Sitting of 17 July 1991

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Belfast Duty Solicitor Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General what arrangements he intends to make to ensure the survival of the Belfast duty solicitor scheme.

  The Attorney-General
  The Belfast duty solicitor scheme is a voluntary scheme established and administered by the Council of the Law Society for Northern Ireland. The continued running of the scheme is, therefore, a matter for that body.

ENERGY

  Energy-efficient Lighting
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to encourage businesses to follow the lead of the Houses of Parliament in introducing energy-efficient lighting to cut costs and save energy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Energy Efficiency Office uses its 'Best Practice' programme and the network of Regional Energy Efficiency Officers to promote the saving of energy costs through the use of energy efficiency lighting in industry and commerce.

  Central Heating Boilers
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make a statement on the assessment he has made of the effect of the EC's draft directive for new hot water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels—document No. 9791/90—on(a) the average cost to British householders of replacing a central heating boiler, (b) the average cost of installing a central heating system, (c) the average cost of a central heating boiler, (d) the profitability of the British boiler-making industry, (e) the average cost of a new house or flat, (f) employment within the British boiler-making industry, (g) the number of house owners who in future will not be able to replace central heating boilers and (h) the average annual saving per boiler in fuel costs;

  (2) if it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to oppose implementation of the draft directive on new hot water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government wish to encourage cost-effective improvements in the energy efficiency of central heating systems in the United Kingdom. The draft directive as proposed by the Commission would not secure this aim. We have offered detailed suggestions for amendments, as have other member states and the European Parliament, and we await a response from the Commission.

  Precise assessment of the effects of implementing the current draft is not possible, because of uncertainty about
  162
  its meaning; in general, the average costs of boilers and systems (a, b, c) are likely to rise, and the average saving (h) is unlikely to be sufficient to make the extra investment cost-effective. Some 60 per cent. of households would have to make alterations costing from £200 to £1,000 before being able to replace their current boiler, a total cost to the nation of some £2,000 million to £3,000 million, resulting in annual fuel savings of only some £10 million to £20 million. The consequential impacts on the average cost of new dwellings (e) and on profitability and employment in the boiler-making industry (d and f) are not clear, but there would have to be major redeployments of resources.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the role of the working group involving outside advisers to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham East, (Mr. Moynihan) on renewable sources of energy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government announced their intention to conduct a review of their renewable energy programmes in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" published in September 1990. A further statement will be made shortly on the procedures to be followed for that review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether prisoners are considered for transfer to an open prison if they have not previously been on home leave.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The successful completion of a period of home leave is not a general requirement for allocation to open conditions, but most open establishments include such a requirement in their allocation criteria because of its usefulness as an indication of inmates' suitability.

  Prisoners
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the current prison population spent time in local authority care as children; and what proportion this is of the total prison population.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information was collected in the national prison survey and will be made available once the results have been analysed.

  Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under section 100H(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and 50H(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, respectively, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, since 1 April 1986.

  Mr. John Patten
  Records available centrally show no prosecutions in England and Wales from 1986 to 1989 under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. No information is centrally available for Scotland.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in tabular form details of the numbers of claims for between(a) £750 and £850, (b) £850 and £950 and (c) £950 and £1,050 and the number in excess of these amounts by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and how many of the claims were made by police officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available in the form requested, but the percentage of awards within different bands for the year ended 31 March 1990, is shown in paragraph 8.1 of the board's last annual report—Cm 1365—a copy of which is in the Library. The relevant figures are:

  Number

  Percentage

  Under £400

  462

  1·6

  £400– £499

  473

  1·7

  £500– £599

  3,179

  11·4

  £600– £799

  5,085

  18·2

  £800– £999

  3,458

  12·4

  £1,000–£1,991

  7,868

  28·2

  £2,000–£4,999

  5,205

  18·6

  £5,000–£9,999

  1,394

  5·0

  £10,000 and over

  802

  2·9

  27,926

  100·0

  The board does not keep totals of the number of applications from police officers.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of cases settled under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in 1990; and what information he has about the time taken to determine cases from first registration in the years ending 31 March 1990 and 31 March 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the calendar year 1990, a total of 50,006 cases were resolved. The percentage resolved within certain periods of registration for the year ended 31 March 1990, is shown in paragraph 6.1 of the board's 26th annual report—Cm 1365—a copy of which is in the Library. The relevant figures are:

  Percentage

  Up to 3 months

  0·5

  3 to 6 months

  1·5

  6 to 9 months

  3·8

  9 to 12 months

  13·9

  Over 12 months

  80·3

  Equivalent figures for the year ended 31 March 1991 are not yet available, but a recent survey by the board indicated that about 60 per cent. of applications are being resolved within 12 months.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commissioners
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the process of consultation for appointing the assistant parliamentary boundary commissioners; and what progress has been made to date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has been asked by the Boundary Commission for England to appoint a panel 164
  of about 60 assistant commissioners in connection with the fourth general review of constituencies in England, which began in February. The commission put forward a list of 110 distinguished lawyers compiled by writing to heads of chambers and the Lord Chancellor's Department inviting suggestions.

  The Home Office is now in the process of consulting the Lord Chancellor's Department over biographical information about the nominees. Final decisions about which of the nominees should be invited to serve will be made in due course.

  Prisons
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider using the redundant Army barracks and air and sea stations as prisons for low category prisoners as a short-term measure to relieve overcrowding in prisons such as Winchester.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The use of military accommodation to hold prisoners would be justifiable only if the prison population was so high that it could not be contained within the operational capacity of the prison service. Winchester prison, as with many local prisons serving the courts, has a population which exceeds its certified normal accommodation but is less than its operational capacity. Over the next two years, 10 new local prisons and remand centres will be opening, and these will make a major impact on overcrowding in local prisons.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Namibia
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the European Commission with the aim of ensuring that the Community's policy towards negotiations with Namibia is not affected by national bias arising from the current dispute concerning illegal fishing in Namibian waters by nationals of a Community member.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom has expressed concern over the handling of the suspension of fisheries negotiations between the Community and Namibia. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raised the issue with Commission officials during the 6 and 7 May Council of Ministers in Brussels. The Commission has now given an assurance of its readiness to resume negotiations, which is shared by the Namibian Government.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his review of the financial arrangements and the adequacy of financial regulations in dependent territories has now been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My officials have conducted a review; further work is still needed. My officials are discussing further action with the Comptroller and Auditor General.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the options available to farmers which are non-agricultural under the set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Farmers can make use of any non-agricultural option under the set-aside scheme within the limitations described on page 6 of the booklet SA1—Rev 2—a copy of which is attached. The booklet is also available in the Library of the House. In the first two years of the scheme the main non-agricultural uses related to horse-based activities, golf courses, game cover for commercial shoots, sports grounds and other recreational activities.

  Blue-ear Pig Disease
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to relax movement restrictions imposed because of blue-ear pig disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government's prompt action in response to suspicion of this disease in Great Britain appears to have been successful in containing its spread. In the light of accumulating knowledge about the development of the disease it is now possible to reduce the size of the restricted area, which was imposed on 13 June, around those farms in Humberside where the disease is suspected or has been confirmed. This action, which will take effect immediately, will release movements of pigs from over 100 large livestock units from all restrictions.

  Restrictions on farms where the disease has been confirmed or is suspected will remain, but some changes in the movement controls which are applied to affected farms and within restricted zones can now safely be made. These changes are being finalised in the light of comments made by the industry; the details will be announced shortly. These changes will be welcomed by the farmers concerned.

  Investigations of the original source of infection in Great Britain are continuing, and developments on farms where disease has been found or is suspected are being closely watched. The fact that these changes can now be made reflects the success of the Government's prompt actions when early reports of the disease were reported and is a tribute to the effectiveness of the state veterinary service in responding to new challenges.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 15 and 16 July.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).

  Discussion concentrated on the Commission's proposals for major adaptations to the common agricultural policy. I welcomed the prospect of reform and reminded the Council that the United Kingdom was wholly committed in its support for radical change in the CAP. However, I also emphasised that the main thrust of these
  166
  proposals was disappointing in that they do not constitute a long-term policy for encouraging efficient farming in the Community, are certain to be very costly and involve substantial discrimination between different producers and member states. Furthermore, the environmental element of the CAP would still be an add-on extra rather than a central theme. The Council is expected to resume these discussions at its next meeting in September.

  In a discussion on the GATT round I emphasised the need for the Community to take the initiative immediately with a view to achieving an overall solution well before the end of this year.

  I also stressed the continued need to protect United Kingdom producers of soft fruit from low-priced processed imports from eastern Europe. The Commissioner agreed to extend the present safeguards until 25 September.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Planning
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions the Government have reached in reviewing methods to achieve a balance between economic and environmental costs and benefits in transport planning.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment—SACTRA—is currently reviewing the Department's methods of environmental assessment for trunk roads, and in particular the scope and methods for putting monetary values on environmental effects. I expect to receive its report in the late summer. The Department gathers information on the full range of economic, environmental and other costs and benefits, to inform decision making, whether or not the information can be quantified or expressed in monetary values.

  Airport Charges
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority and BAA concerning the proposals for cuts in the charges levied on airlines.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such consultations.

  Lighthouses
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the net cost to the general lighthouse fund in 1988–89 and 1989–90 in respect of the fund's obligations for(a) the Sumbrero lighthouse in Anguilla and (b) Pembroke light in the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 for Sombrero are £31,008 and £48,507 respectively. No expenditure was incurred at Cape Pembroke, where the lighthouse is not operational.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with rail freight distributors on the regulations concerning undermodal vehicles maximum cargo as against road haulage competition.
  167
  Mr. Freeman
  Following the launch of his railfreight initiative on 28 May, my right hon. and learned Friend has written to rail freight distributors and others asking for their views on the opportunities for, and obstacles to, a more effective use of the rail network.

  Marine Directorate
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to relocate the marine directorate of his Department away from central London.

  Mr. Chope
  It is this Government's policy to keep under review the cost and location of work carried out by Departments.

  Following a review of my Department's marine directorate headquarters, we have decided that most of the directorate's posts which are currently located in offices in central London should relocate to Southampton.

  The work to be relocated includes the central staff of the Surveyor-General's Organisation, the HQ administration of Her Majesty's Coastguard, and the marine pollution control unit. Approximately 260 jobs are affected. Some 20 posts dealing with ports matters will remain in central London.

  The marine directorate plans to move into new offices in Southampton in May 1993. They will be equipped with all the necessary up-to-date technology to ensure that communications with the rest of the Department, both in London and round the coast, are easy and quick at all times. The move is expected to yield savings of about £19 million over 20 years.

PRIME MINISTER

  Energy-efficient Lighting
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to encourage all Government Departments to introduce energy-efficient lighting to cut costs and save energy; and whether he will assist them with such schemes.

  The Prime Minister
  As part of the Government's drive to improve energy efficiency on their estate the ministerial group on energy efficiency chaired by the Secretary of State for Energy encourages Departments to take all cost-effective energy efficiency measures available. Since the start of the present campaign many Departments have introduced energy-efficient lighting schemes.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister when he was first informed of the doubts of the Bank of England concerning BCCI.

  The Prime Minister
  I was informed of the fraud as soon as the Bank was satisfied that it had evidence on which it could act.

  Sheikh of Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi.

  The Prime Minister
  I paid a courtesy call on Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan in my capacity as Foreign Secretary on 21 July 1989.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Forestry
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken since September 1990 to reform the tropical forestry action plan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom participated in the ad hoc expert group in Geneva in March to develop revised goals and objectives for the TFAP and revisions to its organisation and management following the independent review of TFAP published in May 1990. The group emphasised the need for the TFAP to be country-led, nationally owned process overseen by a consultative group which would monitor quality and impact.

  The FAO Council in June 1991 agreed that a small "contact group" of developing and developed countries, NGOs and international agencies should further develop the ad hoc group proposals and report to FAO's Council in November. The ODA will play an active part, if invited.

  In countries where the ODA has been involved in TFAP activity since September 1990, officials have followed the recommendations of the independent review in formulating projects and strengthening planning capacity in-country.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what bilateral aid has been given to developing countries to address the social and economic reasons for forest loss since September 1990; and what steps he has taken to assess its effectiveness in promoting agroforestry and reforestation;

  (2) if he will list, with figures, the research projects wholly or partly funded by the Government, aimed at improving the productivity of forests in developing countries since September 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following ODA forestry research projects have been approved since September 1990. These fall into two categories: strategic research and bilateral country programme activities. All have increased forest productivity as a major objective.

  Project

  ODA contribution £

  Strategic Research

  Tree crop interactions in agroforestry prototypes in the Sahel

  169,200

  Management of miombo woodland as community woodlots

  81,000

  Comparative study of traditional and introduced tree crops

  164,000

  Rainforest regeneration in threatened forests of Northern Amazonia

  46,000

  Investigating soil characteristics and relationship to vegetation status on Mt. Cameroon

  43,000

  Collection of Calliandra calothyrus seeds and distribution

  22,000

  Reproductive biology of Contra alliodora

  74,000

  Evaluation of tree species' potential for fodder (in Central America and Africa)

  292,000

  169

  Project

  ODA contribution £

  Study of Inga genetic resources in Central and South America

  268,000

  Mangrove distribution, vulnerability and management in Central America

  34,000

  Recovery of tropical forest ecosystems from major disturbances (Indonesia)

  60,000

  Impact of invasive tree species and control (Jamaica)

  73,000

  Agroforestry and Mycorrhiza research for semi-arid land of East Africa

  60,000

  Modelling approach to new logging practices (Malaysia)

  45,000

  Diseases of forest tress in South East Asia

  26,000

  Long-term production prospects of logged and unlogged forest in Uganda

  98,000

  Contribution of fruit-eating primates to natural forest regeneration in Uganda

  142,000

  Africa Acacia rhizobial technology and ecology (Zimbabwe)

  204,000

  Dipterocarps, Awarcariacae studies and their application

  291,000

  Study of seed growth of ecophysiology and Dipterocarp varieties

  63,000

  Molecular study of the genetic resources in the genus Lencaena

  66,000

  Comparative physiology, field performance and propagation of prosopsis plants

  243,000

  Improving yield and sustainability of food production by control of soil acidity

  142,000

  Reliability of genetic parameters estimated from forest tree progeny tests

  161,000

  Bilateral Research Programmes

  Production of national database of land resources in Belize

  143,000

  Developmental potential of rosewood and other species in Para State, Brazil

  634,000

  Establishment of new biological research station in Caxiuana National Forest, Para State, Brazil

  1,351,000

  Biological study of ecology, natural regeneration and flora of flooded forest, Para State, Brazil

  246,000

  Pilot management project to demonstrate artificial regeneration techniques and management procedures in Cameroon

  1,900,000

  Forest ecology research and staff training in Ghana

  333,000

  Entomological research in Guyana's forest

  190,000

  Development of a small and medium scale wood industry in Honduras

  1,956,000

  Managing lowland dipterocarp forest as a sustainable and productive resource (Indonesia)

  2,644,000

  170

  Project

  ODA contribution £

  Biological control of aphids attacking conifer plantations in Malawi

  612,000

  Development of a sustainable forestry research capacity in Nepal

  4,921,000

  The following projects have investigation of social/ economic reasons for forest loss as part of their overall objectives [Strategic Research (SR); Bilateral (B)].

  £

  Belize forest planning and management (B)

  3,356,000

  Impact of rainforest logging on local people in Sumatra (SR)

  32,000

  Resistance of forests to Hurricane Gilbert (Jamaica) (SR)

  200,000

  Indigenous forest conservation project (Kenya)(B)

  4,860,000

  Integration of social forestry issues into objectives of Cross River State, (Nigeria)(B)

  1,690,000

  Adoption of hedgerow intercropping by Third World farmers (SR)

  48,000

  Under ODA's joint funding scheme, finance is also provided for many non-governmental organisation projects. Details of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  ODA has long-established procedures for monitoring and evaluation of projects including feedback of evaluation lessons to all seven programme managers. ODA is currently evaluating five completed forestry projects, in Kenya, India, Lesotho, Nepal and Cote d'Ivoire. The results of this are expected in mid-1992.

  Conservation
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific bilateral aid the Government have given to conservation projects in developing countries, particularly to anti-poaching projects and the management of wildlife reserves since September 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are currently financing 67 NGO environment and wildlife conservation projects through the ODA's joint funding scheme, at an aid programme cost of £1·2 million in 1991–92; and 21 bilateral wildlife conservation projects in Africa at an estimated total aid programme cost of £5 million.

WALES

  A470
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the cost of completing the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed, Merthyr Tydfil.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The estimated total cost of the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed scheme given in the 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" is £28 million at November 1989 prices.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's estimate of the expenditure on the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed, Merthyr Tydfil in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.
  171
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Actual expenditure will depend on the speed with which engineering design and statutory procedures can be completed and the timing of the start of main works. A main works start is planned before April 1994, and it is not possible to give a more precise date at this stage. A realistic breakdown of expenditure between the financial years requested cannot be given.

  Housing for Wales
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the salaries and emoluments of the board members of Tai Cymru (Housing for Wales).

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on Thursday 11 July, at column 449.

  A487
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the first study on the need for a replacement for the Pont Seiont on the A487 to the south of Caernarfon was initiated; on what date that study was completed; what were the initiation and completion dates of any subsequent surveys; on what date construction work on a new bridge was originally scheduled to start; on what dates the start date was revised, for what reason and to what new start date; what is the latest start date for this scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As part of a general exercise to assess the load-carrying of certain bridge structures on trunk roads in Wales a study of Pont Seiont was

  Port

  Country of origin

  Destination

  Type of waste

  Tonnes

  Holyhead

  Ireland

  Greater Manchester

  Glycolmethacrylate Scrap

  16·0

  Metal Hydroxide/Oxides

  340·1

  PolychloroBiphenyl (PCB)

  13·7

  Hampshire CC

  Miscellaneous Waste

  22·6

  Miscellaneous Chemical Waste

  15·1

  Organic Waste (mix)

  84·8

  Pharmaceutical Waste

  79·0

  Torfaen BC

  Adhesive Waste

  12·4

  Liners (cont: toxic waste)

  35·2

  Miscellaneous Waste

  14·6

  Miscellaneous Chemical Waste

  131·5

  Organic Waste (mix)

  19·7

  PolychloroBiphenyl (PCB)

  12·0

  Pharmaceutical Waste

  19·2

  Total

  815·9

  Newport

  Austria

  Greater Manchester

  Metal Hydroxide/Oxides

  84·1

  Miscellaneous Waste

  1,090·6

  Germany

  Hampshire CC

  Laboratory Waste

  66·5

  Pesticides

  70·0

  Torfaen BC

  Miscellaneous Chemical Waste

  6·9

  Pesticides

  23·9

  Finland

  Torfaen BC

  PCB Fluid/Transformer

  10·7

  Ireland

  Greater Manchester

  Metal Hydroxides/Oxides

  1,515·7

  Hampshire CC

  Organic Waste (mix)

  31·3

  172
  commissioned in 1973. This study culminated in the announcement by the then Secretary of State in November 1979 of his "Preferred Route" for the replacement of Pont Seiont. The scheme was included in the 1978 "Roads in Wales" programme for a start in the time band 1981–83. Also as a consequence of the study the existing bridge was strengthened in 1982 to enable it to carry trunk road traffic in the short to medium term. A recent assessment has shown the bridge to be in good condition satisfying current and anticipated loading requirements.

  The time band for the start of the replacement scheme has changed in subsequent publications of "Roads in Wales" to reflect this scheme's priority in relation to others in the roads programme. The 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" shows the scheme in the time band April 1994 to March 1997.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state for the last available year(a) the amount of toxic waste imported through Welsh ports in total, and by port and (b) the country of origin and destination of toxic waste imports by port, together with the nature of toxic waste in each case.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Government believe that developed countries should be self-sufficient in waste disposal and are working towards that end in international discussions.

  The information for the year ending 31 March 1991 is as follows:

  173

  Port

  Country of origin

  Destination

  Type of waste

  Tonnes

  Switzerland

  Greater Manchester

  Aluminium Hydroxide/Oxide

  7·4

  Battery Waste

  7·0

  Distillation Residue

  25·0

  Inorganic Waste

  3·8

  Organic Waste (mix)

  3·8

  Paint Waste

  96·7

  Sodium Chloride

  84·4

  Sodium Benzosulphonate

  34·1

  Hampshire CC

  Organic Waste (mix)

  326·2

  Torfaen BC

  Organic Waste (mix)

  129·1

  Paint Waste

  64·0

  PolychloroBiphenyl (PCB)

  66·9

  PVC Waste

  17·0

  Total

  4,505·1

  Swansea

  Ireland

  Torfaen BC

  Miscellaneous Waste

  10·1

  Total

  10·1

  Grand Total

  5,331·1

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those health authorities in Wales that have appointed directors of dental public health; how many of these directors are designated or accredited consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows: The district health authorities that have directors of dental public health in post are:

  Clwyd1

  East Dyfed1

  Gwent

  Gwynedd1

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan1

  West Glamorgan

  1Of consultant designation.

  The post in Mid Glamorgan is currently vacant. It is shortly to be advertised as a shared appointment with Powys with the intention of securing the services of an accredited consultant in dental public health.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the number of full-time posts and full-time equivalent posts allocated by each family health authority in Wales for dental matters.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally.

  TVEI
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Training Agency and his Department intend to publish their next joint statement on the technical and vocational education initiative and the national curriculum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department, the Training Agency and the Curriculum Council for Wales issued a joint statement on TVEI and the national curriculum in July 1989. At present I have no plans to publish a further statement.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of his budget is allocated to non-vocational adult education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A great deal of non-vocational adult education is undertaken by local education authorities for which allowance is made in the annual local authority revenue settlement. The sums involved are not hypothecated. The Welsh Office budget for adult education is not split between vocational and non-vocational education.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an inquiry into the state and development of non-vocational adult education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I do not believe that an inquiry is necessary. The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" sets out the Government's priorities for the provision of further education for adults. The consultation exercise that ensued has brought forward a wide range of views on the future of adult education and these are being considered in detail before we move forward towards legislation.

  Family Health Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the family health services authorities in Wales he has met since his appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend met the chairmen of all the authorities in July 1990. Subsequently, I met the chairmen in June this year when we discussed the progress being made in the development of family health services in Wales.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools Budgets
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list local education authorities in rank order by the proportion of the potential schools budget held back in 1991–92, showing in each case the proportion held back in 1990–91.

  Mr. Fallon
  We are not yet in a position to provide all the information requested. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Education Expenditure, Coventry
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of Coventry local education authority's expenditure is held back from schools after deductions have been made for capital expenditure; and what is the relative figure for other local education authorities.

  Mr. Fallon
  The figures for 1991–92 will be published soon: I will write to my hon. Friend.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the relevant qualifications of Mr. David Pascall in respect of his part-time chairmanship of the National Curriculum Council prior to his appointment in 1990; what proportion of the working week he is expected to devote to these duties; and to what salary and emoluments he is entitled in the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Pascall was appointed to the NCC in August 1990 and knows its work well. He will assume the chairmanship of the council on a part-time basis in August 1991. He currently expects to spend 25 to 30 days a year on council business and will be paid an appropriate per diem fee, the amount of which has not yet been settled.

  ILEA Sites (Disposal)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many former Inner London education authority sites have been disposed of by the London residuary body through negotiation; and how many have been sold at auction;

  (2) what is the total income so far raised by the London residuary body from the sale of former Inner London education authority sites; and what is the estimated value of those still to be disposed of;

  (3) how many former Inner London education authority sites have been sold by the London residuary body to (a) London borough councils, (b) other public bodies and (c) private purchasers; and how many have still to be disposed of;

  (4) how many former Inner London education authority sites transferred to the London residuary body for disposal were previously used as playing fields.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the London residuary body.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the consequences for adult education of the recent Government White Paper on education and training.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has so far received around 1,000 representations about the implications for the further education of adults of the recent Government White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century".

  Open University
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the vice-chancellor of the Open university to discuss the expansion of the university's range of activities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I meet the vice-chancellor from time to time to discuss a range of issues relating to the university. I met the vice-chancellor in May, and again when I visited the university last week. No date has yet been fixed for a further meeting.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of his budget is allocated to non-vocational adult education.

  Mr. Eggar
  Allowance is made within annual local authority finance settlements for the further education of adults. It is for individual local education authorities and the institutions they maintain to determine the pattern of spending in each area within the resources available to them.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the population of the United Kingdom participated in non-vocational adult education.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available centrally, because the available enrolment data do not distinguish between vocational and non-vocational study. Enrolments at adult education centres in the United Kingdom numbered 1·6 million in 1988–89. In addition there were nearly 600 thousand enrolments on courses run by university extra-mural departments, the Workers Educational Association and other bodies. There were also over 600,000 enrolments on non-examinable courses without a specified qualification in further education colleges in England alone. All of these enrolment statistics will cover both vocational and non-vocational study.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will state the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.
  177
  Mr. Renton
  This is a personal matter for the chief executive. However, he has authorised me to say that his first degree was a bachelor of arts in English and History from the university of British Columbia.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will state the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Civil Service college; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Renton
  This is a personal matter for the chief executive. However, she has authorised me to say that her first degree was in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford university.

  Occupational Health Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when the last annual report for the Occupational Health Service was published; and when the next one is due.

  Mr. Renton
  The last annual report of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service was published in July 1990 for the year ending 31 March 1990. The annual report for 1990–91 is due to be published on 26 July 1991. Copies of this will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses when available.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by the Occupational Health Service since its establishment as an executive agency; and separately identify those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status.

  Mr. Renton
  The quality of service performance indicators being developed in the Occupational Health Service include:

  1. Peer review and review by Division Heads of performance against objectives.

  2. Standard protocols for the delivery of services.

  3. Post-service questionnaires for advisory visits, comprehensive medical examinations and lifestyle screenings, and Occupational Health Service health and safety training. The overall rating will be on a six points scale with targets set for the proportion of responses in the top two points.

  4. Targets for turn around time in case referrals and for the error rate in invoices to customers.

  5. Cost per productive professional day.

  There were no specific quality of performance indicators.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will state the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Occupational Health Service; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Renton
  This is a personal matter for the chief executive. However, he has authorised me to say that his first degree was a bachelor of medicine/bachelor of surgery from the university of Aberdeen.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Enterprise Initiative (Consultants)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of his Department's contractors are also listed as consultants under the enterprise initiative assisted consultancy scheme; and what proportion of the number of projects their work comprises.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department has five main contractors who are responsible for the administration of the enterprise initiative assisted consultancy scheme. In turn, the Chartered Institute of Marketing, as one of the main contractors, sub-contracts most of its operation to four regional contractors. Of the nine bodies concerned, five are listed as consultants under the scheme. Since the enterprise initiative was introduced in January 1988, they have been responsible collectively for 1·9 per cent. of the total projects completed to date across all six consultancy schemes.

  Trade Agreements
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken since September 1990 to ensure that international trade agreements involving the United Kingdom have had respect for the international environment.

  Mr. Lilley
  The European Community has signed no new multilateral trade agreements since September 1990. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in an important and developing international debate about the relationship of environmental questions to the rules of international trade.

  Since September 1990 the Government have participated in a study on trade and environment issues in the OECD—this led to endorsement by the OECD ministerial council in June of a programme of further work, in which we are participating, and which may lead to guidelines on ways to protect the environment while preserving the open multilateral trading system; begun planning a consultancy study which will look urgently at the trade effects of measures which may be taken to control the emission of greenhouse gases; participated with our European partners in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations on agriculture which are addressing the need for assistance for environmental and conservation purposes—agreement in GATT on investment and intellectual property would also assist the technology flows needed to deal with environmental problems; participated fully in a GATT working party on the export of domestically prohibited goods, including those banned on environmental grounds; supported re-establishment of a GATT working party on the environment.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 20, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 10 July 1991]: Most of the activities listed are of a continuing nature in support of departmental programmes. The two major campaigns, the enterprise initiative support package for business and the

  179
  single European market information campaign, began in 1988. The enterprise initiative's assisted consultancy scheme will continue until March 1994. The single market campaign was launched as a five-year programme to alert British business to the challenges and opportunities that the single market is bringing.

  British Standards Institution
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government responded to the call in last year's European Commission Green Paper on standardisation for national Governments to put more resources into promoting and supporting standardisation at national level.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The Government continue to provide substantial funding to the British Standards Institution and, in the single market campaign, emphasise the importance of industry contributing to European standards work through BSI.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the amount of funding given by his Department to the British Standards Institution in each of the years from 1979 to 1990, and what is the amount planned to be given in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: Expenditure on the grant in aid to the BSI together with the consultancy drafting scheme, the priority standards fund, additional targeted funding and the assisted international travel scheme has been:

  £000

  1982–83

  3,408

  1983–84

  3,618

  1984–85

  4,051

  1985–86

  4,530

  1986–87

  5,316

  1987–88

  5,509

  1988–89

  5,889

  1989–90

  5,898

  1990–91

  6,223

  1991–92

  16,807

  1 Estimates provision

  No decisions on funding for 1992–93 have yet been taken. I regret that comparable earlier figures are not readily available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Banks
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has now received about the treatment of small businesses by the banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have now completed my discussions with the chairmen of the major clearing banks and considered the information which they have provided on their interest rates and charges to small businesses.

  Over recent months the Government have received complaints from small businesses about the way in which banks were handling their business, in particular suggestions that the banks were not passing on to their customers the full cut in base rates seen since October
  180
  1990. A strong banking system is of considerable importance to the economy, but the way in which small businesses are financed, and the terms on which they deal with the banks, are equally important. Small firms have provided much of the dynamism and renewed entrepreneurial spirit which have done so much to improve the United Kingdom economy over the past decade. The success of small firms is essential to the success of the economy. Suggestions that they are getting a bad deal from the banks therefore required serious and urgent investigation.

  I, therefore, saw the president of the British Bankers Association on 5 June and the chairmen of National Westminster, Lloyds, Barclays and the Midland over the following week. I expressed the Government's concern about the complaints we had received and asked the chairmen to co-operate in the joint exercise by the Bank of England and Treasury officials to establish the facts.

  The banks have now supplied the information requested and this has been analysed and considered by the Bank of England and the Treasury. A summary is being placed in the House Library. The deputy governor and I subsequently met the major clearing banks again to discuss the position.

  I have also received a large number of letters from small businesses, as has the Prime Minister, the Bank of England, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. Well over 1,000 letters of complaint have been received and analysed. The Department of Trade and Industry regional directors have held discussions with banks and businesses and the Department of Employment has had continuing discussions with banks and small businesses over recent months.

  The information we received suggests that the bulk of small firms' overdrafts and loans were base rate related. The great majority—some 95 per cent.—of small business borrowers saw at least 3 per cent. of the 3½ per cent. cut in base rates made between October of last year and the date on which the information was supplied. In about 70 per cent. of cases, the full 3½ per cent. was passed through to borrowers. From the point of view of monetary policy, there is no reason to doubt that the reductions in interest rates are feeding through and will have their effect.

  About 25 per cent. of borrowers, however, experienced an increase in their margins of about ½ per cent. and a small minority—some 5 per cent.—saw their margins widen by more than that. In general, this is either because they had to negotiate new facilities; because they were moved on to a new basis of setting rates as part of a central initiative; because they had gone over their authorised borrowing limits and faced the high "penal" rates—30 per cent. APR or more—common to all banks on the excess amounts; or because the banks judged that an increase was necessary on credit risk grounds. To the extent that this reflects the current stage in the business cycle, that should be reversed as the recovery takes hold.

  Any increase in costs to a business man is unwelcome. From the correspondence we have received, it is also clear that in a number of cases increases in margins have been notified to customers at short notice and sometimes retrospectively. Moreover, it is also clear that banks have been imposing higher charges and more frequently for services than before. Some banks have increased their revenue significantly from the provision of other services, particularly management, arrangements and renewal fees.

  181
  The increases reported by individual banks range from 16 per cent. to 55 per cent. over the last six to 12 months, albeit from a low base. In some cases, new or significantly increased charges have been made without prior notice. Such practices are clearly inconsistent with the head office policies which the chairman described to me.

  I have sent the chairmen an analysis of the complaints we have received about their bank so they can follow them up. I have asked each of the chairmen to give me a report on how these complaints have been dealt with. I have also spoken to the chairmen generally about the main sources of complaint. I have put it to them that they should each consider drawing up a code of conduct for their small business customers and that at the least customers have a right to expect that the terms and conditions iof their accounts should be fair and reasonable, taking account of the customer's individual circumstances; they should have been notified to the customer in advance in writing in clear and simple terms; they should be given a full written statement of the standard tariffs of charges applicable to their account; they will be specifially warned in advance if charges which are not covered by the standard tariff are likely to be made, such as fees for management time; they should be given a clear explanation of the basis on which interest is to be charged, whether it is base rate related and what the margin over base rate will be; the terms and conditions of the account other than the interest rate, should not be altered without adequate prior notice in writing perhaps of one month, offering an opportunity to discuss with branch staff; finally, customers should be given a clear explanation of how complaints may be made about decisions taken at local branch.

  The chairmen have assured me that these points are generally reflected in their existing policy, but they will instruct their branch managers to ensure that they are followed in all cases. They will each consider what further code of best practice each of them should promulgate within their banks, and they have undertaken to report to me what action they have taken. I will take stock with them in six months' time of their progress in implementing these codes of good practice.

  Some of the complaints we have received are serious and reflect an unprecedented degree of public concern about the conduct and attitude of the banks. The bank chairmen are well seized of the Government's concern about this issue and have undertaken to make sure that their managers are fully aware of the need to handle small business customers with due care and sensitivity. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and I have made it clear to the chairmen that we would view with serious concern any evidence of high-handed or unprofessional behaviour.

  It is also, however, important that small businesses communicate fully with their banks, and both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will continue to assist in fostering such a dialogue.

  Finally, although the information we received showed no evidence of collusion, I am passing it to the Director General of Fair Trading in case there is anything in it which he considers merits investigation.

  Civil Servants (Pay Levels)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration his Department has given to the findings of the Office of Manpower Economics in respect of the relative pay levels of civil servants in comparison with private sector equivalents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The long-term pay agreements covering different civil service groups provide for pay negotiations to be informed at least once every four years by a survey of outside remuneration levels undertaken by the Office of Manpower Economics. The information in each levels survey is one of the factors which is taken into account during the subsequent negotiations.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to accept requests for arbitration from the National Union of Civil and Public Servants in respect of its 1991 pay claim; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The 1991 pay offer has been accepted by the NUCPS after a ballot of their membership produced a substantial vote in favour. In these circumstances, arbitration would clearly be inappropriate.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which sections of the public service have had trusts or pension or charitable funds established as a result of the underpayment of pensions in 1987–88; what are the amounts of capital vested in these trusts, pensions or charitable funds; and what are the estimated costs of establishing such trusts and administering them.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the then Paymaster General to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 3 May 1988, at column 400, in which he gave details of the existing public service charities to which donations were being made as a result of the underestimation in the retail prices index. The Paymaster General also said that, as there was no national charity on a scale desirable for the national health service, the Government would consult staff and management interests on the possibility of establishing one.

  The NHS Pensioners' Trust came into operation on 1 April 1991, and it was given £1,311,000. It was the only trust, pension or charitable fund set up for the public services as a result of the retail prices index error. The estimated cost of establishing the trust is of the order of £35,000. The cost of administering the trust is a matter for the trustees.

  Public Expenditure, Scotland
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of public expenditure in Scotland expressed as an amount per capita.

  Mr. Mellor
  Data on identifiable general Government expenditure per capita in Scotland in 1989–90, the latest year for which data are available, is given in table E5b of appendix E of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement", Cm. 1520.

  Coinage
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to phase out the 1p piece.

  Mr. Maples
  No. However, as already announced, from September 1992 1p and 2p coins will be issued in copper-plated steel instead of traditional bronze. The new coins will have the same weight and diameter as the existing versions. The new and old coins will circulate together.

  Entitlements for 1991–92 cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£000s)

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation.

  5,674

  II

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  External broadcasting and monitoring.

  1,181

  III

  2

  Intervention Board-Executive Agency

  Administration.

  306

  III

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Other agricultural and food services and support for the fishing industry.

  2,000

  III

  5

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Departmental research, advisory services and administration.

  793

  IV

  2

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration.

  4,346

  IV

  9

  Office of Telecommunications

  Office of Telecommunications.

  341

  VI

  1

  Department of Employment

  Training and enterprise programmes.

  2,000

  VII

  2

  Department of Transport

  Administration and transport services.

  735

  VII

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and vehicle licensing.

  74

  VIII

  5

  Department of the Environment

  Central environmental services, etc.

  903

  VIII

  6

  Department of the Environment

  Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage.

  1,048

  VIII

  7

  Property Holdings1

  Civil accommodation services and administration, etc.

  1

  VIII

  12

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance Survey.

  1,348

  IX

  2

  Home Office

  Prisons, England and Wales.

  3,949

  IX

  3

  Home Office

  Administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales.

  2,000

  X

  11

  HM Land Registry2

  HM Land Registry.

  1

  X

  12

  Public Record Office

  Public Record Office.

  880

  X

  13

  Crown Office

  Administration.

  447

  XI

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  Schools, research and miscellaneous services.

  6,085

  XI

  2

  Department of Education and Science

  Higher and further education.

  2,688

  XI

  4

  Department of Education and Science

  Administration.

  2,000

  XII

  3

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  Libraries.

  221

  XIII

  1

  Department of Health

  Hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other services, England.

  31,480

  XIV

  4

  Department of Social Security

  Administration and miscellaneous services.

  3,718

  Flexibility Schemes
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1991–92 resulting from the carry forward of capital and running costs underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  Mr. Mellor
  A list of entitlements totalling £162 million for capital expenditure and £26 million for running costs is shown in the table. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up. The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  185

  Class

  Vote

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£000s)

  XV

  2

  Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  Agricultural services and fisheries for Scotland.

  1,890

  XV

  3

  Scottish Office Industry Department

  Regional and general industrial support, Scotland.

  1,215

  XV

  5

  Scottish Office Environment Department

  Roads, transport and environmental services, Scotland.

  1,017

  XV

  10

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Administration of justice, Scotland.

  1,026

  XV

  13

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  Law, order and miscellaneous health services, etc. Scotland.

  1,075

  XV

  14

  Scottish Office Education Department

  Education, arts and libraries Scotland.

  2,000

  XV

  18

  General Register Office

  General Register Office, Scotland.

  802

  XV

  20

  The Scottish Office

  Administration.

  311

  XV

  26

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  Family practitioner services (part) and other health services, Scotland.

  10,068

  XVI

  2

  Welsh Office

  Agricultural services, support for the fishing industry, regional and industrial development, Wales.

  1,880

  XVI

  5

  Welsh Office

  Tourism, roads and transport, housing, other environmental services, education and science, arts and libraries and centrally funded health and personal social services, Wales.

  1,075

  XVI

  8

  Welsh Office

  Hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other health services, Wales.

  5,086

  XVI

  9

  Welsh Office

  Administration

  118

  XVII

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  Law, order, protective and miscellaneous services, Northern Ireland.

  650

  XVIII

  1

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Administration.

  2,000

  XVIII

  5

  Customs and Excise

  Administration.

  2,385

  XVIII

  6

  Inland Revenue

  Administration

  159

  XVIII

  9

  Department for National Savings

  Department for National Savings.

  329

  XVIII

  13

  Central Statistical Office

  Central Statistical Office.

  563

  XIX

  1

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  Office of the Minister of the Civil Service.

  397

  XIX

  2

  Cabinet Office

  Other services.

  1,228

  Total voted

  109,493

  1 This is a token vote. Carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations in aid of £8,544,000.

  2 This is a token vote. Carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations in aid of £817,000.

  Non-voted cash limits

  Cash Block

  Department

  Description

  Amount (£000s)

  DOE/HC

  Department of the Environment

  Grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England.

  950

  DOE/UA

  Department of the Environment

  External financing requirements of urban development corporations in England and grants to local authorities and other bodies under the urban programme, the derelict land reclamation and city grant programmes (including associated LA credit approvals) and other expenditure for inner cities initiatives.

  8,781

  DOE/LACAP

  Department of the Environment

  Basic credit approvals for housing, transport (except passenger transport authorities), education, health, other environmental services in England and Shire fire. Supplementary credit approvals and grants to local authorities for housing in England.

  18,844

  DOE/OES

  Department of the Environment

  Supplementary credit approvals for other environmental services in England.

  3,041

  186

  187

  Cash Block

  Department

  Description

  Amount(£000s)

  DTP/LACAP

  Department of Transport

  Supplementary credit approvals for transport in England. Basic credit approvals for passenger transport authorities.

  91

  MAFF/LACAP

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Supplementary credit approvals for flood defence and coast protection in England.

  776

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  Capital expenditure in Scotland by authorities on roads and transport, sewerage, general services, urban programmes, police and social work, schools further education, teacher training and arts and libraries.

  8,900

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  Capital expenditure in Scotland by local authorities for housing and capital expenditure by new towns in Scotland for housing and other environmental services.

  561

  WO/UA

  Welsh Office

  Supplementary credit approvals and grants (both capital and current) to local authorities in Wales in respect of the urban programme and urban development grant. Urban investment grant and expenditure by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation.

  3,183

  NID1

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Services broadly analagous to services covered by cash limits including family practitioner services.

  7,053

  Total non voted

  52,180

  Total capital end year flexibility (voted and non-voted)

  161,673

  Entitlements for 1991–92 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  Amount (£000s)

  Intervention Board-Executive Agency

  117

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,460

  Trade and Industry

  1,504

  Department of Energy

  180

  Department of Employment Group

  4,705

  Property Holdings

  179

  Home Office

  2,589

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1,419

  Department of Education and Science

  404

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys

  263

  Scottish Office

  984

  Scottish Courts Administration

  160

  Scottish Record Office

  50

  General Register Office, Scotland

  50

  Welsh Office

  186

  Northern Ireland Office; Northern Ireland Departments

  1,356

  HM Treasury

  426

  Customs and Excise

  2,886

  Inland Revenue

  6,638

  Department for National Savings

  582

  Central Statistical Office

  134

  Government Actuary's Department

  50

  Total

  26,322

  Intestacy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was collected as ultimus haeres from Scotland and as bona vacantia from England and Wales for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 16 July 1991]: The amounts collected as ultimus haeres from Scotland were £400,000 in 1988 and £300,000 in 1989. The amounts collected as bona vacantia from England, Wales and
  188
  Northern Ireland, excluding the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, were £5,100,000 in 1988 and £5,100,000 in 1989. These figures are net of ex-gratia payments to kin, debts paid on estates, and administration and other costs. The accounts for 1990 will be laid before the House in the autumn.

  BCCI
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that all EC authorities regulating banks with branches in the United Kingdom provide a satisfactory degree of supervision; and what conclusions he has reached.

  Mr. Maples
  The harmonisation of supervisory standards within the EC is an area of considerable activity at Community level, in preparation for implementation of the second banking directive in 1993. The essential common standards have already been adopted in the solvency ratio directive and the own funds directive, and directives to harmonise further other aspects of the supervisory system are under negotiation at present. We shall be considering whether the BCCI case has any further lessons for the framework of regulation both at home and abroad.

EMPLOYMENT

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the period of enterprise allowance in(a) January 1991 and (b) at present; how much has been spent each month this year for publicising the enterprise allowance scheme for starting up new businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1991, the enterprise allowance scheme provided up to 52 weeks on an allowance for all
  189
  those accepted on to the scheme. Since April 1991, entrants may stay on the scheme for between 26 weeks and 66 weeks, the actual period being determined by the local training and enterprise council according to local priorities. Where no training and enterprise council is yet in operation, the period of provision remains up to 52 weeks.

  National expenditure on publicity is shown in the table. This relates to the provision of the leaflets and support materials and does not include any local publicity which may have been undertaken by training and enterprise councils. Demand for the scheme remains strong with around 1,000 new entrants a week at present.

  Enterprise allowance scheme: expenditure on publicity in 1991

  £

  January

  17,947

  February

  1,230

  March

  27,007

  April

  nil

  May

  2,053

  June

  1,524

  July

  2,290

HEALTH

  HIV
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons in the United Kingdom are currently estimated to have AIDS or are HIV positive; and how many of these people have been notified and are known by name.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The AIDS case reports for the United Kingdom to the end of May 1991 total 4,666—4,412 males and 254 females—of which 2,695—2,568 males and 127 females—are known to have died. Adjusting for an estimated under-reporting rate of 20 per cent. would give a current estimate of 2,500 AIDS patients in the United Kingdom at the end of May 1991. These were all individuals tested in named testing programmes who would have been informed of their results.

  The HIV antibody positive reports received at the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre numbered 15,337 for the United Kingdom at the end of March 1991. However, this represents an underestimate of the total number of infected persons because it is based only on those who have presented for testing. These people also would have been informed of their results.

  Names are not collected centrally.

  In addition we have available the results of the first phase of the anonymised HIV surveys.

  These indicate that among women attending, certain ante-natal clinics in inner London the rate of HIV prevalence is one in 500. These figures show a fivefold range from about one in 200 to more than one in 1,000. In the small number of clinics surveyed in outer London there was a wider range from about one in 300 to one in 2,500, but half these clinics had no positive results. In other parts of the country only one of 16,000 tests performed was positive.

  Among heterosexual women attending certain sexually transmitted diseases—STD—clinics in inner London prevalence is one in 500. It is, however, one in 100 for
  190
  heterosexual men. Among homosexual and bisexual men attending the same clinics the current prevalence rate is one in five.

  These preliminary results provide valuable information, but because they are based on studies of specific groups of people in selected areas they do not enable us to estimate the number of people in the general population that are HIV positive.

  More information about prevalence will become available as further results are published.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the question of manufacturers' negligence in relation to tranquillisers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people who have been permanently disabled as a result of taking tranquillisers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion the population of Wales represents as a percentage of the population of England on the most recent available information.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Resident populations for England and Wales relating to mid-1990 have now been estimated, and will be published shortly in "OPCS Monitor PP1 91/1". The figures are:—

  Million

  England

  47·837

  Wales

  2·881

  The estimated resident population of Wales is therefore 6 per cent. of that of England.

  Hospital Chaplains
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consult the Joint Committee for Hospital Chaplaincy on a revision of the guidelines for the appointment of chaplains within the national health service, to ensure that appropriate representation for all relevant faith communities is taken into consideration by regional and district health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The decision whether to appoint a chaplain is a matter for local decision. There is no bar on access to patients by representatives of non-Christian faiths.

  Infant and Maternal Deaths
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of infant and maternal deaths in England and Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table.
  191

  Number of Infant and Maternal deaths in England and Wales 1979 to 1990

  Infant deaths

  Maternal deaths

  1979

  8,178

  74

  1980

  7,899

  70

  1981

  7,021

  57

  1982

  6,775

  42

  1983

  6,381

  54

  1984

  6,037

  52

  1985

  6,141

  46

  1986

  6,313

  45

  1987

  6,272

  46

  1988

  6,270

  41

  1989

  5,808

  56

  11990

  5,564

  57

  1 1990 figures are provisional.

  Carers National Association
  Dr. Gilbert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Carers National Association to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the procedures agreed by the Services Committee, I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 2 to 6 December 1991.

  Energy Efficient Lighting
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage local health authorities to introduce energy-efficient lighting to cut costs and save energy; and whether he will assist them with such schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service is committed to the objective of achieving a 15 per cent. saving in energy consumption over the five years from 1 April 1991. This programme, to which energy-efficient lighting will make a contribution, will release over £30 million for improved patient care within the NHS.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals which comprise the European Private Patients Group.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About 30 national health service hospitals are involved in the European Private Patient Group which is carrying out a feasibility study on the sale of NHS private patient facilities to other European countries. The results of the study, and those hospitals involved, will be announced by the group in the autumn.

  Garlands Hospital, Carlisle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients or ex-patients of the Garlands hospital, Carlisle, have fallen or jumped from the footbridge that crosses the M6 motorway from the hospital to Scotby village in the last 10 years; and how many were fatally injured.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Ian Carr, the chairman of East Cumbria health authority, for details.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the anticipated cost of running the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; what are the anticipated revenues from sale of licences for each category of activity; and if he would make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the first full year, 1992–93, the running costs of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are estimated at £1·7 million. Fees have been set at a level which is intended overall to recoup from treatment and research centres about 50 per cent. of the costs of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The other 50 per cent. is contributed from public funds. The decision to increase the contribution from public funds from one third, as envisaged during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, to one half was made following an analysis of the costs once the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was set up. The proportions reflect the approximate costs attributable to the licensing process, to be recouped from treatment and research centres, and to the wider safeguards and requirements of the Act as laid down by Parliament, to be paid for from public funds.

  The initial fee which must accompany an application for a licence to carry out treatment or research has been set as follows:

  £

  Treatment Licence (including storage)

  250

  Research Licence (including storage)

  100

  Treatment centres will be charged an additional fee calculated on the basis of the number of treatment cycles performed by the centre in the year preceding the issue of a licence. The rate is £7 per donor insemination treatment cycle and £30 per in vitro fertilisation treatment cycle.

  Community Health Councils
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the retention of the existing community health councils when new health authorities are being established.

  Mr. Dorrell
  When two or more existing district health authorities are being merged, there will in future be no automatic expectation that the matching community health councils—CHCs—should also merge. It will be for regional health authorities to ensure after consultation, that CHCs are organised in a way that allows them to carry out their duties economically and effectively.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of women who have had more than one abortion in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the figures (i) for each of the last five years, (ii) under each ground and (iii) by number of abortions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 June 1991]: The tables provide the data requested for Great Britain. There are no available data for Northern Ireland.
  193

  The total number of women who have had more than one legal termination in Great Britain, for: (1) each of the last five years; (2) each ground.

  Year

  Total number of women who have had more than one termination in Great Britain

  Statutory grounds under which the current termination was performed, by number of women

  1 (with any other)

  2 (alone)

  3 (with or without 2)

  4 (alone)

  4 (with any other except 1, excluding 4 alone)

  5 or 6

  1986

  32,539

  87

  28,448

  3,671

  194

  139

  —

  1987

  34,591

  76

  29,976

  4,212

  194

  132

  1

  1988

  37,939

  99

  33,187

  4,360

  196

  97

  —

  1989

  40,650

  70

  35,469

  4,804

  210

  97

  —

  1990

  43,048

  94

  38,085

  4,563

  234

  70

  2

  1. Risk to life of woman.

  2. Risk of injury to physical or mental health of woman.

  3. Risk of injury to physical or mental health of existing child(ren).

  4. Substantial risk of child being born seriously handicapped.

  5. In emergency, to save life of woman.

  6. In emergency, to prevent grave permanent injury to physical or mental health of woman.

  The full definition of statutory grounds appears in the introduction to the OPCS annual publication 'Abortion statistics'.

  The total number of women who have had more than one legal termination in Great Britain, for: (1) each of the last five years: and (2) by the number of previous terminations.

  Year

  Total number of women who have had more than one termination in Great Britain

  Number of women who have had a termination in the current year, by the number of previous terminations

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  Not known

  1986

  32,539

  27,927

  3,732

  655

  161

  27

  22

  8

  4

  3

  —

  1987

  34,591

  29,542

  4,092

  740

  159

  37

  14

  3

  2

  2

  —

  1988

  37,939

  32,424

  4,463

  794

  184

  48

  14

  8

  2

  2

  —

  1989

  40,650

  34,444

  4,935

  975

  206

  53

  24

  9

  1

  3

  —

  1990

  43,048

  36,243

  5,446

  1,001

  228

  75

  34

  9

  3

  8

  1

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Resettlement Unit, Notting Hill Gate
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated cost of repairs to drains and sewers at the Notting Hill Gate resettlement unit before its closure; and what was the charge made by Dyno-Rod for solving the problem.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of resettlement units is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive of the Resettlement Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Student Benefits
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been made to him by the National Union of Students about the recent changes in his Department's rules concerning benefits for students; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We received a letter and submission in October 1989 and a further letter, together with a copy of the National Union of Students' response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's consultation on the new regulations, in June 1990.

  Income Support
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to provide an increase above the rate of inflation in income support for people in residential care throughout the United Kingdom when income support is next uprated; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In setting the income support limits we have to make decisions within the context of the Government's public expenditure objectives, which embrace not only spending on people in independent homes but on the rest of the social security system, the NHS, and other public services. It is our policy to direct available resources to where the need is greatest and where such targeting will prove most effective.

  Rates of income support in Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The same considerations do, of course, apply there as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information is available on the take-up of income-related benefits in the year before the 1988 reforms.
  195
  Mr. Jack
  Take-up estimates for 1987 confirm previous results and indicate that, overall, almost £9 out of every £10 of income-related benefit was claimed, and some 80 per cent. of those eligible to receive some income-related benefit made a claim. These figures are derived from "Technical Notes" covering take-up estimates for the income-related benefits for 1987, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Tax-Benefit Model Tables
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish tax-benefit model tables for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  Copies are being printed and should become available within the next few days. I will ensure that they are placed in the Library as soon as they are ready.

  Young People (Benefit Claims)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he plans to make any changes in the arrangements for dealing with benefit claims from 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Jack
  I announced measures yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), which will further improve delivery of income support under the severe hardship provision to 16 and 17-year-olds. These will improve further the service provided to young people by Benefits Agency offices. I also stated the Government's intention to improve the handling of young people leaving care. We will legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds leaving care who live independently and continue in full-time education to receive income support without having to prove that they are estranged from their parents. We further intend to give those leaving care to live independently, who are registered for work and youth training, entitlement to income support for up to eight weeks. This initiative in conjunction with the earlier referral under the liaison arrangements, which we also announced yesterday, will give valuable assistance to this vulnerable group in establishing themselves in their new environment.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his annual report on the social fund; and when he will publish the social fund commissioner's annual report.

  Mr. Newton
  My report (Cm. 1580) has been published today and I have laid it before Parliament. The social fund commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies placed in the Library.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Accommodation
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council for how many hon. Members and how many personal staff of hon. Members it is now planned to provide accommodation in the first stage of the new parliamentary building; what change these numbers 196
  represent from those previously envisaged; how this accommodation will be allocated; and when hon. Members and their staff will be able to move in.

  Mr. MacGregor
  1 Parliament street will contain single rooms for 65 Members, together with desk spaces for 75 Members' staff. Further accommodation will become available in the Palace of Westminster, in consequence of staff moving into the new building and of the renovation of rooms in Speaker's Court. 1 Parliament street will be available for occupation in September 1991; the Speaker's Court renovations should be completed in January or February 1992. By early 1992, it is estimated that there will have been net gains across the parliamentary estate of 95 Members' offices and 99 desk spaces for Members' staff. The Services Committee report setting out the original design brief for 1 Parliament street suggested that space was likely to be available within that building for about 60 Members and 100 Members' secretaries. The report continued:"These numbers are indicative only. We believe the balance proposed represents the pattern of Members' work as it exists at present, but changes are sure to come about and we do not regard the relative figures mentioned here as in any way sacrosanct."
  —Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Third Report of Session 1983–84, The New Building: The Design Brief (HC 571), paragraph 22.

  On the question of the allocation of offices, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on 9 July 1991 at column 341.

SCOTLAND

  Agency Status and Privatisation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those public bodies and utilities that he is considering for either agency status or privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  I announced that the agricultural scientific services were candidates for agency status on 16 April. Further candidates for agency status or privatisation will be brought forward when the case for any such change has been fully considered.

  Roads
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to improve roads in crofting areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Most roads in crofting areas are local roads and are the responsibility of the regional and islands councils, which are the local roads authorities. The improvement of such roads, therefore, is a matter for the councils concerned. Recent major improvements to the trunk road network have greatly benefited the crofting areas by providing improved access.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent in Scotland since 1979 on road building and improvements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1979 to the end of the financial year 1990–91 a total of £2,430 million has been spent on new road construction and improvements in Scotland; £1,060 million on motorways and trunk roads and £1,370 million on local roads.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the improvement in average earnings in Scotland over the past decade.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Average real earnings in Scotland increased by over a fifth in the 10 years to April 1990.

  Companies Acts
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) prosecutions have been instituted and (b) convictions obtained in respect of breaches of the Companies Acts in Scotland in each year since 1987 and in the present year to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Office classification of crimes and offences.

  Poll Tax (Civil Penalties)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on poll tax civil penalties.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has recently received a small number of representations about the imposition of civil penalties by community charges registration officers for the failure to return community charge registration forms.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on electoral registration trends in Scotland in the light of the OPCS analysis on pages 1 to 3 of "Population Trends 64".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table of total electoral registrations in Scotland, produced on page 2 of "Population Trends 64", shows that there were 151,000 more registrations in 1991 than on the 1976 electoral register, although there has been a slight fall since 1987. As the analysis indicates, there are a number of reasons for these changes and it is not possible to evaluate their impact separately.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the amount of poll tax that has been collected in the year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  According to information provided by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a total of £43 million had been collected by the end of May. This low figure is not surprising given that some authorities, including Strathclyde, did not issue revised 1991–92 charge bills until last month.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now remove people on income support and students from liability to pay the poll tax.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend is keeping all aspects of the community charge under review, but has no plans for changing the arrangements affecting the liability of people on income support to pay the charge.
  198
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table, otherwise comparable to that provided for England in the answer of 17 April,Official Report, columns 184–85, to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) showing (a) reductions in 1991–92 in community charge in Scotland by successive increments of £10 from £0 to £140 for (i) charge payers and (ii) pensioners and (b) average community charge less community charge reduction scheme less community charge benefit, both before and after the £140 budget reduction in gross community charge, consistent with his written answer of 3 June, Official Report, columns 19–20.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: It is estimated that in 1991–92 the average community charge in Scotland, after the community charge reduction scheme and community charge benefit, would have been £320 before the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act and will in the event be £198. These figures make no allowance for reductions due to selective action. Beyond this I am unable to add to the reply I gave on 4 June.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Scottish local authorities to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer to my right hon. Friend's reply earlier today to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing).

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis Scottish local authorities are being funded to compensate them for the reductions in poll tax charges announced by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Community charge grant is being paid to local authorities to compensate them for the £140 reduction in headline community charges for this year.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the shortfall in local authority receipts of poll tax income for the first two years of the operation of the tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Based on the latest collection figures issued by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and using local authorities' own payment assumptions, the shortfall in budgeted charge income is £80 million—8·8 per cent.—in 1989–90 and £220 million—21·9 per cent.—in 1990–91. An improvement in these figures, particularly for 1990–91, can be expected as collection procedures continue.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to discuss with Scottish Enterprise its strategy for tackling the current recession in the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent opportunities to discuss with the chairman, and members of the board, of Scottish Enterprise a range of topics concerned with further improving Scotland's economic performance.

  Lothian Regional Council
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the revenue support grant of Lothian regional council.
  199
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Lothian regional council's revenue support grant for 1992–93 will be determined entirely according to the principles of grant allocation jointly agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance. These principles are reviewed each year, incorporating, where appropriate, changes in service delivery nationally and improved information sources, to achieve the fairest possible distribution of the available Government support. Claims that the Government treat Lothian unfairly in terms of grant distribution are accordingly absolute nonsense.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the outcome of his intervention to reduce the budget of Lothian regional council.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend withdrew his proposal to reduce Lothian's 1991–92 personal community charge by £50 after the council agreed to a voluntary reduction of £37.

  Strathclyde (Finance)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss its present financial situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer to my reply earlier today to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy).

  Mar Lodge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had for the purchase of Mar Lodge for the nation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 27 June I met representatives of the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Chris Brasher Trust who outlined their proposals for the purchase of the Mar Lodge estate.

  New Towns Development Corporations
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed dissolution of the Scottish new towns development corporations.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Dissolution of the Scottish new town development corporations will take place in the order in which they were established—East Kilbride and Glenrothes first, then Cumbernauld, Livingston and Irvine.

  I anticipate that the necessary consultation process will start in the autumn of this year with a view to the first two wind-up orders being made in December.

  My intention is to base these consultations on a proposed period for wind-up of four years for East Kilbride and Glenrothes rather than the period of three years orginally suggested in the White Paper "The Scottish New Towns: The Way Ahead".

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from Scottish fishermen about the activities of the Northumberland drift net fishery.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1 January 1991 my right hon. Friend has received representations from the migratory fish committee of the Scottish Anglers National Association, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards and from one individual angler. These and other representations are being considered by Fisheries Ministers along with the scientific information collated for the purposes of the review which my right hon. Friends are required to carry out by section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986, on salmon net fishing from the Humber to the Ugie. A report will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible.

  Housing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the board of Scottish Homes on 1 July to discuss a range of strategic issues.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent report he has received on the state of dampness in Scottish public sector housing and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent information available is based on local authority returns to the Scottish Office Environment Department which indicate that 145,260 local authority houses were subject to dampness or both condensation and dampness as at 31 March 1990. The Government have made available housing revenue account—HRA—housing capital allocations in 1991–92 totalling £454·5 million. It is for local authorities to decide how to use these resources for investment in their own housing stock according to local priorities.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects Scottish drinking water supplies to conform with EC directives; and how much expenditure his Department is committing in the current financial year towards achieving that objective.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The quality requirements of the EC drinking water directive have been incorporated into The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Water authorities have undertaken to ensure that, within the next five years, in excess of 90 per cent. of supply zones will be receiving water which satisfies the regulations. Beyond this, improvements will continue, particularly in respect of iron through an extensive programme of replacement of old mains.

  Improvements to drinking water supplies form part of the authorities' water and sewerage capital expenditure programmes and for the current financial year Scottish programme provision has been set at more than £169 million. Authorities may fund additional capital expenditure from revenue.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many heart operations have been carried out privately in NHS hospitals in Scotland in the last 10 years; what is the total cost involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statistics on heart operations carried out privately in NHS hospitals are not held centrally. Since central funding for major cardiac surgery began in 1983, the number of operations performed in Scotland has increased from 1,970 to 2,705 by December 1990.

  "Meeting Scotland's Needs"
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of all the alterations made to Scottish Enterprise and Highland and Islands Enterprises'

  Designated Sites

  Site

  County

  SPA Ramsar

  Date designated

  Loch An Duin

  Western Isles

  Ramsar

  25 April 1990

  Loch Druidibeg/a 'Machair and Loch Stilligary

  Western Isles

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Loch Druidibeg/a'Machair

  Western Isles

  SPA

  31 August 1982

  Handa

  Highland

  SPA

  25 April 1990

  Priest Island

  Highland

  SPA

  1 October 1986

  Rhum

  Highland

  SPA

  31 August 1982

  Claish Moss

  Highland

  Ramsar

  24 July 1981

  Loch Eye

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  1 October 1986

  Cairngorm Lochs

  Grampian

  Ramsar

  24 July 1981

  Highland

  Loch of Skene

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  1 October 1986

  Abernethy Forest

  Highland

  SPA

  25 April 1990

  Loch Lomond

  Strathclyde

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Gruinart Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  14 July 1988

  Bridgend Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  14 July 1988

  Laggan Peninsula, Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  14 July 1988

  Eilean na Muice Duibhe, Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  14 July 1988

  Glac na Criche, Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  25 April 1990

  Feur Lochain, Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  25 April 1990

  Ailsa Craig

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  25 April 1990

  Silver Flowe

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Ramsar

  24 July 1981

  Rannoch Moor

  Tayside

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Highland

  Loch of Lintrathen

  Tayside

  Ramsar

  24 July 1981

  Loch Leven

  Tayside

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Forth Islands

  Lothian Fife

  SPA

  25 April 1990

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Lothian

  SPA/Ramsar

  14 July 1988

  Fala Flow

  Lothian

  SPA/Ramsar

  25 April 1990

  Hoselaw Loch

  Borders

  SPA/Ramsar

  14 July 1988

  Potential Sites

  Site

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  North Rona and Sula Sgeir

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Flannan Isles

  Western Isles

  SPA

  St. Kilda

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Shiant Isles

  Western Isles

  SPA

  West Sound of Harris

  Western Isles

  SPA/Ramsar

  Monach Islands

  Western Isles

  SPA

  South Uist Machair and Lochs

  Western Isles

  SPA/Ramsar

  West Sound of Barra

  Western Isles

  SPA/Ramsar

  Mingulay and Berneray

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Pentland Firth Island

  Highland

  SPA

  Orkney

  The Peatlands

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Caithness Lochs

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Caithness Cliffs

  Highland

  SPA

  Durness Lochs and Streams

  Highland

  Ramsar

  Cape Wrath

  Highland

  SPA

  Loch Morar

  Highland

  Ramsar

  Kentra Moss

  Highland

  Ramsar

  Balranald

  Western Isles

  SPA/Ramsar

  202
  respective budgets since the publication of "Meeting Scotland's Needs", and any directions given about the spending of those additional moneys.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 8 July, at columns 271–72.

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those sites so far designated or identified for designation in Scotland as special protection areas under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds or wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  203

  Site

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  Baleshare and Kirkibost

  Western Isles

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Scadavay

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Inverpolly, Loch Urigill and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Maree

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Ruthven and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  SPA

  Central Highland Hills and Glens

  Highland

  SPA

  Lewis Peatlands

  Western Isles

  SPA/Ramsar

  North Harris Mountains

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Assynt Lochs

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Stack, Loch Nam Brae and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  SPA

  Loch Shin and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  SPA

  Moray Basin Firths and Bays

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  Highland

  Beinn Dearg

  Highland

  SPA

  Ben Wyvis

  Highland

  SPA

  Glengarry Lochs

  Highland

  SPA

  Loch Tarf and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  SPA

  North Inverness Lochs

  Highland

  SPA

  Hermaness and Saxa Vord, Unst

  Shetland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Ramna Stacks and Gruney

  Shetland

  SPA

  Fetlar

  Shetland

  SPA

  North Roe and Tingon, Mainland Shetland

  Shetland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Papa Stour

  Shetland

  SPA

  Foula

  Shetland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Noss

  Shetland

  SPA

  Fair Isle

  Shetland

  SPA

  West Westray

  Orkney

  SPA

  Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm)

  Orkney

  SPA

  Marwick Head

  Orkney

  SPA

  Lochs of Harray and Stenness

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  Hoy

  Orkney

  SPA

  Copinsay

  Orkney

  SPA

  Sule Skerry and Stack

  Orkney

  SPA

  Loch Spynie

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch of Strathbeg

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Lochs

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  River Spey—Insh Marshes

  Highland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Cairngorms

  Highland

  SPA

  Grampian

  Fowlsheugh

  Grampian

  SPA

  Lochnagar

  Grampian

  SPA

  Drumochter Hills

  Highland

  SPA

  Tayside

  West Mainland Moors

  Orkney

  SPA

  North Mainland Coast

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  South Westray Coast

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  East Sanday

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  Croussa Field and the Heogs

  Shetland

  SPA

  Mousa

  Shetland

  SPA

  Rousay (part)

  Orkney

  SPA

  North Ronaldsay Coast

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  Southeastern Stronsay

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  Eday

  Orkney

  SPA

  Troup, Pennan and Lion Heads

  Grampian

  SPA

  St. Cyrus

  Grampian

  SPA

  Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast

  Grampian

  SPA

  Sumburgh Head

  Shetland

  SPA

  Monadhliath

  Highland

  SPA

  Alvie

  Highland

  SPA

  Ben Alder

  Highland

  SPA

  Kinveachy

  Highland

  SPA

  Creag Meagaidh

  Highland

  SPA

  Lochs of Spiggie and Brow

  Shetland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Mill Dam, Shapinsay

  Orkney

  SPA/Ramsar

  Rosehearty to Fraserburgh Coast

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  Orphir and Stenness Hills

  Orkney

  SPA

  Keelylang

  Orkney

  SPA

  Loch of Isbister

  Orkney

  SPA

  Blackpark and Gutcher, Yell

  Shetland

  SPA

  Loch Oire

  Grampian

  SPA

  Loch Vaa

  Highland

  SPA

  Glen Tanar

  Grampian

  SPA

  Muir of Dinnet

  Grampian

  SPA/Ramsar

  Moorland Areas, Central Shetland

  Shetland

  SPA

  West Burrafirth, Shetland

  Shetland

  SPA

  Hill of Colvadale and Sobul

  Shetland

  SPA

  An Socach—Cam a Gheoidh

  Grampian Central

  SPA

  204 205

  Site

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Lomond

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  Central

  Tiree and Coll

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  Treshnish Isles

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  Rhinns of Islay

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  Islay; the Oa

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  Inner Clyde Estuary

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  Rhunahaorine Point

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  Machrihanish and Tangy Loch

  Strathclyde

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Ken and Dee Marshes

  Dumfries and Galloway

  SPA/Ramsar

  Lochinch and Torrs Warren

  Dumfries and Galloway

  SPA/Ramsar

  Wigtown Bay

  Dumfries and Galloway

  SPA/Ramsar

  North Colonsay and Western Cliffs

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  Sanda

  Strathclyde

  SPA

  Castle Loch Dumfries

  Dumfries and Galloway

  SPA/Ramsar

  Caenlochan

  Tayside Grampian

  SPA

  Montrose Basin

  Tayside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch of Kinnordy

  Tayside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch of Lintrathen

  Tayside

  SPA

  Tay-isla Valley

  Tayside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Loch Leven

  Tayside

  SPA

  Firth of Tay

  Tayside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Fife

  Cameron Reservoir

  Fife

  SPA/Ramsar

  Eden Estuary, Tentsmuir Point and Abertay Sands

  Fife

  SPA/Ramsar

  Tayside

  Flanders Moss and Lake of Monteith

  Central

  SPA/Ramsar

  Westwater

  Borders

  SPA/Ramsar

  Moorfoot Hills

  Borders

  Ramsar

  St. Abb's Head to Fast Castle

  Borders

  SPA

  Greenlaw Moor and Hule Moss

  Borders

  SPA/Ramsar

  South Tayside Goose Roosts

  Tayside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Firth of Forth

  Lothian

  SPA/Ramsar

  Fife

  Central

  Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

  Cumbria

  SPA/Ramsar

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Earnings
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has as to how the expected product of poll tax in Scotland and each of the regions in Scotland might be raised through a local income tax with resource equalisation in 1991–92 in the cases of(a) a single person on (i) 100 per cent. and (ii) 66 per cent. average earnings

  Single person 100 per cent. average earnings £

  Single person 66 per cent. average earnings £

  Married man (average earnings) wife (average full-time earnings) £

  Married man (average earnings) wife (average part-time earnings) £

  Borders

  349

  193

  590

  387

  Central

  601

  333

  1,016

  667

  Dumfries and Galloway

  419

  233

  709

  466

  Fife

  605

  335

  1,023

  672

  Grampian

  488

  271

  826

  542

  Highland

  402

  223

  680

  446

  Lothian

  911

  505

  1,540

  1,011

  Strathclyde

  574

  318

  970

  637

  Tayside

  601

  333

  1,017

  668

  Orkney

  10

  5

  16

  11

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  68

  38

  115

  75

  Scotland

  581

  322

  983

  645

  Note: Figures based on average earnings in April 1990 and 1990–91 tax allowances.
  206
  and (b) a married man with average male full-time earnings whose wife earns (1) average female full-time earnings and (2) average female part-time earnings.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table. The figures are based on average earnings in Scotland in April 1990, and tax allowances for the 1990–91 tax year. The estimated local income tax rates are as given in my answer of 7 May,Official Report, columns 415–16.

  Flood Warnings
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the capital expenditure allocations was used to provide flood-warning systems by each river purification board for each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 July 1991]: River purification boards—RPBs—do not each

  Proportion of capital expenditure (per cent.)

  RPB

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Clyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Forth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Highland

  26

  0

  11

  15

  45

  66

  North East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  58

  Tay

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  70

  Tweed

  4

  32

  41

  0

  34

  0

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maydown Incinerator
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which method for disposing of the combustion gases would be used at the incinerator proposed for the Maydown, Londonderry site;

  (2) what gas cleaning system is intended for the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry;

  (3) at what level above the stoichiometric requirements for complete combustion it is intended that air should be supplied at the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry;

  (4) what system of quenching combustion gases is intended for the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry;

  (5) what type of kiln is intended for the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry;

  (6) what system of introducing combustion air into the furnace is intended for the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry;

  (7) what kind of combustion chamber is intended for the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry;

  (8) what waste feed arrangements for reactive and other difficult wastes are intended for the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  Such details are not yet available and can be provided only if and when Du Pont (UK) Ltd. submits a planning application and accompanying environmental statement for a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown site.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the outline information provided by Du Pont UK Ltd. in relation to the possible siting of a toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  Such details are not available. No planning application has been lodged by Du Pont (UK) Ltd. in relation to the possible siting of a toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to ensure that
  208
  receive a block allocation for capital expenditure. Instead, the consent of my right hon. Friend is required to incur any liability to meet capital expense for individual projects. Capital expenditure in itself is not a complete measure of the resources used in establishing flood warning systems. However, details of the proportion of RPB's annual capital expenditure used for flood warning systems since 1985 are set out in the table.

  the heating process at the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry, is effective in disposing of toxic wastes.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposed incinerator will not be permitted to come into operation unless the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is fully satisfied that the equipment and procedures involved are so designed that the incinerator can fulfil safely and effectively its purpose of disposing of those wastes for which it is specified and that emission standards are fully met.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to publish a detailed environmental risk assessment of the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  If Du Pont (UK) Ltd. proceeds with its proposal to site a toxic waste incinerator at Maydown, the environmental statement which must accompany the planning application under schedule 1(B) of the Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (NI) 1989 will address the issue of risk to the environment. The statement will be made available to the public and for consideration during the public local inquiry into the project.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of exposure of gases to catalytic metals in the structure of the plant will take place at the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  Such structural design details are not available but may become so if and when Du Pont (UK) Ltd. submits a planning application for a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown site.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected lifetime of the incinerator proposed for the Maydown site in Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  An incinerator of the type which may be proposed at this site could be expected to last approximately 20 years.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what method of disposing of halogenated acids it is intended should be used at the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.
  209
  Mr. Needham
  Such details are not yet available and can be provided only if and when Du Pont (UK) Ltd. submit a planning application and accompanying environmental statement for a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown site. However, for the design to be approved, it will be necessary for the company to satisfy the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland that the incinerator will be capable of destroying those wastes for which it is intended, without contravening the emission controls set.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Northern Ireland what constraints the incinerator proposed for the Maydown, Londonderry site will meet for gaseous emissions of(a) particulate matter, (b) lead, (c) cadmium and mercury, (d) hydrochloric acid, (e) hydrofluoric acid, (f) hydrobronic acid, (g) total acid as SO3 (h) NO2 (i) SO2, (j) phosphorous, (k) destructive and removal efficacy of polychlorinated biphenyls and (l) total dioxin/furan equivalents.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 26 June 1991,Official Report, column 488.

  Such details are not available and can be provided only if and when Du Pont (UK) Ltd. submits a planning application with accompanying environmental statement for a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown site.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the intended degree of burn-out of solids as measured on ignition of kiln slag at the incinerator proposed for the Maydown, Londonderry site.

  Mr. Needham
  Such details are not yet available and can be provided only if and when Du Pont (UK) Ltd. submit a planning application and accompanying environmental statement for a toxic waste incincerator at their Maydown site. However, the requirements set by the Government will ensure that the degree of burnout achieved at any such incinerator will be sufficient fully to destroy all material for which the plant is designed.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what proportion of time the incinerator proposed for the Maydown, Londonderry site will be able to operate without visible emissions or visible steam plumes from the stack.

  Mr. Needham
  Such details are not yet available and may become so only if and when Du Pont (UK) Ltd. submits a planning application and accompanying environmental statement for a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown site. Emissions to the atmosphere from the proposed incinerator would be subject to control by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The presence of visible emissions or steam plumes is likely to be dependent on the chosen methods of emission control.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has received from the disposal of slag produced by the proposed incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  None. Such details are not yet available and can be provided only if and when Du Pont (U K) Ltd. submits a planning application and accompanying environmental statement for a toxic waste incinerator at its Maydown site.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what research is being carried out on behalf of his Department as to how the quantity of hazardous and toxic wastes might be reduced by recycling;

  (2) what plans he has to require firms which have hazardous and toxic wastes arising from their processes to reduce the quantities produced by recycling.

  Mr. Needham
  None specifically. However, the nature of hazardous and toxic waste is such that recycling is not an option and its destruction by high temperature incineration currently presents the most viable alternative. In addition, it is considered that the very considerable cost of high temperature incineration for such waste already provides the firms concerned with a keen incentive to keep the quantities involved to an absolute minimum. Wastes of this nature are essentially not recyclable and only those for which high temperature incineration presents the "best practicable environmental option" will be disposed of in this manner.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the environmental audits carried out by companies in Northern Ireland which produce(a) toxic and (b) hazardous and special wastes.

  Mr. Needham
  No information on environmental audits is available to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Such audits as exist are generally conducted by private consultants for individual companies to ensure a proper understanding of performance.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on environmental impact assessments of the major producers of(a) toxic, (b) hazardous and (c) special wastes in (i) the United States of America, (ii) Canada and (iii) the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Needham
  There is no national or international compendium of this information in existence. Government officials are, however, aware of published information on such issues.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the amounts of hazardous waste imported into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic in each year since October 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is:

  Year

  Amount

  1988–89

  275 tons

  1989–90

  4,997 tons

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the amounts of hazardous waste transported from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland to Great Britain in each year since October 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is:

  Year

  Amount

  1988–89

  384 tons

  1989–90

  672 tons

  Publications
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of printing and distributing the Social Security Agency's framework document and business plan for 1991–92; and who was awarded the printing contract.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman and place copies of his letter in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those sites so far designated or identified for designation in Northern Ireland as special protection areas under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds or wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance especially waterfowl habitat.

  Mr. Needham
  No SPA sites have been designated in Northern Ireland. Lough Neagh, with Lough Beg, has been designated as a Ramsar site. A review of potential SPA and Ramsar sites in Northern Ireland will be carried out later this year and a list of proposed sites will be produced.

  New Hospital, Coleraine
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has given further consideration to the case for a new hospital on a greenfield site at Coleraine, Co. Londonderry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Northern health and social services board's proposal for a new-build hospital on a greenfield site at Coleraine was submitted to the Department of Health and Social Services on 11 April. This is a major and complex proposal involving substantial capital expenditure and is therefore still being considered in detail within government. I hope that a decision can be taken in the near future.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details for 1988, 1989 and 1990 of the number of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, their respective reserves, and the British Army, who have been charged with offences and who have been convicted of offences, giving details of custodial sentences imposed, and separately for charges and convictions concerning murder, attempted murder, membership of illegal organisations, conspiracy to cause explosions, withholding information concerning terrorist activities, possession of firearms, possession of firearms with intent to cause bodily harm and other offences classified as scheduled offences.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the uptake of the set-aside scheme in(a) the number of farms and (b) the area of land set aside in hectares for 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 11 July 1991, Official Report, column 444.

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many traffic accidents for the last 12 months for which figures are available were tyre related; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 July 1991]: Road traffic accident statistics in Northern Ireland are collected and collated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The most recent figures available are for the calendar year 1989 when 11 accidents were attributable to tyre defects out of a total of 7,199. Figures for 1990 are expected to be available in mid-August.

  Hearing Therapists
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the professional qualifications for hearing therapists which are recognised by the Department of Health and Social Services; and the institution offering appropriate training.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: There are no formally recognised professional qualifications for hearing therapists. Persons appointed as hearing therapists are required to undertake an intensive one-year course of professional training. It is available at the City Lit Centre for the Deaf, Keeley house, Keeley street, London WC2B 4BA.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to improve the therapy available to the hearing impaired in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of hearing therapists employed within the Northern Ireland health service.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The management and delivery of services at local level are the responsibility of each health and social services board. Boards are expected to determine the level of service to be provided and the requisite number of staff to be employed and trained. In the draft regional strategic framework 1992–1997 issued recently for consultation, one of the objectives included asks that each board should identify the number and needs of sensorily impaired people living in its area and should ensure access to specialist teams of staff to provide support for hearing and for visually impaired people.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hearing therapists are employed within the Northern Ireland health service.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: There are two, one based in the Royal group of hospitals and one at the Craigavon area hospital.

  Hearing Loss
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland are suffering from hearing loss in each of the classifications (1) mild loss (20–39dB), (2) moderate loss (40–59dB), (3) severe loss (60–79dB), (4) profound loss (80–99dB) and (5) unaidable (100dB).

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each year from 1979–80 to 1990–91(a) service expenditure control totals for each appropriate area for the purposes of the annual financial settlement and (b) the actual expenditure outturn in each of those areas.

  1982–83 to 1989–90 total grant related expenditure for the main groups of services

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1. Education, Arts and Libraries

  10,217

  10,349

  10,624

  11,093

  11,618

  12,576

  13,939

  14,354

  2. Personal Social

  1,943

  2,085

  2,205

  2,366

  2,553

  2,756

  2,913

  3,269

  3. Law and Order

  1,649

  1,785

  1,890

  2,008

  2,152

  2,363

  2,555

  2,846

  4. Transport

  1,373

  1,398

  1,487

  1,733

  1,929

  2,045

  2,024

  2,140

  5. Employment and Consumer Protection

  107

  110

  115

  118

  127

  148

  159

  174

  5. Housing

  591

  536

  514

  628

  826

  825

  816

  872

  7. Environmental Services

  2,405

  2,507

  2,520

  2,652

  2,926

  3,000

  3,137

  3,620

  8. Financing Items

  230

  461

  527

  622

  660

  29

  464

  386

  All Services

  18,515

  19,231

  19,882

  21,221

  22,790

  23,742

  26,006

  27,662

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary for the Environment what was the balance in the general revenue account at the end of the financial year for London authorities for each year since 1985, by London borough.

  Closing balance (ie at 31 March) on rate fund revenue account

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  ILEA

  46·489

  55·175

  50·545

  41·241

  94·604

  69·081

  Greater London CL

  0·000

  214·448

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  City of London

  5·369

  11·322

  19·152

  18·782

  28·850

  37·526

  Camden

  3·649

  17·489

  9·151

  1·726

  12·289

  19·068

  Greenwich

  13·102

  11·099

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hackney

  -2·216

  11·485

  15·234

  n/a

  n/a

  0·490

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·030

  0·140

  0·140

  0·175

  12·971

  33·805

  Islington

  0·000

  3·843

  0·112

  3·198

  4·054

  10·962

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17·252

  15·857

  17·962

  16·563

  10·463

  10·126

  Lambeth

  33·516

  36·367

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lewisham

  7·461

  12·967

  20·609

  11·129

  0·315

  n/a

  Southwark

  0·000

  2·909

  31·155

  18·790

  23·755

  12·606

  Tower Hamlets

  11·638

  9·282

  0·119

  0·000

  11·380

  0·000

  Wandsworth

  2·886

  4·463

  18·205

  6·909

  20·111

  35·914

  Westminster

  10·732

  14·877

  14·110

  13·022

  12·488

  n/a

  Barking and Dagenham

  7·328

  4·790

  7·529

  7·714

  7·197

  6·567

  Barnet

  3·337

  3·982

  5·415

  4·830

  14·396

  16·274

  Bexley

  6·999

  5·974

  6·237

  3·184

  3·742

  2·074

  Brent

  13·715

  32·252

  -14·847

  -8·543

  -23·188

  3·185

  Bromley

  2·976

  1·144

  11·373

  18·089

  26·670

  24·709

  Croydon

  4·283

  4·687

  19·228

  21·352

  16·566

  7·380

  Ealing

  -1·786

  -3·543

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  -4·928

  Enfield

  3·481

  5·543

  6·730

  6·758

  9·899

  8·190

  Haringey

  2·000

  24·115

  0·248

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  10·304

  12·696

  13·118

  11·035

  12·116

  11·884

  Havering

  4·860

  2·112

  4·489

  4·499

  3·702

  2·900

  Hillingdon

  -6·235

  0·000

  2·524

  0·000

  2·305

  6·187

  Hounslow

  5·689

  26·623

  n/a

  1·081

  9·571

  n/a

  214
  Mr. Portillo
  The service expenditure control totals used in the rate support grant settlements from 1982–83 to 1989–90 are shown in the table. Information on expenditure control totals is not available for years prior to 1982–83.

  It is not possible to construct comparable figures for outturn expenditure on the basis of the available returns from local authorities.

  The service expenditure control totals used in the 1990–91 revenue support grant settlement together with expenditure on a similar basis are as follows:

  Control totals £ million

  Expenditure £ million

  Education

  14,753

  15,683

  Personal Social Services

  3,592

  4,035

  Police

  2,125

  2,187

  Fire and Civil Defence

  877

  949

  Highway Maintenance

  1,578

  1,736

  All Other Services

  4,502

  5,617

  Capital Financing

  2,380

  3,045

  Total Revenue Expenditure

  29,805

  33,250

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information as returned by authorities is given in the table.
  215

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1·027

  0·687

  1·604

  7·041

  9·936

  5·296

  Merton

  4·775

  6·761

  37·416

  35·314

  33·254

  n/a

  Newham

  7·230

  25·707

  n/a

  0·000

  0·000

  4·018

  Redbridge

  0·341

  0·218

  2·411

  4·596

  4·686

  5·371

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  6·325

  7·354

  5·667

  13·441

  14·797

  n/a

  Sutton

  2·416

  2·143

  7·677

  5·345

  12·190

  8·959

  Waltham Forest

  9·199

  3·387

  0·260

  1·538

  3·244

  2·077

  London Fire/CD authority

  1—

  1—

  13·464

  0·004

  -26·702

  0·000

  Middlesex Probation

  1—

  1—

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  South East London Probation

  1—

  1—

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  South West London Probation

  1—

  1—

  0·003

  0·020

  0·037

  0·055

  North East London Probation

  1—

  1—

  0·059

  0·000

  0·000

  0·000

  London Waste Reg.

  1—

  1—

  0·325

  0·540

  -0·319

  0·499

  West London Waste

  1—

  1—

  1·860

  2·093

  1·947

  1·953

  North London Waste

  1—

  1—

  2·960

  1·901

  1·893

  2·502

  East London Waste

  1—

  1—

  1·020

  0·984

  0·622

  0·065

  West Riverside Waste

  1—

  1—

  1·126

  1·170

  0·949

  2·119

  n/a Not available.

  1— Not applicable.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for the years 1966–67 to 1991–92, separately for England, English regions, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom(a) average household domestic rate/community charge bills in pounds sterling, (b) average domestic rate/community charge bills adjusted by

  Region

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  South East

  370

  393

  420

  451

  486

  527

  573

  South West

  255

  272

  291

  351

  377

  418

  459

  East Anglia

  244

  265

  281

  349

  370

  404

  449

  West Midlands

  290

  299

  345

  398

  429

  467

  520

  East Midlands

  243

  271

  292

  362

  395

  444

  461

  North West

  291

  314

  347

  401

  432

  466

  515

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  234

  251

  273

  335

  353

  393

  437

  Northern

  262

  284

  322

  375

  382

  413

  457

  England

  303

  323

  351

  400

  429

  468

  512

  Average gross community charges by region for England are as follows:

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  South East

  351

  257

  South West

  339

  242

  East Anglia

  368

  235

  West Midlands

  373

  267

  East Midlands

  352

  256

  North West

  377

  286

  Yorks and Humberside

  315

  228

  Northern

  376

  267

  England

  357

  252

  Information on the RPI is published in Economic Trends; average household income by region is published in the annual Family Expenditure Survey reports and Regional Trends; average male earnings by region are published in the annual New Earnings Survey (Volume E) and reported also in Regional Trends. These publications are available in the House of the Commons Library.

  Information for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the respective Secretaries of State.
  216
  the retail prices index, (c) average domestic rate/ community charge bills as a proportion of average household income and (d) average domestic rate/ community charge bills as a proportion of male average earnings.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information for average gross domestic rate bills per household, by region in England, is as follows:

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, with columns for English regions and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an analysis of local authority expenditure consistent with table 2 of Cm 1514.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 10 July 1991 at columns 396–98.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in rank order the proportion of community charge for 1990–91 now collected for each local authority, and the average for England.

  Mr. Portillo
  We estimate that the average percentage of budgeted community charge yield collected in England by 31 March 1991, allowing for non-responding authorities, was 90 per cent. I am placing in the Library a table containing information for individual local authorities ranked in descending order.

  War Widows (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors in the standard spending assessments relate to the liability of local authorities to offer a housing benefit disregard for war widows; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  That part of housing benefit payments which falls to be met by local authorities' general funds rather than being supported directly by central Government subsidy is covered by the all other services element of standard spending assessments—SSAs. This element covers a wide range of services and is distributed on the basis of a number of indicators, including an indicator of social conditions. There is no direct link between any single service covered by this SSA element and any one of the indicators.

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to ensure that local planning authorities are aware of the location of sites which have been identified by the statutory nature

  Designated Sites

  Site

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  Date designated

  Rockliffe Marshes

  Cumbria

  SPA/Ramsar

  1 October 1986

  Irthinghead Mires

  Cumbria

  Ramsar

  17 July 1985

  Northumberland

  Leighton Moss

  Lancashire

  SPA/Ramsar

  28 November 1985

  Alt Estuary (part)

  Merseyside

  SPA/Ramsar

  28 November 1985

  Ribble Estuary (part)

  Lancashire

  SPA

  31 August 1982

  Martin Mere

  Lancashire

  SPA/Ramsar

  28 November 1985

  Lindisfarne (part)

  Northumberland

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Fame Islands

  Northumberland

  SPA

  17 July 1985

  Coquet Island

  Northumberland

  SPA

  17 July 1985

  Holburn Lake and Moss

  Northumberland

  SPA/Ramsar

  17 July 1985

  Derwent Ings

  North Yorkshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  17 July 1985

  Humberside

  Moor House

  Cumbria

  SPA

  31 August 1982

  Rostherne Mere

  Cheshire

  Ramsar

  24 July 1981

  The Wash

  Lincolnshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  30 March 1988

  Norfolk

  Ouse Washes

  Cambridgeshire

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Norfolk

  North Norfolk Coast

  Norfolk

  SPA/Ramsar

  20 January 1989

  Redgrave and Lophara Fens

  Norfolk

  Ramsar

  15 February 1991

  Suffolk

  Minsmere-Walberswick (part)

  Suffolk

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Orfordness-Havergate (part)

  Suffolk

  SPA

  31 August 1982

  Abberton Reservoir

  Essex

  Ramsar

  24 July 1981

  Bure Marshes

  Norfolk

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere

  Norfolk

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Chew Valley Lake

  Avon

  SPA

  17 July 1985

  Chesil Beach and The Fleet

  Dorset

  SPA/Ramsar

  17 July 1985

  Chichester and Langstone Harbours

  Hampshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  28 October 1987

  West Sussex

  The Swale (part)

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  17 July 1985

  Pagham Harbour

  West Sussex

  SPA/Ramsar

  30 March 1988

  Dee Estuary

  Clwyd

  SPA/Ramsar

  17 July 1985

  Cheshire

  Merseyside

  Upper Severn Estuary

  Gloucestershire

  SPA/Ramsar

  5 February 1988

  Bridgwater Bay

  Somerset

  Ramsar

  5 January 1976

  Potential Sites

  Sites

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

  Cumbria

  SPA/Ramsar

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Duddon Estuary

  Cumbria

  SPA/Ramsar

  Esthwaite Water

  Cumbria

  Ramsar

  218
  conservation agencies as meeting criteria for designation as SPAs under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds or under the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Baldry
  Designated and potential special protection areas and Ramsar sites are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through the sites of special scientific interest system. Local planning authorities are already informed of the location of these sites as part of the SSSI designation process. A list of both potential and designated SPAs and Ramsar sites has been published in the Official Report and is updated.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites so far designated or identified for designation in England as special protection areas under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds or wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat.

  Mr. Baldry
  The tables list all those sites in England which have been designated as either special protection areas, or Ramsar sites, or both and those which have been identified by the Nature Conservancy Council as potential special protection areas or Ramsar sites.
  219

  Sites

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  Northumberland

  Morecambe Bay

  Cumbria

  SPA/Ramsar

  Lancashire

  Ribble and Alt Estuaries

  Lancashire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Merseyside

  Mersey Estuary

  Merseyside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Cheshire

  Ravenglass

  Cumbria

  Ramsar

  Bowland Fells

  Lancashire

  SPA

  Thorne and Hatfield Moors

  South Yorkshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Humberside

  Shap Fells

  Cumbria

  SPA

  Solway Mosses

  Cumbria

  Ramsar

  Duddon Mosses

  Cumbria

  Ramsar

  North of England Montane Sites

  Cumbria

  SPA

  Lindisfarne

  Northumberland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast

  Cleveland

  SPA/Ramsar

  Malham Tarn

  North Yorkshire

  Ramsar

  Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs

  Humberside

  SPA

  Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast

  Humberside

  SPA/Ramsar

  Lincolnshire

  Northumberland Coast

  Northumberland

  SPA/Ramsar

  North Yorkshire Moors

  North Yorkshire

  SPA

  Hornsea Mere

  Humberside

  SPA

  Yorkshire Dale Moorlands

  North Yorkshire Cumbria

  SPA

  North Pennine Moors

  Cumbria

  SPA/Ramsar

  Northumberland

  Durham

  North Yorkshire

  Peak District Moors

  Derbyshire

  SPA

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Midland Meres and Mosses

  Cheshire

  Ramsar

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Walmore Common

  Gloucestershire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Norfolk

  The Wash—Gibraltar Point

  Lincolnshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Nene Washes

  Cambridgeshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Ouse Washes

  Cambridgeshire

  SPA

  Norfolk

  Rutland Water

  Leicestershire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Roydon Common

  Norfolk

  Ramsar

  Minsmere—Walberswick

  Suffolk

  SPA/Ramsar

  Orfordness—Havergate

  Suffolk

  SPA/Ramsar

  Stour and Orwell Estuary

  Suffolk

  SPA/Ramsar

  Essex

  Hamford Water

  Essex

  SPA/Ramsar

  Abberton Reservoir

  Essex

  SPA

  Benfleet and Southend Marshes

  Essex

  SPA/Ramsar

  Breckland heaths

  Norfolk

  SPA

  Suffolk

  Dersingham Bog

  Norfolk

  Ramsar

  Chippenham Fen

  Cambridgeshire

  Ramsar

  Mid-Essex Coast

  Essex

  SPA/Ramsar

  Norfolk Broads

  Norfolk

  SPA/Ramsar

  Deben Estuary

  Suffolk

  SPA/Ramsar

  Great Yarmouth North Denes

  Norfolk

  SPA

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  Somerset

  SPA/Ramsar

  Taw and Torridge Estuary

  Devon

  SPA

  Isles of Scilly Coastal Habitats

  Cornwall

  SPA/Ramsar

  Exe Estuary

  Devon

  SPA/Ramsar

  Dorset Heathlands

  Dorset

  SPA

  Poole Harbour

  Dorset

  SPA/Ramsar

  East Devon Heaths

  Devon

  SPA

  Tamar Complex

  Devon

  SPA

  Cornwall

  Bodmin Moor

  Cornwall

  SPA

  New Forest

  Hampshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Portsmouth Harbour

  Hampshire

  SPA

  Southampton Water and Solent Marshes

  Hampshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Avon Valley

  Hampshire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Dorset

  Porton Down

  Wiltshire

  SPA

  Hampshire

  220

  221

  Sites

  County

  SPA/Ramsar

  Windsor Forest and Great Park

  Berkshire

  SPA

  Surrey

  Woolmer Forest

  Hampshire

  SPA

  The Swale

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  Thames Estuary and Marshes

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  Medway Estuary and Marshes

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  Thanet Coast

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  Pevensey Levels

  East Sussex

  SPA/Ramsar

  Dungeness to Pett Levels

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  East Sussex

  Lee Valley

  Greater London

  SPA

  Stodmarsh

  Kent

  SPA/Ramsar

  Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons

  Surrey

  SPA/Ramsar

  Chobham to Yateley Commons

  Surrey

  SPA

  Hampshire

  Berkshire

  Amberley

  West Sussex

  SPA/Ramsar

  South West London Reservoirs and Gravel Pits

  Greater London

  SPA/Ramsar

  Berkshire

  Surrey

  Severn Estuary

  Gloucestershire

  SPA/Ramsar

  Avon

  Somerset

  South Glamorgan

  Gwent

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that port and harbour authorities are aware of the locations and significance of sites which have been identified by the statutory nature conservation agencies as meeting criteria for designation as SPAs under directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds or under the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: Designated and potential special protection areas and Ramsar sites are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through the sites of special scientific interest system. Harbour and port authorities, as owners/ occupiers, are already informed of the location and ornithological significance of these sites as part of this process. SSSIs are entered as a local land charge.

  Water Industry
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what record he has of or what representations he received from the water industry, before privatisation, about its inability to recruit the most suitable applicants for posts in top and middle management, or skilled scientific and professional grades owing to inadequate or non-competitive salaries.

  Mr. Baldry
  In making the appointments of executive directors of the new water and sewerage companies before privatisation we had in mind the need to attract applicants of the necessary calibre and took into account representations from the industry about the salaries that were required for that purpose. In some cases, it was necessary for these to be above the existing scales of the industry. The relevant salaries were listed in the prospectus.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with building societies' representatives about schemes to prevent the increase in repossessions and help for people falling behind with mortgage payments; and if he will make a statement.
  222
  Mr. Yeo
  As part of our continuing discussions with banks and building societies, my right hon. Friend met the Council of Mortgage Lenders earlier this month. In addition to the help already available to some borrowers through income support and through shared ownership schemes, discussion included steps to see that reductions in base rates were passed promptly to borrowers and that links between lenders, local authorities and local DSS offices are improved to ensure that no property is needlessly repossessed.

  Flags (10 July)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which flags were being flown on 10 July on the Treasury building, Whitehall; and if he will make a statement about the reasons why each of these flags has been selected.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 10 July four union flags were flying on the Treasury building as part of the preparations for the London economic summit. Since then other flags of the United Kingdom, the armed forces and the G7 flag have been added in accordance with Her Majesty's command.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects appeals against assessment of uniform business rate for 1990–91 to be completed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The hearing of appeals is a matter for the valuation and community charge tribunals, which are statutory independent. However, I expect the tribunals to determine by 1 April 1994 the bulk of appeals lodged in the financial year 1990–91 against the 1990 rating list.

  Local Government (Statutory Obligations)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all statutory obligations currently imposed on local government in England.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not practicable to list all local authority statutory obligations which arise under a very
  223
  wide range of both public general and local Acts. Moreover, in addition to those responsibilities which are cast in the form of legal duties, practical considerations may make other functions, which are formally only powers, effectively obligations.

  House Prices
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the change in house prices during the second quarter of 1991 for(a) the northern region, (b) Yorkshire and Humberside, (c) the north-west, (d) the east midlands, (e) the west midlands, (f) East Anglia, (g) the south-west, (h) the south-east and (i) Greater London as measured by the house price index.

  Mr. Yeo
  The regional mix-adjusted house price index based on the survey of building society mortgage completions is published annually by the Department. The latest figures, for 1990, are in table 5.11 of "Regional Trends 26", a copy of which is in the Library. The quarterly mix-adjusted index, at the national level—United Kingdom—is published in part 2 of the quarterly edition of "Housing and Construction Statistics: Great Britain". The index for the second quarter of 1991 is not yet available.

  Marine Monitoring
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future of marine monitoring in United Kingdom coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today placed copies in the Library of both the report of the marine pollution monitoring management group—MPMMG—on, "The Principles and Practice of Monitoring in UK Coastal Waters" and the Government's response to it. This response sets out the Government's views for the future of marine monitoring around our shores in the light of the recommendations made by MPMMG.

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now received the report of the drinking water inspectorate for 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The chief inspector, Michael Healey, has submitted to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales his first annual report on drinking water in 1990. This has been published today, and I have placed copies in the Library.

  Of 3·3 million tests carried out on drinking water during 1990, 99 per cent. came within the legal limits. The chief inspector has concluded that the water supplied to consumers is of high quality, and often of exceptionally high quality. Overall, the inspectorate has confirmed the safety of public water supplies.

  The report is the first comprehensive description of drinking water quality in England and Wales, tested rigorously against the very demanding criteria of the Water Quality Regulations, which incorporate the limits in the EC drinking water directive. I am pleased that in this country we are leading the way in Europe by requiring such close scrutiny of our water supplies and the publication of a report of this kind.
  224
  Some supplies were found not to comply at some time with some of the standards in the Water Quality Regulations. These cases do not endanger health. Some companies have given my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales and me undertakings, in response to action by us under section 20 of the Water Act 1989, to remedy the position as quickly as practicable, and in most cases by 1995. Other companies will do so shortly. This remedial programme requires major capital investment by the industry, amounting to over £2 billion by 1995. The inspectorate has concluded that the programme is on schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, is however writing today to the chairmen of water companies to emphasise the importance we attach to this programme.

  Furthermore, my right hon. Friend and I have asked the inspectorate to review the remedial programme. If the review shows that there is scope for remedying current breaches of the standards at an earlier date than hitherto planned, we shall consider to what extent water companies should be required to do that. This could mean that some companies would be allowed a higher limit on their charges, to reflect additional costs.

  Finally, the report also refers to a small number of incidents notified by water companies to the inspectorate in which either companies have had to take special precautions or the inspectorate is considering enforcement action or prosecution.

  In parallel with this major investment programme by the water industry, the Government are taking action on other fronts which will reduce the contamination of water sources by nitrate and pesticides.

  Planning Applications
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue a consultation paper about publicity for planning applications.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today issued a consultation paper "Planning Applications: Publicity and Notification" seeking views on a range of proposals for a new regime of publicity for planning applications.

  In particular views are invited on:

  (a) the merits of introducing compulsory neighbour notification for all planning applications;

  (b) the relative merits of different types of publicity eg, site notices, newspaper advertisements or any other media and on whether publicity should be undertaken by applicant or local planning authority;

  (c) the scope for introducing variable levels of publicity depending on the importance of the application and the location of the application site;

  (d) the merits of extending publicity requirements to applications for reserved matters following a grant of outline planning permission;

  (e) a proposal for all planning decisions to be advertised.

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

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, with figures, the total contributions that the Government have made since September 1990 towards the costs that developing
  225
  countries will incur in complying with the revised Montreal protocol; and what further contributions the Government will undertake before the end of 1993.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government announced a contribution of up to $15 million to the Montreal protocol funding mechanism in June 1990, to be disbursed over the following three years. There are no present plans for further contributions.

  Kingsbridge Book Shop
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the appeal against uniform business rate assessment for 1990–91 of Kingsbridge Book Shop was received; and when he expects it to be heard.
  226
  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The proposal to alter the entry in the rating list for Kingsbridge Book Shop was lodged on 25 September 1990 and was transmitted to the local valuation and community charge tribunal—VCCT—within the statutory six months of receipt. Unless agreement between the ratepayer and the valuation officer is reached beforehand, it is estimated that the appeal will be listed for hearing by the VCCT by the end of September.

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

Lord Skidelsky
Robert Jacob Alexander Skidelsky, Esquire, having been created Baron Skidelsky, of Tilton in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Kilmarnock and the Lord Flowers.
Viscount St. Davids—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

National Health Service: Staff Ratios
2.49 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the increase in National Health Service staff in the last two years and what is the proportion of administrative staff to clinical staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, overall numbers of directly employed staff in the National Health Service remained steady between September 1988 and September 1990 at the 1 million mark. The proportion of administrative staff, in the broadest sense, to clinical staff was 1:4.7 at September 1988 and 1:4.2 at September 1990.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that many chairmen of district health authorities report a great increase in efficiency and service within the health service resulting from the reforms and in particular from better management of the people in the service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the information that my noble friend has given. Of course, many of the problems which the reforms were introduced to resolve were administrative. I can quote examples such as the North Middlesex Trust which plans to make 15 administrative staff redundant. The savings which result will go into direct patient care. There is more direct patient care than ever before.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I welcome the figures which the noble Baroness has given to the House. Does she accept that they do not mean much until we know precisely who is included in which category? There are a great many National Health Service employees who might not appear to be clinical staff but who are crucial to the clinical care of patients. I refer to hospital secretaries, who are essential to the clinical care of patients. Are they administrative or clinical? Hospital porters are important to the care and comfort of patients. Are they administrative or
188
are they ignored? Under which column do they come? How can we obtain further details so that we are better able to understand the figures?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the important people are those involved in direct patient care. Overall, those numbers have increased. The figures for doctors, nurses, midwives and consultants have all increased dramatically. In addition, because of the increase in patient activity, there are more administrative staff. I shall seek to separate the figures for the direct care staff to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Observer last Sunday there was a statement signed by 600 consultants, leading members of the medical profession and others? Among other things it said:
"We … face increasing problems providing decent patient care because an already underfunded service is overstretched by an untested, expensive and top-heavy bureaucracy".
Those are senior, responsible people who care passionately about the health service. What proposals do the Government have to put right that state of affairs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there have been a number of recent initiatives. I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House that more money than ever before is being spent on the health service. There has been the announcement of 100 new consultants appointed between 1987 and 1989; 100 new consultants to tackle waiting times covering the period from 1989 to 1992; and 200 consultants and 60 staff grade doctors for 1991–92 under the initiative to help reduce the hours of junior doctors. All the initiatives will provide an even better health service.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the noble Lord who has just spoken phrased his supplementary question in a way that is hurtful and insulting to young house doctors who struggle on night after night? As I recall, the administrative staff work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Let us pay tribute to the staff who are really important in hospitals and not denigrate them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure to which noble Lord the Baroness is referring. However, I wish to pay tribute to all those involved in direct patient care who are working towards improving our National Health Service system.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as the Minister has been good enough to say that she will write to many noble Lords to provide up-to-date figures, will she inform me in writing how many doctors and nurses are employed in the National Health Service today compared with, say, 10 years ago? This is the fundamental matter irrespective of what has been mentioned today.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord those figures now. More patients are being treated nationally than ever before. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in activity since 1979. The number of doctors employed in the National Health Service has increased by 17 per cent. since 1979, while

189
the number of consultants has risen by 24 per cent. The number of GPs has risen by 20 per cent. since 1979 and in addition 100 consultants have been employed in connection with the waiting time initiative. There are also the 200 consultants who have been employed to deal with the initiative on junior doctors' hours.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in saying who is responsible for what duties, will the noble Baroness inform the House who those people are responsible to? To whom are they answerable for the exercise of whatever authority is delegated to them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the bodies that are responsible for the health care of the public—that is what we are all most interested in—are the district health authorities. Those district health authorities enter into contracts with units, hospitals or other bodies. Responsibility for health care is devolved through a contract to the unit concerned.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the administrators in the National Health Service have come in for a great deal of criticism over the past 10 to 20 years, nevertheless the Government's reforms are enabling them to be transformed into managers? We in this country still spend far less on administration and management than is the case in most other countries. Does my noble friend further agree that many of the 600 doctors who signed the letter published in the Observer on Sunday had the words "honorary" or "emeritus" after their names? That is a polite way of stating that those doctors are retired.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend draws attention again to the fact that the needs of direct health care are covered by a team approach which involves administrative staff as well as medically qualified staff.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the words "honorary" and "emeritus" do not necessarily mean that the people to whom those titles belong know nothing about their subject. On the contrary they have great experience. Will the noble Baroness focus her attention on the thrust of the question of my noble friend Lord Carter? Is there not an overweight bureaucracy in the National Health Service which the Government should tackle?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the recently introduced resource management initiative is the most effective and radical introduction of improvements in the administration and management of the health service since the service began? My noble friend can take great credit for that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. As I said at the outset, many of the problems which the reforms aim to tackle are administrative problems.

The Homeless in London: Health Care
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who is responsible for the health of homeless people in central London who are not registered with a general practitioner.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, anyone not registered can attend a general practitioner and receive any treatment which the doctor considers is immediately necessary. He may also be accepted as a temporary resident. In addition, in central London there are a number of outreach schemes to meet the health needs of homeless people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that many homeless people of no fixed address never approach a GP? Is she further aware that those people may collapse from a heart attack, a stroke or from another serious injury or illness and then be taken to the nearest casualty department? As the Westminster Hospital may close, those people will be taken to St. Thomas's Hospital if they collapse in Westminster or Piccadilly. As that hospital comes under a different health authority, who would pick up the bill in such cases?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is better economics for a patient to go to a GP for his health care rather than to be admitted to the casualty department of a hospital. That is why the initiatives to which I have referred in relation to the homeless in central London have been introduced. GPs are going to the crypt of St. Martin in the Fields and to St. Botolph's Church to provide help and advice to people with health needs.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that over 50 per cent. of single homeless people do not register with a general practitioner? Is she also aware that a recent survey by the Policy Studies Institute shows that two thirds of single homeless people who have been in hospital are discharged without any consultation with staff? Will the noble Baroness do all she can to ensure that homeless people who are taken into hospital are, first, given advice on how to register with a general practitioner; secondly, that plans for them are prepared well in advance of their discharge from hospital; and, thirdly, that a leaflet is made available showing local hostels, DSS agencies, local GPs and other places where they may obtain help after leaving hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, counselling arrangements are in place in most hospitals to help people who are being discharged. In normal circumstances, to be registered with a GP a patient must be able to give a permanent address, but family health services authorities can and do adopt a flexible approach in respect of the address accepted, which can sometimes

191
be a hotel or a refuge. However, it is essentially the responsibility of the individual concerned to seek treatment in the first place.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a very high proportion of the homeless on the streets are schizophrenics? That being so, will she take steps to identify that very large section of potential patients requiring treatment and arrange for diagnosis and treatment?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. In respect of people being discharged from hospital, arrangements are made to provide for contact after their discharge. In July of last year my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the department announced a new initiative to provide services for homeless people in central London who are suffering from mental illness. Seventy-four new specialist hostel places are expected to be open by the end of this year and follow-on accommodation is expected to be provided through the Housing Corporation. That overcomes the problem of the need for an address, and medical care follows more easily.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that very few of the children of families living in bed and breakfast accommodation are on a general practitioner's list? Does she accept that as a consequence a very small proportion of them receive their full course of immunising injections? Is that not a serious problem which demands the attention of the public health authorities?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. As family health services authorities are responsible for the provision of general medical services for all the people living in the locality, family health services authorities are seeking to Provide the information that is required, in the languages in which it is required, so that it is readily available for people who need it. I reiterate that it is essentially the responsibility of the individual concerned to present himself or his children for treatment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report on the health of homeless families produced by the Health Visitors' Association and the BMA revealed a scandalous situation, particularly regarding the health of the children of homeless families? The report refers to infectious diseases, chronic diarrhoea, respiratory infections, scabies, and infestations of lice, fleas and bed bugs. Does the Minister agree that that is an appalling situation? What urgent action do the Government propose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is a difficult situation. The Government's reforms are intended to make the whole health service more efficient. There are a n amber of initiatives, to which I have already referred, in terms of primary health care projects. The Government further support a number of voluntary sector organisations which are doing very important and active work on the ground in this area.

London Buses
3.5 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations from London Transport concerning the need to replace its ageing fleet of buses and, if so, what has been their response.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): No, my Lords. It is for London Transport to decide how much of the grant available to it it wishes to devote to the purchase of buses.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply but I must confess that I am a little disappointed by the lack of detail. Is the Minister aware that recent figures show that 20 per cent. of the vehicles in the London bus fleet are past their design age? The Routemasters, for example, were designed to have a life of 17 years, but the present average age of the Routemasters is 26 years and that proportion is expected to reach 60 per cent. in less than five years from now. All of that uncertainty is the direct result of the Government's financial restraints and the blight which has been caused by threats of privatisation. Should not the Government have a plan to restore adequate funding to London Transport and rethink their destructive deregulation programme with a view to coming forward with alternative proposals?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as concerns funding, as I said in my original Answer, it is for London Transport to decide how much to spend on buses within the funding figure. Government grant to London Transport will increase to nearly £2.5 billion over the next three years. That is more than double the figure for the three years to 1990–91 in real terms; it is double the level under the GLC; and in real terms it is three times the average level under the last Labour Government.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that individual companies which have successfully competed with London Transport for the franchise of bus routes in the greater London area are now operating those routes with new vehicles? Does he consider that the ability of individual firms in that regard should be taken fully into account when granting future bus franchises?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. We have the evidence near this House. The No. 24 route, which is operated on a franchise, is operated almost entirely with new vehicles.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Government to prevail on London Transport not to waste money on expensive brochures of the type which I received this morning? The same goes for the gas and electricity companies. They should spend their money on the right things and not on the expensive rubbish which they send through the post. At the same

193
time we have ageing buses carrying the people of London. Cannot the Government prevail on those companies to spend their money more sensibly?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I suspect that if London Transport did not keep noble Lords in touch—and I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to its latest business plan—it would attract considerable criticism from noble Lords. Last year London Transport bought 425 new buses, the highest number for six years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in view of the increasingly ageing population will the Minister ensure that buses are designed to meet the needs of elderly and disabled people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as time goes on and bus replacement takes place new buses are more suitable for aged and disabled people.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a number of continental countries operators are required to operate to maximum age standards and that in order to encourage the renewal of fleets they are supported by substantial capital allowances and other fiscal incentives which then work themselves back into assisting the industries that manufacture buses? Would not that be a useful policy for the Government to consider and implement here?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government grant to London Transport is at a high level at the present time. As regards the noble Lord's suggestion, I am aware that that suggestion has been made by the Transport Committee in another place today and it will receive the consideration that it deserves in due course.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that the ageing fleet is a serious matter. However, in addition to giving us the welcome news about the number of new buses that London Transport is to provide, will he give us the figures for the total fleet and tell us what plans London Transport has for the immediate future? Does he further agree that the Routemaster was an extremely good bus?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Routemaster is certainly a popular bus in London. I understand that London Transport is considering spending up to £10 million on renovating its existing Routemaster fleet which would extend its working life by approximately 10 years. If it goes ahead with that proposal, I am sure that that will be most welcome to Londoners who enjoy the Routemaster bus. There are now on the roads more buses owned by London Buses than there were in 1985, and 15 per cent. of them are less than four years old.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the No. 24 bus. Does he agree that the No. 24 bus is a model and probably the best and most efficiently run bus in London? Is he aware that the No
194
.24 bus is run by the north-east firm of Cowies? Would it not be a good idea to invite Cowies of Sutherland to run the whole bus service in London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point which is not often heard from the Benches opposite. As noble Lords will be aware, London Transport has recently contracted out a number of its routes. I do not know whether Cowies has tried to win the contract for the other routes, but I am sure that London Transport would be delighted to hear from the company.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that London Transport supports the deregulation and privatisation of buses in London and that in the next two to three years it plans to buy 200 to 300 minibuses and citybuses and 150 double-deckers, which are mainly the two-door variety, and not Routemasters which it has now planned to take out of service?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend is right on that last point because I understand that London Transport is considering extending the life of Routemasters. However, as I said, last year it bought the greatest number of buses for six years and intends to spend even more on bus purchase this year.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that his reply to his noble friend regarding the No. 24 bus route raises a number of issues? He confused tendering arrangements, of which many of us are in favour, with deregulation, of which few of us are in favour. The company which runs Grey-Green buses and operates the No. 24 bus route has publicly declared itself against deregulation. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not yet mentioned deregulation in answer to any of the questions asked today. I mentioned the contracting out of the No. 24 bus route.

Nature Conservancy Bodies
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are content that the arrangements for the successor bodies to the Nature Conservancy Council are working satisfactorily.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we believe that the statutory framework introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a sounder basis for nature conservation in Great Britain than the previous arrangements. We are determined that these should operate as intended under the Act for the benefit of nature conservation throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but will she accept that, when those arrangements were made, the suggestion by the Carver Committee that there should be a Joint Nature

195
Conservation Committee for the whole of the United Kingdom went a long way to alleviate our worries in that area? In view of what has happened in the past week, when the Chairman of the JNCC has offered his resignation because he believes that the work of the committee has been made impossible by the legislation that has been passed, will she reassure us that steps will be taken to ensure that the work of the JNCC can proceed as planned?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the arguments that were proffered by the Carver Committee. Even in these early days there is considerable evidence that the separate country councils are working for the individual countries. We inter d to see that they do work and that the JNCC, of which the country councils are a constituent part, also works. However, we have written to Professor Holliday concerning his resignation and have reassured him on a number of points that were of concern to him.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the new council has made a favourable start in Wales, certainly with regard to landowners and farmers, in contrast to the Nature Conservancy Council which was apt to act both arrogantly and unsympathetically? I hope that my noble friend will give the new council all the support that it obviously deserves.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall certainly continue to give the separate councils full support. It is important that the principle of subsidiarity works and that what is right for Scotland is dealt with by the Scottish council, what is right for Wales is dealt with by tile Welsh council and what is right for England is dealt with by the English council. However, on the question of common standards and criteria, it is important that they work through the JNCC.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a key proposal was the setting up of the joint committee and that the Government made great play with the appointment of Professor Holliday? Has the Minister seen Professor Holliday and found out his anxieties, because it is a great blow to the Government's plans? We want to see them succeed, but, given that anxiety, it looks rather unpromising. It is necessary to look carefully at the subject.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at this stage Professor Holliday has not finally resigned, but we are aware of his anxieties in some detail and the Secretary of State has written to him addressing all his anxieties and reassuring him. There has been an area of misunderstanding and a loss of confidence which we hope can be restored.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not astonishing that the Minister should recognise the anxieties of Professor Holliday, but at the same time should not have seen him and talked to him? Is it not
196
astonishing that Professor Holliday should not have been given advance notice of the changes made in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to think that I should have seen Professor Holliday personally. My colleague, the Minister of State for environmental matters, Mr. Trippier, has seen Professor Holliday. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is also in touch with him. We have written to him. We are aware of all his anxieties and we hope that the matter can be resolved, but we have every confidence that the JNCC and the separate country councils will work.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the new arrangements have been well received in Scotland and that there is greater satisfaction that the preservation of our national heritage is being handled with great sensitivity? In view of the conflicting interests that are involved, we are delighted that this exercise in devolution is succeeding.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's comments. I agree that a particular problem with that monolithic committee was that of sensitivity and the different problems pertaining to Scotland, Wales and England. Subsidiarity now works through the JNCC, of which the country councils are a constituent part, to ensure that, in areas of common interest, common standards and criteria are properly established.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the House is partially reassured by what she has said about Sir Frederick Holliday and that it would be a tragedy to the JNCC if he were to resign at this stage? Can she also reassure us on the Welsh side that the resources will be available to the council for Wales to enable it to do the work?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the allocations have been made to the individual country councils which then fund the JNCC. That is consistent with all the promises that were made with regard to the Bill, so that is not a point at issue.
Lord Carver: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the committee which I chair recommended that the joint committee should be the means through which the country councils work together and that it should be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level? Can she assure the House that that is taking place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the noble and gallant Lord on that, not only at the national but at the international level. It is our intention that it should work in precisely that way.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I am sorry, but the 30 minutes is up.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Cattewater Reclamation Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill
3.21 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Repeal of section 101 of Local Government Finance Act 1988]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. It may contrast with normal procedure, but we have tried modest measures to deal with the atrocious proposal put forward by the Government; namely, that capping of local authority budgets should be extended from the large authorities covered by existing legislation to all local authorities, including the smallest. As I said, having made modest and reasonable proposals at Committee stage, which were rejected out of hand, we now have to take the more severe approach and propose that the entirety of the extension of capping should be taken wholesale out of the Bill.
We were wrong to be so accommodating and moderate at Committee stage. The Government are clearly determined that capping shall be an essential part of all local authority finance. The Minister made that absolutely clear in Committee when she said:
"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".—[Official Report, 8/7/91; col. 1215.]
There could not have been a more comprehensive statement of defeat after 12 years of local government legislation from this Government and their immediate predecessors. In total contrast to everything that they tried to say in the early years of Conservative rule in the 1980s, the Government now insist that central government are always right and local government always wrong. They assert that local people have no chance to exercise responsibility for choosing the services they want and deciding what they are willing to pay for them. We said in Committee that local people have a right to demand value for money. Whether or not they are satisfied with the value for money provided by their own local authority should be tested at the ballot box and not in Marsham Street. It is intolerable that as a matter of continuing policy covering all councils—not merely the few outstanding examples of extravagance, according to the
198
Government—central determination of what local authorities should spend will be for Marsham Street and Marsham Street alone.
It is not as though the determination of what local authorities should spend is based on a realistic assessment of local areas' needs. That argument has gone out of the window. The standard spending assessment, which is the basis for poll tax capping now and council tax capping in the future, no longer even pretends to be a true reflection of what local authorities need in relation to the resources that they have available to meet those needs. Central government now decide to allocate a certain amount of money to local authorities as a whole. On an increasingly arbitrary basis they decide—sometimes on political rather than economic or social grounds —how to divide it among local authorities, and then they impose that arbitrary assessment on each local authority.
It is beyond belief that the Government who introduced a poll tax system where the cost of collection, and indeed of failure to collect, amounts to an additional £800 million a year should seek to extend capping powers to local authorities which have budgets of less than £15 million a year and when the amount denied to the local authorities—in other words, the rights denied to local authorities to levy what they want from their own ratepayers with their agreement—is very often only a few hundred thousand pounds per council. Against that background the Government, who are recklessly spendthrift in their whole approach to local government, seek to claim that all wisdom lies at the centre and that no wisdom and no responsibility lie with local authorities.
In Clause 2, which we seek to delete, the Government seek to advance the same argument for Scotland. Since the 1987 Act, Scotland has had at least the escape route that local authorities should not spend more than what is reasonable. At least "reasonable" has some legal meaning and can be accepted in the courts. Instead, what is now proposed for Scotland is that the criterion for capping should be whether expenditure is excessive. "Excessive" is not a word with any legal meaning—"excessive" means above the standard spending assessment. With such a political basis for setting the standard spending assessment, such a political basis for the control of local authority expenditure and such a narrow view of the public interest, as has been evident in local authority legislation over the past few years, is it any wonder that we have no alternative but to take out altogether from the Bill this objectionable procedure? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I confess to having been somewhat surprised to see these two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, when I thought about them for a moment, I realised that the noble Lord was quite right to have gone from the particular to the general.
The clauses that are the subject of these amendments go to the heart of the respect that central government professes to have for local government and the accountability of local authorities to their

199
electorates. I have heard many fine words spoken in the short period of time that I have been a Member of this House—fine words about accountability, local assessment of local needs and local choice. It would be sad if those words were mere lip-service, as I am beginning to believe that they are.
The extension of capping to all local authorities takes the Government's theories and dogma to the very limit of their extremes in order to save tiny amounts of money. I did not realise how many noble Lords had previously been members of local authorities. I wonder how they would have reacted in their previous incarnation as local councillors if they had heard this debate. I wonder how angry they might have been at the attack on their sense of responsibility and the suggestion that they were not fit to take decisions for their local communities.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to the House if I intervene out of ignorance or stupidity. However, I was not in this country when the power to cap was first introduced. I have never entirely understood the rational justification for the power to cap. But it seems relevant to the debate on the amendment to try to understand it.
We are told regularly that controlling local authority spending is vital for the fight against inflation. I do not argue with that. However, is it not equally essential to the fight against inflation to control private spending? Is there any reason to believe that one form of spending is more inflationary than the other? Why do we have stringent powers to control local authority spending without having equivalent powers to control private spending? If we have one but not the other, the rationalisation seems to me to fall short. If we were to place controls on private spending that were as stringent as those on local authority spending, would we perhaps be on the road towards a command economy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to start by making two points. First, the time is fast approaching whey: the parties of noble Lords opposite will have to explain to the world outside that they approve of no limit; whatever on government spending, because that is the message that they are sending out. We are not talking about constraints on private money—that is, on people spending their own money. We are talking about giving a licence to local authorities to spend without limit other people's money. That is the issue. I make no apologies whatever for saying that there should be concern about macro-economics. Eighty-six per cent. of local authority spending is provided by national taxation. That is a high proportion of the whole. We have a concern about macro-economics. Noble Lords opposite will have to explain to the electorate that they have no worry about macro-economics.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I had thought that local authorities were accountable to their own electorates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl has missed the point. Eighty-six per cent. of local authority spending is directly grant-aided by government, business and commerce. Therefore local authorities are spending a great deal of other people's money. Under the present system only 14 per cent. is raised by local people. Therefore the point made by the noble Earl about accountability is rather lost.
We have made clear our reasons for seeking to abolish the anomalous exemption from capping for local authorities with budgets of less than £15 million. The current exemption mirrors a similar provision which existed under rate capping. Initially we considered it appropriate to concentrate our efforts on the worst overspenders, which tended to be the larger districts and counties. But times have now moved on. Small authorities, while they may have only a small effect on the total of government expenditure, have in some cases overspent to the extent of adding significantly to the bills local people are required to pay.
During the period of transition from domestic rates to the community charge some local authorities used the change-over as a smokescreen to hide their increases in spending. Over the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 spending rose by more than a quarter. This year we announced our provisional capping criteria in advance of budget setting by authorities. In stark contrast to previous years, budgeted spending by authorities has come out about 0.5 per cent. above the amount provided for in the settlement.
But notwithstanding this success we have not been able to protect all charge payers from the effects of overspending because of the exemption from capping for authorities with budgets of less than £15 million. While many small authorities budget wisely, a number have not done so. Eighteen such authorities set budgets which added more than £40 to their bills and 44 added at least £20. In certain cases the overspending was much more substantial, for example in the cases of Derwentside, Elmbridge and Harlow, adding some £95, £73 and £83 respectively.
This alone provides a powerful argument for abolishing the £15 million threshold. But the need for strong and comprehensive capping powers is now even greater. This year's budget sought to reduce in the long term the proportion of local authority finance provided by local taxpayers to support local expenditure. We are determined that the considerable extra resources that we are making available to local authorities should be used to keep charges to reasonable levels rather than to finance higher spending. Most importantly, in the run-up to the introduction of the council tax we are determined to avoid a repetition of the massive spending up by local authorities which accompanied the introduction of the community charge.
We have no desire to cap large numbers of authorities. As this year it is our aim to achieve as much as possible by deterrence and as little as necessary by capping. We have made clear that we intend to make an advance announcement of provisional criteria for next year before local authorities take their budgeting decisions.

201
I have explained our reasons for wishing to strengthen our capping powers. The proposed amendment reflects the Labour Party's unwillingness to accept responsibility for controlling public expenditure, and to that I have to add the Liberal Democrats. It is all very well to talk about accountability. Of course that is central to any system of local authority finance. But experience has shown that sharpened accountability is not enough. In a system without restraint, spending would go through the roof.
I have dealt with the English side of Amendment No. 1. I now hand over to my noble and learned friend, who will address the Scottish dimension of Amendment No. 2.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we wish to introduce stronger capping powers in Scotland because in our view our present powers are too limited. Those powers were used previously for rate capping. By their nature they are selective and have little effect in deterring general overspending. We thought that in a system where accountability had a major part to play they would provide adequate protection for charge payers. But many local authorities have continued to spend excessively. They have flagrantly ignored the interests of their charge payers. The result was an increase in charge levels set originally by local authorities for 1991–92 of an average 30 per cent. That was despite an extremely fair increase in central government support through aggregate external finance of 10 per cent. In Edinburgh charge payers were asked to pay £584, an increase of 33 per cent. In Aberdeen the increase was 29 per cent., in Nairn 29 per cent., in Clydebank 29 per cent., in Kilmarnock 30 per cent. and in Dundee 29 per cent. All over Scotland people were struggling under the intolerable burden imposed by local authorities.
The effect of Clause 2 will be to strengthen and widen the Secretary of State's capping powers in Scotland. That is essential to protect local taxpayers from the excessive overspending of local authorities. It is also our duty to ensure that the fundamental shift in the balance of taxation brought about by the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act has the intended effect of keeping local taxes down to a reasonable level and is not used to fund higher spending. The new local level of charges made possible by this measure must be passed on to local people. The new capping powers will enable us to do that by making local authorities exercise restraint on spending.
The noble Lord thought that the word "excessive" was without legal meaning or content. I can only invite him to read the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, in the Hammersmith case—if he is not already familiar with it—in order to appreciate that the courts have indeed been able to give content to the use of the word "excess".
The existing legislation requires a long and detailed scrutiny of budgets, which means that it is usually well into the financial year when capping decisions are
202
announced. That leaves authorities with the difficulties of making adjustments to budgets when the financial year is already under way. The proposed new arrangements will enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to outline in advance the capping criteria he proposes to apply in the year ahead so that local authorities know where they stand when they begin their budgeting process. It is certainly not my right honourable friend's intention to cap large numbers of authorities next year when he has these new powers available to him. On the contrary, he fully expects that, with the benefit of capping criteria available to them before they make their budget decisions, local authorities will budget sensibly and local taxpayers will reap the benefit of reasonable charge levels. On that basis, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may say this. He has made a venomous attack on many of Scotland's local boroughs. However, as I understand it, in another place Mr. Heseltine has decided that the poll tax is a massive blunder. Therefore the problem has been created by the blunder, as Mr. Heseltine described it, of the poll tax. Would it not be fairer to blame the Government rather than many of Scotland's local authorities?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is nothing venomous in merely recording what has been an excessive degree of overspending by local authorities in Scotland. That was the choice that they took and I believe it only appropriate that the figures should be put before the House.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps we can return to the situation in England and Wales. What has been the cost of the rate capping? I cannot speak for every borough but I can speak for some of the London boroughs. Yes, they have been rate capped and money has been saved. But how has it been saved? Schools and parks have been closed as have many services to the people. My local authority was good and did its job thoroughly but now it must apologise for being unable to provide services that it would like to provide; yet Government Ministers just sit there smugly and talk about the issue.
When I was in one of my local shops this morning and someone complained about the local authority, I was happy to say, "Put the blame where it belongs, on the Government". That is what we must do. Rate capping sounds marvellous because you save money. But how do you save money? You do so at the cost of essential services.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was the second Front Bench speaker and dealt with Scotland. The issue was dealt with during our debates on the poll tax in Scotland and was put clearly. That was a good debate in which we made clear to the Government the difficulties of collection and that there would be a shortfall in local government expenses. We also made clear the fact that local government inflation was greater than any other because of the high incidence of labour costs.

203
I agree with what my noble friend Lady Phillips said about London boroughs. What services do the Government believe should be reduced? Since the Government came to power there have been great reductions in the home help service. People used to have visits from home helps two or three times a week but now at best it is once a week. There are not enough home helps to ensure that the same person always visits the home. That is disturbing to old people. Have local authorities fallen down on their control of what they are spending? No, home helps are costing more because of the rise in inflation caused by the Government.
The same applies in all areas of local government; for instance, libraries, schools and recreational facilities are being closed. The service to ordinary people is being reduced not because of the profligacy of local government but because the Government have not recognised that local government has become more expensive to administer. The House should support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as will be evident, we do not propose to be flattered or intimidated by having both the Minister of State and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate speak against us in respect of one humble group of amendments. There are fundamental disagreements which will not he overcome by negotiation. We have a Government who are repudiating everything they have said in recent years about accountability, about the relationship between central and local government and about the heinous crimes of a small number of profligate authorities. That is what we were told from the Government Front Bench only a couple of years ago. Their argument was not that there was general over spending but that a few wicked Left-wing councils were causing all the trouble. They said that provided we dealt with those councils that would be good enough.
The Government have set themselves up against their distinguished past—the past of the Conservative Party which over many years has respected local government, diversity and plurality of power—and are now proposing to repudiate that. The Government are setting themselves up not only against Labour local authorities and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities but against the unanimous view of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, as was made clear in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. The Government are setting themselves up against every principle in the modern world of subsidiarity. That is a nasty word but a desirable concept of delegating to the lowest possible level the power and responsibility for the allocation of resources.
We are not profligate and we do not support profligacy. The power that central Government properly has to control local government expenditure is contained in central Government's power to control the grant which they give to local authorities in recognition of the gap between their resources and their needs. A Labour Government would use that power as firmly as any Conservative Government.
204
Labour Governments have always used that power as firmly as any Conservative Government and they will continue to make a just assessment of local authority needs and resources. If additional expenditure is incurred by the decisions of a local authority it will be for the local authority and the local rate-payers alone and it will not continue to be supported by central Government.
That is my answer to the Minister's comment that we are in favour of uncontrolled local authority expenditure. What we are not prepared to accept—until now what the Conservative Party has not been prepared to accept and what the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat controlled local authority associations are not prepared to accept—is that even that part of local authority expenditure which is raised on a democratic basis from local people by their democratically-elected council should be controlled from Marsham Street. That is the divide between us and I have no hesitation in asking the House to support the amendment.
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 134

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Varley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

205

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Astor, V.

Knollys, V.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lothian, M.

Birdwood, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Blanch, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar, C.

Brigstocke, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Caldecote, V.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalfont, L.

Morris, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L.

Orkney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Donegall, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Downshire, M.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Effingham, E.

Porritt, L.

Elibank, L.

Prior, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pym, L.

Elles, B.

Quinton, L.

Elliot of Harwood. B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Erroll, E.

Renton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Richardson, L.

Fortescue, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Thurlow, L.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ilchester, E.

Waddington, L.

Ironside, L.

Wharton, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.55 p.m.
Clause 2 [Amendment of grounds for charge capping in Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Valuation of domestic properties]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her No. 3:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("a") and insert ("an individual").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. With these amendments I return without apology to a fundamental principle of the valuation system which is prepared for in the second part of the Bill.
Noble Lords will have seen over the past few days that there has been a flurry of comment in the press about the way in which the Government are proposing to implement the valuation for the council tax. Stories have been flying around which have been immediately denied—I suppose not surprisingly. However, there has been a dispute between the Treasury and the Department of the Environment about the banding system to be imposed.
The one thing which we can be sure of is that any flak which the Government are now catching because of what we know already about the valuation system proposed will be nothing compared to what will hit the Government when it becomes clear that they are now proposing, and will attempt to legislate in the next Session, a system of valuation which gives no rights whatever to individuals to understand what valuation is being put on a property and no effective rights to appeal because there will be no information on which to base the appeal—all that because what is proposed is a wholesale, on-the-cheap version of property valuation rather than the individual property valuation which the people as a whole will expect and will demand if they are to accept the fairness of the proposed system.
I often wonder whether this Government understand anything about what is going on in the outside world. Do they not understand that the poll tax is unacceptable because people did not accept the fundamental principle that taxation should be based on ability to pay? Do they not understand that by introducing this new council tax, which is supposed to be property based but is not based on an effective valuation of individual properties, they will come up against the same opposition?
If I were to be cynical I should not seek to interfere with the Bill in any way. I should say, as we said when the original Local Government Finance Bill was introduced in 1988, that it was only out of a stern sense of public duty that we opposed the Bill. The Government are doing exactly the same as they did in 1988. They are digging a trap and a pit for themselves. They are putting themselves back in the position of introducing a system for local government finance which will simply not be understood or accepted as being fair.
In the unlikely and unfortunate event that there is a Conservative Government in three years' time, there will be exactly the same sort of retreat from this legislation and forthcoming legislation that we are now seeing from the legislation introduced with such élan in 1987 and 1988.
People in this country will not accept a valuation system which consists of people subcontracted by the commissioners —we will come on to the question of

207
qualifications later —to stand at the end of the street, to make neither an individual valuation for an individual property nor any attempt to look at individual properties, and then to assign those properties into a band of value without telling the occupiers or owners what the actual valuation is.
People will not be told that, according to the valuer, their house is worth £135,000. They will be told that it will fit into band E, F or G or whatever the case may be. The Government in their ignorance may think that that will deter appeals. They may believe that, if they do not tell people whether their property is near or at the edge of a band, that that will deter them from appealing. They are totally wrong about that. If people are not told whether they are at the edge or in the middle of a band, the message they will receive is, "You have carte blanche to appeal against the valuation placed on your house without your house being looked at".
That is why I say that the Government are storing up trouble for themselves in introducing this legislation. To prepare for this legislation as the Government do in this limited Bill, by providing for a system which permits neither individual assessment of individual properties nor precise valuations which can be understood and justified to the occupiers or owners is to invite the accusation that I now make. What is proposed is an injustice as great as any which has been known in the history of property taxation in this country. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, waxes so indignant on the question of banding. The broad concept of banding has been enshrined in our taxation system at least since the time of the late Mr. Lloyd George. Indeed, it goes back to Harcourt in 1894. Mr. Gladstone always maintained that it went back to Mr. Goschen in even earlier days. We have therefore lived with the broad concept of banding, not in exactly this form but in a general form—the noble Lord is becoming more indignant but perhaps he will allow me to complete the sentence—for a very long time. I regard the concept of banding in this specific legislation as one of the major intellectual simplifications. On both of those grounds, it probably does not appeal to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was not waxing more indignant; I was becoming more curious. Is the noble Lord, with his great experience of the Inland Revenue, referring to banding in levels of income taxation?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, no. I am referring not only to income taxation but to estate duty and to the temporary estate duty which preceded estate duty. The concept of banding is therefore not entirely a new one. It is not something to get frightfully indignant about. I see the noble Lord is bubbling like a kettle on the boil. I wish he would restrain himself.
One of the major points of this banding system is precisely the same as in those other situations. It
208
ensures that people in higher bands pay higher amounts of tax pro rata. That is exactly what graduation does for the income tax and originally for the estate duty. There was a dispute, which the noble Lord will find fully reported in Hansard, between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Goschen as to whether or not Mr. Goschen had invented the idea.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene. I know that he is amused by the anxiety I feel in regard to the matter. I am hesitant to disagree with something said by a noble Lord of his experience, but surely, when he refers to banding for income taxation or any other kind of taxation, he is speaking of a band above which a higher rate is levied. If my income rises £1,000 above the level at which 40 per cent. income tax is due, I pay the 40 per cent. on that £1,000. If I earn £10,000 above the level at which 40 per cent. taxation is due, I pay the tax of 40 per cent. on that £10,000. In other words, for income taxation and inheritance taxation the bands are levels at which additional amounts are levied; they are levied on the actual amount assessed. This banding situation is quite different. The banding is a blank level between £0–£50,000 or anything above £160,000; whatever the value, the same council tax is paid by all people. That is a different situation from income or inheritance taxes.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord is always entitled to disagree with me. If he did not disagree with me I should suspect that I was wrong. In this instance his knowledge or imagination does not extend quite far enough. If he goes back to Harcourt's original estate duty he will find that the higher rate was charged on the whole estate and not merely on the excess above a specific level.
None of that has really got anything to do with the point I am making. My point is a simple one; namely, that the concept of the use of a system of banding in the field of taxation is not a brilliant new invention by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is brilliant but is not new. Its great advantage is that it eliminates an enormous amount of work. If the noble Lord had lived as I had to live in years gone by, through revaluations for Schedule A —I do not want to embark upon a lecture to explain to the noble Lord what Schedule A was—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I used to pay it.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord says he used to pay it. All I can say is that he must have been one of the few people who did pay it; most people succeeded in vacating it by allowable expenses. I shall leave that point on one side.
Revaluations both for Schedule A and for rating purposes caused enormous hassle. The objective of this measure is to combine relative administrative simplicity with a substantial degree of fairness. I know that the noble Lord may object to the word "substantial". I take the view that there is no such thing as perfect fairness in this world. The best one can do is to make every endeavour to achieve it. I suggest

209
to the House that this proposal is probably the best solution that can be found to a particularly difficult and intractable problem.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in Committee last week the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, when moving amendments identical to those we are now debating, that the words of the Bill as drafted seemed to him, "to be deliberately opaque". Clause 3(3) provides for the valuation to be carried out for the purpose of compiling lists of all domestic properties,
"differentiated according to prescribed bands of values".
That is clear enough for most people. But let me explain once again for the benefit of the noble Lord.
We have stated our proposal for seven bands. We consulted on that proposal and are now considering the responses to that consultation. The proposal is that there will be a valuation of all domestic properties which will differentiate those properties according to the band in which each falls. In other words, the task of those responsible for valuation will be to decide to which band a property should be allocated—nothing more, nothing less.
Property owners placed in band A will know that they have been placed in that band on the basis that the value of their property is, to use our proposed figures, less than £40,000. Property owners placed in band B will know that they have been placed in that band on the basis that the value of their property is between £40,000 and £52,000. The decision which the valuer will have to make is that the value of such a property is between £40,000 and £52,000; and so on for each of bands C, D, E, F and G. We are not saying that we believe all properties within each band are of the same value, only that each falls within the range of values applicable to the band concerned. That is simple and straightforward.
However, contrast that with the approach sought by this amendment. Individual and precise valuation means a reintroduction of all the unfairness and complexity of the rates. It would mean that all those who seek to improve their property by building a garage or making an extension will face an increase in the valuation of their property and an increase in their bills. I believe that would be an unfair penalty. It would also mean disproportionate bills for some people, based on a wide range of valuations, which would bear scant relation to the individual's circumstances. I believe that would be unfair, particularly for many elderly people who have lived in their house for many years and faced extreme hardship on account of punitive rates.
Our proposals for seven bands of properties mean that a couple living in a property 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. Our proposals will avoid disproportionate bills for high priced areas and will mean low bills for low priced properties. Modest home improvements should not push a property from
210
one band to another, and thereby attract a penalty. There will be no snoopers going around looking at home improvements.
These amendments would also be expensive because they would require the precise Valuation of each house, flat, and dwelling in Great Britain, perhaps on the basis of four factors; market values, rental values, building costs and repair and maintenance costs. The cost of a professional assessment of each of these factors, as my noble friend told the Committee last week, would be astronomical, and there would be annual revaluations under the scheme preferred by noble Lords opposite. That would mean yet more astronomical costs.
I was very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Cockfield and for his perceptive historical analysis which not only amused us but very firmly explained how the system of banding is not new. Our proposal for a system of banding is greatly preferable to precise valuation and has been widely welcomed. These amendments seek a reintroduction of an expensive and unfair system and I call on noble Lords to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to respond without expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for the lesson in 19th century history. It was Sir William Harcourt who said, "We are all socialists now". I might have known that he would have introduced his taxation system on the same crude basis that the Government are now proposing. But it is a fact—is it not?—that since that time the banding of levels at which income tax is due has been based on the principle that the assessment is on the actual income and not on an assumed income as between wide bands. The higher level is due on higher levels of income, but at all levels the assessment is made on actual income. That is the distinction between the taxation introduced by Sir William Harcourt and that being introduced, nearly 100 years later, by the Government.
The Government's proposals are crude and unfair. In Sir William's case it might even have been socialist, but in this case it is designed with the opposite intention. The intention here is to have a system which is certainly cheaper but at the expense of apparent justice. People who see their properties valued without individual inspection, and put into a band without being told where the property is placed in the band, will certainly not consider it fair.
I must say again that the downfall of the poll tax came because, as the Government admitted, it was not seen to be fair. This taxation system will not be seen to be fair. If the Government insist on preparing for it in this way, so be it, but it will not be to their advantage and in the end it will not save money or enhance the reputation of the new system of taxation. This is not a matter on which I seek to divide the House, but it will certainly be a matter on which the House will be divided on many occasions when the substantive legislation comes forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her No. 4:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("and to facilitate administrative preparations for the introduction of any new form of taxation which is likely to be based upon the result of such a valuation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. The two amendments together are in two parts. The first part asks the Secretary of State to empower local authorities to be able to spend the appropriate sums in the current and forthcoming financial year to prepare for thy; new council tax. The second part asks that the House empowers the Secretary of State in turn to have the authority to raise rebates to, we hope, the full 100 per cent. That is an invitation for further powers which we hope the Minister will find irresistible. Certainly, the Secretary of State has a very good track record in accepting invitations to increase his powers and we hope that this will be one such instance.
At Committee stage we spent some time trying to persuade the Government of the need to ensure the smooth introduction of the council tax by permitting local authorities to start preparatory work as soon as possible—that is to say, this summer—and to be permitted to incur expenditure to do so. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time by repeating the sorry saga concerned with the problems of implementing the poll tax. However, I must say that a bitterly hated tax was made harder to introduce and collect by the complexity of preparing for it. I refer to the registers, computer equipment, recruiting and training of apprehensive staff, the sixth-fold increase in paper flow, and the new benefit schemes. All that says much for the professionalism of local government in that the introduction of the poll tax was achieved as smoothly as it was. On occasions it might be appropriate for the Hours; to pay compliments to the professionalism of local government in that it succeeded as well as it did.
The point is that we do not want to repeat that trauma. We want to learn from the experience. At Committee stage the Minister said—and I am sure that it is right—that it was clear that local authorities can work with valuation officers to begin the valuation procedure. It is also clear that, should the Bill be passed by spring 1993, local authorities can incur expenditure next year—that is, during the financial year 1992–93. But that leaves barely one year for local authorities, if they are to meet the Government target, to have the tax up and running by April 1993. It took two years to introduce the poll tax, and that was done inadequately though with good will. We have barely one year in which to introduce a scheme which in many ways is at least as complicated. The period is not enough. Local authorities should be at least able to begin placing contracts now for computer software and for the associated paper and printing, and the like.
I am very surprised that the Government do not accept the rationale of that unless they are so confident that the Bill will not become law or will not take effect. Otherwise, I cannot see why the Government should resist these matters. We are not talking about large sums of money at this stage. We
212
are seeking to ensure that prudent treasurers, beginning their preparations now and incurring expense in so doing, do not lay themselves open to an ultra vires action by an aggrieved poll tax payer. That is what we are seeking to do and that is precisely the kind of farsighted administrative preparation that the Minister should support. We owe that to the staff. As the Audit Commission has noted, already we are facing rises in absenteeism and illness among poll tax staff. We shall see a repeat of that problem if we do not allow them somewhat longer than only 12 months to introduce the tax.
The second part of the amendment empowers the Secretary of State to introduce improved rebates or a discount scheme in the current financial year, 1991–92; including, of course, from April 1992. I cheerfully admit that this is a way of getting the Government, if they will, to reconsider yet again the cost, pain and trauma of the 20 per cent. rule that everyone, whatever their circumstances, must pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. During the debate on the Address in November 1990 some of us warned the Government of the folly of holding to the 20 per cent. rule, though that view was not widely shared. Shortly afterwards the Audit Commission reported in searing terms. There is a still more recent report from the Audit Commission deploring the 20 per cent. rule. I ask the Government why they do not listen, especially to bodies like the Audit Commission which have been appointed by the Government and reputation of which is beyond dispute.
What is in the second report of the Audit Commission? Why is the commission so concerned to see the end of the 20 per cent. rule? What it makes clear is that in local government the 20 per cent. rule is helping to bring poll tax administration down around our heads. It is seen as unfair and, above all —and this is why we have brigaded it with this amendment—it is seen as virtually impossible to collect. In consequence, says the Audit Commission, we are going to see a two-tier system of community charge. In areas of stable population—the more settled rural areas —perhaps 95 per cent. of the charge will be collected; but in inner city areas with a high turnover of population on the registers, in university towns, or in regional capitals to which young single people drift, local authorities will be lucky to collect 90 per cent. of their poll tax compared to the 99 per cent. of the old rates.
The Audit Commission concedes that, even in November 1990, it underestimated the amount of turnover on the register. I remind your Lordships that it now looks as though in each district council about 40 per cent. of the population moves every year, with 50 per cent. in the metropolitan areas and 60 per cent. in the London boroughs. It is on that turnover—people changing their address—as much as the poverty of individuals that the capacity to collect the poll tax depends. Those who move most frequently, as well as those who are most poor, are groups like students and single-parent families. They are the people whose 20 per cent. we cannot collect. On the annual register of Oxford council there is a current turnover of 85 per cent. The Audit Commission states:

213
"It is proving almost impossible to track movements in and out".
I again quote the Audit Commission:
"Local authorities believe that few chargepayers know of their duty to disclose information. Of those who do know, few remember. And of those who remember, few bother".
The Audit Commission also recognises that of those outstanding sums a large proportion of non-payers are the 20 per cent. contributors and that the money is never going to be recovered—ever. It is not just a matter of volume and court resources; it is not just the estimate of 4 million to 5 million summonses, which is probably an underestimate and the courts will be clogged up until kingdom come trying to handle them. Even where the courts have finally delivered liability orders the money cannot be collected from the 20 per cent. payers.
The Audit Commission studied a snapshot of 79 liability orders. Only 14 per cent. resulted in full payment; 8 per cent. generated a further benefits inquiry; 5 per cent. of the liability orders were withdrawn; from 34 per cent. of those against whom a liability order was issued there was no response, and from a further 36 per cent. letters were returned marked "gone away". Where, beyond the liability orders, the local authorities went so far as to instruct bailiffs, in four out of five recent cases before the courts local authorities were defeated because the bailiffs were impounding property which, in student houses, belonged to other people. When it comes to the ultimate sanction of prison, police have made it clear that they will not serve non-bail backed warrants.
I repeat, there are virtually no sanctions for the non-payment of poll tax, especially non-payment by the poor and the physically mobile. Local government cannot collect the tax and the Government cannot make local authorities collect it because they are physically unable to do so. All the evidence suggests that at least half of those individuals in arrears are the 20 per cent. payers. Local authorities only ever collected the old rates because 95 per cent. of the population dutifully paid up on time and 4 per cent. of the last residual 5 per cent. paid up when prodded. We cannot return to that scheme, when people expected to pay and did so without prodding, except by abolishing the 20 per cent. rule. It is not only impossible to collect but, even if we could, it is also not financially worthwhile because, as I said, the collection costs are greater than the gain.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to repeat what I said in Committee. In my own authority of Norwich one-third of our administrative charges is spent in chasing one-quarter of the population. Because that one-quarter pays only 20 per cent., that brings in just 5 per cent. of our income. One-third of our costs to collect 5 per cent! Such a tax fails every test of a good tax. It is not fair in its incidence, it is not simple to collect, and it is easy to avoid. By every standard that 20 per cent. has made a bad tax horrendous. But for the fact that the claim to the £140 flat rate subsidy from the Government is linked to that 20 per cent. local authorities would probably give up tomorrow.
It was apparent from stories in the press, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and as we suspect, that the Department of the Environment rather agrees even if the Treasury does not. After all, the principle of 100 per cent. rebate—getting rid of that last 20 per cent.—has been conceded in the forthcoming council tax for the very good reason that the twenty per cent. cannot and will not be collected. The situation will get worse as we go into the twilight nightmare years of the last year of the poll tax. Already 40 per cent. of adults are in debt to their local authority, sometimes by missing just one or two payments. As a result, we have created a whole generation of young law-breakers who will now have a record against their name. I beg the Minister to give a commitment today that the Government will consider scrapping that 20 per cent.—in other words, take on the second part of our amendment. We would all save time and administrative costs. We would all save huge quantities of court, police and city hall time, which would be better devoted to the smooth introduction of the forthcoming council tax should it become law. We might even restore some integrity to local government finance.
I make one final point. Given that the 140 flat rate subsidy benefits most the full payers of poll tax, and given that that £140 is financed by VAT—which even the 20 per cent. payers pay and which falls hardest on the poorest—one might argue that those 20 per cent. payers are already more than paying their way by virtue of their contribution to indirect taxation. A recognition of that by abolishing the 20 per cent. would simply be straightforward justice as well as administrative common sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to support the first part of these amendments by saying no more than this. I assume that the administrative arrangements to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred will either be agreed by amendment or that we shall have an assurance that they are not ultra vires in regard to the local authorities. If they were, a nightmare would ensue.
On the second part of the amendment, dealing with the 20 per cent., simple fairness must dictate, after all our experience, that it should now be reduced to nil and that the rebate arrangements to be introduced as part of the new council tax be brought in as soon as possible. However, quite apart from fairness, those who work hard in local government to achieve value for money work to the words "efficiency and effectiveness"; words that rightly are rammed down our throats by the Audit Commission. The noble Baroness has described very vividly the disproportionate effort that is required by local authorities to achieve so little by way of income. The effort is not only on the part of the local authorities, it is on the part of the courts and the bailiffs. If only to follow the dictates of the Audit Commission, which are very right and proper, I support this amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a paving Bill—a preparatory Bill—for the introduction of the council tax. It is not about the community charge. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that some of her colleagues in another place, Members of Parliament, set the worst possible example by not paying their community charge. They are people who could pay but who refused to pay. People who were in a privileged position to make the law went on with gay abandon to break the law. I hold no brief for those people and I certainly would not use more House of Lords time to address that issue.
I must warn noble Lords that, if the amendments were accepted, they would he a matter of privilege in another place. They rest on the assumption that, without such provisions, authorities will not have the powers they need now, either for the valuation or for the introduction of the council tax. As I explained to the Committee last week, I do not believe that that is the case. I shall explain the position.
So far as concerns valuation, 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 the Bill now before the House 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 understand that representatives of local authorities have confirmed to my department that they accept this view. The first part of the new clause, which is the only part directly connected with the valuation which is the subject of this Bill, states that:
"This section has effect for the purposes of enabling administrative preparations conducive to the undertaking of a valuation under section 3".
If the local authority associations accept that the Bill, as drafted, already gives no room for doubt, then this part of the new clause is not necessary.
I now turn to the more general preparations for the introduction of the council tax. As prudent managers, local authorities will of course be looking ahead. There is nothing unusual in this process of looking at statutory functions and assessing possible developments in the future. As the House will know, I am on record as saying that 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. Many authorities are, I know, 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 that in such circumstances it is open to authorities to make a contingency allowance when preparing their 1992–93 budgets to cover the expenditure they estimate they will incur in 1992–93 in exercising those powers.
The appointment of staff and consultants, the commissioning of computer software and the letting of contracts for a new form of taxation can be done
216
only when the details of the new legislation have been brought before Parliament for consideration. The wording of the new clause makes the point. It refers to, the,
"efficient introduction of any new form of taxation".
Is the noble Baroness seriously suggesting that local authorities would wish to engage staff to work on any new form of taxation, or that they would wish to let contracts on that basis?
Our timetable for implementation of the council tax is a rapid one. But it is one that we, and many others including the Audit Commission, think every effort should be made to meet. We propose to bring forward the appropriate legislation as soon as possible. Once the details of that legislation are in place, local authorities will be in a position to do all the things I have mentioned, such as appointing staff and consultants, and we believe that that time will be the right time for authorities to do those things.
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. We ourselves are also commissioning consultants to look at what needs to be done. However, preparing generally for the council tax is not a matter for this Bill. This Bill is about the valuation of domestic property. General preparation for a new form of local taxation is an entirely different matter. It is a matter for future legislation. At this time I believe it would be wrong in principle for us to do more than to deal with valuation.
The new clause also refers to improved rebates and discounts for the community charge. Noble Lords may consider this particular subject to range wider than the Bill we are considering today, but I am happy to list the Government's achievements in that regard. First, headline community charges everywhere have been reduced by £140 following the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. In addition, the Government's community charge reduction scheme has meant that increases in household liability have been limited this year to £52 for the first two charge payers and a further £52 for each successive charge payer. In fact, taking account of community charge benefit and the extra element of income support which is there to pay for the minimum 20 per cent. charge, the average community charge actually paid this year is only £172, compared with £285 last year. So the steps which we have taken to alleviate the burden of the community charge are considerable.
But, to return to the main thrust of the amendments, they are, as I have explained, unnecessary. It is our belief that authorities have now all that they need. For the future we shall ensure that authorities have the powers they need at the time they need them. But these amendments have no place in this Bill, and I ask the House to reject them.
I must re-emphasise that, were these amendments to be accepted, they would be a matter of privilege in another place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I can only take her advice on the issue of financial privilege. On this side of the

217
House we hold no brief for those who wilfully refuse to pay the poll tax when they can afford to do so. I want to make it clear that we hold no brief for that. We are entirely at one with the noble Baroness on that point. One changes the law through legal and constitutional means. There is no disagreement between us on that.
I turn now to the general points made by the noble Baroness. She referred to valuation and said that subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause are not necessary because there had been agreement between the Department of the Environment and local government that valuation is protected in the Bill and that therefore there are no financial implications and no risk of surcharge for local authorities. That is not my understanding. While I defer to the Minister, my understanding is that local government did not agree that with the Minister. On the contrary, local government was told by the Minister that that is the case. It is clear that local government still has some worries even on the issue of valuation. However, that may be followed up in other places and at other times.
The Minister's second point is the substantive one. I refer to her refusal to accept that local authorities may need to incur expense in the current financial year so that they may introduce the council tax, should it become law, at the point and time at which the Government wish it to be introduced, which is April 1993. On the Minister's timetable, there will be precisely 12 months. With the poll tax, local government had two years, and even that was not enough.
This is silly. It may be that we are not talking about very large sums but a cost is involved in an officer giving advice to a committee meeting. That cost is billed in our budget statements as a democratic cost. In theory, an aggrieved poll tax payer could regard such expenditure as ultra vires. I am not saying that that will necessarily happen. However, I am saying that even discussion in committee or the use of officer time to discuss the issue, let alone going as far as talking about contracts or discussing software, is vulnerable to challenge. I urge the Minister to put it on record that local authorities will be allowed to incur costs for democratic meetings or costs associated with the purchase of hardware or the appointment of consultants. If she does not, I fear that we may see a problem similar to that which arose with the proposed introduction of community care. That had to be deferred for 12 months because the Government did not give local government enough lead-in time. The same problem will arise with the council tax if the Minister does not go some way to meet these anxieties.
I accept that, because of financial privilege, the amendment may not be the correct way to achieve what I have in mind. But the Government must give local government more breathing space and more lead-in time. If they do not I fear that the introduction of the council tax will be as bumpy as the introduction of the poll tax has been. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House,
218
perhaps I may say that I believe that the noble Baroness's imagination is working overtime. It is working overtime if she is suggesting that, if local authorities discuss the possibility of the introduction of the council tax, somehow or other they will be acting ultra vires. I would positively expect indeed, if I were in local government today I would be pre-empting—the world of the council tax because I would be at least making some prediction that it might come about. For the noble Baroness to suggest that talking about it, and officers preparing papers on it, would be ultra vires is absurd.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, before permission is given for the withdrawal of this amendment, there is a point I should like to make. One greatly respects the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, to ensure that the council tax makes a good and efficient start. However, I suspect that the amendment was drafted by someone with a greater degree of skill in obfuscation, which means that its real effect has unfortunately escaped the notice of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, because at no time did she refer to it. I am sure that that was entirely due to an oversight.
The amendment refers to "any new form of taxation", a phrase no doubt intended by whoever drafted the amendment—I am not suggesting by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, herself —to cover the proposals adumbrated by the Labour Party to impose some entirely new and objectionable form of taxation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with your Lordships permission may I clarify that point? It is not impossible that following consultation, for example, the Secretary of State may decide to revise or amend the number of bands. He may, for example, adjust some of the principles. The amendment says,
"and to facilitate administrative preparations for the introduction of any new form of taxation which is likely to be based upon the result of such a valuation".
In other words, following valuation and following discussions with the Minister, it is not impossible that those bands may change or be amended. The proposal would cover that situation.
Is the Minister giving the assurance that authorities can make their own arrangements for forward planning in 1991–92 —that is, the current financial year—to ensure the smooth introduction of the proposed council tax?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is making heavy weather of this particular point. Without the details of this council tax —in other words, before Parliament has seen the Bill, discussed the Bill and passed the Bill—it would be impossible for local authorities to be ordering software, employing staff, or physically doing things: but that they should be discussing it and talking about it within their council chambers is appropriate.
The noble Baroness talks about the kind of physical arrangements that one would make. Without the details of the tax it would simply pre-empt details, and in an undemocratic way, before Parliament had even discussed it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her No. 5:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("(2A) In carrying out a valuation under this section, the Commissioners or local assessor shall furnish to any occupant of domestic property which is subject to valuation information relating to

(a) the process of valuation; and

(b) rights of appeal in respect of an individual valuation").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 13. These are all amendments concerned with something that I think the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will accept as being a proper part of any taxation system; the right of appeal. Even he will accept that the Inland Revenue could not have achieved the level of compliance with its demands unless there were also a right of appeal incorporated in it. Indeed, I suspect that the right of appeal against taxation demands goes back a good deal further than Sir William Harcourt. The appeal against Morton's Fork might have been a little more difficult, but there are many examples of negotiation and appeal between taxing authorities and those subject to taxation.
These amendments are not pieces of political dogmatism only from these Benches. They follow closely the opinion of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which points out:
"The consultation paper makes no reference to the establishment of an appeals procedure through which Council Tax payers would be able to challenge the correctness of the value band to which their property has been allocated".
It goes on:
"We believe that the establishment of an appeal procedure is essential if the Council Tax is going to be accepted as fair by the public. It seems only reasonable that the public should have the right to appeal against handing assessments made by officials or their agents."
It may be said by the Government that this is something that they will introduce in due course but that it need not be a part of this paving Bill. They would be misunderstanding the psychology of the electorate and the psychology of people in the country as a whole if they put forward that argument. In this paving Bill the Government are preparing for the valuation process. They are authorising expenditure on the valuation process. It is the intention of the Government that the valuation process, certainly, if not completed, should have started before the substantive legislation reaches the statute book.
In our view it would be an act of political folly—to put it no higher—to introduce a system of valuation without at the same time making it clear that there is to be a right of appeal. That is not in the consultation paper; it is not in the Bill. If the Government care to assure us that there will be a right of appeal, then of course we can deal with the argument as to whether or not these amendments should be on the face of the legislation. The important point is that there should be a recognition of the necessity of a right of appeal for any new taxation system. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments seek to establish the appeals process in relation to the
220
banding of domestic properties on which liability to the council tax will be based. As I have explained both in Committee and today there will be a right of appeal and the appeals process will be provided for in the main council tax Bill to be introduced in the autumn, but I am happy today to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Amendment No. 5 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 and rights of appeal. The House is aware 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 and their rights of appeal. We have said that there will be a full procedure for appeals. It is our firm intention to have this in place in good time. We are now considering all the points put to us during the consultation period about this and many other matters connected with the council tax. When we come to consider the machinery of appeals in this House 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.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, was happy in Committee to accept my assurance that the Government were seeking to ensure that information is widely spread. On the basis of our current thinking, draft valuation lists will be available in December 1992. These lists would show the address of each property and the band to which that property has been allocated. Our thinking is that the occupiers of properties will be able to see the band to which their property has been allocated as soon as practicable. As I said, there will be an appeal system. Appeals will cover both questions of council tax liability and the band in which properties have been placed.
Of course it is important that the appeals machinery is, and is seen to be, impartial, competent and consistent. We are considering the best ways of achieving this, and are looking in particular at the points put to us during consultation and the views of local authority practitioners. I can assure the House that the appeals procedure will be in place at the appropriate time following the main council tax legislation. These amendments are therefore premature, and I call on the House to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we were of course aware of the assurances given by the noble Baroness in Committee and repeated now. Clearly, in the long run, we must welcome the fact that the Government recognise the need for appeal. But I find it extraordinary that the Government should be introducing the valuation system in a paving Bill and waiting until the main legislation is passed—which is bound to be a number of months into next year, even if this Government survive until then—before introducing an appeals procedure.
Do the Government not run the risk of having a valuation system which will build up resentment without having any way of dealing with that resentment? We shall have a valuation system in which people will be told that they are in such and

221
such a band although they will not be told where they are in that band. We shall have a valuation system based on the inspection of groups of properties, if any properties are inspected. There is no assurance that they will be. No one will have any confidence that anyone has seen the house or flat or has any direct knowledge of the valuation process, as provided for in Amendment No. 5. We shall have a valuation system, as we shall discuss with later amendments, that will be subcontracted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to outside experts. We do not know whether they will be experts, because the issue of valuers' qualifications has yet to be resolved.
It seems foolhardy—to put it no higher—for the Government to introduce a valuation system by means of a paving Bill, without making it clear on the face of the Bill that there will be an appeals procedure and without starting that appeals procedure. If the Government pursue legislation in this way, we are likely to have a valuation system in place but an appeals procedure which cannot start until the substantive legislation has reached the statute book. That will inevitably delay the implementation of the proposed council tax.
I should not want it thought that anything I have said is in support of the Government's council tax proposals. In terms merely of legislative feasibility, the Government are scoring an own goal by failing to include the provision in the paving Bill. That is their business. I shall not seek the opinion of the House. I merely draw attention to the inconsistencies in the Government's approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her No. 7:
Page 3, line 5, after ("prescribed") insert ("regional").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move an amendment similar to one moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, to make relatively simple points about fairness and ability to pay that I hope will be reflected by acceptance of the amendment. It was said in Committee that regional banding meant that economic circumstances would not be reflected in people's bills. House prices do not automatically reflect people's ability to pay. They may sometimes, but there are wide variations in house prices in England, Wales and Scotland. I cannot be the only person who looks at estate agents' windows when on holiday and thinks how much I might gain if I sold my flat in London and bought a property in the West Country or the North-West, for instance.
The Minister has said that this is special pleading for London—if so, I do not apologise for it—but people in London frequently occupy homes of high value compared with those in other regions. To do so they may be paying high mortgages and have relatively little disposable income left, or they may be renting properties owned by a local authority or a housing association. The capital value of those properties is not in proportion to the income and means of the occupiers.
The proposed regional banding is designed to ensure that those paying similar amounts will obtain similar levels of services. In that sense, regional banding would be fairer. Will a one-bedroomed flat fall into the same band in different regions if we do not have the type of banding proposed in the amendment? It would be fair to have the same banding throughout the country if one could find the same low-value flat in every part of the country.
In my part of London many small flats will fall into the highest proposed band. The examples given in Committee were interesting. Harrogate was referred to as a "good" area. I accept the figures relating to Harrogate that the Minister gave; but Harrogate is not typical of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Hackney is often given, properly, as an example of the most deprived borough in the country. On the Government's own figures, the average council tax based on a SSA for a two-adult household will be £500. In Scarborough, it will be £346. Even in Harrogate, at £455, it will be less than that of Hackney.
When discussing another amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the hassle created by the need for revaluation. He mentioned that in the context of revaluation under the rating system. The amendment aims to avoid the need for periodic revaluations caused by fluctuations in relative house prices across the regions. The difference in house prices in London between 1987 and 1981 was a mere 6 per cent. The national average for that period was 34 per cent. and in the North-West the difference was 84 per cent. One of the factors which most discredited the rating system was the need for revaluation. By accepting an amendment such as this or by introducing similar arrangements in the regulations, I hope that that factor can be avoided.
I return finally to fairness. Bills cannot be related in a rough and ready manner to the type of property occupied, which cannot show how much the person is able to afford. The basis of the valuation will be the most important factor in ensuring the success of the tax. Although I hold no brief for the tax, like Members on other Benches I feel that if it is to be imposed we must try our hardest to make it work. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I support the amendment as I did in Committee. The concept of regions is accepted because Scotland and Wales are accepted as having values different from those in England. There is just as much difference between house values in the South-East and those in, for example, Northumberland. Houses in Northumberland are probably cheaper than those in Scotland. I do not want to give more than one example. A pensioner, with a little more income than that allowing him to qualify for a rebate, may live in a house he bought many years ago. He may live in Northumberland or in a little village in the South-East which is in demand by commuters. A three-bedroom house would probably be in the bottom band in Northumberland whereas in the South-East it would probably be in the top band. I am informed that a detached three-bedroom house in a desirable village in the South-East is worth well over £160,000. Therefore,

223
there is the problem that the householder who is not well off would pay exactly the same as the person in the big mansion up the road. It would give rise to all the cries of unfairness which did so much to destroy the community charge. I hope that the noble Baroness will press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not intend to reheat se all the arguments I made to the Committee last week on this topic. Suffice it to say that the Committee quite resoundingly rejected regional banding. I was a little surprised today to find the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the amendment. In Committee she said that she spoke to the amendment,
"not with a huge degree of enthusiasm".
Our council tax proposals resulted from careful consideration. We believe that they meet all the concerns which led to the perception that the community charge was not fair and which discredited the rakes. 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 where councils spend at the standard level couples living in properties with the same value would face the same council tax.
Of course that means that those in properties whose values are high pay more. I say once more to the House. that I do not duck that issue since it is in that way that we reflect the individual circumstances. I believe it is the right approach when coupled with our proposal for a maximum difference of two-and-a-half times between the bills faced by properties in the lowest band and those in the highest band. This proposal will mean that sums will not be demanded out of proportion to the circumstances of the individuals concerned.
I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the variations in house prices. The variations in bands that relate to those house prices will be nothing like the variations in the house prices. That will be true both within regions and between regions.
Our proposals will not, as has been suggested, require Londoners to pay more than their fair share. They are designed to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, no more and no less. Before we came forward with the 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 the occupier of a flat or house with a high value is likely to pay more than the occupier of a house or flat with a low value. We believe that that is fair and, as I told the Committee last week, the same logic is carried through on a local, regional and national scale. The differences reflect differences in circumstances between those areas which are reflected in house prices. In short, anywhere in the country someone with a house valued at, say, £50,000 will face a lower bill for a standard level of service than someone with a home valued at £150,000.
Regional banding would mean that economic circumstances, as reflected in house prices, would not be reflected in the hills people pay. Regional banding
224
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.
The noble Baroness is unconcerned about special pleading for London and that the expenditure would fall on those in other parts of the country. We are concerned about people in the whole of the country. 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 handing. I have said that both at Committee stage and now. We shall consider carefully all the points put to us on the issue before finally deciding the pattern of bands. However, I have to say that we are not convinced that regional banding would be fair and I call on the House to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear at Committee stage. I realised that when I read Hansard, having said that I did not support the amendment at Committee stage with a huge degree of enthusiasm. That was because—although I did not say it—I did not support anything in the Bill with a huge degree of enthusiasm. Therefore amending the Bill rather than rejecting it would not create great enthusiasm.
We can go round this argument again and again. Perhaps I may quote figures which were given to me after the debate last week about the implications for another group of people —agricultural workers. I was given a figure—not by someone from these Benches —that an agricultural worker's cottage in Berkshire is probably worth about £200,000 and would go into the top band. An agricultural worker's cottage in the North would be worth perhaps £40,000. But the occupants of the cottages would be on the same wages.
It would still be possible to incorporate the concepts that we have been discussing when the regulations are made. Nevertheless, I find it quite irresistible when the noble Lord on the opposite Benches asks that I divide the House. I cannot refuse the invitation. I wish to press my amendment.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gisborough, L.

Blease, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hampton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Judd, L.

David, B.

Kagan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilbracken, L.

225

Kirkhill, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Richard, L.

Longford, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mayhew, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Varley, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Astor, V.

Killearn, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knollys, V.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lurgan, L.

Birdwood, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marsh, L.

Caldecote, V.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Middleton, L.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Chelmer, L.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Crathorne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cross, V.

Prior, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Donegall, M.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Downshire, M.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eccles, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elibank, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wharton, B.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her No. 8:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert ("as specified in Schedule (Banding of Property) to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 16, which is—as is often the case—the substantive amendment in this small group. In speaking to these amendments I am obliged to return to arguments that were made in Committee. Those arguments were made when far fewer noble Lords were present. In view of the government arguments that have been made in Committee and today in response to earlier amendments, I believe it is important that we should set out our stall as clearly as we possibly can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has argued powerfully for a more discriminating system of valuation. She chose to argue her case by considering regional differences. We must remember that, even though the Government's proposals are not on the face of the Bill, they are firm proposals and the valuation is to go ahead without further substantive legislation. I suggest to the House that the Government's proposals are as crude as they could possibly be. They are crude for a perfectly understandable political reason. The Government have been obliged to abandon the poll tax. I shall not labour that point as I have laboured it often enough in the past few days.
The inevitable result for the Government of abandoning the poll tax is that there is to be—people expect this—a move towards a system of local government finance which more adequately reflects ability to pay, in other words, a system which more adequately reflects people's judgment of whether the taxation system is unfair. Unfortunately what the Government are doing in the proposals set out in the White Paper—consultation is still proceeding on those proposals —is to produce a system of property taxation which is as close to the poll tax as they can possibly get it. The Government are doing that for a perfectly understandable political reason. The better off people who have done very nicely out of the poll tax, thank you, and who voted Conservative for the first time as a result, if they had not done so all their lives—I suspect that this is being done for the people who have voted Conservative all their lives —have to be sheltered against a system of local government finance which really reflects ability to pay.
The proposals in the White Paper that are before the country —they are not before the House at the moment—reflect ability to pay to the smallest degree that the Government can propose while still maintaining a straight face. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave good examples of the way the proposals would work when she talked about the difference between an agricultural worker's cottage in Berkshire and a similar cottage in some other part of the country. I am sure that she will agree with me that the effect of the proposals will be that an agricultural worker's cottage in Berkshire which is worth £161,000 will attract the same council tax as another property in

227
the same district which may be worth million or even £.1 million. That is the important point. It is that degree of injustice that is wrong.
In response to similar amendments in Committee the Minister made a number of points which I must return to. On 8th July she argued at col. 1298 of Hansard:
"The more bands there are, the greater is the administrative task involved and the greater the likelihood of disputes and appeals".
That is the first time that I have ever heard the argument of administrative tasks and convenience used as the prime justification for a new taxation system. Admittedly administrative convenience should be a consideration but it should not be the prime one. Even if the Minister were right about appeals, I suspect that the cruder the system, the more appeals there will be because the differences between one band and another will be greater and therefore the incentive to appeal will be that much greater. Nevertheless we cannot support an exercise which is driven by administrative convenience rather than by fairness.
The Minister also stated at col. 1298:
"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… That will, unlike the rates, avoid disproportionate bills for high price areas".
That is not an argument against instituting more hands, which is what we are proposing. This is an issue concerning the ratio between the bands which has been deliberately set to be as flat as possible in order to get as close as possible to the principle of the poll tax benefiting better off voters, who are more likely to be Conservative voters. But that will not work. It did not work with the poll tax and it will not work now.
The Minister said again that it is a myth that all those living in expensive properties can afford to make a limitless extra contribution to local government. It is indeed a myth. That is not what is proposed in the amendments. We are not proposing a limitless extra contribution to local government. We are talking about a contribution to local government which is in accordance with the value of the property.
I remind your Lordships that the value of a property itself has under the rating system always been known to be a less progressive method of taxation than income tax. The differences between high and low rates have always been less than the differences between high and low taxes on income. To that extent local authority taxation has always been relatively regressive.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in that case I wonder why the noble Lord does not support a local income tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I support a local income tax, as the noble Baroness knows very well. Income is one of the considerations to be taken into account in the fair rate system which we propose. That stall has been very clearly set out not only by my honourable friends but also at Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill in this House. It is proper that income should be a consideration in local authority taxation.
228
There is no question of a limitless extra contribution. We have to consider local authority taxation within the whole spectrum of taxation. I suggest to the House that the banding proposals for which the Government are preparing in this Bill by preparing the valuation system will be extremely regressive. They will only be a little less regressive than the poll tax, and they will arouse very similar, but perhaps less ferocious, objections to those which the poll tax has already aroused. It will be in the political interests of the Government to recognise that fact and to recognise that people's sense of fairness in relation to ability to pay is more developed than they give the public credit for. It would be to their advantage to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord began by saying that these are firm proposals and that the Government intend to go ahead without substantive legislation. These are firm proposals and the intention is to go ahead, but subject to this preparatory Bill and the main council tax Bill which will be presented to Parliament in the autumn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always understood that there would be substantive legislation to follow. If I did not say that, that was a slip of the tongue on my part.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation.
To have so many bands would, I believe, destroy the careful balance we have struck with our proposals. Our proposal is for 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 only a small number of broad hands.
I remind the House that 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 the property.
Our proposals are specifically designed to avoid disproportionate bills, both in London and 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, or, indeed, under the proposals

229
of noble Lords opposite, where they would have been called upon to pay at least twice as much and in many cases three, four and many more times as much.
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 who do not have high levels of income, penal rates are unfair and a considerable hardship to many, particularly elderly, people.
It is also a myth that our proposals are the same as the community charge in some areas because virtually all the properties are in the same band. There are likely to be properties in every band in every local authority area in the country. The proportion of properties in each band will vary but we estimate the national average proportions in England as: 19 per cent. in band A, 16 per cent. in band B, 20 per cent. in band C, 17 per cent. in band D, 13 per cent. in band E, 8 per cent. in band F and only 7 per cent. in band G. In other words, across the country no more than one in five properties are in the same band. Even at the extreme there are only two authorities where we estimate that more than two in five properties will be in the top band and in neither of those are as many as half of the properties in that band.
Under the amendments there would be no fewer than five bands for properties which are in the highest of our seven bands. For those at the top properties would be assessed "with no upper limit". It has been argued that such a system would remove an unfairness from our proposals. Such a system would not remove an unfairness. It would introduce an unfairness. It would lead to the disproportionate bills, often for those with only modest incomes, which characterised the flawed rating system.
Such a system, without an upper limit, would introduce a major unfairness for some without giving any significant benefit to others. There are, as I said, only 7 per cent. of properties across England in our top band. That is of course highly variable between areas, but a further four bands might include only a very small number of properties nationally. The benefit to the rest would be tiny. If there were five top bands instead of one the effect might at best be to reduce the bills for the rest by less than 1 per cent. Skewing the system in that 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. When we have fully considered those responses we shall come forward with our decisions. 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 I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, things have come to a pretty pass when the Minister says something in Committee, I quote it at Report stage arguing against what she said in Committee and
230
instead of seeking to refute my arguments she simply repeats her original speech verbatim in her Report stage response.
I suppose that this is one of those cases in which we shall not come any closer to agreement or understanding. The Minister based her whole case on the use of the word "disproportionate". She talked of disproportionate differences between high and low levels of taxation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may put a point to the noble Lord. He said earlier that he did not propose limitless contributions to local authority finance. As I read the amendment, it proposes that the local tax liability of any property with a value above £500,000 shall be separately assessed, with no upper limit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not a limitless contribution, any more than the value of properties above £500,000 is unlimited. It is limited by the value of the property. It is not limitless. It means that if a property is worth £1 million, the taxation will be more than for a property worth £501,000. The value of the property is the overriding consideration.
Perhaps I may return to the point that I was seeking to make. The Government use the word "disproportionate" as if there were some philosophical basis behind it. "Disproportionate" is a Humpty Dumpty word. When the Government use it it means what they choose it to mean, nothing more and nothing less, as Humpty Dumpty said about the nice knock-down argument. "Disproportionate" is no more sacrosanct than Humpty Dumpty's nice knock-down argument was in Lewis Carroll's work.
My charge remains. The Government seek to have as flat a system of local government taxation and as few differences as possible between those who pay at the top level and those who pay at the bottom level. I shall not go over all the exemplifications given by the Minister, but if she looks at the case of Islington she will find that there are no properties in the bottom two bands. It is not the case that all bands occur in all local authority areas. We shall therefore have a tax which is not only unjust but seen to be unjust.
All the consequences that arise from that, with all the consequences that have arisen from the poll tax and all the consequences that have led to the collapse of the poll tax, will in some measure arise from the introduction of the council tax that the Government plan to bring forward in legislation next Session. If they are so blind to that as to allow this paving Bill to go through without indicating the inadequacy of the thinking behind their council tax, so be it, but they will suffer for it. I do not intend to seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her No. 10:
Page 3, line 7, after ("persons") insert ("who have appropriate expertise as recognised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with professional qualifications. We return in this amendment to a version of the pair of amendments that we moved in Committee. In Committee we sought to confine valuation to Inland Revenue staff. When it was clear that the Minister was unable to accept the amendment, we sought to confine valuation to members of the two recognised bodies—the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. We should perhaps have added the ISVA—the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers.
The aim of the amendments tabled in Committee was to ensure that valuation should be conducted only by professionally qualified people. The Minister—the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—agreed that all the people used must have the expertise and qualities to undertake a sound job. However, when we pressed him w. to what those qualities and that expertise might amount to, he would not or could not say how that quality control should be exercised. Since then, the various leaks in the press have suggested that there will be job lots of 10,000 houses auctioned out for which every under-employed or under-qualified estate agent may hid, and there are a great number of both of these around at the moment. That has made the urgency of the amendment that much sharper. The amendment states that appropriate expertise must be recognised by the professional institutions. That is a slightly looser formulation than the amendments that we introduced in Committee and one which we hope that the Minister might endorse.
The amendment rests on two arguments: first, the professional nature of the job—that picks up some of the arguments that we heard explored when talking about banding and regional valuation—and, secondly, the high political profile of the job. We argue that for both of those reasons you need professional protection and expertise.
On the question of the professional nature of the job, the Government propose, despite our best efforts on this side of the House, to go for street-by-street valuation, based perhaps on a sample survey of one property in 50 and the rest filled in by computer with ticks in the boxes. Without such an amendment, a firm of unqualified estate agents could put in the cheapest bid and effectively have the street work done by a group of students in the summer vacation. No doubt my student son might think that that was an entirely satisfactory arrangement, but it might just not commend itself to the occupiers and owners of the properties.
Valuation is a highly professional skill. It involves assessing not just minor improvements, to which reference was made earlier, but those major improvements which will take properties across bands —extensions, granny flats at the back and, above all,
232
multi-occupation when a house has been divided. That is not always easily recognisable from the front of the house. Equally, it involves consideration in mining villages of subsidence, or, as in my own authority, of chalk pit works and the effect that they may have on foundations. All of that will affect a valuation of a property, as will the improvements or alterations made to a property for a disabled person which may well reduce that property's value and put it into a lower band. Those points all relate to physical condition and require, if not interior inspection, at least detailed knowledge of the local housing market.
There is also a whole series of professional questions which relate not just to physical condition but to location even within the street. Your Lordships will be aware of, for example, the impact of ethnic groups on property ownership and the effect of proximity to a park, council housing, bus routes, shops, one-way streets, no-parking zones or of non-conforming usages such as small garages and noise-generating usages such as community centres, leisure facilities, a pub, a disco or even a fundamentalist chapel much given to hallelujahs. All of those will have implications for the valuation of a property sufficient to take it across a band.
Judging how the market responds both to physical condition, which is a skilled task requiring building surveyor skills, and to location, which requires skilled local knowledge, requires the skills of a professional. All the examples that I have suggested—I have spoken to chartered surveyors about this matter—are sufficient to take properties across a band if they are properly reviewed. That is an important point especially, if I may repeat evidence given in Committee, when Paisley College suggested that about 25 per cent. of all properties will be within the top 5 per cent. or the bottom 5 per cent. of a band and therefore vulnerable to modest changes in value. That will have major implications for the local tax.
I hope that, if we want to avoid ad hoc-ery or odd-jobbery, the Minister will accept a version of this amendment. The first part of the argument concerns the fact that this is a skilled job. The second reason why it matters that valuers should have professional qualifications is the high political profile of the job. People have the right to know about the size of local authority budgets. As noble Lords will know, the poll tax was based on the notion of transparency and accountability. Widdicombe quite rightly said that local people should have details of their budgets and how they were drawn up.
If that is correct, local people equally have the right to know how their share of that budget, which is based on valuation, has been drawn up. If they are not confident of the professional expertise going into making that valuation and therefore their share of local authority budgets, they will appeal.
We should not take the threat of appeal lightly. There appear to be about 23,000 outstanding business rate valuations in Yorkshire at present. They are being dealt with at a rate of 1,000 a year. It will take us a further 20-odd years at the present rate of progress before those valuations are complete. Appeals are expensive, time-consuming, lengthy and cumbersome

233
and clog up the system. Everything that we can do to strengthen the original valuation will reduce the appeals pressure. Everything that we fail to do to strengthen valuation will increase the appeals pressure and bring the system into disrepute.
We have all seen what happens with the poll tax, which is not persuasive in the eyes of local people in terms of its morality or its propriety. If valuations which determine individuals' share of their council tax are to be done by unqualified estate agents who do not, regrettably, stand high in public esteem, who are held, rightly or wrongly, to have an improper interest in pushing up house prices, who may employ casual labour, who may seek to obtain the maximum profit from the scantiest work from the cheapest bids, whose ethics cannot be scrutinised and policed by a professional body and who have undergone no professional training, I ask your Lordships: would you want your house valued by such an individual, with all the implications for re-sale? The Bill is all about public confidence, which needs to be restored after the trauma of the poll tax. Our amendment will go some way towards doing that.
In their evidence to the Government, the chartered surveyors said:
"If the new council tax is to be accepted by the public, it must be seen to be fair… We believe that the only way that the council tax will be assured a successful future will be if council tax payers see a clear, distinct and continuous relationship between the value of their house, the band it is placed in and the council tax bill they receive".
Quite so. That is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support this amendment. I supported a similar amendment at Committee stage. It is essential that the estate agents and other people who carry out such valuations should have the expertise—the term referred to in the amendment—so that they are accountable not only to those who engage them from the Government but to their professional bodies. There are good reasons for having professional bodies to control the standard of work of professional people.
I was not surprised to learn that an estate agent, no doubt a responsible one, has estimated that properly to carry out a valuation would cost not £10 for each property but £100 per property. That does not strike me as an unreasonable figure. I am glad that there are estate agents who are prepared to consider carefully and sensibly what this exercise must mean.
I return to the brief point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the confidence that the public must have in this exercise, not only because of the number of appeals and the administrative chaos that could ensue but because of the cash flow implications. If payment of council tax is delayed because of a large number of appeals, the cost to local authorities and to the Exchequer will be considerable simply because the system is grinding to a halt.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have made clear our intention to use the best professional expertise to undertake the work involved in allocating properties to bands. We shall use the private sector when it can
234
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. I stress that cost-effective does not simply mean cheap. It means the best job, done competently, for the best price.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. He talks about "the best professional expertise". What is the test of that?
Viscount Astor: Perhaps if I may continue I shall be able to explain that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would answer the question.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: If the noble Baroness gives me time, I shall do so. As I said, it means the best job, done competently, for the best price. The reason for this is simply to get the best value for money 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.
While we are committed to using only those with appropriate expertise, we do not see the need to provide by statute that the only people who do any of the work must have expertise recognised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. We are naturally, however, considering the role of members of both the RICS and the IRRV and the responses that both organisations have made to our proposals.
However, it cannot be right for us to rule out asking people who are not recognised by those bodies to assist in the task. What I can assure the House is that we shall rule out persons who do not have the appropriate expertise and qualities to undertake a sound and cost-effective job. There are a variety of jobs to be done.
The banding task will be—I quote the words of the Bill:
"carried out … in England and Wales, by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and … in Scotland, by local assessors, acting under the direction of those Commissioners".
The role of the private sector is simply—again I quote:
"to assist them in carrying out the valuation".
That is the important point. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the local assessors are in charge of the valuation. Their knowledge and expertise will ensure consistency and confidence in the valuation. There can be no question about the integrity of such a valuation. But where it is cost-effective and where there is appropriate expertise available, under the terms of the Bill they will be able to call upon assistance. It is envisaged that the commissioners will invite private sector bodies to tender for contracts covering geographical areas. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness said, they could be packaged into 10,000 properties each. Contracts would be awarded to those with the appropriate expertise who could do the job in a timely, professional and cost-effective manner. That definition of expertise is a matter for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who will ask people for advice.

235
Perhaps I may explain precisely how we envisage that it will work. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are in charge. They will work through their chief valuer's office, which in turn will draw on the local knowledge of district valuers. District valuers will use their detailed knowledge of the characteristics of their area and of professional private sector values in the area. The district valuers have very detailed knowledge. They are in the area and know about it. Armed with that knowledge from within their own management organisation, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will invite tenders from the private sector. The work will be put out to competitive tender. Those qualified from the private sector with the right expertise who will be invited to tender will compete among themselves against the valuation office. We are determined to get the best deal for taxpayers.
Before appointing anyone from the private sector, the commissioners will need to satisfy themselves that those appointed are up to the job—in many cases they will employ members of the RICS, for example. Qualified valuers are likely to take a leading role in the contract. Other employees of the contractor will be engaged on a variety of jobs required properly to carry out the contract, including perhaps visiting the area to match gaper records supplied by the commissioners or carrying out the administrative task of collating the proposals for banding.
The proposals for banding will be passed to the commissioners who, through their valuation office, will continuously monitor the output of their contractors. The final output from the private sector will be proposals for the banding of domestic properties in the area contracted to it. I must stress that they will be proposals. It will then be for the commissioners to decide the band for each property. They are the arbitrators. Their decision will take account of the information given to them by those appointed to assist them, but it is their decision. It would be against their decision that an appeal could be lodged. The commissioners will be in charge and will ensure the integrity, competence and public confidence of the valuation. In these circumstances I do not believe that people recognised by the RICS and the IRRV are the only ones able to assist with the task in hand.
Our aim is to ensure competent, effective valuation at the right price at the right time. I therefore call on the House to reject this amendment.
Bareness Phillips: My Lords, with the permission of the House and before the noble Viscount sits down, if I heard correctly, he does not seem quite to understand the point. I am the sister of a valuer employed under the Inland Revenue. In order to be a valuer one has to be a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Who are the people being brought in? What are their qualifications? The Minister said that they would be skilled people. If they are not skilled in valuation, they cannot be a member of either of those two societies and therefore they are not competent to carry out the job.
Let me go back to the rates system. Under the old rating system the valuation was done by a chartered surveyor. Valuations were always done by chartered
236
surveyors although they had a different scale of working. As my noble friend on the Front Bench pointed out, this measure conjures up a terrifying picture of a lot of half-trained people making assessments which they are not competent to make.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must correct the noble Baroness. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are in charge of the valuation. As I said, they will be able to use outside organisations to assist them to collate the information that is required. The contracts which are handed out may be undertaken by their own valuation office or by outside contractors whose staff may or may not be members of various bodies. But if they have the appropriate expertise they will be used. They do not produce the final valuation. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue produce the final valuation. They can look at the advice and come to any decision that they wish to make.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We shall consider in greater detail the information he has given about the role of the commissioners. His version of commissioners testing the samples gives me no great confidence in the quality control mechanism that will be operated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. So far as we understand, it will be undertaken on a street by street basis by unqualified people, and may be based on a sample of one house in fifty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the task is not being undertaken by anyone who is unqualified. It is being done by people who have the expertise. Whether or not they are members of a particular institute is a different matter. However, the job will not be undertaken by people who do not have the capacity to do it properly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I must accept what the Minister says. However, we shall see the justification for our anxiety when we consider the number of appeals that the valuation list generates. That the people concerned may not be fully qualified in recognised ways will not increase public confidence in the Bill. However, I do not wish to labour the point.
I am very pleased with the earlier part of the Minister's reply in which he met our point. That is why I do not labour the point about quality control and commissioners testing samples. In Committee, the Minister referred throughout to "appropriate expertise". That is why we recycled his words into the amendment hoping that that would attract his support.
Today the Minister has gone one stage further. He has gone beyond our amendment. As Hansard will attest tomorrow, he spoke of the intent to employ the best professional expertise. Certainly he talked later about appropriate expertise. However, the Minister used the words "best professional expertise". The word "professional" has a clear meaning in law: that one belongs to a professional body, has undertaken professional training and is policed by professional standards. That is exactly what we have sought. As I

237
can think of no better provision, I can only thank the Minister for that concession and welcome it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Information about properties in England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill
5.55 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: 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.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Elliott of Morpeth in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exceptions to general rule]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 11 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment; Report received.

The Tourist Industry
5.58 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to support and encourage the tourist industry, particularly in London.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to bring the subject of the tourist industry and in particular tourism in London before your Lordships' House today, and to ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to support and encourage the industry. I must declare an interest. I am now vice-president of the London Tourist Board in succession to the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede whose loss we all bemoan. His loss to London was very great indeed. The London Tourist Board is one of many organisations in London for which he laboured.
Becoming vice-president of the LTB has enabled me to discover the difficulties under which the board labours. When I discovered that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, was the Minister responsible for tourism I considered that a discussion in your Lordships' House was appropriate. I am grateful to the usual channels for giving us that opportunity. I am
238
glad that so many noble Lords have declared that they would like to take part. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has chosen this opportunity to make his maiden speech. I look forward with great interest to hearing him and wish him every success. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House a satisfactory Answer.
There is no doubt that tourism plays a significant part in the economic life of Britain. Although it represents only 3.7 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product, more than 30 per cent. of Britain's service exports come from the industry. That is greater than the service exports from the City. Six per cent. of Britain's employed labour force have jobs which are tourism related while almost 5 per cent. of consumer spending is the result of tourism.
In London the economic factor is even greater. As London is our capital city and gateway to the country, perhaps that is not surprising. Tourism represents between 4 and 5 per cent. of London's GDP; a greater percentage than in the country as a whole. In stark financial terms it means that last year more than £5,040 million came from tourism, 80 per cent. of which was in foreign exchange. A higher percentage of London residents—some 200,000—work in tourism. That is 7 per cent. of its population as against 6 per cent. in the country as a whole. It has been discovered that in 13 per cent. of homes in London lives someone who works in tourism. The industry also supports and fosters a large number of small businesses; for example, bed and breakfast accommodation, small restaurants, boat operators and sightseeing tour companies. Indeed, more than three-quarters of the members of London's official tourist board fall into that category.
Tourism is important for Britain but even more important for London. But stark statistics and economic imperatives do not provide the whole picture; we must look behind the figures. To the casual observer, London as a business and leisure destination has few rivals. It is one of the most highly regarded, frequently visited and best loved cities in the world, not least because of its culture, heritage and pageantry which are such intrinsic parts of the city. The visitor has a choice of five world-class symphony orchestras —more than in any other city—or can see art galleries and collections which rank among the world's finest. London has twice as many museums as Paris and twice as many theatre-goers as New York. Arguably London is also the financial and commercial capital of Europe. Last year, more than 17 million people from Britain and abroad were drawn to London. It is estimated that by the end of the year nearly 16 million people will have visited London for business or for pleasure. That is in spite of the dampening effect of the Gulf War and the recession.
Having set all that information before the House, your Lordships may ask what has prompted me to address the subject tonight. Indeed, noble Lords may ask whether there is a subject to address. As with statistics, so with the picture that I have just painted of London; it shows only part of the scene. Sadly, if one looks closely one can see cracks appearing in the varnish. Those cracks must be addressed before they

239
become so severe that a little remedial touching up will be insufficient and our landscape of London will require full scale restoration.
We should be proud of London, and I am sure that most people are. However, if London is to maintain the pre-eminence that I have described it needs more than just pride; it needs an injection of money, time, care and action. If not it will stagnate and eventually succumb to competition. I do not want your Lordships to believe that the competition will come simply from abroad. Increasingly, it is coming from within Britain itself. However, it is important to note that the imminent introduction of the Single Market will have major ramifications and that Paris is a usurper across the Channel.
I do not want anyone to believe that I begrudge the development of other British cities. One cannot but applaud the rejuvenation of Glasgow and the entrepreneurial spirit of Birmingham, to give only two examples. Our other major regional centres must grow, improve and thrive. That this is happening is excellent for Britain: that it is happening to the detriment of London is not. I said earlier that not only is London our capital city but it is also the major gateway to the United Kingdom. Approximately 80 per cent. of visitors arrive in London and just less than two-thirds stay here. It is important for Britain and for the United Kingdom as a whole that the gateway role should be assured and that London should retain its drawing power. That is important not only for London but for Britain as a whole.
Unfortunately, many of London's institutions and symbols are under threat. Birmingham has already snapped up the Sadler's Wells Ballet Company and the D'Oyly Carte Company. As most of your Lordships know, the Royal Opera House lurches from one financial crisis to another. We are on the verge of losing London Zoo and if bus deregulation goes ahead we shall also lose one of London's most potent symbols —the red double decker. Cuts in the Army could mean a reduction in, and even the loss of, some of our pageantry.
More importantly, there has been a proliferation of new exhibition and conference facilities throughout Britain during recent years. In each case the facilities are heavily subsidised by the local authority concerned. That is not merely a manifestation of civic will but a recognition of the prestige and extensive economic benefits which accrue to the town or city as a result. The same is true of similar facilities throughout Europe and indeed the world. However, it is not true of London.
The majority of the world's capital cities have tourist boards which receive a high degree of municipal funding. Many other cities' tourist boards, particularly in Europe and North America, are also heavily subsidised. When set against the pinnacle of Rome's 85 per cent. subsidy or America's 63 per cent. average, London's 9 per cent. is a major stumbling block to effective promotion. Also, the London Tourist Board's case is worse because the grant has been cut by 25 per cent. for the second year running. That is a total reduction of £160,000 since 1990.
The board receives money from its members and pursues every avenue of commercial activity and income generation. However, the grant remains an important part of the board's budget because it amounts to one third of its core funding. Further cuts would threaten its very existence, making it impossible for the board to carry out its basic remit.
LTB receives its grant from the London Boroughs Grants Committee. This year it did not set its budget until May, thus delaying the LTB budget. That is not a circumstance designed to facilitate long-term planning, financial stability or confidence. What is more, members of the LBGC believe that it is an inappropriate channel through which to fund the board. The committee does not believe that that should be its role.
Your Lordships may say that London can do what other cities —for example, Birmingham, Chicago or Paris—do; namely, provide the grant from central municipal funding. That is the problem. What is central municipal funding or what is the central municipality? There is not one. London is a factionalised and fractionalised kaleidoscope of separate boroughs and cities, all pulling in different directions. Indeed, the LTB itself is one of London's few unifying factors, linking as it does the private and public sectors with the boroughs. That is why the financial integrity of the LTB is so important and why every effort must be made to find the proper source of municipal funding for it.
For how much longer will London's conference and exhibition centres remain competitive without proper support? The present system of municipal fragmentation removes any economic imperative and militates against success.
Business travel is an important part of tourism revenue. One- third of what overseas visitors spend falls in that sector. But let us face it: why should the City subsidise the Barbican conference centre when the majority of the economic spin offs, through expenditure in hotels, restaurants, shops, theatres and so on, benefit other boroughs? I am sure that that is the question which the City asks.
Many boroughs are unaware of the extent to which their citizens benefit from the tourist industry and feel that they do not need to contribute to its administration. In fact, many citizens may be working and earning a living from tourism—working in one borough but living in another.
The effective promotion of London as a destination for both business and leisure is imperative. No other organisation at this moment is as well placed to promote that as the LTB. It is ludicrous that London's official tourist board is forced to lurch from one financial crisis to another. That prevents it doing its proper job. Something better is needed, and needed now, if we are to stop the slow but inexorable undermining of our capital city.
When the GLC was in existence it provided one-third of the board's core funding. Its abolition left the board to the mercy of the London Boroughs Grants Committee and, as I said, the committee is unwilling to support the board financially and demonstrated that by reducing the grant by 25 per

241
cent. in 1990 and by a further 25 per cent. this year. If that continues, the board will be severely handicapped. It is up to the Government to see that municipal core funding is safeguarded.
When the GLC funded the LTB, the money came from the business rate. Some of the rate was paid by the businesses connected with the tourist industry and, therefore, the LTB was entitled to that grant. The business rate is now centrally controlled. Therefore, it is up to the Government to see that an adequate portion of the London business rate goes to the London Tourist Board to support its work. I await the Minister's reply.
6.16 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, began by referring as he did to the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who was a great friend of many of us and who did an enormous amount for tourism in London. I am glad also that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is making his maiden speech. I too wish him well. His late father was a great friend of many of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked whether there was a subject for discussion. I am sure that there is. It will be seen from this debate that it is very important. The noble Lord quoted some statistics and I believe we should go on from that because the same extension of those statistics, as published by the British Tourist Authority, shows that by 1995, even by simple extrapolation, there will be 22 million visitors to this country, spending something like £11 billion, and that 60 per cent. of that will be spent in the London area. Therefore, we are talking about a vast industry.
Some of us prefer to extend tourism. It is better represented by the word "Hospitality" because hospitality combines hotels, restaurants, leisure and tourism. In the area of hospitality the situation is not all bad, and, in my view, will not be solved solely by money. In fact in London alone in the hospitality industry something like 1,000 new jobs are being created per month at present.
In the short time available this evening I wish to mention two subjects. One is very satisfactory and the other is a problem on which I hope the Government will give an opinion. The first concerns the London Tourist Manpower Project, which has been set up to encourage job seekers to think positively about hospitality. The most important action that that has taken, as I see it, is the Springboard Initiative, which was launched in July last year to promote job and career opportunities available in London. I have already mentioned the large number of available jobs. This is a remarkable combination of the public and private sectors solving a common problem.
With its premises in central London, staffed and supported by industry and government, Springboard is therefore a "one-stop shop" offering career advice, actual jobs and training, all under one roof. Thanks to the dedication of those involved with the London Tourist Manpower project and Springboard, plus
242
their sponsors and supporters, the Minister, and indeed the country, have an asset of which they can be justly proud.
The second issue with which I wish to deal is more complicated. It was brought to my attention by the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain, of which I am Honorary Patron. I have spoken about the organisation before. The issue concerns the muddle regarding service charges.
Fortunately there is a growing tendency to publish menus with prices, as is the almost universal practice in continental Europe, where the prices are all inclusive of taxes and service and there is no additional tipping. Unfortunately it is a grey area in the UK. If some menus are all inclusive and some are not there is a disparity in prices. Catering is a competitive industry. Some restaurants either pretend that service is not included when it is. or leave the credit card open, which implies something and leaves the customer in doubt. All that is unsatisfactory.
When one buys shoes or clothes one tries them on and obtains advice from the sales staff. The cost of the garment or whatever one wishes to buy includes the cost of the serving staff. There is no additional charge. The same should apply in restaurants, as it does in France. I realise that we often quote France, but it is the high point in the catering industry, although I am glad to say that the UK is fast catching up in standards and quality. In some cases it definitely exceeds French standards.
The ideal would be for service to be included. The leaders of the restaurant industry believe that anything is better than the present muddle with customers confused and competition distorted. A code of practice does not work and regulation is essential. That would make a level playing field; it would be respected by all people and all parties and bring the practice into line with that in continental Europe. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to respond positively on that point.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it is with great trepidation that I rise to speak, realising that there are many in this House who are far more knowledgeable on this and many other subjects than I. Tourism in London earns more for Britain than North Sea oil. In 1990 foreign visitors spent £4,360 million. Tourist service industries employed 200,000 Londoners—7 per cent. of the working population.
The success of the industry is in no small measure due to the work of the London Tourist Board and its effort to promote the capital abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, illustrated, the problems faced by the London Tourist Board are basically associated with a change in the provision of funding. I shall avoid that issue in view of the traditions of this House concerning controversial maiden speeches. But I would like to congratulate the board on its success in attracting visitors to the capital.
London draws so many visitors because of its rich cultural, architectural and historical heritage. It is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe; almost two-thirds of the foreign visitors who come to

243
England venture no further than the confines of the capital, trapped by seeing the obligatory landmarks that are synonymous with London. Considering that, it would be inappropriate to suggest further promotion of attractions that are already so popular. However, there is one area that has enormous potential to attract tourists away from the major sites, and that is archaeology.
York has shown how popular archaeology can be through the success of the Yorvic Viking Centre. That exhibition, set up by the York Archaeological Trust, is based around a natural excavation that is on display along with a reconstruction of a Viking village based on the interpretation of that excavation. Of the 2.5 million people who visit York, almost 900,000 visit the centre. Indeed the centre has been so successful that it is no AT in a position to fund further archaeological activity in the city.
A similar project, the Tower Hill Pageant, backed by private investment with consultations supplied by the Museum of London, is being planned for the capital and hopefully will be equally successful. The success of the Viking centre clearly shows that one of the major attractions of many tourist sites is their history. The archaeological sites in London should be seen as potentially profitable tourist attractions that must be preserved. The Rose Theatre is the most obvious example of a site that, with access, could become a major tourist attraction.
Archaeology in the city faces a time of crisis. There has been a gradual decrease in the commitment to the funding of archaeology. The grant to the Museum of London from English Heritage for archaeological work has remained constant at £1 million per annum while the grant that used to be supplied by the GLC has fallen steadily. An indication of the drop is shown by the funding supplied to the Greater London Archaeological Survey. Its grant for 1990 was £1,440,000 as against the grant for 1991, which fell to £682,000, while there has been no corresponding drop in the work needing to be carried out in that period.
The drop in funding also led to a fall in the number of archaeologists employed by the Museum of London. A peak of over 400 employed in 1990 has fallen to the present level of 180. The fall is largely due to the collapse of the building industry caused by the recession, funds for excavation being mainly supplied by building contractors. It is unfortunate that many sites can only be explored as a prelude to their destruction. Realising that, it would be unfortunate if the state of the economy could affect the quality of work carried out, which, as Yorvic has shown, is of interest and educational value to so many. As almost half the visitors to the Museum of London are from overseas, the interest in the archaeological heritage of the capital is hardly in doubt. Investment now could reap rich rewards in the future.
The, profitable nature of the tourist industry can hardly be in question. Though the industry is vulnerable to outside influences such as the Gulf war and the recession, which caused an estimated loss of earnings of around £500 million, the industry is quick to recover. It is therefore seen as unfair in some respects that, as tourism is so profitable, funding for
244
services used mainly by tourists should be provided by local and central government. One way of defraying the cost of services such as the financing of the tourist board, the upkeep of galleries and the maintenance of public buildings or even the funding of archaeological activities would be to introduce a 1 per cent. hotel tax to be paid by the visitors who use them. Although I realise that hotel prices in the capital are some of the highest in Europe, the extra charge would be minimal. The money generated, if used to fund the arts, could help them to combat the financial stringencies that many institutions suffer.
I have tried to draw attention to an area that has potential for tourism. However, without wishing to be controversial, I should like to point out the dangers to the tourist industry posed by the proposed cuts to the Army's ceremonial commitment. One figure used to promote London abroad, underlying the city's historical and ceremonial heritage, is the guardsman. It would be difficult to calculate the effect on tourism that would be caused by a reduction in the scale of the Army's commitment to such events as the Trooping of the Colour or cuts to the massed bands. The loss in revenue to the Treasury arising from a fall in tourism could make such cuts a false economy.
I have tried to stress the potential importance of archaeology in the tourist industry. I thank noble Lords for their patience.
6.30 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I commence on behalf of the whole House in warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on his most impressive and authoritative maiden speech. The noble Lord is well qualified to speak on the importance of archaeology in Britain after his recent graduation in 1989 from Newcastle University with a degree in archaeology. The noble Lord is playing his own important role in the promotion of tourism in Britain in his involvement with the launch shortly of "Argo", which is a reconstructed Greek vessel. That is to be used by children in London for educational purposes as well as for the promotion of archaeology.
I understand that the noble Lord is the youngest Member of your Lordships' House. As one who took his seat at the age of 21, I an well appreciate his nerves. I could not have been more nervous when I first took my seat. The way in which the noble Lord effected his maiden speech was with calmness and serenity. We certainly look forward to many more speeches from him. It is also worth mentioning that the noble Lord has an interest in the environment and mental health. We hope he will speak to these subjects in your Lordships' House soon.
It is perhaps opportune that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has introduced today's debate within the peak period of the tourist industry of July to September. Clearly tourism has emerged as one of Britain's most important industries providing work directly for nearly 1.5 million people and contributing almost 4 per cent. to Britain's gross domestic product. Statistics from recent tourism surveys on the growing numbers of overseas visitors to Britain, and the increases in revenue derived, make impressive reading.

245
While I welcome the valuable contribution that tourism makes to the creation of jobs and to our balance of payments, I also believe that attention needs to be paid to the effects of tourism on the environment. I want that to be my major theme today. The former Archbishop of Canterbury bemoaned last year the wear and tear caused by visitors to Canterbury Cathedral. I support the guidelines issued last year by the English Tourist Board to both domestic and overseas tourists to behave more politely and responsibly when visiting popular attractions. Apart from the serious threat to the state of repair of the major tourist attractions around Britain, the consequences of clogged roads, dirty streets and long queues at popular sightseeing locations pose a major challenge to the local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has raised the important issue of government funding for the national and regional tourist boards, particularly the London Tourist Board. It appears that Government policy towards tourism over the past few years has been to cut the amount of state support and to encourage private sector finance. Nevertheless, I hasten to add that the Government should be congratulated for the grants made earlier this year to the British Tourist Authority, as well as to the national and regional tourist boards, of £1.6 million following the sharp slump in tourism during and after the Gulf war.
I welcome the campaign aimed at ensuring that United Kingdom residents are aware of the opportunities of taking their holidays in Britain rather than abroad. I hope that national and regional tourist boards will concentrate on endeavouring to redirect tourists from the major tourist attractions, such as Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London, to other areas in Britain. Clearly the spreading of the load to other areas and at different times of the year will involve an intense marketing approach. One area which I feel has a huge potential growth is the waterways around Britain. I understand that there are several thousand miles of waterways which could provide enormous tourism benefits to many overseas tourists.
Perhaps the Minister can outline the findings of the national taskforce which the Government set up last year to look at ways in which the effects of tourism on the environment can be minimised. On a more specific environmental question, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to improve the state of the beaches around Britain?
A common sight on the streets of London is puzzled tourists asking policemen and passers-by for directions. Considering the huge growth in Japanese and oriental tourists visiting Britain, and London in particular, would it not be helpful, and money well spent, for the tourist boards and local authorities to provide signposts both in English and foreign languages? I also believe that, apart from Westminster Council, there is a massive deficiency of refuse bins around London. It is vital that Britain sustains international confidence as a tourist destination. I believe that the authorities in London should be
246
congratulated on how efficiently they have managed to co-ordinate the security arrangements for the G7 Summit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. mentioned, despite the massive attraction of London with its many museums, world class orchestras, theatres and art galleries as well as its pageantry and heritage, it cannot hope to maintain its position as a magnet for commercial, leisure and business travel interests unless there is investment in its infrastructure with properly planned and co-ordinated developments. To that end, it is essential that the tourist boards are properly funded to promote the capital both at home and abroad. I look forward to what the Minister has to say as regards the Government's plans for future funding of the tourist boards. I am a firm believer in the growth of the tourist industry in Britain.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, one in eight Londoners is dependent in some way on tourism for his employment. That has never been clearer to us than at the present time. The chairman of the London Tourist Board comments in the annual report:
"Without tourists, many of our theatres, historic attractions and museums would close, our restaurants and hotels would go out of business. and the traditions and vitality of London that we take pride in would be lost".
I believe that to be very true. The London Tourist Board has been doing a very good job in maintaining standards and the awareness of people. No doubt the House is familiar with the main aims of the board. but I shall summarise them. They are:
"to influence the development of London's infrastructure and facilities for the benefit of residents and visitors alike;
to promote tourism to London from the UK and Overseas;
to provide an information service to Londoners and British and Overseas visitors".
At this point perhaps I may say that my husband served as a member of the London Tourist Board in his capacity as a Westminster councillor and member of the London Boroughs Grants Committee—the controversial body that has been mentioned many times today.
The London Boroughs Grants Committee is not the body which should be funding the London Tourist Board. It was by chance that when the GLC was abolished and the funding of many voluntary bodies was transferred to the London boroughs there was quite a large amount of money that was not immediately earmarked for anyone else. Therefore, in the early days the London Tourist Board did quite well in obtaining what was almost a surplus fund at that time. But, of course, as time has gone by the pressing needs of other voluntary bodies have become much greater. Nowadays demands are great and I can understand the London Boroughs Grants Committee cutting the grant to the London Tourist Board. The money is needed for other projects. The tourist board does not fit well into a social services type structure of funding. I should like to see the board funded more directly.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said that he would like the Government to see municipal funding continued. I think I quote him correctly. I do not favour

247
municipal funding. I believe that it should come from central funding. This is in the interests of the whole nation. As has been said by other speakers, it is not merely a matter for London; London is the gateway to the whole of the United Kingdom.
However, there is a love-hate relationship in London between the people who live here and those who visit. As has been said, we all need tourists. However, when we get too many they become an inconvenience. No one finds tourists inconvenient at present because there are not enough of them. We are crying out for more—until it gets to the point when one has to queue in one's bank! I can remember the famous is journalist George Hutchinson writing an article years ago, when he had to wait too long at his pub or his bank, asking where all those dashed tourists were coming from. They were ruining his life in London. George is no longer with us, but the same feelings are still quite strongly held by a number of people today. Yet the income from tourism is enormously valuable. As I said, one in eight Londoners is directly dependent on tourism for continued employment.
We are seeing a very difficult situation in London at the moment, apart from the funding. London is almost pricing itself out of the market. I have spoken to friends who have come from America to visit London. I have asked their views on what is happening here. They say, "We are stunned by the price of London hotels". Yet I know through other sources that major hotels in the centre of London are still discounting their rates even now. One can get a room in a very good hotel in London for very much less than the published rate. However, tourists arriving in London do not know that, unless they come on a package tour.
I spoke to a friend who arrived today from the United States. Last time she visited us she brought her two children with her. This time she is here on business. She said, "Frankly, if I were looking for a vacation with the children I would not consider comic g to London because there are so many alternatives available where I can get much better value for my children and myself. I am here on business this time so the rate doesn't matter so much, but the hotels are extremely expensive". The hotel industry must bear that in mind. Whatever service one is supplying, if that service gets to a point where it is uncompetitive people will only use it if they have to, and not as a matter of choice.
I make one other point. London has always had a reputation for having bright and breezy, cheerful Londoners. That has had a special appeal to visitors. Gloomy faces are not acceptable. I am sure many of your Lordships will remember the time in New York when things were desperately bad. Everyone in New York thought they were going bankrupt. That was when they introduced "Have a nice day" and "Wear a big smile". For a year or two that worked very well, but I cannot comment on the present situation. We have certainly been going through a bad patch here. But it is time to show that British spirit, so valued throughout the world, of smiling when things are not
248
so good. That will help us to attract more people because that is the British spirit which is so admired throughout the world.
Last week another American friend visited the British Museum on a Sunday. He made a mistake in the opening hours and arrived at the museum at 12 noon. However, he was glad because that meant that he was at the head of the queue. By the time the museum opened the queue was miles down the street. He said, "That means you've got it wrong in terms of your opening hours, because when the museum eventually opened I did not have enough hours to see what I wanted to see. I would have been prepared to pay more to have had a whole day in the museum, or at least much longer than I did. With that short opening time and that great queue, the people at the end would barely have had time to see anything". That obviously needs thinking about. My friend was surprised that we did not charge for all our museums. He thought that the British Museum could have charged more and that those same people would still have queued because they desperately wanted to see the museum.
Mention has been made of the number of people who trek through many of our special attractions. Three million visitors a year visit Westminster Abbey. The point has now been reached where the 13th century Cosmati pavement has to be covered because it is so much at risk from visitors. Sadly, I did not get to see it myself during the very short time it was uncovered earlier this year. I should like to have seen it and I hope to do so next time it is uncovered. A conflict exists between the tourist and the environment. The more tourists there are, the greater the strain on the structure of buildings. That also applies to our open spaces and the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to the need for multi-language signs. I was impressed last week to see in one of the famous London stores a multi-language guide. One pressed a button indicating the language required. Information was then flashed up on a computerised screen in the chosen language, advising the customer where to obtain the items required. I was very impressed. We must see more of those aids for visitors.
The work done by the London Tourist Board is effective. As Londoners we must do everything we can to welcome people to this country; not least, as I said, by looking happily rather than unhappily upon them. However, we must get our own house in order and be sure that we do not price ourselves out of the market. The Government could do a great deal to help by ensuring that the London Tourist Board carries on the good work that it is doing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for bringing this matter before the House.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, at the outset I must declare an interest as an adviser to and a pensioner of the British Tourist Authority. Also at the outset I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to our discussions. I found his speech particularly appealing in that, as so often happens in

249
this House, he mentioned a point that no one else had thought of. He broadened our debate by rightly pointing out the role that archaeology can play in developing tourism.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, for giving us the opportunity tonight to debate tourism, particularly tourism in London. The noble Lord made the point extremely well on the contribution that tourism makes to employment, to the balance of payments, to the economy and—as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said—to our lifestyle as Londoners. Those arguments were put so well that I need not repeat them. The noble Lord stressed that visitor numbers are important. I should like to add that what visitors spend is paramount.
While the British Tourist Authority and the London Tourist Board both have a major role to play in promotion, I believe that there is hardly a government agency or even government department, if one overlooks the departments of state for Wales and for Scotland, which does not also have a role to play in ensuring that London is a tourism success. Their roles may not be direct but they have an important part to play in ensuring that London is visitor friendly—another point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner—or perhaps I should say user friendly.
At the end of the day, no matter what we do for the London Tourist Board, the British Tourist Authority or any other statutory body in the tourism business, the satisfied customer is our best marketing tool. The Government have recognised that over the years and have helped our path in a number of welcome ways, not just through support for the authority and the board. More specifically, they have helped through the reform of our licensing laws, with the optional extra opening hours, and through the Tower of London being opened on a Sunday, although admittedly not until next year. That is an extremely welcome development, as is the plan announced by the Department of the Environment to make the tower a more tourist friendly place. I share the view expressed by the friend of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that it is a great pity that other institutions do not open for longer periods on a Sunday. I have in mind the Tate and the National Gallery.
One must welcome the Government's ongoing support for the transport undertakers, British Rail and London Transport. One does so partly for what it does for tourists and partly for what it does for Londoners. One must also welcome the provisions in last year's Environmental Protection Act in respect of litter which are of the utmost importance in counteracting London's reputation as a dirty city.
There are other things that the Government, the agencies and industry can do in the future to achieve even greater user friendliness. If we follow a typical tourist through his holiday in London we can see that there are still things to be done. I realise that not all of them lie within the remit of my noble friend the Minister.
Let us look first at airports. I was shocked last week to read the MMC's recommendations on BAA's
250
future pricing structure. From reading the report and the press coverage next day, one could not but be worried that the MMC's recommendations could prejudice BAA's ability to invest in terminal capacity, particularly the eventually needed Terminal 5 at Heathrow, which is itself already the world's busiest international airport. I hope that my noble friend will convey my concerns to the Department of Trade and Industry, which I understand has the final say.
Inside the terminal we need to look at immigration and how friendly that is. As United Kingdom citizens we have a pretty easy ride. European Community citizens, such as my wife from Holland, have a pretty easy ride too. In fact, UK and EC citizens had the little known privilege in the old days of being able to switch channels. If there were a lot of Brits one could pretend that one was an EC citizen; my wife being an EC citizen could hang on my arm and say "He is British". But that has now disappeared. While it does not affect the EC citizen very much, we know when we arrive on intercontinental flights how long it can take a non-EC customer to get through immigration at Heathrow.
Also we not only need signs for our tourist attractions but better signposting in our terminals to make them more user friendly. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, and other noble Lords touched on that. There may well be an international standard.
While there is a problem in immigration, I do not think there is a problem at Customs. The red and green channels are universally understood. I hope that we can find a way of having a slightly more flexible manning policy so that if there are long queues on one side of the immigration hall and no queues on another, the immigration officers themselves can be given short-term transfers from one desk to another to alleviate the problem.
Once through immigration and Customs a visitor needs to reach London. One hopes that, by 1995–96, we shall have the Heathrow Express link. We already have the Gatwick Express. We also have the Stansted Express service connecting to that quite superb airport which has done for international airports what the Forth Bridge did for railway bridges a century ago. However, we still have terrible road access problems, particularly to Heathrow. It was a consultation exercise by the Government in the mid-1980s that eventually came up with the idea of the Heathrow Express. That consultation exercise also recommended road improvements in HASWQAD—the Heathrow and South Western Quadrant access. The Government seem to have gone quiet on that front, yet those noble Lords who motor towards the M.4 will know how desperately difficult it is to get beyond Heathrow, let alone to reach it, during many periods of the day. If my noble friend cannot respond on that point, perhaps he will ask one of his colleagues elsewhere to write to me to explain what is going on.
My visitor has reached London. His first requirement is a bed. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned the bed-and-breakfast industry. There is a desperate shortage of this popular and appealing product. It is user friendly, which I want, and value for money, which my noble friend Lady Gardner wants. Yet we are in danger of killing the business by

251
inflicting upon it over-zealous hygiene standards in terms of kitchens. I fully appreciate that there have been food problems such as listeria. I appreciate that hotels, public houses and other sectors of the hospitality industry have had these problems. However, to apply to a bed-and-breakfast operation the standards that one applies to the Savoy is overdoing it, not least because the people who cook the food in the bed-and-breakfast establishment will eat it with their guests. They have a vested interest in keeping the kitchen clean.
At the same time I hope that the hotel sector will take account of our visitors' language requirements, a point raised by several previous speakers. They do not all speak English. It is important that the hospitality industry should do its best to ensure that its staff not only have linguistic skills but what one might call a degree of cultural knowledge. I had the pleasure at a garden party last week of meeting a diplomat from southern Africa. He was somewhat shocked to be offered cucumber sandwiches because in the country from which he comes cucumber, being a vegetable, is regarded as the lowest form of life. He wondered why he could not have different food. One needs to be aware of that kind of problem when entertaining foreign visitors. When we entertain at home we know our visitors' requirements. The hospitality industry needs also to take steps to ensure that it is aware that our culture is not all-prevalent.
Our visitor will obviously require transport. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned deregulation. I am not afraid of deregulation for the operation of buses, although I agree that we should protect the big red Lone on bus which is a powerful marketing tool. More importantly, what concerns me about deregulation is the effect it could have on travel cards. We know from events in Tyne and Wear that deregulation of buses caused something very close to a collapse of the area-wide travel card and inter-line ticket schemes. If we deregulate, we must take steps to ensure that travel cards are not lost to our visitors.
At the same time our visitor requires information. Another problem arising from the deregulation of buses is that it becomes increasingly difficult for the visitor, or indeed the Londoner, to obtain information about the transport products on offer. One can take the point wider. There was a time when the British Rail timetable held a good deal of bus information relating to places where its trains did not run. British Rail has had to take out a good deal of that information because it could no longer guarantee its quality. The information could be out of date by the time it was printed. If we deregulate I hope that we shall defend the travel card, the inter-line ticket and the information service as we defend the London Transport map, a major visitor tool in its many language version, its London visitor guides in a number of languages and its excellent telephone inquiry service.
We must continue to seek an acceptable form of Sunday trading reform not least to take account of the ever-increasing number of our visitors who are weekend visitors. As I said in my opening remarks, spend is paramount. One cannot spend if the shops are
252
shut. I hope that the Government, who I know are working on this, will not be disheartened by some of the negatives they hear and will seek to pursue a compromise that is acceptable to everyone.
We must also address the problem of ticket touts, not least because our visitors often come from countries where ticket agencies in particular are much more regulated than they are here. It is a major problem, as one can gather by just looking at the British Tourist Authority's complaints and correspondence files, the London Tourist Board's files and even those of the Society of West End Theatres. People feel that they are being ripped off. They go home and tell their neighbours; and we do not then have satisfied customers but dissatisfied customers. The satisfied customer is our greatest marketing tool; the dissatisfied customer is our greatest marketing threat. I hope that the DTI and the Home Office, which I know are pursuing the subject, will address the problem.
There are many other problems too. There is the possible privatisation of the Royal parks. I hope that that will not reduce their attraction, because they are a major attraction. There is then the ongoing problem of coach parking which has been talked about for as long as I can remember. There is the use that we do not make of our river behind us, which has a role to play as a transport artery and as a tourist attraction.
But whatever the problems that we address, I still believe that the tourist boards and the industry must work together to resolve them. I have welcomed support from the Government for the tourist boards. Here I come back to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. The financing arrangements need not necessarily be changed—although I believe that change is needed—but the problem is one of long-term financial planning. The noble Lord mentioned that the London Tourist Board did not get its budget until April or May. I can remember an occasion when the British Tourist Authority did not get its grant in aid specified until October; so the London Tourist Board is doing quite well.
To enable my friends in the tourist industry to do a better job, I hope that the Government will have an ongoing commitment to finance the boards and also a commitment that enables them to plan their finances two or three years ahead. I believe we are almost all in agreement on that.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I find myself at something of a disadvantage as I approach this debate from a general interest point of view. I have been bombarded from all sides by a great deal of knowledge in particular areas. However, something that occurred to me before the start of the debate was that the problems of tourism are not far removed from the problems of a London citizen who never sees a tourist. He would probably have to be living in one of the outer suburbs and wearing thick sunglasses to manage such a feat, but ultimately the problems that affect tourists affect everyone else in the city.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord

253
Mountevans, mentioned signposting. It is a ploy, I presume, of map-makers to make sure that everyone is totally dependent on maps the whole time. One can go round any suburb playing hunt the street sign. It is a game that everyone plays in London. One sees people staring blankly at walls and thinking, having just entered a new road, that there should be a sign there.
The problem is difficult enough for someone who speaks English. Those who speak a foreign language or who come from nations with a different letter structure, for instance, from the Orient, find the task virtually impossible. The same is true at bus stops. I have stood at bus stops and wondered whether it was the bus stop in X road. There is no street sign and no sign on the bus stop. "Where am I?" The public transport system is not being efficiently used.
To pick up something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, people feel like killing tourists at times. Yes, but it is not very easy for a party of 30 school children desperately trying to be transported across London who do not know where they are, or when to get on or off a bus. I have seen these parties in total confusion, losing various members as they travel along, and knocking over pensioners or whoever else happens to be getting on to the bus. It is total chaos. Some form of sign telling people where they are would be a good start to any transport policy.
The noble Baroness spoke about the problem of accommodation in London. We have a reflection of the insane spiralling of prices for rented accommodation and housing. That has undoubtedly been a contributory factor towards the situation in the hotel and bed and breakfast industry. People face such high initial costs that they have to charge high prices. The matter must be addressed. If we allow the free market to take its course we may find ourselves, at the end of a recession, especially in the lower end of the market, having virtually no accommodation available for people. Then there will be a rocketing of prices again.
This is an area where the London Tourist Board possibly has a co-ordinating role, if nothing else. If there is to be a board, it must be able to plan in advance, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said. If you stagger from one crisis to another, you will only deal with a few problems at the front of the queue. Unless you can make some form of long-term plan, you are ultimately only going to deal with the thing that is directly in front of you, regardless of what is pushing it from behind, so that we will never deal with all of the problems. It is like going to a house that needs underpinning but has a new coat of paint to cover the cracks. It will fall down eventually with or without new paint.
In his excellent maiden speech my noble friend Lord Redesdale pointed out that we have to invest in those things that make people want to come to London. London is a city and an area that is swamped in history. Historically, it has been the magnet for most of the wealth in England and now the United Kingdom, and, one hopes, in future the EC. As a result, it is greatly blessed with galleries and theatres. The fact that we have so many theatres with such a
254
variety of plays is a result of the traditional wealth of London. But the fact that they still exist is largely due to the tourist.
Tourists come to London to visit our theatres and museums. Thus, there is a sort of circular flow keeping them together. Unless we ensure that there is enough input to make sure that theatres and museums exist, we will ultimately break that circle and there will be a downward instead of an upward spiral. We must invest in people who are able to maintain our museums and historical monuments at their current high level. We must also exploit all those parts of the system that have not yet had their full potential examined.
The idea of archaeological sites is one that I should have thought would be only too apparent. If only as a short-term attraction, they will still bring in tourists and relieve some of the pressure on historical monuments such as Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London. That will make going around these great historical centres a more pleasant experience; once again they will be user friendly.
We have to try to tie in all these areas. We must have a good transport system that is easy to use and that allows people to reach outlying parts of London. That will cut down congestion in the centre of London, enabling people in the centre to use what is there. That will directly affect and improve the quality of life of those who live in London.
It is something of a joke that if you want to see a play and you live in London, you go in the autumn or on a nice, wet day in February when tickets are available. If we find ourselves totally dependent on certain tourist attractions which are guaranteed to bring people in—say, for instance, the Shakespeare productions, the straight plays—we will find ourselves with a Broadway type of production with a few long-running plays where you have to book about 15 months in advance. We must look at the whole problem and draw everything together.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for drawing our attention to tourism. He could have expanded the debate to tourism in the whole of England and tied it in with general living conditions in London and other areas. He did not do so: the subject is too wide. Unless we have an overview of the whole problem, we shall miss major parts of it.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, with his characteristically clear speech the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has given your Lordships an opportunity to discuss an important topic. This is the time of year when tourism is at its height. It is following a world recession which has hit not just tourism and catering in this country but the whole world. As a former chairman of the then London County Council, he is well qualified to speak on a subject such as this.
I have one or two indirect interests to declare. My brother owns a hotel in Scotland in what was my grandparents' former family seat. My son has worked in hotels in Australia and Southern Ireland. Relatives of my wife and myself have been involved in the hotel and catering industry. At the end of the war, during

255
my demobilisation leave, I worked in a hotel for a short time. Despite that, the hotel survived! I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Tourism Committee. Some of its members recently visited the London Zoo. The London Zoo attracts many tourists. I am not pleading with the Government to bail it out, because I do not think that that is a matter for the Government. The London Zoo is making tremendous strides in re-establishing itself as a tourist centre. I speak as someone who has never had great enthusiasm for the zoological gardens. Its catering and private amenities bring in a great deal of revenue.
The Motion applies primarily to London. One cannot quarrel with that, because London is the Mecca—if that is the correct word—for many tourists. I was one of a number of parliamentary guests at the British Hotel and Restaurants' Catering Association annual lunch today at which my noble friend the Minister made an excellent speech. I met a number of friends and acquaintances from the hotel industry.
Although a Scot, I was at a table with the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board and a number of Welsh hotel owners. I do not know Wales well, but I was nevertheless bombarded by questions, especially when they knew that I was to speak in tonight's debate. Their cri de Coeur was that the Wales Tourist Board is underfunded compared with the Scottish Tourist Board. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take note of that.
Although, as I said, I do not know Wales well, I have sampled Welsh cooking. Years ago uncomplimentary remarks were made about Welsh cooking, but times have changed. British catering as a whole has changed. Many of London's leading hotels now have chefs, male and female, from this country; whereas 30 years ago, when I first took my seat in your Lordships' House, irreverent remarks were made about hotels with British chefs. People would run a mile from them. It was said that the British cannot cook. How wrong that now is.
I have links with New Zealand. A number of New Zealand chefs spend some time at our hotels. I wonder how many of our chefs, and others, go to Commonwealth countries to learn from their expertise, because that could help our tourist industry considerably.
Much has been said about the cost of hotels. What hotels charge is not a matter for this or any other government. I meet a number of visitors who are here on business or pleasure. I, as do other noble Lords and Members of another place, take parties around the House. I have had a number of visitors from America, New Zealand, Australia and Finland, to name but four countries. More and more complaints are now made about high prices. A certain amount of what, in the vernacular, is called wheeling and dealing takes place over hotel prices. That should not be necessary. Why do London hotels charge £170 and £180 a night, including continental breakfast. I am not talking about the full English breakfast, but about a cup of coffee, a roll, muesli and fresh orange juice. We see that priced at £7 or £8 per person. It is not difficult for a hotel to provide such a breakfast. It does not need
256
a chef. It can easily be provided. I hope that someone will take the hint that that type of pricing is a positive disincentive.
During the Gulf conflict, when hotels were desperate for clients, prices were lowered considerably. They have returned to their high levels. Although, as I said, negotiation can take place, that should not be necessary.
I wish to say a word about signposting. I walk from Waterloo station to your Lordships' House every morning. At this time of year I meet a number of tourists. I am asked four or five times by tourists how to get to Buckingham Palace, St. James's Park and so forth. I try to be as courteous and helpful as I can, because if I am in America, Australia or Denmark and I become lost, I ask someone the way. Signposting here is not helpful. In some parts of London, especially around Regent's Park, a great deal of signposting has been done. For all that, much needs to be done.
Now that the litter bins are being replaced on railway stations, Victoria and Waterloo stations are looking smarter. However, until recently some stations were depressing places. There is a lack of assistance for people from overseas when the indicator boards break down. All such problems discourage tourism and I hope that the Government will take note of them.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans mentioned airports. One has to do a great deal of walking to get around Gatwick and Heathrow. Stansted is an example of a well-planned airport, but I have strong links with the Commonwealth and as one who is keen on it, I find it depressing that Commonwealth citizens have to go through a separate entrance. EC citizens take precedence. Surely, even after 1992, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand citizens should not have to face that. If one compares our signposting with that of some Scandinavian airports it is apparent that ours could be considerably improved.
As a nation we have much to offer tourists. Our hotels are improving considerably, particularly in the rural areas. Attractions like weekend breaks exist not only for our own citizens but for tourists, and they are extremely useful. This is an interesting subject. We are not only asking the Government to help the tourist industry but hoping to persuade others to do so. At a time of financial stringency it is not right for the Government to pour money into the industry but they can encourage bodies like the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which I, like many noble Lords, am a member. When such bodies come here, we should persuade them not only to go to the London hotels and the large hotels elsewhere but also to the smaller ones, many of them family-owned. They not only give excellent meals with courtesy, but do so at reasonable prices. It is not just the large hotels that need assistance at times of recession but also the small family hotels. That is an aspect which this, or any other government, must take on board.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by acknowledging with appreciation the kind remarks made by many Members of your Lordships' House at the sad absence of a figure prominent in debates on tourism over many years—that is, our late and much lamented colleague, Lord Ponsonby. I am sure that his son, Fred, who has taken his place in your Lordships' House, will very much appreciate the warmth of the comments that have been made. I have taken over Lord Ponsonby's portfolio for tourism for the Labour Front Bench and I echo those words. Like all other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for seizing the opportunity for the debate and for introducing it so well. I believe that it has been genuinely welcomed by the Minister since it provides him with an all too rare opportunity for departing from the briefs with which he deals with distinction and concentrating on tourism.
I am delighted to have heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Many people said not only what a fine speech it was but how wonderful that at a young age he will clearly make a contribution to the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I am certain that that contribution will not be restricted to tourism but will cover many other subjects.
I begin with words used in another context: we have come here not to bury tourism but to praise it. Not a Member of your Lordships' House would not wish to acknowledge and be proud to proclaim that there is a great deal in our British heritage and in London's heritage and its commitment to tourism that we applaud. However, we shall not improve tourism either in London or in the country by simply acknowledging that we have a wonderful culture and heritage. We must be free to advise the Minister. I am grateful to him for being here this evening so that we may advise him on where we believe the current situation can be improved.
I wish to say a little about the state of the tourist industry. I hope that the Minister has come here prepared to tell the House of the strategy that he and his colleagues have. One of the disquieting comments made to me time and time again when colleagues have been kind enough to advise me of their views on the matter has been—I do not know whether the Minister and his colleagues believe this—that there is a perception that we have no co-ordination in government or outside it of the disparate groups which have responsibility for promoting tourism. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us shortly what is his strategy. I wish him to inform us what is the importance of tourism to the Government. A number of comments have been made about the extent to which government action in recent years through the reduction or termination of grants and in other ways, has been detrimental to tourism.
I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, about prices in London hotels. He accepted that this had nothing to do with the Government but, with great respect, if prices in hotels in London which are detrimental to visiting tourists and to hotels obtaining business have nothing to do with the Government, who is responsible for them? If the
258
London tourist hotels are greedy enough to charge £180 per night with extra for a muesli breakfast, where does the money go? It is not going to the employees because, although I do not wish to disparage it, the industry does not have a record of paying high wages. The Minister must tell us what he and his colleagues are thinking of doing to improve the quality of service given to customers by those who work in the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, served us well by giving us a great many statistics. There is no need for me to repeat them, especially those relating to London. I was interested in his comment that tourism represents an income to London which is greater than that generated by the City. The City is an entity which can almost be seen, but tourism is disparate. When we talk about what is happening to London tourism we must bear the size of that income in mind.
We must also find out what incoming tourists complain about in London. We have been given a number of illustrations of that. I hope that the Minister will deal with funding for the London Tourist Board. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, wishes to see greater funding for tourism in London, but not necessarily through this mechanism. I accept that point of view. Those of us who have criticised the mechanism as a way of funding bodies throughout London certainly appreciate the argument that it is not the right means. We are looking at the impact upon London tourism. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will encourage someone—I say it should be the Government—to give more money to the London Tourist Board to enable it to do its job.
My noble friend Lord Pitt correctly stated that the body charged with promoting tourism in London receives municipal funding to a far lesser extent than those bodies charged with promoting tourism in other countries. The London Tourist Board receives 9 per cent. of its funding from the London Boroughs Grants Committee. The tourist bodies in Copenhagen receive 13 per cent. of their funds from municipal funding. In Paris the figure is 32 per cent., while in Munich it is 41 per cent. and in Madrid 60 per cent. Those figures show us that London has a long way to go as regards such funding.
I echo the views of the London Tourist Board when I say that we lack a voice for London. We lack a body that is charged with trumpeting the cry that London is great. By itself the London Tourist Board is not big enough to undertake the task. Many bodies try to undertake that task. What are the Government doing to fund such bodies, which are in effect doing the job of government in promoting London as a major tourist city?
I shall now turn to the matter of standards. This aspect has been referred to by a number of speakers. Who does the Minister believe is responsible for ensuring that high standards are maintained in our tourist industry? I am not referring to bodies that are willing to be vetted by an in-house organisation. Literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country are part of the tourist industry. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that standards are adequate? Is it the responsibility of local authorities,

259
environmental health officers, tourist boards or some other body? Is it the Government's responsibility? I do not believe that the Government take sufficiently seriously their responsibility to ensure that the standards of the myriad of bodies that make up the tourist industry are monitored. I refer particularly to hotels and restaurants in this connection.
The Government have acted by default in allowing tourism in London to be underfunded. The Government have also withdrawn grants to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. The English Tourist Board states:
"While wholeheartedly endorsing the Secretary of State's aim to improve efficiency and effectiveness, the Board regrets the loss of staff necessary to achieve this objective. Altogether 54 headquarter posts were lost from a total of 174".
Does the Minister believe that such action improves our ability to maintain a good tourist industry?
There is also the matter of the prices that are charged in London hotels. I have been told that many firms find it cheaper to send their employees to London by bus, train or air and bring them back the same day than put them up in overnight accommodation in London. Those facts are known to the Government, but what are they doing to redress that silly state of affairs?
The Lothian authority in Scotland has told me that one of its officers has revealed the disparities in the rates of commission charged in the exchange of currency. I am told that the commission which is charged for exchanging currency can vary from as low as 0.5 per cent. to 8 per cent. What do the Government intend to do about that?
I hope that I may make a plea for BTA. That body has 250 members that are concerned with attracting tourists to this country. It is dismayed at the situation over VAT. VAT is charged at 17.5 per cent. in this country. However, many other countries that wish to encourage their tourist industries levy a lower rate of VAT in hotels and restaurants. The Minister is aware of that. I respect BTA as I know that it does a fine job. It has informed me that Belgium charges 6 per cent. VAT in its hotels and restaurants. Greece also charges 6 per cent. Ireland charges 10 per cent., while in the Netherlands it is 6 per cent. again. In Portugal it is 8 per cent. But in this country it is 17.5 per cent. Is the Minister prepared to suggest to his colleagues that the Government need to introduce a different rate of VAT for restaurants and hotels to make their prices as attractive as those charged in other countries? Other countries market themselves more aggressively and far more effectively than we do. New destinations have also opened up as tourist destinations. Eastern Europe is one such; and Euro-Disney is coming on stream.
I am told that the British Tourist Authority lacks credibility with much of the British tourist industry because it has signally failed to produce an effective policy and strategy either for the development of the British product or in marketing it positively either at home or abroad. To what extent do the Government examine not merely what is reported to have been done but what could be done in those areas?
I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the plea made by those involved in the incentive travel business in this country. I declare two interests. I have
260
a long-standing commitment to the Co-operative movement and I also have an association with an incentive travel company. Some weeks ago I invited one of the officials of that company to discuss matters amicably with the Minister. That official has told me that neither the Government nor the British Tourist Authority are doing their job in trying to focus on the international needs of tourism. Can the Minister say whether there has been any improvement in the professionalism of the British Tourist Authority in ensuring that Britain is an attractive venue for incentive travel?
The Minister will appreciate that in the main the recipients of incentive travel have their holidays paid for by their companies. Those people probably have far more money to spend than other tourists who come to this country. The incentive travel business should be encouraged and supported. We believe that the Government could do a great deal more for that business.
Will the Government discuss the directive on package holidays? Shortly they are to issue a consultation paper. The travel industry is waiting to hear more about that. When precisely will that paper be issued? Will the Minister also comment on the licensing body for tour operators? He will know that ABTA has its own problems at this time as regards its ability to continue in its present role. ABTA is worried about the Government's intentions. Will the Government propose the licensing of travel agents? Where do they stand on this matter? Do they have another body in mind to carry out ABTA's work? How is the consumer to be protected in the future?
The Minister is aware that the travel industry has suffered body blows. There have been instances of fraud and companies such as the International Leisure Group have collapsed. I know that the Minister has enjoyed the debate. He recognises that with 10 speakers there are probably more in this debate than there will he on the Finance Bill on Friday. That indicates the extent of the interest stimulated by the Unstarred Question brought forward by my noble friend Lord Pitt.
The Minister is knowledgeable and sympathetic to the needs of the tourist industry. I drew to his attention a plea that has been made to me by a company called Lakewoods which is frustrated by the planning procedures in this country. The company wishes to invest £½million in this country in order to develop holiday villages, which would be welcomed. However, it is being frustrated by the planning procedures, irrespective of the decision. I know that the Minister is sympathetic. Can he say what co-ordination there has been between his department and others concerned?
I conclude by saying that I strongly support tourism. I also very much support the elevation of tourism so that instead of having a tourism Minister we have a Minister for Tourism and a Department of Tourism. That is what we have to compete with in other countries. I believe that we ought to learn from what other countries do successfully. A colleague of mine once said that it is far better to follow a good

261
example than to set a bad one. I believe that the example that we have been set tonight by my noble friend Lord Pitt is to the benefit of the whole House.
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I must begin by expressing my gratitude—and, I am sure, the gratitude of all noble Lords present —to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for giving us the opportunity to discuss tourism this evening. I welcome his recent appointment as Vice President of the London Tourist Board. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor at the board, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. His contribution to the work of the LTB, to London, to tourism and to this House was considerable; he will be sorely missed.
The quality of the contributions to the debate tonight also pays tribute once again to the experience, knowledge, and wisdom vested in this House. I very much welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. He brings with him his own experience and his expertise in archaeology. I made my own maiden speech when I was 24; the noble Lord makes his at the age of 23—just; his birthday is tomorrow. I hope that we shall hear a great deal from him in the future.
Many topics have been raised, and I cannot hope to deal with all of them in the detail which they deserve. I shall try, however, to pick up the main issues as I respond to the debate. I shall, of course, write to noble Lords on the many points and questions which have been put to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked at the outset what the Government were doing to support and encourage the tourist industry, particularly in London. My answer is very simple: a great deal. And as Minister for tourism, I am very proud of our record.
Tourism contributes over £24 billion to the United Kingdom economy—nearly 5 per cent. of the UK gross domestic product, rather higher than the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, suggested. The United Kingdom is fifth in the world in dollar earnings from international tourism. In 1990 we welcomed some 18 million visitors from overseas to our shores, the fourth record year in succession. They spent £7.7 billion—11 per cent. more than in 1989. Add to that the £10.9 billion our own residents spend on domestic tourism, the £5 billion they spend on day trips and the money our carriers receive from overseas visitors, and the industry's importance to the economy is clear to all.
Tourism is a money earner. It is also a major provider of employment, the third largest sector in the economy, behind financial services and retailing but ahead of the health services and construction. We have seen a 30 per cent. increase in jobs in tourism in the decade to December 1990 —nearly one and a half million jobs, and over 190,000 self employed in the sector. That is a real success story, and one which I am sure will continue.
The value of tourism to London is equally clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, tourism is worth over £5 billion to the capital, more than 85 per cent. of
262
which comes from overseas visitors. Around 200,000 Londoners work in tourism, and the income from tourists supports many services which benefit London's residents. Also, of course, the business travel sector makes a considerable contribution to London's role as a commercial and financial centre.
The Government have certainly played their part in supporting the industry. In 1990–91 we spent some £530 million on tourism and leisure-related activities in Great Britain, and that excludes the cash injected by local government. A major element was, of course, the money we made available to the national tourist boards, and our commitment to them is clear and continuing. The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, supported by my department, will receive £44.2 million this year. Included in that figure is an additional £800,000 for the BTA in recognition of the particular problems the industry faces following the Gulf War. Funding for the BTA and the ETB has risen from £16 million in 1978–79 to the £44.2 million in 1991–92. The amount of grant in aid the boards are receiving this year is 20 per cent. up in real terms on the level of grant they received in 1985–86.
Perhaps I may mention first some of the work of the BTA, for the work of the BTA is of course crucial to the promotion of London overseas as well as Britain as a whole. My noble friend Lord Mountevans has drawn our attention to the good work of the BTA. This year we have given the BTA a grant of £29.5 million which it will augment with £15 million from the private sector. The BTA will use that money to run campaigns to advertise Britain, to run joint marketing initiatives with carriers, hoteliers and other commercial partners, to mount conferences and trade missions to inform the overseas trade and consumer, to publish an enormous variety of print, and to run its 22 overseas offices providing information about Britain direct to the overseas consumer.
The BTA is a very successful organisation. The USA is our biggest tourism market—in 1989 we earned £1.5 billion from US tourism. Last year American travel agents voted the BTA the provider of the best service and sales literature of any national tourism organisation in the US. There is undoubtedly a connection between those facts.
The BTA is not, however, just a marketing organisation. It realises that Britain is trying to hold its own in a tourism market which grows more competitive all the time. To do that we need not only to market our strengths but to correct our weaknesses. It is a vital part of the BTA's role to help the industry to do that. Two recent BTA initiatives illustrate what I mean.
The "Britain Welcomes Japan" campaign aims to increase Japanese visitors from the 600,000 in 1990 to 1,000,000 by the end of 1994. It has involved trade missions and a ministerial visit. The campaign aims to inform British hoteliers, restaurateurs, and tour companies about Japanese tastes and requirements, and disseminate experience and good practice. It has produced a wealth of material about how to welcome the Japanese visitor, his—or more probably her—

263
taste in food, and the facilities they both like in their hotel rooms. All those are things we need to know if we are to attract this very discerning customer.
"Winning Words" is an initiative of a similar type. We suffer because of our insularity. Our European neighbours all speak each others' and our language. How many British receptionists or shop assistants can get by in French or Italian like their continental counterparts? "Winning Words", jointly sponsored by BTA and Thomas Cook, aims to address that by proposing systematic measures which companies can take to improve the language skills of their staff and their future recruits.
As well as providing funds for BTA, I and my colleagues in government also try to make a personal contribution to the selling of Britain aboard. As I said, I went to Japan earlier this year and had very fruitful meetings with both the Japanese Government and airlines and tour operators involved in arranging tours to Britain. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment also made a special visit to the United States this spring, immediately after the Gulf war, to lend his weight to BTA's campaign. He particularly sought to reassure United States markets that Britain was a safe destination and to emphasise that with more favourable exchange rates and the many good deals around it need not be an expensive one either.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister telling the House of the initiatives to improve, for instance, the quality of receptionists and other staff. However, does anyone monitor to what extent such initiatives permeate through the industry? If the recipients of those benefits are volunteers—in other words, they can take it or leave it—are the Government aware that there may be whole swathes within the industry which are not preparing themselves to be good competitors?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the competitiveness of the industry, but it is for the industry and employers to train their staff. It is through encouragement and the setting of good codes of practice—BTA, for instance, has adopted the "Winning Words" initiative—that the industry's perception of itself will be improved and the necessary training carried out.
Perhaps I may now turn to the domestic scene, to the English Tourist Board and to London. Tourism is of course affected by the prevailing economic circumstances and the industry has experienced more difficulties in 1990 and 1991 than it did in, say, 1989. But I have faith in the underlying strength of the industry—an industry which has achieved spectacular and sustained growth, which has attained a pre-eminent position in the national economy and, above all, which has shown the ability to shrug off the effects of previous crises. That faith gives rise to a real commitment to the industry, a commitment which is showy in the extra £800,000 that I made available to the ETB earlier this year for its "Britain's Great" campaign and in the £14.7 million that I am granting to the board in the current year to promote tourism in Englald.
264
Investment in London has held up particularly well during the past two years. To take one example, major investment in new hotels during the second half of 1990 totalled £377 million, compared with £273 million in the second half of 1989. Among recent major hotel developments were the opening of the Langham Hilton and the refurbishment of the Dorchester, while currently under construction are a number of prestigious new hotels, including the London Metropole and the Windsor. Several exciting attractions have also come on stream recently such as the restored Queen's House in Greenwich, the re-opened Courtauld Gallery in its new home, Somerset House, and brand new developments such as the Beatles Revolution in Piccadilly and the Rubber Works in Covent Garden. Investors therefore still show a great deal of confidence in the future of London as a tourist destination.
Noble Lords will recognise that I have no specific powers to promote tourism in London or elsewhere. Those powers lie with the tourist boards. It is for the ETB to decide how much of its grant should go to the regions and to London. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is rightly concerned about the funding of regional boards. I am pleased to say that ETB funding to the regional boards has doubled to £6.8 million in the past two years. This year the London Tourist Board will receive at least £730,000 from the ETB—an increase of 68 per cent. in the last two years. London needs a strong and effective board and the level of funding shows that I and the ETB recognise that need and support it.
I fully understand the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Addington, and of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes about the present arrangements under the London Boroughs Grants Scheme. He may know that I had a meeting just this afternoon with the chairman and director on this very issue. I have proposed that a meeting be convened to bring together all the interested parties, including representatives of the boroughs, the London Boroughs Grants Committee, the English Tourist Board and government departments, to discuss how best to ensure long-term and continuing support for the London Tourist Board by the local authorities.
I hope though that the noble Lord is not advocating a return to the days of the GLC. As he will no doubt be aware, the structure of local government in London and the metropolitan counties does not fall within the scope of the review set in motion by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, although the Government are happy to receive views and proposals on the matter and will give them full consideration.
Having said that, I point out that the local government review consultation paper makes it clear that certain aspects of the current two-tier system are unsatisfactory and that the Government believe that there should be a move towards unitary authorities where they do not already exist. Against that background, therefore, we are not keen to see proposals for a return to a GLC-like tier of bureaucracy placed over the London boroughs, which would simply lead to confusion and inefficiency.

265
I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to the excellent example of the work of the LTB and its partners in the Joint London Tourism Forum which it set up to bring together all the major players in the capital's tourism industry and to formulate and implement a strategy for tourism in London. Despite the difficulty of the tasks that the forum has set itself, it already has some notable achievements, including the formulation of an environmental charter for the tourist industry and, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery said, the creation of the Springboard job, training and advice centre. I am pleased that my department, through the Employment Service, is making a contribution to the success of Springboard, alongside the LTB, the Hotel and Catering Training Company and the many sponsors and patrons in the industry. I welcome too the support which the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain has given to Springboard.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount for intervening again. I listened carefully to what I think was his answer to my question, what is the Government's strategy to promote tourism? If I understood him correctly, it is that other bodies such as the London Tourist Board must conceive a strategy for their regions. Is there such a thing as a national government strategy to support the British tourist industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I indicated, it is through the work of BTA and the ETB that the Government undertake their promotion of tourism, both abroad and in this country. We are firmly convinced that the people in the regions are the best people to know what is good for their areas. That is why, after the results of the tourism review that took place a couple of years ago were known, more funds were devoted to the regional tourist boards. The various regions, including London, if I may be so bold as to call London a region, were therefore enabled to undertake the promotion of tourism in their areas. That is the Government's strategy.
Perhaps I may now deal with some of the points that have been raised by noble Lords.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I was surprised at the way in which the Minister dismissed the idea of a council such as the Greater London Council. I should have thought that the problems of the London Tourist Board suggest that there is a need for some kind of co-ordinating body for London. I should have thought that that stood out.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I sought to answer the noble Lord's disquiet by drawing attention to the Joint London Tourist Forum. We are talking here about the promotion of tourism. The noble Lord has something completely different in mind.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery highlighted the problem of pricing and service charges in the restaurant industry. I think he said that the ideal was service included. I should like to draw his attention to the Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications set up in 1989 by the DTI to monitor the
266
effectiveness of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act and the code of practice. I understand that the committee is due to present its report and recommendations very soon to my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It would be wrong for me in the meantime to pre-empt the committee's findings by saying any more at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, drew attention to the Government's funding for archaeology. English Heritage administers the grants to over 70 agencies and local authorities throughout the country. A total of £6 million has been distributed this year to various projects. As the noble Lord said, the Museum of London received £1 million this year towards the provision of an archaeology advisory and digging service. Grants have also been given to other projects in historic cities. The Museums and Galleries Commission also provides funding to archaeological projects. A total of £201 million was given to help finance national museums this year. A number of them, for example, the British Museum and the National Museum and Galleries on Merseyside, have specialised archaeological units.
The noble Lord also mentioned the possibility of the introduction of a hotel tax. That is not a new idea. It was considered by the tourism and the environment task force. However, there are many problems involved in the introduction of such a tax. I remain to be convinced that the burden of regulation and the extra costs involved would be supportable. He also referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, to the possible effect of the reduction in the Army on the array of pageantry offered to visitors. I remind noble Lords that decisions in that area have still to be made. The Army is primarily a fighting force but I am sure that it will still have a ceremonial role to perform.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, drew attention to the problems of tourism and the environment. In response to that concern, which is shared by the Government, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last August set up the task force on tourism and the environment. It was charged with examining the nature and scope of the problems caused by the pressure of visitors on environmentally sensitive locations. It was to consider how visitor management techniques might be used to ensure that tourism develops in harmony with both the host population and the environment on which tourism's future success so largely depends.
I do not have time to go into the detail of the task force report, which was launched by my right honourable friend at a major conference held on 1st May. It contains a large number of conclusions and recommendations which I am sure will be of great value to everyone in the tourist industry. It must be up to the tourist industry itself to take those on board, to ensure that its activities do not conflict with the need to conserve and preserve the environment.
The noble Lord also mentioned the importance of clean beaches. In line with the European Community bathing waters directive we have made considerable progress in improving water quality through a substantial remedial programme which has resulted in 77 per cent. of the identified bathing waters meeting

267
the European standard in 1990, compared with 51 per cent. in 1986. The Government attach high priority to bringing all our remaining bathing waters up to European Community standards and are investing over £3 billion in a further programme for remedial works, which should ensure that over 95 per cent, of our designated bathing waters meet European Community standards by the mid-1990s.
I should mention another programme that is being run by the European Community. The Blue Flag scheme is a great incentive for local authorities to make certain that the cleanliness of the beaches is maintained, let alone the quality of the bathing waters. It is that which will ensure the future success of the resorts.
My noble friends Lady Gardner and Lord Auck land and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, alleged that London is a high price destination. There has been some anecdotal evidence to that effect. However, the British Tourist Authority has carried out detailed cost comparison research over the past 10 years and its findings simply do not bear out that allegation. Its most recent figures for May 1991 place London only tenth in order of costs compared with other major capitals, and for international shoppers in particular London is the second cheapest city in the table. The industry must always be aware of the importance of offering value for money and maintaining competitive prices. But the evidence shows that, while there is always room for improvement, London is keeping abreast of the competition. Of course we must always keep smiling.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans brought to our attention the problems of immigration. He will know that my department and BTA are in discussion with the immigration service and indeed Customs and Excise about improving the welcome to overseas visitors by curtailing queues and ensuring that staff are always courteous. The policy on immigration control is a matter for the Home Office.
In summary, my noble friend stressed that we should improve the user friendliness of the industry. I note his remarks about the immigration service and the communications from London Heathrow. I shall pass on his concern, which I know is shared by many other noble Lords in this House, to my right honourable friends.
I am not sure that I can help my noble friend with Sunday trading. Unless we have a consensus among all the major parties and the representatives from the Churches we shall not go forward on that matter.
I was keen to take note of my noble friend's views on food safety. The safety angle must be our first priority. However he will also know that Ministers at MAFF have listened to the industry's worries and tried to be sympathetic to its needs.
The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord St. John of Bletso, highlighted the requirements for good signs riot only in London but elsewhere. I referred to the need for information in a number of languages. We already have the benefit of pictographs incorporated in the brown and white signs which are now common around the countryside. I hope that
268
continued imaginative use of symbols will assist in assuring visitors, irrespective of language, that they can find their destination speedily.
I thank my noble friend Lord Auckland for his compliments on my speech at today's BHRCA annual lunch. I was interested to hear the reports of his Welsh friends. The funding given to the Wales Tourist Board is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, I should point out that this year the Wales Tourist Board will receive £7.75 million, which is 7 per cent. more than in the previous year.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, put many points to me. I shall need to read very carefully what he said in Hansard and I fear that I must reply to a great many of his questions in writing. He made a point about standards. He asked where the standards were being set in the industry. There are the food safety Acts and the environmental health Acts which control a great deal of what happens in the hotel and catering industry. But the English Tourist Board uses its influence in running projects such as the crown scheme in serviced accommodation, in which we are dictating the standards for the industry where we can. The BTA, the industry and the Government are well aware of the value of the business and incentive travel market. They are promoting Britain as a destination as hard as they can. They see the growth in that sector of the industry as being very important, and an area that we must foster.
Noble Lords brought many other points to my attention. However, in the time that I have to address your Lordships it would be wrong to continue. I have referred to the importance and the success of the tourism industry over the past 10 years. I have highlighted the significant levels of support which we in government provide to the industry, and the excellent work being done by the national and regional tourist boards. I hope that I have also been able to pick up most of the issues raised in today's debate.
If the tourism industry is to continue to grow in a fiercely competitive market, I believe that there is one particular key which will unlock success. That key is quality. The industry must provide quality service and quality products. That does not mean a Rolls-Royce every time. It means the right product at the right price. It means good food, well cooked and well presented. It means clean and comfortable accommodation, right across the range, catering for all tastes and all pockets. Above all, it means politeness, civility and friendliness. It means smiling. It means making visitors welcome and taking pleasure in providing them with what they want.
What I am talking about is a culture change in our attitudes to service. That is not something which government can bring about. We can help, through the boards, through the training and enterprise councils, and training programmes, and by keeping out of the industry's hair. But only the industry can deliver. I am confident that the will, the initiative and the enterprise are there, that the industry will deliver, and that tourism will go from strength to strength in the 1990s.

Criminal Justice Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments to Commons amendments in lieu of a Lords amendment, and a Lords amendment in lieu, disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, and with the remaining Lords amendment to a Commons amendment in lieu of a Lords amendment agreed to; the Commons reasons ordered to be printed.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if that Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Commercial and Private Bank Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
That the Promoters of the Commercial and Private Bank Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament,
270
provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any Committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

British Railways Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  ASYLUM SEEKERS: DETENTION CRITERIA
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: DETENTION CRITERIA
  MENTALLY ILL PERSONS NEEDING SOCIAL CARE
  MENTALLY ILL PERSONS NEEDING SOCIAL CARE
  STUDENT LOANS
  STUDENT LOANS
  SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS APPLICATIONS: RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
  SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS APPLICATIONS: RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: PUBLICITY
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: PUBLICITY
  MARGINAL TAX RATES
  MARGINAL TAX RATES