in the murder of a policeman with a minimum of 30 years' detention prescribed by the trial judge, was released from prison after a substantially shorter period.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Mr. Witney was released on life licence after almost 25 years in prison on the authority of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. This was in exercise of his powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 following a recommendation which was made by the Parole Board in 1988 and after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when sentencing the trial judge said:
"I think it is likely that no Home Secretary regarding the enormity of your crime will ever think fit to show mercy by releasing you on licence. This is one of the cases in which the sentence of imprisonment for life may well be treated as meaning exactly that"?
Is my noble friend also aware that the trial judge felt bound to state a figure for a minimum sentence of 30 years? Will he explain why in those circumstances, and in view of the clear views of the trial judge, the man was released five years before the expiry of those 30 years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's anxiety. I remind him that the judge's recommendation is not binding. The detention of life

1207
sentence prisoners is determined by the length of time considered necessary to mark the seriousness of the offence and by the risk which release would present to the public. After consultation with the Lord Chief Justice in 1985 the then Home Secretary decided that a distinction could be drawn between Witney, who did not fire any shots, and the other two co-defendants who did. In November 1988 the Parole Board advised that he no longer presented a risk to the public. That is why in February 1989 my right honourable friend decided that Witney could be released after a further two years.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many members of the general public are genuinely disturbed about, first, the light sentences which are being passed; secondly, the fact that some people are not sentenced at all; and thirdly, that people, as this Question shows, are released before the end of their sentence? Is that fair to the police who worked on the case? And is it fair to the rest of us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he was not released before the end of his sentence. He was given a life sentence, and the life sentence continues. The question for the Home Secretary's judgment is how much of that time should be spent in prison. There is anxiety about people who commit these terrible atrocities. I share that anxiety. However, the fact is that my right honourable friend must take advice from the Parole Board. In this case it was considered that Witney was no longer a risk to the public. That is why he was released.
Earl Nelson: My Lords, I should declare an interest in this Question. I was serving in the Metropolitan Police at the time of the murder of three police officers at Shepherd's Bush. One of the officers, Detective Sergeant Christopher Head, was a personal friend of mine.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the disappointment which I feel at his Answer. In saying that, I am sure that I speak for every serving police officer in this country. Will the Minister give an assurance that no others who have been sentenced in this way are likely to be granted early release, particularly the third defendant in the case—Harry Roberts—who was also recommended to serve 30 years?
Does the noble Earl agree that there is a certain element of farce, not in the sentencing procedure but in the way in which matters are interpreted in later years? Last week we discussed the Criminal Justice Bill: we heard arguments on both sides. Some people argue that life imprisonment should mean that; others hold different views. However, if sentences are to be overturned, such as in this case, does the Minister not agree that there is a certain element of farce?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I appreciate the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Nelson, considering his personal involvement. Understandably, any person who has had such an involvement is more concerned than those of us who have not had such an experience. I regret that my replies have been disappointing to my noble
1208
friend. I believe that he means that he is disappointed by the early release of Witney. We must bear in mind that the principle of a life sentence, as it is now determined, is that there should be the possibility of release when a person is considered to be safe for release. It was considered in Witney's case that his participation was different from that of the other two. That is why my right honourable friend was advised that release was acceptable. I should point out that he was so advised by the Parole Board in 1985 but that the advice was not accepted at that time.
With regard to the other people to whom my noble friend referred, every case is considered on its own merits. Roberts remains in closed conditions. The next review of his case will be 1992 but there are no grounds to set aside the trial judge's recommendation. With regard to Witney, his sentence is the equivalent of a determinate sentence of around 36 years.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if the Criminal Justice Bill had already become law and if the other place had not thrown out your Lordships' amendment which abolished the necessity of imposing a mandatory life sentence for murder, the trial judge could have achieved his objective by sentencing Mr. Witney to 60 years' imprisonment with the possibility of release after 30 years? If that had happened, there is no way in which he could have been released so soon, except for an urgent medical condition. Therefore, does the Minister agree that those Members of another place who rejected your Lordships' amendment because they wanted to give the impression of being hard on the more heinous forms of murder have shot themselves in the foot?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, carries his imagination rather too far. As regards the Criminal Justice Bill, the changes which may take place—and the Bill is still going through Parliament, so we cannot yet tell what will be changed—will not affect mandatory life sentences as proposed at present.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this is the first case in which a man involved in the murder of a policeman has been released on licence? Does that change in policy mean that the Parole Board and the Home Office have altered their policy? Will he be frank about that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that the Home Office has altered its policy in the slightest. There have been various occasions when people were released early. Other police killers have been released. Witney is the first adult male convicted of the murder of a policeman since 1965, when the death penalty was abolished, to be released.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, one or two people from this side tend to take a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and those supporting him. Most of us would like to express our view.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to express a view on the matter.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I have been doing this for 22 years; I am sorry to have got it wrong. Is the noble Earl aware that some of us believe that 25 years' imprisonment is a long sentence, though in this case not too long? That somebody is released after 25 years on grounds of no longer being a danger to the public is a good reason for releasing him. I do not believe that the noble Earl has exercised any special privileges in that regard.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says indicates a variety of views on the subject I can only repeat that it is the Home Secretary's duty—and it is an onerous duty—to decide when such a person should be released. He does not release such people lightly. He has taken advice. The person concerned has been in prison longer than the minimum recommendations laid down by his former right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan, when he was Home Secretary. I can only repeat that distressing though this case is—and it is—there is a difference between Witney, who did not fire the shots, and the other two who did.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while there is considerable sympathy and understanding for those serving long sentences in prison that their cases should be reviewed sympathetically, nonetheless there exists unease in the country as a whole that sometimes too much attention is paid to the miscreant and not enough consideration given to either the victim or possible intended victim? Perhaps the Government will bear that it mind.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we shall bear that in mind. There is no question that when anyone is murdered, release of the prisoner is a matter of prime concern. When it is the murder of a policeman, that concern is even greater. Only this morning I attended the memorial service of one such policeman who was murdered and it was a distressing occasion.

Hong Kong and Vietnamese Boat People
2.53 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What help is being given to Hong Kong to assist in alleviating the problem of the thousands of Vietnamese boat people, not classified as refugees, who have to live in detention centres.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, since 1989 Her Majesty's Government have spent almost £35 million either directly or via UNHCR on the care and screening of Vietnamese asylum seekers. We recently pledged a further £6 million to UNHCR for activities under the Comprehensive Plan of Action for 1991. We have also taken the lead in international efforts to find a durable solution. For example, we are pursuing with Vietnam, UNHCR and the International
1210
Organisation for Migration, the possible creation of an internationally managed centre in Vietnam to which those non-refugees who do not opt for voluntary return can be transferred.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for writing to me bringing me up to date with the position in Hong Kong regarding the Vietnamese people. Perhaps I can ask two questions. First, has the attitude of the United States changed with regard to the return to Vietnam of the Vietnamese boat people who have not volunteered but who are being persuaded to return? Secondly, has the Republic of Vietnam given an international assurance that if people are returned they will be treated decently and will be allowed to return to their villages and that in every way they need have no fear about going back?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, following a successful visit to Washington by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, there has been a movement in the American attitude. The Americans want the Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is the only sensible basis on which to solve this problem, to work. It means that those who are not granted refugee status must be returned to the country of origin. As regards the second question raised by the noble Lord, over 8,000 people have now returned to Vietnam. Over 7,000 of that number came from Hong Kong. We have no evidence that persecution took place in any of those cases.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the information from the noble Earl that some progress is being made and action being taken by Her Majesty's Government in what is an extremely difficult situation in Hong Kong. Will the Minister confirm that the number of refugees has now increased to 61,000 people? Can he say what progress has been made on the Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed in 1989, and what is its main thrust?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the latest figures as of 3.30 this morning are that 61,485 people are in the camps, 381 of whom arrived during the past 72 hours. That indicates that the pressure on Hong Kong continues unabated. The Comprehensive Plan of Action was designed to solve the problem. Its primary function is designed to obtain agreement between all the countries in the area that those who leave Vietnam for whatever reason and, having gone through the screening process in Hong Kong, should they go there, fail the test of becoming recognised as a refugee are returned to Vietnam. That has not worked as satisfactorily as it was hoped, and that is why we are making efforts to set up an internationally managed centre in Vietnam so that the Comprehensive Plan of Action can work better.

Hospital Waiting Lists
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of people on hospital waiting lists die before receiving treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the vast majority of people on waiting lists are waiting for the treatment of conditions which are not life-threatening. Emergency cases do not go on a waiting list; they are treated immediately. Therefore, the information in the form requested would have no purpose and is not collected.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people feel that those figures should be collected to enable us to understand them? Many people who are on the waiting list for one or two years die from something other than that for which they require the operation. Very often they are so long waiting that the operation cannot be performed. Can the Minister say whether it would be possible for GPs to contact hospital authorities to inform them of the conditions of the patients they have sent there?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aiming to make the National Health Service and the Department of Health more efficient. We feel that that aim would not be furthered by requiring unnecessary statistics to be collected. Sadly, with the passage of time people die. That applies to people who happen to be on waiting lists as well as people who are not. Tackling the length of time that people wait is what counts. We have achieved considerable success in that regard and numbers are plummeting.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned people on waiting lists who sadly die for reasons other than those for which they are on that waiting list. Does my noble friend recognise that waiting lists are considerably inflated by such deaths and that it can take many months to remove those names from the waiting list?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. We are issuing guidelines on the collection of data and the way that waiting lists are formulated for that purpose in particular.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness said, does she recall the exchanges that took place in this Chamber around a year ago? We gave figures for a district health authority in Surrey where the consultant cardiologist was absolutely convinced that people on his waiting list were dying because they were not able to be attended to. Is the Minister further aware that that consultant cardiologist wrote to me again saying that he estimates that, in his area of 125,000 people, in 12 years 25 deaths have occurred of people on the waiting list—three in the past 12 months—while waiting for heart treatment? At that rate he reckons the figure may be around 500 per annum for the whole nation. Is that not a reasonable estimate, coming from a man on the ground doing this work?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe I am right in understanding the noble Lord to be referring to the South West Thames Regional Health Authority in the example he gave. All cardiac emergency cases are treated immediately. For some heart conditions patients in that region are currently waiting between one and two years. The region has agreed a target of
1212
nobody waiting more than one year for cardiac surgery, and that target is to be reached by March 1992. It plans to double the number of open heart operations performed in 1990–92 during the coming year. That represents progress.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that I would much rather have my treatment if I were going to live rather than if I were to die of something else?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 4th July I asked whether she would refute press statements that the Government proposed to stop publishing waiting lists? Will she accept that if that were to be the case it would be very difficult for GPs who wish to provide for patients the opportunity of choosing between consultants with long or short waiting lists? Will the Minister also accept from me that on that date I had no intention of suggesting that she herself was personally unconcerned about the great length of waiting lists? Will she set the mind of the House at rest by answering the question that I asked on that occasion?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the article to which the noble Lord refers was simply wrong in its factual basis. We have never collected centrally, from hospitals, waiting time information. The important matter to focus on, as I have said on previous occasions, is the length of waiting time. The numbers are coming down. In the 12 months to September 1990 the number of patients waiting over one year was reduced by 7 per cent. In the seven months to April 1991, the provisional fast track figures show a further fall of 18 per cent. in patients waiting over one year.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in these days when no one is allowed to die a natural death it might be merciful for some to be allowed to do so?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I can think of a few myself.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is fairly well known that people who do not have a relative waiting for an operation in hospital who may die will find this discussion humorous. However, does the Minister agree that there are very many British people who do not find the position humorous? Is she also aware that the Inter-authority Comparisons Consultancy believes that if the old-fashioned card system were removed and replaced by modern computers, information would be obtainable much more speedily and perhaps reduce the numbers of those living a life of quiet desperation in our hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that most people will welcome the fact that more people than ever before are being treated by our national health system. While there have been problems over long waiting times, we are tackling these with waiting list

1213
funds, special studies of the country's longest lists, new sharp management executive targets, and the appointment of 100 extra consultants.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House consider this to be a daft Question? Furthermore, one might just as well ask the Minister for the figures for 10 years ago of those who died on the waiting lists. That information would be just as relevant.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the in-patient waiting lists increased by 48 per cent. under the previous government. Under this Government they have fallen by 6 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the current length of waiting lists is now nearly 40 per cent. higher than it was 12 years ago?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the method of calculating waiting lists in the time in office of the Secretary of State, David Ennals, was quite different from the method used today? In his day, when a patient was given a date for the operation the patient was removed from the waiting list; therefore, comparisons are meaningless.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. If we use a common basis for comparison the in-patient waiting list is the 6 per cent. decrease which I quoted earlier.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise for the slightly extended nature of today's business statement. At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Brixton prison escape. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Special Exemptions) Regulations 1991, the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 and the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991 will be taken.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of section 101 of Local Government Finance Act 1988.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert:
("(B1) This section shall have effect for the period between Royal Assent and a date specified by an Order made by the Secretary of State, such date to be not later than the date of implementation of a new scheme of local taxation to be known as Fair Rates which shall be based on the occupation of property.").
The noble Lord said: With the customary pause, I move this amendment and I also speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 11. I apologise to the Committee for the error in the setting down of Amendment No. 11, which should read:
"Page 1, line 17, after ("subsections") insert ("(B1),").
This is a very tightly drawn Bill. The Long Title makes it difficult for us, within the rules of procedure, to give expression as we would wish to the consternation which is felt not only on these Benches but also in many parts of the country at the mismanagement of local government finance by the Government. It is a Bill which seeks to turn away from the major errors made in Scotland in 1987, and in England and Wales in 1988, with the introduction of the poll tax.
It seeks to do three things, one of which will be the proper concern of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, because it concerns Scotland. Two of the matters will be dealt with mainly by my noble friend Lady Hollis and myself. The first of the issues with which the Bill is concerned is to admit, in effect, the total failure of the Government's efforts to achieve accountability in local government finance by not only continuing with capping but extending it so that a very large number of small local authorities will be included under the capping rules. The second matter must also cause very great concern and relates to the preparations which are to be made for what is to be called the "council tax", for which legislation is to be introduced later this year if the Government survive that long.
Amendment No. 1 and the three related amendments give the Government an opportunity to get out of the trap which they have dug for themselves. The amendments give the Government the opportunity to take immediate action to deal with the problems of the introduction of the so-called council tax by using the taxation system which is already available to

1215
us in the form of the rating system and going back certainly a year earlier—if the Government are really slow in introducing the council tax, then two years earlier—to a fair system in which tax can and will be collected because the system can and will receive the support of the people of this country.
We must not underestimate the significance of the delay which can be caused by this Government's procedures and their incompetence in recognising their errors. We must not underestimate the cost of this delay. In its report earlier this year the Audit Commission estimated that the cost of a year's delay in the implementation of a new tax system is of the order of £800 million. We on these Benches are frequently accused of being spendthrift. We are frequently accused in advertising campaigns—which appear to emanate from government and not from the the Conservative Party that has paid for them—of being spendthrift. The true fact of the matter is that it is the Government, by their insane introduction of the poll tax in the first place and their undignified and ignominious retreat from the poll tax now, who are being spendthrift and who are being extravagant. It is noticeable that the consultation paper published by the Government earlier this year makes no reference to how to achieve a better level of service in local government or a more cost-effective level of service; all that it refers to is restraining local expenditure and taxation.
That is not the view which we on these Benches take about local government. We take the view that what the people want from local government is good value for money and that if they feel they are getting good value for money they are entitled to say they are willing to pay more for a good service. It is precisely that which is being taken away from them by the capping procedures.
Our view is, and always has been, that if we have a taxation system for local government which is widely respected and widely accepted, then of itself accountability will be achieved—an accountability which cannot be achieved by a tax which is almost universally seen to be unfair, as the Government admit. We shall be moving amendments to achieve that greater degree of accountability, not least by a move to annual election.
We have an opportunity now if the Government are willing to take it. It is a very brief opportunity and if we allow the matter to go beyond the end of this month we probably will not be able to make the enormous savings which are now possible. However, it is possible for the Government once again to admit that they have been wrong. It is possible for them now to accept the necessity for a return to a property-based system which takes account of income and takes account more directly of ability to pay—something which can properly be called a fair rate system. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I do not wish to repeat views that I have expressed in the past about rate capping. When we were debating the community charge I shared the view expressed then by the present Home Secretary that rate capping would be
1216
intellectually dishonest. We really cannot have rate capping and talk about local democracy and accountability. At the same time, we must all recognise the anxieties of the Secretary of State and the Government that the generous transfer of funds from the Exchequer to the local authorities should go to those who are expected to benefit. That I understand is the reason why it is felt that there should be an extension of rate capping.
I must declare an interest in this matter; not a financial interest, but an interest as president of the Association of District Councils. When I speak on these matters I would normally say that my views are not those of the association although I accept them generally. I am speaking for myself. Equally, I try not to get involved when there is a great difference of opinion within the association. However, perhaps I may tell the Committee that at a recent conference of the Association of District Councils the question of extending rate capping to local authorities with budgets of under £15 million was discussed. There was a motion—which I am bound to say I put twice to an audience of about 1,500—as to whether there was a voice who would like to speak in favour of the Government's proposals, or whether there was a hand which anyone would like to raise against the Government's proposals. Nobody spoke.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In favour of the proposals.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I beg the Committee's pardon. Nobody wished to speak in favour of the Government's proposals and nobody wished to vote in favour. Faced with that kind of opposition, which goes from Right to Left and includes everybody in the centre, the Government might think again about the wisdom of doing this, particularly as rate capping takes place on the basis of standard spending assessments, the reliability of which are very doubtful, to put it mildly.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will at least say that whatever may be done in the immediate future—perhaps various modifications might be considered—there is no intention in the new legislation of carrying forward the principle of rate capping, which the Committee and the Government must accept is totally irreconcilable with the concept of local democracy and accountability. At the very least, the Government ought to give the assurance which they used to give that capping was only for reckless or irrational local authorities. As president of the Association of District Councils I do not find any such authorities among those with budgets under £15 million.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, would like to add a few words to the very welcome things he said about the ADC conference. I too was present, taking the chair the day after him. The point that ought to be emphasised to the Committee is that the conference at which the noble Lord took the chair was taking place while the ADC was under Conservative control. That

1217
may not last beyond the end of this month, but that conference was a conference of an association under Conservative control.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: That is perfectly true.
Baroness Hamwee: It is interesting to hear someone with such authority and speaking for so many authorities—local authorities in this case, which are struggling to deal with the current system—speak so forcefully on the need for the views of those local authorities to be taken into account. I am much struck by some of the later amendments—I am not speaking to them now—and the fact that a need has been seen by some Members of this Committee to attempt to write into a Bill an exercise in consultation is very telling. It cannot be usual for primary legislation to require that. The limit on capping, which is to be removed, seems to me to be merely the Government taking to its very extremes the dogma that has so much characterised what has been happening recently with local government finance. And for what? What will be achieved by this exercise? The smaller the authority the less money there is at stake. Very small amour is will be saved and very substantial services will be prejudiced by this exercise.
I should like to speak to Amendment No. 1, which refers to "Fair Rates". Although the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows that I share his views on much of this Bill and on many of his amendments, I have to say for the record that I cannot support that system. It says a good deal that the amendment includes a reference to "Fair Rates" without our being told precisely what that scheme is. However, I shall not get into that little squabble at the moment. My colleagues and I on these Benches have decided that we shall not detain the Committee with our proposals which, as Members of the Committee will know, would be for a local income tax. However, I shall not spend time on that at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments would have the effect of limiting the repeal of Section 101 of the 1988 Act which prevents an authority whose budget is less then £15 million from being capped in the period between Royal Assent of this Bill and the introduction of a scheme of local taxation based on the occupation of property. There is no logic to the proposition behind this amendment. Why is the extension of capping to authorities whose budgets are currently below the statutory minimum to be dependent on the introduction of a local tax based on the occupation of property? Experience has shown that strong capping powers are an essential aspect of any local government finance system.
Sharpened accountability has not in itself provided sufficient incentive for local authorities to budget wisely, particularly during times of transition. We intend to ensure that there are strong and effective capping powers appropriate to the new council tax. I know that my noble friend Lord Rippon will find that a rather disappointing comment. That is why we have confidence in our illustrative exemplifications of the council tax and that is why we should have no confidence at all in the figures put forward by the
1218
Opposition to illustrate their fair rates scheme. They say that they will not have capping of any kind. In a system without restraint I am afraid that spending would go through the roof.
The Opposition claim that their policy is to abolish the community charge and then to replace it in the short-term by returning to domestic rates based on the 1973 valuation lists. That would be followed by the introduction of a new rating system under which properties would be valued by reference to a complicated mixture of four different factors. There can be no worse prospect for either local authorities or their residents. First, there would be the immediate reintroduction of the old rates system which was universally regarded as unfair, as Mr. Kinnock himself has acknowledged, and then a second upheaval to bring in a system under which it would be almost impossible for householders to understand the basis on which they were being taxed. In contrast, under the Government's proposals, property will be banded according to its value, a concept which is clear and comprehensible. We do not need to label our proposals fair in order to try to sell them. The council tax is self-evidently much fairer than either the old style rates or the revamped version which is favoured by Members of the Committee opposite.
In short, the measures we are now seeking will strengthen capping powers in the run up to the new system of the council tax. Under the new system we intend to have strong and effective capping powers. The Opposition's proposals mean that spending would rise out of control. Our proposals are responsible and very clear. I call upon the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confess myself satisfied with that answer. The Minister has made clear the battle ground on which we are joined. She has made it clear that she has no confidence in the ability of the Government to produce a local government finance system which will avoid the continued use of capping. She has made it clear that the arguments and hopes expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, are not to be treated sympathetically or even with any serious degree of understanding by the Government. She has made it clear that this Government will continue, whatever system of local government finance they choose to adopt, to determine from Marsham Street what local authorities shall spend rather than allow local people to do that. She has made it clear that the Government turn their back, as we always said they would, on the principle of accountability in local government. This is a centralist government. They treat local government with spite and treat it so because they have no confidence in the ability of people in their local areas to make proper judgments about the services they want and how much money they should spend on them.
These are very modest amendments. They simply state that the extension of the capping procedures proposed in the Bill will go ahead but only until such a time, or indeed not later than such a time, when the Government produce a fairer system of local government finance. By opposing the amendment the

1219
Government are making it quite clear that they have no intention of producing a fairer system of local government finance. I shall test the opinion of the Committee.
3.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Blease, L.

Leatherland, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L,

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ampthill, L.

Dudley, B.

Astor, V.

Effingham, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elles, B.

Beloff, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Erne, E.

Bessborough, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Borthwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Butterworth, L.

Grantchester, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Hastings, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Havers, L.

Cawley, L.

Hayter, L.

Cayzer, L.

Henley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Hives, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hood, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Hooper, B.

Cox, B.

Howe, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Ironside, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Daventry, V.

Joseph, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Denman, L.

Kinnaird, L.

1220

Knollys, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Reay, L.

Long, V.

Renwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rodney, L.

Lyell, L.

Romney, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Margadale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Merrivale, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strange, B.

Monson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mountevans, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sudeley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norrie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Onslow, E.

Waddington, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wharton, B.

Pender, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wynford, L.

Porritt, L.

Young, B.

Quinton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert:
("(A1) Subsection (1) below shall have effect for the purpose of removing restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State to designate English or Welsh authorities in respect of which no order providing for retirement by thirds has been made under section 7 or 26 of the Local Government Act 1972, as appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 4. Both amendments call for annual elections. On Second Reading—and I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I was unable to attend on that occasion—the Minister said at col. 268 of Hansard that she wanted,
"unfettered local accountability".
But that,
"excessive spending … damaged the overall management of the economy and the control of inflation",
and that it allowed authorities,
"to impose unnecessary burdens on their charge payers". [Official Report, 20/6/91; col. 269]
She also said that she had hoped that the "increased transparency" of the community charge—I believe that the Minister must be one of the remaining three people in the country who still call it a community charge—would work to that effect, but that it had failed to do so.
I hope and believe—and I hope that Members of the Committee agree with me—that the amendment before us would, if it were adopted, give the Minister what she wants; namely, the "unfettered local accountability" to which she referred.
However, I should like first to comment on the remarks made by the Minister on Second Reading about excessive spending and the implications that that might have for annual elections. In her speech,

1221
she made much of the 25 per cent. rise in local authority spending during the two years in question, which I take to be 1989–90 and 1990–91. However, I ask Members of the Committee to consider whether that spending of 25 per cent. was excessive. Inflation for the first of those years—that is 1989–90—was around 8 per cent. The following year it was 9.6 per cent. That was 17.5 per cent. in all and less than the 25 per cent. mentioned by the Minister; that is, if she is right. But is she right?
However, perhaps one should also consider the additional responsibilities incurring expenditure imposed by central government on local government during those two years. Some of them were welcome—for example, the Environmental Protection Act; but some were decidedly unwelcome, such as the cost of collecting the poll tax or the transfer from central government of additional housing benefit costs. In my local authority of Norwich that additional expenditure amounted to about £2 million on a budget of £17 million, or 12 per cent. If one adds to that the cost of inflation for those two years at 17.5 per cent. and the additional government-imposed responsibilities at 12 per cent., one sees that a standstill budget for local government over those two years would have produced an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms. In fact, as the Minister said, local expenditure was held at 25 per cent. Members of the Committee may think that that was not excessive under the circumstances.
As regards the burden on the charge payers, I should remind the Committee that, had government grant remained at the same level in real terms as in 1979, the local authority levies would have increased by less than the rate of inflation. I am talking in average figures. However, it is quite clear not only that local authority spending over the past two years has not been excessive but also that, had the Government not withdrawn their grant, the burden for charge payers would have been less than the rate of inflation. Indeed, the average poll tax would have been just £100 per head. Moreover we should have been spared all those shenanigans—which made the poll tax opaque, rather than transparent as the Minister suggested—such as the safety nets, transitional arrangements, area relief, household relief and flat rate subsidy on flat rate levy.
Secondly, even if the expenditure of some individual authorities was "excessive" in the judgment of the Government, that judgment is a political one and indeed a party political one; it is not an economic one. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said on Second Reading, that assumes only one answer. The difference between local government and local administration, as I am sure Members of the Committee are aware, is precisely that local administration assumes uniform problems, uniform expenditure, uniform solutions; in other words, it assumes that all places are the same. But local government does not. Not only does it assume that different communities have different needs; it also has different perceptions as to how best to meet them. The approach is essentially pluralist—a concept which we hope Members of the Committee will endorse today.
Local spending is a decision for local people to make. Of course, government have the right to determine their grant formula, but local people have the right to decide through the ballot box how the locally raised revenue shall be spent. Hence the amendment. It proposes that, where there are annual elections, authorities spending below the £15 million suggested shall be exempt from rate capping. At present, less than half district councils have annual elections. The same applies to London boroughs and the county councils.
What then would the timetable look like? How effective would such a discipline be? The average local authority budget is passed in March, the bills are sent out in April and, following the terms of this amendment, the elections would take place in May; that is, should the local authorities decide to adopt the procedure. That would serve as an entirely proper discipline on local government. It clearly works.
I am sure that Members of the Committee are familiar with the figures. However, the year that the London boroughs had all-out elections—namely, May 1990—their budgets increased by barely 6 per cent. That was the effect of submitting those budgets to the electorate. The budget increase of the Metropolitan districts (one third out)—in other words, those with, effectively, annual elections—was only 8 per cent. But the county councils, which did not face an electorate, raised their budget by 13 per cent. The shire districts, over 60 per cent. of which do not currently hold annual elections but have "all outs" every four years, increased their budget by 14 per cent.
Annual elections clearly establish the link that we all want to see between taxation and representation and thus strengthen both accountability and transparency. If during the year following an annual election that budget is seen not to represent value for money in the eyes of the voters, they can, do and should throw out a portion of their elected members. Broadland District Council in Norfolk may chose to offer its electors a low rate, low service budget. On the other hand, Norwich City Council, which is adjacent to it, might propose higher taxes for higher levels of service. What matters is not cheapness: what matters is, on the one hand, value for money as audited by the Audit Commission; and, on the other hand, the informed and active consent which local people have given to the authority. I suggest that that is offered by the amendment before us which proposes annual elections.
I hope it is clear from what I have said that we agree with capping. But the question is: who does the capping? The amendment proposes annual elections to ensure that local people cap their authority through the ballot box, and not central government who, having lost the democratic vote and been rejected at the ballot box in 900 seats at last May's local elections, seek to enter by the back door and make themselves the majority voter in every town hall. Local people may want a service; they may vote for that service; and they may be willing to finance that service out of their own money—we are not talking about central government matching grants here—and the Government say, "No". They relegate citizens to the

1223
status of children who cannot be trusted to make up their own minds, make their own decisions or take responsibility for their judgments.
The amendment requires local authorities to be accountable —transparent, as the Minister would wish—through the ballot box, as I am sure she would also wish. In that way, as Widdicombe says, local government becomes government by local communities rather than of local communities. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments seek to establish a link between the electoral arrangements pertaining in an authority with the requirement for the Government to have the power to cap that authority. As I shall demonstrate, there is no logic in such a link. Reference was made to Second Reading. The noble Baroness considered the point about unfettered spending by local authorities. She approves of local authorities having unfettered freedom to spend at whatever level they choose. She also advocates that the Government should have no interest in local authorities' aggregate spending. I shall remind her of what else I said on Second Reading. I also said that the contrast between our experience this year, when the Government announced their intention of capping in advance, and the previous year was marked. In 1991, local authority expenditure rose by 13.5 per cent. and was almost £3 billion above the amount we considered appropriate. In 1991–92, local authority budgeted expenditure is only 0.5 per cent. above the amount provided for in the settlement. The results speak for themselves.
I admit that at first sight the logic of the proposition might be regarded by some as seductive. Even allowing for the apparent attraction of annual elections, I do not believe that the proposition stands closer examination. First, the facts do not support the view that where councils are elected in thirds there is sharpened accountability which would lead to spending restraint. Harlow, for example, has election by thirds and yet the council is overspending to the tune of £83 per charge payer; Elmbridge, likewise elected by thirds, this year is adding £73 to the charge; and Watford, elected by thirds, is adding £56 to the charge. I could continue. The noble Baroness also ignores the amount of local government finance that comes from the national taxpayer, and therefore it is appropriate that the Government should be interested in aggregate spending.
There is no basis for the suggestion that councils, having elections in thirds, should in some way be privileged and not be subject to the capping regime if they choose to budget below £15 million.
Secondly, the proposition underlying the amendments is flawed in principle. Councils which elect their members in thirds have one year without an election. Under the scheme suggested in the amendments, what would happen? What is more important, so far as the principle of elections to approve overspending is concerned, is that single issue elections are alien to the British tradition. To view an election as the means of validating overspending is not part of our tradition.
1224
We have made clear our commitment to enhanced accountability. That is why we propose to retain increased transparency of spending decisions of local authorities which have to foot the bill under the council tax.
The Opposition say that they rest their entire case for expenditure restraint upon accountability. An exposition of that view was provided in another place by the honourable Member for Dagenham when he said that they opposed wholeheartedly and thoroughly the principle of capping and that as they advocated the independence and value of local government, they believed that the right controls on local government spending were those exercised through the ballot box. That is easy to say in the absence of responsibility.
It gives us no satisfaction to say that we have found that enhanced accountability, while an integral part of the system of local government finance, has not been able to deliver the high hopes which we had previously expressed. The experience of the past few years has shown conclusively that increased accountability has not in all cases led to sensible and prudent budgeting.
We shall not allow charge payers to be left unprotected from the vagaries of their authority's spending plans, not even until the next local election. We shall take action, if it is required, to ensure that they do not have to pay the bills for excessive budgets in the first place. We have a duty to protect charge payers. The necessity for that has been borne out by events. The amendments seek to restrict the exercise of that duty and hence the protection that we are able to offer; I call upon the Committee to reject them.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: There is an important fallacy in the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She was trying to equate a high level of expenditure with a high level of services. It is nothing of the sort. A high level of expenditure often represents no more than inefficiency, bad management, incompetence, padded payrolls and poor services. What on earth does she think has been going on in Liverpool these past three years?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was disappointed, although not entirely surprised, by the Minister's reply. She made a number of points and I shall try to respond to some of them. First, she said that results speak for themselves. Knowing the stringency of capping, local authorities reduce their expenditure to avoid it. That is obviously right; but turkeys too are not especially keen on offering themselves up for Christmas. That says nothing, however, about the appropriate and preferred method of disciplining local authority expenditure. The Opposition's argument is that that discipline should be exercised by local electors who foot the local additional bill. That should be met by annual elections, as we propose, rather than by Ministers.
I agree that by definition capping reduces local authority expenditure; so would annual elections. The question is: who reduces it and for what reason? Under the amendment, it would be the decision of local people, through their councils, for containing,

1225
disciplining and controlling their expenditure. It would not be central government. In other words, it is town hall and not Whitehall.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said that a high level of expenditure did not necessarily represent value for money. He is correct. It may represent inefficiency and incompetence. The Opposition do not seek to justify high expenditure as such, but justify it in so far as it represents value for money. Time and time again the Audit Commission has said of those very budgets that central government have sought to rate cap—including that of my authority—that we offer value for money at just the point at which central government have chosen to exercise their rate capping powers.
The Minister made much of the point about central government's aggregate expenditure. That is due to the fact that at the moment poll tax raises only 14 per cent. of total spend after the flat rate subsidy. But that reflects the fact that the business rate is now regarded as a central government tax. The unified business rate currently raises some 32.5 per cent. of local authority expenditure. That is a local tax, centrally hijacked. If that tax were now to be brigaded, as it should be for accountancy purposes, with the poll tax, the Committee would see that local people raise some 46 per cent. of their local spend. That is a far from insignificant sum and the area from which discretionary spending would be financed.
The Minister said that it was not a British tradition to have single issue elections. I am sure that as a member of a county council she will agree with me that the budget is not a single issue election; it represents the financial translation of the policies, principles, services and political judgments that motivate that local authority and for which that authority seeks endorsement from the local electorate. In other words, to use annual elections as a vote of confidence in the budget is saying that those local elections review the capacity and functioning of local government. That is why we are against capping.
Finally—this, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, marks the divide between us—the Minister repeated again this afternoon that she sees the job of government as protecting people—local voters—from their local councils. I repeat that that is to relegate local voters to the status of children who cannot be trusted to vote properly and do not know what they are doing when they vote. So far as local people are concerned, when they exercise their vote they exercise their judgment. I suggest that the Government would do well to take that judgment as seriously at local elections as they will shortly have to at the general election. 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.

Brixton Prison: Escape
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the escape of two Category A high risk prisoners from Brixton Prison which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement about the escape of two Category A high risk prisoners from Brixton Prison using a firearm on the morning of 7th July. They were awaiting trial at the Central Criminal Court for serious offences including conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.
"Yesterday morning the two prisoners named Pearse Gerrard McAuley and Nessan Quinlivan attended the first Roman Catholic mass of the day in the prison. The service began at 9.15 a.m. and finished at about 10.05 a.m. Since both were high risk prisoners, they were subject to the usual security precautions. Accordingly, they underwent a rub-down search before leaving their secure unit for the chapel. They were escorted there by three officers.
"After the service, and again in accordance with the usual procedures, the prisoners were escorted by three prison officers to return to their unit. A dog patrol supervised them between the chapel and the main prison building. Once inside and in a narrow passageway, one of the prisoners produced a firearm and took one of the escorting officers hostage, holding the gun to his head. He fired a shot above the officer's head, and the other prisoner took the keys of the hostage officer and used them to gain access to the prison centre. In the centre a further shot was fired which passed through the clothing of another officer. The prisoners and their hostage went through two other gates, entering a building yard.
"In the yard another shot was fired to keep pursuing staff at bay, and the prisoners reached the prison wall at a point where they were able to scale it despite the razor wire at the top. They then escaped into the married quarters area outside the prison and threatened a prison officer who was cleaning his car. They took possession of it but abandoned it when they found their route was blocked.
"They were at that point within a few yards of Brixton Hill, where they stopped a private car. The driver was ordered out and shot in the upper right leg and the woman passenger got out unharmed. I am pleased to say that the driver is recovering in hospital. The car was driven into Brixton and abandoned in a side street. With money they had taken from the car driver, they used a taxi to take them to Baker Street Underground Station.
"I am deeply disturbed by this grave lapse of security and by the associated risk to members of the public. I have decided that we must have a swift

1227
and independent inquiry into the circumstances of this deplorable incident so that any necessary lessons can be learned promptly.
"I have therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, His Honour Judge Tumim, to carry out a full inquiry with the following terms of reference:
'To inquire into the circumstances of the escape of prisoners McAuley and Quinlivan from Her. Majesty's Prison Brixton on Sunday, 7th July, and in particular to review the security arrangements for handling high risk prisoners in this prison; to assess how those arrangements were operated on the day concerned; and to make recommendations'.
"I spoke to Judge Tumim this morning and he told me that he would be starting the task immediately. He will be assisted by the police. I have asked him to submit an interim report by the end of this month. Subject to the need to protect sensitive security material and to the possibility of criminal charges being laid, I intend that the chief inspector's findings should be published.
"When Judge Tumim inspected Brixton last year, his report referred to certain comments on security matters which he had put directly to the Director-General of the Prison Service. These dealt with matters of physical security, including the position and coverage of closed circuit television. I shall be asking the inquiry to pay particular attention to the progress made in these areas.
"Judge Tumim also recommended that we should reconsider holding Category A high risk prisoners in Brixton when new accommodation became available at the new Belmarsh Prison in Woolwich. The Director-General accepted this recommendation. The new unit at Belmarsh for all Category A prisoners in London who are designated as a high risk has been recently completed. It had been planned to use this as from November, but I have decided to bring this forward to next month.
"In the meantime I have taken the following action. All governors of prisons which hold Category A prisoners, other than dispersal prisons, have been asked to review urgently their procedures for handling Category A high risk prisoners whenever it is necessary for them to leave their secure units. In particular they must consider immediately whether religious services can be provided for them in their living areas as opposed to allowing them to move to chapels. I have asked the Director-General of the Prison Service to report to me on this as a matter of urgency.
"I have also given instructions that other prisoners awaiting trial on terrorist charges should be moved immediately from Brixton to high security dispersal prisons.
"This was a very serious incident and no time must be lost in finding out exactly what happened and taking all possible measures to prevent such an event recurring."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement to us. It is a very serious and grim Statement to which we have had to listen.
The House and the country will be deeply disturbed that two suspected terrorists held in supposedly high security conditions can procure firearms and break out of prison in this manner. While considering this dreadful incident, I am sure that the whole House will have learned with some relief that the motorist concerned appears to be recovering in hospital. We offer him from all sides of the House our sympathy in his injuries and our good wishes for his speedy recovery. The House will also, I am sure, wish to express our admiration for the brave prison officers who faced these two men, armed and fierce as they were.
Quite obviously we welcome the Government's announcement that an inquiry is to be launched into what occurred. From these Benches, we are grateful that that inquiry will include an examination of all the security arrangements at Brixton Prison and not just the circumstances of this particular escape.
We were pleased too to know that an interim report is to be issued and published by the end of the month. I trust—if I am allowed to say this—that the usual channels will procure that any such interim report is speedily debated in your Lordships' House. It is important and urgent for obvious reasons, not least because such incidents have a most damaging effect on the morale of prison officers in our prisons and on this occasion on the morale of our security forces, who show great courage in apprehending suspects of this kind and spend an enormous amount of time in doing so.
Will the Minister confirm or deny that at the time of the break-out, Brixton prison was holding 1,060 prisoners, 230 more than the official limit, with only 140 staff on duty? Does the Minister not agree that the break-out occurred after chapel on Sunday? One can hear in this House, and no doubt in another place too, grim echoes of Strangeways. Almost precisely the same timing and almost precisely the same methods were employed in the incident at Strangeways. In his report on the prison disturbances at Strangeways, Lord Justice Woolf considered the problem of weekend staffing levels. He suggested that disturbances are more likely to occur at that time. He went to the trouble of recommending, at paragraph 13.106 on page 351 of his report, ways of increasing weekend staffing, not least because of the risks that exist at this time. What have the Government done about that recommendation? If they have done nothing until now, why is that?
These escapes are even more alarming, not just because of the report of Lord Justice Woolf but also because of a report referred to in the Statement, namely, that of Judge Tumim, the very man who is being asked to conduct the inquiry into these events. However, what the Statement did not contain was the date upon which Judge Tumim made his report on Brixton Prison. That occurred in August last year—11 months ago. The Statement does not contain

1229
direct quotations from that report. However, because of the seriousness of the contents of this Statement, I must ask for your Lordships' indulgence while I quote from that report. At paragraph 3.08 on page 46 of his report Judge Tumim deals with the question of security at Brixton Prison. He stated in August 1990:
"This process would be helped if Brixton did not hold high or exceptional risk Category A inmates; the need for it to do so should be re-examined in view of the prison's existing level of security and the forthcoming opening of … Woolwich with extensive, purpose-built Category A accommodation and security. In the meantime, the time taken to approve proposed visitors to Category A inmates should be reduced".
At paragraph 2.12 of the report Judge Tumim further states:
"At the time of our inspection Brixton held nearly 60 inmate, in the highest security category (Category Al), many of whom also had the ability and resources to mount escape bids".
What firmer warning could the same judge who is now being asked to conduct the inquiry give? Why has the warning been ignored—as one anticipated—and why has the judge been asked to report again on precisely the matters on which he reported in August 1990? This House has received many excellent reports on conditions in our prisons. Many of those reports have drawn attention to most unsatisfactory conditions of overcrowding and insecurity. From these Benches I welcome the fact that there will be another report. But could we have done with reports and see action instead?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for having repeated the Statement. Few Home Secretaries can have had to read such a sombre Statement in the House of Commons than has been the lot of the current Home Secretary. It is a matter of the gravest importance that two dangerous, armed men have been allowed to escape from Brixton prison. The men represent a danger to the general public and that fact is causing the most serious concern in the police service. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, recognises that fact.
What is the purpose of major police operations that are launched to bring suspected terrorists before the courts if the suspected terrorists are allowed to escape in the circumstances of the break-out at Brixton Prison yesterday? It is all the more worrying that this incident has taken place when there is an ever-present prospect of still further Provisional IRA activities in Great Britain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I, too, welcome the fact that Judge Tumim is to be asked to conduct an independent inquiry. All of us have substantial confidence in Judge Tumim who has produced some admirable reports on conditions in prisons. Our welcome of his appointment is unrestrained but it raises the question—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just touched on the point —of how wise it has been to hold Category A prisoners in prisons which are so grossly overcrowded. That situation represents a major threat to the security of a prison. This is not a case of being wise after the event.
I welcome the fact that changes will be made as regards high security prisoners attending chapel services. Again I am not trying to be wise after the
1230
event. But, given what happened at Strangeways last year, one has to wonder why, when the disturbances at Strangeways arose within the chapel, greater steps were not taken to ensure that serious problems did not arise from Category A prisoners attending chapel services in Brixton.
The question of staffing levels is a difficult one. I believe most of us recognise that there has been a major improvement in the staff-inmate ratio in prisons over the past 20 years. We welcome that improvement but we may need to look at staffing levels on Sundays. It is no accident that both these episodes took place on a Sunday. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will be able to confirm that that matter is receiving substantial attention.
In conclusion I must say that there can be absolutely no excuse whatever for what occurred at Brixton yesterday. I hope very much that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter on the basis of Judge Tumim's report at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe we can all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was entirely right when he referred to this Statement as a grim Statement. The noble Lord also voiced the opinions of everyone in this House when he expressed his sympathy for the motorist who was shot. The sympathy of all of us goes out to the motorist. The noble Lord expressed his admiration for the people who, faced with those armed, desperate men, behaved so well. He said that he would like a debate on this very serious matter and obviously that request will be considered.
The noble Lord asked about the number of prison officers on duty yesterday in the prison. The answer is that 145 prison officers were on duty and there were about 1,000 prisoners in the prison. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, one of the matters which Judge Tumim will undoubtedly look into is the question of staffing ratios on Sundays. The noble Lord was at pains to point out that staffing ratios overall have improved dramatically over the past decades. In the 1960s there were six prisoners to one prison officer; 10 years ago there were three prisoners to one prison officer; and now there are two prisoners to one prison officer. Therefore, in fairness one should not forget the great improvements which have taken place, just as one should not forget the great improvements in the prison estate, with 12 new prisons since 1979 and 12 other prisons to be completed during the next three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to Judge Tumim's report on Brixton published in August 1990. I can assure him that Judge Tumim's warnings have not been ignored. The Home Secretary has been advised by the director-general that all his recommendations are being considered and action has been taken. It is for the inquiry to consider whether further action should have been taken.
Noble Lords should be hesitant to criticise the Government regarding the recommendation that high risk Category A prisoners should be moved to Belmarsh. Belmarsh has only recently opened. The original intention was that high risk Category A prisoners should be moved to Belmarsh in November

1231
this year. Only two of the four wings at Belmarsh are yet in operation. It is a newly-commissioned prison coming into operation by stages, as one would expect. In view of the obvious anxiety that is bound to have been caused throughout the country as a result of the incident, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided to bring forward the transfer of Category A high risk prisoners to Belmarsh. As I said in the Statement, they will go there next month.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, welcomed the decision to ask Judge Tumim to carry out the inquiry. I certainly do so.
So far as concerns the lessons from Strangeways, it is worth bearing in mind that there were 309 people in the chapel at Strangeways and there were 71 in the chapel at Brixton on this occasion. One of the things that was said after the Strangeways incident, which I remember so vividly, was that with such a large number of people in the chapel it was difficult to exercise proper supervision over them, particularly with staffing levels as they were on a Sunday. Having 309 people in the chapel confronted the staff with a considerable task. One could say that that lesson was learnt because yesterday there were 71 people in the chapel —a very great difference. As the Statement makes clear, the Home Secretary is not content with that. One of the matters which will have to be considered by the inquiry is whether such chapel gatherings should be terminated for high risk prisoners and whether those prisoners should have the opportunity for religious observance in the wings within which they are kept secure.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the escape of these two most dangerous terrorists is sickening for the anti-terrorist squad? So far as they are concerned a year's work of surveillance and detection has been squandered. Secondly, does he agree that this is a major morale booster for the Provisional IRA? It is an international propaganda coup from which its cause will benefit and it has made our prison system look pathetic.
Will the noble Lord say whether those two prisoners were in the maximum security wing? Were routine searches of visitors evident or have they been abandoned? Was the metal detector screen operative in recent times? Finally, what of inside help? Who aided and abetted the escape? Are there IRA terrorist supporters within Brixton gaol? Rooting out him or them is as important as capturing those who have escaped. I hope, therefore, that the inquiry to which the noble Lord referred will take into consideration such an investigation of the inside operation.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. This must be absolutely sickening for all those who take such risks and work so hard to fight the terrorists. It is indeed a propaganda coup for the terrorists.
The answer to the noble Lord's questions are as follows. As I understand it, the two prisoners were in
1232
the maximum security wing. There is a metal detecting screen which is used when visitors come to see maximum security prisoners. I have no reason to think that on the last occasion when the two men received visitors their visitors did not on that occasion, as on previous occasions, go through the metal detecting screen. There is careful supervision of visits. I am told that two prison officers observe a visit when it takes place. The prisoner is there, there is his visitor and there are two prison officers watching. However, the other questions which the noble Lord asked are matters for the inquiry.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend answer this one question? Why do we have two IRA prisoners together at one time? Surely it would be much better if they were separated. If one was in Manchester and the other in Cornwall they would not have been able to combine. If both are in the same place at the same time it is much easier for them to take advantage of what is obviously a thoroughly incompetently run prison.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, they should be where one is confident that there is maximum security. The question which my noble friend has asked is fundamentally a question for Judge Tumim.
Lord Jay: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Leader of the House seen reports in the press that individuals who visited Brixton prison last week were in no way effectively searched or screened as they entered the prison?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can only tell your Lordships what I have learnt from the Home Office. High risk Category A prisoners have individual supervision when they receive a visit. They are strip searched before such a visit and they are strip searched after the visit. The inquiry will want to ensure that that took place on every occasion, but that is what ought to have happened.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of the admirably concise terms of reference for Judge Tumim, is it not possible for the submission of the interim report to be given even more urgency, especially as, if the report is not received until the end of this month, it is unlikely that there will be a debate on it in this House or in the other place until the autumn?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that one has to strike a reasonable balance. To insist that Judge Tumim should report to us in less than a month might mean a less thorough report than your Lordships would wish to see.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, why was the priest not brought into the prison? Surely that is elementary. It is touching to know that there were 71 people present. It would be interesting to know how often they went to church when they were outside. They all appear to undergo rapid conversions when they go into prison. Is the suggestion that the gun was found in the confessional box correct? If so, are visitors to the prison domain allowed to wander around the

1233
grounds? Listening on the radio this morning to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I understood the head of prisons to say that all visitors were not searched. That was the phrase that he used. How are the visitors who are to be searched selected? When visitors come to this place, they have to go through a screen. We have to walk about with identity cards on, presumably even if we go to church. Why are some people searched and not others? It appears that there are some curious rules. We do not need an inquiry to look into them; we just need two sensible people—preferably women—to put the prison governor right.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as I said earlier, the purpose of having an inquiry of this nature is to ensure that that which was supposed to happen in fact happened, but there is no doubt as to what should have happened. If people come out of the high-security area in which they are incarcerated in order to go to church, that is one period when they are more able to take mischievous action than at any other time during the week. That is why my right honourable friend said that one of the matters that Judge Tumim will have to take into consideration is whether those high-risk, category A prisoners should continue to be taken to church. One would have thought that it might be possible to provide facilities for them to worship in their own high-security quarters, if that is what they really want to do.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the prison officers who were escorting those two extremely dangerous prisoners were armed? If the answer is that it is not part of our British tradition to arm prison officers, may one suggest that British traditions, which may have been appropriate in the relatively gentle 1930s or 1950s, are no longer appropriate in the much more dangerous 1990s".
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have no doubt that that matter, among others, will be considered by Judge Tumim when he reports.
I hive just been corrected on one small matter which I should mention. I said that an inmate is strip-searched both before and after a visit. That is not right. He has a rub-down search before and is strip-searched after the visit.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the important point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. This is an international matter of some importance. The appropriateness of appointing Judge Tumim has already been mentioned. As we all know, he made a detailed report on the prison and its security arrangements in August 1990. It would be a speedy matter to see what improvements or alterations, if any, have been made since then. In addition, he would have to find out what, it would appear, occurred on the evidence that he can obtain regarding the incident. With an judge of the experience of Judge Tumim, that would mean possibly seven days' intensive work. Noble Lords may agree with me that it is important that Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the matter and any interim recommendations that are made. Will the Leader of the House assure us that an
1234
effort will be made to obtain the report within a week or so with a view to the House considering it before the summer recess?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, obviously I shall pass on to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. There are a number of matters to be considered: first, what work has been done since Judge Tumim compiled his report; secondly, what further work might now be indicated; and, thirdly, what happened on this occasion. Perhaps my right honourable friend should tell Judge Tumim that the House would prefer the report to be completed in time for a debate before the House rises, but if Judge Tumim says that that would not be consistent with the thoroughness that he wishes to put into the exercise, we must accept that.
Lord Havers: My Lords, I know Judge Tumim very well. As we all know, he is a very responsible man. He will read today's debate. We should not put him under any pressure of time because I am certain that he will produce that report just as soon as he properly and responsibly can.
Lord Waddington; My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I shall tell my right honourable friend exactly what has happened in the House this afternoon and explain to him that we should like the report as soon as possible. I am sure that he will convey those views to Judge Tumim and that the latter will do his best to produce a report quickly but thoroughly.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the matter of a debate. Clearly, it will be difficult for the report to be debated before the summer recess. Will the Minister consider recalling the House as soon as the report is available?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I shall consider that suggestion, but I shall consider it at great length and it might take me the whole of the recess to carry out that consideration.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International
4.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
"The Bank of England, along with the authorities in a number of other jurisdictions, took action on Friday to secure control of the assets of the Bank of Credit and Commerce Group.
"The BCC group operated in this country through a Luxembourg incorporated company, BCCI SA, which had a number of branches in the United Kingdom, mostly in the London area. On

1235
Friday, the Directorate of the Luxembourg Monetary Institute took action under Luxembourg law to secure control of the assets of the company. This was done in consultation with other regulatory authorities concerned which have taken appropriate action against other subsidiaries and operations of the BCC Group. The effect of these actions was to place the assets and liabilities of the entities concerned under the protective control of the supervisory authorities, or of the courts as appropriate, of each country. In the United Kingdom, following a petition made by the Bank of England, the UK courts have appointed Touche Ross as provisional liquidator. The effect of this action is that deposits with the United Kingdom branches of BCCI SA are frozen.
"The action taken by the regulatory authorities resulted from prima facie evidence, contained in a report commissioned by the Bank of England and recently received, of widespread fraud in a number of jurisdictions stretching back over a number of years. The action was taken in order to safeguard the interests of depositors, other bona fide creditors and the shareholders of the BCC group. A copy of a press notice issued by the Bank explaining its action has been placed in the House Library.
"The principal supervisory authorities are seeking the co-operation of other authorities in other countries where BCCI has been in business, with a view to securing a run-down of the group. They are seeking co-operation in order to identify and take appropriate action against those responsible for any wrongdoing. Relevant papers have been passed to the Serious Fraud Office.
"Within the UK the immediate effect of the supervisors' action is that UK depositors cannot withdraw their funds. Sterling deposits in the UK branches are covered by the Deposit Protection Fund to the extent of 75 per cent. of deposits up to £20,000 (that is, up to £15,000 per depositor). The Bank of England has issued a notice explaining the position of UK depositors and the operation of the funds. A copy has been placed in the House Library.
"The Deposit Protection Fund will be activated as soon as a winding up order is made in the UK courts. Claims will be processed as quickly as possible.
"The Bank held a meeting with the main high street banks and the liquidator this morning. As a result arrangements are being set in place for the liquidators to aid the banks in their assessment of applications from small businesses for alternative facilities. While that assessment is a commercial matter for the banks, I hope they will respond as sympathetically as possible.
"The banks are also urgently discussing with the liquidators whether comparable arrangements can be made for small depositors who find themselves in immediate difficulties.
"In addition Touche Ross is willing for six weeks to give free advice to small businesses affected by the BCCI winding up.
1236
"Under the Banking Act 1987 the Bank of England has sole responsibility for authorising and supervising banks and the Government have no locus in their decisions. The Government were, however, kept fully informed of the proposed action, and it has our full support."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading the Statement. That is the only "Thank you" I can offer. The Statement seems to me—I am sure other noble Lords will agree—to be less than satisfactory. One has to ask the Government: what has been going on here? This is not a matter that has suddenly emerged. The Statement reads as if it has, but this is something that has been going on for some time. Noble Lords will confirm in due course that it has been raised previously in this House.
I have a number of questions and a number of points that I must draw to the Government's attention. The key issue to bear in mind is that this bank is part of the commercial banking system, and to have allowed this to happen is damaging to that system. One must ask whether due account has been given to the general damage that occurs within the City of London when this sort of thing happens. I must repeat my question: what has been going on? Will we actually be told what has been going on? In particular, at the level of ordinary questions, how much money is missing? Can we be told that?
As I understand the matter, there are three aspects of the problem to which we need to address ourselves, not one of which seems to me to have been dealt with in any detail in the Statement. First of all, as I understand it, there has been straightforward fraud. Can we be told about that aspect of the matter? Secondly—I have heard noble Lords raise the subject previously—there has been a great question of money laundering, not unconnected with drug smuggling and things of that sort. Not a word is said about that aspect of the matter in the Statement. Thirdly, there is the question of bankruptcy. That word does not appear at all in the Statement. Can we not therefore have a Statement that actually covers the questions in which one is interested?
There is a most serious question concerning the auditors. Can the noble Lord tell me whether I am right and that in 1989 the auditors actually certified the accounts of this bank as true and fair? If that is the case, again can we be told how it turned out that they were not only not true and fair but not remotely so? Again, I repeat the question: what has been going on?
I have to make the comment—and from reading the Statement it appears even more strongly—that it seems that the Bank of England has taken an unconscionable time to act. Other people seem to have been aware of the dangers for much longer than the Bank of England, but that is the regulatory authority. Can we be told why it took so long for the Bank of England to act? Is one being unduly cynical in assuming that the Bank of England was rather more concerned about the bank than about the bank's depositors? Are we asked to believe, in the case of the

1237
depositors in this bank, that caveat emptor is the only criterion or principle that the Government would apply, that the depositors ought to have known better and that they should not have left their funds in the bank up to the present time?
I have to admit to a degree of ignorance about the Deposit Protection Fund. I have to tell noble Lords that I was quite unaware of the details of the fund. I was under the impression that those of us who deposited our funds in commercial banks were taking no risk at all and that there was 100 per cent. protection. I should be interested to know why 75 per cent. protection is what is available. I admit my ignorance, but I am taken aback to discover that one is protected up to only 75 per cent. More to the point, I did lot know that that protection was available up to only £20,000. Can the Government comment on that aspect of the matter?
More generally, can the Government say something about their attitude to the small depositors involved? The Statement says,
"The Deposit Protection Fund will be activated as soon as a winding up order is made in the UK courts. Claims will be processed as quickly as possible."
As a small depositor, one would not be looking for a bland statement of that nature. One would want to know exactly when that is going to happen. Are we talking' about these funds being available tomorrow, next Monday, or at any time in the future? Do not the Government feel that they have some responsibility in this matter?
Equally, I must ask about the effect on small businesses. As I understand it, the main small businesses affected are Asian owned. They are businesses owned by the Asian community who tend to be extremely hard working and energetic. I see that there is some suggestion that the commercial banks—the other joint stock banks—might take an interest in the matter. The Government say they hope that they will "respond as sympathetically as possible". Can the Government make a more positive statement than that they hope that they will "respond as sympathetically as possible?" Facilities ought to be made available, without any doubt whatever. The integrity of the commercial banking system is involved here. Cannot the Government at least say in terms that a rescue operation ought to be mounted, and mounted right away, and that in their view no enterprising small business should be made bankrupt in the next few days simply because of a liquidity or cash restraint?
This is a serious matter. It is so serious that we cannot simply discuss it on the basis of a Statement before your Lordships. The banking system of this country is of enormous importance. My own judgment is that we ought to ask more generally about the state of the banking system and about the regulation of the banking system. I know of general remarks about the usual channels and all that. I would ask the noble Lord whether, using the usual channels formula, we should not, as Members of your Lordships' House, examine regulation of the banking system much more seriously. In sum, I and many noble Lords are deeply concerned about what has
1238
been happening here. I hope for a rather more encouraging and reassuring statement from the Government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for having repeated the Statement. What his right honourable friend has said in the House of Commons indicates that we are in the presence of a major banking scandal. I believe that the Statement raises far more questions than it answers.
May I first deal with the point about the powers of the Treasury and the Bank of England. The Government say that this is a matter entirely for the Bank of England and nothing to do with them. That is because of the provisions of the Banking Act. But Section 80 of that Act provides:
"The Treasury may, after consultation with the Bank [of England], by regulations impose on overseas institutions … such requirements as the Treasury consider appropriate".
The power could hardly be wider. So there is no question in my view of Ministers shuffling this off on to the Bank of England. However, let us assume for the moment that the Government are absolutely right in what they say and that it is a matter exclusively for the Bank of England. That means of course that the Bank is in fact almost wholly unaccountable. Apparently it is not responsible to Ministers. It does not appear to be responsible to anybody else either. I shall come back in a moment to that question.
The first thing on which I should like to congratulate the Minister's right honourable friend is that he managed to make this Statement with no reference to the Florida prosecution of BCCI, an issue that was debated in this House on a Question that I initiated on 23rd April last year. Here was a bank, the BCCI, with more than 40 branches in the United Kingdom, convicted of money laundering in the United States on a massive scale, involving Noriega but also a number of other people involved in the cocaine business in America. The fine imposed on BCCI was around 15 million dollars, the largest fine ever imposed on a bank in the United States. In the course of that debate I asked what the Bank of England was going to do about it. I regret to say I received no positive answer to that question.
We turn next to the Senate investigation now taking place, of which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will be aware. A committee under Senator Kerry has been looking at the affairs of BCCI and its massive misconduct in the United States. That committee heard a statement by Mr. Morgenthau, the district attorney for Manhattan and one of the most respected prosecutors in the United States, to the effect that he was most deeply disappointed by the lack of co-operation he had received from the Bank of England. That seems to me extremely serious. What does the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, have to say about it?
Why did not the Bank of England act much earlier? It has known for a great deal longer than three years, as confirmed by the Statement, of very serious allegations concerning BCCI which was allowed to continue trading as usual. That decision was made by the Bank of England and it is now accountable. Why

1239
did the Bank of England not look at its powers under the "fit and proper person" formula in the Banking Act? It seems to me that it had considerable powers to take action but chose not to do so. Why was there not an immediate audit by independent auditors once the allegations came to the attention of the Bank of England?
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, rightly pointed out the rather strange situation involving Price Waterhouse. Given the allegations of which the Bank was aware, why did it not commission an independent audit to satisfy itself that the matter was being handled satisfactorily by the directors of BCCI? In the light of all that, why will there be no independent inquiry as to what the Bank of England has been up to? It may be that the Bank has an answer to these points, but it may also be that it does not. Not only are our banking institutions having serious questions raised about them; so is the Bank of England. I hope very much that we will have some specific answers from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
The blunt question is: has the Bank of England been negligent? What did it know, and when? I hope we will receive answers to those central questions.
Thousands of small businessmen are now at risk of being driven out of business because of the misconduct of the fraudsters involved in the BCCI affair. There is no point in passing on the responsibility to the banks: the banks are themselves experiencing great difficulties at the moment. It would be wholly unrealistic to imagine that the banks are in a position to bail out thousands of small businesses in London and elsewhere. What are the Government proposing to do? The Government have rightly said that they have a high regard for the small business community. Now is an opportunity for them to demonstrate what action they are going to take.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall attempt to deal with the many questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The primary question asked was why the Bank of England had not acted sooner and whether or not it was fully responsible for that. The Banking Act 1987 deliberately places total responsibility for authorising and supervising banks on the Bank of England. Its decisions are subject to appeal to a tribunal but are not subject to public direction. The Bank took action as soon as it was satisfied that it had evidence which would support the use of its statutory powers. The Bank cannot act on suspicion alone. Its actions under the Act are subject to appeal. It must be sure before acting that it has evidence it can use in legal proceedings. The Bank has kept the Treasury informed from time to time about developments and in recent days has kept the Government fully informed of the actions it proposed.
Both noble Lords referred to the question of what had been going on in the BCCI with particular reference to money laundering. The information which the supervisors have suggests widespread fraud going back over a number of years but not directly connected with the money laundering offences in America. I cannot go beyond saying that the evidence
1240
suggests that serious crimes have been committed. I do not wish to say anything which may prejudice any convictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the auditors had not spotted this before and said they should have noticed the fraud sooner. I understand that the information available to the supervisors suggests that the fraud was an extremely sophisticated one which was very hard to detect. As far as money laundering in the United States is concerned, the prosecutions related to the activities of particular individuals and were not of themselves sufficient grounds for action under the Banking Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the Deposit Protection Scheme. That was a matter discussed at some length during the passage of the Banking Act 1987. The scheme protects 75 per cent. of deposits up to £20,000; in other words, a maximum payment of £15,000. It certainly does not cover 100 per cent. of people's deposits. I share with both noble Lords who have spoken the concern for small businesses which may be affected by this debacle. As I said in the Statement, the Bank held a meeting this morning with the main high street banks and the liquidators as a result of which arrangements are being set in place for the liquidators to aid the banks in their assessment of applications by small businesses for alternative facilities. That assessment is a commercial matter for the banks and I hope they will respond as sympathetically as possible. I cannot be more positive than that, but I believe that it is a hopeful sign.
BCCI was an international bank operating in 69 different countries. Less than one-third of its assets were in the United Kingdom; therefore, there can be no question of the United Kingdom Government rescuing such a bank.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to Section 80 of the Banking Act. That reflects, I believe, a misunderstanding of the provisions. The section refers to representative offices of overseas banks, not branches taking deposits in the United Kingdom. The section does not permit the Government to change the regulations of deposit-taking branches.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also said that there should be a proper inquiry. Of course, the first priority must be for the Bank, other regulators and the liquidators to bring about an orderly winding-up of BCCI so as to minimise losses to depositors and others who did business with that bank. But the Government and the Bank of England will certainly be reflecting on any lessons which may be learnt from this case for the framework of regulation, both at home and internationally. We shall certainly tell the House our conclusions, although there will be a limit to what can be published about a particular case because of Banking Act restrictions and the need not to prejudice any legal proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggested that we should debate banking regulation. As the noble Lord himself said, that is a matter for the usual channels. I merely note that this is the second debate which has been called for in the last half-hour.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of press reports that an approach is being, made to the Arab ruler who, it is suggested, is the ultimate authority in the case of this bank. Can he confirm whether this is so, and, if it is, whether that approach is being made by Her Majesty's Government, the Bank of England or some third party? I am sure that he is aware of the enormous anxiety that this affair is causing to a number of people who have small businesses. If relief and support is sought in that direction, the more that is known about the matter the more they will be reassured. Can he clear up this matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I referred to small businesses just now. The Bank of England is in touch with the shareholders to seek their co-operation in achieving an orderly run-down with the minimum of loss to depositors. The shareholders have a very good record of supporting the bank and have already injected substantial sums. The Government are also in close touch with the authorities in Abu Dhabi.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston asked the Minister about the positi DTI of the auditors in relation to this affair. Will the Minister confirm that on a number of occasions since 1988 the auditors found cause for considerable disquiet? I understand that, beyond their function as auditors and in accordance with their public duty, they informed the Bank of England on several occasions of their disquiet. If that is the case, why did the Bank of England not institute further and more detailed inquiries? The Minister said that they were suspicious but not satisfied. How can one be satisfied when one is suspicious? Is it not quite clear that the confidence that was generally felt after the investigation of the Johnson Matthey affair has now very largely gone?
Further, is it not the case that although the Banking Act 1987 transferred specific responsibility for supervision to the Bank of England, nevertheless the Government own the Bank of England and are still responsible for giving general directions under the unrepealed section of the original Act of 1946? Were the Government informed by the Bank of England that it had been even partially alerted by the auditors? If they were informed, what did they do about it? If they were not informed, why not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether the auditors expressed disquiet at the activities of the BCCI. For some time the Government have been aware of concern about BCCI's operations. As I said before, the Bank has kept the Treasury informed about developments from time to time and in recent days has kept us fully informed of the action that it proposed to take.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government were content with the Bank of England's performance The Government have no doubt that the Bank took action, as I said before, as soon as it was satisfied that it had evidence which would support the use of its statutory powers and that it took the only possible
1242
action in the circumstances. Its action was part of a co-ordinated operation by banking supervisors in a number of countries. I repeat that point; namely, that this is a worldwide operation.
Lord Havers: My Lords, I understand that the protection afforded to depositors is to the depositor, even though, as a small business, he may have several accounts. If those accounts amount to quite a large sum of money, he will still only receive £15,000. I find that very worrying. Can the Minister confirm whether or not my understanding is right?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if an individual has multiple deposits with the United Kingdom branches, they are aggregated and treated as one for deposit protection purposes. So my noble and learned friend is right in that matter.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I must bring three issues to the attention of the House. Three years ago I took part in a television documentary on Channel 4 which pointed to serious doubts about the operations of BCCI. That was before the Florida injunctions. There has been drug laundering and recently there have been two different charges either of fraud or of bankruptcy. We need to know which of these various issues —or perhaps all of them—is true.
It may be, as the Minister said, that the Bank of England did not have sufficient legally tight evidence to close down the bank but did it not have powers to warn or rap the knuckles of those people and say, "We do not like what is going on. You are an international bank. Your misdemeanours may not fall in our territory but we still do not like what you are doing as an international bank. You must change if you are to continue operations at a retail level within the United Kingdom"? That is a very important point which must be addressed.
It may be the case that under the provisions of the depositor protection fund only 75 per cent. of up to £20,000 is guaranteed, but I wonder how many depositors in the United Kingdom in general know that fact. I do not know whether or not my bank has informed me of it—certainly the last questioner did not know. It is not a well known fact. That compares with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which publicly says that up to 100,000 dollars are guaranteed.
I urge the Minister to consider immediate relief pending the settlement of any legal actions of up to 75 per cent. of those people's deposits. It is not a matter of commercial assessment. It is a matter of simple documentary proof that they held the deposits. Commercial assessment and legal proceedings take a long time and these people, especially given the tightness of M0 up to M4, currently going on in the banking system, will be extremely short of money and could go bankrupt. One may go bankrupt by one's own fault but to go bankrupt because of other people's faults, as a result not simply of incompetence but of fraudulent behaviour, is unforgivable. I urge the Minister to consider immediate—that is, tomorrow—repayment of some money to the depositors.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can say to the noble Lord about the deposit scheme and the possibility of money being paid back quickly. I hope that it will be possible to pay it back quickly. I do not have the information here, but I believe that 15 days is required for a formal winding up to take place and then the deposit scheme can be brought into action. As I said in the original Statement, there will be lessons to be learnt from the collapse. The peculiar structure of BCCI made supervision difficult. Therefore the Bank of England took the lead in organising an international college of regulators, in securing a single auditor for the group and, in recent days, in co-ordinating international action to wind up the matter. Clearly this case has underlined the need for close co-operation of supervisors internationally. The Government and the Bank will certainly reflect on any lessons that the affair may have for the framework of regulation at home or internationally.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, unlike the noble Lord opposite whose understandable and righteous indignation has been aired, I believe that the Bank of England and Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated? Reading between the lines it is clear that absolutely at the forefront of their thinking was the need to protect the depositors as much as possible. I cannot understand how noble Lords opposite do not live enough in the real world to realise that if the Bank of England had gone off at half cock without getting such an astonishing—indeed I believe unprecedented—degree of international co-operation in timing the moment at which they struck, in this day and age with modern telecommunications, BCCI would have removed all the funds outwith the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom so fast that it would not have been funny. Then where would the depositors have been? I am absolutely convinced that the Bank acted in a highly responsible manner despite the fact that it was almost certainly highly suspicious. On the contrary I believe that the future will show that the Bank of England and Her Majesty's Government have acted highly responsibly.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. He is right to say that it would not have been possible to warn the ordinary depositors of this matter. Any such warning would have prompted an immediate run on the bank. There would also have been a risk that assets might have been moved out of the United Kingdom and records destroyed. Therefore speed and total secrecy were essential.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I disagree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. They show a disdainful lack of concern for the small businessmen and small depositors who have funds in the bank.
First, I wish to repeat a question asked by my noble friend Lord Peston which the Minister has not answered. It concerns the timetable for helping small depositors who are in immediate difficulties. The
1244
House needs to know how long such people must wait for assistance. Many are suffering considerable difficulties as a result of the freezing of their assets.
Secondly, I return to a question which was asked by a number of noble Lords but was not answered satisfactorily. Can the Minister give the precise date on which the Bank of England first became suspicious about the activities of this bank? It would be helpful if the House could know that. My third question relates to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Peston. Precisely what is the fraud that is involved in this business?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked three questions, but I cannot add a great deal to what I have already said. As regards the timetable for the depositors' scheme, I must point out that under the Banking Act the fund cannot make payments until a formal winding-up order has been made against the institution. The Bank has applied for a winding-up order but there is a statutory minimum of 15 days before there can be a hearing. The Government and the Bank are pressing for an expedited hearing in less than 15 days. Once the order has been made the deposit protection fund will make payments as soon as possible. Secondly, the noble Baroness asked when the Bank became aware of the matter. I understand that the report was received by the Bank last week, but I must check the date and let the noble Baroness know. Thirdly, I cannot give a figure relating to the scale of the fraud.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the question which the noble Baroness asked was rather different, if I may say so on her behalf. She did not ask when the report was received by the Bank of England: she asked when the Bank of England had substantial suspicions of what was going on. All noble Lords would be immensely grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Perhaps the noble Lord will also be good enough to answer two questions which no doubt inadvertently he has not answered as yet. First, will he comment on the statement made by the district attorney for Manhattan to the Senate Committee on Banking that the Bank of England had not co-operated with him in his investigation of BCCI? That is an extremely serious matter as I am sure the Minister will agree.
Secondly, I asked why the Bank of England did not commission independent auditors to review the circumstances of what was happening in BCCI. Apparently the Bank has had its suspicions for years, so why was that not done? It appears to be self-evident that it was desirable so to do.
Thirdly, I understand the position of the Minister and the Bank of England. He says that the Bank had suspicions, but no more, and that in those circumstances it could take no action. What does the Minister believe that the police do when they have suspicions? They investigate, so why was this matter not investigated? I fully understand that the Bank of England does not want any form of independent inquiry and if I were the Bank perhaps I should take the same view. However, in my view Parliament is right to demand just such an inquiry.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that by repeating his questions the noble Lord will receive no better answers than I have already given. I have given all the answers that I can safely give in the hope that they are accurate. Of course I shall read in the Official Report what has been said. I understand that the Manhattan district attorney is now happy with the co-operation that he is receiving from the Bank of England, and therefore I believe that the noble Lord is wrong about that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord is not wrong. The Manhattan district attorney complained about the lack of co-operation from the Bank of England. That is a serious matter. However, I welcome the fact that the Bank of England has now begun to co-operate.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
5.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3
Page 1, line 9, after ("Act)") insert ("subject to subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether Members of the Committee are capable of casting their minds back to what was being said before we were so rudely interrupted. I recall because I made notes of some of the Minister's comments about overspending, poll tax capping and the Government's ideas about their own infallibility. It is proper that we should return to that matter in Amendment No. 3. I shall speak also to the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 10.
The Minister responded to comments made by my noble friend Lady Hollis in respect of an earlier amendment. She was rightly being criticised for complacency about the level of local authority spending in 1991–92 as compared with the previous year. She said that in the previous year councils were spending "above the amount we considered appropriate". She referred to a number of councils, notably Conservative-controlled Elmbridge and Labour-controlled Watford, which were spending significantly above the Government's guidelines and adding to the charges. I hold no particular brief for Elmbridge or Watford. I believe that the people of Elmbridge have good reason to be dissatisfied with the property developments indulged in by their Conservative council. Nevertheless, the point is that the Minister said that it is what "we"—that is, the Government —consider to be appropriate which is their dominating concern. On that basis they are proposing to continue capping under any foreseeable system of local government finance.
Capping is not a matter of opposing the virtuous central government against the wicked local government. In theory capping is supposed to be setting a price for a standard level of service, setting the price of that standard level of service against the resources
1246
available to the local authority, providing the local authority with a fair proportion of government grant to enable it to provide that standard level of service and then pursuing it if it does not achieve a proper level of service at a reasonable price. That is the only way in which anyone can conceivably justify poll tax capping.
It does not happen in that way at all. In fact there is a predetermined cake of government grant which is divided up among local authorities. It is not provided on the basis of a standard level of service because there is no definition of such a service, nor is there a calculation of the cost. The formulae are set out in an extremely vague and often unfair way. Local authorities are expected to adhere to those formulae even when they are not allowed to understand them.
Perhaps I may give a few examples of the ways in which standard spending assessments are set, and are set wrongly, and the way in which we have the absurd differences between one local authority and another. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is not able to be with us this afternoon because on Second Reading she gave a very convincing argument showing how Windsor and Maidenhead are hard done by in terms of the standard spending assessment and government grant compared with neighbouring Slough. There are many more examples of the ways in which standard spending assessments are defective.
The calculations on education are based on student numbers but are adjusted by a factor called AEN. That has three components, two of which come from the 1981 census which is already, as is obvious to Members of the Committee, 10 years old. The effect is that, for example, Wigan is told to spend £1,588 per primary pupil but Surrey—and Surrey is hardly a poorer authority than Wigan—is allowed to spend £1,703 per pupil. At secondary level, Wigan is meant to spend £2,302 per pupil while Berkshire is allowed to spend £2,518 per pupil. Is it seriously suggested that Surrey and Berkshire have more problems of deprivation which need extra funding than Wigan? Even if that were suggested—and the absurdity of that will be obvious to the Committee—why is Manchester supposed to spend £500 per pupil more than neighbouring Bolton?
The data on which the standard spending assessments for education are based are out of date and wrong. Even if the AEN factor, by which the allowance per pupil is calculated, were correct, why suddenly in 1991–92 was that factor reduced from its previous total of 70 per cent. of total funding to 50 per cent? No reason was given for that. There is no reason and there can be no reason because the system is deliberately designed to be a mystery.
Let us look at personal social services—the second most important spending area of local government after education. There is no element in the calculation of the social services standard spending assessment for the number of people receiving the services or the cost of provision. Instead there are 19 indicators of need for personal social services, of which 14 use 1981 census data. There is no reflection in those figures of

1247
the increasing need of local authorities to prepare for the Care in the Community and the Children Act changes.
One of the most aggravating matters for local authorities is the way in which so many items of expenditure are covered by what is called "other services". That covers everything from births to cemeteries and allotments to port health. The most absurd example of all of those is the example of visitor nights; that is, the extra grant and standard spending assessment which is given to those local authorities which are deemed to have a greater burden because of the number of visitors which they have. It is no matter that only a few years ago the Government said that that is quite inappropriate and that local authorities should raise money from the visitors to pay for the services which must be provided for them. When it became convenient to support Westminster City Council by giving it an extra allowance under the standard spending assessment, Westminster received the money. That is how Westminster was able to reduce its poll tax and give that factitious semblance of electoral success to the Government last year. Why is the visitor nights calculation worth £37 per adult to Westminster when it is worth only £10 to Blackpool and nothing at all to Stratford on Avon?
One could go on because there are many more examples. Brent has a higher snow allowance than Cumbria and Camden has a higher snow allowance than Lancashire. There are many other examples that I could quote. The point which must be made is that there is no rational basis for the standard spending assessment and for the capping which is the purpose of this part of the Bill and which is the permanent purpose of government in their relations with local government.
At the very least Amendment No. 10 suggests that an order giving effect to this part of the Bill should not be made before the Secretary of State has published a review of the calculations and operation of the standard spending assessment in local authorities. There is no reason on earth why the Government should not agree to that except that they know that they cannot defend standard spending assessments. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, who knows a great deal about this subject, has moved his amendment extremely ably. He has exposed the problems of calculating standard spending assessments, the amount on which local government grant is based.
However, the amendment would add insult to injury. Many people who were in local government, at a time when it was very much more effective and gave a lot more local satisfaction than it does now, believe that one of the problems which has beset it is the turning of what should be local government spending issues into matters concerning central government politicians and central, national party politics.
Along with the noble Lord, I am one of those who wish to see a clearer, simpler and less opaque
1248
calculation of the basis for grant to local government. However, if local government electors are to be treated year after year to an even greater public wrangle than there is now, based on published criteria and figures in the kind of annual review which the noble Lord suggests the Secretary of State should publish, they will believe even more than they do now that what they vote about is what central government have allocated to their councils and not about the competence of their councillors to make the best of the money which they have.
If that happens—the noble Lord may consider that that is in any case inevitable—it seems to me that there is no justification whatever for the noble Lord's argument for local government raised tax. It would be much better if the system were based on VAT and income tax and the whole palaver of setting and raising tax were thus not necessary. If that were so, the debate would justifiably be a debate only about the amount of money which local authorities are given by central government and what they make of it.
It seems to me that the noble Lord is underlining his own argument for a locally raised tax by moving the amendment. If one feels that local taxation is essential in order to achieve "answerability", then it is a great pity to enhance the argument about central government. It would be much better if local authorities would talk with central government privately to try to achieve a better formula and do the best that they can for their local electors with that money. I am sorry that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment. On the whole I believe it is damaging to his cause.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend for reinforcing those points. It is interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say that a Labour Government would be unconcerned about the aggregate spending of local government and that his party would approve of no limit whatever on spending.
When I worked in local government I remember that the Labour Government had no monopoly on fairness when it came to disputing grant. I remember the painful experience of having to cut £10 million from the budget overnight without notice. At that time we did not believe that the selection of Cambridgeshire for a cut of £10 million was fair compared to many other local authorities.
The noble Lord is selective in his quotations. He refers to AEN—additional educational needs. The greater beneficiaries of AEN are inner London Boroughs and big cities in recognition of their specific problems. With regard to educational SSAs, for Wigan it is £475 per adult; for Surrey it is less, and reasonably so, at £399 per adult; Berkshire is £482 per adult; Lambeth is £725 per adult; Tower Hamlets, whose needs are even greater, is £934 per adult; Manchester £672 per adult, and Westminster, lowest of all, is £368. Those figures should be seen in perspective against what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The amendment tables a formidable catalogue of requirements but it is unnecessary. The Government are satisfied that the standard spending assessments

1249
are fair and reasonable. They are based on extensive analysis and research which has been fully discussed with local authority associations. They are determined according to general principles approved by another place; they take account of an authority's social, democratic and geographic characteristics as well as the functions for which it is responsible.
SSAs are subject to continuous review and refinement. They are calculated each year on the basis of up-to-date information available on a consistent basis for all authorities. We are holding regular meetings with the local authority associations to consider next year's settlement. Individual authorities will have an opportunity to make representations in regard to their SSAs for 1992–93 during the consultation period in the autumn. We have also made clear that we are willing to look at any fresh information which an authority may consider to be relevant.
How do noble Lords opposite suggest that the review would work? How long do they envisage it will take? Are they prepared to countenance delays in the announcement of next year's SSAs? Any delay would be to the disadvantage of all authorities who wish to plan their spending for next year in the light of those assessments. Not only is a wholesale review of the calculations and operation of SSAs completely unnecessary, but the delay that it would cause in the timing of next year's grant settlement would wreak havoc with local authorities' planning timetables.
I say again that we are willing to look at any new evidence which an authority wishes to bring to our attention. We are keeping SSAs under constant review and the proposed amendments are unnecessary and unhelpful. I call upon the Committee to reject them.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to speak in support of the amendment, oddly enough for many of the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She said that she thought voters would take their decisions on the basis of what central government were allocating to local government. Since that is now the largest component of any local authority budget I do not believe that she is far wrong in suggesting that that should be the basis for their assessment.
The noble Baroness said also that local authorities and local authority associations should be talking to the Government. As the Minister indicated, that happens. For those on the receiving end of it—I do not know whether that applies to the Minister—I suspect that it happens with depressing and repetitive regularity, with members of local authorities of all political persuasions joining together in delegations both on behalf of their authorities and as members of the local authority associations to visit Marsham Street, often with a list of questions not asking that different decisions be made but to establish precisely why the assessment for their authority has been put forward.
It is an indictment of the Government that such an amendment needs to be tabled. The SSAs are so complex—perhaps not as complex as the grant related assessments—that they are part of the reason that local government finance is held in such disrepute
1250
both by the man in the street and, perhaps even more than councillors, by local authority officers who are trying to operate the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the formulae are vague. I disagree a little. They are so complex that, to use the term of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, they are almost completely opaque to those trying to apply them. There is a widely held view among councillors that the computers at Marsham Street are run until the right answer comes out at the other end. That may not be the case, but it is indicative of the state that the system is in. We should all be talking from all sides that are concerned with the matter. It is a great shame that a request for consultation has to be put forward in a Bill such as this. It should not need to be requested in that way.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. The record of my department concerning discussions both with the local authority associations and, indeed, individual authorities, and very often with individual councillors, is a very good one and long may it remain so. We operate an open door policy and I hope that that, too, will continue.
I pose a question to the noble Baroness. If the Government are not to recognise the special needs of an authority—whether deprivation, one-parent families, ethnic minorities or any specific factor that makes their needs special as one authority compared with another—how does the noble Baroness suggest grant should be distributed between authorities? The alternative is a very rough justice indeed.
Baroness Hamwee: It is not for a moment suggested that the needs for different areas are not taken fully into account. I have not discussed the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I read the large gaps between the lines. The amendment was tabled because local authorities are not satisfied with the way that the system works. It is not a question of not recognising need. Need and the provision of services is what the local authorities are all about.
Baroness Blatch: The reason I posed the question is that the noble Baroness criticised the system and said that there were too many exemplifications. I am saying that if the exemplifications are reduced then the justice becomes rougher. I ask how the noble Baroness, by simplifying the system, can ensure that all authorities are being dealt with fairly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that the Minister is doing justice to the argument. She must know that that is the case. Nobody is complaining about the number of exemplifications. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is not making that complaint. She is saying that the system is too complex. She is not saying that the examples given to explain it are too common.
That is not the issue before the Committee. The issue before the Committee is that it has been demonstrably shown that the standard spending assessment does not live up to its own standards. That is the real point. If there were a real standard spending assessment it would be based on an assessment of the standard cost of running an acceptable service. The

1251
needs element would be taken into account and there would be an allowance for specific difficulties to affect the standard spending assessment in certain parts of the country. That is not what happens. An arbitrary amount of money is allocated. Various calculations, many of them based on out-of-date information and partial or inadequate information, are used to make the final calculations.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, started very well. She contrasted the days when, as she described it, local government was more effective. That was confirmed by the Minister when she spoke about the difficulty in Cambridgeshire when the local authority had to cut £10 million from its budget. Both noble Baronesses and I were active in local government at a time when one was allowed to know what one could spend and what one's grant was to be before the year started. As a final twist in the tale of central government control of local authorities the Government introduced a system whereby one is not told until after the year has started, after the poll tax level has been set, that one cannot spend that kind of money. That has been an additional burden on local authorities and has increased the difficulties of local authorities both in setting realistic budgets and in collecting the money due to them. The evidence for that is only too plain in the collection levels for the poll tax.
After a very good start the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, came to a rather perverse conclusion. She believes that we should be taking away from local authorities altogether the power to decide what their budgets should be. I did not notice the Minister agreeing to that. However, progressively over the years the Government have gone as far as they dare in that direction. They have gone progressively in the direction of reducing local authority accountability and increasing central government control.
This is a modest amendment which says that the Government' should look at their own calculations and make them public before extending capping. That does not seem to be an unreasonable or damaging suggestion to make in the limited context of the Bill. I believe that the Committee should take a decision.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Desai, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ennals, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grey, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hampton, L.

David, B.

Hamwee, B.

1252

Hanworth, V.

Northfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Phillips, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jay, L.

Richard, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Listowel, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

White, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Nicol, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Huntly, M.

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ingrow, L.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Joseph, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Knollys, V.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Byron, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cawley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cox, B.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dundonald, E.

Pennock, L.

Eccles, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elton, L.

Quinton, L.

Erne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Flather, B.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hastings, L.

Havers, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trefgarne, L.

1253

Trenchard, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Waddington, L.

Young, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved].
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("shall") to end of line and insert:
("have no effect in respect of any authority to which it would otherwise be applicable where the amount calculated by it in relation to the year concerned under section 95(4) of that Act or the aggregate amount of precepts issued by it for the year (as the case may be) is greater than the total amount in respect of that authority calculable from its Standard Spending Assessment.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment continues and develops issues raised by Amendment No. 1 as regards capping and Amendment No. 3 in relation to standard spending assessments, which my noble friend Lord McIntosh dealt with. Amendment No. 5 will ensure that local authorities which spend up to or at their SSAs, and which are also below the figure of £15 million, will not be capped. The issue arises because in another place the Minister, Mr. Portillo, said that they would not be, but subsequently another junior Minister said only that such capping was "unlikely". Therefore this amendment seeks clarification from the Minister on that point.
The amendment raises the issue of capping. It may be helpful if I quote the chairman of the Association of District Councils which, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, reminded us, is currently Conservative controlled. At the local government conference in Brighton just a few days ago, Mr. Thomason said:
"The ADC is particularly concerned about capping proposals as a principle but also as to their proposed extension to smaller authorities. It is not that we want to justify high spending, but because capping based on faulty standard spending assessments does not adequately reflect spending needs and presents particular distortions for small councils".
One recalls the string of commitments we have heard. In the early 1980s we were told by the Government that capping would not be introduced. In 1985 we were told that it would only be a power of last resort. In 1988 we were told that it would be only a reserve power. The then Minister, Mr. Howard, said:
"The people of an area will be able to vote for a relatively high speeding authority if they so choose".
However, by 1990 that right to be able to vote for a relatively high spending authority has become a matter of selective action capping, but not as a matter of course. What is now being proposed is universal capping: every authority, any circumstance, every budget, all to be scrutinised by Whitehall. That is what it means. No longer are government seeking to restrain only the high spenders, only the large authorities, or—spare the thought—only the Labour authorities. As was said in another place, what this means is a comprehensive vote of no confidence—no, not a vote, the Government did not win that at the
1254
local elections—a comprehensive statement of no confidence by central government in local government.
In this amendment we are not talking about saving vast sums of money for the nation, the economy and the taxpayer. If all 87 district councils with budgets under £15 million which were eligible for capping were to be capped, that would save us £102 million; or less than one-quarter of the budget of an average county council such as Norfolk. If the de minimis rule applies, whereby the first £26 per head is exempt, then the total saved represents barely 10 per cent. of Norfolk County Council's budget. All this, for that.
The Minister made a sturdy defence earlier of standard spending assessments when she told my noble friend that they were fair and reasonable. I recall that not so very long ago a previous Minister, occupying the present Minister's position, defended grant related expenditure assessments in much the same way—that they too were "fair and reasonable". Not, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, that we have any great faith in SSAs, but the switch from the 63 variables of GREA to the 13 variables of SSA has produced wild swings of losers and gainers. Some district councils have gained 25 per cent. in the standard spending assessment; my own district council has lost 6 per cent. Both assessments were thought to indicate what an average local authority needed to spend to produce an average level of services. However, GREAs and SSAs could not both have been right. Both were defended in exactly the same terms that the Minister has employed this evening.
Standard spending assessments are notoriously crude—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Of its 13 variables—applicable, for example, to education and social services—only one, the "other services" variable, applies to district councils. On that one variable—in turn, distributed basically on a population base—grant and its fulcrum point of capping applies. Moreover, those population figures are, for the most part, 10 years out of date. The figures ignore factors like the regional role of an authority, its historic buildings and the like. Yet, however crude, arbitrary and opaque those standard spending assessments are, as Members of the Committee have previously said, they represent at the moment the only benchmark we have of what the Government say is appropriate for a local authority to spend. Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that what government say local authorities should spend to provide an average level of services is what they can spend to provide such services. If local authorities do spend to the limit of their SSAs then whatever the previous level of percentage growth on their previous budget, those local authorities should not be vulnerable to capping while under the £15 million figure. That is important precisely because small district councils, with budgets of perhaps £4 million, £5 million or £6 million, are especially vulnerable to the financial impact of quite modest one-off items of expenditure: car parking,

1255
street paving, several extra staff for implementing the Environmental Protection Act imposed on us, with our approval, by government.
We had similar problems a few years ago when the Government ran simultaneously both GREAs and targets. As the Minister will no doubt recall, this produced chaos and confusion all round. This amendment seeks to ensure that we do not march backwards into the same morass. What the amendment seeks from the Minister is clarification and commitment: clarification of the somewhat different statements made in another place and commitment that local authorities spending up to and at their SSAs—not over, but under £15 million —will not be capped. I hope the Minister will be able, unambiguously, to give us that commitment. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness ranged far and wide from the amendment in her presentation of it. This amendment seeks to maintain, as the noble Baroness said, exemption from capping of authorities in England and Wales, setting budgets below £15 million, for those authorities which set their budgets below standard spending assessment. The proposition is unnecessary. We have made clear the position of an authority which sets a budget at or below its standard spending assessment. During the passage of this Bill in another place my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities stated:
"I have no intention of capping authorities below the SSA". —[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/91; col. 801.]
One cannot be clearer than that. Authorities which budget sensibly have nothing to fear from the extension of our capping powers. Authorities which budget at or below SSA are acting in a prudent and sensible manner. They are giving their charge payers a fair deal. We have no need to take action against such authorities. It is against the other kind of authority —those which spend above SSA—from which the hapless charge payer requires protection. We are determined, through the provisions of this Bill, to provide that protection in all cases. I call upon the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to accept that statement by the Minister, which gives us the assurance we seek. Mr. Portillo's statement, which the Minister quoted, was subsequently qualified by Mr. Key, another junior Minister in the DoE, and therefore it is not unreasonable for us to assume that he was modifying Mr. Portillo's statement that,
"it is unlikely that a sensible and prudent local authority which is not spending above its SSA will be caught by the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/91; col. 820.]
Can we therefore assume that that should now read that a sensible and prudent authority not spending above its SSA will never be caught by the Bill and that Mr. Key's statement has been modified, in turn, by what the Minister said tonight?
Baroness Blatch: I stand entirely by what I said in my reply to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Then I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("after the making of an order under subsection (3A) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 12, Amendment No. 12 being the substantive amendment. This, again, is a request for clarification because in another place Mr. Portillo responded to the Opposition by giving what he claimed to be helpful assurances about the inclusion or otherwise of European Community money in acceptable expenditure. That is what these three amendments are about. What we are trying to do in this amendment is to make sure that when expenditure for capping purposes is determined expenditure associated with a European Commission funded project will not be taken into account. Mr. Portillo said:
"Where a local authority spends some money and subsequently gets a grant from the EC, in the year that it spends the money it must find it from the collection fund. In the year after it will get the money from the EC. However, if, in year one, when the local authority spends that money, it already knows that it is going to get a grant from the EC, it can take that into account in the year that it spends the money because the budget is assessed on an accrual basis".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/91; cols. 840–1.
That is helpful for revenue projects, but we should like the Government to go a little further and make clear the position on capital.
As I understand it, when we are talking about capital budgets, there cannot be any supplementary credit approvals until the year after the budget has been expended. We have to ask whether it is possible for a local authority which has capital funding from the European Community to use the basic credit approvals as a basis for borrowing. I suspect that the Minister's answer will be, as Mr. Portillo intended to be, helpful, but it would be desirable to have the position set out entirely clearly. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments are designed to delay the operation of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill. Their effect would be to delay abolition of the exemption of authorities setting budgets of less than £15 million from the capping regime—and hence the protection that this provision would offer charge payers—until an order bringing the provisions into effect has been made by the Secretary of State. In turn this order itself could not be made until the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament a statement that the calculation made under Section 95(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for authorities setting budgets of less than £15 million did not include any expenditure which had been undertaken in the expectation that that sum would in future be covered by a grant from the European Community.
This is an unnecessary series of amendments. They seek to top slice the budgets of some authorities so that additional expenditure over and above the limits implied by our capping criteria would be permissible. This goes quite against the general policy that capping

1257
bites on the aggregate demand made by an authority on the collection fund. No distinction is drawn between the component parts of that budget. However, apart from that fundamental point, there are other reasons why the amendments are misguided.
Where expenditure is funded by EC grants, this expenditure, as is the case with any expenditure financed by specific grants, does not lead to an increase in an authority's budget on which the capping criteria bite. The noble Lord made that point himself. The amendment refers specifically to the situation where expenditure is incurred in the expectation that there will be EC funding. The arrangements to apply in such a case were described by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities during consideration of the Bill in another place. He made clear that where a local authority spends money in one financial year in the knowledge that it will be reimbursed for that expenditure in the subsequent year—in this case through an EC grant—it can take this expected income into account in the year in which it incurs the expenditure. That is standard accruals accounting practice. The authority therefore has no need to increase its budget on which capping bites to take account of such expenditure. Accordingly there is no reason why authorities in receipt of EC funding have any need for the kind of concession which the noble Lord opposite is seeking to give them, even if such a concession were right in principle, which I believe not to be the case.
These amendments seek to delay the operation of the provision of Clause I of the Bill for wholly spurious reasons. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned that basic credit approvals could be used to cover any capital borrowing. My understanding is that capital has no direct implications for capping, which bites on revenue. We are talking about revenue servicing borrowing, including where the authority chooses revenue contribution to capital. In other words, it is the revenue contribution to capital spending that would be caught, if necessary, by capping; but where it can be covered by expected income from the EC the effects on the local authority's budget would be neutral.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that reply. These are arcane matters. The Minister said that there will be no direct effect in terms of capping. I wonder why she used the word "direct". We need to know without ambiguity what powers local authorities have to borrow to finance expenditure which is going to be funded as a capital project by a European Community grant. Do authorities have the power to borrow for that purpose even when it is a capital grant rather than a revenue grant?
Baroness Blatch: We are talking about capping biting on the revenue costs of a local authority. Where that revenue is met by EC grant, clearly the effect on a local authority's budget is neutral. Where a local authority contribution matches an EC grant—in other words, where the local authority itself is providing money as well as the European Community—the
1258
extent to which the local authority is providing revenue would form part of its normal budget and would be subject to capping if over the limit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry but I must press the Minister. Can we have a firm assurance that a local authority in that position will have approval for the borrowing that will be necessary? It is well understood that the European Community announces grants well in advance of making the payment. We want to know whether the local authority will need to get borrowing approval in advance of the grant. The capping procedure is very rigid indeed. There are no disregards from the capping procedure. For example, Sheffield is faced with enormous extra expenditure arising from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster, but no allowance is made as to whether the necessary expenditure for emergencies will be taken into account in deciding whether the council should be capped.
Baroness Blatch: European Community funding for projects in the United Kingdom is matched by government through extra credit approvals. Those are allocated to local authorities. What I cannot do is give a guarantee that in every single case the precise credit approval will match the local authority spending. I say that for two reasons. One concerns the way in which it will impact on each local authority. I cannot be precise about whether the actual project is fully funded by the EC, is partially funded by the EC or whether the local authority is matching EC funds. With regard to where the revenue costs of borrowing are met by extra credit approvals and by EC funding, the effect on the local authority budget will be neutral. But where a local authority is spending more than what is covered by the EC it will form part of its normal budgeting process and therefore will be aggregated and would be subject to capping.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I feared that that would be the answer. That means that local authorities which succeed in gaining European Community funding on a basis which involves their contributing to it themselves may find themselves penalised for doing something which is approved of by the European Commission and is approved of to the extent of getting funding from Europe. However, because of the capping provisions, they may be unable to take it up because they may be unable to get authority from Marsham Street in order to expend their part of it. That seems paradoxical. It seems to me that central government in Britain are putting themselves quite unnecessarily above the judgment of the European Commission and indeed are running a severe risk that local authorities may lose the opportunity to bid for European Community grants.
This is an extremely complex matter. We shall have to read the reply given by the Minister and then consider whether we need to return to it at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 2 [Amendment of grounds for charge capping in Scotland.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State shall not treat the total estimated expenses of an authority as excessive when the budget set by the authority results in an increase in expenditure lower than the rate of inflation prevailing at the date on which the budget is set".).
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the three which follow it on the Marshalled List, although they have not been grouped together, are really concerned with the results of what is believed by many, in particular the Law Society of Scotland, to be a change in the attitude of the Government to Scottish rates and poll tax. The main concern is the dropping of the test of "excessive and unreasonable" expenditure. The test is to be replaced by a situation where the Secretary of State will consider whether an authority's planned expenditure is "excessive" or whether there is an excessive increase in planned expenditure compared with the previous year.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland is following the English rule and other assessments, as he apparently is in this part of the Bill—and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is here to explain the situation to me—then, in addition to measuring proposed increases in budget percentages from year to year, he will also look at the Government's expenditure target, which for Scotland is called "the grant-aided expenditure assessment". In England, the near equivalent is the standard spending assessment.
The grant-aided expenditure assessments in Scotland were primarily developed for the purpose of distributing grant on a more fair and equitable basis. It has never been recognised by authorities in Scotland, nor by organisations like CoSLA, as being a suitable mechanism for identifying the absolute need for an authority to spend. Further, that point has repeatedly been acknowledged in circulars from the Scottish Office. By just applying the English rules to the budgets set by local authorities this year and using grant-aided expenditure assessment as part of the Government's control mechanism, 31 local authorities in Scotland would have been capped.
Perhaps I may give the Committee an example to show just how ludicrous that arrangement would have been. Stirling District Council would have been capped, although it had no increase in the poll tax it charged this year compared to last year. Moreover, Shetland Islands Council would have been capped despite the fact that it presently has a poll tax of only 93 pence per annum. I am sure that the Minister is aware of how ludicrous is the argument. I hope that he will be able to reassure us by way of the Government's response. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has briefly traversed the ground in relation to those authorities in Scotland which have had budgets in excess of their grant-aided expenditure. With respect, I should tell the noble Lord that I am
1260
not sure that there is a great deal to be gained by going over decisions which the Secretary of State took in Scotland on the basis of a test which relates not only to excessive but also to unreasonable expenditure. The noble Lord is obviously aware of the change which is proposed for Scotland.
Perhaps I may address my remarks specifically to the effect of the amendment before the Committee. Its effect would be to require the Secretary of State to use the rate of inflation at the time the local authority's budget was set as the yardstick by which to measure "excessive" expenditure. Quite apart from the fact that this would take no account of any authority which was already budgeting well in excess of its grant-aided expenditure figure, this amendment does not provide for the fact that—as in the current year—inflation could fall sharply between the time budgets were set and the start of the year in question. I believe that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is not unknown in Scotland for the local authority to fix its budget for the coming year before one calendar year has expired; indeed, sometimes it is done in December or certainly before the end of January.
The Secretary of State and all taxpayers have the right to expect authorities to take into account when they set their budgets forecasts of a fall in inflation for the year ahead. On that basis, I must tell the noble Lord that his amendment seems to be unacceptable. With that brief explanation of what the amendment before us entails, I invite the Committee to reject it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he would reconsider the matter if the amendment were to be reworded in order to provide that "attention" would be paid to the rate of inflation, or that "allowance" would be made for it, so that if it was negative inflation the Secretary of State would legitimately, as per the present wording, be entitled to take a lower figure but if it was above such a figure he would also be entitled to make allowances for that fact?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I know that the noble Lord will appreciate that one of the changes which is allowed for and set out in this clause for Scotland, which I understand applies this side of the Border as matters stand, is that the Secretary of State will have regard to principles as he may determine in respect of that year. It may be that he will set out his capping criterion in advance. The noble Lord puts forward the example of 31 councils which would have been caught by the English criteria. But if, in the future, criteria are to he established for Scotland, the authorities concerned would know in advance what was the situation. Therefore, in those circumstances, they would be in a position to budget sensibly.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It is one that will need to be studied closely and one upon which we shall take advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert:
("(d) in Schedule 3 to the 1987 Act in paragraph 2 for the words "without having afforded the local authority to which the report relates an opportunity of making representations" there shall be substituted the words "without a meeting between himself and representatives of the local authority to which the report relates being held to discuss";
(e) in Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act at the end of paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the words "Such a report shall not be laid before Parliament until the Secretary of State and the local authority to whom the report relates have been questioned in public by the Select Committee for Scottish Affairs on the contents of the report." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also refers to the 31 local authorities. I am sure the Minister knows the ones to which I am referring, as they have been well publicised. It deals with the unlimited powers being given to the Secretary of State by means of the Bill. It really points to a situation where local government in its entirety is being subjected to capping, and not just those authorities whose expenditure was considered in the past to be both unreasonable and excessive.
That point really leads on to the other amendments. It would have been better had all these amendments been grouped together, but I only realised today that this had not been done. At present, it seems that the Secretary of State has almost total power. In addition to the scrutiny of Scottish capping and the proposal for representations to be made, we are suggesting that there should also be a meeting between representatives and the Secretary of State. In other words, in addition to representations being made, we believe that there should be a sort of statutory meeting. Further—I accept the fact that this is perhaps too openly democratic for the Secretary of State—prior to a report being laid before Parliament, we suggest that there should be a second requirement that the report itself should be questioned in public by the Select Committee for Scottish Affairs.
Both this amendment and Amendment No. 13 were tabled in an attempt to heighten awareness of the very wide-ranging powers which the Secretary of State will have if the Bill is passed in its present form. The Bill would give him quite unprecedented powers. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord clearly spelt out, the amendment would have the effect of altering and prolonging the procedures followed where the Secretary of State undertakes capping action. It would, first, place a requirement upon him to hold a meeting with representatives of any local authority against which capping action had been taken before he could make and lay a report before this place proposing a reduction in the personal community charge.
Such a requirement is superfluous. The present legislation, through paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Etc. Act 1987, ensures that authorities have the right to make representations, as the noble Lord is aware. In practice, they are invited to make written representations, and if they request a meeting further to discuss those representations, the Secretary of State would
1262
almost certainly agree to that. Indeed on every occasion where a local authority in Scotland has requested a meeting, that request has been agreed to.
The terms of the amendment are also impractical. No provision is made for a local authority to send in written representations, merely that a meeting should be held. That would deprive an authority of the opportunity to set out its arguments in greater detail than is possible at a meeting. Furthermore, the amendment would require a local authority to have a meeting with the Secretary of State even if it did not think that that was essential.
The second part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State, and any authority against which capping action was being taken, to appear before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I suspect a note of mischief in the amendment. The noble Lord is very much aware that there has been no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs since 1987, for reasons which are also well known. I hope that there will be a change which will allow for the re-establishment of the Select Committee at some time in the future, but one cannot envisage that happening immediately.
The effect of the amendment would therefore be to wreck the clause, since under its terms no report proposing a reduction in an authority's community charge could ever be laid. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention, but I have to advise him that that is the practical effect of the proposal contained in the second part of the amendment. Existing procedures allow local authorities adequate opportunity to make representations, and with that explanation of the two parts of the amendment, I urge the Committee to reject it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I again thank the Minister for his reply. When we consider a Bill in this place, everyone tells us that we are planning for the future. I believe that we are only 21 points ahead in Scotland at the moment. We shall probably have a Select Committee after the next election, because something will need to be done about it.
However accommodating the Secretary of State is, and there have been some accommodating ones, there is always the feeling that the local authority and the public, in a wider sense, are never brought into the discussion. That is one of the reasons why we felt a Select Committee should examine the matter. I said that the proposal was perhaps over-democratic, but we should be able to find a mechanism that does not delay the procedure too much. I hope that we shall see the day when such matters are discussed and the more interesting parts televised so that the population of Scotland will realise what local authority expenditure is all about. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert:

1263
("(4) The Secretary of State shall within twelve months of the coming into effect of this section make an order giving effect to the provisions of section (Application of Scottish criteria) below.").
The noble Lord said: The feeling is that the Scottish criteria are being undermined by the Bill. The Minister may already have been given some information by the Law Society of Scotland which, among others, is worried about the proposal. We are anxious that within 12 months of the section coming into effect the Secretary of State should make an order giving effect to the provisions of a section dealing with the application of the Scottish criteria.
We are worried that none of the powers in the Bill is effected by affirmative resolution. All are subject to negative resolution which affords little opportunity for discussion in either place. The basis of the objection is that the word "unreasonable" has been omitted. That affects the way we have been working in Scotland. In dealing with the other amendments, there was a feeling that where expenditure was obviously necessary the local authority could take the Government to court. To include only "unnecessary" and not to allow reasonableness to be discussed falls short of what we consider obvious justice in the Scottish sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It is interesting to note that the amendment would apply solely to charging authorities. Does the noble Lord have a particular reason for exempting precepting authorities from the concession? Will not preceptors feel hard done by if they do not receive a similar relaxation in the rigour of the capping regime which will be enjoyed by their charging authority counterparts?
The amendment runs totally counter to the measures to extend our capping powers which we are convinced are necessary if we are to be able to protect all charge payers from the consequences of excessive expenditure. The success of the capping regime in 1991–92 in limiting local authority budgeted spending to only about 0.5 per cent. above the amount provided for in the settlement is a well-established fact. The power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to cap authorities indulging in excessive increases in expenditure was an integral part of that regime and will remain so. Indeed, it is precisely because the powers previously available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are too limited that we seek the powers contained in Clause 2.
The Opposition are happy to see a much weaker form of capping introduced in England and Wales, the effect of which would be to prevent my right honourable friend taking the kind of robust action which has saved many charge payers from facing excessive bills this year. The amendment would remove one limb of the capping criteria under which we currently operate—the power to cap excessive year-on-year increases in budget—and would seriously damage the effectiveness of the second, the power to cap budgets which are, in my right honourable friend's view, excessive in absolute terms. The combined effect would be significantly to reduce
1264
the protection that we are able to offer to charge payers. I call upon the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I accept the flaw in the amendment that the precepting authority would be the only authority that could appeal to the Secretary of State. The authorities precepted upon would be unable to do so. If I include them in an amendment on Report, perhaps the Minister will consider the proposal.
The word "unreasonable" has been used in Scottish legislation. It is well-established. The courts are well able to decide what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The spirit of the amendment is not as bad as the Minister made out. It is one with which we have worked for some time. However, I realise that the amendment is flawed, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Valuation of domestic properties]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 35, after ("required") insert ("(a)".
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 17 and speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 39. These amendments seek a clear statement by the Government that local authorities are competent to start preparations for the new tax so that it may be introduced as smoothly as possible. We fear that without such an acceptance on the face of the Bill, spending for these purposes could be ultra vires. It seems clear that providing information for valuation seems to be covered by law but more general preparation for the bill may not be. The reason for this is that, if Members of the Committee will cast their minds back to the preparations for the poll tax, local authorities had two years in which to gear up. However, when the tax was introduced we found that canvass forms were inaccurate; computers broke down or refused to talk to each other; software did not arrive in time or did not work; laser printers could not read the forms; packaging machinery did not operate. Some lucky residents ended up receiving six poll tax demands, not all with an identical sum on them, and others received none at all. As everyone queried everything, the phone system and advice surgeries broke down as well. That is before we get on to rebates, benefits and the need for high security windows to protect the staff.
In the name of sanity, we want time to avoid all that. I appreciate that the DoE is involved in consultation, but if there is to be any hope of local government meeting the April 1993 deadline—which I have to say I somewhat doubt —we must start preparations now. We must not delay them until after the passing of the major Act, perhaps in the autumn. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As far as valuation is concerned Clause 4 of the Bill places a duty on authorities to supply any information requested in a notice served on them by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If

1265
the Bill now before this Committee is enacted, authorities will be placed under a duty to provide that information. There will, therefore, be no doubt about their powers in that respect.
I now turn to the more general preparations for the introduction of the council tax. As prudent managers, local authorities will of course look ahead. There is nothing unusual in the process of looking at statutory functions and assessing possible developments in the future. If I were still in local government today I too should be looking at how my authority should prepare for the introduction of the council tax. I add that it is clear from the many detailed responses we have received on our council tax proposals that many authorities are doing just that.
We have announced our intention to legislate next Session to introduce the council tax in April 1993. It is that legislation which will give local authorities the necessary powers generally to prepare for and to implement the council tax. If it is enacted according to our plans local authorities will have all the necessary powers early in the 1992–93 financial year. It is our view I hat in such circumstances it is open to authorities to make a contingency allowance when prepaying their 1992–93 budgets to cover the expenditure they estimate they will incur in 1992–93 in exercising those powers.
We have asked local authorities to let us know of any specific difficulties they foresee with such arrangements. We have not yet received anything from them, but if we do we shall of course consider carefully what they have to say. But whatever the authorities might tell us about preparing generally for the council tax, these are not matters for this Bill. This Bill is about the valuation of domestic property. General preparations for a new form of local taxation is an entirely different matter. It is a matter for future legislation. I believe it would be wrong in principle for us to do more than to deal with valuation. I call on the Committee to reject the amendments. Finally, I must advise the Committee that if these amendments are accepted, they would be a matter of privilege in another place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for her reply, which we shall study carefully. I am happy to have her reassurance that the issue of valuation seems to be well covered by law.
I turn to the point about general preparation. As I understand it, subsections (2) and (5) of Section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 both seem to suggest that a local authority may be vulnerable under the provisions on maladministration ultra vires on any expenditure in advance of the major Act being passed.
The Minister made it clear that the local authority would have powers to include appropriate expenditure in its budget for the coming year once the Bill had passed (should it do so, given other contingencies). In practice that means that staff cannot be appointed and expenditure cannot be incurred for software, except for ordering and the like, until the financial year of April 1992, to take effect for the next year, 1993.
I understand that the noble Baroness is involved in consultations, and I hope that there is good will on the
1266
issue. Nevertheless, I repeat to her that, as concerns the ability to incur expenditure in April 1992, 12 months will not be adequate if the Minister seeks to meet the timetable that the Government themselves have laid down for the introduction of the provisions of the Bill in 1993. All our experience on the poll tax suggests that it took us two years and after that a further 18 months for the legislation to begin to run even faintly smoothly.
If the Minister seeks to tell us of the preparation time, she will find that the council tax may, I fear, have an even bumpier initial ride, should it come to pass, than the poll tax. I believe that between now and Report stage the Minister will have received the responses to the consultation document. I very much hope that we may then pursue the matter further with good will. I am sure that there is no real dispute between us, but as the provisions stand I fear that the Minister may be acting in a rather shortsighted way and that would be regrettable. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("a") and insert ("an individual").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 28. I hope that the Minister will not say about all amendments to Clause 3(1) that they will be subject to privilege if they are accepted. It seems to us that there is a conflict between subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 3 about the basis of the valuation which is prepared for in the Bill and which is planned for the new council tax.
Clause 3(1) states:
"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums … to enable a valuation to be carried out, in accordance with the following provisions of this Act, of all domestic properties in Great Britain".
Then we turn to subjection (3), which states:
"The valuation shall be carried out … differentiated according to prescribed bands of values".
Those words seem to us to be deliberately opaque. They have been explained by Ministers in another place on a number of different occasions but the explanations do not entirely add up. It is still not clear whether the intention is, as in Clause 3(1), that the valuation should be of all domestic properties or whether, as in Clause 3(3), there should only be valuation,
"differentiated according to prescribed bands of values".
Our position must be made clear. We do not believe that justice will either be done or be seen to be done if the valuation is only to be on a grouped basis for bands of value. It will not be just if there is to be no individual valuation of individual properties and if the owners or occupiers of those properties are not to know what the valuation is but will simply have to be content with knowing into what band they fall.
Ministers made great play in another place of the valuer standing at the end of a street looking down it and saying, "Ah, these houses are all the same. We shall put them all in the same band". I do not believe that people in any given street ever feel that all their properties are of the same value; nor do purchasers believe that they are the same.
All kinds of different considerations apply—for example, the convenience that the position of the house in the street offers. Considerations such as the availability of car parking come into play, or physical factors such as extensions which have been added to a house. The values of houses differ according to what people have done with their houses. Therefore people are right to want individual valuations. They are right to expect that a valuation for the purpose of taxation which will remain in force for a long time will be based on a proper valuation of an individual property. They are right to be worried at the thought of a valuer standing at the end of a road and valuing properties in that road by casting an eye down it. If that is the case, I do not think people will consider they have been dealt with fairly.
Similarly if people do not know what the valuation of their property will be, how will they know whether or not to appeal against the assessment? That is the real problem. Some Ministers in another place seem to think that if people only know which band they are in, there will be fewer appeals. I suggest that the opposite will be the case. I suggest that because there are so few bands and because the difference between bands is so significant, people who do not know what their individual valuation is and how far away they are from the edge of a band will appeal to gain a significant advantage from being put into a lower band. I suspect that if this scheme goes forward, there will be many more appeals and litigation, and much more trouble for the valuation profession than would be the case if we had a system that was from the outset self-evidently fair and just.
We appeal to the Government to save themselves from what seem to us to be the inevitable consequences of a badly thought out attempt which seeks in effect to protect the interests of Tory voters who live in more expensive properties. That is why the system has been set up in this form but it will rebound on the Government in a similar way to the poll tax although perhaps not with the same ferocity. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments seek to reintroduce an individual valuation of each domestic property. The result would, I believe, be a step backwards. It would be expensive and unfair and would delay the introduction of the council tax. It would be expensive because it would require the precise valuation of each house, each flat and each dwelling in Great Britain. On the basis of the proposals suggested by the Opposition, that valuation would be based on four factors: market values, rental values, building costs and repair and maintenance costs. The cost of a professional assessment of each of these factors would be astronomical, and there would be a need for frequent revaluations if individual values were to be kept accurate. This would mean yet more astronomical costs.
We must contrast that with our proposals, which avoid the need for precise valuation. These proposals have been widely welcomed. We provisionally
1268
estimate that the costs of allocating properties to bands will be about £250 million or about £11 for each property. This is not a small sum of money, but it is only a small fraction of the sum that would be required if there were to be an individual valuation carried out in the manner underlying these amendments.
The noble Lord's amendments concern the complex system preferred by the Opposition. In speaking to this amendment it was clear that the noble Lord had overlooked the fact that the bands are sufficiently wide to allow for general banding and that the tax rate between bands is not that great. I believe the noble Lord said the opposite. We believe these amendments seek a reintroduction of an expensive and unfair system. I call on the Committee to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is not the only amendment that we have tabled to this clause. Later amendments, which have to be discussed separately for the sake of clarity, make it clear that we believe it is possible to return to the 1973 rates in the short term for all existing properties. The valuation which is required on an individual basis will only be required for new properties. Our Amendment No. 20 concerns that point. Therefore the argument that our provision is not feasible on financial grounds does not stand up.
It is true that the gap between different bands is not as great as it should be. It is also true that the tax is a flatter tax than a property tax should be. It does not reflect real differences in property values, just as property values themselves do not reflect ability to pay. That is why—as we shall indicate in later amendments—it is necessary to temper a purely property tax with ability to pay as indicated by income. For all those reasons the proposed council tax, which we shall debate in full in the autumn, is far less just than the system of local government finance which we wish to put in its place.
Lord Renton: Has the noble Lord calculated what it would cost to go back to the 1973 valuation? I am sure he would find it was a very considerable amount to start afresh on that. Bearing in mind that in all such matters of public expenditure we have to compare cost with benefit, does the noble Lord really consider that the large cost of his proposal would produce a benefit that is worthwhile?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To go back to the 1973 valuation for those properties which have not been altered would not cost anything at all because the valuations already exist. However, I believe the point the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes to make is that our proposals require a new and, I accept, complex valuation, over a longer term. The Minister mentioned the figure of £250 million as the cost of even this curtailed government valuation system. I ask Members of the Committee opposite to consider that figure in the light of the figure of £800 million given by the Audit Commission as the cost of a single year's delay in the introduction of a new and effective system of local government finance.
Lord Renton: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord a s he is always so well informed on these matters. But is he really saying that we could base this new valuation—I believe we have had five quotations—on 1973 values without any regard to the change in the value money or to the work that may have been done on a particular street of council houses? There are bound to be changes that should be taken into consideration and the cost of the detailed estimation of those changes would be very considerable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord made two points. One concerned the change in the value of money. I am sure that with his knowledge of local government affairs the noble Lord will agree that that matter will be dealt with automatically by the difference between rateable value and rate poundage. In other words, where values are out-of-date and have not reflected changes in the value of money, the change in the value of money is reflected in the rate poundage which is levied. That has been a feature of the rating system for many years under all governments.
The noble Lord made a second point about those properties which have undergone significant alterations s. nee 1973. That is a valid point. We accept that there will have to be some interim valuations for new properties or for properties which have undergone significant alterations in order to establish as fair a system as possible even in the short term. But all those factors pale into insignificance beside the £800 million a year which has been identified by the Audit Commission as the cost that would result from delaying the introduction of an acceptable and accepted system of local government finance. Members of the Committee opposite who were responsible for the introduction of the poll tax and the chaos that it has caused, and for the huge losses to the public purse that have resulted from that tax—quite apart from the social unrest that it has stirred up—should be more aware than they appear to be of the figures that I have mentioned.
We say that it is possible to make an immediate move away from the poll tax and that it is not necessary to keep the poll tax for two years, as the Government propose. It is possible to undo the most damaging effects of the poll tax fairly rapidly and at the same time give adequate attention to producing a scheme of local government finance which will work and which will be acceptable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has spoken about the cost of delay. Is he really saying that it would be just to resurrect valuations which were so different from one another and from the previous valuations? The most important point which my noble friend mentioned was the enormous rise in the value of some houses in comparison with others whose value has stayed still or hardly risen at all. That is where the injustice lies and that was the injustice which was revealed in Scotland. The noble Lord must not mislead us into thinking that a return to the old valuations, even for a very short time, could conceivably be just or acceptable. Is he saying that the Labour Party in government would do that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the noble Baroness should wish to return to the panic which struck the Conservative Party in Scotland when it saw the effect of the revaluation there. Conservatives failed to see the point that changes in rateable values which took place over large areas of Scotland would be corrected by changes in the rate poundage demanded. They were in a complete panic because they did not understand and would not explain to the Scottish people the difference between a change in rateable value and a change in rate poundage. They did not explain that an increase in the rateable value of an area does not demand a single penny extra in local authority expenditure in that area.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord cannot get away with that. He knows perfectly well that within a given area of local government there was an enormous increase in the rateable value of some houses while others had stood still or reduced in value. That was the problem and it would be enormously magnified in England now.
Of course I understand how rate poundage worked. I operated it for years, just as the noble Lord did. He has heard me say before that in the area where I live the value of some houses multiplied three times while others within the same area did not. That is what he is suggesting might happen in this country. It would be extraordinarily unfair, whatever he says.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In so far— and it is not very far—as the noble Baroness has a point, it is in her claim that the valuation is not being done well enough and does not reflect property values as it should. Later this evening we shall consider amendments which seek to deal with the laxity of the procedures being proposed in this Bill. The Government intend to privatise the valuation system. I wonder whether that is well understood. There is no provision anywhere for those who will do the valuation to he properly qualified. There is no provision that it should be done on a consistent basis as it would have to be if it were undertaken by the proper public authorities. If the noble Baroness is claiming that the inadequacy of valuation is the damaging factor, then that factor applies with extra force to the proposals which are made by this Government. However, the issue is much more profound.
I blame all Conservatives for the poll tax but I blame Scottish Conservatives particularly. Conservatives in the rest of the country will also blame Scottish Conservatives for the poll tax. Scottish Conservatives, faced with a revaluation of the rates, panicked. Their panic has driven us all to the desperate plight in which we now find ourselves. I shall gladly give way to the noble Baroness.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not intervening. I am replying to the amendment.
My noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy of Lour raised an important point. Defence being better than attack, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chose simply to answer every question with an attack on yesterday. My noble friend Lord Renton posed a

1271
very simple question: are noble Lords opposite really saying that a return to the rating system would cost nothing? In reply the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it would cost nothing. I suggest that it would cost the ratepayers dearly, and not only Scottish ratepayers, who will not enjoy the prospect of returning to the rating system. The rating system has been declared by all, including the leader of the noble Lord's party, as unfair, out of date and discredited. Returning to a rating system is not a happy prospect. I believe that it would be costly. The people for whom it would be costly would be those who have to meet those very high bills.
The noble Lord criticised the present Government for the time it will take to bring in the new council tax. He said that we shall be lucky to bring it in by 1993. We intend to do so. The noble Lord said that it would take until 1994 at least. I suggest that the system which the noble Lord proposes is far more complex. The valuation will take much longer and will be much more expensive, and people will be faced with returning to the discredited rating system not for one year or two years but possibly for much longer than that.
The nature of the grant system for the council tax is a matter for the main council tax Bill and not for this Bill. Until we come forward with that Bill, which this Chamber will be able to consider in good time, it would be wrong to preclude using any information for purposes connected with grant distribution.
However, we have made clear that the present grant system should be amended as little as possible in order to accommodate the new system of local taxation. At present grant is distributed so that local authorities can finance spending at the standard level by levying a common community charge. For the council tax which we propose authorities in each area can finance spending at the standard level by levying standard taxable amounts fixed by the Secretary of State. There would be one amount across the country for a band A property, one for a band B property and one for a band C property, and so on. In that way authorities will be compensated for differences in their expenditure needs and for any variations in their taxable capacity.
In simple terms, couples living in properties in the same band anywhere in each country—England, Scotland or Wales —will face the same council tax bill before any rebate or discount which may apply if their authorities spend at the same standard level. Information about the banding of properties would be a vital tool to achieve that. To preclude its use would deprive us of the main basis for determining the level of taxable resources in each area.
The proposal that relative aggregate personal income in each area should be used in the formula would make no sense in our proposals. It would mean that properties in the same band but in different local authorities would pay different amounts of council tax even if those authorities spent at the same standard level. There can be no sensible justification for that and I therefore call on the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a pity that in her response the Minister did not choose to give a reply which bears any relation to the amendments. That is not what the amendments say. The Minister, and her supporters on the Government Benches, seek to make much of the injustice of the earlier rating system even though it is absolutely clear that our intention is to return to the rating system only as a short-term measure in order to avoid the very much greater injustice of continuing with the poll tax for a year longer than is absolutely necessary.
We have to consider what is to be put in place of the poll tax in the longer term. I put it to the Committee that what the Government propose is more unjust than anything which could ever have arisen from the rates. They propose a property tax based on capital values. The Minister has made it quite clear that the same amount will be raised from a property in Hackney worth £165,000 as from a property in Virginia Water worth £1 million. That does not represent ability to pay, which is what we argued about when we first debated the poll tax when Lord Chelwood moved his amendment relating to ability to pay. I am sure that he would not have been satisfied to be told that a millionaire in Virginia Water is to pay no more than a council tenant in Hackney whose property is rated highly because of its location but who cannot afford to buy it under the right-to-buy procedures. The value of property in different parts of the country depends on factors very different from the ability of the tenant or owner to pay taxation.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that the rating bill for the majority of people in this country would be higher than the present community charge if we were to return to the old rating system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly do not agree that under a proper system of local government finance, which includes local determination of the unified business rate—a matter we are not allowed to discuss in the context of this Bill—the rates raised from and determined by local people would be higher than they would be under the poll tax. Under the poll tax, because we try to take money from people who do not have the ability to pay, we spend hundreds of millions of pounds on extra collection costs. The Government admit that. It costs hundreds of millions of pounds extra for those who have to make up the deficit caused by those who cannot pay. Clearly, it is not because they will not pay; it is because they cannot pay. Any system which gets away from the shambles in which we have found ourselves since 1987–88 will be better and fairer than the present system.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord suggests returning to the rates immediately, pending changes. Does he agree that the majority of people returning to the rates, pending changes, would be worse off than they are at present when paying the community charge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One cannot estimate what kind of rebate scheme one will have. The Government have insisted on a rebate scheme under which millions of people are required to pay 20 per cent., which they cannot afford, of 100 per cent., which

1273
it is recognised that they could never afford. It costs more to collect that 20 per cent. than it represents in revenue. We should like to table amendments to put the matter right. We should like an opportunity to put the matter right because the Government know that it must be put right. But the Bill is so drafted that we cannot put it right now. Neither the present system, which is patently not working, as the Government recognise, nor the proposed alternative, will be fairer than our proposals or the proposals of the Liberal Democrats. A local income tax would be much fairer than the Government's proposal. This is a panic compromise. It is designed to get away from the collapse of local government finance, brought about by the Government, without offending rich Tory voters. It will not work.
Perhaps I may now return to the amendment to which the Minister was studiously determined not to refer. The only just way of achieving a valuation—the only means of achieving what will be seen as a just valuation—is to have an individual valuation of each property. We have suggested how that can be done and how delay and injustice can be avoided. It is a matter of deep regret that the Government do not understand the significance of the proposal.
Lord Swinfen: Is not the noble Lord mixing up the capital value of property—in other words, what it would fetch on the open market—with the rateable value which is a theoretical letting value? The two values do not mix. In addition, am I not right in saying that, since the last rating revaluation, there are a number of appeals still outstanding, not only in Scotland but in England and Wales, which complicate the whole business? There will be appeals on new properties that have been built since the rating system was abolished, coupled with the appeals still left over from the old rating system which have not been settled because the process takes a long time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, should address his comments to the Government Front Bench because it is precisely the system proposed by the Government that will cause the difficulties he describes. It is precisely because the Government's system is based purely on capital sale values and not on notional rental values that the injustice that has been described will come about. If it is to work, a rating system must take more into account and must be tempered by consideration of people's ability to pay. If the noble Lord reads carefully what I have said and, perhaps more importantly, what the Government have said in reply, he will see that all his criticisms fairly and squarely come home to roost on the Government's proposals. They do not apply to our proposals. We shall certainly return to the matter on Report. I shall not be seeking the Committee's opinion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 35, after ("valuation") insert ("with the purpose specified in subsection (4A) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 35 which is the substantive amendment. The proposal is designed to get away from the difficulty of the government scheme. I suspect that this is partly what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was talking about. The danger is that property values will be used not just to set individual taxes but to distribute revenue support between authorities.
Baroness Blatch: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. As I understand it, we have just dealt with Amendments Nos. 19 and 35.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I feared that that was the case. I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 and 28. That was why I did not understand the Minister's reply.
Baroness Blatch: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 18 and 28 which introduce individual valuation of domestic properties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When the Minister rose to reply, I thought that she had jumped ahead of herself, and that is the case. I was still speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 and 28. I had not moved on to speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 35. That may be the cause of the misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding between myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. We understand one another very well, although we disagree. However, I had spoken only to Amendment No. 18, as the Chair will confirm, and I did not seek leave to withdraw it until a moment ago.
Baroness Blatch: I understood that the noble Lord spoke to the amendment which is concerned with individual valuation of each property. I therefore responded to Amendments Nos. 18 and 28. He then spoke to another amendment which was concerned with valuation. That is the amendment which starts:
"A valuation carried out under this section shall be for the purposes".
I responded to that amendment, which was Amendment No. 35, in conjunction with Amendment No. 19.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The record will show that I did not move on from Amendment No. 18 to Amendment No. 28. If that had been the case, I would have had to seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 18, and I did not do so until a moment ago. I fear that the Minister has got ahead of herself on her brief.
I should now like to speak to Amendment No. 19 which I have not moved previously. It is concerned with a different matter; namely, the use of property values as the resource base for local authorities. Under the Government's proposals, the only resource base which will be acceptable is that of property values. The trouble is that the Government now propose to return to the worst features of the rating system. I was drawn into the argument because of the way in which the Minister responded to my earlier amendments, not because of anything that I said when introducing the amendments. It brings back the issues of high capital values which are not related to the ability to pay and

1275
which were raised, quite properly, by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when they took part in the earlier debate.
The fundamental fallacy behind the Government's proposals lies in the fact that it is people, not houses, who pay taxes. For that reason it is necessary to have Amendment No. 35, which would provide:
"A valuation carried out under this section shall be for the purposes (and only for the purposes) of compiling lists differentiated according to prescribed bands of values … No use shall be made … in assessing the amount or distribution of revenue support grant between local authorities, except as part of a formula also reflecting the relative aggregate personal income of each local authority area".
This is precisely the argument that we anticipated in the previous debate. It is because the Government's methods are so crude, and because they incorporate a fundamental unfairness in capital values without any mitigation reflecting ability to pay, that we believe that these amendments are necessary, and indeed will protect the Government from itself. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may start by apologising to the noble Lord. I now understand what has happened. I in fact responded to Amendments 18 and 28. The debate then rambled on—if my noble friends will forgive me—and I came back. One query was about valuation and the other was about the use of valuation information, and I came back with my response to this amendment speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 and 21. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to accept my response on the use of information, and I repeat only the last part of that answer. To achieve this information about the banding of properties would, we believe, be a vital tool, and therefore the amendment should be rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept and understand the difficulties that the Minister has had. These are related groups of amendments and I suppose that it would have been possible to have had a single cover—all debate for all of them. That was not suggested either by us or by the department because we wanted to try to keep the separate issues as clear as possible and to deal with one matter at a time.
The fundamental point that needs to be made about all the amendments in this series whenever it is suggested to us that it is going to be more expensive to have an interim rescue operation—which is what the return to the rating system in the short term would be—followed by the fairer system compared with the proposals of the Government, is that nothing, but nothing, can be as expensive to the public purse as the poll tax or its proposed successors. Nothing that results in a cost of collection more than twice as high as the previous system can be called just nor can justify calling the previous system unjust. Nothing which results in such a high level of non-payment not because of unwillingness to pay but because of inability to pay can be called preferable to going back, even on a short-term basis, to the rating system.
The system that we have now, which was introduced by this Government after hours of debate
1276
in this House, is patently, and is now admitted to be, the most unjust system of local government finance that has ever been entered into. These amendments may not go as far as we would wish because they are amendments to a narrowly-drawn Bill. However, they represent an attempt to go back in a considered way, without unnecessary delay, to a fairer system than the existing system, and to move as rapidly as possible to a system that is fairer than any of the existing systems or the system that is proposed.
It is a matter of deep regret that the Government do not understand the significance of what we are trying to do. This may be a matter that we shall wish to return to at Report stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Rights of Access to Neighbouring Land Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Special Exemptions) Regulations 1991
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.
The draft regulations now before the House will provide for two exceptions to the general rule that any person keeping or using embryos, or storing gametes (that is, sperm and eggs) may do so only in accordance with a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
During the passage of the Bill—now the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—in the other place it came to the Government's attention that there were situations were embryos and gametes were kept or stored for purposes other than those involving infertility treatments and embryo research. For example, there would be a need to keep and examine embryos and gametes in the course of criminal investigations connected with enforcement of the legislation itself. Also, in some organisations, sperm may be stored for research or teaching purposes only. Unless exceptions were made for these situations the licensing provisions of the Act, which were designed to regulate the use of gametes and embryos in treatment

1277
services and embryo research, would have to apply. The new authority would be obliged to inspect and license all these places.
It is important to appreciate that the regulations would only permit exceptions in very limited circumstances, and will not allow people to evade the stringent controls laid down in the parent Act. Furthermore, because of the importance and sensitivity of these issues, they are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which allows Parliament the opportunity to consider them fully.
The first exception, which is set out in Regulation 2, relates to the keeping or examination of embryos and the storage of gametes in connection with offences under the Act itself. Section 39 of the Act gives members and employees of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority power to take possession of any thing which they have reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings for an offence. If this ever became necessary, the authority would ensure that among the people taking possession of the gametes and embryos there would be an expert, with knowledge about how such material should be handled.
Both the Government and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are very conscious of the implications of taking possession of embryos and gametes. In the case of embryos the authority will be dealing with a potential human life, and possibly an infertile couple's hope of a child. It is therefore vital to ensure that where embryos and gametes are kept in connection with an offence they are kept in proper conditions and examined only by experts in this field. For practical reasons we are therefore proposing—and these regulations provide—that these embryos and gametes should remain under the supervision of the authority. It will have knowledge of the experts working in the field, and will be able to identify where appropriate facilities exist.
The regulations then go on to specify several additional safeguards, of which your Lordships will no doubt be aware from reading the regulations. Once the investigation or proceedings for an offence are completed it will be for the HFEA, under whose supervision these gametes and embryos are kept and examined, to ensure that if possible they are returned to the incensed premises from which they came. For example, if the case is not proved, the gametes or embryos in question could be returned to the treatment centre and, if appropriate, used for treatment services.
I hope your Lordships will appreciate that the exemption is necessary in order to allow criminal activities to be properly investigated. The vast majority of doctors and scientists working in this field are responsible and dedicated people who welcome the new controls. We expect these provisions to be invoked only very rarely, if at all. Nevertheless, it is right that these carefully considered mechanisms and safeguards should be in place in case they are ever needed.
The Second exception relates only to gametes—that is, sperm and eggs—stored for purposes other than infertility treatment and embryo research. It does not
1278
apply to embryos. Embryos can be stored only under licence or in circumstances where an offence may have been committed. Therefore, it may be helpful if I describe the kind of circumstances in which Regulation 3 dealing with this exception would apply. For example, the exception would apply to a university laboratory carrying out research projects concerned with the locomotion of sperm; the development of pharmaceutical products aimed at enhancing the quality of sperm which has been thawed after cryopreservation; or a medical school using sperm to study cell structure. The regulations also contain important terms and conditions which apply to gametes stored under the exemptions. If it is brought to the attention of the police or the new authority that a centre which is exempted is not complying with the conditions set out in the regulations it will be liable to prosecution. On conviction, the individuals concerned could face up to two years' imprisonment or a fine or both.
The draft regulations have been drawn up after a period of full consultation during which interested organisations have been given an opportunity to express their views. Some of your Lordships may recall that copies of the consultation document were made available in the Printed Paper Office. In drawing up the draft regulations now before your Lordships we have considered very carefully the comments received. I hope the House will agree that they are both reasonable and comprehensive.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hooper).
7.13 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very clear presentation of the case for these regulations and say that I totally support everything she has said. I believe these are the first regulations to be brought forward under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and perhaps it would be appropriate to do two things. First, I thank the interim authority for the work it has done and, I believe, will continue to do until the end of this month. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether or not that is the case. I know that the new Act comes into operation as from 1st August.
I should like to express the thanks of the House to the interim authority for the very fine job it has done under the leadership of Dame Mary Donaldson, who has been a tower of strength. At the same time, I should like to congratulate Professor Colin Campbell on his appointment as chairman of the new authority. The task that the authority has to perform is an important and sensitive one, first in understanding and preventing inherited disability and secondly in alleviating the misery of infertility, which appears to affect about one in eight couples. Infertility causes great stress and misery to an enormous number of people. Research into infertility goes side by side with treatment, and that is the pattern of development in the present work. Indeed, one reason for the Act was

1279
that treatment could not be improved without research and there would be no research without treatment.
As I understand it, when the main provisions of the legislation come into force on 1st August 1991 treatment, research and storage centres will have to comply with stringent licensing conditions and follow the guidelines set out in the code of practice published by the HFEA. It will provide for two exceptions as defined in the regulations to the general rule that any person keeping or using embryos or storing gametes—sperm or eggs—may do so only in accordance with the terms of a licence obtained from the HFEA.
On the occasion of this introduction of the first regulations perhaps I may put one or two questions to the Minister. If she is not able to answer them straight away I will of course be happy to receive a letter. First, on the research side, would she say whether the NHS reforms make any difference to the provision of infertility services? Will the trusts offer services to infertile couples as freely as other hospitals? Second, perhaps the Minister could outline how many organisations will be covered by the exemption in the regulations on the ground of research unrelated to the HFEA Act. Third, would the Minister comment on the need to include in the authority's reports details of the success rates of clinics? The Minister in the Commons referred to the authority's draft code of practice being presented to the Secretary of State and laid before the House. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any idea when that will happen. It will be of great interest to all those Members of the Committee who took part over many weeks in the debates on the Bill.
I conclude by warmly thanking the Minister for her presentation. I support the orders presented by the Minister to the House on this occasion.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his comments and his welcome of the regulations. I thank him particularly for his remarks about the interim authority. I can confirm that that authority will be replaced by the new body on 1st August but that it is still in being at the moment. I can reassure the noble Lord by telling him that not only will the reforms make no difference to the way progress is made in this area but also that, because of the increased efficiency of the system the efforts made will be more effective. So far as the draft code is concerned, it is under consideration at the moment and I hope will be laid before Parliament very shortly. If I can add to those remarks in any way I shall write to the noble Lord. I would merely say once again that the regulations before your Lordships deal in a sensible, practical way with two particular circumstances and are wholly within the spirit of this important Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Personal Files (Social Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: These amendments are minor and technical. They are required to take account of the establishment of National Health Service trusts. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will readily agree to them. It may help if I explain a little of the background to the regulations. The Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989 are made under the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. They deal with an individual's right of access to personal information held on local authority social services department files. Incidentally, they do not deal with computerised information, because that falls under the Data Protection Act.
At the moment the regulations refer only to health authorities as the employing bodies of the health professionals providing the information, but with the establishment of NHS trusts—which also employ health professionals—the legislation needs to be amended to extend the same provisions to circumstances in which an NHS trust provided or now holds the medical records concerned. It is a technical amendment. It will not add to the workload of the local authority. It merely means that local authority requests for guidance on disclosure in some cases will be differently addressed.
Before laying the regulations we consulted bodies representing local authorities as required by the Access to Personal Files Act. I ask the House to agree to these minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Ennals: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for her explanation. From my standpoint there is no need to delay the House on what, as she said, are quite technical amendments. She will know that I have shown no great enthusiasm for NHS trusts and nothing that I have seen lately is likely to change my mind, although I am ever open to new inspiration.
This regulation is a formality made necessary by the creation of NHS trusts. If there are NHS trusts, we have to make certain that this is taken into consideration. This regulation was approved in another place without debate. I do not intend to detain the House any longer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1991
7.23 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1991 be approved.
The amendment is necessary because the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation Order) 1975, as amended, at present conflicts with a Community regulation which has direct effect. Council Regulation 4059/89/EEC, agreed at the EC Transport Council in December 1989, provides for a transitional scheme allowing cabotage to take place within member states under a limited quota of cabotage authorisations. Cabotage may be defined as the carrying out of domestic transport operations by non-resident hauliers. The scheme, which represented a significant breakthrough for the United Kingdom, came into force on 1st July 1990 and will last until December 1992, when it is to be replaced by a definitive cabotage regime. Freedom to carry out cabotage is an important element in the liberalised single market that the UK wants to see in place by 1st January 1993.
The regulation lays down five specific areas where the performance of cabotage operations is subject to the laws and regulations of the host member state. These are as follows: rates and conditions governing the sport contract; weights and dimensions of vehicles; requirements relating to the carriage of certain categories of goods; driving and rest time; and VAT on transport services. In all other areas the laws of the member state where the vehicle is registered apply.
Thus with the exception of VAT on transport services, an operator carrying out cabotage is free of vehicle tax, vehicle excise duty or any other tax upon the use of a goods vehicle as long as he is operating under a cabotage authorisation in pursuance of the regulation.
Under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation Order) 1975, however, visiting foreign hauliers in the United Kingdom are exempt from paying vehicle excise duty for a maximum of three months. If they stay any longer than three months, even if they are operating under one of the new cabotage authorisations, the order provides that they become liable to pay duty.
The provisions of the 1975 order are overridden to the extent that they are inconsistent with the directly applicable EC cabotage regulation, which, as from 1st July last year, has been part of UK law. However, it is a treaty obligation to ensure that there are no discrepancies between Community law and domestic legislation. An amendment therefore needs to be made to the order so that explicit mention is made of transport operations which are excluded from paying vehicle excise duty by virtue of being covered by a valid cabotage authorisation.
I trust your Lordships will agree to this minor amendment. It is needed to remove the inconsistency from the present legislation and to make it clear to the reader that foreign hauliers, temporarily operating under a cabotage authorisation in this country, are not liable to pay vehicle excise duty. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of this order, without which it would have seemed a little confusing to the layman. He said that the regulations took direct effect from 1st July last year. Will he confirm that they have been fully implemented in the United Kingdom from that date? The order was dated 21st December 1989. Perhaps he can explain why it has taken 18 months to introduce an amendment to the 1975 order into this Parliament.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a very short question. Following my noble friend's point that the order was dated 1989 and we are only now implementing it, can the noble Earl tell us whether other countries within the Community are yet to fulfil the obligations of the agreement of 1989 or whether we are the last to bring about ratification?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. The provisions of the new order were implemented in full by the United Kingdom and other countries in the EC with effect from 1st July last year. It is quite true that it would have been tidier and strictly more correct to have brought this order before Parliament somewhat sooner than this. Part of the delay is attributable to the need to obtain precise clarification from Customs and Excise about the force of the temporary importation regulations 1961, on which the regulations contained in the 1975 order partially depend.
Whatever degree of promptness may be desirable in a perfect world, the central point here is that the law as it applies to EC hauliers is not in the least affected by the order that we are considering. The law has been firmly in place since 1st July 1990. The need for the order arises solely because a piece of current UK legislation makes no allowance for an EC Council regulation which partially overrides it. If discrepancies of this kind arise, it is necessary to eliminate them and make our rule book completely clear. In that sense what we are discussing is a technical amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 39, after ("Wales") insert ("solely").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. Although they are not in the same group Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 represent a fall-back position.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 33 seek to ensure that valuation remains in the hands of the Inland Revenue staff, who are skilled and experienced. If they have been able to work and enjoy public confidence for so long as regards the concept of notional rents they will have less difficult and laborious work as regards the concept of capital value.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State indicated that he expected to involve private sector valuers. We on this side of the Committee have fears about what that might mean. The important point is that the poll tax has destroyed confidence in the integrity of local government finance. There is no doubt about that and it is a point to which we may well return. Therefore, it is extremely important that that integrity is restored. That will be done only if people have every confidence in the professionalism, objectivity and training of the valuation staff. The people who have the skills are the staff of the Inland Revenue.
We should like the Minister to comment on what is meant in this context by "professionals". If it is the Government's determination not to keep valuation within the hands of the Inland Revenue but to go outside, does the Minister mean by that term local estate agents, the office boy or more trained people? Following the enactment of the Bill will measures be taken to prevent the private sector valuers handling both the initial valuations and appeals in respect of the same property? If one employs private sector valuers possibly drawn from estate agencies what assurances will there be that they will not have a vested interest in pushing up property prices knowing that at the point of sale their commission will increase accordingly?
In Amendments Nos. 22 and 33 we seek to restore confidence in the process of valuation. Without that confidence we can see appeals proliferating. We believe that the best way to do that is to keep valuation in the hands of the staff of the Inland Revenue, who have expertise, objectivity, professional training and an ability to make comparisons across the country through their professional bodies. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: Would it be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 as the subjects are related?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Although I indicated that there was an argument for grouping them together I still have a faint hope that the Government will accept Amendments Nos. 22 and 33. In that case Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 will not be necessary. They represent a fall-back position and for that reason they have been grouped separately.
Viscount Astor: These amendments seek to prevent the Commissioners of Inland Revenue appointing persons who are not in the service of the Crown to assist them in the valuation. We intend to use the best professional expertise to undertake the work involved in allocating properties to bands. We shall use the
1284
private sector where it can use its skills to do a speedy, cost-effective job. By the same token we shall use the public sector when it can do a speedy, cost-effective job. The reason for that is simply to get the best deal for taxpayers. It would be wrong to rule out the opportunity of using the private sector where to do so would provide better value for money.
I can, however, reassure the Committee that we shall ensure that persons who do not have the appropriate expertise and qualities to undertake a sound and cost-effective job are not involved. There are a variety of jobs to be done. All offers of assistance will be considered and decisions will be taken on the most cost-effective use of all the resources available.
These amendments seek to stifle our quest for using the best expertise in a cost-effective way and therefore I urge the Committee to reject them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am slightly alarmed that his emphasis was not on professionalism, objective skills and established standing. His emphasis was on words and phrases like "speedy", a "cost effective job" and the "best deal for taxpayers".
Viscount Astor: I said "appropriate expertise" and I must stress that. That must be grouped with cost effectiveness. However, the first criterion must be "appropriate expertise".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In the light of that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I shall press the Minister further as regards the next amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 40, after ("Revenue") insert ("or persons appointed to assist them who are members of the bodies specified in subsection (4) below").
The noble Baroness said: We are aware that as regards the valuation of houses, there will be the same anxieties which have been raised by my noble friend Lord McIntosh about the precise value of one property compared with other properties in the same street. That will lead to two questions in the eyes of most taxpayers. First, they will wish to know who is carrying out the valuations; and secondly, they will wish to know whether they have a right of appeal. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has already argued that without individual valuations, both questions will have an additional edge.
We believe also that if the valuations are not carried out by those with the appropriate professional expertise—those belonging to a professional body whose performance can be monitored—their integrity and reputation may be called into question by members of the public. If the Minister will give an assurance that the Government expect that only those who are members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or members of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation will be employed, then I shall withdraw the amendment. If he cannot give such an assurance, then I shall wish to develop my case further.
Viscount Astor: The Bill provides that the valuations shall be carried out by the commissioners of the Inland Revenue in England and Wales and local assessors in Scotland. They will ensure confidence in the valuations and consistency across the country. These amendments seek to require that the only people who can help with the valuations are members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or members of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. We are determined to use the best professional expertise available to carry out the allocation of properties to bands in the most cost effective way and in a manner which will deliver the introduction of the council tax in April 1993. We are naturally considering the role of members of both the RICS And the IRRV.
It cannot be right for us to rule out asking people who are not members of those bodies to assist in the task. However, I assure the noble Baroness and the Committee that we shall rule out persons who do not have the appropriate expertise and qualities to undertake a sound and cost effective job. That is an important point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister be kind enough to tell the Committee what he means by "appropriate expertise"?
Viscount Astor: We are talking about expertise in valuation. That expertise must be looked at very carefully. At present I cannot give the exact criteria which may be used but I repeat that all the people used must have the expertise and qualities to undertake a sound job. All offers of assistance will be considered and decisions will be taken on the most cost effective use of the resources available. I repeat that the valuations will be carried out by the commissioners of the Inland Revenue in England and Wales and by local assessors in Scotland. They will ensure confidence in the valuations.
Baroness Hamwee: The words, and more particularly the tone, of the Minister indicate that the Government cannot tell us what will be the necessary expertise and qualifications, either professional or otherwise, of the people who will be involved in the exercise. I believe this is a panic measure to pull in anyone who may be able to meet the criteria.
I am in two minds as regards these amendments. I realise the need to get on with the exercise and I am not accusing anyone of making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons. However, I fear that the wrong people may be used in order to speed up the exercise. I do not believe that the Minister is able to give us any more assurances at present. However, I hope that he will realise that Members on the Benches opposite feel seriously about this matter. It is not only a matter of expertise; it also concerns professional confidence. One may have as a neighbour an estate agent who may have the appropriate expertise. However, one may be very worried about his vested interest in arriving at the right valuation for properties in his area.
Viscount Astor: This is not a panic measure, but we must not rule out drawing on all available resources
1286
and people. It would be a great mistake to rule out many people who could assist in this exercise. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am very unhappy about the Minister's words and the tone of his reply. He gave the impression that the Government will be grateful for any help they can get and hope that it will be qualified. That sounds to me to be far too vulnerable.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I did not say that I hope that they will be qualified. I said that we shall be looking only for qualified help. That is totally different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I accept the noble Viscount's refinement but when I asked him to explain what he meant by "qualifications" he was unable to give a definition. Clearly, they are not qualifications objectively perceived or he would have given me a definition. Therefore, it will be a subjective assessment as to whether or not the people used are qualified. Given my unease and the unease registered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards vested interests and lack of confidence in estate agents' judgments—we have all had experience of gazumping and so on—I am fairly sure that we shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("(2A) In carrying out the valuation, the Commissioners or local assessors (as the case may be) shall furnish to any occupant of domestic property which is subject to valuation information relating to—

(a) the process of valuation;

(b) rights of appeal in respect of an individual valuation;

(c) rebates and discounts, including rebates up to the full amount that would otherwise he payable in respect of certain persons following amendment of the Social Security Act 1986").

The noble Baroness said: This is a highly virtuous amendment which will ensure that householders receive information about the process of valuation, the right of appeal and rebates. Essentially it is a right-to-know amendment. It aims to ensure that people know of the judgments entering into their local taxation.
Following the Widdicombe Report, the Government rightly required local authorities to send out the fullest information about their budgets. The Government laid down in considerable detail what information should be contained, in what form it should be laid out and even the size of paper on which the information should be contained.
Similarly, local authorities and government have worked together fairly successfully to ensure the widest possible knowledge of housing benefit. People should know how budgets are arrived at by means of the information going out with poll tax budgets. It is important that they should know how the relative share of their payments is arrived at; in other words, the valuation and what considerations enter into it.

1287
Therefore we are asking, as the first part of this amendment indicates, that all members of the public who are paying bills should be eligible for information regarding the process of valuation. The share that they pay and how that figure is arrived at is an important piece of information, as is the budget of the local authority.
Secondly, the amendment asks for a right of appeal. Given that valuation is to be street by street and, as we heard in previous discussions, not necessarily by people whose integrity is beyond dispute—whether it is the Inland Revenue or members of a professional chartered body—it will be important as a way of restoring confidence in local government that people know what the appeal machinery will be. Preliminary research from the Paisley college suggests that 25 per cent. of all valuations will be in the top or bottom 5 per cent. of bands; in other words, at the edges of the bands. There will therefore be considerable interest in seeing on which side of those bands properties fall.
Thirdly, the amendment seeks to circulate information about rebates and the right to 100 per cent. rebates. Obviously the amendment will date from April 1993. We hope—and it may be possible to return to this at Report stage—that the Government will consider the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution from April 1992.
We all know that the poll tax has been brought into disrepute for many reasons, but primarily for two. First, it was perceived to be unfair and, secondly, it was seen to be difficult to collect. The 20 per cent. rule was responsible for both of those states. By requiring students, single parent families, elderly pensioners and the infirm to contribute 20 per cent., irrespective of their means, was seen as being profoundly unfair and income support levels did not for the most part protect people from that change. The 20 per cent. contribution also brought the poll tax into disrepute over and above the fact that it was unfair and it contributed to the administrative chaos of poll tax. The 20 per cent. has become uncollectable.
In an authority like my own—Norwich—25 per cent. of the population are on the 20 per cent. payment scheme—students, the unemployed, women carers, and the like. Half of those people move within a year and many students move perhaps twice a year. Every time a payer moves it takes six letters, all of them required by government and each costing £2 or £3 a time, to register a single change of address. If the payer moves twice it doubles the amounts. If arrears have to be chased on a couple of payments, let alone take people to court for liability orders, the costs soar.
As the Audit Commission reported, and as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, the 20 per cent. payer pays on average £6, yet it costs £15 to collect that sum. The more dutiful the local authority is in chasing arrears and taking people to court, the more losses it incurs. That is before taking into account the legal burden of 4.5 million summonses and 3.2 million liability orders, of which barely 200 have so far reached the stage of a means assessment by the courts which themselves are breaking down under the strain.
In an authority like Norwich one-third of our soaring poll tax collection charges go in chasing the 25 per cent. of the population who are supposed to pay 20 per cent. but who contribute barely 5 per cent. to total revenue. We do not want to be told by the Minister, as on previous occasions, that everyone must contribute, however modest their means. The Secretary of State made clear that he does not share that belief and that, given household arrangements, all contribute as of now. I am confident that the Minister now shares the view of the present Secretary of State and we welcome that embodiment in the new tax from 1993. We are asking that that scrapping of the 20 per cent. rule should be introduced as quickly as possible and preferably from April 1992. Every local authority treasurer wants it and every local authority association wants it. The Secretary of State entirely accepts the principle and we know that we could introduce it very speedily indeed.
I wonder whether Ministers fully appreciate the damage done to the integrity of local government finance by the 20 per cent. rule in particular and the poll tax in general. If we are to establish a widespread perception that local authority taxes are reasonably fair and collection reasonably efficient, we shall have the Minister's support for the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may briefly speak to the amendment. The objectives identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, are those of which I am sure the Government approve; namely, an endeavour to provide the best value for money and not to waste money, quite apart from the fairness and unfairness arguments that have been quite rightly put forward. Many local authorities are frustrated at the amount of time, energy and manpower wasted on this exercise.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I may be forgiven for being confused about the way that the noble Baroness responded to the amendment. The amendment requires information relating to the process of valuation, rights of appeal, rebates and discounts. It says nothing about scrapping the 20 per cent. rule or the way in which the community charge has worked. It relates to the supply of information to people. I believe that the amendment is premature and perhaps I may explain the position.
The amendment seeks to require the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and local assessors to supply information to any occupant of domestic property relating to the process of valuation, rights of appeal and rebates and discounts. I must tell the Committee that we are committed to ensuring that the council tax is properly understood by the public and that they are aware of the process of valuation, their rights of appeal and their eligibility for rebates and discounts. But I must also tell the Committee that such matters as right of appeal, rebates and discounts are for the main Bill which we propose to introduce in another place in the autumn.
I am sure, however, that the Committee wish me to place on record that there will be a full procedure for appeals. We are now considering all the points put to us during the consultation period about this and many

1289
other matters connected with the council tax. When we come to consider the machinery of appeals in this Chamber we will no doubt be in a much better position to discuss the sort of information occupiers of property will need in order to exercise their rights of appeal.
I am sure also that Members of the Committee wish me to place on record our intentions for how the rebate system will work. We propose that for individuals or couples on income support, or with equivalent levels of income, rebates will meet 100 per cent. of their liability to the council tax. There will be no minimum contribution. As with other benefits, we envisage that people on incomes above the income support level will contribute on a sliding scale. Claimants will have access to the full range of information that is available to them for other benefits. But again we can consider the details when the main council tax Bill comes before this House.
There is also the question of discounts. We have proposed a system of personal discounts. Households with two or more adults would pay the basic council tax for their property. Single adult households would pay less through a personal discount and some households would receive two discounts. Where the first or second adult in a household is in one of the categories that are now exempt from the personal community charge that person will give rise to a discount. We also propose that where the first or second adult in a property is a student, student nurse, apprentice or youth training trainee, each will receive a full personal discount. The details will be in the main Bill. I call on the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to have the assurance of the Minister, as I am sure we all are, that the Government are at one with us in seeking to ensure that the information is widely spread.
It is important that the amendment should be tabled at this stage—I go back to a point raised by other Members of your Lordships' Committee tonight —because the integrity of local government finance has been extremely damaged by the passing of the poll tax legislation. Just five years ago only 2 per cent. of rates went uncollected. People automatically expected to pay. There was no question about that and any arguments concerned the precise nature of the budget not its mechanism. As a result of the poll tax, particularly the 20 per cent. rule and arguments regarding who is eligible to pay, that integrity has been destroyed. Something that took 50 years to build up has gone in two years. The figures that I had just a couple of months ago indicate that 40 per cent. of all adults were in debt to their local authority, sometimes for only one or two payments but sometimes for very much more. That damage to the automatic assumption of integrity in the local government financial system has been severely imperilled. We must restore that integrity if local government is ever to run smoothly and properly again.
The amendment is tabled to ensure that people are provided with adequate and proper information about valuations, appeals and rebates, including full rebates. We hope for some kind of undertaking from the Minister that we can perhaps introduce full rebates
1290
earlier rather than later to make amends for the chaos that we continue to face, or go some way towards meeting it. We may wish to come back to the matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to my Amendment No. 32. I also understand that it is for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 30 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The issue is summarily called "regional banding" and it attracted a great deal of attention at Second Reading, particularly through the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, from the Government Benches.
I confess that in a purist way I was not very enthusiastic or supportive of those amendments. I took a view rather similar to that which Mr. Nigel Lawson expressed in an article in the Daily Telegraph on 4th March this year. He said:
"Nor, of course, as some have subsequently alleged, would it"—
that is, a local property tax based on capital values—
"penalise those who live in localities where property values are particularly high. For the greater the tax base in any locality the lower would be the percentage tax required to raise the revenue that is needed".
That is the purist's position and, on the whole, that was the view I took at Second Reading. However, I have become convinced, from looking at the details of what the Government are saying about their proposed council tax, that that will not be the case. There will be a great deal of injustice caused by the lack of any positive effort such as we propose in Amendment No. 32, to,
"ensure that there is broadly equitable distribution between regions of the burden of local taxation".
There are three reasons for that in increasing order of importance. First, there is the crudeness of the seven-band system itself and the fact that so many people with very different types of property will find themselves in the same band. Therefore that escape route, if one can so describe it, between rateable value and rate poundage will no longer be available.
Secondly, there is the problem of gearing. The fact that business rates have been taken away from local authority control means that now 86 per cent. of local authority expenditure is in effect determined by local government. In turn that means that for every pound that a local authority wants to spend above its fixed standard spending assessment, it will have to raise £7. Thirdly, and most important of all, there is the indication that the Government are going to use house prices as the basis for setting the standard spending assessment.
I listened as carefully as I could to the Minister's explanations earlier this evening about that matter

1291
and I am still unconvinced that the Government are going to avoid that trap. If they fall into the trap of using house prices —in other words, the basis of the council tax—as in turn the basis for determining the resources element of a local authority's budget, in effect it will be pulling itself up by its own bootstraps. Then we fall into the trap that we talked about in relation to Hackney, where there are relatively high prices for houses because of the location, but people are living in those houses who will never have a hope in hell of buying their own houses under the "right to buy" system if, for example, they are council houses. Under any criterion of ability to pay, they would certainly fall way below what would otherwise be possible or reasonable.
That is the strength of the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, when she spoke about the differences between Windsor and Maidenhead on the one hand and Slough on the other. That is the extent to which it has become clear that the version of the council tax proposed by the Government will not achieve justice. Something will have to be done to ensure, again in the words of Amendment No. 32,
"a broadly equitable distribution between regions of the burden of local taxation".
I am sorry that my amendments are more wordy than the admirably brief amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, but I believe that we are a little more explicit in what we are seeking to achieve, although I accept that we are seeking to achieve the same thing. I hope that one or other of the amendments will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: As has already been stated, the widely recognised disadvantage of any tax based on capital values is that it hits disproportionately people who live in areas of high house prices. Just because someone lives in an area of high property values does not mean that he has a high disposable income. On the contrary, it means that he is likely to have higher mortgage repayments to meet along with higher living expenses as well as the example which was given a moment or two ago.
Thus, wherever one lives in England the bands will be the same. In areas with high property values people will be paying more whatever type of property they live in. In areas of high house values, such as the South East, the great majority of people will be in the top band, whether they have a small detached house or a duke's castle. It will invite the accusation of unfairness — the very cry that did so much to destroy the credibility of the community charge. By having national banding the Government are creating their own ambush into which they are determined to walk.
However, although residents in London and the South East will pay more, they will not get a higher standard of service. That is because the more a council can raise through the council tax, the less government grant it will get. Residents in London and the South East will be paying more for a standard level of
1292
service, and the extra they pay will in effect go towards subsidising the level of services enjoyed by residents in other parts of the country, which will include me.
That does not seem fair, and regional banding of the valuation will avoid such an anomaly. That is because the bands will be based on average regional house prices and people living in similar properties will fall into similar bands wherever they live. A household in London in a one-bedroom flat will pay roughly the same as a similar household in, say, Manchester, if its local council provides a standard level of service.
In addition to being demonstrably fairer, regional banding will also increase accountability, which is a key objective in the Government's reform of the local government finance system. If taxpayers can expect to pay the same for a standard level of service wherever they live, it will be easy for them to see whether their local authority is being efficient in delivering services. Under national banding, however, even the most efficient London boroughs will have to charge their residents more because house prices are higher than the national average. That blurs accountability.
Regional banding has one other significant advantage over national banding, in that it will avoid the necessity for periodic revaluation. The need for revaluation under the rating system was a key element in its unpopularity and the necessity for a national revaluation was the main impetus behind the decision to reform the local government finance system which led to the introduction of the community charge.
There are huge regional fluctuations in the housing market year on year. For example, between 1987 and 1991, house prices in London increased by just 6 per cent. compared to 34 per cent. in the UK as a whole and 84 per cent. in the North West region. Regional fluctuations of this magnitude mean that, with one single banding range for England, houses will have to be revalued regularly as they move into higher bands.
With regional banding that problem will be avoided. As regional property markets fluctuate in relation to one another, the regional bands will move correspondingly. The only time that there will need to be revaluations will be when the prices of certain houses within a region increase or decrease relative to houses within the same region. That is likely to be a much less common phenomenon, and, anyway, the effects of the revaluation will be localised and will be much more readily understood.
Finally, regional banding preserves all the fundamental principles of the council tax, but mitigates the disadvantages inherent in any tax system based on the capital value of properties. Getting the basis of valuation for the council tax right is the key element in guaranteeing its successful introduction and ensuring that the new system stands the test of time.
Baroness Hamwee: Like other Members of the Committee I support the amendment, but not with a huge degree of enthusiasm. It is promoted by the London Boroughs Association, which is Conservative-controlled. By any standards I do not believe that it can be described as a hotbed of radicalism. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will

1293
be considered seriously, with the anxieties of the association being taken to heart. The noble Lords, Lord Gisborough and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have said much of what I wanted to say and I shall not repeat it, given the hour. Perhaps I may mention my own borough of Richmond, not because it is the best and nicest borough, but it is one where it is considered that everyone is rich and everyone lives in a big house and can afford the tax. That is not so.
Among the most salutary experiences that I have had in local government was attending local meetings at the time of the introduction of the poll tax. A resident said, "I'm going to have to break the law. I've never broken the law in my life, but I'm not going to be able to cope with the poll tax". I fear that that experience will be repeated with the new council tax. I am told that in my own borough only I per cent. of homes are likely to fall into the lowest band, with 34 per cent. in the highest band. That is not because people can afford to pay the tax but because of the prices of houses in our borough in London and the South East, as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough mentioned. The LBA's figures show that under the national banding scheme about 31 per cent. of houses in greater London would fall into the top band, whereas under the scheme that the LBA is promoting only some 15 per cent. would fall into the top band. I think that those figures are worth taking to heart.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments give me another opportunity to explain why the Government have proposed that there should be national rather than regional banding for the new council tax.
First, I should like to say a few words about the community charge. We have proposed that the community charge should be replaced by the council tax because many people were not persuaded that the community charge was fair. Many people considered that there should be a reflection of people's circumstances in the bills they paid.
The principle underlying the community charge was that unless one was entitled to a rebate or reduction one should pay the same bill whatever one's circumstances and wherever one lived in a district or wherever one lived in the country. Differences in circumstances would be catered for in national taxation and especially in income tax. However, the community charge was, as I said, not perceived to be fair arid people thought that property was a good basis for local taxation.
Even though property does give a good basis for local taxation people did not want a return to the rates with all the unfairness of that system which we got rid of in 1989 for Scotland and 1990 for England and Wales. We had no desire to return to a system which penalised those who sought to improve their property and which, even more importantly, led to demands for disproportionate sums, often from those who could ill afford to pay. Such people were often pensioners with modest means living in the family home they had built up over many years. We did not want a return to the distress that the rates caused such people.
We thought long and hard before coming up with our council tax proposals. We believe that they meet all the concerns which led to the perception that the
1294
community charge was not fair and which discredited the rates. Our proposals are for a banded tax based on property values. Properties with a similar value would be in the same band. The tax would be based on the readily comprehensible principle that if a council spent at the standard level then a couple living in a property with the same value would face the same council tax.
Of course, that means that those in properties where values are high pay more. I do not duck that issue. Indeed it is in that way that we reflect the individual circumstances which were not taken into account in the community charge. I believe that is the right approach.
However, there is a vital further ingredient to our proposals, and that is the maximum difference of two-and-a-half times between the bills faced by properties in the first band and those in the seventh band. This will mean that sums will not be demanded out of proportion to the circumstances of the individuals concerned. That will be true both within regions and between regions.
It has been suggested that our proposals require Londoners in particular to pay more than their fair share. Let me tackle that accusation head on. Our proposals are designed to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, no more and no less. Before we came forward with our proposals we considered the position of London in great detail and are satisfied that we have achieved a fair deal for residents in the capital. What our proposals mean is that in any street a detached house with a high value is likely to pay more than a flat with a low value. We believe that is fair.
It is perhaps at this very local level that one can most clearly see the foundation for our proposals but I should like, if I may, to consider how the logic carries through to individual districts, regions and the whole country.
In any borough those in a three bedroom house in an attractive location next to the common or on the heath for example, are likely to pay more than those in a three bedroom semi-detached house in a much less attractive location; perhaps, for example, backing on to the bus garage, the gas works, or a railway line.
The same logic applies across London. In boroughs like Kensington and Chelsea, or Barnet, where prices are generally high, the average property is likely to face a higher tax than in boroughs where prices are generally lower, like Haringey or Tower Hamlets.
Within the South East the average tax in the Medway towns or in East Kent will be less than in Surrey; and across the country in high priced areas the bill for an average property will be more than in low priced areas for a standard level of service. On the basis of our estimates the bill for an average property in Rochester, in Medway in the South East, will be low; about the same as Middlesbrough in the North. The bill for an average property in Enfield in London will be at about the level of the national average, and about the same as Blackpool in the North. The bill for an average property in Tunbridge Wells in the South East will be above average, and about the same as Harrogate in the North.

1295
These differences reflect differences in circumstances between those areas which are reflected in house prices. In short, anywhere in the country someone with a home valued at, say, £50,000 will face a lower bill for a standard level of service than someone with a home valued at, say, £150,000.
Regional banding would mean that economic circumstances, as reflected in house prices, would not be reflected in the bills people pay. Regional banding would mean that those in the North with a property which was valued at a similar level to one in the South would pay more. At worst, this amendment is about special pleading for London. A resident of Middlesbrough would pay more than one in Rochester; a resident of Blackpool would pay more than one in Enfield; and a resident of Harrogate would pay more than one in Tunbridge Wells.
We do not believe that the public would perceive it to be fair that a resident of Harrogate living in an average house for that town valued in Band E and a resident of Tunbridge Wells living in an average house, similarly in Band E, should pay more simply because he lived in the North rather than the South East.
The anomalies of regional banding would be particularly stark at the boundaries between regions. For example, on the boundary between the South East and the South West an identical house, valued at the same level, in a Hampshire village would face a substantially lower bill than its neighbour in a Wiltshire or Dorset village.
To sum up, the effect of regional banding is to force areas where properties are generally lower priced to pay more. At the margin, it means that identical properties with identical values can pay different amounts. Of course, the Bill in its current form does not preclude regional banding and we shall consider very carefully all the points put to us on this issue before finally deciding the pattern of bands. However, I have to say that we are not convinced that regional banding would be fair.
Before I conclude I should like to refer to something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said twice during our proceedings on this Bill. He said that £1 extra from spending means £7 extra from council tax. If a local authority wants to spend £1 extra it has to raise £1 extra; if it wants to spend £1 million it simply raises an additional £1 million. That is the underlying principle of our proposals. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am frankly astonished that the Minister should seek even now to take this historical view of the history of local government finance under this Government. I am astonished that she should seek to repeat the arguments for the poll tax which she, as my noble friend Lady Hollis rightly says, is one of the last people to call the community charge. I am astonished that she should still seek to persuade the Committee that the poll tax failed only because people misunderstood it rather than because it was inherently
1296
unsound. I am astonished that she should fail to recognise the strength of the arguments which have been put notably, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, against the capital value system which is now being proposed.
With one breath the Minister is seeking to assure the Committee that the differences between the bands are not very great and that therefore there will not be too many appeals and that there will not be anything like the degree of differentiation which she sees as being damaging. With another breath she is seeking to persuade the Committee that differences are great and that these are properly reflected in house prices and house values in different parts of the country. She cannot have it both ways.
What is clear is that the noble Baroness has no answer to the charge that the standard spending assessment in particular will be related, in some way as yet unspecified, to house prices. That is what will produce the injustice of an unalloyed and unmitigated reliance on house values. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, saw that very clearly. Nothing the Minister said has detracted from the strength of that argument. It is necessary to seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 40.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Hamwee, B.

Whaddon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pym, L.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Seccombe, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Grantchester, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 2, after ("may") insert ("by a date not later than 1st August 1991").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to prescribe by 1st August 1991 those assumptions, principles and dates which will apply for the purpose of compiling and maintaining the valuation list. It is meant to be a probing amendment designed, if we can, to extract information from the Minister on the valuation process. It is important that the assumptions, principles and so on are determined soon, as the DoE says that the valuation process will be completed by autumn 1992, a little over a year away.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to address some of the following questions. For example, how will the value of property be defined? At what date will values be determined? Will the principle applying to non-domestic rates apply whereby values were those existing the year before the valuation list came into force, and, if so, will this freeze regional variations in house prices at that date? Further, can the Minister give an indication as to what other assumptions and principles will be prescribed? I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: As the noble Baroness said, this amendment seeks regulations relating to the assumptions, principles and reference date for the valuation to be made by not later than 1st August 1991. Subject to the enactment of the Bill, we are of course keen to make rapid progress with the task of allocating properties to bands. We have been asked many times when we intend to make the necessary regulations. Our responses have made clear that we intend to do so as soon as possible.
I have to say that the precise timing will depend first and foremost on the passage of this Bill through this House another place. Until and unless the Bill is passed and receives Royal Assent there can be no regulations to make. Our intention is to make the necessary regulations as soon as possible after enactment. It may be that it is possible to do so before 1st August 1991. It may be that it is not. We are keen to make progress; but we are also keen to ensure that the job is done properly. If it takes longer to get the regulations right, we will take longer. It cannot be right for our hands to be tied to making regulations before; 1st August—only three weeks from now—when the Bill is still before this Chamber for consideration in Committee. I must stress to the noble Baroness that the making of the regulations depends upon the passing of the Bill. That is the important point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I must confess that I am somewhat puzzled by his remarks. First, I should have thought that the broad sweep of principles and assumptions would already have been banked within the DoE, especially in view of the assurance given by
1298
the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when we discussed Amendment No. 17; namely, that although there may be some hesitation about empowering local authorities to begin general preparations for the Bill, they were nonetheless authorised to start immediately in terms of procuring the information required for valuation purposes. The noble Baroness was careful to separate those two aspects. It seems now that that cannot be done. Therefore, the consent is meaningless if we do not have the bounds, or the circumscriptions, so to speak, of central government's assumptions behind the valuation principle.
I must accept what the Minister said. Obviously, there is no point in pressing the matter today. Nonetheless, I must say that I do not think that it bodes well for the speediness, the smoothness, and so on, involved in introducing this new Bill if the basic assumptions upon which valuations are to be based cannot yet—and certainly cannot now—be prescribed by law, as the amendment suggests.
It seems to me that the noble Viscount's response is quite contrary in spirit to the comments made by the Minister in regard to Amendment No. 17. However, if he says it cannot be done, then it cannot be done. I can only say that we on this side of the Committee are extremely surprised by his reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 5, after ("prescribed") insert ("regional").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been discussed. However, I should like to make just one point. I believe that my noble friend the Minister missed the point where the object is to have banding so that the bands run right through to cover different sorts of houses within an area. The complaint, which was not dealt with, is that in high-banded areas almost all the houses will be in the high band, so there will not be many bands. There will just be a single band of high value for the whole area. I cite as an example Ditchling, or a similar high-value village. As I said, I do not wish to move the amendment. However, I should like to reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert ("as specified in Schedule (Banding of Property) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Before I begin, I feel that I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for inadvertently trying to deal with the non-movement of his amendment. Once one acquires the habit of not moving amendments, it is very difficult to lose it.
In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 40 which is the substantive amendment. Because of the narrow scope of the Bill and the very few opportunities which exist for us to express what are—worse than concerns—our fears about the direction

1299
in which the Government are moving, based on their statements which are not contained in the legislation, we are forced to propose a number of alternatives which may seem sometimes to conflict with the Government's proposals.
The Committee has just decided that it does not want to pursue a policy of regional banding. I am not sure whether this is a better amendment. However, I believe that, under any circumstances, what we propose here—a banding system with 14 bands—is enormously fairer and more equitable than what the Government propose. I commend the amendment to the Committee on that basis.
Members of the Committee have already indicated how, in some parts of the country, there will be very heavy proportions of the electorate who will fall into a very small range of bands. Perhaps I may put forward some further examples, one of which I have already mentioned. In Hackney which is, after all, a very poor area, 70 per cent. of households with two or more people will fall into the top three bands —that is bands E, F and G—of the seven bands proposed by the Government. In Rotherham, also a relatively poor area, 84 per cent. of households will fall into bands A to C; that is, the bottom three bands.
If one has that sort of disparity between one part of the country and another where average incomes will not be that great and where, as we have heard, there will not be any regional system and people in bands A and G will be paying the same in Rotherham as in Hackney, we are then approaching again, to some extent, the poll tax.
In responding to an earlier series of amendments, the Minister made great play about the differences between one area and another. However, I put it to her that a system that leaves 1.3 million properties in the top government band can only be described as a system designed to defuse the inevitable rage of Conservative voters if they found that, once more, after several years of being let off the hook, they were forced to pay for local government services in accordance with their ability to pay and their use of local authority services, because it is a well-established fact that richer people use local authority services more than poorer people.
With the amendment we oppose the degree to which the Government, although purporting to return to ability to pay as a criterion for local government finance, are not doing so. They are not tempering the wind to the shorn lamb; they are tempering the wind to the shorn wolf. That is the position in which we find ourselves. We object to that, which is why I am moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, when discussing Amendment No. 30. He identified the problem of large numbers of households being in relatively few bands, and that is the problem addressed in the amendment. On Amendment No. 30 the Minister gave assurances, but they will work only if there are sufficient bands with a sufficient spread. If, for instance, a relatively small home rented from a housing association is in the same band as a
1300
six-bedroomed, three reception room house in half an acre of garden, that will cause a major problem and, as has been said so many times today, will bring the council tax into disrepute.
Baroness Blatch: I shall start by giving one or two facts. First, there is no area where more than half the properties will be in the top band. My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to areas of the country where all dwellings would be in the top band. As I said, there is no area where more than half the properties will be in the top band. Secondly, it is worth noting what the percentages are: 19 per cent. in the lowest band; 16 per cent. in the next band; 20 per cent. in the next band; 17 per cent. in the following band; 13 per cent. in the next band; 8 per cent. in band F; and only 7 per cent. in band G.
The Government have proposed seven bands. The idea behind banding is to avoid the problems of detailed valuation which plagued the rates. For banding to be effective, there can be a few broad bands only. That is the logic of our position. As the number of bands increases, so the detail and the disparities increase. The more bands there are, the greater is the administrative task involved and the greater the likelihood of disputes and appeals. We have proposed seven bands as a balance between the benefits of a few broad bands and our desire to ensure that the council tax is related to the value of property.
Noble Lords have suggested that we have 14 bands. They would do well to remember that the greater the number of bands the closer the system becomes to the rates. It has been suggested a number of times since the debate started—not necessarily today—that the Government considered 14 bands. We did not. Our proposals are designed specifically to avoid disproportionate bills in London, the South East and elsewhere in the country. A couple living in a dwelling in the seventh band would pay two-thirds more than a couple living in a property in the middle band. A couple living in a property in the first band would pay two-thirds of the bill for a middle band property. Overall, bills for couples in the seventh band would be two and a half times as much as those for couples in the first band in the same local authority area. That will, unlike the rates, avoid disproportionate bills for high price areas.
People living in Barnet, where there are a large number of homes priced above £160,000, will know that despite the high value of their property the amount they are being called upon to contribute is limited to two-thirds more than the national average for spending at a standard level. Contrast that with the position under rates where they would have been called upon to pay at least twice as much—in many cases three, four and five times as much. I understand that noble Lords opposite propose that there should be no ceiling, and so that sum could be multiplied even further.
It is a myth that all those living in expensive property can afford to make a limitless extra contribution to local government. Many of course have high levels of income, but they pay their fair share in income tax—much of which is used to pay revenue support grant to local authorities. For those

1301
who do not have high levels of income, penal rates are unfair and a considerable hardship to many, particularly elderly, people.
Under the amendments there would be no fewer than six bands for properties which are in the highest of our seven bands, and for those at the top, properties would be assessed, and I quote, "with no upper limit". It has been argued that such a system would remove an unfairness from our proposals.
First, let me say that there are only 7 per cent. of properties across the country in our top band. This is of course highly variable between areas, but a further five bands might have only a very small number of properties nationally. However such bands are constructed, the benefit to the rest would be tiny. If there were six top bands instead of one, the effect might at best be to reduce the bills for the rest by less than 1 per cent. The fact is that skewing the system in this way to make those at the top pay more does very little for the rest.
The number of bands is not laid down on the face of the Bill. We are still considering the many responses to our consultation that we have had on the issue of more bands, especially at the top. When we have fully considered the responses we shall come forward with our decision. But it would be premature for the number of bands to be prescribed in the Bill. Both for that reason and for the reasons of principle I have outlined above, I call on the Committee to reject these amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The number of bands may not be prescribed on the face of the Bill, but Ministers in another place have made themselves absolutely clear. They said, "Yes, we intend to go on consulting but we will have seven bands because it is our firm intention to have seven bands".
The Minister seems to think, or has been encouraged to say, that because we are looking for a valuation system which reflects more accurately the differences in property values in the country, somehow we are looking for a one-for-one relationship between property values and the level of the rates—the level of what I the Minister would call the council tax. That is definitely not the case. We have made it clear from the beginning that considerations other than property value will be taken into account. We have made it clear from the outset that fair rates include an element of consideration of income levels. That has been written into the amendments to the Bill this afternoon and evening.
Thus, to try the scare tactic of assuming that someone who has a house worth £500,000 will necessarily pay 10 times as much as someone with a house worth £50,000 is wide of the mark. That is not the case at all. It may well be that if someone's income is more than 10 times as much as that of another person with a house worth £50,000 they will pay more than 10 times as much. But on the whole it is more likely that the system we shall propose will be a tax much more closely related to ability to pay and in which property values are only the starting point.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that I misinterpreted the noble Lord. He now suggests that if people earn very high incomes they may well be required to pay more. Does that mean that we shall all have to declare our incomes to the local authority and have a separate register in addition to the valuation in order for the local authority to know that someone is earning five or 10 times as much as someone else at the bottom of the scale? The noble Lord commented that if somebody earns 10 times as much, they may be required to pay 10 times as much. That can be done only if one's income is known.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has had the opportunity to read the policy statement with the same attention as I gave it. She knows perfectly well that there are well-established ways in which it is possible, for example, to allow people to apply for rebates on the basis of low income. That in turn could be assessed by the Inland Revenue without the local authority knowing what the income is.
There is no reason why there should be disclosure of information about income beyond the Inland Revenue. This matter has been discussed in policy statements over a period longer than the past 12 months. I am sure that the Liberals, who support the policy of local income tax, will support me in saying that there is no element in a local income tax of disclosure to any third party of what an individual or household income is, any more than with income tax itself. That is a complete red herring and it is a pity that the Minister thought fit to raise the point.
We cannot get away from the fact that the whole of the council tax is designed to be as flat a tax—in other words, as close to the poll tax as possible—as the Government can get away with. That is what they intend. They are doing this to protect the 7 per cent. of households which have properties in the top band and the much larger proportion which have properties in the other high bands. The Government are doing it in order to save Conservative votes and they are doing it in about as unscrupulous a way as I have ever seen in politics. I am sorry that Ministers whom I personally respect should find themselves in this position. At this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Information about properties in England and Wales]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 9 at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 36 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 37. This amendment follows up a theme that has already been raised in the previous speech of my noble friend Lord McIntosh about the disclosure of information. It seeks to prohibit electoral registration material being used for valuation purposes. After all, for valuation purposes the only information that the valuer needs at the beginning of the process is a list of addresses. That

1303
is in the public domain. The fear that is held—I think it is a well-founded fear—concerns the cross-use of such information. People fear that it may be used, for example, to police one-person discounts for council tax thereby encouraging the second adult to fall off the register. In other words, people may disenfranchise themselves. That has certainly been so far the experience with the poll tax.
I believe that the Home Office found in some 37 constituencies in 1989–90 that the number of people on the electoral register fell by around 1,000 in each of those constituencies. If one grosses up those figures, one discovers that something like half a million people came off the electoral register in England and Wales alone. The Home Office also noted a further fall in the poll tax register in 1990–91 of some 110,000 people in England alone. I am sure that none of us wishes that evidence to be repeated in the case of the council tax. However if it were to be repeated, people would lose not only their local vote but their general election vote. This is clearly a democratic issue but, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate, it is also a civil liberties issue. We are concerned about the fact that data gathered for one purpose may be used for another and about the right to protection against that possibility.
I am sure we would all agree that privacy should not be limited only to those who can afford to pay for it. Although this amendment refers specifically to the electoral register, I hope that we can extend the principle to other forms of data if the Minister finds the amendment acceptable. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: This Bill is about the allocation of properties to bands. It concerns the characteristics of property. It is not concerned with who lives in the property. It is certainly not concerned with whether people are on the electoral register. But it would be wrong to limit in this way the information which the commissioners can use for the purpose of the valuation. It would not be sensible, for example, to bar the use of information about property addresses, whatever the source of that information.
Of course we have proposed that there should be a personal element to the council tax. We believe that there should be a system of personal discounts to reflect the number of adults in each household as well as the value of the property. We have suggested that households with two or more adults should pay the basic council tax bill for their property. Single adult households should pay less through a personal discount and some households would receive two discounts.
We consider that a significant advantage of the discount approach is that it does not require a register of council tax payers. Households simply pay a reduced amount through a discount where there is only one liable adult or two discounts where there are none or where the property is unoccupied.
We are considering the responses to consultation on all these issues and it is premature to consider what information could or should be considered for the main legislation to introduce the council tax. What is
1304
clear, however, is that these amendments are superfluous to the purpose of this Bill and I urge the Committee to reject them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I must confess that I was again somewhat disappointed with the Minister's reply. Let us be clear that for the purposes of this Bill valuers do not need individual names and therefore they do not need to refer to the electoral register for valuation purposes. The Minister has said that for the purposes of the Bill all the valuers need is a list of addresses and not a list of individual names. To seek individual names, therefore, which is what the electoral register provides, is necessary only for purposes over and beyond that of valuation—in other words, for cross-checking eligibility for rebates, payments and other such matters. That is why Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber regard this as a civil liberties issue.
I hope that on reflection the Minister will want to think further about the matter and perhaps move in some way at a later stage, because I believe that he would meet a number of civil liberties concerns if he were to concede that point.
Finally, the Minister said tonight that this proposal was premature. He also said that it was premature to ask about the qualifications of surveyors; it was premature to ask about the principles of valuation; it was premature to discuss in greater detail a number of issues tonight. Yet somehow, although we are not allowed to discuss these matters, to have the information required or make preparations until after this Bill becomes law—by the winter or spring of next year—this complex new tax, which will require elaborate work, is due to be in place within 12 months. The responsibility and burden for that will fall upon local authorities.
I believe that Ministers and their advisers are inviting all sorts of trouble by not being able to offer to the Committee tonight perfectly proper information which should already have been considered if we are to accept and support the timetable which Ministers expect us to abide by. Nonetheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 25, after ("days) insert ("or such other longer period that may be specified in the notice").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very minor amendment and I shall not delay the Committee for long. As the Bill stands local authorities and housing associations are required to submit information within 21 days. We feel that that is a rather tight timetable and would like it specified that the information should be supplied following consultation,
"or such other longer period that may be specified in the notice".
Much of the data will be computerised. However, we all know the problems that have been experienced with the poll tax. As a leader of a council and chair of a finance committee who has lived through the introduction and implementation of the poll tax, I do

1305
not take those concerns lightly. I hope that the Minister does not either. This modest amendment would go some way to giving local authorities in particular and housing associations and other similar bodies which hold a large stock of housing a little more flexibility in returning the information that is required. In turn that will ultimately reduce the number of appeals and the pressure on the system. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment seeks to give the option of extending the length of time allowed for a notice of information to be completed by an owner or occupier. The Bill already allows owners and occupiers 21 days to comply with a notice of information and makes clear that no one who has a reasonable excuse for failing to observe the time limit will be penalised. We intend to keep bureaucracy and form filling to a minimum. The process of allocating properties to bands should generally be fairly straightforward. In many cases whole streets with broadly similar characteristics will be in the same band.
Valuation officers will not need to send out forms to every property. The forms which are sent out can easily be completed within 21 days. To allow more time would be unnecessary. I call on the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister may have misunderstood the point of the amendment. We are not dealing with forms being sent out to individual properties which are tenanted. The presumption is that those forms will go to the landlord rather than to the occupier. Local authorities may hold a stock of 40,000 or 60,000 houses. A housing association may hold a stock of 20,000 properties. In those cases the limit of 21 days is very tight.
Obviously records are computerised, but I repeat that experience of the poll tax has shown that the problems of computer software, forms, printing systems and the like make it extremely difficult to produce the information which will obviate much of the need for appeals. We are not asking that local authorities specify the time. We are asking that the Government should be able to extend the time allowed, particularly in the case of larger bodies which hold a large housing stock in order for the system to run more smoothly. I hope that the Minister may be able to respond to that point.
Baroness Blatch: The Bill states:
"A person on whom a notice is served under subsection (3) above shall supply the information requested if it is in his possession or control, and shall do so in such form and manner as is specified in the notice and within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served".
The amendment simply seeks to extend the period. We are talking here about an individual.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the Minister saying that a local authority or housing association is not a person within the meaning of the Bill? We have always understood that a person included an organisation. I have never heard the interpretation that a person means an individual.
Baroness Blatch: I am told that a person could be a local authority, but a local authority could certainly answer within 21 days.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My authority has perhaps 20,000 houses. Other authorities, such as Sheffield or Newcastle, have perhaps 100,000 properties and have elaborate information which a valuer will quite rightly need to know in terms of, for example, improvements, access to drainage, size of gardens and access to garages. Between us, we could come up with a long list of information. It must be accurate for valuation purposes. We have not been told the principles, we are not allowed to make the preparations and nor can we be confident that the valuers are professionally qualified in ways that we would accept. Given all the points that we have established tonight, it is absurd to ask a local authority to produce that kind of information, possibly affecting 100,000 properties, in 21 days. We simply ask that, where a local authority can put up a good case to government that it needs more than 21 days, the Government will accept that. The primary reason for that will be the amount of stock held. Perhaps the Minister will comment further.
Baroness Blatch: The information will predominantly be requested from house owners and occupiers. It will occasionally be necessary to go to a local authority or perhaps to a housing association, but those occasions will be much less frequent because most of the information will be sought from owners and occupiers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I accept that, but local authorities hold about 4.5 million or 5 million properties in stock.
Baroness Blatch: Most of the house owners and occupiers will respond in the normal way. We are talking about the residual number of people who for one reason or another do not respond.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister must distinguish between owners and occupiers. It makes a huge difference. If the occupiers are to answer, they will answer only for one property and will do so without difficulty within 21 days, but she cannot simply lump owners and occupiers together. As my noble friend said, local authorities have a stock of about 5 million homes. Housing associations have a stock of about 500,000 homes. If they are in large estates and represent large portfolios, the difficulty of producing information of that kind will he that much greater. This is the only place in the Bill—everything else is tentative—where a period such as 21 days is specified. I do not want to encourage my noble friend to divide the Committee, but I urge the Minister to say that she will look at the matter again between now and Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I have a reputation for always saying that I shall continue to consider matters between stages of a Bill. I understand that there is no greater owner of municipal housing than Norwich City Council with which the noble Baroness is associated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has the highest percentage of municipal housing.
Baroness Blatch: As the noble Baroness says, it has the highest percentage of municipal housing. Predominantly, the occupiers of those houses will respond to the request for information within 21 days. It will only be in cases of difficulty that the local authorities will be required to provide the information.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We cannot push this matter any further tonight because there is a gap between us as regards our understanding of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will query the matter further with her advisers, as we shall do. Perhaps we can discuss the matter, because that is not our
1308
understanding. If our understanding is correct, I hope that the Minister will reconsider her views before Report stage. There is no point in trying to press the matter further tonight because we are too far apart on our understanding of the Bill.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.

  SOVIET WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION
  SOVIET WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION
  "WILHEMINA J": REPORT ON SINKING
  "WILHEMINA J": REPORT ON SINKING
  OPENCAST COAL MINING
  OPENCAST COAL MINING
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY