Sitting of 9 May 1991

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

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 16 May.

    EAST COAST MAIN DIVE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 13 May at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the next six Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Conservation Bodies
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times during the past 12 months he has met representatives of conservation bodies.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have met representatives of conservation bodies formally on four occasions. My colleagues have also had a number of such meetings.
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will know that my interest in the subject derives from the fact that my constituency ranges from the smallest English national park to the Somerset levels. Will he ensure that that land, which is not suitable for intensive and, therefore, fairly profitable farming or for conservation assistance, does not drift into a gentle decline? Will he therefore, as a matter of some urgency, bring forward proposals to ensure that all the countryside is farmed in an environmentally sensitive way?
    Mr. Gummer: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had many individual and informal meetings with conservation bodies and I am pleased to find that they increasingly recognise that if the British countryside is to be conserved, it can be only through the activities of farmers. That is why we are insistent that the reform of the common agricultural policy should be driven by a demand for environmental support. The Government are working for that fundamental change, which we hope to achieve.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I hope that, when the Minister meets conservationists in Monmouth next week, he will remind them that Welsh farmers' incomes have dropped by 50 per cent. over the past two years and that 14 per cent. of Welsh farmers are contemplating giving up farming due to the policies of the Secretary of State for Wales, who has full responsibility for agriculture in Wales. The Minister may not be aware that his colleague said yesterday at the annual general meeting of the Farmers Union of Wales in Aberystwyth that there is worse to come. Is that policy due to the advice given by Ministers in London and by the Government?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's question would go down better were it not known that his party was wholly in favour of the European Community and supported the common agricultural policy. He knows perfectly well that the events about which he is talking are a result of the CAP, which we are committed to changing and which we are fighting to alter. The hon. Gentleman has no possible answers to that. He should not do this and he does so only because it is this week.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of conserving water resources in the countryside? Will he redouble his efforts to encourage farmers to impound the water from

    809
    excessive rainfall in the winter rather than running down river levels by extraction for spray irrigation in the summer?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the problems of water levels, especially in the east of England, are of great seriousness. Happily, even the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) cannot blame the Government for that. The truth is that we shall have to share out the use of water. I was very unhappy about some of the suggestions that the National Rivers Authority put forward originally. I am pleased to say that they have now been considerably revised in a way that will protect the water table and, at the same time, enable farmers to use water as they need it to produce crops. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are looking carefully at the water levels of rivers in which I know that he has a particular interest, which he has pressed regularly to me.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why cannot the Minister tell Mr. Ian Richardson and other conservationists in his constituency who is behind the Swiss bond holders who own Heveningham hall, one of the 20 most beautiful houses in England? Does he understand that, as I represent Hopetown and Dalmeny, it would be quite remiss of me as a Member not to know who owns those great houses?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman referred to a matter which is entirely under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more careful with his comments and I also hope that he will recognise the enormous amount of work that has been carried out to save that particular house——
    Mr. Dalyell: It is 20th century restoration of an 18th century house.
    Mr. Gummer:—and take that in the context of a long period of misuse of the house by the former owners. Who that former owner was—he is now dead—is no more clear to me than it is to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and it would be quite improper for me to answer in any other way except to say that I do not know who the owner is.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not legitimate to raise that matter on a supplementary question.

    Fishing Vessels
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels have taken the gear option as opposed to the tied option.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): One hundred and eighty-five vessels have taken the gear option while 258 have elected to tie up.
    Mr. Harris: Although I accept that the gear option is not always practical for many boats in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that the number that have taken the alternative route and are tying up is gratifying? Will he
    810
    accept the congratulations of the House on having fought so hard to ensure that that option was made available in the first place?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that when we entered the Council we faced proposals that included the 120 mm mesh size, a 10-day tie-up and no gear option. We had to fight very hard to get the tie-up limited to eight days and to get the gear option. I am pleased that that has been taken up by about one third of the Scottish fleet. We knew that it would not be appropriate for a large number of vessels and we did not pretend that that was other than the case. However, I hope that it is proving effective for those vessels that can take advantage of it. Tie-up is certainly the preferable option where it will work.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the boats have not elected to tie up but have been forced to tie up? Will he confirm that more Scottish boats are now affected by the regulation than boats in the rest of the European Community put together? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland spoken to the hon. Gentleman about his conduct during the tie-up debate and is the hon. Gentleman now able to apologise to Scotland's fishing communities or, better still, to signal a change of policy?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman says that more Scottish boats are affected than other boats. That is true. The stocks affected are those that are fished predominantly by Scottish fishermen. The rules stated that the boats affected were those with 40 per cent. of cod and haddock in their total catch in areas IV and VI which are fished predominantly by Scottish boats, and those with more than 100 tonnes. The action is imposed by the Community. It is not something which we have dreamt up. In fact, we mitigated that measure. We are acting to conserve stocks for the Scottish fishing industry. That was our sole reason for acting. Had we not done that in respect of stocks of haddock, of which we have 80-odd per cent. of the catch, and stocks of cod, of which we have 50-odd per cent. of the catch, we would have been remiss in our duties.
    In the debate, I explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the fishing industry the facts behind the decision and the importance of making it stick. I have no apologies to make about the thoughts that I expressed during that debate, because I was simply expressing the truth. The fishing industry preferred to have the truth presented bluntly than to have it wrapped up in silken phrases that mean nothing.
    Mr. David Porter: The tie-up rule clearly means "Thou shalt not fish." Is my hon. Friend aware that in some cases it means "Thou shalt not earn a living"? The fishermen on some boats that are affected claim that they cannot get other work, such as standby and diving support work. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter?
    Mr. Curry: In so far as I can assist, I shall certainly do so. The regulation was imposed upon us by the Community because of concern about stocks. We agreed that the stocks were in a serious condition. We did not say, "There is no problem" or "Let us pretend that the problem does not exist." We sought to obtain the most sensible application of a rule that we had to observe. Having obtained it, we are obliged to enforce that rule, or we will end up next year with an even more inflexible rule from Brussels. It would be in no one's interests if that happened.

    811
    I shall look at the cases that my hon. Friend can bring before me, but I cannot alter the rules that we are obliged to follow.

    Fish Conservation
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving conservation of fish stocks.
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends to make to the July Council of Fisheries Ministers on the conservation of fish stocks.
    Mr. Curry: We have already announced unilateral conservation action to apply from July. My immediate priority now is to achieve greater selectivity of gear on a Community-wide basis.
    Mr. Mitchell: As we have a conservation crisis in the North sea in particular, a proper system of conservation would require a ban on industrial fishing, a ban on bream trawling and a ban on fishing in spawning grounds during the spawning season. It would also require a ban o n square mesh panels, a one-net rule and a series of such measures. Why is not the Minister developing a proper British conservation programme instead of sitting there like a Saudi kleptomaniac with a hands-off policy, waiting for the Commission to do it all by such daft measures as the eight-day lay-up?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows the facts. He cannot complain simultaneously that we are not introducing our own measures and that we are about to impose measures on the United Kingdom fleet because of the importance of the stocks that we must conserve. It is a difficult choice. We have not been afraid to take that choice. Many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are in the United Kingdom proposals—for example, the single-net rule, which is applicable. Other measures can be proposed only by the Community. Where we have national scope, it must be within the framework of the Community rules. That is why we had to apply, for example, a 90 mm square mesh panel in a 90 mm net. We did not have the flexibility to go beyond that proposal. We have not hesitated to take those actions. Where we have taken those actions, they have hardly been greeted with overwhelming acclaim by the fishing industry.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems with the conservation of fish stocks is that, while the British Government play by the rules and take effective enforcement measures against our own fishermen, too many other European Governments do not properly apply the rules against their own fishermen? Will my hon. Friend take care at the Council meeting in July to make that point forcefully to his European counterparts?
    Mr. Curry: Because of our desire to have effective conservation, we defended at the previous Council meeting, and will do so at future Council meetings, the basic idea that the common fisheries policy should be enforced by the member states in the waters that they control. We can impose that system on all vessels fishing in those waters. If that policy disintegrated and enforcement
    812
    were handed over to some centralised control, or if we were to slacken our enforcement, I fear that we would then have differentials.
    Certain member states enforce rules strongly. The Dutch, for example, impose a tie-up on their own fishermen and are suggesting that the tie-up should become the principal instrument of Community conservation. We would have great difficulty with that, but we will certainly do our best to make sure that we get a proper level of enforcement. That is one respect in which the United Kingdom is acknowledged to be ahead of the field.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week on a visit to Scotland that fishermen had to take an initiative in conservation. Will he confirm that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put to the Government a comprehensive conservation package almost two years ago, that the industry has also proposed a decommissioning scheme and that some sections of the industry have actually advocated that the industry make a contribution to a decommissioning scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the confusion at the recent meeting between Scottish fishery leaders and Ministers on the Government's position on decommissioning and say whether the door is still open to some form of decommissioning scheme, possibly involving an industry contribution?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that he is ready to examine any workable proposal for the industry that is based on an industry-funded scheme and would deliver long-term conservation gains. That is a perfectly clear statement. The hon. Gentleman said that the industry brought forward its proposals two years ago, which is true. Those proposals were based on 90 mm mesh with an 80 mm panel.
    We tried to get those policies accepted in Brussels. but they were not acceptable. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has now understood that. I understand that it recently introduced proposals, accepting that it should go further on the size of the square mesh panel, but that there are also other conditions. The industry is moving and recognises that it must move forward, and we welcome that fact. As I said, we are willing to look at a package of measures that will assist the industry, provided we get effective gains which would be in the interests of the fishermen. It is their futures that are at risk.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that fishermen in my constituency fully realise the need for conservation, but that, at the same time, they demand fairness in the enforcement of the restrictions on gear and quotas throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Curry: I appreciate the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. Although our fishermen fish for different stocks in different vessels, we must ensure that they all play by the same rules. We can hardly complain about other people failing in this regard if we do not maintain effective enforcement around our own coasts. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the enforcement authority in Scotland has now become an agency. I am extremely confident that that agency will make a great contribution to enforcement practices north of the border. We shall ensure that that is the case south of the border also.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister said a moment ago that the eight-day tie-up was imposed upon him by the Fisheries Ministers Council. I must question the accuracy of that statement because Mr. Marin, the European Commissioner for Fisheries, said that that proposal came originally from the Minister's Department. Is not the truth of the matter the fact that the fleet is too big and has to be reduced and that the most humane and fair-minded way of doing that is by a decommissioning scheme?
    Mr. Curry: No, it is not true that that scheme originated in my Department. It originated with the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which stated that there must be a 30 per cent. reduction in effort. The Commission translated that into a 10-day tie-up per month. We got that reduced to eight days, for various reasons, partly because we thought that it was excessive.
    We must have effective effort control. We cannot dodge that issue. That is why it is important that we enforce the rules effectively this year and that fishermen obey them because, if they do not, there is a danger that we will be faced with an even more draconian scheme next year which, like everything else, will go through on majority voting. We are anxious to avoid that. That is why it is important to make the proposals work this year.
    Mr. Morley: During these exchanges hon. Members have expressed the need to link conservation measures with a reduction of effort. I was recently in Brussels to talk to the fisheries directorate-general, which expressed great surprise at the fact that, of all the countries in Europe, this country has not taken the opportunity of using the EC funds that are available for decommissioning schemes in order to reduce that effort. I agree that we need a package of measures and that, on its own, decommissioning would not be adequate. However, will the Minister give the House the undertaking that he will make it a priority to discuss with the industry a total package on conservation and, above all, on effort limitation, which would involve fair compensation for the fishermen who have suffered so much as a result of the measures to reduce the pressure on fish stocks?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend the Minister has already begun that debate with the fishing industry. We accept that we can put together a package of measures that will be of benefit to the industry, and it is essential that we do so because we are talking about the long-term future of the stocks.
    On the capacity problem, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman what I am sure he already knows: when we finally receive the figures for the first guidance programme from Brussels, we will find that the United Kingdom is over target by much less than was originally suspected. We do not have any idea about the targets for the second programme and, until we have them, it is clearly a little premature to talk about how we can reach a target that does not yet exist. However, we have begun discussions on a sensible package of proposals and we shall pursue them.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent rather a long time on fishing, but I recognise its importance. We must now get on more rapidly in the interest of those hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.

    Whales
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the proposal at the International Whaling Commission to review the moratorium on the killing of certain species of whale.
    Mr. Gummer: I have received a very great number of representations, many expressing appreciation of the Government's strong stand on the conservation of whales.
    Mr. Archer: Although I do not dissent from that statement, will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm that our common ecological heritage is as much a legitimate subject of international law as our common security? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will do everything possible to give effect to the overwhelming consensus among civilised countries in favour of the continuing enforcement of the moratorium, if necessary by trade embargoes on those countries that ignore it?
    Mr. Gummer: I have made it absolutely clear that there is no case for raising the moratorium and we are using every possible pressure to ensure that it continues. We have been successful in using the framework of the International Whaling Commission. It has a lot of faults and we want to extend its framework to cover some of the small cetaceans which some people believe are not covered, although we believe that many are. We have a lot of work to do and we should press on and make sure that the protection of whales continues.
    Mr. Skinner: Introduce legislation and stop blubbering.
    Mr. Gummer: It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to make comments from below the Gangway, but some of us take seriously the conservation of whales and do not make jokes about it.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend understand that most people in Britain find whaling abhorrent and extend that feeling to the fishing of porpoises? Countries such as Japan are fishing thousands of porpoises for no real reason. Is there any possibility of extending the moratorium?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, particularly about Dall's porpoise. The Japanese have carried out a major attack on that species and I am concerned to extend the controls. However, we have used the present framework effectively up to now. I am determined that we should use it more effectively in future. No one must be in any doubt about our commitment to the protection of the whale.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in Britain about what is regarded as the abuse of scientific whaling, especially by Japan? Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that he will oppose commercial whaling and tighten up scientific whaling so that it is not abused by other countries in future?
    Mr. Gummer: I made it clear as long ago as the conference in Brighton that the Government are wholly opposed to scientific whaling being used as a cover for commercial whaling. We shall continue to fight that. We are particularly concerned that not just one but a number

    815
    of nations have signified their intention to extend their whaling activities. In today's circumstances, that is clearly unacceptable.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whales are slaughtered throughout the world in barbaric ways and that the numbers of many species are getting rather low? The management of the slaughter of whales is deplorable. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance this afternoon that he will not agree to anything until he is satisfied that those dreadful trends have been reversed?
    Mr. Gummer: The history of monitoring and controlling whaling shows a very poor record. One reason why we are concerned about management proposals is that management has been very bad in the past. I see no sign that the problems are being overcome. We have succeeded much beyond our expectations so far. Our job is to make sure that we continue to do so.

    EC Surplus Food
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that EC food distribution is available to all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: I see no reason to provide free food for people like my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington or the hon. Gentleman's friend the chairman of Mirror Group Newspapers.
    Mr. Cryer: When the Minister has finished with his little sneers at pensioners, does he realise that men and women who fought for this country in the war have queued up to find, when they get to the end of the queue, that they are denied butter which they have paid for, since the Government have handed over £14 billion to the Common Market in the past 10 years because of their arbitrary impositions? Would not it be a decent gesture to allow all pensioners to have that little bit of butter, especially since some charities—the public schools of this country, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy go—are also eligible for free butter?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the scheme from his days in the European Parliament. He will be aware that there are 3,000 tonnes of beef and 3,800 tonnes of butter. He will therefore be able to do the mathematics. If they were distributed to all those eligible and all pensioners, they would each get the princely amount of 7·5 oz of beef and 9·5 oz of butter. If that is the gesture that we are about to make to them, I expect that I would get a gesture in return.
    Mrs. Gorman: Although I have no objection to the distribution of surplus food to pensioners or anyone else, does my hon. Friend agree that pensioner families., like all others in this country, are now contributing £830 a year on average to the common agricultural policy and pensioners, like the rest of our families, would rather have that money in their pockets to spend on the food that they choose to buy?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to deal with surpluses is to tackle them at source so that they cost less to ordinary people and to those on relatively modest wages. The surplus should not be perpetuated and
    816
    then dished out free, because that is most inefficient. If there is food to be distributed, the United Kingdom will have its share and it will go to the poorest people in society, which is the right way to do it. I am determined that that should happen. However, the thesis that my hon. Friend proposes is the sensible one—not to produce surpluses in the first place, which would cost us all less.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate answer to my question and the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) described Bradford pensioners as stupid, I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Holt: He has no right to do that.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly contain himself. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to say that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has been here long enough to know the rules.
    Mr. Holt: I am right.
    Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) contains himself I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber for this afternoon. Will he please be quiet.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: The reform of the common agricultural policy was considered at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 22 and 23 April, where discussions concentrated on the Commission's 1991 agricultural price proposals.
    Mr. Welsh: This is beginning to get close to "The Muppet Show".
    When the Minister meets his European counterparts, will they do something about the plight of the soft fruit industry, especially the Scottish raspberry industry, which is under threat from a flood of cheap eastern European imports? Is he aware of the importance of raspberries, not only in terms of direct employment but for the transportation industries? Will he obtain an extension of the minimum import price system until the end of this year and, in the long term, seek to maintain a stable market through quantitive controls?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has kept that matter very much in my mind. Therefore, on every occasion when it has been possible I have raised the matter in the European Community. I have obtained a further extension of four months, but that is not enough. However, more important than the extension is ensuring that it is monitored. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have strong objections to the way in which the Commission has so far failed to monitor properly the arrangements which it put in place at our insistence. I am perfectly well aware of the importance of the Scottish raspberry industry and the soft fruit industry to the United Kingdom. We need to provide a market for eastern

    817
    European products and to insist that that market is at a price similar to that which we get at home. Otherwise the benefit goes to the processor, not to the eastern European country. The disbenefit is to the British farmer. I am determined that, as far as it is possible to find new ways to press the European Commumnity, we shall do so. I believe that the Commission has let us down on this issue.
    Mr. Hunter: In the light of continuing arguments in some circles that nitrogen quotas should form part of a reformed CAP, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to explain his continued opposition to that argument?
    Mr. Gummer: I could give my hon. Friend a large number of reasons. First, it could not be policed; secondly, what does one do about natural nitrogen that comes from farmyard manure; thirdly, how do we make sure that others keep the rules, even if Britain were able to police such a system; fourthly, how could one ensure that it was a fair system; fifthly, how would rationing be done in countries where the authorities have no idea what people used in the previous year, anyway; and, sixthly—well I could give a number of other reasons which would all go to show that the system would be unworkable.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that while Opposition Members support the Government in resisting the details of the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the CAP, we still believe that there must be a fundamental reform if we are to get a fair deal for the British consumer and farmer? The Minister should take the high ground. Will he take the offensive and table his proposals for reform of the CAP so that we can start arguing on our terms rather than on MacSharry's terms?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that the public recognise that the hon. Gentleman's willingness to advise others stops short of his willingness to learn that proposals cannot be tabled at the EC in that way. Proposals are tabled only by the Commission. I am determined to see that the Commission's new proposals contain our suggestions. I have put those proposals forward absolutely clearly.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer a question that is now being widely asked. In the event of there being a future Labour Government who would cut spending on the national health services, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said yesterday, how much would the hon. Gentleman cut from the support given to farmers?

    Animals (Live Exports)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects final decisions to be taken regarding the future of minimum values on the export of live horses and ponies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the draft directive on the transportation of live animals to be next discussed at a meeting of the European Community Council.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): EC discussions have recently resumed on the welfare of
    818
    animals during transport, but we will resist most strongly any proposals to resume the export of live horses and ponies.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the passionate concern that exists across the country about the continued pressure on the Commissioners to end minimum values in 1992 on the export of live horses and ponies? Animals would end up being brutally and viciously slaughtered if they were exported in that way. Will he shake up the EC and seek an early assurance that if the EC's present plans go forward, horses and ponies will not be exported from this country after 1992 in such an inhumane way?
    Mr. Maclean: The only good thing about the present proposals is that they unite the Government and all the welfare organisations, including excellent bodies such as the International League for the Protection of Horses. I assure my hon. Friend that we are in harness on this issue, along with all the British people, in arguing to keep our specific minimum value proposals. I am not interested in getting an early decision from Brussels. I am determined to get the right one and that should be that we do not have to resume the export of live horses and ponies.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Chelmsford warmly welcome the efforts that are being made by him and his Department on minimum values, but are disgusted and dismayed at the prospect of the live exportation of animals across the continent as a result of EC measures? In view of the improvements in refrigeration in the 30 years since the signing of the treaty of Rome, why must animals be subjected to such inhumane transportation practices, despite the efforts that are being made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food improve the arrangements? We beg the Minister to fight hard in Europe to put an end to this Euro-nonsense.
    Mr. Maclean: Animals have been and can be transported safely across international boundaries. Britain has had the most comprehensive detailed regulations on the safe transport of animals for many years. We take as our starting point in EC negotiations the excellent British regulations and we suggest that they should be the basis on which the EC comes up with proposals on the movement of animals to apply to the whole of Europe. We are also keen to encourage an EC-wide inspectorate so that the high standards of animal welfare that we enforce in this country will be enforced throughout Europe.
    Mr. Corbett: I welcome the fact that the Minister is so firmly opposed to the export of ponies and horses, but why does not he apply his opposition to the transport of calves and sheep? Will he acknowledge that it is impossible for this country to ensure that the arrangements and regulations in place in the rest of Europe are enforced? Would not it be sensible to promote a policy of slaughter as near to the point of production as possible?
    Mr. Maclean: We have always transported cattle and sheep safely and believe that it can be done. The hon. Gentleman should realise the conditions of the EC treaty, under which we have no power unilaterally to ban the transport of live animals. We make a distinction in the case of horses and ponies, however, because we believe that, from a welfare point of view, they are quite distinct. The

    819
    sad, sordid history of their export shows that they cannot be transported safely but only at great risk of damage. Cattle and sheep can be moved safely round the country and are moved safely from Ireland and the Scottish islands to the mainland. We must be very careful before seeking a unilateral ban on the safe movement of animals which would severely disadvantage many parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, although he has widespread support in resisting moves to transport horses and ponies, it is essential that he makes no concessions in securing the best possible transport of animals or with regard to ponies and horses? The House will accept no concessions. Should not the Government be doing more to encourage the transportation of meat by hook rather than on the hoof?
    Mr. Maclean: I cannot dictate to consumers, particularly European consumers, in what form they should eat their food. Although I sympathise with the view that much more meat could be safely transported in carcase rather than live form, it is a fact of life that Europeans want a live meat trade and the EC treaty protects that wish. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not enter negotiations with the view that we must start off with concessions, as that would not be sensible. Rather, we shall enter those negotiations on the basis that the excellent British rules have served us well, that they should be extended to the rest of Europe and that we do not intend to give way on the issue of the export of live horses and ponies.
    Dame Janet Fookes: May I encourage my hon. Friend in his insistence on an international inspectorate for the export of animals throughout Europe? However, does he agree that unless those inspectors are given real powers, their existence will be useless?
    Mr. Maclean: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Our experience of the EC international inspectorate for abattoirs suggests that those inspectors have considerable powers and that their powers work. We would wish for no less on the animal welfare front. Britain has nothing to be ashamed of and is among the countries with the best record on animal welfare in Europe. We would welcome an EC-wide inspectorate to enforce our high standards in other parts of the EC.

    EC Expenditure
    Mr. Ralph Howell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list (a) overall European Commission expenditure as a percentage of overall European Community gross domestic product, (b) net European Commission expenditure on agriculture as a percentage of overall European Community gross domestic product and (c) the net United Kingdom expenditure on agriculture including net receipts from the European Commission as a proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product, for the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Gummer: The figures are 0·9 per cent., 0·6 per cent. and 0·24 per cent.
    Mr. Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not it prove that some of the statements that he has
    820
    made about the high cost of agricultural support have been grossly exaggerated? Will he also bear in mind the fact that British agriculture is supported even less than European agriculture and we are spending less than a quarter of the amount on agricultural support than we were in 1960 and only half what we were spending in 1973 when we joined the EC?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must accept that the budget is likely to go up by 30 per cent. next year, which cannot be sensible in the present circumstances. It must be reasonable to bring the budget under control and ensure that a higher proportion of it reaches the farmers whom it is supposed to support. I do not think that we help the situation by arguing on the basis of the percentage of gross national product.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister know of the grave shortage of resources that is affecting children's wards and units in hospitals throughout Britain? Is he aware that the unique baby life-saving unit in Groby Road hospital in my constituency is likely to have to close because there is no money locally and the Department of Health has refused central NHS funding? If that unit closes, as is almost certain unless the Government change their mind, what will the Prime Minister say to the parents of babies who will certainly die, totally unnecessarily?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I cannot carry in my head the details of each and every aspect of the national health service, but he knows that the average annual increase in the national health service budget has been more than 3 per cent. during the period of this Government—substantially higher than it was under any previous Government.
    Sir Michael Shaw: If public spending is to be paid for in the future by increases in our economy, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend do policies of increased taxation, increases in quangos and Ministries and a minimum wage level make a sensible policy to increase such a demand?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I know what my hon. Friend is driving at. The reality is that the Labour party would never deliver any growth whatsoever to fund increased public expenditure. It never has and never would and any suggestion that it would is sheer wish fantasy.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister seen the letter from the health authority district general manager to his clinical directors stating that
    "the reality of GPs holding their own … budgets"
    is that
    "equity has gone out the window"?

    821
    In view of that, will the Prime Minister withdraw the claim that he made in the House on Tuesday that operations are done on the basis of clinical need, as that claim is obviously fiction?
    The Prime Minister: It is not fiction. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I have been advised within the last hour or so that the doctor to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred has also said that the big advantage of the trusts is that you are opting out of bureaucracy, not out of the national health service. At Bart's, the hospital at which he works, they are treating more patients at less cost. Over 1,000 jobs may have gone in the last five years, but more patients are being treated.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister also wants to quote Dr. Grant, I remind him that he is the man who said that they are opting out of equity. Can I put it to the Prime Minister again? Is not it clear that the Prime Minister's health market policies have now made queue-jumping the order of the day and that the clinical needs of patients are coming second to commercial considerations? I put it to him again. In view of that reality, on the testimony of Dr. Grant, will he now withdraw the false claim that he made two days ago that operations are done on the basis of clinical need? It is fiction.
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not, and I will call in evidence to support my position Mr. Rowden, the chief executive of West Lambeth health authority, who writes to the press as a nurse, a general manager in the national health service and a member of the Labour party. I quote:
    "For Labour to suggest that the old-style district health authorities provided a sound basis for the management of the NHS is spurious to say the least. Decisions prior to the reforms were arrived at by a process of those who screamed the loudest, and we have all witnessed various displays of shroud-waving … This was not a rational way of making difficult decisions, and perhaps the key benefit from the NHS reforms will be the evolution of a system that will lead to rational and informed debate about how and why we use precious resources in our NHS."
    Mr. Kinnock: Like his predecessor, the more the Prime Minister goes on in his answers, the less convincing he becomes. May I put it to him again? Does not he agree with the testimony of one of his supporters, a district general manager, who says that because of his system equity has gone out of the window? Will not he affirm now that, as a consequence, operations are not being done on the basis of clinical need but on the basis of commercial considerations?
    The Prime Minister: I neglected inadvertently to complete the quote from Mr. Rowden, the Labour party supporter. He deals with the point that the right hon. Gentleman now raises:
    "When all the politicking stops, it has to be said that many of the Government's changes to the NHS give us the first opportunity in decades to begin explicitly to make choices about where we spend our money in the UK health care system."
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, unlike the Labour party, he will keep public expenditure in line with what the country can afford? Furthermore, as the First Lord of the Treasury, will he make available to Her Majesty's Opposition the full facilities of the Treasury to check out their taxation and spending plans, as clearly their sums do not add up?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Our economic policies in the last 12 years have achieved a remarkable treble—tax cuts, spending increases on public services and a reduction in the national debt. The extra £20 billion that Labour promises is spending that it could never deliver out of growth which it has never previously provided when in government. The only things that would grow under the Labour party would be taxes, inflation and national health service waiting lists, just as they always have done.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that while the scale of international relief in Bangladesh is still pitiful in relation to need, there is nevertheless real pride about Britain's lead in providing it? I again ask the Prime Minister why it is that he, his Government and, it appears, the written press continue to ignore the incalculably greater scale of the disaster now unfolding in Africa? I want the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he knows and understands that 27 million lives are imminently at risk and that in some areas food will run out at the end of this week. If he knows about these matters, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. The assistance that we have given to Bangladesh has made us the largest single national donor. We are prepared to do more and are urging others to do more. Particularly in the months ahead we will need to seek a better international way of co-ordinating assistance when great tragedies such as this are faced. I shall do what I can to bring that sort of system about. On the subject of Africa, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing substantial aid and providing it fast. After the United States, we are the second largest bilateral food aid contributor to the Horn. We have done a great deal and, where necessary, we will be able to do more. However, we cannot do everything that is necessary on our own. We have a better record than almost anyone in the world and we can justly be proud of that record.
    Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 12 years ago to this day he and I first entered the House? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal dedication and commitment to an improvement in public services throughout that period. If the history of the 1980s shows anything it is that it is possible to reduce taxation while simultaneously and dramatically improving public services.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about that. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness. We are all very pleased to see him here and looking so fit and I look forward to seeing him sit here with me for at least another 12 years and possibly a good deal longer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such improvements depend on the levels of growth that we have achieved over the last decade, which levels Conservative Governments traditionally achieve and Labour Governments fail to achieve.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy both oppose test drilling by Nirex in their constituencies, does the Prime Minister understand why the people of Scotland do not wish to see up to 6,000 planned test boreholes being drilled in Caithness? If Nirex proposes to spend such time, effort and money in drilling up to 6,000 boreholes, how can the Prime Minister expect anyone to believe that Nirex has not targeted the north of Scotland as a nuclear dump? Scotland has been badly let down by this decision.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will need to be quite specific planning consents before there can be any dumping of waste there. That matter lies in the future, but before any dumping at all could take place after the test borings, quite specific planning consents would need to be granted. We will look carefully at those when they come forward.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that when we came to office 12 years ago the top rate of taxation was 82 per cent., that it is now 40 per cent. and that the miracle has happened because everyone has been encouraged to work harder which has meant that £17 billion more has been spent on the health service this year than when we came to office? Does he agree that a nightmare will strike people such as a police sergeant, a deputy head teacher or a doctor when they hear that if they earn £20,300 a year they are among the rich and are to be taxed and taxed and taxed again.
    The Prime Minister: That would certainly do nothing but damage to enterprise; and it is certainly true that, over the past few years, lower rates of tax have produced a higher yield.
    My hon. Friend is right about people earning £20,000 a year. In no sense can they be described as rich. Last year in London and the south-east £20,000 was less than the
    824
    average white collar wage and it will certainly be much less this year. It is less than many Metropolitan police constables and sergeants, senior house officers, registrars or junior doctors earn. It is less than many teachers earn. Those are the people whom the Opposition regard as rich and whom they would tax not only unreasonably but as they did in the 1970s: right out of this country.
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: As the poll tax has been a big mistake, why should people be hounded and imprisoned in England? Why should they suffer because the Government got it wrong? People outside think that something has to give—that there should be an amnesty. The Government should understand the position of the 16 individuals in England—[Laughter.] It is not funny.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not help the hon. Gentleman. Briefly, please.
    Mr. Brown: Those 16 people are in prison because they did not pay the poll tax. We know that the Prime Minister claims to want a classless society—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now conclude his question?
    Mr. Brown: This is important, because people cannot be imprisoned in Scotland but they can be in England. Let us free these political prisoners. That would be an important decision.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters, but I must point out that he did not even carry his own side of the House with him in his remarks.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after Question Time.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 13 MAY—Motion for spring Adjournment.

Motion on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

TUESDAY 14 MAY—Opposition day (11th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "The damage caused to the NHS by the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act". Afterwards there will be a debate described as "The need for improved policies to deal with famine, flood and refugees in the world". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.

WEDNESDAY I5 MAY—Debate on a motion to approve the Government's public expenditure plans for 1991–92 to 1993–94 (Cm. 1501 to 1520).

Motion relating to the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations.

THURSDAY I6 MAY—Remaining stages of Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY I7 MAY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 20 MAY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 15 May at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:—

Committee A—Document No. 5491/91 relating to milk quotas.

Committee B to continue to consider document No. 8597/90 and COR 1 relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts.

[Wednesday 15 May
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document

5491/91—

Milk Quotas: Outgoers (ECJ Ruling)

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 29-xvii (1990–91)
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document

8597/90 + COR 1

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC 11-xxxiii (1989–90) and HC 29-xii ( 1990–91)]
Mr. Grocott: May I thank the Leader of the House for arranging, for next Wednesday, a debate on the Government's public expenditure plans? I am afraid that that is the only thing for which I shall be able to thank him.
I know that what I am about to say upsets the right hon. Gentleman and that he will be annoyed again today, but
826
I have to point out that the Government are running out of steam. Why is it that the two key debates next week—the one on the crisis in the health service, and the one on the famine in Bangladesh and Africa and the problems facing the Kurds—have been arranged by us in Opposition time, and that the Government have arranged no major debates on national issues in Government time? As the Leader of the House is running short of ideas, I put it to him that, for a start, it is high time we had a debate on unemployment. Yesterday, 10,000 redundancies were announced at British Coal and Rolls-Royce, making 15,000 in the last 15 days.
It is also high time for a debate on the education service. The Prime Minister seems to think that that service is important, but not important enough for a debate. Let me make an offer to the Leader of the House: if he cannot think of key issues for debate, let him hand over the precious parliamentary time to the Opposition, and we shall choose the subjects.
Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has got himself completely in a twist. He really cannot make that case. After all, I have been urged for some time by his hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House to arrange a debate on public expenditure plans. According to the hon. Gentleman, we are wasting the time of the House next week by doing just that. It is absolutely ridiculous. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, I am keen to have a debate on public expenditure plans. I am anxious that we should have a whole day to compare the Government's achievements in public expenditure with the nonsense that the Labour party talks. I am glad to have been able to provide such an opportunity. When the hon. Gentleman himself has asked for the debate, he cannot accuse me of wasting the time of the House.
As to the point about unemployment, I need only remind the hon. Gentleman of the spring Adjournment debate. As he knows, I have an obligation to find time for such a debate, which provides an opportunity to raise these matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the Planning and Compensation Bill is unimportant. In fact, it is an extremely important part of the Government's legislative programme, welcomed by very many people. The same is true of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill. The hon. Gentleman is trying to score cheap points, and he is completely off target.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for a very early debate on the document issued on 3 May by the presidency of the intergovernmental conference on European political union? Will he ensure that in such a debate a Government spokesman will comment on the section about a proposed European foreign policy, which might be held together by qualified majority voting? Will he please make sure that the Government will emphasise that, while they are prepared to be polite and correct to our allies in the EC, they have set their face like granite against ceding any more sovereignty from this House, this Parliament and the British people to the institutions of the EC?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the IGC in particular. However, he will know that we have regular debates on European

827
developments. I hope, shortly after the recess, to be able to arrange such a debate, in which all these points may be discussed.
Mr. James Wallace: Can the Leader of the House confirm the rumour that the Government are to set up a Northern Ireland Select Committee? Such a Committee would be very welcome indeed, but would seem rather out of place in view of the fact that the Government have failed to set up a Scottish Select Committee.
On the subject of Select Committees, will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the very valuable report from the Select Committee on the Environment on the tropical rain forest?
Mr. MacGregor: I have indicated that I recognise that the second subject is obviously very important, but it is a question of finding time, because we are debating many important subjects both in legislation and in ordinary debates at the present time. On the first point, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Government's response to the Committee on Procedure's report on Select Committees, from which he will see very clearly our position on the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
Sir Robert McCrindle: As it is now some years since the House held a debate on civil aviation, and in view of the many changes that have taken place since that time, ranging through matters of regulation, competition and, indeed, safety, would. not it be appropriate for us to hold a debate on this important matter at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted my hon. Friend's request, but, while in no way wishing to diminish the importance of the subjects that he raises, I do not think that it will be possible for me to find time for a full debate on these matters in the near future. There are, of course, a number of other ways in which they could be raised in the House, including the motion for the spring Adjournment next Monday.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is the Leader of the House aware that his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office still decline to publish the text of the draft treaty on political union? It so happens that the text of the treaty is available in the Library owing to the initiative of the Library in obtaining it, which makes this an absurdity as well as an insult to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very carefully indeed what further progress can be made in getting Ministers to make periodic reports to the House on the state of the negotiations as they proceed, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) did when he was Prime Minister and we were negotiating the original treaty of British entry?
Mr. MacGregor: As far as the document is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, he and I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have had a number of exchanges on this in the past few weeks in an attempt to find a solution acceptable to the House. As he also knows, this is an intergovernmental conference and it would he wrong for the Government to deposit negotiating texts while it continues. We did not do so during the negotiations on the Single European Act, and the presidency has enjoined member states not to
828
publicise conference texts. However, that negotiating draft text did get into the public domain and that is how it is now in the Library.
Mr. Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle)? Civil aviation has not been debated for a long time and it is now clear that negotiations are commencing to replace the agreement between this country and the United States, Bermuda 2. In view of the controversy that has surrounded recent negotiations, is it not time that the House had an opportunity to put its view forward to guide Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. MacGregor: I have certainly noticed my hon. Friend's comments in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) and I will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, there are other ways in which these matters can be debated in the House and a ministerial reply can be given. I must be honest with my hon. Friend: I think that it will be difficult to find Government time for a full day's debate in the near future.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Reverting to the topic of the non-publication of this so-called non-paper, which is, in fact, a draft treaty of political union, is the Leader of the House aware that the authorities of the House, using their ingenuity, have obtained a copy from the library of the Luxembourg Parliament? Does he agree that the House should be at least as well officially informed as any Parliament of any of the member states of the EEC? Why should proposals on the important subject of the welfare of animals, about which we are all concerned, be available and be debated in the House when working documents concerning the constitution of a new pan-European state are kept secret?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already described the previous practice on these matters and that is what we have followed in this case. The hon. Gentleman knows that I try to help the House whenever possible. We have endeavoured to make arrangements to ensure that some of these drafts are available in the Library to hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present practice is simply not acceptable to the House? The position on the draft treaty on economic and monetary union is the same. It is absurd for the presidency to say that it will not release the papers. The House is unable to have official knowledge of them although they are circulating far and wide throughout the Community. Will he ensure that the Government make representations to the presidency to say that this is an intolerable situation and that we will not put up with it?
Mr. MacGregor: I will certainly discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Clearly, I tried to ensure that hon. Members who wish to follow these matters in detail are able to do so because the documents are now accessible to them.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me recently about the report to the Government on resettlement grant. Can he say now when he intends to table the necessary motion, or will he be able to do so early next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I know that it is a matter of concern to many hon. Members. As he knows, I announced that we had received the review by the Top Salaries Review Body on resettlement grant, which has been placed in the Library of the House. I have made it clear that it will be my intention to bring forward the necessary resolution to implement that recommendation, because it will widely commend itself to hon. Members of all parties. I very much hope that I shall be able to table the resolution and that it will be agreed by the House, if it so wishes, before the Whitsun recess.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for rearranging the adjourned debates in European Standing Committee B? May I also ask him whether he can find some way to inform the House and those whom the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) calls the permanent members of such Committees of what is likely to come up in future? Will my right hon. Friend also find some way to let such information be known to outside groups, because I fear that only those advised by expert lobbyists will be able to get their views to the hon. Members who will consider some of the draft directives? In practice, outside groups should know what is going on here and in Europe without having to pay others to tell them.
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I suspect that some of the problems about advance information also occurred when these matters were normally debated on the Floor of the House. I take my hon. Friend's point. It is desirable that as much notice as is realistic in all the circumstances should be given to members of the Standing Committee. I said earlier that I should like that to happen and I am pursuing the matter further to ensure that it does. I should be happy to listen to members of the Standing Committee on such matters, because my hon. Friend makes a reasonable point.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am sure that the whole House would want to avert another mini-De Lorean scandal in Northern Ireland. There is perceived to be a veritable can of worms relating to the stewardship of Northern Ireland Electricity by its chief executive. Can the Leader of the House make time available for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a further report on NIE so that we can ask him whether he has confidence in that board, whether he has confidence in the chief executive and in his ability, and whether he is likely to reappoint him in view of the heavy rumour that the NIE board does not intend to reappoint the chief executive? That would also afford us the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State whether it is his intention to reappoint the deputy chairman when his contract comes to an end later this year.
Mr. MacGregor: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am afraid that I do not know the details of those matters.
Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the scurrilous and inaccurate reports in some of the tabloid newspapers this week about the working hours of Members of Parliament, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time that we had a high-profile debate on the accepted duties of Members of Parliament, on the hours that we work in this place and on the necessary reforms which need to be considered soberly and carefully sc that we can, perhaps, bring ourselves more up to date? Such a debate would impress on the public the fact that Members of Parliament, by and large, do a good job.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that we need a debate on how Members of Parliament fulfil their duties. My hon. Friend makes two points. I should be happy to agree with him that the amount of time that we spend in the Chamber or in Parliament itself does not reflect the amount of time that we spend on our duties as Members of Parliament. As an example of that, I—and I am sure that this applies to many other hon. Members—spent a large number of hours over the weekend in constituency engagements on a bank holiday. It is necessary to keep repeating that the duties of Members of Parliament are not just reflected by the amount of time they sit in the Chamber.
With regard to reforms, I have said that I am considering those matters and I hope to come forward with some thoughts in due course. However, some of the reforms that we have carried through in this Parliament, such as the European Standing Committees, are already having an effect on the hours in this Chamber.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make time available as soon as possible for a debate on the Government's policies towards the middle east in view of the continuing problems facing the Kurdish and Palestinian peoples? Will he ask the Government to reconsider their policy towards non-recognition of the right of Kurdish people to self-determination? Many people believe that peace in the region can come only when the rights of people such as the Kurds are recognised. That will be the key to a long-term and just peace in the region.
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure when it might be possible to have a full-day's debate on that subject. As I have said, the Government are keen to keep the House fully informed about developments. I will bear in mind not the hon. Gentleman's point about the particular policy proposals, but his point about the possibility of a debate.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I return my right hon. Friend to the question about European debate and the intergovernmental conferences? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the saloon bar of almost every pub in my constituency, and at Eton college debating society and in Lady Antonia Fraser's drawing room, those matters are discussed daily with anxiety? Why is it uniquely that this House, which is and should be the authority to allow the Executive to proceed with those negotiations, is not permitted to address those matters that are fundamental to the constitution of this country?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not familiar with the discussions that take place in all the areas to which my hon. Friend has referred. However, I am aware that those matters are frequently discussed within the precincts of the House and there are opportunities to question my right hon. Friends.

831
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will shortly do that in a session with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in his excellent interview titled "The Challenge of Conjuring" in this week's House Magazine he states:
"My first love really is mind-reading."
In those circumstances, did he know that I was going to ask him for a debate about American pitbull terriers and the serious problem whether fighting dogs of that kind should, as the Leicester Mercury so rightly demands, be banned because of the danger that they cause, as revealed in the disastrous injuries caused to a man who is at present being treated in the Leicester royal infirmary?
Mr. MacGregor: It did not require much mind-reading to know that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to quote the Leicester Mercury. As he is aware, legislation is already in place to put down any dog that is dangerous. Furthermore, any owner who fails to take action about a dangerous dog can be banned from keeping a dog in future. Because the Government recognise that there may be a need to extend the law further, we issued a consultation paper last year entitled "The Control of Dogs" which contained several specific proposals. We have received a diverse range of views in response to that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will announce his proposals this summer.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I remind my right hon. Friend of the statement made in the House a few weeks ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the civil air transport regulations? Since then, they have had a considerable impact and there are also major policy implications and employment considerations. If my right hon. Friend cannot allow a full-day's debate in Government time, can he at least allow a half-day's debate on civil air transport policy?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think I can add to what I said earlier. Half days are in quite short supply in some respects as well. There are quite a large number of matters that hon. Members want to raise in the House. As I said earlier, I will bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend raised.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the right. hon. Gentleman's welcome comment that he will consider the reform of the working processes of this place, what consideration will he give to the decentralisation of decision making, particularly against the background in which support for the independence of Scotland is rising, and even one third of the tattered remnants of his own party want constitutional change? Will he seriously take that matter on board?
Mr. MacGregor: I was in Perth last night discussing some of those matters with a lot of my friends in the party in Scotland. On my way back this morning, I noticed a headline in The Scotsman suggesting that there was some change in attitudes to such matters as a result of a recent poll.
Mr. Richard Tracey: In order to make next week's debates totally useful, will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to persuade the Opposition to give some figures for their policies and tell the House and the
832
country whether extra taxation would be needed to pay for them? My right hon. Friend will agree that it is dishonest for the Opposition constantly to hold out promises without giving any figures and that, without such details, our time in such debates would be wasted.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that that will be clear in next week's debates on the national health service. It is clear to me from what the Leader of the Opposition said last night that he does not understand what has been taking place in the health service in recent years and does not understand public spending. It is quite clear that the very substantial increase—over 53 per cent. in real terms—which we have achieved in NHS spending has arisen partly as a result of the priority that we have given it and partly as a result of economic growth. He could not do better—he would do worse.
Mr. Tony Banks: Since the Leader of the House is so good at mind reading, does he know the question that I am about to ask him? He is obviously not as good as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) thinks he is.
As a member of the Procedure Committee, I was encouraged by the Government's response to the Committee's report on the workings of the Select Committee system. When will the necessary changes in the Standing Orders come forward? Will we have a debate? Since it appears that the Government are running out of business—business has collapsed on the past two evenings—could we discuss some of the outstanding Procedure Committee reports, in particular the Joint Committee report on the workings of the private Bill system? That matter also needs to be sorted out, and we now have the time to do it.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about running out of business. The two days to which he refers were the two days that were given to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. In a number of previous years we have given three days, and we have sometimes been accused of not giving enough. This year there have been two days. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is largely up to the Opposition how those two days are deployed. I was giving the House the normal amount of time. It is largely for the Opposition how that time is used. It is not a matter of the Government running out of business. I would have been much criticised if I had given less time to the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House.
On the Select Committee on Procedure, I confirm that I hope to be able to lay the orders fairly soon. That would be the appropriate time to have a debate on them. That is the proper way to proceed. I am very keen to do so because it is a very good report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we accepted a large part of it and I am anxious to see it implemented.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an urgent, early debate on the workings of the grant-maintained schools provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988? That would enable the House to demonstrate to the people of this country the Labour party's commitment to abolish not only grant-maintained schools but grammar schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme, Church schools and independent secondary schools, and to reduce

833
everything to the single common denominator of 11-to-16 comprehensive schools and tertiary colleges, thereby creating no choice whatsoever for the people of this country.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend. He puts his points extremely well. I am happy to tell him that some of the points, at least in relation to grant-maintained schools, may be raised next week, because we shall debate regulations next Wednesday.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is it not time to have a debate on the report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, bearing in mind that the Scottish constitutional question managed to reach the agenda of even the Scottish Tory party conference in Perth this week, and the fact that the opinion polls in today's Scotsman reveal that the overwhelming majority of Scots, including almost half all Scottish Tory voters, are in favour of some form of Scottish Parliament?
Mr. MacGregor: We had some extremely good debates yesterday in Perth. The hon. Gentleman knows that the issue of the Scottish Convention was not put forward by the Government. He also knows that there are other ways of raising in the House matters on which the Government cannot find time for a debate, including all the Supply days that are available to the Opposition.
Mr. Tony Marlow: While we are on the subject of constitutional issues, may we have a debate about the role and position of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, given that his job security is more dependent on the well-being, prestige and the length of the membership rolls of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and of the National Union of Public Employees than on the effectiveness, efficiency and caring ability of the national health service? If we were to have that debate good and early, before the debate next week on the health service, might that be illuminating and set out some of the ground rules?
Mr. MacGregor: It would be in order for my hon. Friend to raise those matters in next week's debate.
Mr. David Winnick: If the Government are so confident of their case on taxation and benefits, why can we not have a debate on that as early as possible, in which we shall be able to show that a large majority of the people of this country are now paying more in taxation—in both direct and indirect taxation—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House is asking for information about the local election results, but he will not get any satisfaction in relation to my seat. Although the large majority of people are now paying more in both indirect and direct taxation, the fact remains that the richest I per cent. of the population are now paying £30,000 less per year than 12 years ago. Does not that show the unfairness of Tory policies? If the Government really want a debate on such subjects, we shall be only too pleased to have one as quickly as possible.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman wrongly read either my mind or my lips. I was trying to find out whether he was present for our debates on the Finance Bill, where the issues——
Mr. Winnick: I was not.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman says that he was not here for our debates on the Finance Bill——
Mr. Winnick: I was attending the British-Irish parliamentary body.
Mr. MacGregor: Well, that cannot have been running through both the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Finance Bill. The plain fact is that we have recently had three days in which all those issues could have been fully raised if the hon. Gentleman had wished, so I do not intend to find another day. However, his point about higher-rate taxpayers entirely misses the point, which is that, as a result of our changes in higher rate taxation, the yield from higher income earners is now very much greater than under the Labour Government. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that his own party should go back to the disastrous tax regime of Labour's period in government.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Warwickshire's difficult position because of the reductions in revenue support grant and because of being community charge-capped? Is he further aware of the damage that is likely to be done to education in the county of Warwickshire as a result of the reductions in funding for schools? Will he therefore allow us an early debate on this matter next week?
Mr. MacGregor: Not next week, but I shall find time fairly soon for the general issue of capping to be raised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did the Leader of the House see the article that stated that he was going to make an announcement that the House would rise on 15 July until 22 October? In view of all the representations that have been made today for debates on Bangladesh, and on unemployment and all the rest, will he ensure that we do not get those suggested extra weeks so that we can have all those debates? We could have a debate on the Common Market and another vote on the Single European Act so that all those Tory Members who now have misgivings about the Common Market could join those Opposition Members who voted against the Single European Act and tell the Common Market to get lost.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, not for the first time I disagree entirely with his stance on European issues as well as on many others. Of course, those issues can be debated in June when I hope we shall have a full day's debate on developments in the European Community. We all get used to seeing speculative stories in the newspapers about the rising of the House. I simply do not know where that one came from as I have made no announcement.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the debate on the Government's public expenditure plans for 1991–92 to be held next Wednesday? Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), my right hon. Friend said that it would give us the opportunity to compare and contrast the Government's plans with those of the Opposition. However, for us to make that comparison, is it not necessary for us to have the Opposition's public expenditure plans on public display for every Member of Parliament and everyone outside this

835
place? We can have no constructive debate on Wednesday unless the Opposition publish their proposals which so far they will not do. What is the point of the debate?
Mr. MacGregor: The debate on Wednesday is about our public expenditure plans which are real, financable at present levels of taxation, and I believe have absolutely the right set of priorities. As my hon. Friend knows, there have been real and significant increases in expenditure. The debate on Wednesday is about ours, but I see no reason whatsoever why my hon. Friend should not raise the points he has made then. Certainly we shall continue doing so time and again in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week from the Home Secretary in regard to early-day motion 691 which concerns the importation of powerful and potentially dangerous and brutal dogs?
[That this House draws attention to the proposal to import a second Japanese Tosa dog for breeding purposes; notes that this species of dog grows to 17 stone and was originally bred for fighting; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to propose amendments to the law so that the import of new breeds of dog may be prohibited if it is against the public interest by virtue of the size, nature and purpose of the animal and so that, where appropriate, even where dogs are imported conditions may be attached to import licences as to the custody and breeding of such animals.] Does he realise that the Department of the Environment already has powers passed by the House to introduce a dog registration scheme which will enable those potentially brutal and vicious dogs to be registered and traced and the owners to be given guidance and advice and any potential visitors warned about the dangers? The Bradford Telegraph and Argus and the Yorkshire Post have carried a number of stories—[Laughter.] Although hon. Members may find this amusing, some people have been savagely attacked by dogs such as American pitbull terriers, alsatians and doberman pinschers which have been allowed to roam loose. It really is time that the Government did something about it. They have the appropriate powers and we should not be waiting for vague statements from the Home Secretary at some vague future date.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think anyone was finding the subject of the hon. Gentleman's remarks amusing. It was simply because a smile flitted across his face when he mentioned the Bradford Telegraph and Argus that others responded in like fashion. I am sure that he will accept that we all take the matter extremely seriously. As I have already said, there is legislation to put down any dangerous dog. We have received a wide range of comments on the consultation paper and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to make a statement as soon as he can.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Wednesday's debate on the Government's public expenditure plans will provide the Government with an opportunity to confirm that they will continue to fund spending on defence at a level which enables us to deal with an uncertain and unstable world and that they have no intention of following the Labour party's plans to slash defence expenditure by £9,000 million a year?
Mr. MacGregor: One of the documents to which I referred in my announcement about business relates to our defence expenditure plans which are clearly set out. I have no doubt that they will be referred to in Wednesday's debate.
Mrs. Ray Michie: When is the Scottish Grand Committee likely to resume its sittings? I hope that we can have an early debate either through that forum or on the Floor of the House about Scottish fish farming. The problems affecting that industry are being exacerbated by Norwegian dumping on the European Community which will be made worse if the reports that the United States will impose a levy on Norwegian farmed fish are true. My fish farming constituents believe that the Government do not know what they are doing or how to tackle the problem and I should welcome a debate on the matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the issues facing the fish farming industry, in which, as the hon. Lady may know, I have taken and will continue to take a close interest. Indeed, I was discussing some of those matters in Perth last night.
Mrs. Michie: In Perth?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes. I do not know why the hon. Lady is so surprised—it seems to me to be an appropriate place to discuss such matters, with people who are experts in them. As regards how the matter is raised in the House, the hon. Lady will have ways to raise it, but, if she will allow me, I shall look into the matter and reflect on it.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In view of the amount of public disquiet expressed in the media and in all the pubs in my constituency about the level of public support given to people who borrow inordinately large amounts of money on mortgage and cannot repay them, may we have an early debate in this House on the subject, not because we object to helping such people, but because my constituents feel that the burden of those bad judgments in overlending should be borne equally by the lenders of those very large sums?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend may be referring to a specific case that has received much publicity. The rules on help with mortgage interest are applied even-handedly to all owner-occupiers who suddenly become unemployed. In that case I think that there was some reference to a second home. No help is given with outgoings on a second home, and the possession of a second property will preclude entitlement to income support if its value, less any debts secured on it, exceeds £8,000. My hon. Friend may wish to know that the chief adjudication officer is taking legal advice on some aspects of the commissioner's decision to allow full payment of mortgage interest in one recent case.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great concern in colleges of education in Scotland about the Secretary of State's proposal, in his poll tax announcement, to take them out of the ambit of local government? Today, I received a letter from the principal of Coatbridge college—he is also secretary of the Strathclyde Principals Association—and from the chairman of the council at Coatbridge college expressing grave anxieties about administrative and other difficulties that would arise. Since that college serves Lanarkshire, including the village of Shotts which I gather

837
is dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, will he agree that those well-informed views on education should not be dismissed lightly?
Mr. MacGregor: I hesitate to say this, but I referred to Shotts in Perth last night as well—it was obviously a long night. When I was Secretary of State for Education and Science I was certainly enthusiastic to work towards what we have announced—further education colleges coming outside local authority control in England. I know that that has been widely welcomed by many colleges in England and it is a desirable policy development. As regards the administrative problems of a college in Scotland that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I impress on the Leader of the House the need for an early debate either in the Chamber or in the Scottish Grand Committee on the worrying subject of the present circumstances of child care law in Scotland, especially when we compare the present state of the law with English legislation? The right hon. Gentleman well knows that there was a time when Scots law was well in advance of English law in the protection of children. I refer to the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968. Today, children in Scotland are discriminated against, compared with the protection that is given, rightly and properly, to children here in England. There is no Children (Scotland) Act similar to match that in England. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, children caught up in sexual and child abuse cases in England will rightly be spared the ordeal of giving evidence in court but a few feet away from the accused. We do not have that type of legislation in Scotland. We ought to have it and we need that debate.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not possible for me to comment on a particular child abuse case in Scotland which is sub judice, but my right hon. Friend has announced that when that matter is completed, there will be an inquiry into this whole area. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to find Government time for a debate on the matter in the near future. It is important that the inquiry should take place. The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise issues that concern him—and I fully agree with him that these are important matters—in other ways in the House.
Rev. Martin Smyth: When might we have an opportunity to debate the proposed European extradition treaty—or does that come in the general van of the House not knowing until things are finished—so that hon. Members might express their views on the Republic of Ireland constantly seeking favoured-nation status with us while being unwilling to sign a treaty of extradition, when this nation suffers most because of that failure?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear the Government's position on those matters. I cannot promise a debate on them in the near future.
Mr. Ron Brown: The Government are not even handed about certain matters. As a Scot, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that north of the
838
border a different law operates on the poll tax, which is how the struggle started. Nobody can be gaoled there, although in England 16 people have been hounded and imprisoned by the Government under the laws of England. We need a debate to see whether we can be more even handed on the issue. It seems clear that there should be an amnesty. Can we discuss the matter next week? It is important that we do that, because the people outside are demanding it, and they are the people who matter. People power matters.
Mr. MacGregor: The people outside, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, in England—I am sure that the same applies in Scotland—feel strongly when they pay their community charge and find that others, sometimes on higher incomes than themselves, do not. There is very strong feeling indeed in the country about that. People feel that those who do not make their payments should be properly pursued in the normal way.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the practice of the HFC bank in selling insurance-linked loans? Revelations in the Daily Mirror have recently shown how many people have been misled in a cold and calculating way. One couple who had a loan of £5,000 were misled into taking out an insurance policy and now have a loan of £14,000. They are not alone in that experience. People who have worked for the bank have complained. It is essential that we debate the matter so that the Minister has an opportunity to explain what will be done by the regulatory bodies about such scandals.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not see the newspaper report to which the hon. Member referred, so I cannot comment on it. I cannot find Government time for those matters to be discussed in the near future, but there are other ways in which they can be raised in the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Regarding Tuesday's business, since fortunately, but deservedly, I have the Adjournment debate on the subject of the Kuwaiti oilfields, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say who will answer my debate? Will it be the Foreign Office, which must conduct relations with paralysed Kuwait; will it be the Department of the Environment, in view of the fact that the effects now stretch to the Himalayas, west China, Quetta and Baluchistan; will it be the Department of Energy, with its oil well responsibilities; will it be the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for contracts; or will it be the Ministry of Defence, whose sappers are trying their best in the most difficult conditions to fight the oilwell fires? Whoever answers, will the Leader of the House arrange for a formal statement to be forthcoming from the chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, giving the Government's views on the carcinogenic or other effects of what is happening to those who are trying to put out the dreadful fires?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not go into the subject of his Adjournment debate. He may ask which Minister will reply.
Mr. Dalyell: Can I not use this opportunity to ask for a formal statement of the Government's view? If not, the issue will be evaded.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is about business next week. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking who will answer the debate.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, but perhaps we could have a statement from the Department that will not be answering it—the Department of Health—because part of the debate is a serious statement on the considered, non-political, governmental view of the medical authorities on the cancer risks that our people, as well as the indigenous populations, face in an increasingly appalling situation.
Mr. MacGregor: I am not yet sure who will answer the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate. It will not be all five Departments, but I shall let him know which one it is as soon as I can find out. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in indicating the subject that he will raise and I shall draw it to the attention of the Minister who will reply.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House allow time next week to discuss a serious matter that has arisen because of the policy directive that Yorkshire regional health authority has issued to GPs? It has told GPs that if they refer patients to a hospital that is not contracted to the local health authority there could be delays in that patient's treatment, but that if a patient is referred from a funded practice there will be no delay. It is a two-tier system and, until someone decides who will pay the cash for the patient who will be under the practice contracted by the health authority, there will be tremendous problems. Will the Leader of the House allow time for this two-tier system in the health service to be discussed so that we can resolve the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: We do not have a two-tier system and the matter can be raised if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Tuesday.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Leader of the House agree that there is now an urgent need for a debate on the defence industry in general and the aerospace industry in particular? The huge number of redundancies that have already been announced this year were disgracefully augmented yesterday by the axing of 3,000 jobs by Rolls-Royce, not least in Leavesden. If the Leader of the House could find time to organise such a debate, it would allow a contrast to be made between the chaotic way in which defence jobs are being run down—often losing highly skilled men and women who have worked for the same company for 20, 30 or 40 years—and the need for those companies to diversify into socially useful products. If the companies will not do it, why will not the Government offer some direction from the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Trade and Industry? If they will not do so in the private sector, the industry should be brought back into the public sector so that the jobs of those skilled defence workers can be guaranteed.
Mr. MacGregor: This is the first time that I have heard the hon. Gentleman argue for higher defence expenditure. He has always moved in a different way.
Mr. Nellist: I was talking about diversification.
Mr. MacGregor: I know, but the hon. Gentleman was also complaining about the loss of jobs because of the lack of defence expenditure. He tries to have it both ways. As he knows, we have debates on defence matters. There will be two more in this Session and the defence aspects could be raised then.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Speaker: A point of order, I think—Mr. Howarth.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for reading my mind.
Mr. Tony Banks: It did not take long.
Mr. Howarth: I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I and other Conservative Members have waited patiently for 53 minutes to raise our points of order. We did not seek to press you at the beginning of business questions because I understand that, during Agriculture questions, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me just clear that up, because the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) blew his top about it. It is perfectly legitimate for an hon. Member who disagrees with the answer to his question to say that he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment if the question on the Order Paper is his own. That is exactly what happened. I stopped another hon. Member, who said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment because his point of order was on a supplementary question, which is quite a different matter.
Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful that the precedent has been set that points of order may be raised now.
As I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will anticipate, my point of order relates to the disgraceful behaviour that occurred yesterday afternoon during the Division on the Asylum Seekers and Refugees Bill—a ten-minute Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I do not know whether you have had a chance to read the exchanges, which are recorded in Hansard, in columns 749 and 750.
I was telling for the Ayes, and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist), who is in his place, was behaving in the customary menacing and contemptible manner which he frequently displays in the House. It is clear that, yesterday afternoon, some of my hon. Friends might have voted against the measure had it not been for the menacing and thuggish remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, whose complete lack of a sense of humour is well known to the House. He was behaving in a thoroughly intimidating fashion.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me, though?
Mr. Howarth: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that Mr. Deputy Speaker, while deprecating what took place, took no effective action——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this. I have received a report of the incident, and I wholly support what Mr. Deputy Speaker said about this yesterday. He said that such conduct was strongly to be deprecated. He established that there had been no physical obstruction of hon. Members, and the Division was able to proceed without interruption. The Chair has no power to require the withdrawal of words spoken outside the Chamber, and
842
furthermore nothing that occurs on one day may be dealt with by the Chair under disciplinary powers on a subsequent occasion.
Following Mr. Deputy Speaker's strong condemnation of yesterday's incident, I hope that the matter can rest there. I do, however, absolutely deprecate language and words of the sort used yesterday, which would have been dealt with strongly if they had been made in the Chamber.
Mr. Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said, but the point about the behaviour of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East relates not so much to what he said—which was his usual fatuous nonsense—but the manner in which he said it. The Serjeant at Arms is present, armed with his sword, to deal with thugs and villains like that.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that swords are called for. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Bernard Braine: I rise with some reluctance because I do not like criticising any hon. Member, from whichever party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has raised a point of great substance—yesterday, an attempt was made to ventilate it. I understand perfectly, and entirely agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that no criticism can be made of the Chair. Mr. Deputy Speaker, by virtue of being locked in the Chair, cannot be cognisant of what happens outside the Chamber, and I could not quarrel with one word that he said. However, the fact remains that that little area between the doors——
Mr. Bob Cryer: There was nothing as vicious as during the abortion law debates which the right hon. Gentleman led.
Sir Bernard Braine: My point is of far greater importance than anything that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has raised, either today or any other day—it goes to the heart of the liberties and rights of the House.
That little area and the two Division Lobbies are an integral part of the decision-making process for which the House exists. What happened yesterday was disgraceful.
I do not wish to repeat in detail what I said yesterday, but in my 40 years in the House I have never witnessed any behaviour like it. The behaviour of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was intimidating and offensive. He barred the way to certain hon. Members who were trying to get into the Lobby. Indeed, it alarmed some hon. Members, who turned away. If such behaviour had taken place in the Chamber, it would have resulted in Mr. Deputy Speaker disciplining the hon. Member straight away.
This is a serious problem. Mr. Deputy Speaker could not be cognisant of what had happened. I am supporting my hon. Friend because abuse of privilege outside the House is rightly taken seriously by all hon. Members. But abuse of the voting procedure of the House is far worse. Behaviour of that kind cannot be tolerated.
I shall not pursue the matter further now, but I hope that you will consider it, Mr. Speaker, and see what

843
restraints can he put upon such behaviour, either by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East or by any other hon. Member.
Several Hon. Members: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very busy day ahead of us. May I say to the Father of the House and to the whole House that I entirely accept what he said; such behaviour is unacceptable. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time sent to find out if there had been obstruction, and it was reported to him that there was no obstruction. Therefore, there was nothing that he could do about a matter that had taken place outside the Chamber. In order to clear the matter up, the hon. Member who was concerned is present in the Chamber, and if he would like to give an explanation, we could get on with the next business.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was present. Let us hear what he has to say about it.
Mr. Skinner: And I was present on the previous day when there was a vote on a ten-minute Bill, and I heard someone shouting, "Vote this way for porn videos." It was not exactly that. I have been around many times when I have seen Tory Whips shoving hon. Members into the Lobby to vote when they have not wanted to. What happened yesterday was that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. South-East (Mr. Nellist) saw some Tory Members who were goose-stepping on their way into the Lobby. He thought that he would make a few apposite remarks because they were anxious to vote against the measure. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has been referred to many times in the House as a Member of the goose-stepping tendency—and saying that is not prevented by "Erskine May".
The truth is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that on many occasions there has been a little bother beyond that line. I remember, as I am sure you do, when Tom Swain got hold of the neck of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Some people asked, "What is going on?" Hansard could only say that it was an altercation. He nearly throttled him. Someone said, "Somebody had better stop him." The deputy Chief Whip at the time, who is not a million miles away from the Chair, had to go and sort them out. But it did not get in Hansard, and I did not hear any Tory Members raising a fuss about it. The right hon. Member for Chingford had to send a letter of apology to my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman reminds me of things that I have witnessed in the Division Lobbies. I am bound to say that I have heard some rough things said in the Division Lobbies. Let us leave it now. The whole House knows that we should behave with decorum. Comments made outside the Chamber, which are clearly designed to raise the temperature, which, I have to say bluntly to the hon. Member, are offensive, and which would be dealt with strongly if said inside the Chamber, are to be deprecated. I think that we should move on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on another matter. I am sure that you will have seen a number of reports in the Today newspaper this week that are causing concern to hon. Members. You have always sought to protect the reputation of the House.
In one article on Tuesday Today said:
"the evidence confirms that Britain's MPs are the laziest in Europe."
It goes on to say:
"Britain's lazy MPs are to award themselves a Summer holiday which could last up to four months."
You know that that is not true, Mr. Speaker. We do not award ourselves holidays; we have a recess, and during it some of us manage to eke out perhaps one or two weeks' holiday, but the great majority of hon. Members are hard at work in their constituencies.
More importantly, the editorial in Today states:
"Televising parliament allows us to see that apart from Prime Minister's question time, the chamber is usually at least nine tenths empty. Do the Hon. Members honestly expect us to believe the rest of them are all working away busily?"
No reference is made to Select Committees or Standing Committees, both of which are heavily attended by Members and deal with legislation. No reference is made to Back-Bench groups, the meetings of which are heavily attended. Nor does the newspaper refer to policy meetings of all the parties in the House or to meetings with Ministers, constituents and other Members. We are within an hour and a half of a meeting, which will be well attended, with a delegation of Commonwealth parliamentarians who are in the House. The record must be set straight, and the British people should be given some indication from the Chair about what is happening.
Under a headline which asks:
"So just how hard does your M P work for you?",
there is a list of more than 600 Members and their voting records. It is significant that, at the bottom of the list, is a Scottish Member who has had a lung transplant. A little further up the list is the name of a Liverpool Member who is deeply ill, an illness that is of concern to many hon. Members. Further up the list there is a reference to Mr. Norman Buchan, who was a close friend of many hon. Members and who died quite a long time ago. Somehow his name is included in the list in the context of his voting effort, but clearly he was not in a position to vote in the House.
The bottom of the list refers to Ministers, who are often in different parts of the country carrying out their public duties, and to Front-Bench members of my party, who can be in all parts of the country carrying out engagements. The first 100 names contain a heavy concentration of Conservative Members but, of course, we all know—there is nothing wrong about it—that the Government have to maintain a majority in the House and Conservative Members are detained here.
That list is supposed to be an indication of the effort made by hon. Members in carrying out their public duties. The article is clearly a disgrace. It is a misrepresentation of what happens in Parliament. Although Mr. John Craig is a good friend to many hon. Members, if pressure was exerted upon him by his editors to write the article, he should at least protest and perhaps indicate his protest to Parliament as a whole. Let us express the hope, as I do on behalf of my hon. Friends, that Today will be wise enough to print an apology for this gross misrepresentation of the democratic process in the United Kingdom.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to make his point of order at some length, because it is important that the truth about Members of Parliament and their work load in this place should be known to the public. This country has a free press and there is no way in which any of us would seek to muzzle it. As the guardian of the reputation of the House of Commons and its Members, I deprecate what has been said. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), who is present in the Chamber——
Mr. Ron Brown rose——
Mr. Speaker: Do not get up yet, please.
In a debate which I well remember about a year ago, the hon. Gentleman said, if I may paraphrase him, that one could sum up some of the modern press in three short phrases—"Make it brief, make it juicy, make it up."
Mr. James Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the advantage of having the article in question to hand, but I did read it carefully yesterday, and I should like to endorse everything that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said. The article was run under a headline that suggested that we have voted ourselves a four-month break during the summer, and it went on to question the work load of hon. Members. Perhaps we should be interested in the work load of members of the Press Gallery, but that might be mischievous. Just because this House does not sit in the summer months does not mean that our duties end there. I have no doubt that the person who wrote the article would be the first when in trouble to get in touch with his Member of Parliament—if necessary at midnight on Christmas day—to solve his problem.
Mr. David Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you agree that the House of Commons should not be immune from criticism, and that journalists have as much right as anyone else to criticise us? It would be most unfortunate if we ever did anything to stop people criticising us. But is there not an important distinction between informed and uninformed criticism? I am sure that we all disapprove of the sort of trashy criticism that brings the House into disrepute.
Tabloid newspapers are read by a large number of people, and if some people look on the House of Commons with contempt as a result—I hope that they do not—does not that undermine our democratic liberties? This House is the custodian of the democratic liberties of our people, and to the extent that it is brought into disrepute by valueless criticism of this sort, that is unfortunate, to say the least.
It might be useful if we compared the working hours of most Members of Parliament with the working hours of the journalists who have written some of this trashy criticism.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.
The right point to emphasise is the use of information. When an article clearly contains glaring errors and
846
insulting remarks, as described by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), it should be exposed in public, but we should be careful about trying to remove from newspapers their right to be wrong. It is important that we have a free press and that, when newspapers are wrong, people should be able to raise the matter.
That should be the end of it, except for one suggestion that may be outside the rules of the House. Perhaps one of the cameras could be turned for one minute every hour on the Press Gallery, and the resulting photographs printed and made available to Members of Parliament and to the editors in charge of those who report our proceedings.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Dr. Godman: Yes, Sir. I am grateful for your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Do you agree that, at the very least, the editor of the relevant newspaper should send his profuse apologise to Mrs. Janey Buchan, the widow of our late and dear friend, Norman Buchan?
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not defend the inaccuracies in the article, but you may recall that, at one time, the attendance and voting records of Members were published every year in an independent publication, which gave a much better idea of our work load because it covered oral and written questions tabled by Members as well. Do you agree that, although we can criticise inaccuracies, a number of Members of this House do not exactly shed lustre on our proceedings when we are criticised in respect of attendance by holding so many outside interests, many of which they acquired when they came here——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is widening the point of order; we do not want to debate that now.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose——
Mr. Ron Brown rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have mentioned the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith, but I call Mr. Marlow first.
Mr. Marlow: I do not think that we should be over-sensitive or over-precious about this. One of the roles of this House is to seek to sustain the interests of the people of this country, and from time to time we have to take on vested interests and lobbies. So it is not very pleasant if we are seen as being lobbyists on our own behalf, as we seem to be at the moment.
It is certainly true that many hon. Members work as hard and are as dedicated as anyone in the country, but that is not true of everyone in the House. It is fair and proper that the press should criticise. Sometimes that criticism is not as impartial as we should like it to be, but the press is free, and long may it remain so. Let us not be too precious about it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Finally, Mr. Ron Brown.
Mr. Ron Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your paraphrasing of my statement showed what all of us feel—that the press should not make up a story.

847
We are of course open to criticism. It annoys me, however, that a certain tabloid, the Daily Record and the Edinburgh Evening News, recently made up a story that I had forged signatures on an early-day motion. That goes on all the time, even though no such criticisms about me or anyone else have come to your notice. Have I to your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, forged signatures on early-day motions about any issue, sensational or otherwise?
Mr. Speaker: I am certain that that is quite untrue.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take one question from Northern Ireland since we have not yet had a comment from there; then we must move on.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate being called, Mr. Speaker, although I was trying to catch your eye before this matter was raised, but what I have to say is linked with the earlier issue.
I support those who defend the right of the press to be free, but the press should give the whole facts. For example, some of us have abstained in person in votes because we were not prepared to vote for or against some motion, so the voting record has distorted what goes on here.
I regret that the Leader of the House is no longer present but I seek guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, following the right hon. Gentleman's response to my question about the extradition treaty in Europe. He said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would explain the Government's position to us. I was actually asking for a statement in the House so that the House would be given responsibility. We learned about this from the Daily Mail yesterday—that is why I said that this was an associated matter; sometimes the media inform us about things that Ministers do not tell us about in the House—and I am not aware that the Secretary of State for
848
Northern Ireland is responsible for dealing with extradition in Europe. The Minister responsible should come to the House so that we can debate the matter with informed minds.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard that.
I have allowed this matter to go on for some time because it is important that the public know the facts about the House of Commons—the fact that Standing Committees meet at 10.30 in the morning, so we do not sit only in the afternoons; the fact that there are Select Committees, so that the work of Members of Parliament does not go on only in the Chamber; and there is constituency work as well.
We all agree that we must have a free press in this country; we also want a responsible press. What has upset a number of parliamentary colleagues today is the fact that some hon. Members, for reasons that they could not help—in one case, a death and in others, illness—were mentioned adversely in a newspaper report. That draws attention to the fact that journalists should do their homework just as we do.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1991

Representation of the People Act 1991

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991

Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1991

Shard Bridge Act 1991

Adelphi Estate Act 1991

Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991.

Act passed in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949: War Crimes Act 1991.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security (Contributions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.49 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to fill what I believe to be an important gap in the national insurance contributions system as a result of which employers do not pay contributions to the national insurance fund if they pay their employees in cars rather than in cash. As hon. Members will know, the fund is used to finance a wide range of contributory benefits, including retirement pensions and widows' benefits. Its income is generated by levying contributions on employees and their employers and on the self-employed. Under the present law, employers are required to pay contributions on the earnings of all their employees if they are above the lower limit, but earnings are defined in such a way as to exclude payments in kind. This exclusion dates from a time when such payments represented only a very small proportion of people's earnings.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend, very interestingly, has indicated that the national insurance fund is a specific bucket of money to be spent in various areas of Government policy. We are aware of proposals that employees' contributions should go right up the range. If that were to happen, would not national insurance become exactly the same as income tax? It is suggested, in addition, that some people should have to pay 10 per cent. extra in income tax. That, together with the payment of 9 per cent. right up the range, would mean that the managers of the country would be faced with a marginal tax rate increase of about 50 per cent. In those circumstances, as night follows day, every handbag and wallet in the country would be mugged by people seeking this extra money.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure the Minister recognises that this is a comparatively narrow Bill and that we cannot debate the whole range of things that have just been raised.
  Mr. Scott: I certainly accept your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not, in any case, have responded in detail to my hon. Friend, although I understand his impatience and his inclination to draw attention to some of the nonsense being suggested by the Opposition in the run-up to the election. In due course, there will be opportunities to tackle these matters.
  The situation that the Bill seeks to address dates from a time when payments in kind of this sort represented only a very small proportion of people's earnings. They were generally made on an irregular and infrequent basis and often consisted of goods that were difficult, if not impossible, to value accurately. The situation today is very different. A large number of employers choose to offer their employees a total package of remuneration, which includes substantial non-cash items.
  850
  The commonest and largest such item is the company car. One has only to look at the advertisements in the appointments sections of the national newspapers to see how common that is these days. We estimate that, this year, more than 2 million employees will receive, as part of the remuneration package, the benefit of having a company car. This represents a doubling of the number of company cars since 1985–86. Company cars have become a normal and accepted part of people's earnings. I cannot believe, in those circumstances, that it is right that this form of payment should lie outside the national insurance system. Perhaps I may advance an additional, tangential argument by saying that nor can it be right, given the impact of motoring on the environment, that there should, in a sense, be a built-in encouragement for people to be paid in terms of cars rather than cash.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My right hon. Friend said that one purpose of the national insurance fund is to make provision for such benefits as retirement pensions. If employers are now to pay national insurance contributions in respect of staff motor cars, will the employees get some additional state benefits by way of extra pension?
  Mr. Scott: That is certainly not the case. There are certain demands on the national insurance fund. A certain percentage is guaranteed to the national health service. The fund also pays for other contributory benefits. Obviously we, as well as the Government Actuary, monitor the state of the fund, but there is no essential link between the benefits that are paid and the contributions that are received. From year to year, a judgment is made as to contributions and payments. There is no automaticity.
  Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the number of cars provided by companies for the use of their employees. Does he agree that a vast number of those employees simply must have a company car? I think, for instance, of electricians, washing machine servicers and representatives of confectionery companies. If such a person has a car, it is not part of his remuneration package. The car is needed as a tool of the trade, just as a secretary needs a word processor or a telephone. Surely it is unrealistic to suggest that employers should be especially burdened in this way for providing their employees with the tools to do the job for which they are paid.
  Mr. Scott: I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend, but will give more detail later in my speech. There is a range of provision for company cars. Some cars are, in effect, a perk; some are essentially a tool of the trade, in the sense that they are necessary to the job; in the middle, there is a mixture of business and private use, which varies very considerably. I hope that later I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members that the changes that we are making reflect those different uses. If a motor vehicle of one sort or another is used entirely for business purposes it will be outside the scope of this legislation. My hon. Friend referred to such vehicles as being tools of the trade, but where a vehicle is used to a significant extent for private purposes, a halved-scale rate payment will be expected to comply with these provisions. Any vehicle that is used entirely for business purposes will not be covered.
  Mr. James Couchman: Will the Exchequer make such national insurance contributions in respect of the private use made of ministerial cars—for example, on journeys between home and place of work?
  Mr. Scott: Ministerial cars, and, indeed, cars used by some other hon. and right hon. Members, are provided from a Government pool as required. They are not allocated to individuals.
  Mr. Couchman: Ah!
  Mr. Scott: Having been a Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend will know that there are very strict rules about the use to which ministerial vehicles may be put.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Another story for the Today newspaper.
  Mr. Scott: They are no different from the rules applied by Governments of all parties since the war.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I thank the Minister for his characteristic courtesy in giving way.
  Can he confirm that the implementation of this legislation will not result in an extra workload on the staff in Department of Social Security offices? In Greenock and Port Glasgow, there is great concern about the slowness with which local offices deal with claims—in particular, claims for backdated benefits. I assure the Minister that this matter concerns people in my constituency.
  Mr. Scott: If I may turn the tables on the hon. Gentleman, I should say that I admire his characteristic ingenuity. There is a total distinction between the new Benefits Agency, which I expect to improve the delivery of services to the constituents of all hon. Members, and the Contributions Agency, which will be responsible for the collection of national insurance contributions. There again, my right hon. Friend and my colleagues in the Department expect to see improved performance in the collection of national insurance contributions from employers, the self-employed and so on in coming years. So there will certainly be no impact at all on the service, which we aim to improve, in the local offices of the Benefits Agency.
  Returning to my main theme, I do not believe that it is right that the rules should continue to operate in such a way that employers find it financially more attractive to pay their employees with cars rather than with cash. The Bill that I am urging the House to support today aims to correct this imbalance in our present legislation by requiring employers to pay national insurance contributions on cars and free fuel.
  Individual employees who are provided with company cars and fuel are at present required to pay income tax on the benefit which they derive from free private motoring. The value of this benefit is assessed using a set of scale charges devised by the Inland Revenue to reflect the costs of owning and running a motor vehicle. We propose that the same scale charge rules shall be used to determine an employer's contribution liability. As with the Inland Revenue scheme, employers will face no contribution payments if a company car is provided purely for business purposes and there is no private mileage. Similarly, there will be reductions in contribution liability where business mileage is high. I believe that to be right. It is a way of
  852
  recognising, within this pattern of provision, that for some employees a car is essential to the performance of their duties, whereas for others—those who do very little business travel—the car is provided solely or largely for the employees' private use.
  As the House will know, there is a liability on both employers and employees to pay class 1 contributions. Nevertheless, we have decided—I hope that I can carry the House with me on this—that employees will not be liable to pay contributions in respect of company cars and free fuel. They already pay tax on that use.
  There is a variety of practical reasons why we have decided not to impose national insurance contributions on those people. First, more than half all employees who have a company car are above the upper earnings limit for contributions. Secondly, employees are already required to pay tax and the imbalance in the tax and contributions rules for them is not so manifest as it is for employers. Finally, the rules for assessing primary contributions make it very difficult to integrate the new system with the existing national insurance contribution arrangements so as to produce a workable system for collecting the new contributions from employees. We believe that the additional complications for employers would be out of all proportion to the extra revenue raised and we therefore intend that employees should be excluded from any new liability.
  I turn now to the practical arrangements that we intend to make for the collection of the new contributions. In devising these arrangements we have paid careful attention to the need to produce a scheme which employers can operate with the minimum of extra work. We have therefore decided to stick very closely to existing Inland Revenue rules with which employers are already familiar. Accordingly, the Bill will impose a contribution liability in respect of those employees provided with cars only where a scale charge would apply for tax purposes. Broadly speaking, these are company directors and employees earning more than £8,500 a year, including benefits in kind. The substantial advantage of this approach is that employers are already required to report annually to the Inland Revenue the details of such cars and we see no reason why they should face any particular difficulty in combining that reporting process with the assessment of contribution liability under the terms of this Bill.
  The annual reporting takes place at the end of each tax year and forms detailing the cars and petrol provided during the previous year have to be sent to the Inland Revenue by 19 June. Under our proposals employers will use the same information, together with guidance which my Department will provide, to assess their contribution liability. The sums due can then be paid to the Inland Revenue as part of the normal PAYE national insurance return. The only other task employers will have to undertake is the inclusion of the contributions paid, in the normal way, in their wages records and end-of-year documentation.
  The Bill will enable us to make regulations to determine those arrangements. However, before drafting the regulations, laying them before the House and setting out the practical arrangements for collection, we have invited employers' representatives to comment on the scheme that we have in mind. We will listen very carefully to their views and take them into account before settling the final details. We have time to do that because, although the Bill

  853
  introduces the new contributions from the beginning of the present tax year, they will not be assessed or collected until 1992–93—in essence, in June 1992.
  I know that some employers have expressed to us and in the press, to some extent, concern about the need for additional record-keeping. I do not believe that such concern is well founded. As I have explained, details of company cars already have to be provided to the Inland Revenue each year. Only a small amount of additional information will be needed to calculate the appropriate contribution charge. If, for example, the employer intends to claim one of the discounts for high mileage, he will have to satisfy himself that the car was used for more than 2,500 or more than 18,000 business miles during the course of the year. I do not believe that that will represent an insuperable problem.
  We believe that in the majority of cases the information will already be available from the employers' records. First, it will be generally clear from the nature of the employee's job whether a discount for business use over 2,500 or 18,000 miles a year is appropriate. Secondly, the employer will be able to check details of business mileage with his employees. Finally, since the employer will be meeting the costs of petrol used for business mileage and may be keeping records for VAT purposes, further information will be available. So I do not believe that this will put any substantial extra burden on employers. There will be no requirement to maintain comprehensive business mileage records in every case and, generally speaking, we shall be adopting precisely the same approach to this as the Inland Revenue does at the moment in assessing individual liability; and after consulting employers, we shall be providing them with detailed guidance about what information will be required to comply with the requirements of the system.
  To ensure that the system is operated correctly, we shall not be giving discounts to employers who at the time that the contributions are due do not know, or cannot say, which business mileage band is appropriate. I believe that that is a sensible protection for the fund. Subsequent adjustments will be possible if the wrong, or insufficient, information was used in the first calculation. In the event of disputes, employers will have access to the existing departmental machinery which at present determines the outcome of contribution problems.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend saying that any disputes should be settled by the Department of Social Security and not by the Inland Revenue? If the details have to go to the Inland Revenue, can he assure us that disputes will be dealt with by the excellent set-up in his Department?
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend is, of course, very familiar with that system, and we will use exactly the same machinery as we use at the moment to settle contributions disputes.
  In essence, we are looking to have here a system of self-assessment, with checks undertaken, in the normal way, by national insurance inspectors, who will obviously want to be sure that employers understand and operate the rules correctly.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Before my right hon. Friend continues, I want to ask him about the payments.
  854
  Is not it the case that most national insurance contributions at the moment are collected monthly with PAYE? How much is collected after the end of the national insurance year at the moment, because, as I understand it, in June 1992, £550 million will be due in one lump sum from employers and there are no interest penalties for late payment? How will the Department ensure that the money is paid over on time?
  Mr. Scott: Under the Inland Revenue scheme, the money has to be paid by 19 June following the end of the tax year. Those would be our arrangements for any money that had not been paid in the course of ordinary monthly payments. Anything outstanding would have to be paid by 19 June following the end of the tax year. We shall follow the existing arrangements closely. It must be for the convenience of employers that, in establishing the contribution rules, we follow the Inland Revenue as closely as possible. Employers who are familiar with what happens with the Inland Revenue can lock easily into our provisions for national insurance contributions.
  I turn now to the individual provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 amends existing legislation and specifies the circumstances in which the new contributions are payable and who will be liable to pay them. It also defines the amount on which the contributions will be calculated and the percentage rate at which they will be charged.
  Subsections (1) to (4) introduce the new contribution which is to be called "class 1A". The provisions of subsection (5) form the basis of how the contributions will be calculated and who should pay them. The value of employer-provided cars and fuel will be determined, as I explained earlier, by reference to the income tax rules given in sections 157 and 158 and in schedule 6 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
  The liability for the new contribution will arise where an amount is chargeable under tax rules for the employment in question and where that employment is employment for which national insurance contributions would be due. The effect of that is to exclude from the new contributions any employee earning less than £8,500 a year, including benefits in kind. Having established the basis of the liability, subsection (5) then identifies the secondary contributor—generally the employer, but not exclusively so—as the person who pays the new contribution.
  The Bill deals next with the amount on which the contribution is to be calculated. That is determined by using income tax rules on scale charges for cars and fuel. Subsection (5), therefore, provides for the appropriate discounts and premiums, as well as excluding any case in which the car is not made available for private use or in which fuel is available for business travel. Having established the cash equivalent of the benefit of a car or fuel in that way, the amount of the contribution is calculated at the percentage rate set for the main employers' rate, currently 10·4 per cent. Subsection (5) also makes provision for employers who, because they have insufficient information, are unable to determine the relevant cash equivalent of the benefit of the car or fuel. The Bill provides that, unless the employer has information to the contrary, the cash equivalent is set at the highest relevant level. That will ensure that the discounts for high business mileage are available only to employers who can show that the appropriate conditions are satisfied.

  855
  Further provision is made to allow for this part of the legislation to be amended by regulation following any alteration to the main provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Any such alteration is most likely to be brought about by means of a Finance Act and the regulatory power in the Bill therefore avoids the need for additional primary legislation to follow any changes in a Finance Act. The power is limited to such amendment as is necessary or expedient.
  Subsection (5) includes a regulation-making power to except persons from liability in prescribed circumstances or to reduce the class 1A contributions due. That power will be exercised only in very limited circumstances. Its purpose is to make special provision for the employers of those taxpayers who benefit from extra-statutory concessions currently made by the Inland Revenue. Broadly there are two such concessions. The first—I say this wearing my secondary, but in many ways more important, hat as Minister for Disabled People—allows disabled drivers to count their home-to-office travel as business mileage. The second grants exemptions from liability in certain circumstances in which a car is made available for use by a member of an employee's or a director's family. Once again, our aim is to ensure that our provisions follow as closely as possible those of the Inland Revenue. Our legal advice is that, under social security law, that can be achieved only by regulations.
  Clause 2 extends the current arrangements for the collection of national insurance contributions to the new class 1A contributions. It includes provision for deciding who should pay the charge when employers share the cost of a car, allows for refunds in cases in which the contribution has been overpaid and provides a regulation-making power in respect of record keeping. That parallels existing provisions for class 1 contributions and will include, for example, the need for a record of contributions to be kept on deduction working sheets. The penalty provisions that exist in respect of other class 1 contributions have been extended to class 1A contributions and clause 2 also provides that previous non-payment of contributions can be declared before a court in cases in which legal proceedings are necessary to recover class 1A contributions.
  The remaining four clauses, the House will be glad to hear, require only a brief explanation. Clause 3 extends the existing adjudicative system so that, where there is a dispute over class 1A contributions, employers will he able to apply to the Secretary of State for resolution of the question. Clause 4 provides that, as for all other contributions, a specified percentage of the new contributions shall be allocated to the national health service. That will make over an estimated £50 million to the NHS from the new contributions. Clause 5 contains provision for Northern Ireland. Finally, clause 6 contains consequential provisions and provides for the Act to have effect from 6 April 1991.
  I have said that the purpose of the Bill is to put right an anomaly in the national insurance system which has arisen because of changing practices in employment remuneration. As a result of the Bill, employers will no longer find it so attractive from the financial point of view to pay their employees with cars rather than cash. The scale charge rules will ensure that contributions are levied on a valuation of cars and fuel which is easily understood and calculated. In 1992–93, we expect the new charge to
  856
  generate some £550 million in respect of company cars and a further £60 million in respect of fuel. In terms of overall labour costs, that amounts to about 0·2 per cent.
  The charges will be spread among some 300,000 employers, so the additional financial burden should not be exaggerated. Instead, the provisions of the Bill should be seen in the context of the Chancellor's overall Budget judgment, which was good for business. Other Budget measures provide significant improvements, worth £750 million in 1991–92, for business. As now, employers will have a choice of whether they want to provide cars for their employees' private use. If they do, they will now quite properly face a contribution liability in just the same way as if they had paid their employees in cash. I believe that the provisions are long overdue and I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I am pleased to open a debate on behalf of my party for the first time. It is a unique occasion for me and may be rapidly followed by another unique occasion when I say that there is little in the Bill with which I can find fault. As the Government approach their dying days, they seem to be adopting more and more Labour party policies, so this may not be a unique occasion. I shall welcome the occasions on which I am at the Dispatch Box and can concur with most of what the Government say.
  The Bill is essentially part of the Budget and its provisions might sit more easily in the Finance Bill. I am pleased to take this chance to thank my eminent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), for nursing me not only through the provisions of the Bill, but through the Finance Bill last year. That was quite an experience for someone like myself.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Now we know who writes the hon. Gentleman's speeches.
  Mr. Allen: Indeed.
  I must admit to some surprise that changing the regulations on company cars requires a social security Bill, although my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will know that I am very much in favour of the budgetary process being opened up not only to include departmental Budget Bills, but to involve the departmental Select Committees of the House and outside organisations at the pre-Budget stage rather than having the wham, bam, thank you ma'am Budget speech that passes for the Budget process at the moment. A more protracted and intimate relationship between the Executive and the legislature is possible and essential in a modern democracy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor, is committed to considering improvements to the budgetary process. He is in the enviable position that almost anything that he ultimately proposes must be an improvement on the current arbitrary, truncated and secretive process.
  The Bill relates to national insurance contributions to be paid by employers for the first time in respect of company cars and fuel made available for private use. Most people outside this place will know that in shorthand as the company car perk. Coming new to these matters, it was explained to me that, at its simplest, a company car is

  857
  deemed to add an amount to an individual's income which is liable for tax. The controversy has always arisen over the size of that amount. Seeing certain hon. Members in the Chamber today, no doubt further controversy may arise about the actual amount that should be added to the income and be liable for tax. It has been and remains considerably cheaper for an employer to provide £100-worth of benefits in kind than to provide £100 in cash as net income.
  The most popular benefit-in-kind device is the company car. I understand that company cars account for 80 per cent. of all benefits in kind. That accounts for the importance of the company car and explains why the Government are taking on that benefit in kind before any others. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering the matter seriously.
  There can be little doubt that the company car as a device for avoiding fair tax is destined to diminish in popularity whetever party is in government. The tax regime in the United Kingdom has favoured payment in cars rather than in cash. Despite Government attempts to move to a fairer system, some further evolution may still be necessary, as the Investors' Chronicle survey of executive cars reported last year after the previous Chancellor's bite at the issue. The Investors' Chronicle stated that that earlier attempt brought "a sigh of relief".
  "It could have been so much worse. Business had braced itself for a much higher rise, especially in respect of the 'perk' car which covers a small annual mileage. A rise of 50 per cent. in the scale benefit taxation and banding of Vehicle Excise Duty to penalise large cars had been forecast."
  That report concluded on the rather weary note that future Chancellors would perhaps return to those issues and ensure that there was an equal balance between payment in kind and taxation.
  In spite of the increasing burden of taxation under this Government, the effects of the recession and alleged corporate cost cutting, a recent report from the Monks Partnership revealed continuing and massive use of company cars in the United Kingdom in comparison to our neighbours. For example, in the United Kingdom 96 per cent. of senior financial posts come with a company car, compared with 29 per cent. in France.
  The number of people paying tax on company cars has doubled to 2 million in the past four years according to the Inland Revenue. We appear to be a long way from the balance of advantage shifting towards using personal cars and claiming a mileage allowance for business use which is what some people would like to see. Fewer than 5 per cent. of companies expect to reduce the provision of cars and one quarter of employers intend to expand their fleets. It is still a matter of debate whether the proposals in this Bill have the balance right.
  Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has just quoted most interesting figures about the number of employers who expect to reduce or increase the number of company cars that they provide. When was that survey carried out? Was it carried out before this year's Budget or afterwards? The hon. Gentleman's figures seem to conflict with information that I have read in the newspapers.
  Mr. Allen: The survey was conducted after last year's Budget.
  858
  Britain still tops the European league for company cars because, even after the proposals in this Bill, Britain will still have by far and away the most favourable company car tax regime in the world. The movement on car perks by consecutive Chancellors may owe more to the eye that they are keeping on potential European directives and European average levels of assistance than to the proposal to eliminate market distortions.
  We should be aware of the distorting effect of unfair taxation on the motor industry. There are several eminent representatives of that industry in the Chamber today and they may wish to refer to that point later. Over-concentration on the company car market can weaken its competitiveness overseas. Paying less in tax may encourage companies to accept a slightly higher cost for the vehicles. Higher specifications demanded by company car fleet managers may mean that vehicles are produced to too high a specification to be competitive in certain overseas markets.
  Mr. Thompson, the vice chairman of the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, said:
  "the corporate sector had tolerated such price increases and there is no sensible mechanism for controlling prices."
  That may be part of the explanation why car prices in the United Kingdom are higher than in most parts of Europe. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report referred to in last week's Financial Times showed that some pre-tax car prices in the United Kingdom are more than 50 per cent. higher than in other European markets.
  Business buyers account for an estimated 65 to 70 per cent. of new car sales in the United Kingdom. The Financial Times stated recently that partly as a result of that
  "Manufacturers had felt able to impose price increases more readily than elsewhere."
  When purchasing abroad is made easier after 1992, United Kingdom car makers may regret the price cushion that has distorted the company car market.
  Another reason to tax company cars fairly was referred to by the Minister. They should be so taxed because of their adverse environmental consequences. According to a wide range of studies, company cars are used more, driven further and are larger than private cars. They are driven faster, and their drivers have more accidents, take more risks and drink more alcohol than the drivers of private cars. In addition, since 1988 free parking at work has been exempt from tax and national insurance contributions, adding a further incentive to bring cars to work and create congestion.
  The National Economic Development Council has estimated that 90 per cent. of cars entering central London between 7 am and 1 pm are subsidised by companies. A study of free parking at work was recently carried out for the NEDC by Transport and Environmental Studies—or TEST. It was found that free parking is a more widespread perk than company cars and most motorists driving to work have their parking costs paid for. The TEST report proposed taxing company-provided parking spaces at a rate equivalent to their rateable or market values. TEST estimated the value of that perk as £2,000 a year for a space in the City of London and £300 a year in Swindon. I understand that the Treasury estimates are £1,500 and £500 respectively. Free parking has been estimated by Earth Resources research for Greenpeace to result in a £408 million revenue loss, comprising £288 million in tax,

  859
  £30 million in employees' national insurance contributions and £90 million in employers' national insurance contributions.
  It should be noted that the exemption of tax and national insurance contributions on parking at work was introduced only in the 1988 Budget on the ground that calculations of its value were too complicated. Of course, since then the revaluation of business premises with the introduction of the uniform business rate has made valuation potentially easier.
  The other main unresolved issue about company cars is evasion. There is some evidence that evasion is considerable and that much business use of cars is simply not declared There are considerable discrepancies between Inland Revenue figures for those declaring company cars and Department of Transport registration figures. Earth Resources estimate that as many as half those using company cars may not be paying their Full tax on them. There can be no question but that hidden subsidies to the car are detrimental not least to the taxpayer but to other transport users or providers such as the railways and other more environmentally friendly means of transportation. Greenpeace estimates that the company car subsidy costs £150 per household, or £3·4 billion, to the nation. Government funding for all forms of public transport is lower than the subsidy for company cars and investment in road transport.
  A difficult matter that has been touched on by hon. Members is that the bona fide company car user is in a different category from highly paid executives who have a company car almost exclusively, as the Minister said, as an executive perk. That is a peculiarly British institution. The Investors' Chronicle put its finger on the issue when it said:
  "Only the naive believe that companies provide employees with cars merely to allow them to perform their duties properly. User-choices perceive their cars as a reflection of their status."
  Indeed, 70,000 individuals have two or more company cars. Of those earning over £35,000 a year, a staggering 73 per cent. have a company car.
  There appears to be consensus that the present tax regime penalises the high business mileage user but is overly generous to high status and low business mileage users. Even after the passage of the Bill, future Governments will need to rethink their policy and relate the level of taxation more closely to business mileage. One aim could be to ensure that the high business mileage driver can be better off with a mileage allowance on his or her own car rather than a company car. Placing national insurance contributions on company cars is a long-overdue rectification of an unfair anomaly in our tax system.
  Mr. Couchman: Is the hon. Gentleman under the impression that national insurance contributions are not presently leviable on the use of a company car for private use?
  Mr. Allen: That is not my impression at all.
  Future Governments may also regard it useful to have established the first significant precedent of levying national insurance contributions on fringe benefits, although since May 1988 national insurance contributions have been levied on gilts, but I do not regard that as a particularly significant precedent.
  Mr. Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way yet again?
  Mr. Allen: If I may be allowed to continue the rest of my speech——
  Mr. Couchman: I should like to put it right.
  Mr. Allen: I have been very generous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman will seek to make his own speech shortly.
  A further serious problem that has arisen concerns value added tax. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider the problem. I presume that the Government are seeking to encourage the payment of cash rather than kind or smaller cars plus cash rather than large cars. However, it now appears that VAT could become payable by an employer when cars are retained in preference to cash in lieu of cars or when a small car plus cash payment is made instead of a large car. I do not expect the Minister to spring to the Dispatch Box to answer that point—it is rather complicated. It could be possible for one arm of the Treasury, VAT collectors and Customs and Excise, to undermine the policy direction that is evident in the Bill by levying VAT, and prevent people from switching to cash payments or smaller cars. I should be grateful if the Minister would discuss that matter in the Department to see whether that is the case.
  The answer to a recent parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East on 30 April showed that the Budget changes will raise an extra £550 million in respect of cars and £60 million in respect of fuel. That was reaffirmed by the Minister. However, those yields will be reduced by £200 million due to employers claiming corporation tax or income tax relief on their payments. That additional income for the national insurance fund is most welcome, not least because the fund is still carrying the immense and unnecessary burden of the £6·7 billion bribe to encourage individuals to take out private pension plans.
  The measure is a small contribution, but it is welcome. For that reason if for no other reason, we generally welcome the Bill.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I begin by declaring an interest. Since 1964, I have driven a company car. I have been allowed to use it for my private use. As chairman of my own family company, I drive an opulent Vauxhall Astra GL. I am concerned that the difference between the perk car and the workhouse car is inadequately differentiated by the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) seems to be unaware that, since 1975, national insurance contributions have been leviable on fuel provided by an employer for private use.
  I declare a further interest. Recently, my small company had a pay-as-you-earn audit. One of the few things that the inspector picked up was the fact that we were not paying national insurance contributions on private fuel. However, he admitted that until 1989, when the so-called green book was issued, the fact that a sum was leviable on the private use of fuel supplied by an employer was a dark secret known not even to PAYE audit inspectors. That is extraordinary. The inspector concerned actually wants to go back six closed years. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that we are contesting that.
  The matter has been peculiarly badly handled by the Department of Social Security, and it is a great sadness to

  861
  me, having served that Department for several years, that I am in conflict with it on this matter. The matter has not been clear to employers or employees. What is more, the impost that my right hon. Friend is being asked to make is to balance this year's Budget. Let us be under no illusions. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State answered our hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) in an evasive manner when our hon. Friend asked where contributions would reflect in benefits from the Department of Social Security—contributory benefits, presumably. That point was not answered.
  When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if we could be told where that substantial sum of £0·–5 billion will manifest itself in benefits for employees. It is interesting to note that the £0·75 billion of benefits in this year's Budget, which are apparently good for business, are shaded by the clawback under the impost. We are talking about the national insurance fund because the money that is raised by the contributions will go into that fund. Can we be sure that that fact will be reflected in the benefits to employees, and that it will not be clawed back by the Treasury to balance this year's budget?
  I am also worried about what the provisions will do to the British car industry. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will wish to make his own contribution on that score, because I know that he will be worried by the fact that the British motor industry will certainly not benefit from any diminution in the provision of company cars. From the newspapers that I have read in the past few days, I understand that companies are now preparing to buy themselves out of the provision of motor cars by providing large additional salaries. I have read the figure of as much as £10,000 per year. Clearly, that would be for a more opulent car than my Vauxhall Astra, but the principle is clear.
  As I have said, I wonder about the damage that that will do to the British motor industry because if we buy our cars ourselves, we tend to go abroad for them rather than buy from the home market. That is because of the perceived benefits of other-than-British motor cars. As the big fleets comprise largely British motor cars, any diminution in the provision of company cars by employers will damage the British motor industry.
  The other thing that I should like to make clear——
  Mr. Tim Smith: Before my hon. Friend gets on to the other thing, does he not agree that it is an appalling indictment of the British motor car industry that, apparently, it is sustained at the moment only by company car fleets, and that, if individuals had a choice, they would go abroad for their motor cars?
  Mr. Roger King rose——
  Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, to which I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield wishes to reply.
  Mr. King: The point is not that the private buyer is disillusioned with the quality of the British-built product; it is that, if the private buyers want to drive something that is more original and a little different, as opposed to something that can be seen in the average driveways of the
  862
  kingdom, such as Cavaliers, Montegos and Sierras, that buyer might be tempted to buy something from an overseas manufacturer. But that in no way reflects any inadequacy in the British product.
  Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because my son, who is aged 22 and is car mad, speaks pejoratively of the Cavalier as "the rep's motor" which, indeed, it is; as my hon. Friend has said, many of the big fleets consist of Cavaliers, Sierras and Montegos. That is why I think that the provisions will do considerable damage to the British motor industry.
  I have another brief point to raise—I know that the House will not want to be detained by me for any great length of time on this point. I refer to the concept that, in some magic way, someone on £8,500 is a higher-paid employee. I pay more than that wage in my business to bar staff and it is my understanding that £8,500 is about two thirds of average earnings. One can hardly consider that a representative who earns £8,000 or £9,000 a year and who is on two thirds of average earnings is a higher-paid employee. The impost will hit hard the companies of those who are quite lowly paid.
  I hold no brief whatsoever for the company director who never uses his company-provided car for business and for whom that car is a pure perk. I am happy to see such company directors pay tax on their cars. However—I come back to where I started—the impost will be unfair on the companies of those people who use their company-provided car for their job and who cannot otherwise do that job sensibly or viably.
  Eighteen thousand miles may seem a high mileage, especially to those who do their business in London and the home counties, but I doubt whether those whose business is in rural areas and who have a wide area to cover will regard it as a high mileage. There should be some differential between those people who do their business miles in London and those who do them in rural areas, where miles come easily on to the mileometer.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I have no intention of opposing the Bill, but should like to support some of the comments of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), especially his point about the number of miles travelled for business purposes. That is important to me, coming from a rural part of Scotland and representing a rural constituency. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that matter.
  I start by being slightly pedantic. I do not accuse Social Security Ministers on this point, because I know that they are not masters of their own destiny when it comes to the way in which legislation is put through the House. However, I am puzzled and a bit nervous about such legislation being put through all its stages in one evening. I am doubly worried because, as a result of this matter being part of the Budget provisions, there was not much time to canvass views more widely before the measure was announed in the Budget statement.
  We have had an assurance—I am sure that it will be honoured—that there will be consultations thereafter, but bringing forward such primary legislation on an evening like this and with a low attendance of hon. Members is a casual way of submitting the legislation to the statutory processes. There must be constitutional and legal reasons for it, but I cannot understand why the Bill does not form

  863
  an integral part of the Finance Bill. I have no doubt that hon. Members who serve on the Finance Bill Standing Committee will spend long and happy hours upstairs considering the totality of the Government's financial proposals in the Budget. That would be a much better vehicle for giving this measure the proper consideration that it is due.
  It is a small Bill, and I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that it is a technical Bill which is difficult to understand, but £550 million-worth of national insurance fund contributions are to be raised, with an additional £60 million from fuel. As that is a very big sum of money on any definition, for that reason alone we cannot dismiss the Bill as unimportant.
  I am interested that the financial and explanatory memorandum states that "50 staff years" of additional manpower are involved. The Minister of State skated over this matter—I do not know whether he did so deliberately—but he seemed to think that the extra administrative costs were fairly small beer. I wonder whether that will be the perception of the people who will have to pay the contributions for the new administrative scheme.
  If the Government are to bring in the extra impost, I agree that the Inland Revenue machinery is by far the most efficient and least disruptive way of doing so, but it is not enough to say, "Using the existing systems will make no difference," because I do not think that that is true. There will be a significant increase in bureaucracy, which will fall on the shoulders of the employers, many of whom will be small employers.
  Although the provision of company cars has been abused and, as the hon. Member for Gillingham said, the Government are right to tackle that abuse, there is a world of difference between the tax perk that is now an accustomed part of the stock in trade of the finance directors of big firms where fleets of company cars are used as a form of surrogate remuneration, and the little knitwear companies in my constituency, such as in the town of Hawick, which have only one works van. They use the works van six days a week to take the piecework to the outworkers so that they can knit up pieces of garments and bring them back to the factory for processing and packing. They also use the van at weekends.
  I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and I assume that employees such as district nurses in rural areas will not be affected by the Bill.
  Mr. Couchman: We have also had representations recently from charities that allow cars which are provided to people earning more than £8,500 a year to be used for private mileage, so the Bill will be an impost on charities.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Some employers that are not commercial organisations will be caught under the provisions. I am anxious that we should have a full discussion, and that Ministers provide a complete explanation of the extent of the Bill's effect before we take it further.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham that the Government should reconsider the limit of £8,500. The Bill will have a dire impact on employers and employees of small companies. That figure represents only two thirds of average national earnings. That is not a large sum of money, and I cannot work out why the Government decided to impose a limit at £8,500; the figure cannot have been plucked out of nowhere.
  Mr. Tim Smith: It has always been like that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is news to me. I freely confess my ignorance; I am sure that the Minister will confirm whether what I have said is the case. If it is an established figure in Inland Revenue rules, that is obviously why it was chosen. Has the Department considered the effects that it will have, and have Ministers considered the possibility of making exemptions so that the tax would not affect small businesses and the directors and employees of small companies who earn relatively small salaries, as £8,500 is a small annual income?
  The Minister said that the Bill will affect 2 million cars and 300,000 employees. Do the Government have any idea how that figure is broken down? What is the profile of the average employer or employee that the Bill is designed to catch? If it is big companies and their employees, I would find it easier to allow the Bill to complete its passage. However, if the burden will fall disproportionately on small companies, I would see it from a different perspective.
  Finally, I should like some reassurance. Have the Government considered using engine size as a way of bringing back into control the abuse of company cars? The Minister made a valid point when he said that there are environmental aspects to controlling the use and abuse of company cars.
  Mr. Tim Smith: It depends on the size of the engine.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am perfectly well aware that there is a scale for company cars based on engine size, but the Government have the possibility of making it more advantageous financially for companies to buy smaller cars, so that company directors would run around in 1300 cc Vauxhall Astras. Have the Government considered making smaller cars totally exempt from taxation? In future, all Government Departments will have to look at the tax burden on motoring costs in general.
  The Government are right to end the present anomaly. I am certainly prepared to allow the Bill a Second Reading, but I object to the way in which it is being put through the House in one evening. The Government still have to answer some of the questions about which people will carry the cost of the new impost that the Bill will introduce.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Roger King: I do not welcome the measure, although I well understand the difficulties faced by my right hon. Friend the Minister in presenting the Bill this afternoon. The measure was included in the recent Budget, so it is no surprise that it has surfaced today.
  It is unfortunate at this time in our economic resurgence to place further financial burdens on our motor industry. I do not disagree with the motives behind the claim that the perk that the company car offers a number of working people needs to be tackled. About 10 per cent. of those who have company cars have them simply as a perk. I am concerned that, in tackling the problem in order to raise money—my right hon. Friend explained earlier that the measure was designed to bridge a financial gap in the Budget—it is likely to have some disadvantages that the Government have not thought through thoroughly.
  The problem with the company car was created when we had stop-go wages policies, and employees were

  865
  rewarded with company cars instead of salaries, which were then very heavily taxed. That trend started a process which has grown into the present problem. However, it goes further than that. The United Kingdom is a densely populated country, and our population is scattered throughout our land. We seek to bring employment and opportunity to all regions of the kingdom, and the only way to do that is by means of a system of communications which is available to everyone, and for people to travel freely.
  If we are anxious to create jobs and employment prospects in remote areas, we must enable the equipment needed for that employment to be purchased relatively cheaply and to be readily available. That is why the car has played such a formidable part in bringing employment to the more remote areas of our country. Jobs cannot depend on rail connections, if there are any. Businesses cannot wait for the next bus to turn up. They need components and goods to be supplied when they want them, and people must have the opportunity to make deliveries.
  The necessity for the true company car has been overshadowed by the perk element, which has got out of hand in recent years. In successive Budgets, the Government have raised the tax bands, and that has brought the company car into balance between a perk and an essential business tool. The proposal we are discussing cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be considered in terms of the increase in tax bands that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, plus the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax. A car attracts 27·3 per cent. tax. No other product on sale in the Kingdom is taxed that highly; in Germany, there in only a 14 per cent. tax on cars. The combination of measures that the Government have introduced has exacerbated a problem which may come to the fore during the next few months.
  There is no doubt that the British car industry is enjoying a good time, but I must stress that it is the manufacturing industry—times are far from rosy in the retail sector. About 350 large dealers have gone out of business in the past year. Nevertheless, manufacturers have been able to sustain and even increase production as a result of producing goods which have an enviable record for quality and market acceptability, and they are exporting increasing quantities. We need a strong and healthy home market behind those exports, and we do not have one at the moment. Sales are declining: they are now down to 1·6 million units per year, from a high of 2·3 million in 1989.
  My fear is that the combination of measures introduced in the Budget and in this Bill will further exacerbate that problem. There are signs that the European market and other world markets, which are not untouched by the change in the world economic climate, are tending to dry up, and manufacturers in the United Kingdom will not have a buoyant home market to pick up the shortfall that will result from dwindling imports.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I apologise for not hearing my hon. Friend's opening remarks. Manufacturing industry is now heavily dependent on the export side, especially in the case of General Motors in my constituency, as 80 per cent. of its Vector cars, produced at Luton, are going for export. My hon. Friend is right to point out that that market is very fragile. Because of the
  866
  nature of the country that they are going to—Germany, which has its own problems—those exports could dry up at a stroke. That is why this further blow to the manufacturing industry must be considered by the Government, and I agree with everything that he has said so far. Manufacturing companies could be in a serious position if those exports decline or disappear before the end of the year.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend endorses my argument. The Vauxhall Cavalier is the biggest selling fleet car. Any shortfall in demand from the United Kingdom market will have a substantial effect upon the viability of General Motors' operations in this country. That fact needs to be stressed, because the car industry offers tremendous opportunities. We have few industries which can look forward to a positive expansionist programme in the next 10 years and which can largely overcome our balance of payment difficulties. Some forecasters predict that, by the year 2000, the motor industry alone can bridge the gap in our balance of payments deficit, provided that it has the encouragement it needs to expand and invest.
  One of the reasons that the United Kingdom has proved attractive to incoming investment from companies such as Nissan, Toyota and Honda is that there is a substantial bedrock of sales in the company car sector. Whatever one might think about the evil nature of the company car, it has enabled the United Kingdom market to sell 700,000 cars a year to that sector. It is a lucrative market for manufacturers, and as a consequence it has attracted many overseas companies, which come here and set up plants to cater for it.
  Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend's argument about the company car market is valid. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made much of the fact that 65 per cent. of new car sales are to the company car market. However, I heard the other day that there are 20 million cars on our roads and only 13 per cent. are company-owned, because they are sold off.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend is correct. The average life of a company car is three years. Some are called company cars but are bought by companies such as Hertz and Avis, and have a life of nine months before they go into the used car market. Companies seek to dispose of company cars after three years. The Budget caused a problem within the industry, as companies are tending to replace cars after four years, and it is difficult for the British car industry to bridge that one-year gap.
  It is evident that when employers consider the costs of providing a company car there is a strong temptation for them to buy out that perk—if one can use that expression—and replace it with a higher salary. Perhaps an economist could point out the consequences of that for inflation.
  Also, there is the risk, as has been said, and as research shows, that, if employees are left free to buy their own cars, they will not want to buy a Vauxhall Cavalier or a Sierra—excellent though those products are—but will choose something a little more individual, which will almost certainly be imported either from Japan or from the rest of Europe. That is a fact of life. We do not always want to be like everyone else in the street. We want to express our individuality, so we buy something a little different. In car industry terms, such a product will come from abroad. It

  867
  does not need many people to do that before it has a substantial impact on the United Kingdom car industry, and that would have serious consequences if it were repeated on a grand scale.
  Undoubtedly, the House will see fit to approve the proposals before us, but I feel that it is right to express a few cautionary remarks. I accept that, having been landed this legislation, my hon. Friend the Minister cannot restructure the way in which these new charges will be imposed, but I certainly hope that the Government will see whether they can arrive at a fairer system.
  The distinction between perk car and work car has defied Government for some considerable time. They tend to cover the lot by using some sort of mileage cutoff point, on the assumption that someone who does 18,000 miles a year is driving a works car and that someone who drives less is presumably driving a perk car. That is a crude dividing line, and it is long overdue for overhaul.
  The first impositions made by the Government, taxing company cars and their benefits, were rough and ready and did not have a hard hitting financial impact upon users. That impact has become progressively harder, until it is now arguable whether there are any benefits in having a company car. With the addition of national insurance charges, the balance is definitely tipped against the company car in all respects.
  The Government should redouble their efforts to arrive at a fairer banding system. It does not make any sense for the person who has a Sierra or a Cavalier estate, who perhaps services and maintains products or provides replacement goods for shops in central London and drives only 6,000 or 8,000 miles a year—although he spends a large part of his working life in his car, which is a business tool—to get little discount because he does not do the arbitrary limit of 18,000 miles.
  Mr. Couchman: Is my hon. Friend aware that to do 18,000 miles in London, where the average speed is 12 mph, requires about 30 hours' driving a week, which is near to a working week?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend endorses the point I am making.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Give that sort of driver a van.
  Mr. King: I am sure that some employers consider the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) makes, but few will want to drive, say, a Transit or Sherpa van to deliver some fuses or packaging or cartons of cigarettes or sweets. A van is a large vehicle to use in London and is hardly environmentally acceptable if instead one can use a small car.
  I hope that the Minister will redouble his efforts to draw up a more equitable system of bands. It would be fairer to have a cut-off point of 10,000 miles, with anything over that attracting a 15 per cent. discount; a cut-off of 18,000 miles for a further discount; with a maximum cut-off of 24,000 miles—a very high mileage, which should confirm that it is a genuine company car which should attract an even bigger discount. That would be fair to those who must have a company car as a tool of the trade.
  The subject must be examined from the employee's point of view. I hesitate to suggest that employees do not welcome a company car; sometimes it is not the product or style that they want, but it goes with the job. The job
  868
  usually reflects the advantage of a company car by attracting a somewhat lower salary than one might normally expect. For an employee to have the privilege of a company car standing in his drive, his employer must pay the extra charges, and that represents an enormous and unique imposition. After all, if a secretary has a piece of vital equipment on her desk—say, a word processor—to improve her working performance, neither she nor the company is taxed on the cost of that equipment.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Perhaps my hon. Friend should remind my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that a company car is often an essential tool of business. If we tax everything that looks like a perk—any article that might have a feel of luxury about it that we take home—where do we stop? We must consider the principle involved. [Interruption.] I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that we are not dealing with a laughing or flippant matter, since the retail and manufacturing sectors of the motor industry are reeling from the taxation proposals.
  Along with ridiculous statements that have been made about car phones, the impression has been given that the Government are against the car manufacturing industry, let alone against company cars. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has not taken any notice of some of the naive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend may not have been aware that I had picked up a remark about vans by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Many employees have no choice, because their companies require them to take their cars home, often because they are on call. A plumber or electrician or an employee providing any other service to the community is on call, as is the company car.
  A company based in Birmingham might have a representative in Basingstoke. It is suggested that every night, having finished servicing whatever it is in the Basingstoke area, that employee should take the car back to the works in Birmingham, go home to Basingstoke and repeat the journey the following morning to pick up the vehicle? That is so ludicrous as to be beyond comment. In such a case, the company car is a piece of business equipment and only as a side effect would it be used at the weekend. Indeed, an employee driving a company car doing a high mileage would not want to drive hundreds of miles at the weekend.
  One could make a strong case for an almost total exemption from the type of measure we are debating. As I said, I accept that the measure will receive the approval of the House. Even so, we should examine some of its technicalities. We should examine the structure of the tax banding of company cars. We must consider that in the context of the Finance Bill, and perhaps we shall have an opportunity in due course to do that.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is a doughty fighter for the motor industry. If I represented his constituency, I would have made many of the remarks that he made, and we appreciate the position in which he finds himself. My constituency allows me to take a wider view of the issues, although I probably have a high proportion of company car drivers among my constituents.

  869
  I know from my experience in industry what goes on. There is much status-seeking among company car drivers. I recall getting my first job in industry and my first opportunity to drive a company car. At that time, the large accounting firms did not give company cars to their employees and getting a car was for me an attraction of moving to industry. I was asked what sort of car I would like. I asked how much I could spend. Having been told, I went hunting for a car with all the right knobs; I wanted a GT with power steering and so on.
  Mr. Couchman: Why not?
  Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. From my point of view, it was a reasonable desire because I wanted the best possible car and the best remuneration package. But this debate is not about the interests of individual company employees. It is about how we tax what, in view of what I have said, is clearly a perk.
  Mr. John Carlisle: No.
  Mr. Smith: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The matters which interested me had nothing to do with the economic performance of the company. I was looking for the best deal, and who would not? We should be considering the economic performance of industry. We have heard much in the debate about the difference between perks and the tools of the trade and about vans. Company vans are not subject to this type of taxation. When buying a company van one does not pay car tax. The input VAT is recoverable against the output VAT, unlike the VAT on a car, and no taxation is paid in terms of a benefit in kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield referred to service engineers. They might be better off with company vans, on which tax would not have to be paid. We must concentrate on the fundamentals of the subject.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I imagine that during his business career my hon. Friend has taken clients to lunch, for example, to discuss important business arrangements. Would he suggest that overseas clients should be taken to a restaurant in a van?
  Mr. Smith: I normally use a taxi in such circumstances. I was not aware that service engineers took customers to lunch. But since, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), they spend up to 30 hours a week driving, perhaps that is what they are doing.
  I accept that for some people a company car is essential. We recognise that it is taken home at weekends and is driven on holidays and so on. It would be possible for company employees to emulate Ministers and take cars from a pool. They could travel to work by public transport and use a pool car for their work.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Rubbish.
  Mr. Smith: Companies could make such an arrangement. If Ministers can do it, so can other people.
  The Bill has my full support. It is part of a much wider Budget judgment and the issue that we must consider when discussing the future of the car industry is the same issue as we must consider in relation to the future of every industry.
  The Budget was excellent for business and we must set against the points that my hon. Friend the Member for
  870
  Northfield made the fact that it reduced corporation tax progressively by 2 per cent. My hon. Friend said that Japanese car manufacturers have invested in the United Kingdom because we have a large company car fleet. Although that may have been a consideration, there were far more important considerations such as the fact that we have a good industrial relations record, a low-wage economy and the most attractive corporation tax regime in Europe. It has now been made even more attractive by virtue of the Budget, which cut corporation tax by 2 per cent., benefiting industry by some £830 million in the year when the levy will first be raised.
  In the light of the Budget, the measure is entirely sensible. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who said that it should have been introduced in the Finance Bill. But the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I are representing the other 39 members of the Standing Committee and we should be able to tell them next week what was said in this debate. Although I sympathise with the view of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that it is rather anomalous, it comes about by virtue of the fact that social security benefits and contributions and the whole national insurance system are separate from the income tax system, as they should be.
  I am interested in the new Contributions Agency established on 1 April, which will have the job of collecting £550 million in June next year and in subsequent years. In view of the sum involved, I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee will want to look at the agency's performance. That is why I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North referred to the possibility of evasion and suggested that it could be on a wide scale. If so, the Public Accounts Committee should examine that problem.
  On the general principle, I believe that the Government are right to tax all benefits in kind across the board, so that they are treated, for the purposes of tax and national insurance, as far as possible like cash payments. That seems to be the right philosophical approach. Although the hon. Member for Nottingham, North implied that the measure had come rather late, it would not have been possible to introduce it much earlier because it was only in the 1989 Budget that employers' contributions were extended up the scale and it would have produced relatively little revenue before then. Therefore, the timing is right and, in due course, we may consider extending the levying of employers' national insurance contributions on other benefits in kind; it would be a logical extension. However, company cars are the biggest benefit in kind paid to employees.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred to the current position. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was aware of the fact that a national insurance employer's contribution is already charged on private fuel. It was causing considerable difficulties before this measure was introduced. I wrote to many finance directors last year about tax implications and it was one of the main issues that they raised in their replies. They said, "We hear what you say about income tax, but are you aware of how hellish the Department of Social Security is making life for us by levying national insurance contributions on private fuel?" They said that company employees who pay for their fuel with a plastic card and present the card before they fill up their car with petrol pay no contributions. However, if they fill up their

  871
  car first and hand in their card afterwards, they must pay contributions on the cost of the fuel. That sounds like bad news for those who must keep the books or records. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs, who was in charge of the deregulation unit, and said that he should look at the problem. I suggested that there should be a scale charge. The Bill now introduces a scale charge for fuel as well as for cars and that excellent change will lighten the load on employers.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the fact that there would be 50 extra staff and additional burdens on employers. I wonder how much the charge will create an additional burden on employers, given the fact that it will be levied in the same way as income tax, through the P11 D, and that employers were having such a hard time before in their record keeping. The measure should be relatively simple because the same scale of charges will be applied for both income tax and national insurance. I hope that it will not be too onerous because I am reluctant to impose additional burdens on employers who are already unpaid collectors of tax on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend suggested that the contributions will be levied through the P11D mechanism, which is principally aimed at levying tax on the employee rather than the employer. It is often levied through a diminution in the code number much later than was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his opening remarks. I suspect that the mechanism may prove to be not nearly so simple as we were led to believe earlier in the debate.
  Mr. Smith: I referred specifically to the P11D. The information required to complete the P11D form is the same as is required to pay employers' national insurance contributions on cars and private fuel. I accept that the P11D is a statement to the Inland Revenue about employees' benefits in kind, so perhaps I should not have referred specifically to it. The point that I wished to make was that the information is common to both requirements. Employers will not need to keep much new or additional information because of the Bill. I listened to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on that subject and it did not seem that much additional information would be needed. Perhaps we can return to that important issue later.
  As I was saying, some employers were having a hard time—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may also be having a hard time with his pay-as-you-earn audit—because of the previous arrangements for collecting contributions on private fuel. The scale charge introduced by the Bill is a major improvement.
  For those reasons, the Bill is to be welcomed. Benefits in kind should be taxed in the same way as cash. I recognise the problems of the motor industry, but they can be better tackled in other ways, rather than trying to solve them by looking at the way in which we tax benefits in kind.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I hope that those who have participated in the debate will not think me rude for coming in rather late. I do not normally seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unless I have heard the opening speeches. However, the title of the Bill is
  872
  somewhat misleading. I thought that it must have something to do with social security, and not being a social security expert, I kept away. As soon as I entered the Chamber I realised that a more appropriate title might have been, "Clobber the Motor Industry yet more through Additional Social Security Contributions Bill". It is a silly little Bill—an unworthy little Bill—and is totally inappropriate for a country that is in deep recession with thousands of people being laid off in the motor industry and elsewhere. I believed, perhaps naively, that the Conservative party and the Government were primarily engaged in trying to support and encourage businesses, not in introducing pettifogging little measures that further damage them. I may have been ingenuous, but I also thought that we were not primarily tasked to create additional unproductive jobs in the public sector and not in the business of creating additional quangos such as the Contributions Agency.
  I thought that we were sent to this place by those who elected us to do everything in our power to support British industry and those who work in it. I see nothing in the Bill that will have this effect, but quite a lot that will do considerable damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who is an expert on the motor industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who intervened, spoke from the heart and the head, and with experience.
  I must declare an interest and, in case hon. Members think that it is a matter of special pleading, I shall disabuse them of that notion. I am a director and the chairman of a small marketing consultancy. My own little company is in business to promote, largely overseas, the sale of British equipment. For companies such as mine, and many other small businesses that are primarily engaged in selling, a motor car is absolutely indispensable. I find it incomprehensible that Her Majesty's Government should be putting further imposts on company cars at a time of recession. It is even more surprising that they are using the social security system as a means of doing so.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the arbitrary earnings limit of £8,500 per annum for employees. Many company directors do not even earn that, and their companies will now have to pay national insurance on their company cars, as well as for any fuel used for private purposes. The amount of revenue generated will be relatively small and it would have been infinitely more honest not to use the national insurance fund as a vehicle for bringing more taxation into the Government Exchequer. I believe that national insurance resources fund only about 10 per cent. of pensions and that the rest come out of taxation. If that is so, and we use the national insurance fund as a means of gathering revenue, it would be much more straightforward to abolish it—at least, it would be much more honest.
  Does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State think that the Bill is well drafted? I think that it is a masterpiece of gobbledegook and a fantastic testimonial to the incomprehensible. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to clarify clause 1(6)—if she cannot, the legislation should not be passed. Clause 1(6) states:
  "In calculating for the purpose of subsection (4) above the cash equivalent of the benefit of a car or fuel—(a) the car shall not be treated as being unavailable on a day by virtue of paragraph 22)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for the purposes of section 158(5) of that Act or paragraphs 2(2), 3(2) or 5(2) of that

  873
  Schedule, unless the person liable to pay the contribution has information to show that the condition specified in paragraph 2(2)(b) is satisfied as regards that day".
  My hon. Friend the Under Secretary nods her head wisely. I admire her. But civil servants would be much better employed not producing such nonsense. The motor industry would be much better if it were allowed to get on with its job of satisfying the customer without such an idiotic little Bill.
  We have a serious recession on our hands and it is important to get on and address it, and support the motor industry. I had the honour and privilege of being awarded a parliamentary industrial fellowship with GKN, a major automotive supplier, of which there are countless up and down the land. Any measure passed by the House which has a depressing effect on the automotive industry in general can only be deplored and should be rejected. I shall not bother to vote against it, because almost all Opposition Members have now gone; what they said had little to commend itself to me.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) talked about yet more taxes. There has been an element of obfuscation surrounding the measure. Her Majesty's Government were, at least implicitly, kowtowing to the green lobby by suggesting that imposing such an impost and increasing taxation on company cars would benefit the environment. All that they are doing is to add to the dole queues, which is not worthy of them.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I apologise to the House for not being present at the start of the debate. Like him, I saw the measure on the Order Paper and assumed that it was a social security matter. It was only when I came into the Chamber to hear the debate that I realised the enormous impact that the measure would have on the motor industry.
  I immediately declare a professional interest: I am a non-executive director of a medium-sized motor retailing company. My constituency interest is already known—part of my constituency contains Vauxhall Motors, the largest employer in Luton. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, the company has enjoyed a certain amount of prosperity during the past few years, and has brought back boom times to my constituency town.
  However, I fear that if the Government continue with the various measures proposed in the Budget and other provisions, such as the special car tax, those boom times could well be over, not just for us as a manufacturing town but for many other companies that will be deeply affected by this imposition on the company car.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood that this appears to be a shabby little measure which says more about the politics of envy than the politics of good sense. Frankly, we are more accustomed to hear about such measures from Opposition Members than from Conservative Members. The Government do themselves no credit with this Bill, which stupidly panders to the so-called green lobby and fails to recognise the enormous improvements that the industry has made to reduce noise and air pollution over the years.
  874
  Social security Ministers and their colleagues in the Treasury must understand that the measure will have a devastating impact on the car industry if it means, as I believe it could, that many companies decide that the company car is not for them and, perhaps more important, employees decide that the benefits of a company car do not make it worthwhile to pay the tax. There are about 150 to 200 company cars in my company, which is now considering charging its employees for the use of their cars because of the additional cost of the national insurance. Therefore, employees will be further penalised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield was absolutely right to say that if people do not have company cars, which are generally British, or are given some other financial benefit in kind, they buy foreign cars. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) made a ribald comment about that. However, when a large employer that gave its employees hefty discounts on certain British manufactured cars withdrew that discount and gave money in lieu, nearly every employee bought a foreign car—I shall not name the company.
  The measure is not worthy, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, for various reasons the motor industry is on its knees. The figures for new car sales are dramatic—350 motor retailers have gone out of business in the past 12 months. Every manufacturer is reporting that new car sales are at least 20 per cent. lower. It is only the service industry and, to a certain extent, the contract hire and retail side which are keeping many retailers in business. For the Government to bring forward such a petty little measure is disgraceful. It is viewed with utter dismay by manufacturers and retailers at a time when we should be looking for assistance for them.
  Mr. Roger King: My hon. Friend is the second person to refer to the Bill as a petty little measure. It is not a petty or a little measure: it will raise a large sum of money. That is the problem. If the amount involved were little, we would not worry unduly, but nearly £500 million will come out of the pockets of companies which will have difficulty in replacing it. Something will give. My fear and that of my hon. Friend is that it might be British industry.
  Mr. Carlisle: I thoroughly agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The pettiness is perhaps in the minds of those who conceived the idea.
  The motor industry is crucial to the fortunes of the country. Let no one forget that. The Conservative party has always supported free choice on transport. We have always controlled strictly pollution within the industry. Indeed, the industry has carried us through rough times. We are now in deep recession both inside and outside the industry. The measure will sadden the hearts of our supporters and of people in the industry.
  The Bill should be rejected by the House, but I will not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) by going to get my hon. Friends out of offices and bars to vote against it. That might be even more embarrassing for the Government. However, many of us are deeply upset by the measure. Had we the opportunity, we would vote against it.
  6.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have had an interesting debate, with three main themes, all of which I

  875
  believe to have been ill advised. The first was a misconception, particularly on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that somehow the Bill will cause great financial embarrassment and will have huge economic effects on the car industry.
  We should see the matter in context. The overall labour costs of the industry for this year will be £300 billion. We are talking about a sum of £500 million. We are talking about an increase in cost of 0·2 per cent., whereas labour costs alone, through wage rises, are likely to increase by 7 per cent. to 10 per cent. We have to keep in context the alleged financial effects of the Bill on the car industry.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does not my hon. Friend realise that, at a time of recession, when jobs are being lost in the motor industry, Her Majesty's Government, if they are to act wisely, should eschew any additional impost which would put an extra adverse burden on the motor industry or which would depress demand further? As for small businesses, they will get virtually nothing from the Budget. Those with the lowest profits will get no reduction in corporation tax. The requirement to pay national insurance on company cars is yet another unwelcome, adverse development. My hon. Friend should not be so glib.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend makes the point for me by admitting that in the Budget there is a net gain to the industry through the reduction in corporation tax.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), may I point out that the vast burden will fall on large employers rather than on small employers in relation to company cars as tools of trade.
  Fear has been expressed. most notably and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), about the administrative burden that the provision will place on the motor car industry. In fact, there will be very little administrative burden. There should be a lightening of the burden. He referred to the current arrangements of levying on fuel, which we admit are more complex than we had intended.
  Two themes run through the Bill. The first is to make things easier for employers by replicating exactly the provisions of the Inland Revenue, so that it will already have to hand the information, the system and the calculations. The provisions will replace the complicated administrative system that was required following the overdrive decision to which attention has rightly been drawn. In this instance, the effect will be wholly beneficial.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his first speech on these matters in the House. I regret that I cannot associate myself with his wholesale attack on company car ownership. The purpose of the Bill is not to make life difficult for company car owners but to achieve equity between those who draw their income in cash and those who draw income in substantial benefit through a company car. That is the sole purpose of the Bill. It has no other.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister's last point is fair. The Labour party shares those objectives.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is because there is so much cross-party agreement on the Bill that we can deal with it in one day, a point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.
  876
  The provisions will not be brought into effect tomorrow. There will be a long period of detailed consultation about the administrative aspects of the Bill.
  What we are doing is very fair and straight in regard to taxation. If the car industry was handing the money to its employees in straightforward salary income rather than by company cars, it would have to pay the national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend talks about the car industry giving up the money. The Bill has nothing to do with the car industry. It will affect every employer, whatever his business, be it service or manufacturing, who provides company cars for employees who earn more than £8,500 and who allows them to use the cars privately.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is absolutely true. My reference to the car industry was a slip. It has been so widely discussed in the debate that the two have almost become linked in my mind. My hon. Friend is right: the Bill will affect all employers, and what I have said applies to all employers. Any employer who hands out cash rather than a company car would at present have to pay a national insurance contribution, so there is no reason why he should not pay a contribution on the company car.
  We have also heard that the Bill will have a very bad effect on the entire British car industry because, if people have a choice, they will buy foreign cars. I bought my own car, and I bought British. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) tells me that he bought British. Why is there an assumption that, if people have to buy their own cars, they will buy foreign cars?
  Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend is being unfair. I am afraid that she is speaking from ignorance. It is not an assumption. Those of us who are in the trade could give her figures, if she wanted them, which would prove that those who are handed the money tend to buy foreign cars—for exactly the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has given. If my hon. Friend were sure of her facts, I would believe her, but she is on dangerous ground in talking from a brief that does not have the facts. Sadly, the reality is that people buy foreign cars, not British cars.
  Miss Widdecombe: All I was challenging was the assumption that, if people had to buy their own cars rather than company cars, they would automatically choose foreign cars. There are fleets of foreign cars, and the purchase of such cars is not confined to the private buyer.
  Mr. Wilkinson: If an employer wishes to provide an employee with a car that will be needed for the business, and if that employee has to buy the car out of his after-tax personal income, the employer will have to pay him much more than the cost of providing him with a car to do his job. That is an additional burden, and anything that discourages employers from providing company cars, such as the necessity to pay national insurance on that so-called benefit, is thoroughly adverse and negative.
  Miss Widdecombe rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. May I ask the hon. Lady not to turn her back on the Chair when she replies to her hon. Friend?
  Miss Widdecombe: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I stand corrected, facing the right way round.

  877
  The Bill's main thrust is exactly what my hon. Friend says: by providing a company car instead of salary, thus avoiding liability to national insurance contributions, the employer, and to a lesser extent the employee, will benefit. That is what we are trying to control.
  According to Inland Revenue figures, two thirds of company cars travel more than 2,500 miles per year. That means that tools-of-trade cars, those covering between 2,500 and 18,000 miles per year, make up a large proportion of the total. We are trying to make it easier for those who use their cars as tools of trade to be able validly to do so, as opposed to those who use such cars purely as a perk. Clearly, cars which cover fewer than 2,500 miles a year are being used as perks.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked where the burden would fall most heavily. A director with a new car costing, say, £25,000 who covers fewer than 2,500 business miles a year would have a scale charge for the car of £8,250, and free fuel would be worth £900. The total contribution liability would be £950. A typical sales representative covering more than 18,000 business miles a year in a car costing less than £19,250 and with an engine capacity of less than 1400 cc would have a total liability of only £130. Therefore, there is a marked distinction between the burden falling on those who clearly use their cars for less than business purposes and those who use them a great deal.
  I shall not address the issue which will be debated in Committee but which was mentioned on Second Reading about those who have a small private mileage. The national travel survey shows that those with tools-of-trade cars covering more than 18,000 miles a year have an average private mileage of 8,600 per year. That is substantial. The number of people affected who have a one or two-mile drive home and to work will be minimal. That will be addressed at greater length in Committee.
  The Bill does not seek to clobber the car industry or to make life difficult for employers. The administrative
  878
  burden for them will be a great deal less. The Bill simply seeks to make sure that the same rules apply to those who take their income in cash as to those who take their income in kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood asked whether I understood clause 1(6). It is very simple, and reflects the Inland Revenue rule about the availability of a car for any period of 30 days. If my hon. Friend had gone to the Vote Office and obtained the notes on clauses, he could have informed himself about that and would not have had to ask me.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed, pursuant to Order [3 May].

  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums which—

  (a) under the Social Security Act 1975 are to be taken as paid towards the cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain; or

  (b) under that Act are to be paid out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund in respect of administrative expenses.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

  Social Security (Contributions) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

  CLASS IA CONTRIBUTIONS
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 37, at end insert
  '; provided that if the person liable to pay the contribution can show that in the tax year the use of the car for the earner's business travel amounted to more than 18,000 miles (or such lower figure as is specified in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) and also amounted to more than three quarters of the total use of the car in that year by the earner, or any relative of his (as defined in section 417(4) of that Act), then the cash equivalent of the benefit of the car for that year shall be taken to be £1.'.
  The amendment seeks a modest reform to what has been a little intemperately described by Conservative Members as a pettifogging little measure. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) that it is folly to describe a measure that will bring £500 minion to the Government as pettifogging and little. The extra revenue that the Government hope to gain from the measure will be welcomed by them and by us. The Opposition and the Government do not differ in their objectives on this issue.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and other Conservative Members who are in the Chamber have served on the Finance Bill Committee since 1987. They will know that every year when we debate these matters the Government steadily claw back through income tax the advantage to the company car owner. Labour's pre-Budget representations suggested a further move in that direction, although we did not suggest that it should be done by way of the instrument that the Government have chosen—employers' national insurance contributions. However, that method, although different from the one that we propose, is not objectionable to the Opposition and we would not seek to reverse it.
  Government policy on this issue over the past four years is broadly right and fair, and is necessitated not only by equity, but by the trading relationships that we have to enjoin with our European partners. In time, pressures by them might have become intolerable if the Government had not moved on this issue. I wonder what would have happened if a Labour Government had travelled in the direction in which this Government have travelled in the past four years.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): There is not much difference.
  Mr. Brown: I take that comment as an attack on the hon. Gentleman's own side rather than as a compliment: to me. I am always willing to receive compliments from Conservative Members, provided that they are offered in the right spirit.
  We wish to proceed in the same direction as the Government on this issue, and although we harbour the fear that if we had had to travel this road at the pace which the Government have chosen, which is right, the Government would not have given us the welcome that we are extending to them. If they were in opposition they
  880
  would have ensured that the full anger of the automobile industry lobby was directed at the Labour Government. Instead, the Government have to weather that attack themselves. I hope that that remark was not too unworthy of me, but I must also point out that we have always argued for some exemption for those who must have a company car and who do little personal mileage. This will come as no surprise to the Financial Secretary because my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has made the same point, in the context of income tax rather than national insurance contributions, on the past three Finance Bills.
  I rather agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith): it is slightly discordant that we should discuss these issues in this forum instead of in Committee on the Finance Bill, but I understand the necessity for that and take no great exception to it.
  7 pm
  This year I and, I am sure, other hon. Members have received a parliamentary briefing from the CBI which asks:
  "Are MPs satisfied that there is sufficient distinction made by the Government between cars used as essential tools of the trade and those given as perks?"
  It is clear that some Conservative Members are not satisfied and the purpose of our modest little amendment is to give them some encouragement.
  The amendment is specific; it does not leave it open to the Government to make regulations, containing, as it does, the necessary regulations within it. It deals with people who use company cars exclusively on business, not for purposes about which there may be some argument, and who drive them more than 18,000 miles a year—a fairly high mileage. It seems to us likely that such a person would be sick of the sight of the car after 18,000 miles and would not regard any remaining use of it for personal reasons as much of a pleasure. The Minister touched on that point at the end of Second Reading. However, if such a person does not take that attitude, enjoys the use of the car and does a high mileage in it—the Minister referred to an average of 8,000 miles, a figure with which I have no quarrel—of course the car is a perk and the perk element should rightly be taxed.
  So we set a threshold. We stipulate that in order for the employer not to be taxed on a company car as an employee's perk it should not be used for private reasons for more than a quarter of the total annual mileage. If someone, therefore, has used a car for more than the 18,000 threshold, we say that he should not have used it for personal reasons for more than about 4,000 miles. That is a clear personal-use threshold beyond which a person's employer would enter the charge bracket.
  As the Minister said, a majority may not fall into that category initially, but we think that the pattern might change if the amendment were accepted, and that could be beneficial. People might think again about whether it was advantageous to use a car instead of public transport. They might think again about whether the casual use of the car was really justified. In any event, it is surely right to provide for people who are forced to have a car because of their jobs and who do not enjoy using it much for private purposes.
  I realise that the thrust of the legislation is not particularly directed at employees this year; it is intended more as a disincentive to discourage employers from providing company cars in the first place. But our

  881
  amendment does not deal with that. It covers circumstances when cars must be given and are not much used for private purposes, and when the Government require the clawback.
  I know that there is a scale which the Minister may argue deals with our point, but we think that in the narrow circumstances that we outline—in what is called the "district nurse" case—it would be right to make an exception, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I shall respond briefly, but I hope equally persuasively, and try to dissuade the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) from pressing his amendment. He said that there was no disagreement between us about the main thrust of the Bill. When he spoke of our travelling in the same direction, I was reminded of the late lamented lain Macleod who, referring to Enoch Powell, said, "I travel on the same train but I like to get off before the train hits the buffers." There may be something in that.
  I am somewhat surprised by the amendment, although it was presented with characteristic good humour by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. In the Bill, we seek to ensure that cars doing more than 18,000 miles a year which verge on being tools of the trade but which are used for personal reasons for several thousand miles a year, and which are provided free of charge to a private individual, are covered. I emphasise that if a car is provided exclusively for business purposes and no private mileage is run up on it, no charge will arise; but on reflection, the hon. Gentleman may realise that he is going a bit far by suggesting that cars with mileages of more than 18,000—they could still be used for several thousand private miles provided, in effect, by the employer—should be wholly exempt or should make a peppercorn payment, as suggested by the amendment. That would be wrong.
  We shall of course keep all this under review once the Bill is implemented, but I cannot advise the Committee to support the amendment because it would enable employers to escape contribution liability even though their employees were allowed to use their cars for quite large private mileages. I believe that employers should pay contributions on this sort of mileage just as if they had remunerated their employees in cash. The charge is reduced by 50 per cent. after 18,000 miles, but to reduce it to a peppercorn would be outwith the spirit of the measure, and I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I was rather hoping for some support from Conservative Back Benchers—perhaps one of the more likely places where I might look for support. I admit that this argument is taking place only at the margins, but, given the comments of some Conservative Back Benchers earlier, I thought that the amendment might find some favour with them.
  Having failed to stir up any trouble for the Minister, I suppose that I ought to be grateful for his offer to keep the matter under consideration. This is a new move towards dealing with cars as a perk. This is year one of the approach that the Government are adopting, and I welcome the Minister's promise to return to the matter later if the anomaly with which the amendment deals is shown to be one that needs attention.
  882
  I accept the Minister's remarks in the spirit in which they were made, and in those circumstances I can do no other than beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Tim Smith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has said, this is an extremely complicated clause. It would be helpful if the Minister explained some of its subsections. Subsection (5) inserts into the Social Security Act 1975 new section 4A, subsection (2)(b) of which provides that class 1A contributions are payable by,
  "if no such contribution is payable in relation to a relevant payment of earnings in the tax year, the person who would be liable but for subsection (4)(2)(b) above to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution".
  The notes on clauses say that that refers to a situation in which
  "no payments were due because the earner's earnings were below the lowest earnings limit."
  The suggestion there is that the earnings were very low indeed. In fact, the lower earnings limit is about £43 a week.
  Mr. Scott: It is £52.
  Mr. Smith: Very well, £52. I do not see how the employer of a person earning less than £52 a week would be liable to pay national insurance contributions in respect of a car. Indeed, it would be rather unusual for someone earning such a figure to be provided with a company car. However, those appear to be the circumstances to which this clause refers.
  Subsection (8) of the new section 4A says:
  "A person shall be liable to pay different Class 1A contributions in respect of different earners, different cars and different tax years."
  The notes on clauses say:
  "Subsection (8) provides that a person shall be liable to pay different Class 1A contributions in respect of different earners, different cars and different tax years."
  The notes on clauses simply repeat the contents of the subsection. That is hardly a helpful way of explaining its meaning. In my view, this subsection is redundant. Surely it is obvious that there will be different contributions, depending on how much people earn, the type of cars they have, and the tax year involved. What is the need for the subsection?
  Subsection (9) says:
  "Regulations may provide—

  (a) for persons to be excepted …;

  (b) for reducing Class IA contributions".

  Can my right hon. Friend tell me who will be excepted from the payment of contributions, and in which cases there will be reduced contributions?
  Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who moved the amendment, was elegantly more socialist than the socialists. I should like to refer to the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to a question that I put to her. I asked her to explain in simple language the exact meaning of subsection (6). It has to be remembered that we are passing legislation that must be comprehensible to the ordinary man or woman in the street. Members of the public, unlike Ministers and other Members of Parliament, are not provided with notes on clauses.

  883
  Can my right hon. Friend explain why Her Majesty's Government are relying on the age-old formula whereby employees earning more than £8,500 shall incur liability for their companies to national insurance contributions? This applies also to directors. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, there are directors who earn very small salaries, if any at all. Often, in the case of a small company, a director's salary is a few hundred or a few thousand pounds—certainly less than £8,500. What is the logic in providing that an employee earning less than £8,500 per annum will not incur for his company liability to national insurance contributions on a company car, but that a director, by virtue of his office, shall incur that liability for his company? I know that the argument is a historic one—previous usage and the system for scale charges. That is the precedent to which we are working, but it makes very little sense, particularly as company directors have the full statutory obligations and the responsibility inherent in their office, whereas employees have not. In my view, there should be some mitigation.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I did not intend to take part in this debate, but it occurs to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is quite right to point out that some directors who have company cars may not reach the lower threshold for class 1 contributions. That may well be the answer to the first query of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). What is the position of directors of companies limited by guarantee? Many charities are in that category. What imposition will there be on their directors, particularly if their salaries are below £8,500?
  Mr. Scott: I shall seek to address the detailed, but important, points that have been raised.
  This is a complicated Bill, but, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has said, we shall conduct wide consultations with employers to ensure that the guidance issued clarifies the whole situation to the greatest possible extent. The figure of £8,500 was chosen for the threshold because it is the same as the Inland Revenue's figure. We are anxious to make sure that the procedures for the collection of these charges are related as closely as possible to those used by the Inland Revenue authorities, so that there will be no further complications for employers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) raised the question of the £8,500 limit. That figure includes not just earnings but any benefits in kind. There has been mention of the position of directors. It would be possible for someone in control of a company so to manipulate the balance of his salary against benefits in kind as to evade proper charges. In this regard, what we propose is realistic and sensible. Full-time working directors, or directors of charities or other such bodies or officers of committees of unincorporated bodies or non-profit-making concerns who are treated as directors will be excluded from the scale charges where they have no
  884
  personal stake in the operation of the enterprise or organisation. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
  In respect of subsection (8), I reiterate that we are anxious to ensure that our arrangements are in most cases identical to those of the Inland Revenue authorities. That is why subsection (8) is there.
  The concessions in subsection (9) reflect the extra statutory concessions provided by the Inland Revenue. We are not able to do that on an extra-statutory basis; we are advised that we have to do it by regulation. That is why we are replicating in the regulations that will flow from the Bill the extra-statutory concessions that are provided by the Inland Revenue. Thus, an employee provided with a second car for a family member, typically his or her spouse, faces two scale charges, and the second is increased by 50 per cent. But there are concessions where the family member is also an employee of the company. The rules are fairly complicated and, if it would help, I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and perhaps place a copy of my reply in the Library, because it is a rather convoluted argument to carry through. This is widely practised by the Inland Revenue and, I think, broadly accepted as a fair practice. I will make sure that those who are interested are made aware of the details.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Scott.]
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I hope that Ministers have noted the generous co-operation that has been extended on this measure. I hope that that co-operation will be reciprocated and that a large number of Bills will be dealt with similarly when a Labour Government comes to power. I am sure that that opportunity will arise very shortly. I am thinking in particular of uprating provisions for pensions and child benefit, which I hope will be among the first items placed before the House.
  This Bill seeks to redress the imbalance between national insurance contributions on pay and national insurance contributions on the company car, a payment in kind. It is a matter which will require further review and examination by the incoming Labour Government. We will not oppose the measure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Kim Howells be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. John Battle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Rivers (Hampshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting my subject of Hampshire's rivers for the Adjournment debate this evening.
  The "compleat angler" can fish all the year round; for someone, somewhere, fish are always in season. But on the chalk streams of Hampshire, it is the coming of mid-May and the hatching of the mayfly that herald the halcyon days ahead. So May is a most appropriate month in which to debate this subject.
  Of all the chalk rivers in Hampshire, and probably in the south of England, the Test has long been queen. I am fortunate in having in my constituency its lower reaches, where the salmon join—or perhaps I should say used to join—the trout. Upstream is Stockbridge, the capital of chalk stream dry-fly fishing, mecca for fishermen and headquarters of the famous Houghton club. It should all be a scene of tranquillity, beauty and fishermen's yarns. Instead, the Houghton club is at present ahum with tales that would make Frederick Halford, the father of dry fly fishing, turn in his grave.
  One hundred years ago, Halford published his "Dry-fly Fishing in Theory and Practice", in which he said:
  "Of all circumstances most usually credited with exercising an influence over an angler's sport, the state of the weather is the predominant one."
  We certainly have to thank the weather for having brought to a head the problems and anxieties that have been besetting Hampshire's rivers and fishermen for the last few years. Three unusually dry years, 1988–90, and in particular the March to December period in 1990, which may have been unequalled for dryness since 1921, have literally caused rivers to disappear.
  Of the many rivers in Hampshire, it is the chalk streams, the Test, lichen and Meon, that most vividly illustrate the problems. The Meon in east Hampshire and the Wallop brook and Bourne rivulet, both feeding the River Test, have been suffering from abnormally low flows, because too much water is being taken from boreholes situated in their valleys. Unless something is done urgently to improve water flows, the term "dry fly fishing" may soon take on a whole new meaning.
  The Water Act 1989 established the National Rivers Authority and gave it powers to conserve, redistribute or otherwise augment water resources and secure their proper use. The NRA replaced the regional water authorities set up in 1974, which were both judge and jury over the management—or perhaps one should say, mismanagement—of our water resources. The NRA could not have come into being at a more important time, and it responded quickly to the challenges awaiting it on 1 September 1989 when it assumed authority over our rivers.
  Far from having the NRA chairman, Lord Crickhowell, in the stocks at Stockbridge for failing to act, I have to admit that we in the Test valley are now applauding him and the NRA for what they are doing, in co-operation with Southern Water, to remedy the situation that faces us.
  Last October, the NRA held a forum for interested groups to discuss all aspects of river management. Then,
  886
  last month, it organised a well attended seminar on its scientific research into the dramatic fall in salmon catches. More NRA research is in hand with the Institute of Freshwater Ecology to see what can be done to stop salmon redds, or spawning grounds, silting up. Last week, another seminar was organised jointly by the British Field Sports Society, of which I am the vice-chairman, and the Salmon and Trout Association.
  One can spend a lifetime studying statistics, borehole readings, chemical analyses, flow charts and river reports and still not understand a river as well as its keepers or managers, who for centuries have been conserving these national assets.
  The fishing rod is not, as Dr. Samuel Johnson suggested, a stick with a hook on one end and a fool on the other. Fishermen and riparian owners perform a key role in ensuring that river management is at a high standard and flows are maintained. Lord Crickhowell has said that the fisheries are one of the best measures of the health of a river.
  Concern over our rivers has also been demonstrated by local residents who have nothing to do with fishing. Last year, the Test valley branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am proud to be the founder president, invited the NRA to come and speak on the subject of our disappearing rivers, and there was a record attendance.
  It is only comparatively recently that increased per capita consumption and, to a lesser extent, population growth have forced engineers to take more water from the chalk, initially without detriment to the ecology; and we are now seeing the first signs that, although rivers are not yet over-abstracted, we may be taking too much water from the wrong places.
  When the NRA grants an abstraction licence, it considers whether the water taken will ultimately be removed from the river system and consumed, or will be recycled. Some uses, such as spray irrigation, evaporative cooling or bottling water, are totally consumptive; the water just goes. In the case of inland public water supply, 80 per cent. of the water is returned to the water environment via sewage farms, septic tanks and the like. In coastal areas, waste water goes straight out to sea.
  The NRA has made it clear to all abstractors in Hampshire that it will not permit new public water supply or summer consumptive abstraction from the Hampshire chalk. There are no plans at present to revoke existing licences. The NRA usually insists that spray irrigation can be permitted only if the operator can provide a storage reservoir that is filled during the winter heavy rain season. Agriculture is rarely a threat to consumption, because most water is returned via soakaways or controlled discharges to watercourses. The finger of accusation, however, is being pointed at intensive farming near rivers. The banks of Hampshire's rivers used to be bounded by water meadows that acted as a filter. Most of the land is now ploughed to the water's edge. I have even seen some meadows where maize is grown year after year. The intensive use of nitrogen results in more river weed, which further reduces flows and results in rivers silting up. Heavy nitrogen use away from rivers also causes lush growth and thus greater evaporation of water.
  The NRA is researching the agricultural problems as part of an appraisal of land use practices in the catchment areas. However, in the meantime, the Government should reconsider the regime for grant aid to farmers in

  887
  environmentally sensitive areas, such as the mid-Test. The grants are not adequate to compensate farmers—who are already reeling under other economic pressures—for reducing their agricultural output and thus protecting their water environment.
  What is being done to protect Hampshire's rivers? There is a growing public realisation that water is a scarce and precious resource, which should be used wisely in drought years. There is now demand management, and licence monitoring is the rule rather than the exception. We need better leakage control. Some 25 per cent. of water is lost through leaks. We need a charging policy that encourages wise use of water. The CPRE wants national metering of water to be introduced, which could be a starter.
  We should restrict development. I am pleased to note that the southern region NRA has an input into SERPLAN—the south-eastern regional plan, but is drawing the Minister's attention to the impact on our water resources of the problems caused by overdevelopment enough? Surely a veto over planning applications would be better.
  The flows of rivers could be boosted by pumping water into them from correctly placed boreholes. Leaking riverbeds can be lined. Treated water can be returned to the rivers, and existing licences can be revoked. If we resorted to the last of those measures to resite boreholes, the NRA would have to compensate the water user for the high cost of developing the alternative source. Who pays? Hampshire has several boreholes that directly affect water flows. One borehole is at Broughton, on the Wallop, a tributary of the Test. One is at Totford, at the source of the Itchen, and there are others close to the Meon and to the Hamble.
  Although the NRA has the necessary finance for its many investigations, a question remains over the funding of expensive remedies for confirmed problems under the existing charging or grant-in-aid arrangements. I should like confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will provide the NRA with the money required to carry out essential remedial work that involves licence revocation.
  Some costs cannot be borne by the NRA, such as the provision of reservoirs. A reservoir is planned by Southern Water at Totton in my constituency, where the waterworks have supplied most of the additional consumption in the area in recent years. New reservoirs at Totton, which is an ideal place, could store winter river water just before it reaches the sea, but would have no effect on upstream flows or fishing. I hope that the reservoirs will receive planning approval from New Forest district council and from Test Valley borough council. The reservoirs would provide a supplement and would mean that Southern Water would not have to take more water from the river as summer peak demand grows. They would also provide a reserve if pollution occurred in the lower reaches of the Test or in the Solent. I should like the NRA to carry out a study for a national water grid. There may be many problems to overcome, not least finance, and it may be a non-starter for that reason, but it should be investigated.
  I have described some of the actions being taken. There are others that, in my view, and in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, who, I hope, will join in the debate and through whose
  888
  constituency the river Test flows, need to be carried out to preserve one of England's most priceless natural resources in the same way, as Lord Crickhowell has said, as
  "a great work of art or music"
  must be maintained.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. My constituents very much welcomed the visit today to Romsey of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who answered many questions from my constituents about the Test. I have left it to my hon. Friend to answer my questions this evening. I look forward very much to his answers to my questions, which have as much to do with Mrs. Colvin's washing machine as with trying to catch a trout on a day's fishing. I hope that someone will offer Mr. Speaker such a trout in return for his selecting my subject for this evening's debate.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in a debate on a Hampshire matter. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. Like him, I am an interested angler. I am on the councils of the Salmon and Trout Association and of the Anglers Co-operative Association. I am also the chairman of the fisheries committee of the British Field Sports Society. I must declare all those interests, although I am angler first and foremost. Above all, I want rivers to be in a fit condition for fish to live in them and for anglers to fish in them. The sad fact is that, in far too many rivers in Hampshire and elsewhere, those conditions are no longer met. The threat to water levels and to water resources seems to many of us to be getting steadily worse.
  I know that many dedicated anglers on the Test and on the Itchen can no longer bring themselves to go fishing because they believe that those rivers are dead. They are full of rainbow trout rather than native brown trout, their levels are low and the amount of weed in the rivers is seriously down. They are not the chalk streams which our fathers and grandfathers knew, and which some of us also knew. The opportunity to dwell on some of the reasons for that change is welcome.
  It would be wrong if I left the House with the impression that we are discussing a purely Hampshire problem. From my experience and that of many friends, I know that there are problems with rivers in Berkshire, such as the Pang, with rivers in Kent, such as the Darent and the Stour, with chalk streams in East Anglia and with the West beck in Yorkshire, which is a famous chalk stream where a famous fishing club has been established for many years. There simply is not enough water for fish to live in those rivers. That state of affairs is no credit to the water industry.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside in his tribute to the work of the National Rivers Authority. I know how close an interest the chairman of that authority, Lord Crickhowell, takes in the problem. It was the theme of an effective inaugural lecture that he gave at Fishmongers hall last year, which was well received by everyone who is interested in this important subject.
  The NRA and other defenders of our rivers need more help. Some of that assistance must come from the Government in legislative or financial form. There was welcome news in today's newspapers that there is to be a programme to line the beds of 20 chalk streams to prevent

  889
  water loss through leakage, although the cost is pretty intimidating. However, the Government can still do more to limit the unnecessary loss of water from our rivers.
  An analysis of the figures shows that in Hampshire and elsewhere the total theoretical take-up of the abstraction licences that have already been granted in some cases exceeds the flow of all the rivers in an area. A terrifying quantity could, in theory, be extracted from rivers and boreholes. If that ever happens, we shall have lost the battle entirely. We must study the need to revoke abstraction licences not just for farming, but for other purposes as well.
  There is still scope for stricter controls on planning permission relating to the amount of water available in the area concerned. I would like to see regulations if such controls cannot be embodied in the Planning and Compensation Bill currently before the House. There is room in secondary legislation for a stipulation that the NRA must always be consulted by a planning authority which has a major development application before it, whether that be residential or industrial. If the NRA believes that adequate water resources are not likely to be available for that development, that should constitute a veto. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that. He may argue that the NRA does not yet have the technical resources to make such judgments. That may be a convincing argument, but it does not mean that the NRA should not be encouraged to develop those resources and, as soon as it gets its act together, it should have the power to exercise such controls over the increased use of water resources.
  I also enter a note of caution about water recycling. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside accurately described the damaging effects of spray irrigation. None of the water sprayed on a field ever returns to a river from which it is abstracted. As I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier today, more attention should be paid to encouraging farmers to impound excess winter rainfall and use that as a source of summer spray irrigation instead of simply pumping the water out of rivers. That practice is all too commonplace in Hampshire and in Devon and there are well-documented examples of rivers being depleted in that way.
  Too much reliance is placed on the argument that water abstraction from the bottom of a river can be recycled by being pumped to the top, used and then returned to the river and we must still recognise that that will not be the same natural water as would have entered the river if the boreholes, springs and other sources upon which it had always relied had remained unimpaired. There is a danger in the clever device of recycling water from the bottom of a river to the top which must be explored.
  I hope that I have not pressed my point too much in the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) is aware that this is a most important subject and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside for raising the matter this evening. I look forward to a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  7.44 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on raising this important subject for debate. He expressed considerable concern about the River Test, which is important to his constituency. However, as he rightly said, it flows through my constituency first and several of its subsidiaries, such as the Dever and Wallop brook, are important to the environment in my constituency. I saw Wallop brook at Broughton at the weekend and I can confirm—I confirmed it again today by telephone—that it is now at full flood and nearly level with the top of the bank. That is highly satisfactory. However, that apparently highly satisfactory situation conceals the real concern that the aquifers underneath are getting lower year by year.
  Last year Wallop brook at Broughton ran dry for the second year running. It has not run dry for two successive years since at least 1921. Although the water level above Broughton was severely constrained which resulted in a good deal of misfortune, the river dried out entirely below Broughton. That was clearly associated with the pumping from the aquifers at Broughton.
  The problem is that the water company is pumping within the terms of its licence. It is not even pumping at the maximum amount that the licence permits it to draw from the borehole at Broughton. The water company should draw less water from Broughton and make up the amount by drawing water further down at Horsebridge where it can almost certainly take more water without causing the rivers to dry up.
  Who will pay Southern Water to pump more expensive water from that pumping station than from Broughton? There may even be a strong case for laying additional pipelines or reopening disused pipelines between Horsebridge and Broughton to pump water back up to the Broughton source.
  It is clear that in many cases licences were granted many years ago—sometimes before the war—and in wholly different circumstances for a given level of abstraction. Abstracting at those levels in current circumstances, with our lower aquifers, produces results different from those expected when the original licences were granted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the pertinent matters of whether we can revoke or partially revoke licences, who will compensate water companies and where those resources will come from.
  I welcome today's announcement in relation to Wallop brook of a combination of partial revocation of licence, the augmentation of river flow and river lining at a cost of £3 million. I am fascinated to know where that money will come from.
  Can my hon. Friend the Minister give any news about progress in trying to reduce water loss by leakage? It is about 25 per cent. Most people are thrown back on their haunches when they learn that 25 per cent. of the water that has been abstracted and is being pumped into the water systems of our towns and villages is lost by leakage. Apart from everything else, we need much more research, investment and work in identifying leakages and stopping them much earlier than at present.
  7.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for raising the important subject of vanishing rivers. The whole House will welcome his contribution and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Their contributions have been extremely valuable. The Government appreciate their concerns, as was evidenced by the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to Hampshire only today.
  The subject of vanishing rivers is, understandably, hardly far from the news at the moment. Despite some welcome rain in the south-east in the past couple of weeks, there are continuing worries about water shortages this summer. The chalk streams of Hampshire and the south are well known among anglers and there is great concern about their condition, and that concern has been well amplified this evening. In particular, and understandably, there is concern about the steady decline in salmon catches in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and other right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested a number of ways in which they believe that water levels in chalk streams can be safeguarded for the future. Before I comment on their suggestions, I hope that it may be of benefit if I say a little about the various issues that are affecting chalk streams generally and in Hampshire in particular. I hope in the process to dispel a few myths.
  First, water quality is clearly an important factor in maintaining a river, and particularly in safeguarding its fisheries. The water quality of chalk streams has been, and continues to be, extremely good. The principal rivers, including the Test and Itchen, are all extensively monitored by the National Rivers Authority and are all well within class 1 of the current national river classification scheme—that is, they are of "good" quality—and with an excellent diversity and abundance of species present. The majority of their length is well within class la, the top quality class.
  As for quantity, rather than quality, it is certainly the case that southern England has experienced a prolonged dry spell over the past three years, and groundwater levels are now well below normal in parts of the south-east and east. Hampshire, however, is not one of those areas worst affected.
  The level of a river and the speed at which it is moving are relevant to fisheries. The long hot summer of 1989 is believed to have stimulated the growth of algae, which in turn tend to smother the weeds in a river and increase silt loadings. Those effects, combined with heavy rain the following winter, conspired to scour out much of the weed growth, so that last summer the river flowed over an almost weed-free bed, resulting in low levels, despite the flow holding up reasonably well, but a higher than normal velocity, and thus higher levels of silt.
  Hampshire chalk streams do not, as a whole, suffer badly from over-abstraction. Certainly in the Test, the vast majority of abstractions from the river are non-consumptive. That is, the water is "borrowed" and returned, more or less directly, back to the river. Only 2 per cent. of the average flow is consumed after abstraction. Despite some short-term fluctuations, there does not
  892
  appear to be any long-term trend of increase in either licensed or actual volumes abstracted. However, despite those general comments, the NRA recognises that some localised problems are caused by over-abstraction. I shall say more about that in a moment.
  That brings me to the role of the NRA. It will be very grateful for the supportive comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. The establishment of the NRA has provided an unprecedented opportunity not just in Hampshire but across the whole country for a new and thorough appraisal of the issues affecting the condition of our rivers. The NRA's responsibilities encompass a range of issues—for example, water resources as well as pollution control, and fisheries as well as nature conservation. I have already commented that my hon. Friend has recognised the N RA's work.
  We set up the NRA as a tough environmental regulator and there is growing acceptance among those concerned, including environmental bodies that had hitherto been sceptical, that it is succeeding as a tough environmental regulator. Let me outline what the NRA is doing in Hampshire and elsewhere.
  First, it has taken action to help Hampshire's salmon fisheries. While most trout fisheries reported an excellent season last year, salmon catches have been declining for some years. Reference has been made to recent local seminars. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside will therefore be aware of the NRA's view that river management appears to hold the answer. Salmon populations are known to depend critically on an adequate supply of clean gravel beds in which to lay their eggs. Historically, riparian owners' keepers regularly raked river gravels to ensure that they were clean, free from silt and ready for the spawning season. That practice has slipped into abeyance in recent years, and that appears to be a major factor in the decline in the fisheries.
  The NRA has been seeking to tackle that problem in a number of ways. Research has confirmed that river gravels are not as productive for spawning salmon as might be expected. A programme for mechanically raking gravels is being undertaken and studies are being carried out into sediment movement and into weed growth and management, including the advantages of reinstating programmes of weed cutting in the autumn.
  The NRA has also constructed a number of new fish passes on the Test to ensure that incoming salmon can reach their spawning grounds freely. It is taking steps to restock the river with artificially reared local salmon. It has also installed electronic fish counters and radio tagging equipment to study fish movements and spawning behaviour. The NRA is taking a number of positive steps to study causes and to restore the salmon fisheries.
  Secondly, while the Test itself is not believed to be suffering from the effects of over-abstraction, there are rivers in Hampshire that are affected. Last year, the NRA identified 20 priority rivers in which low flows were believed to be the result of over-abstraction rather than simply low rainfall, and the NRA thus embarked on a programme of urgent studies. Yesterday, the NRA announced its programme for dealing with the first set of priority rivers. A number of those that have been mentioned are included in that list—for example, Wallop brook, one of the tributaries of the Test near Stockbridge. My hon. Friends have mentioned others, including the Darent and the Pang in Berkshire, as well as a number of other rivers in the south which the NRA has recognised

  893
  require action. Solutions are now being investigated, including a combination of partial revocation of abstraction licences, augmentation of flows and river bed lining. The NRA is continuing to investigate possible solutions for a further list of rivers suffering detrimental reductions in flows. They include the Bourne rivulet, which is another tributary of the Test, the Meon and the Hamble.
  The NRA recognises that where problems caused by over-abstraction exist, there are very rarely any quick or simple solutions. I am, however, impressed by the NRA's determination to get to grips as quickly as possible with such difficulties and I commend the progress that it is making.
  Although the NRA has been looking so far at solutions to specific problem cases, we are all alive to the need for longer-term solutions. Abstractions must, of course, be properly managed and the NRA has a full range of powers not only to control the issue of new abstraction licences, but to amend or to revoke any existing licences. My hon. Friends have asked whether the NRA is properly resourced to use those powers. The authority's costs are ultimately recouped from abstractors via abstraction licence charges. To the extent that capital spending is necessary and justified, the NRA has access to initial funding from the abstraction charges scheme. I have no reason to suppose that shortage of capital funds is a constraint on the authority's ability to carry out its functions properly.
  Sir David Mitchell: Does that expenditure availability also apply to compensation for reduction of extraction from an existing licence which is reduced?
  Mr. Baldry: The costs that the NRA can recoup from abstractors via abstraction licence charges are moneys that can then be used for practical spending. Clearly, there may be occasions when, under its statutory responsibilities, the NRA will have a duty to consider whether it should amend or revoke any existing licences. In such circumstances, compensation is clearly a matter for the NRA. I shall have to take advice on my hon. Friend's specific point about whether it can pay compensation from the abstraction charges scheme. I hope that I shall be able to help my hon. Friend before the end of my speech.
  As for its local abstraction policy, I can confirm that the NRA's approach is for major abstractions from Hampshire rivers to be taken from as close as possible to the tidal limit in order to preserve natural flows in the middle and upper reaches. I can also confirm that, certainly for the Test, the NRA does not generally intend to permit new, "consumptive" summer abstractions, requiring instead that sufficient bankside winter storage should be provided together with prescribed minimum flows.
  My hon. Friends have referred to the pressures on water resources caused by new developments. The level of development in Hampshire is, in the first instance, a matter for the county council to consider in drawing up its structure plan. I should certainly expect the NRA and local water companies to make an important input into this process so that a proper strategic balance can be struck between development and conservation. The Secretary of State will, of course, need to consider any objections made to the structure plan.
  894
  With due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I cannot agree that the NRA should have a veto over planned development proposals. Although careful account must always be taken of the expert advice that is provided by the NRA, the final judgment must be that of the local planning authority.
  Mr. Onslow: I should be content with that proposition were it not for the fact that there is absolutely no obligation on the planning authority to take any notice of the input of the NRA. The NRA does not know until very late in the day whether its recommendations have been acceded to and taken seriously. As long as that is the case, I am not persuaded that there is a satisfactory requirement to take the availability of water resources into account. I shall require further evidence, in addition to that which my hon. Friend has been able to give so far, that the need for a veto is not great.
  Mr. Baldry: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Clearly, it would sensible if local planning authorities were to take into account the NRA's views when determining planning applications. Any instances or examples where my right hon. Friend feels that the local planning authorities have failed adequately to take into account the NRA's views must clearly be considered. However, I know of no suggestions that local planning authorities have taken planning decisions in disregard of the views that have been put forward by the NRA.
  Mr. Onslow: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this point, but it is important. If he carries out some research in his Department, it will turn up cases that will show that in more than one instance the advice of the NRA's predecessors about the danger of flooding was not taken into account by the planning authority. Development permission was then granted and the development went ahead, but serious flooding resulted on the developed land. That seems a powerful argument for my case.
  Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend makes the same point in a different way. I do not know of any example of a local planning authority that can be said to have disregarded the advice that was provided by the NRA. Local planning authorities have to take such advice into account, along with a number of other factors, when determining whether to grant a planning application. If my right hon. Friend knows of specific instances where the advice offered by the NRA has not been adequately or sufficiently taken into account by a local planning authority, they will clearly have to be considered as a matter of general policy. However, at the moment local planning authorities take account of the expert advice provided by the NRA. They often have to take into account a number of varying opinions from different bodies, some statutory and some non-statutory, in making a final planning judgment.
  Looking ahead more generally, the NRA is developing an overall water resource strategy for the future. It recently published a first report as part of that work, giving a preliminary demand forecast for each of the water supply companies. The NRA has also commissioned consultants to take a fresh look at strategic water supply options, including a national water grid, more inter-regional transfers, and the prospects for desalination. None of those would provide an inexpensive solution. As my hon. Friend conceded, desalination is energy intensive and the plant involved can be highly intrusive. As water is heavy

  895
  and bulky, it is seldom economic to transport it over great distances. However, I am sure that the NRA will consider those issues carefully.
  Let me reiterate and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West. The NRA's resources, to which I have already referred, cover instances where it is necessary to buy out licences. As I hope I have confirmed to the House, I do not believe that the shortage of funds is in any way a constraint on the NRA carrying out necessary activities in relation to the problem of vanishing rivers.
  Sir David Mitchell: I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend has just said and I am most grateful to him for having answered the question I asked him in the middle of my speech.
  Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend asked about the actions that can be taken to control the consumption of water. It has been rightly pointed out that water is not an infinite resource. I agree completely. Although I am sure that no one would want to constrain the legitimate uses of water, I suspect that we are all guilty at one time or another of careless or wasteful uses and we can all help to conserve supplies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West asked specifically about leakage. Leakage is a problem in all water distribution systems, but it is something to which the water industry is paying ever-increasing attention. The Director-General of Water Services already expects water companies to adopt cost-effective leakage control measures and to minimise charges to customers, and the companies have leakage detection and control programmes designed to minimise losses. For the longer term, the NRA will wish to ensure that leakages are minimised in order to avoid unnecessary abstractions and the development of new resources.
  As for charges, there are indications that metering encourages economy and reduces wastage. However, it would be wrong for me to say more, as the director general is currently analysing the responses to a consultation paper on future methods of paying for water and proposes to issue guidelines to the water companies by the end of the year.
  Finally, I have been asked about the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, I understand that a review of the scheme is already under way and that, if favourable, consultations with farmers and conservation bodies will follow. I have no doubt that the issues that have been raised this evening will be among those that the review will wish to consider.
  This debate is most timely and topical, given the attention following yesterday's announcement by the NRA about how it plans to tackle the problem of low flows caused by over-abstraction in certain rivers. Although Hampshire is by no means as badly affected as other parts of the country, I am pleased that the importance of its chalk streams, chalk streams in general and the fisheries they support has been fully recognised by the NRA in the work that it is carrying out. I hope that I have been able to satisfy my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government and the NRA are taking the issues seriously and that action is being taken to tackle existing problems.

  Gravel Extraction (Buckinghamshire)
  8.15 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I am extremely grateful to have a chance to take part in one of these highly elusive debates—so elusive that one beat of a Whip's heart or one spoonful too many of watercress soup in the Members' Dining Room, and the moment is passed.
  I am particularly glad that the debate will be answered by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is on the Front Bench, because they both share my concern about gravel extraction and all that it involves. They are both neighbours of mine and, although they are constrained in their public utterances by ministerial office, we concert on these matters and I hope to have a sympathetic hearing if only for that reason.
  I do not want to be a NIMBY negativist. I want to be positive and constructive, but I must begin by outlining what seems to me to be an unacceptable situation. In huge swathes of north Buckinghamshire people are in danger of having their lives blighted and the countryside is in danger of being irretrievably scarred by the operation of gravel diggers.
  Where did we start? It is interesting to look back at a report by Sir Ralph Verney in 1976 which he recalled in a letter published in The Times about a year ago. I shall quote from it because it recalls where we started only a few years ago. Sir Ralph Verney wrote:
  "the County Council as mineral planning authority should be mindful of the fact that when we planned the building of Milton Keynes, their Committee of which I was Chairman imposed a condition that no permissions should be granted west of the M 1 for gravel extractions for the building of the City. This decision was fully endorsed by the London and Home Counties Regional Planning Conference and there was never any question of County quotas for extraction as has been suggested by the developers."
  That is where we started a few years ago. Where are we now?
  The village of Chackmore in my constituency is a charming quiet village quite close to Buckinghamshire in the environs of the historic grounds of Stowe. It is incredible to believe that an application was put in for gravel extraction within hundreds of yards of that village. It was fought, but it was only after a campaign in the national press that the application was withdrawn. Not everyone has the pulling power, in terms of media interest, of Stowe school, or the support of the National Trust.
  The village of Mursley in my constituency—a tranquil and ancient village—is similarly threatened. Once again, there is a proposal to extract gravel on a huge scale within a few hundred yards of the school, which will destroy the environment of the people who live in the village.
  Mr. Kenneth Tucker, the leader of a campaign against the threat to Mursley, is not a nimbyist, but a highly energetic and informed man, who takes this matter extremely seriously and looks beyond the confines of his own village. He has pointed out that gravel extraction so close to that village would lead to dust, traffic, noise and danger to the water sources. There would be consequent damage to the environment of neighbouring villages, notably Drayton Parslow.
  Those are two examples, but there are more. The villages of Thornton, Beachampton and Thornborough

  897
  are faced with a similar threat. They lie in an especially picturesque stretch of the Ouse valley. To give an example of the complete insensitivity to landscape with which these applications are made, gravel extraction in that area would run against the convent of Thornton which is a retreat and a teaching centre, and is set in a splendid and isolated landscape, as the nature of the convent requires. That is an example of total insensitivity to the lives of local people, and to the nuns, which can creep into applications for gravel extraction.
  It is important to remember that places like the Ouse valley are close to the town of Buckingham and to the larger agglomeration of Milton Keynes. Not only the villagers would suffer; so would the inhabitants of those large towns, for whom that area is one of the closest recreation centres.
  Other examples affect my constituents. One is at Finmere, which is over the frontier in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister. Another is in the village of Passenham, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, whom I am glad to see here tonight. Any gravel extraction there could affect the lives of my constituents in Stony Stratford.
  A sudden pattern of gravel extraction proposals has developed in north Buckinghamshire in recent years, since Sir Ralph Verney pointed out how damaging it would be if that were to happen, partly as a consequence of the contruction of Milton Keynes.
  We seem to be caught in a vice on this matter. We seem to be in a position where we have to despoil the countryside to improve the built environment; we have to blight the lives of rural residents to improve urban areas, housing and roads. We seem to be in a position where people who live in urban areas and who might want to seek a little tranquillity in the countryside at the weekend will find dust, noise and gaping holes in the ground in the villages that I have mentioned. It seems to me to be in everyone's interests to re-examine the whole question of extraction of aggregates and the implications for the environment.
  The present arrangements appear to be neat and logical. They depend upon a system which reminds me of some of my experiences in Communist countries where I had the mixed fortune to live at one time. Those arrangements are based upon a quota system and upon rather inflexible national planning. One only has to look at the ugly acronyms associated with the process, such as RAWP and SERAWP, to get the feeling that it is an irresistible process which has lost all touch with the lives of ordinary people.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows better than I, the arrangements depend on co-operation among the minerals industry, local authorities and representatives of the Department of the Environment. There is the south-east regional aggregate working party, the regional aggregate working party and the national co-ordinating group, which is chaired by the Department of the Environment and comprises working party chairmen, representatives of the aggregates industry and other Government Departments. That all sounds neat and immaculate as a piece of planning machinery, but, in practice, it has become completely divorced from the results on the ground. It is all very well to have RAWP and SERAWP
  898
  and means of co-ordinating them, but something has gone alarmingly wrong with the whole bureaucratic structure when it ends up in a serious proposal to place a gravel extraction pit next to a school, a convent or Stowe school.
  I am not chiding my hon. Friends the Ministers in the Department of the Environment for the situation, as they know, because I have raised the matter in the House before and have had discussions with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), about it.
  The Department of the Environment has been rather forthcoming in reply to my representations. In case it forgets how forthcoming it has been, I shall take this opportunity to remind it.
  In his letter of 4 February to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South promised to take increasing account of the possibility of alternative sources of aggregates, in other words of slag and such like, rather than digging it from the ground. I also know that the Department of the Environment has spoken to Mr. Peter Smith, an expert on the subject, who happens to live at Chackmore in my constituency—one can see what a wealth of informed and serious people I am fortunate enough to have in my constituency. I am grateful to the Department of the Environment for listening to what Peter Smith has to say.
  On the day of my, sadly abortive, Adjournment debate two days ago, the Department of the Environment, I am sure by coincidence, answered a written question on the subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). In that reply, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment spoke of the
  "forecasts of the demand for aggregates for the next 20 years"
  having
  "been prepared by independent consultants."
  He went on:
  "The Government are publishing the forecasts now so that the environmental implications of the rising demand for aggregates can be fully considered. These are a matter for serious concern. The forecasts do not mean that the demand must be met from new sources of land won aggregates. Nor do they mean that targets are set for production by the minerals industry."
  Later, in what was an important statement, the Minister went on:
  "The Government will expect the industry to make greater use of alternative sources of supply. These include the potential from marine dredged sand and gravel; the greater use of materials such as china clay, sand and colliery minestone; and the increased exploitation of waste and recycled materials including power station ash, blast furnace slag and crushed concrete. We shall also consider the contributions that can be made from coastal super quarries. The Government have research in hand to examine all these options."
  At the conclusion of what was an immaculately drafted reply, the Minister said:
  "Mineral planning authorities should have regard to the statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) in July 1989 which made it clear that MPG 6 should be implemented as a matter of priority".—[Official Report, 7 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 401–2.]
  As we know, MPG 6 is the document that is causing the present problem and under which the applications—I have described them as grotesque—have been made in my constituency.
  "The aggregates industry is literally consuming the country."

  899
  Those are not my words. I would not use such fiery rhetoric. They are the words of Dr. John Adams of University College, London in a document entitled "Determined to Dig", which was published this month. I hope that the Government will take serious note of that very serious document, because it shows that the problems that my constituents are encountering will be encountered increasingly across the country. Dr. Adams states in that document:
  "The principal objective is achieving adequate and steady supplies of aggregates. The second, subordinate, objective is the best balance of the social, environmental and economic costs that must be paid to achieve the first."
  He hit the nail on the head there, because that is precisely the imbalance into which we have got ourselves.
  Mr. Peter Smith of CAGE—the campaign against gravel extraction—to whom I referred, gets to the heart of what happens to be for me a local problem but which is a much wider national one. After much study of the matter, Mr. Smith believes that the Department of the Environment is in danger of managing the land quarry gravel market to ensure an excess of supply over demand which results in an artificially low price. That is no doubt done with the best of intentions, to support the construction industry, and we appreciate the importance of that industry.
  However, Mr. Smith points out that gravel is 40 per cent. cheaper today than it was in 1970. The result is that the low price prevents the use of reprocessed waste materials such as ash aggregates and limestone, which could provide 50 per cent. of aggregate demand. It also inhibits the production of alternatives such as crushed rock and sea gravel. He goes on to point out that the central planning forum for the south-east region is the south-east regional aggregate working party, to which I referred, where delegates from the Department of the Environment, local authorities and gravel companies decide where and how much gravel will be quarried. The costs of that organisation are met from local authority funds. The organisation is, therefore, a private group, and while it meets not exactly in a clandestine situation, its minutes are secret and I understand that ash aggregate manufacturers are not represented on it. I shall be happy to hear the Minister contradict that, but it is my information.
  If that is so, it seems odd for a Conservative Government to be operating what is, in effect, a type of price cartel to support a particular industry and to prevent environmental conservation from playing its full part in the decisions that are made. Those may appear to the Minister to be serious charges, but the situation, as Mr. Smith sees it and as I understand it, is serious in environmental terms.
  If it were just a matter of gravel and sand extraction, it would be bad enough, but since in this industry one thing leads to another, yesterday's noisy gravel extraction is today's stinking, pestiferous waste pit. I could make a whole speech about the problem of waste pits in my constituency. I have an extremely large one at Calvert, and the local people, notably at Edgcott and Calvert, have lived with that huge pit for years. It takes much of London's rubbish. They have developed a reasonable relationship with Shanks and McEwan Limited, which operates the pit, and historically, basically because of the clay in the area, the pit has been there for a long time.
  900
  But whether it is gravel or waste pits, I do not believe in the equality of misery. The fact that many people's lives are already blighted or their environments have been ruined by the existence of gravel pits in south Bucks is no reason to extend gravel pits to north Bucks. Rather, it is a reason to ask what can be done to prevent the suffering that has occurred and damage to the environment being spread northwards or to parts of the country outside my constituency.
  The same is true of waste pits. There have been in my constituency, alongside the applications for gravel extraction, a disturbing number of applications recently for waste pits, notably at Bierton, on the outskirts of Aylesbury, which already suffers from a serious traffic problem, which I hope will soon be resolved by a bypass. To impose a waste tip on that area and on its attractive landscape would be an example of vandalism. The proposal has been refused, but is still under appeal. Other attractive villages such as Aston Abbots nearby could be affected.
  In yet another part of my constituency, at Great Brickhill, a totally unsuitable application was made to extract sand and fill up the hole with waste. I was glad that when I took up the matter on the Floor of the House and then personally with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South, he told me in his letter of 4 February that he would examine the possibility of guidance in order to prevent waste pits being established within a certain distance of villages.
  We know from the time that such questions occupy on the Floor of the House that the Government are environmentally active. I hope that I have made it clear in my remarks that I appreciate the serious and positive response that I have had so far from the Government. The problem is, quite simply, that, although the Government are moving in the right direction in the longer term, the threat to my constituents and those who live in Mursley, Thornton and Beachampton is immediate. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to take an urgent new look at the situation that threatens to tear up the landscape in my constituency and perhaps in other parts of the country and to blight the lives, not only of my constituents, but of many people throughout the land.
  8.42 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: With the leave of the House, I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said about the problems of gravel extraction and to refer to an example that illustrates the case that he is presenting. Conclusions can be drawn from his speech and from the example that I shall give.
  In my constituency is the attractive village of Mottisfont. It is close to the River Test and is in an environmentally sensitive area. Therefore, of all the areas where one would expect planning consent for gravel and hoggin extraction, that is one of the least likely. However, a planning application was made, was refused by the local authority, went to appeal and has now been granted. When I objected to that planning application on behalf of many of my constituents, I tried to discover why planning permission was granted in an environmentally sensitive area of substantial beauty, beside one of the foremost environmentally attractive rivers in southern England. The

  901
  environmentally sensitive area policy is designed to ensure that the landscape is not damaged by changing farming methods. If the landscape is dug up to create a huge pit, that is the equivalent of changing farming methods, so I presumed that planning permission would be refused in the circumstances that I described. However, when I followed through the council's reasons for granting planning consent, I found that the key reason was the policy of counties being largely self sufficient in the provision of gravel, hoggin, sand and other building materials of that nature. The Government should review that policy urgently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham gave examples from Buckinghamshire where that policy has had an unsatisfactory effect on his constituents. The case that I described in Mottisfont is highly unsatisfactory to my constituents. It is common sense that, when the Mendip hills have thousands of tons of gravel, hoggin and a perfectly good rail system, there is no logic in continuing the policy of counties being self sufficient in those materials.
  Will the Minister look carefully at the principle of requiring a degree of self sufficiency within a council? Would it not make more sense for gravel, hoggin and other construction materials to be brought in from other areas where extraction does not damage the environment and where the rail services are such that it can be done perfectly economically and to the great benefit of the environment in the county that will not be dug up?
  8.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): With the leave of the House, may I say that through no fault of his own, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) missed the Adjournment debate in his name on Tuesday, for which I suspect the Chief Whip has much to answer. I was determined that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity to express his concern to the House and that he should have a constructive reply.
  My hon. Friend explained his concerns about minerals and waste disposal sites with characteristic eloquence and reasonableness. He knows that I share many of his concerns, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). We have had a number of discussions about concerns on the impact of sand and gravel extraction and landfill sites in Buckinghamshire and adjoining counties. I am pleased to be able to respond to this debate to make it clear that the Government share his concerns about the impact of minerals extraction on the countryside. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government's current thinking.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is fortunate, as am I, to represent a constituency that contains much attractive countryside. Within his constituency, the county of Buckinghamshire, and in mine, the county of Oxfordshire, and in other counties such as Northamptonshire and Hampshire, there are important mineral resources, particularly of sand and gravel. Because of that, it is not surprising that conflicts arise over the desire to protect the environment.
  Those concerns are exemplified by the great many objections which I know have been made to the
  902
  replacement Buckinghamshire minerals local plan. As my hon. Friend said, that plan is currently being debated at a public local inquiry which has just started. I know that he will appreciate that, against that background, I am unable to comment on the sites that he has mentioned. However, I am confident that the inspector will weigh up all the evidence put to him in a careful and thorough manner before making his recommendations to Buckinghamshire county council, which is the mineral planning authority for the area.
  The Government recognise that the environmental impact of the extraction of minerals for construction purposes is a matter of considerable and understandable public concern.
  The announcements that we made last week in interim development orders signalled our determination to drive up the standards of the minerals industry. Those old planning permissions cause much public concern, and the amendments that we intend to table for the Planning and Compensation Bill will, first, require IDOs to be registered within six months of commencement of the Bill's provisions, which I expect to be two or three months after Royal Assent. Secondly, in the case of sites dormant for two years before 2 May 1991, they will prevent working from the beginning until the permission has been registered and a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been submitted and agreed. Thirdly, in respect of working sites—those where working has taken place within the last two years—they will require a scheme of conditions to be submitted for the approval of the mineral planning authority within 12 months of the date of registration. There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with any of those conditions, which will impose far higher environmental standards on the minerals industry than at any previous time in our history.
  Those tough new proposals are part of the Government's general approach to environmental questions, following the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The consultation exercise on IDOs shows that there is widespread public concern that the minerals industry does not always operate with sufficient regard for the environment. We take those views very seriously. Nevertheless, I believe that the vast majority of firms operating in the minerals industry have a realistic approach. I believe that they recognise the need for far more stringent environmental standards to be adopted in future, and that the Government's proposals fit naturally into their general context.
  My hon. Friend referred to the guidelines, MPG6, which were issued two years ago on the provision for aggregates. We are reviewing this current guidance to ensure that it is up to date and takes full account of the increased environmental concerns.
  The first step is the preparation of a long-term forecast of aggregates demand. Demand for aggregates is generated by a proper and natural desire for improvements in the standard of living. That means improvements to our transport infrastructure, especially roads and railways, and improvements in hospitals, housing and water quality. That will be a particularly important factor as we play our part in negotiating and then maintaining rising European Community standards. However, the Government recognise that the environmental consequences of meeting this demand for aggregates must be very carefully

  903
  examined and weighed. A forecast of projected long-term levels of demand provides a useful starting point in those considerations.
  The forecasts, which were commissioned from independent consultants, were published on Tuesday. They show that, with steady growth in the economy, the demand in England and Wales could grow to between 421 million and 490 million tonnes a year in the next 20 years. That represents an increase in demand of 4 per cent. each year, below the level of growth experienced in the past 40 years. I must stress that the forecasts do not represent Government plans, and are not targets for production which the minerals industry must meet. It is important, therefore, that they should be considered as defining a problem rather than providing a solution.
  We regard the environmental implications of the forecasts very seriously, and intend to conduct a full and open debate on the planning and environmental issues they raise. The questions to be considered will include whether the present policy of ensuring a steady supply for the construction industry remains appropriate, as much as the length of time over which guidelines are needed for sensible planning. Before any new guidelines are issued, the Government will want to hear from the industry what practical steps it intends to take to improve its environmental performance and its standing with the public.
  We have asked the regional aggregates working parties to consider the medium and long-term implications of the forecasts on their regions. We are seeking their advice on how demand in each region might be met and the extent to which their region can contribute to the requirements of other regions. They will, of course, have full regard to the environmental consequences of increases in the extraction of land-won minerals.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned the need to increase the use of materials which are alternatives to primary aggregates. I share that opinion, and the Government made it clear in the environment White Paper that they want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials, including secondary aggregates such as china clay, sand, colliery minestone and slate waste.
  We also want increased exploitation of waste and recycled materials, such as power station ash, steel and blast furnace slag and crushed concrete. At present, the use of those materials is less than 10 per cent. of the current production of aggregates. That must increase, and I hope that the industry will show that it can be achieved.
  We commissioned research last year to establish the extent of those materials and to identify the steps needed to achieve an increase in their use. We expect the report to be published later this summer. It has already clearly identified that there are considerable stocks of alternative materials which are suitable for use in construction. It has also recommended a number of steps which could be taken to increase their use. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully examine the report during our review of the aggregates guidelines to see what the Government might do to promote the increased use of such materials.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the valuable report which Peter Smith has produced. I know that my officials have held useful and interesting discussions with Mr. Smith and I congratulate him on his work.
  I should also like to advise my hon. Friend of some other research initiatives which we have commissioned to examine other possible sources of supply. One project,
  904
  which has just started, is examining the possibilities offered by large-scale coastal quarries, such as that at Glensanda in Scotland. It will examine the potential areas of supply, which include Scotland, and indeed Ireland, Norway and the Iberian peninsula. The consultants will also investigate the environmental and economic consequences of providing aggregates to the south-east from such sources.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that marine-dredged sand and gravel are a particularly important source of supply to the south-east of England. We have already undertaken two research projects to identify the extent of the resources that could be available, and we have a continuing programme that will provide a comprehensive view on resources. There are, of course, environmental considerations which affect the extraction of marine material, and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that those will not be overlooked as we investigate the opportunities offered by that source.
  Mr. Walden: I have been extremely heartened by what my hon. Friend has said so far, which seems to put new emphasis on the positive points that the Department of the Environment has already come up with. Will my hon. Friend add one further point? Will he draw to the attention of county councils the fact that, given that the Department of the Environment intends to take what sounds like a radical look at the current position, they should not rush into granting planning permission for quarries which could go ahead and perhaps slip from the net of a new and perhaps more positive review?
  Mr. Baldry: As I made clear in the introduction to my comments, I fully appreciate and share my hon. Friend's concerns. No doubt he appreciates that county councils, as mineral planning authorities, have to have regard to the guidance which they are given and, in determining applications, have to balance the conflicts which arise, understandably, over the need on the one hand to extract sand and gravel and the desire on the other to protect the environment.
  It is of course important that there should be careful use of aggregates and that there should not be over-specification in construction use. We have started further research, which will examine the specification of aggregates used in construction to see if action needs to be taken to help eliminate any unnecessary or excessive use of this valuable natural resource.
  The Government recognise that it is essential to continue to raise the environmental standards in the minerals industry. That is why we commissioned Groundwork last year to undertake a study of the environmental performance of the industry. The report was recently published, and a copy is in the Library. It has made a number of recommendations on the steps which the industry could and should take to achieve higher standards.
  These include the implementation of a system of corporate environmental management, including site appraisals, regular monitoring of performance and periodic environmental audits. It is particularly important that all employees in the minerals companies should realise that they have a responsibility for the environment in which they operate. Companies must recognise that they need to act as good neighbours; I am sure the Groundwork report will be invaluable as they work towards this end.

  905
  As part of our overall approach to drive up standards, we intend to follow up the Groundwork study with a pilot initiative in two counties close to my hon. Friend's constituency—Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. With funding from my Department, Groundwork will be able to visit a number of current operational sites and recommend the steps which the company in question should take to improve the site concerned.
  We are also conducting other research initiatives which will lead to higher operating standards at minerals sites, and we shall shortly be issuing draft guidance on noise, a matter which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about.
  As my hon. Friend and the House will recognise, the current public local inquiry in Buckinghamshire has prevented me from saying more about Buckinghamshire itself. My hon. Friend made his own points in his own way, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), and they can be assured that they will be listened to carefully. However, I hope that I
  906
  have been able to demonstrate beyond any doubt that we understand the widespread public concern about minerals extraction. We are determined that the minerals industry will in future operate in an environmentally responsible manner. The adoption of high standards is in the interest of operators themselves. We shall certainly take very careful note of the points which my hon. Friend has made as we review the aggregates guidelines.
  The review will be conducted in an open and public manner. We shall welcome views on the forecast and the implications for the environment, and these will be taken into account as draft guidance is prepared. There will be a full public consultation exercise on the draft guidelines in due course.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that we take these issues extremely seriously. I welcome the opportunity of being able to comment to the House on the progress that we are making.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Nine o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the records available in the Public Records Office relating to military activity in Antarctica; and how many papers relating to Antarctica have been withheld for more than 30 years.

  The Attorney-General
  No list is maintained of records available in the Public Records Office relating specifically to- Antarctica or military activity there. To compile such a list, or to enumerate all related papers withheld for more than 30 years could be done only at disproportionate expense.

TRANSPORT

  Smoky Vehicles
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 417, whether he will publish and publicise the telephone numbers of the Department of Transport area departments dealing with complaints about smoky vehicles, subject to operator licensing; what checks operators of allegedly smoky vehicles will be required to undertake in order to satisfy his Department that the vehicle is not smoky; and what follow-up action his Department will take if an unsatisfactory reply is received.

  Mr. Chope
  The telephone numbers of the Department of Transport's traffic area offices are:

  telephone number

  Birmingham

  021 631 3300

  Bristol

  0272 297221

  Cambridge

  0223 358922

  Cardiff

  0222 394027

  Eastbourne (covers London)

  0323 21471

  Edinburgh

  031 225 5494

  Leeds

  0532 499433

  Manchester

  061 872 5077

  Telephone numbers are in telephone directories or available from directory inquiries. The Department's new leaflet 'Traffic Areas—the New Boundaries and Offices' gives addresses, telephone numbers and boundaries of traffic area offices. It will shortly be available, free of charge, from the public inquiry unit of the Department in London, telephone 071 276 0800.

  All operators subject to operator licensing must have adequate arrangements for vehicle maintenance. They will have to diagnose the cause of the excessive smoke and report back on what, if any, action has been taken. If the response from the operator is unsatisfactory, the vehicle
  546
  inspectorate will review the adequacy of the operators' maintenance arrangements and inspect the vehicle if necessary.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the proposed Mll link road, as planned, could safely be used by (i) pedestrians and (ii) cyclists.

  Mr. Chope
  The A12, Hackney Wick-M11 link road will be an all-purpose urban trunk road and will be heavily trafficked. The link road will remove motor traffic from existing roads and these will become safer alternative routes for pedestrians and cyclists when linked by the footpaths and cycletracks which are part of the scheme.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if construction drawings in connection with the M11 link road for the Lea interchange have yet been made.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 23 April, at columns 415–16.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evidence was given on 8 January 1990, before the compulsory purchase order public inquiry in connection with the M 11 link road, by the Department of Transport's representative on proposed restrictions on cycling on the road;

  (2) if he will review the implications of paragraph 80 of the decision letter dated 2 August 1988 concerning the M11 link road, in respect of safety considerations and the use by cyclists of the M 11 link road in the light of his representation to the EC Commission that the road will be available for use by all classes of traffic.

  Mr. Chope
  The evidence referred to previous proposals to restrict the use of the link road by cyclists and to provide alternatives which would be more attractive. It acknowledged that a prohibition might be necessary ultimately, but pointed out that this would not be inconsistent with the classification of the link road as an all-purpose trunk road. This is in accordance with both the intentions of paragraph 80 of the decision letter of 2 August 1988 and the Department's response to the EC of November last year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what undertakings Her Majesty's Government has given in connection with the M11 link road to the Commission of the European Communities on availability for use by all classes of traffic.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has informed the European Commission that, on opening, the link road will be available to all classes of traffic.

  Rail Network (Tourism)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct British Rail to prepare proposals to develop the rail network on routes helpful to the tourist industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The commercial development of rail services in tourist areas was among the objectives set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) in writing to the then chairman of British Rail on 19 December 1989.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the channel tunnel rail link report from British Rail; if he will now make the report public; and if he will make a statement on the Government's decision.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I received the report on 3 May, but still await some of the supporting material. It is too soon to say when it will be possible to announce a decision. Publishing the report now could cause blight on all the routes that were studied.

  Chemical Containers (Norfolk Coast)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has ordered an investigation into the incident in which dangerous chemical containers drifted on to the north Norfolk coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine accident investigation branch has appointed an inspector to investigate the incident. The containers appear to be part of the cargo of a Swedish registered vessel, the Nordic Pride, which reported the loss of four deck cargo tanks in bad weather on Friday 3 May 1991.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gloucester Prison
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out a timetable for improvements to the facilities at Gloucester prison.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Work costing just over £1 million will start this year on a two-year programme to provide

  Police authority

  Declared establishment

  1986 strength

  Declared establishment

  1987 strength

  Declared establishment

  1988 strength

  Declared establishment

  1989 strength

  Declared establishment

  1990 strength

  Dyfed Powys

  934

  929

  935

  929

  935

  927

  935

  934

  943

  939

  Gwent

  978

  973

  978

  977

  995

  989

  1,007

  1,000

  1,009

  1,001

  North Wales

  1,316

  1,268

  1,316

  1,307

  1,326

  1,304

  1,330

  1,332

  1,351

  1,334

  South Wales

  3,109

  3,099

  3,109

  3,120

  3,109

  3,114

  3,137

  3,118

  3,168

  3,125

  Prison (Marketing of Goods)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in policy he intends to make to allow men and women serving custodial sentences to produce and market communally items produced within the prison or prison farm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: We have no plans for any general changes. However, in the recent "Report of the Inquiry into Prison Disturbances 1990"—Cm 1456—it was proposed that there should be schemes to enable a prisoner to contribute to society by making goods for charitable causes. The prison service is currently discussing with representatives of the Koestler Award Trust plans which the trust has to set up a prison charity shops scheme. The trust has been invited to submit a thorough feasibility and cost-benefit analysis of its proposal.
  548
  access to night sanitation for all inmates. Work costing about £1 million is also due to start in 1991–92 on new facilities for education and to improve fire safety. A strategy for the further development of the prison is being prepared and £3 million has been allocated for work arising from this, starting in 1993–94.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The readily available information about the appointments for which I am responsible, a number of which will fall to be made in 1991 and 1992, is given in "Public Bodies 1990" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library.

  Police Force Numbers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each police authority in Wales, the number of police officers authorised by his Department, the number of police officer posts in the authority's establishment and the number actually in post for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 May 1991]: The information requested is set out in the table.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Animal Cruelty (Spain)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Spanish Government concerning cruelty to animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The treatment of animals in another country is a matter for that country, except where provisions are laid down by EC legislation. However, pending confirmation that Spain has implemented the directives on the transport and slaughter of farm animals, the United Kingdom does not license the export of such animals to Spain.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representations he has received concerning cruelty to animals in Spain.
  549
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received 11 letters this year concerning cruelty to animals in Spain. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has received many more representations.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to propose legislation to give effect to the outcome of the Madrid conference on the future of the Antarctic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We expect the draft environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty that emerged from Madrid to be concluded at a further meeting in Madrid in June. It would be premature to consider legislation until a final text is available.

DEFENCE

  Airfields
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet reached a decision on the future of the procurement executive airfields at Bedford, Boscombe Down and Farnborough; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We announced in September 1990 our preliminary view that research and experimental flying should be collocated at Boscombe Down. Since then we have undertaken extensive consultations with a wide range of interested parties, including trades unions, local authorities, the Society of British Aerospace Companies, the Farnborough Airfield Development Corporation, local amenity groups and individuals. We are grateful for all the responses that have been received.

  We have now considered carefully the results of these consultations, together with further work that we commissioned from independent consultants. We have concluded that it would be right to confirm the decision to base flying at Boscombe Down, as the most suitable airfield. Detailed planning to implement this decision will now be set in hand. The move to Boscombe Down will take a number of years to complete and there will be further close consultation with interested parties as work proceeds. We also intend to commission an independent environmental impact assessment at Boscombe Down to assist us in planning the move.

  The airfields at Bedford and Farnborough will no longer be required for defence purposes and will accordingly become available for disposal. We recognise that decisions on future use could have a major impact on the local areas and stress that we shall want to continue to work closely with the local planning authorities and other interested parties in accordance with normal planning procedures in determining the use to which these sites will be put. Our preliminary assessment is that Bedford could have potential as a commercial, non-passenger, airfield and that options for Farnborough could range from business/commercial aviation, with some associated commercial development of the site, to more extensive development. In considering them, we shall take account of the part the airfield plays in the Government's business aviation policy. No decisions have been made and these options for Bedford and Farnborough will be considered in detailed work now to be set in hand.

  Ministry of Defence Police (Headquarters)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to provide a dedicated headquarters for the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence police headquarters and training school, currently located with other Ministry of Defence branches in Empress State building, London and at Medmenham in Buckinghamshire respectively, will move to the site of the former RAF station at Wethersfield in Essex. Planning to this effect is now in progress, and it is expected that these moves will take place during 1992. It is also intended that the operational support unit will move from RAF Wittering to Wethersfield.

  As a result of these moves, the Ministry of Defence police will have their own dedicated headquarters, satisfying the recommendation made by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary in 1989. At the same time, the Ministry of Defence police will be provided with improved and up-to-date instructional facilities on a larger and more versatile site which will offer a greater capacity for both recruit and in-force continuation and specialist training.

ENVIRONMENT

  Freehold Homes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the increase in the average price of freehold dwelling homes in Yorkshire and Humberside in(a) 1989 and (b)

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information does not distinguish between freehold and leasehold sales and includes sales to sitting tenants. The increases in 1989 and 1990 were 28 and 13 per cent. respectively.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 13, to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, if he will specify in which band the average value of homes is for the illustrative calculation setting a council tax for a band D property occupied by two or more people at a standard level of service; and what the figures quoted in his reply would be if the average value home was (a) in band A, (b) in band B, (c) in band C and (d) in band D.

  Mr. Key
  With the seven bands which we have proposed, a home with the national average value will always be in band D.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 13, if he will give the council tax for band A, B, D and G properties for a council when the county council spends four per cent. over its standard spending assessment and the district council 32 per cent. but where the majority of properties are in (a) band A, (b) band B, (c) band C and (d) band D.

  Mr. Key
  I have nothing to add to my earlier answer to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weighting is given in the standard
  551
  spending assessment for people aged over 85 years; and what proportion of people are over 85 years old in (a) Grimsby, (b) Eastbourne, (c) Harrogate and (d) Scarborough.

  Mr. Key
  The number of people aged 85 years and over is used in the calculation of the standard spending assessment for social services for the elderly. A full description of the weight given to this factor is contained in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England), copies of which are in the Library.

  Proportion of the resident population aged 85 years and over

  Per cent.

  Grimsby

  1·4

  Eastbourne

  3·6

  Harrogate

  1·7

  Scarborough

  2·4

  Norfolk County Council
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many measures and directives have been sent from central Government to Norfolk county council which have required Norfolk county council to(a) increase its activities and (b) employ extra staff; and if he will list each one since 1979.

  Mr. Key
  The information is not available. Since 1984, however, the Department has closely monitored all central Government initiatives with resource implications for local authorities generally. Estimates of costs are made as accurately and as early as possible and are then taken into account, with all other relevant factors, when the annual local authority finance settlement is made.

  Drinking Water (Inspectorate)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 14, on the workload of the drinking water inspectorate, how the figure of 120 days breaks down into hours per person.

  Mr. Trippier
  Approximately 53 hours per person on average.

  Cryptosporidia
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 14, if he will publish the report of the outbreak control team into the outbreak of cryptosporidia in Hull in 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  The outbreak control team published the report by sending it to the relevant local authorities and district health authorities, to the regional health authority, the Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health and the drinking water inspectorate. It is available to the public via the town clerk's office, Hull city council at a cost of approximately £10.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on rent levels for local authority housing in England.
  552
  Mr. Yeo
  Information on local authority rents is collected from a number of sources including surveys of authorities by The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and claims submitted to the Department for housing revenue account subsidy. Drawing on both sources we estimate current rents as follows:

  Region

  April 1991 average local authority rent £ per week

  North

  22·60

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21·54

  East Midlands

  23·17

  Eastern

  27·66

  Greater London

  35·74

  South Eastern

  31·36

  South West

  27·49

  West Midlands

  26·19

  North West

  24·50

  England

  27·29

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by Ordnance Survey in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such fees have been paid during the period in question and the budget for 1991–92 contains no such provision.

  Toxic Waste (Wath upon Dearne)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number of days which have elapsed since toxic waste arrived in Wath upon Dearne near Rotherham.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the waste arrived at Wath on 9 June 1989 and has therefore been present for 700 days.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits have been paid to the premises of Wath Recycling by officials of his Department in connection with the toxic waste held at these premises since this material arrived in the summer of 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  Three visits have been made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors since the summer of 1989 in connection with the consignment of wastes received at that time. Visits have also been made by the Health and Safety Executive which has advised that it will be making a separate representation on this question.

  Trade in Wildlife
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that international trade in wildlife does not threaten the survival of species.

  Mr. Baldry
  This Government have always been active in ensuring that trade in wildlife is controlled so that it does not threaten the survival of any species. Because of
  553
  growing concern about the effects of trade on some wildlife populations, we have asked our scientific advisers—the royal botanic gardens at Kew and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—to undertake a wide-ranging study. They will review the evidence as to whether the trade in wild-taken plants and animals is compatible with maintaining species at satisfactory levels. Following this review, they will make recommendations to be taken into account when considering proposals to change current controls under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES.

  The United Kingdom was one of the founder members of CITES, which is based on the principle that wildlife should be used only at levels which can be sustained. We have always been in the forefront of promoting and supporting necessary changes to the convention and complementary measures in this country and the European Community. The study—which is to be completed by the end of July—will make a significant contribution to the conservation of wildlife by ensuring that Government action continues to be based on a sound scientific foundation.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has commissioned or published in the last five years on the potential effects of global warming on London.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: The report of the Department's climate change impacts review group, published in January of this year, considers a wide range of possible impacts, some of which are relevant to London. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue cost assumed for 1991–92 in respect of individuals' capital gains tax allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  The total revenue cost of the capital gains tax annual exempt amount for individuals and trusts is estimated to be about £350 million at 1991–92 levels. This estimate does not allow for the effect on yield of the behavioural changes which would occur if the annual exempt amount were removed.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the capital gains tax yield for the latest available year if all equity transactions where a gain was taken within 12 months were taxed at 40 per cent;

  (2) what amount of capital gains tax was paid reflecting holdings of less than one year in (a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  Information is available about the distribution, by length of period of ownership of assets, for 554
  net chargeable gains realised in 1987–88. A detailed analysis is provided in table 11.7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1990". This analysis suggests that about 5 per cent. of net chargeable gains for 1987–88 were attributable to assets owned for less than one year. The figures exclude gains realised by companies which are chargeable to corporation tax.

  If capital gains tax on equities were restricted to disposals of equities within one year of acquisition with gains on equities held for more than one year exempted from tax, it is likely that, after taking account of behavioural effects, the total capital gains tax yeild from equities would be small.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue cost for 1990–91 of the capital gains tax indexation provisions.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that it is not possible to provide a sufficiently reliable estimate of the cost of indexation relief.

  Public Employees
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give details of the number of persons employed in the United Kingdom in(a) the civil service, (b) local government, (c) the national health service, (d) the armed forces and (e) public corporations, for each of the years 1961, 1979, 1985 and 1990;

  (2) how many persons were employed in the entire public sector in the United Kingdom (a) in 1961 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage increase this represents.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested can be found in appendix 1, table 2 of the article on "Employment in the public and private sectors" which appeared in the December 1990 edition of the Central Statistical Office's "Economic Trends" publication. A copy is available in the Library. The percentage increase in the number of persons employed in the public sector in the United Kingdom over the period 1961 to 1990 was 3 per cent.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1991 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in the answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), of 21 October 1986,Official Report, columns 812–14.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowance, and thresholds are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1991–92 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 has been applied directly to the income base of 1991–92. In practice, retention of the 1978–79 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.
  555

  Reductions in income tax in 1991–92 compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1991–92, £

  Number of individuals liable under the indexed regime in 1991–92 (million)

  Total reduction in tax compared with indexed regime, £ million

  Average reduction per individual at 1991–92 income levels, £ per annum

  Under 5,000

  3·7

  480

  130

  5,000–10,000

  8·4

  2,900

  350

  10,000–15,000

  7·1

  4,600

  650

  15,000–20,000

  4·1

  3,800

  950

  20,000–30,000

  2·9

  4,200

  1,400

  30,000–50,000

  1·2

  3,300

  2,800

  Over 50,000

  0·4

  9,500

  21,900

  Total

  27·8

  28,700

  1,000

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1991–92 the information on real net earnings provided in the answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 10 April 1986,Official Report, columns 193–94.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is given in the tables.

  Income Tax and Income Tax and NIC1 as percentages of gross earnings

  Multiples of average earnings2

  2/3

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single people

  1956–57

  Tax

  10·4

  16·6

  24·8

  40·5

  55·2

  Tax and NIC

  14·0

  18·9

  26·0

  41·0

  55·4

  1978–79

  Tax

  21·0

  25·0

  29·5

  50·5

  66·6

  Tax and NIC

  27·5

  31·5

  33·7

  52·2

  67·5

  1991–923

  Tax

  17·9

  20·3

  26·0

  34·4

  37·2

  Tax and NIC

  25·3

  28·2

  30·7

  36·3

  38·1

  Married men

  1956–57

  Tax

  5·1

  11·2

  22·0

  38·9

  54·2

  Tax and NIC

  8·6

  13·5

  23·1

  39·4

  54·4

  1978–79

  Tax

  15·4

  21·3

  27·2

  48·8

  65·7

  Tax and NIC

  21·9

  27·8

  31·4

  50·5

  66·5

  1991–923

  Tax

  14·2

  17·8

  24·0

  33·6

  36·8

  Tax and NIC

  21·5

  25·7

  28·7

  35·5

  37·7

  Changes in real net earnings after Income Tax and NIC (1956–57 = 100)

  Multiples of average earnings

  2/3

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single people

  1978–79

  124·9

  125·3

  132·8

  120·1

  108·3

  1991–923

  176·1

  179·5

  189·8

  218·8

  281·4

  Married men

  1978–79

  126·8

  123·9

  132·4

  121·1

  109·0

  1991–923

  174·1

  174·2

  188·1

  215·7

  277·0

  1 At the contracted-in rate

  2 Full time adult males (all occupations)

  3 Provisional

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage change in the United Kingdom gross domestic product for the last financial year.
  556
  Mr. Maples
  Preliminary estimates of the gross domestic product at constant factor cost for the first quarter of 1991 and the 1990–91 financial year will be published by Central Statistical Office on 22 May 1991. Estimates at current market prices will be available on 24 June.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the size of mortgage interest payable in respect of domestic property in the northern region in 1985 and each subsequent year and the stock of mortgages and the average size of mortgage interest payable in the northern region for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: Readily available estimates, based on regional information from family expenditure surveys, are as follows:

  Mortgages in the Northern Region

  Gross interest payable

  Number of mortgages

  Average amount of gross interest

  (£ million)

  (thousands)

  (£)

  1986

  690

  440

  1,550

  1987

  720

  420

  1,800

  1988

  940

  510

  1,850

  1989

  1,280

  530

  2,400

  11990

  1,630

  560

  2,900

  1 Provisional.

  Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken in the last six months with regard to the indexation of public sector pensions; what plans he has for determining future increases in public sector pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: Public service pensions are uprated annually in April in line with the movement in the retail prices index in the 12 months to the previous September. Accordingly, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 24 October 1990, at column 348, public service pensions as well as state retirement pensions and other benefits were increased by 10·9 per cent. from 8 April 1991. There are no plans to change the current indexation arrangements by which public service pensions are increased.

  Council Finances (Swaps)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom banking industry of the House of Lords decision in the case of the district auditor v. Hammersmith and Fulham council involving swaps.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The Government are conscious of the strength of feeling about this issue among the banking community. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have discussed it at length with the president of the British Bankers Association on two occasions, and the Governor of the Bank of England has kept us informed of City opinion. Officials have had long and detailed discussions with the BBA. We have been particularly anxious that all possible options for mitigating the consequences of the judgment should be fully explored.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 7 May, at columns 402–3, after careful consideration, the Government have concluded that it is best not to seek to alter the existing obligations of the parties.

  This problem is specific to local authority swaps and has no implications for the vast majority of financial transactions or for local authority borrowing.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to take action to end the uncertainty caused to local authorities and the banking industry by the House of Lords decision in the case of the district auditors v. Hammersmith and Fulham council involving swaps.

  Current Expenditure1

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–902

  District council expenditure3of which expenditure on structural maintenance of roads and other highways maintenance4

  2·9

  2·9

  4·1

  4·0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1·6

  County council expenditure3of which expenditure on structural maintenance of roads and other highways maintenance4

  94·0

  105·9

  111·1

  119·8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  92·6

  1 Net of local income, but gross of relevant specific Government grants.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Includes all highways and bridge maintenance, street cleaning for highways purposes, lighting and associated professional and technical services. Includes net expenditure incurred on behalf of other local authorities under agency agreements.

  4 Excludes net expenditure incurred on behalf of other local authorities under agency agreements.

  Cataract Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he offers to general practitioners who wish to refer their patients direct to the treatment centre for cataract surgery funded by his Department at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, on whether consultant surgeons at Bangor will accept patient referrals in circumstances other than where the patient's area health authority consultant refuses to co-operate.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  . General practitioners should contact the treatment centre which will discuss with the patients' consultant whether re-referral will be in the clinical interests of the patient.
  558
  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 7 May, at columns 402–3.

WALES

  Play Areas (Safety Measures)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 13, on safety measures in children's play areas, if he intends to provide additional funding for local authorities to put into practice the advice being drawn up on play area safety.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In framing local authority revenue settlements for 1992–93 and subsequent years, allowance will be made for any new burdens imposed on local authorities by central Government.

  Roads and Pavements (Maintenance)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates his Department has of the expenditure on the repair and maintenance of roads and pavements under the responsibility of county and district councils in Wales in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information available is given in the table. Prior to 1989–90 figures are available on a consistent basis only for the broad category shown.

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list his Department's current and planned renewable energy programmes in Wales by type, cost, site, location and capacity;

  (2) how many applications for renewable energy projects have been submitted for Wales up to date; and if he will list them by site, district council, type and capacity.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department supports an extensive programme of research, development and demonstration of sources of renewable energy where those sources show the potential for economic viability and are environmentally acceptable. In 1990–91 total expenditure
  559
  was over £20 million. Expenditure is distributed throughout the United Kingdom. There is no specific allocation for Wales. However, there are currently 17 renewable energy projects which have a contractor or site located in Wales. They comprise:

  Technology

  Projects

  Contract value £ million

  Wind

  7

  4·9

  Solar

  4

  0·6

  Tidal

  6

  1·9

  Wind

  Construction of Carmarthen bay 25m vertical axis wind turbine;

  Performance monitoring of 25m vertical axis wind turbine;

  Design, construction and demonstration of MS3 wind turbine;

  Design, construct and test a demonstration vertical axis wind turbine 850;

  Monitoring of the WEG MS-3 horizontal axis wind turbine at Carmarthen Bay;

  Experimental work 25m St. Regis vertical axis wind turbine;

  Ancmometry masts for Capel Cynon;

  Solar

  Field trials team 2;

  Air flow modelling of the Gateway 2 atrium building;

  Simulation studies of domestic heating systems;

  Evaluation of multi media database solar building design;

  Tidal

  Severn barrage development project;

  Conwy barrage feasibility study;

  Waders wildfowl distribution in the Severn estuary;

  Severn barrage report consultation;

  Further environment and energy capture work on Severn barrage;

  Conwy barrage engineering optimisation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  High Definition Television
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state Her Majesty's Government's position on current discussions within the European Community to develop standards for high definition television, D2 MAC and HD-MAC

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government welcome the consultations initiated by the European Commission with a view to securing consensus between broadcasters and manufacturers on the best route to high definition television. The Government will take a position when the Commission makes its proposals known. The Government have made known their views that the MAC family of standards should be given a fair chance to succeed in the market for wide screen TV transmissions by satellite but this should not entail the enforced cut-off of existing transmission standards.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Leigh
  The readily available information about the public appointments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible is given in the current edition of "Public 560
  Bodies" and in "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library. A number of these appointments are expected to be made in 1991 and 1992.

  Spirits (Measures)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the representations he received regarding the proposals to permit one further round metric quantity of 35ml and of extending the requirement to use prescribed measures to cover other spirits as announced in the answer to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) of 3 May 1990,Official Report, column 612; and when he expects to lay orders on these matters.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am considering the replies to my Department's consultation paper. No decision has yet been made on whether to implement the proposals nor on when any order on these matters would be laid.

  Eurocopy Group
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 119, when he expects to announce the outcome of the Director General of Fair Trading's investigation into malpractice by companies in the Eurocopy Group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the responsibility for investigations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. I have asked him to inform the hon. Gentleman of the report of the investigation in question when it becomes available.

  My statement to the House on 18 March in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), at columns 23–24 reflects the Government's general position on this issue.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will draw up a code of practice for photocopying companies to prevent the malpractices now under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 March, at columns 23–24, the code of practice of the Equipment Leasing Association already requires members to "behave with integrity" and not to"misrepresent facts to a lessee concerning any aspect of a leasing transaction".
  This is the standard that the Government would expect of the industry and the only way for the industry to retain the confidence of its customers.

  I understand that the Equipment Leasing Association is currently in the process of reviewing the provisions of their code to take into account commercial developments since it was originally published.

  In addition to this code of practice, both the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have written to their members emphasising the need to consider carefully photocopier leasing agreements and the possibility of malpractices by some operators.

  Inner-city Task Forces
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to make any changes to the location of the inner-city task forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Inner-city task forces have always been part of a rolling programme, tackling difficult areas and then moving on. I have decided to establish three new task forces: one in Hackney, one in Hull and one in South Tyneside. These task forces will work closely with the business community, the training and enterprise council and with the local authority to improve the job and training opportunities for those in the area. They will all be starting their work by the end of the year. The three new task forces, like the existing ones, are not intended to be permanent. One of their aims is to foster the development of local organisations which can capitalise on the task forces' work when the task forces themselves leave.

  The task forces in Leeds, Hartlepool and Spitalfields have now made significant progress in meeting these objectives, and I have consequently decided that they should close in the autumn. In the meantime, they will continue to build up the capacity of local bodies to take over their work in the future, and they will continue to welcome new proposals until the end of June 1991. Funding will also continue to be provided for a limited number of projects after the closure of the task forces.

  Task forces have proved highly successful in creating jobs, encouraging training opportunities and stimulating enterprise in the country's most deprived areas. Since they began, task forces have committed some £73 million to over 2,700 projects to help the people of inner city communities. A recent independent evaluation of the task force initiative by PA Cambridge Economic Consultants concluded that task forces are successfully and cost-effectively meeting their objectives and helping to achieve the Government's aim of regenerating the inner cities. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  Companies House
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for the Companies House executive agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  In making available information about companies, Companies House promotes enterprise and contributes substantially to open and informed markets. Executive agency status has produced very significant improvements in efficiency and the standard of service provided to Companies House customers. Details of performance against the agency's original two-year targets will be available when the Companies House annual report is published.

  The chief executive of Companies House has been set the following quality of service and financial performance targets:

  i. To make all documents available to searchers within a maximum of five working days of receipt;

  ii. To increase the compliance rate for annual returns and accounts to 85 per cent. by June 1992., and 90 per cent. by June 1994;

  iii. To provide a two-hour search service for all customers from April 1991, and to provide a one-hour search service to all customers by April 1994;

  iv. To reduce real unit costs by 1 per cent. in 1991–92.

  562
  The achievement of these stretching targets would represent a further significant improvement in the quality of Companies House services, as well as building on the agency's improved financial performance. For example, a target of processing documents within a maximum of five working days compares with an average performance of 25 working days in 1988–89, and the original target to ensure that by April 1991 documents were processed within an average of 18 working days.

  Additional financial performance targets will be set when Companies House achieves trading fund status.

  EC Regional Funds
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional funding would be provided for the Rotherham area in each of the next three years if it were to receive its share of the total sum available from EC funds under the Community's regional support arrangements; and what is his estimate of the funds which this area will receive in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: Decisions on the future level of funding for the United Kingdom's objective 2 regions will be made by the Commission shortly. For the Community's RECHAR initiative the Commission has already announced the level of funding for Great Britain.

  It is not, however, possible to estimate what funding any particular area will receive since project selection is a matter for programme co-ordinating committees to consider.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is now taking to ensure that areas affected by contraction of the mining industry receive the benefit of the funds which are available from the EC.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The United Kingdom Government submitted their applications under the RECHAR programme for coalmining areas on 26 July 1990. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Northern Ireland, for Wales and for Scotland, and other Ministers met Mr. Bruce Milian, EC Commissioner for regional policy, on 25 April when, among other EC structural fund issues, the Commission's approval of these programmes was discussed. Discussions are continuing at official level to resolve any outstanding questions so that early approval to these programmes may be given.

  Training (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to enable Bradford Task Force to support training provided by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and other training centres facing closure, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: All applications to Bradford task force for assistance for training projects are considered on their merits. The task force will continue to support schemes, in partnership with other funding organisations, which help local task force area residents obtain the skills needed to obtain employment.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will direct Bradford task force to
  563
  provide training places for those with special needs to replace those which will no longer be offered by the Bradford TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The Bradford task force already supports a range of training initiatives aimed at disadvantaged, unemployed task force area residents. Many of these are being carried out in partnership with the Bradford and district training and enterprise council.

  Kingshurst

  Tyneside

  Bradford

  Leigh

  Britschool

  Djanogly

  Macmillan College

  Site

  Kingshurst School site

  St. John Fisher School site

  Newby Square, Bradford

  Downs School site

  Site of Selhurst Tertiary Centre

  Sherwood Rise, Nottingham

  St. Michael RC School, Middlesbrough

  LEA

  Solihull

  Gateshead

  Bradford

  Kent

  Croydon

  Nottinghamshire

  Cleveland

  Opening dates

  1988

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  1989

  1989

  Planned number of pupils

  1,100

  900

  980

  1,250

  720

  990

  1,100

  Total capital cost1

  £9·71m

  £8·609m

  £9·162m

  £8·95m

  £7·001m

  £9·71m

  £8·450m

  Exchequer contribution

  £7·598m

  £6·887m

  £7·330m

  £7·16m

  £4·201m

  £8·191m

  £6·744m

  Sponsors' contribution

  i) committed2

  £2·112m

  £1·722m

  £1·832m

  £1·79m

  £2·800m

  £1·519m

  £1·706m

  ii) confirmed

  £2·787m

  £1·600m

  £2·864m

  £1·519m

  £2·213m

  £1·887m

  £1·509m

  Principal Sponsors

  Hanson Trust

  Peter Vardy

  Dixons plc, Mr. Hakim Wong

  Mr. G. Leigh

  The British Record Industry Trust

  Mr. Harry Djanogly

  BAT Industries

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  Building contract—Laings Northern

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  School closure involved

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  No

  No

  No

  3No

  No

  No

  No

  Harris

  Bacon's

  Haberdashers'

  Corby

  Derby

  Telford

  Wandsworth

  Bristol

  Site

  Sylvan school site, Croydon

  Bacon's school site, Southwark

  Haberdashers' Aske's, Hatcham, school site

  Great Oakley, Corby

  Wood Street, Derby

  New build

  Mayfield School

  Kingswood Borough Council

  LEA

  Croydon

  Southwark

  Lewisham

  Northants

  Derbyshire

  Shropshire

  Wandsworth

  Avon

  Opening dates

  1990

  1991

  1991

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1991

  1992

  Planned number of pupils

  1,100

  1,100

  1,100

  900

  900

  1,000

  1,000

  900

  Total capital cost1

  £8·662m

  £14·279m

  £8·945m

  £9·95m

  £10·200m

  £10·751m

  £11·116m

  To be determined

  Exchequer contribution

  £6·93m

  £11·423m

  £5·500m

  £7·96m

  £8·160m

  £8·399m

  £8·893m

  Not more than 80 per cent, of cost

  Sponsors' contribution

  i) committed2

  £l·732m

  £2·856m

  £3·445m

  £l·99m

  £2·040m

  £2·352m

  £2·223m

  At least 20 per cent, of cost

  ii) confirmed

  £l·708m

  4£2·500m

  5£4·445m

  £l·99m

  £2·000m

  £2·352m

  £2·223m

  At least 20 per cent of cost

  Principal Sponsors

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust/ Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  Haberdashers' Company as Trustees of Robert Aske Charity

  Mr. Hugh de Capell Brooke

  The Landau Foundation

  The Mercers Tarmac plc

  ADT plc

  Wolfson Foundation and Cable and Wireless

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table given in his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 25 July 1990, columns 280–84, giving the latest available information in respect of each city technology college or proposed and planned city technology college.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table covers announced CTCs:
  565

  Harris

  Bacon's

  Haberdashers'

  Corby

  Derby

  Telford

  Wandsworth

  Bristol

  School closure involved

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  Yes majority against

  No

  Yes majority in favour

  No

  6No

  6No

  6No

  6No

  Notes:

  1 In addition, the Exchequer bears revenue costs on a basis comparable to those of maintained schools in similar areas

  2Sponsors' contributions based on their agreed percentage.

  3 Public consultations were held by Kent on its proposals to close the Downs school. One statutory objection containing 62 signatures was made to the section 12 proposal subsequently published.

  4 Existing school to be relocated to new site, the sale proceeds of the present site which have been valued at £1·5m will form a sponsorship contribution from the Southwark Diocesan Board.

  5 This figure includes the donation of the present site, which has been valued at £3·445m.

  6 In each case, LEA, local schools and other interests consulted on proposal to establish CTC.

  Cambridge Regional College
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to provide a guarantee that the debt charges on capital expenditure to provide new accommodation for Cambridge regional college will not remain the responsibility of the local education authority should the college be accorded corporate status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 April 1991, c. 322]: From April 1993 the council that will be established to fund the new sector will take responsibility for meeting the cost of servicing debts arising from contracts for new capital spending in sixth form colleges and LEA-maintained colleges of further and higher education. The council will take responsibility only for the costs of debts relating to contracts entered into after 1 April 1991 which have a value in excess of £50,000 and to which I have consented under the arrangements I announced on 21 March this year.

  The maximum amount of each local education authority's debt for which the council will take responsibility will not exceed the level allowed within the authority's annual capital guidelines for relevant institutions in 1991–92 and 1992–93. These arrangements will be reflected in an appropriate adjustment to revenue support grant for future local authority finance settlements.

  The servicing of debt arising from contracts entered into before 1 April 1991 will remain the responsibility of local education authorities. It will continue to be supported through annual local authority finance settlements as now.

  Given this assurance, I expect authorities to wish to continue with their existing capital programmes and to undertake further appropriate capital spending on the colleges.

PRIME: MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

  Overseas Aid
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his statement concerning the growing aid programme,Official Report, column 163, 30 April 1991, referred to the aid level in real or nominal terms; and if he will provide the figures on which the claim was based.

  The Prime Minister
  Over the three-year public expenditure survey period to 1993–94 the aid programme is planned to increase to £1,860 million. Compared with the original planning figure for 1990–91 this represents continued real-terms growth.

HEALTH

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the number of patients treated in acute hospital beds for each year since 1979; and what proportion were over pensionable age.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Estimated number of cases1 treated, acute sector2 NHS hospitals, England 1979 to 1988–89

  (Thousands)

  Total (all ages)

  Over 65

  Percentage age over 65

  1979

  4,750·2

  1,137·3

  23·9

  1980

  5,024·9

  1,222·8

  24·3

  1981

  5,153·5

  1,280·9

  24·9

  1982

  5,090·0

  1,315·9

  25·8

  1983

  5,443·7

  1,387·5

  25·5

  1984

  5,633·6

  1,426·4

  25·5

  1985

  5,802·9

  1,511·9

  26·0

  1986

  5,922·0

  3—

  3—

  1987–88

  5,921·0

  1,513·0

  25·6

  1988–89

  6,006·0

  1,590·8

  26·5

  Note: The figures are estimates derived from the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)—calendar years 1979–85—and the Hospital Episode System (HES) (from financial year 1987–88).

  1 Ordinary admissions and day cases.

  22 1979–86—Discharges and deaths from all specialties other than those relating to maternity, mental health, geriatics, units for the younger disabled and healthy liveborn infants.

  1987–88 and 1988–89—As above but excluding pathology.

  3 It is not possible to estimate a number for patients over 65 for 1986 because HIPE ceased in 1985 and HES did not start until 1987–88.

  Traffic Casualties
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, further to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 497, he has now found a suitable legislative vehicle for annulling section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on 12 March at column 497.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of persons eligible for exemption from national health service charges by virtue of the low-income scheme actually claimed that exemption in the three most recent years for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of people eligible to claim under the national health service low-income scheme made a claim in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures are not available for the potential number of people who may have benefited from the NHS low income scheme had they made a claim for remission of charges. Between May 1988, when revised methods of collecting statistical information were introduced, and March 1989, a total of 972,637 claims were received and a total of 689,945 awards of either full or partial remission of charges were made. For the financial year 1989–90 the corresponding figures were 900,509 and 813,671 and for 1990–91 1,01 7,7 3 9 and 957,886. Claimants may make more than one claim in any 12-month period.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the gross annual cost of administering the low-income scheme for health benefits and the cost per claim in the three most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS low income scheme is administered by the Department of Social Security on behalf of the Department of Health, on a repayment basis. Figures are available only for the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 when the repayments were £8·107 million and £7·180 million respectively.

  The average cost per claim was £6·76 in 1989–90 and £7·65 in 1990–91. No figures are available for earlier years.

  Hip Fractures
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the rate of incidence of hip fractures in(a) the total population, (b) the male population, (c) the female population and (d) the female population over 75 years in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The information is given in the table.

  Estimated Numbers of Discharges and Deaths (1980-–985) and Finished Consultant Episodes (1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 where principal diagnosis was ICD 820: Fracture of Neck of Femur and Incidence per 10,000 Population NHS Hospitals, England

  Total

  Male

  Females

  All Ages

  All Ages

  All Ages

  Over 75

  1980

  39,261

  8,750

  30,511

  21,874

  incidence per 10,000 population

  8

  4

  13

  120

  1981

  39,574

  8,904

  30,670

  22,409

  568

  Total

  Male

  Females

  All Ages

  All Ages

  All Ages

  Over 75

  incidence per 10,000 population

  8

  4

  13

  120

  1982

  40,829

  8,994

  31,835

  23,095

  incidence per 10,000 population

  9

  4

  13

  121

  1983

  42,189

  9,157

  33,032

  24,227

  incidence per 10,000 population

  9

  4

  14

  124

  1984

  41,991

  8,450

  33,541

  25,256

  incidence per 10,000 population

  9

  4

  14

  127

  1985

  44,403

  9,700

  34,703

  26,272

  incidence per 10,000 population

  9

  4

  14

  129

  1987–88

  41,763

  9,055

  32,707

  25,049

  incidence per 10,000 population

  9

  4

  13

  119

  1988–89

  42,048

  8,677

  33,371

  25,722

  incidence per 10,000 population

  9

  4

  14

  120

  1989–90

  48,925

  10,303

  38,622

  30,295

  incidence per 10,000 population

  10

  4

  16

  139

  The figures for 1987–88 onwards are extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics. They are provisional estimates based on incomplete data and may be subject to revision when ongoing analysis has been completed. Data for 1986 is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  World Bank Forest Policy
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is supporting to ensure more local participation in preparation, appraisal and implementation of World bank forest projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It is already World bank practice to consult widely on all of their projects, including those in the forestry sector. The bank welcomes and encourages discussion with local interest groups and nongovernmental organisations on aspects of project preparation, appraisal and implementation. As part of its wider forest policy review the bank is looking again at its practice. The British Government support these efforts to strengthen local participation.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to press for a World bank forest policy that clearly states that the bank will no longer lend to projects which degrade or destroy tropical forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A major objective of the world bank's new forest policy will be to help ensure that tropical forests are managed on a sustainable basis. The British Government fully support that principle and has so informed bank management.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the timetable for approval and adoption of the revised World bank forest policy; and what assessment he has undertaken of whether the new policy will affect proposed World bank loans already under consideration.
  569
  Mrs. Chalker
  World bank executive directors, management and staff are scheduled to discuss forest policy in a seminar on 31 May. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, the present intention is for management to seek formal board approval of the new policy by the end of June. No forestry sector loans currently under consideration will come to the board before the policy is finalised.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many proposed World bank loans that include plans for use of forested land, reafforestation, or the timber industry, are currently in the process of being approved.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation he has made of the implementation by the International Tropical Timber Organisation of its guidelines on sustainable management of tropical forests; and what recommendation Her Majesty's Government are making on how the World bank could implement the International Tropical Timber Organisation's guidelines.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Progress with implementation of ITTO guidelines on sustainable management of tropical forests will be discussed at the ITTO council meeting in Quito from 27 May to 6 June. The ITTO is organising a conference of foresters in Yokohama in July to promote further the guidelines. The ODA has made it clear to the authors of the World bank's forest policy that the bank should incorporate the guidelines into its overall strategy.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom's executive director at the World bank will be putting forward the concerns expressed by United Kingdom non-governmental organisations to Her Majesty's Government concerning World bank forest policy.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In discussing the new forest policy with World bank officials, the United Kingdom executive director and his staff have drawn extensively on material and comments prepared by British non-governmental organisations. International and developing country NGOs had an opportunity to discuss the new policy directly with bank staff on 23 and 24 April in Washington.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way existing Overseas Development Agency policy on support for forestry differs from the draft World bank forest policy currently under discussion.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The World bank draft policy paper has been revised four times since early March. Work on this will not be complete until the summer. Until it is, the Government are in no position to say how, if at all, respective policies will differ.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the recruitment, by the World bank, of a substantial number of staff with experience of community participation in forestry, and support substantial training programmes for other World bank operational staff in practical implementation of forestry policy.
  570
  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom executive director has already stressed the need for the World bank to develop an appropriate range of skills to support implementation of the new forest policy. The bank must decide on the mix of new recruitment and internal training required to fulfil this obligation.

  Brazil
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in establishing a comprehensive pilot project for forest conservation in Brazil, as proposed at the Group of Seven Houston summit in July 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government of Brazil have been preparing a project proposal in cooperation with the World bank and the European Community. Draft proposals are being discussed at a further meeting of the three parties in Brazil on 9 and 10 May.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Minister for Overseas Development, during her recent visit to Brazil, discussed Brazilian law No. 7.827 of 9 September 1990 creating the constitutional fund for financing the north, and the reactivation, on 17 December 1990, of the fund for investment in the Amazon with the Brazilian Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I discussed with Brazilian Ministers reports about the reactivation of schemes which earlier resulted in ranching and unnecessary deforestation in northern Brazil. I was assured that, although schemes to promote sustainable development in Amazonia were being reactivated, detailed arrangements had still to be worked out and care would be taken to ensure that the incentives would not result in needless deforestation or unsustainable logging.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a statement of the Overseas Development Agency's forestry policy in the Library.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Agency's forestry policy is set out in the memorandum and evidence given to the Environment Committee's inquiry into the climatological and environmental effects of rain forest destruction last year. Also in the Library are copies of the Overseas Development Agency's booklet "Environment and the British Aid Programme" and the Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance", both of which have sections on tropical forests.

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the size of the ODA's contingency reserve, the disaster relief budget and the food aid budget for financial year 1991–92; whether any changes have been made to each of those since the start of the financial year; and how much of each has so far been allocated and for what purpose.

  Mrs. Chalker
  For 1991–92 the contingency reserve was initially set at £70 million. Allocations totalling
  571
  £22·727 million have been made—£19·5 million for Iraqi refugee relief, £3·0 million towards Bangladesh cyclone relief, £0·227 million in respect of other emergencies.

  Parliamentary approval for expenditure arising from these dispositions will be sought as appropriate through the estimates.

  Within the contingency reserve £10 million was set aside initially for disaster relief. Of this £9 million was provided for in subhead A3(7) of the supply estimates, of which £2,827,000 has been spent, as follows:

  £

  Iraqi refugees (Kurdish crisis)

  2,600,000

  UNDRO: Afghanistan earthquake

  7,000

  World Vision: Malawi floods

  46,000

  SCF: Malawi floods

  114,000

  SCF: Uganda displaced persons

  60,000

  Assistance for the Bangladesh cyclone and further assistance for the Iraqi refugees will be charged to this subhead, supplemented as necessary by transfers from the unallocated section.

  The remaining £1 million was provided for in subhead B3(9) and has yet to be spent.

  Provision for food aid in 1991–92, under subheads A3(8) and B3(8) in the supply estimates, totals £19·5 million. Allocations are made in terms of tonnes of cereals, as this is the basis of the United Kingdom's obligation under the food aid convention. The following allocations have been made:

  Subhead A3(8) Bilateral Food Aid

  Country

  Quantity tonnes

  Ethiopia

  25,000

  Mozambique

  10,000

  Sudan

  25,000

  Total

  60,000

  Subhead B3(8) Multilateral Food Aid

  Angola (fulfilment of 1990–91 pledge to special UN programme which has been delayed due to local difficulties)

  2,200

  World food programme regular programme

  25,000

  Protracted refugee operations:

  Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia

  5,000

  Mozambican refugees in Malawi

  5,000

  International emergency food reserve

  10,000

  Total

  47,200

  Plus cash contribution to WFP administrative expenses

  £500,000

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish tables showing(a) the expenditure per capita of population of each local authority in Scotland and (b) the level of central Government support per capita of population to each local authority.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information, based on local authorities' budget estimates and the aggregate external finance settlement for 1991–92, is set out in the table.
  572

  1

  2

  1991–92 budget estimates per capita £

  1991–92 government support per capita £

  Borders

  959

  777

  Central

  866

  671

  Dumfries and Galloway

  941

  762

  Fife

  921

  699

  Grampian

  842

  688

  Highland

  1,112

  912

  Lothian

  922

  645

  Strathclyde

  914

  733

  Tayside

  911

  716

  Orkney

  1,368

  1,266

  Shetland

  2,540

  2,468

  Western Isles

  1,825

  1,731

  Berwickshire

  108

  79

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  118

  82

  Roxburgh

  130

  89

  Tweedale

  112

  82

  Clackmannan

  179

  109

  Falkirk

  124

  93

  Stirling

  191

  120

  Annandale and Eskdale

  122

  70

  Nithsdale

  111

  75

  Stewartry

  115

  69

  Wigtown

  125

  84

  Dunfermline

  141

  89

  Kirkcaldy

  131

  84

  North East Fife

  153

  94

  Aberdeen

  197

  124

  Banff and Buchan

  129

  85

  Gordon

  128

  81

  Kincardine and Deeside

  99

  76

  Moray

  117

  85

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  123

  86

  Caithness

  121

  88

  Inverness

  105

  81

  Lochaber

  149

  116

  Nairn

  117

  78

  Ross and Cromarty

  164

  119

  Skye and Lochalsh

  167

  145

  Sutherland

  154

  113

  East Lothian

  162

  105

  Edinburgh

  219

  137

  Midlothian

  167

  89

  West Lothian

  130

  90

  Argyll and Bute

  211

  154

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  144

  86

  Clydebank

  237

  146

  Clydesdale

  172

  97

  Cumbernauld

  131

  83

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  153

  98

  Cunninghame

  167

  106

  Dumbarton

  168

  93

  East Kilbride

  149

  68

  Eastwood

  109

  71

  Glasgow

  265

  195

  Hamilton

  154

  98

  Inverclyde

  180

  115

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  142

  89

  Kyle and Carrick

  161

  94

  Monklands

  193

  123

  Motherwell

  165

  109

  Renfrew

  173

  110

  Strathkelvin

  161

  98

  Angus

  125

  85

  Dundee

  200

  136

  Perth and Kinross

  140

  95

  Notes:

  1. Figures used in column 1 are total relevant current expenditure including loan and leasing charges.

  2. Total Government support includes revenue support grant, estimated non-domestic rate income and estimated specific

  573
  grants for each authority. An additional £47·2 million specific grant relating to urban programm expenditure has not been allocated to individual authorities.

  3. The figures in both columns were calculated using the population figures at June 1989.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the cost incurred in debt write-off for the electricity generating and distribution companies prior to privatisation; and what percentage of the total debt this is.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In reconstructing the companies' balance sheets prior to flotation, outstanding NLF' loans amounting to £1·044 billion were extinguished in Scottish Hydro-Electric plc and ScottishPower plc. Subsequently the Government injected new long-term debt totalling £516 million into the companies, together with a short-term debenture of £110 million. At the same time, all outstanding tax losses available to the companies were removed.

  The difference between loans written off and debentures issued is £418 million. This represents 40 per cent. of the total amount of NLF loans extinguished. The Government expect that this sum will be more than offset by the proceeds of sale of the two companies, which will reflect their new capital structure.

  Social Services
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of voluntary sector social work staff in Scotland who received financial support to undertake the certificate in social services course in each of the past five years; what was the total level of support allocated in each of the past five years; and what is the projected level of support and numbers to be involved in the current financial year.

  Voluntary organisations receiving support for professional training of social workers

  Name of voluntary organisation

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  SACRO

  2,692

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberlour Child Care Trust

  8,681

  11,487

  22,471

  4,972

  8,250

  Cornerstone Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  2,671

  2,108

  2,634

  3,836

  —

  Dundee and District Spastics Association

  1,405

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ark Housing Association

  9,541

  9,451

  14,529

  8,610

  485

  L'Arche

  898

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee Cyrenians

  2,183

  3,421

  1,000

  —

  —

  Good Shepherd Centre

  8,765

  —

  21,166

  4,232

  —

  Castlemilk Family Centre

  4,186

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Balmyre House

  4,398

  2,748

  —

  —

  3,220

  Dean Orphanage and Cauvins Trust

  1,942

  —

  —

  —

  2,750

  Skye and Lochalsh Association for Disability

  1,567

  3,696

  2,885

  —

  —

  Whitehill House Association

  2,518

  —

  2,516

  2,364

  —

  Inverness Womens Aid

  941

  3,428

  2,316

  —

  —

  Elgin Hospice Trust

  1,670

  —

  3,058

  —

  —

  Glasgow and West of Scotland Society for the Deaf

  3,081

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme

  149

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Albyn House Association

  2,830

  3,305

  2,925

  2,358

  —

  Church of Scotland

  30,730

  25,947

  32,496

  26,812

  16,446

  Voluntary Service Aberdeen

  9,079

  3,066

  8,705

  14,399

  16,001

  Talbot Association

  3,227

  1,997

  2,585

  2,570

  2,857

  Barnardo's

  5,653

  —

  —

  4,607

  9,018

  Quarriers Homes

  11,831

  13,559

  23,096

  12,112

  6,282

  Salvation Army

  11,437

  8,252

  15,105

  5,835

  4,330

  Scottish Council for Spastics

  4,631

  —

  15,983

  2,367

  2,940

  St Aidans Project

  1,637

  2,119

  2,124

  2,409

  2,594

  Margaret Blackwood Housing Association

  2,035

  3,740

  2,570

  3,137

  3,344

  Key Housing Association

  10,184

  17,505

  32,851

  14,365

  2,715

  Dundee Survival Group

  —

  3,092

  738

  —

  2,997

  574
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of staff receiving financial support for certificate in social services courses and the levels of support for the past five years and the current financial year are set out in the table.

  Number of staff receiving financial support

  Number

  Total support (£)

  1986–87

  62

  226,123

  1987–88

  55

  184,965

  1988–89

  65

  310,281

  1989–90

  52

  203,900

  1990–91

  28

  101,244

  1991–92

  18

  1119,053

  1 Estimated.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the names of those voluntary organisations which have received support for the professional training of its social workers in each of the past five years; what was the total level of financial support in each organisation over the same period; and if he will make a statement on future increases in support for professional social work training in the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The names of voluntary organisations receiving support for professional training of its social workers and the levels of that support over the past five years are set out in the table.

  It is not Government policy fully to fund the training needs of the voluntary sector and agencies are encouraged to include realistic training costs in budgets to ensure their acceptance into mainstream funding. The current level of support for 1991–92 to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work is 1,003,000 the majority of which is devoted to supporting voluntary sector training interests. The level of future support for professional social work training will be considered by the Scottish Office alongside other demands on resources.
  575

  Name of voluntary organisation

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Aberdeen Cyrenians

  —

  2,566

  3,347

  6,159

  6,456

  Wellington School

  —

  1,160

  4,836

  —

  —

  Aberdeen and North East Association for Mental Health

  —

  2,392

  2,335

  3,254

  —

  Grassmarket/Old Town Housing Association

  —

  6,822

  3,116

  —

  2,750

  Carolina House Trust

  —

  2,059

  2,001

  —

  —

  Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  —

  638

  5,716

  —

  —

  Lothian Allelon Society

  —

  551

  2,736

  1,818

  —

  Abbeyfield Quarriers Society

  —

  879

  2,884

  —

  —

  Springboig St. Johns School

  —

  3,656

  5,002

  3,661

  —

  Baroney Housing Association

  —

  1,699

  4,336

  4,735

  —

  National Childrens Home

  —

  —

  2,492

  —

  5,500

  Edinburgh and East of Scotland Society for the Deaf

  —

  —

  6,234

  3,639

  —

  Seabank House

  —

  —

  1,991

  2,424

  2,289

  Glengowan House

  —

  —

  —

  3,078

  3,152

  Lanarkshire Association for Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  2,970

  3,297

  North Edinburgh Action Group

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,013

  Raddery School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,127

  Save the Children Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,750

  Red Cross House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  Totals

  150,560

  141,345

  258,781

  146,724

  121,563

  Fish Processing
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the fish processing industry to discuss future Government support for the industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland met the Scottish Fish Merchants' Federation in October last year. This has been backed up by more recent meetings with officials.

  Statisticians

  Year

  Grade 5

  Grade 7

  Assistant/Senior Asst Stat

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  1979

  2

  —

  10

  —

  13

  —

  1980

  2

  —

  10

  —

  11

  —

  1981

  2

  —

  10

  —

  10

  —

  1982

  1

  —

  10

  —

  8

  —

  1983

  2

  —

  13

  —

  10

  —

  1984

  2

  —

  12

  —

  10

  —

  1985

  2

  —

  14

  —

  9

  —

  1986

  2

  0

  11

  0

  11

  0

  1987

  2

  0

  13

  0

  13

  1

  1988

  2

  0

  13

  0

  10

  1

  1989

  2

  0

  15

  1

  8

  3

  1990

  2

  0

  16

  0

  10

  3

  1991

  2

  0

  15

  0

  11

  2

  Administrative staff

  Year

  Senior Executive Officer

  Higher Executive Officer

  Executive Officer

  Admin Officer

  Admin Assistant

  Personal Secretary

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  1979

  2

  —

  9

  —

  25

  —

  57

  —

  22

  —

  2

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  2

  —

  6

  —

  27

  —

  49

  —

  23

  —

  2

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  1

  0

  9

  0

  26

  1

  50

  1

  21

  2

  2

  0

  1987

  1

  0

  9

  0

  26

  1

  49

  0

  24

  2

  2

  0

  1988

  0

  0

  7

  2

  24

  3

  49

  0

  23

  0

  2

  0

  1989

  0

  0

  9

  0

  25

  1

  48

  0

  22

  0

  2

  0

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: Full information along the lines requested is not readily available for every year since 1979. The available information is set out in the table.
  577

  Year

  Senior Executive Officer

  Higher Executive Officer

  Executive Officer

  Admin Officer

  Admin Assistant

  Personal Secretary

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  SIP

  VAC

  1990

  0

  0

  10

  0

  23

  0

  46

  0

  16

  3

  2

  0

  1991

  1

  0

  7

  0

  23

  0

  41

  2

  16·5

  0

  2

  0

  Note: SIP = Staff in Post as at 1 April.

  VAC = Vacant Posts as at 1 April. (Not available before 1986).

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures showing the number of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets born in Scotland in 1990; what was the total number of maternities in Scotland for that year; and what was the total number of multiple births of each type which were conceived as a result of (i) IVF, (ii) GIFT and (iii) other forms of assisted births.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Number1

  (i) Type of Birth

  Twin

  731

  Triplet

  16

  Quadruplets

  1

  Quintuplets

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  (ii) Total confinements

  65,556

  1 Provisional.

  Information on the number of multiple births attributed to assisted reproduction is not available.

  Grampian Health Board
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 548, whether he will now direct the Grampian health board to make its minutes available to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: I understand a copy of the relevant minutes were sent to the hon. Member on 2 May. I regret that this was not done sooner.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Books
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the numbers and proportions of pensioners who are not receiving their new pension books by the date at which they come into force; and what action he is taking to prevent such occurrences.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Pension books normally go out three weeks before they are due. Exceptionally, delays may occur in a small number of cases. Detailed figures on such cases are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total percentage of pensioner units whose income did not exceed £5,000 at current prices for each of the last 10 years for the Doncaster area; and what is the national figure.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 5 February 1991, at column 134, which gives the national figures requested. Information on particular areas is not available.

  Community Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the level of funding of(a) community care loans and (b) grants, at his Department's offices in the Doncaster area; and what his response has been to-date.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency.

  He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the numbers of claimants in receipt of invalidity benefit who will suffer a net loss of income arising from the recent uprating of invalidity benefit and its impact upon entitlement to housing and poll tax rebates and free national health service prescriptions.

  Mr. Scott
  Detailed information is not available. However, invalidity benefit recipients who are also in receipt of housing benefit and community charge benefit will normally be better off following an uprating. This is because applicable amounts for housing benefit and community charge benefit are uprated at the same time as increased invalidity benefit is taken into account. In addition, the housing benefit and community charge benefit tapers operate so that claimants normally retain at least part of any increase in their income. The applicable amounts used in assessing entitlement to help with prescription charges under the NHS low income scheme are also uprated at the same time as invalidity benefit.

  Occupational Pensioners
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of occupational pensioners in the United Kingdom in 1970, 1980, and 1990 receiving pensions from local authorities; and what was the total amount paid in occupational pensions by local authorities in those years.
  579
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not held centrally. Local authorities are responsible not only for the payment of pensions to their own former employees, who are members of the local government superannuation scheme but for the payment of pensions to retired firefighters and police officers who are members of schemes administered by the Home Office. In Scotland the Scottish Office is responsible for the administration of all such occupational pensions.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what would be the cost in 1991–92 of raising(a) one-parent benefit and (b) the widowed mother's allowance on behalf of the claimant, by 85p a week (i) assuming similar increases in income-related benefits for lone parents and widows and (ii) net of income-related benefits;

  (2) what would be the cost in 1991–92 of raising one-parent benefit by £1·45 a week (i) assuming similar increases in income-related benefits for lone parents and (ii) net of income-related benefits.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 May 1991]: The information requested is in the following table.

  Raising OPB and WMA by 85p a week £ million

  Raising OPB by £1·45 a week £ million

  (i) Assuming compensatory increases in income related benefits

  One-parent benefit

  57

  98

  Widowed mother's allowance

  3

  —

  TOTAL

  60

  98

  (ii) Assuming no increase in income related benefits

  One-parent benefit

  17

  30

  Widowed mother's allowance

  2

  —

  TOTAL

  19

  30

  Notes:

  1. The table shows:

  (i) The effects of increasing one-parent benefit and widowed mother's allowance and of making increases in the income related benefits to allow all claimants of one-parent benefit and widowed mother's allowance to get the full increases;

  (ii) The cost of increasing one-parent benefit and widowed mother's allowance without making such increases in the income related benefits. In this case increases in one parent benefit and widowed mother's allowance for people on income related benefits would be offset by reductions in those benefits.

  2. It is not possible to get both one-parent benefit and widowed mother's allowance.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social
  Security if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department.
  580
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 April 1991] Functions which are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's headquarters information division.

  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  Date

  Staff in post

  Complement

  1 April 1989

  79

  186

  1 April 1990

  70·5

  281

  1 April 1991

  25

  334·5

  From April 1991 the Benefits Agency became responsible for its own information service. The figures are as follows.

  1 April 1991

  54

  456

  1 Of the complement 19 were Information Officer grades.

  2 Of the complement 22 were Information Officer grades.

  3 Of the complement 19 are Information Officer grades.

  4 Of the complement 14 are Information Officer grades.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Southern Health and Social Services (Finances)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he will take to improve the budgetary position of the Southern health and social services board in this current financial year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Southern board has been allocated over £125 million in this financial year, an increase of £10·5 million. It will receive in addition a share of central money reserved for community care and have available the proceeds of its own cost improvements. It is for the board to formulate its operational plan for the use of these substantial resources in line with its declared priorities.

  Road Fund Licences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of second-hand cars permanently exported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for which the car owner has to apply for a new road fund licence document; and what is the average period of time between application for such documents and their being posted to the new owner.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1990, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland received applications for new vehicle registration documents for 16,675 previously registered vehicles permanently imported to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. The average time between receipt of a valid application and issue of the new registration document is 10 working days.

  Doctors
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many doctors in general practice in each health board area in Northern Ireland are(a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholics and (c) others; and in each category by board area, how many were trained in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) the Irish Republic, (iii) Great Britain and (iv) overseas.

  Mr. Hanley
  General practitioners are self-employed independent contractors and as such information about their religious affiliation is not held.

  A breakdown showing their places of graduation is set out below.
  581

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  316

  170

  108

  69

  663

  Irish Republic

  28

  23

  53

  71

  175

  Great Britain

  18

  10

  4

  10

  42

  Overseas

  4

  8

  6

  7

  25

  Total

  366

  211

  171

  157

  905

  Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show (i) the number of employers or firms in Northern Ireland which employ more than 90 per cent. Protestants, (ii) the distribution of such firms by council area, (iii) the number of such firms in the following bands (a) 1–49, (b) 50–99 and (c) 100-plus employees; and, where such an employer has more than one establishment, where persons are employed treating each such different establishment as a separate entity.

  Mr. Needham
  From the 1,857 concerns with more than 25 employees which submitted monitoring returns to the Fair Employment Commission on the community composition of the work forces during the 1990 monitoring round, the information is.

  1. There are 242 concerns which employ more than 90 per cent. Protestants.

  2. The distribution by district council area is:

  Number

  Londonderry

  2

  Limavady

  1

  Coleraine

  6

  Ballymoney

  2

  Moyle

  2

  Larne

  2

  Ballymena

  18

  Magherafelt

  4

  Cookstown

  1

  Strabane

  1

  Fermanagh

  1

  Dungannon

  2

  Craigavon

  11

  Armagh

  5

  Newry and Mourne

  1

  Banbridge

  2

  Lisburn

  21

  Antrim

  4

  Newtownabbey

  24

  Carrickfergus

  6

  North Down

  13

  Ards

  10

  Castlereagh

  15

  Belfast

  88

  Total

  242

  3. 140 have below 50 employees

  74 have 51–100 employees

  28 have over 100 employees.

  4. The commission does not hold separate information on locations.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show (a) the number of employers or firms in Northern Ireland which employ more than 90 per cent. Roman Catholics, (b) the distribution of such firms by council area, (c) the number of such firms in the following bands (i) 1–49, (ii) 50–99, (iii) 100-plus employees; and,
  582
  where such an employer has more than one establishment, where persons are employed treating each such different establishment as a separate entity.

  Mr. Needham
  From the 1,857 concerns with more than 25 employees which submitted monitoring returns to the Fair Employment Commission on the community composition of the work forces during the 1990 monitoring round, the information is.

  1. There are 142 concerns which employ more than 90 per cent. Roman Catholics.

  2. The distribution by district council area is:

  Londonderry

  20

  Limavady

  2

  Moyle

  1

  Ballymena

  1

  Magherafelt

  5

  Cookstown

  3

  Strabane

  5

  Omagh

  4

  Fermanagh

  10

  Dungannon

  10

  Craigavon

  6

  Armagh

  7

  Newry and Mourne

  27

  Down

  6

  Lisburn

  2

  Antrim

  3

  Ards

  1

  Belfast

  29

  Total

  142

  3. 80 have below 50 employees

  44 have 51–100 employees

  18 have over 100 employees

  4. The commission does not hold separate information on locations.

  Fergal Caragher
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects a copy of the autopsy report on Fergal Caragher of Cullyhanna will be made availble to Mr. Caragher's widow; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the Coroners (Practice and Procedures) Rules (NI) 1963 the question of whether and, if so, when to make available to properly interested persons a report of a post mortem examination of the body of a person whose death has been reported to a coroner is entirely a matter for the coroner concerned.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths are estimated to occur each year from health-related problems caused by work; and what is the total number of doctors and nurses employed by the Health and Safety Executive, excluding those working in employment rehabilitation centres.
  583
  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive's current best estimate suggests that ill-health caused by work gives rise to at least 2,000 deaths a year and contributes to a further 8,000.

  On 1 April 1991 there were 110 doctors and nurses employed by the HSE. This figure includes 22 nurses currently working in employment rehabilitation centres who will shortly be integrated with the local employment medical advisory service team.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the assessment and measurement of the quality of the work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Forth
  Maintaining the high quality of the work carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's staff is essential to the achievement of the organisation's aims and objectives. The nature of HSE's work, with its wide range of non-standard outputs based on professional judgments, makes it difficult to express output and performance in terms of indicators of both quantity and quality. Methods currently used to assess quality include, for example, systems for laboratory quality assurance, the application of medical audit, and reviews by management services staff, as well as the day-to-day quality assurance that comes from the management of professional staff by more senior professional colleagues. Other initiatives are currently being pursued, including one to examine the application of the concepts of total quality management in the HSE, which will include consideration of how more and better measures of quality might be devised to supplement the current range of performance measures.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why callers are no longer able to get through to the Health and Safety Executive's main public inquiry point at its Bootle headquarters; and when he expects the public inquiry point to reopen.

  Mr. Forth
  The public inquiry point at Bootle has been closed since the middle of 1990 and the Health and Safety Executive has no plans to reopen it, because it believes that inquiries can be effectively handled by the two remaining public inquiry points in London and Sheffield and through the national network of 20 area offices.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many CEN—European Committee for Standardisation—committees have representatives from the Health and Safety Executive sitting on them; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Forth
  At present 42 Health and Safety Executive staff are members of one or more delegations from the British Standards Institution to committees or working groups at CEN. HSE staff form part of the delegation to the CEN committees listed in the table below.

  CEN committees where HSE staff form part of the United Kingdom delegation.

  CEN TC 23

  CEN TC 23 SC2

  CEN TC 61

  CEN TC 85 WG 4

  CEN TC 114

  CEN TC 122 WG 6

  CEN TC 137

  CEN TC 143

  CEN TC 144 WG 1

  CEN TC 144 WG 3

  584

  CEN TC 145 WG 4

  CEN TC 148

  CEN TC 148 WG 2

  CEN TC 148 WG 4

  CEN TC 162 WG 2

  CEN TC 196

  CEN TC 198 WG 1

  CEN TC 201 WG 1

  CEN TC 202 WG 1

  CEN TC 212

  CEN TC 214

  CENTC 231

  CEN TC 269

  CEN TC 23 SCI

  CEN TC 54

  CEN TC 93

  CEN TC 114 WG 2

  CEN TC 128

  CEN TC 140

  CEN TC 143 WG 1

  CEN TC 144 WG 2

  CEN TC 144 WG 7

  CEN TC 147

  CEN TC 148 WG 1

  CEN TC 148 WG 3

  CEN TC 151 WG 12

  CEN TC 162 WG 4

  CEN TC 196 WG 3

  CEN TC 198 WG 2

  CEN TC 201 WG 3

  CEN TC 211

  CEN TC 212 WG 3

  CEN TC 214 WG 1

  CEN TC 233

  CEN/CENELEC TC 1

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Employment (1) how much time is used by Health and Safety Executive staff in recording work undertaken;

  (2) if he will explain the reasons for the use of work recording systems in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Forth
  The HSE's principal resource is the time of its professional and administrative staff. Work recording plays a key part in the process of planning, monitoring and accounting for the time of staff allocated to particular activities, thus ensuring that resources are applied to meeting priority objectives.

  The time spent by the HSE's staff in recording their activities is part of the administrative work associated with these activities, and is not itself separately recorded.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the financial benefits of closing the Health and Safety Executive's Cricklewood laboratory and moving the work to Sheffield to be realised.

  Mr. Forth
  Many of the financial benefits of the relocation will begin to accrue from the outset, as the move will eliminate some of the requirements for support staff, London pay differentials, travel and subsistence, postage and telecommunication services, and so on. Other financial benefits will be felt at a later stage. For example, the expected lower turnover of staff when the laboratory is in Sheffield will be a major advantage, not only in terms of the research and laboratory services division's—RLSD—effectiveness but in reduced recruitment and training costs, etc.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will identify the number of premises, in each of the Health and Safety Executive regions which are subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 which have not yet been issued
  585
  with a fire certificate by the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with the Fire Certificates (Special Premises) Regulations 1976.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not readily available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to assist the Health and Safety Executive in overcoming the problems of under-reporting of accidents and the low level of registration by employers.

  Mr. Forth
  I am satisfied that the Health and Safety Executive is already taking and planning effective action to encourage both the reporting of accidents and registration by employers.

  During visits to all workplaces, HSE inspectors give advice and guidance, remind employers of their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and related legislation including the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1984 and when appropriate take action to secure compliance.

  As part of planned preventive inspection, inspectors continue to seek out and inspect new and unregistered workplaces. To complement this, special initiatives have been, and will continue to be, mounted on a local or regional basis aimed specifically at both registered and unregistered small firms in defined geographical areas. Planned publicity for such targeted initiatives enables the HSE to get the health and safety message across and stimulate better standards of compliance with the legislation.

  Additionally, between 1 July and 31 December 1991, the HSE plans to carry out a pilot exercise in seven areas to assess the feasibility of employing visiting officers to identify establishments for inspection. One of the objectives of the exercise, which will complement normal inspection arrangements is to seek out and inclentify establishments not registered with the HSE.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the costs of attendance by Health and Safety Executive personnel at CEN committees is borne by the Health and Safety Executive and what by the European Commission.

  Mr. Forth
  The travel and subsistence costs of Health and Safety Executive staff attending CEN committees are at present met by the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that there are now arrangements whereby the CEC will pay to CEN a proportion of the costs of chairmen of committees and of the convenors of working groups. The Health and Safety Executive is discussing with the British Standards Institution how it will recover its share of such costs.

  Agricultural and Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the differences in the quality of work required from principal agricultural inspectors and factory inspectors 1A.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive does not differentiate between the quality of work required from principal agricultural inspectors and factory inspectors 1A.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission about the effect of inflation on the level of activity of the Health and Safety Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  None. Once again, the Government have met in full the Health and Safety Commission's request for funds for the current financial year. In his letter to the Secretary of State enclosing the plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, the commission's chairman confirmed that these funds enable the commission to take forward its plan of work for this financial year with no additional bid for resources. The plan of work will be published later this month.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what criteria are used to assess the suitability of appointed doctors; and how many doctors have had their status as appointed doctors withdrawn by EMAS;

  (2) what proportion of doctors appointed by EMAS have qualifications in occupational health;

  (3) how many appointed doctors are currently registered with EMAS; and how many days' training, on average, each received from EMAS staff.

  Mr. Forth
  There are currently 1,369 appointed doctors registered with EMAS. Approximately 40 per cent. of doctors currently appointed by EMAS hold formal qualifications in occupational health, and all are encouraged to take the Faculty of Occupational Medicine's 30 to 50 hours introductory course in occupational health.

  Each doctor is provided with appropriate induction training prior to being appointed and all appointed doctors are normally given the opportunity to attend a one-day seminar run by EMAS on an annual basis in each HSE area/region. No records are maintained of the time spent training individual doctors.

  The local senior employment medical adviser is required to ensure that any doctor seeking an appointment is suitable and competent and has the necessary facilities and equipment to carry out the required duties.

  The Health and Safety Executive does not maintain historical data on the number of doctors who have had their status as appointed doctors withdrawn, but in recent years several hundred appointments have been no longer required as a result of legislative change.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number and locations of the TECs which have any links with employment rehabilitation centres or asset centres or which have sought to place trainees with disabilities in these centres.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not held centrally. I know that training and enterprise councils will decide carefully what is best for people with special training needs.

  Field Operations Divisions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many categories of work are required to be recorded on the field operations division WR1 form.

  Mr. Forth
  Three forms WR1, currently in use by different parts of the field operations divisions, make provision for a combined total of 78 different categories of work to be recorded.

  Employment Rehabilitation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance has been given to training and enterprise councils on the services that can be provided by the employment rehabilitation service.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils have been advised that they are able to access the facilities of the employment rehabilitation service—ERS—as part of making appropriate arrangements for trainees with special needs.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice or guidance has been given in writing to employment rehabilitation and asset centre managers and staff on the role of psychology assistants; and whether in all cases the psychology assistants are working under the direct supervision and control of a higher or senior occupational psychologist.

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

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the employment rehabilitation service.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 16 April 1991,Official Report, columns 157–59.

  Wath Recycling
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits have been paid to the premises of Wath Recycling by officials of his Department, including the Health and Safety Executive in connection with the toxic waste held at these premises since this material arrived in the summer of 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  Inspectors and specialist inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive have paid a total of 21 visits to the premises of Wath Recycling Ltd. in connection with the toxic waste held at the premises since its arrival in the summer of 1989.

  Training
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will publish the anticipated unit cost per week of training disabled students by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils;

  (2) if he will publish the anticipated unit cost per week of training able-bodies students by TECs and LECs;

  (3) what percentage of financial resources made available by central Government to training and enterprise
  588
  councils and local enterprise councils is to be allocated specifically for the training of disabled students by TECs and LECs.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department funds each TEC on the basis of an agreed average unit cost per trainee week and per output achieved. The funding of training for able bodied people or people with disabilities is a matter for negotiation between TECs and their training providers. Funding arrangements for LECs are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of students seeking training at TECs and LECs will be(a) disabled and (b) able-bodied;

  (2) what is the anticipated demand for training by disabled students through TECs and LECs.

  Mr. Jackson
  Forecasts are not available of the number of trainees with disabilities who may require and or obtain places on programmes run by TECs and LECs. The Government are committed to equal opportunities and action has been taken to ensure that there is no discrimination against people with disabilities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Decommissioning Scheme
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with representatives of fishing organisations on the introduction of a decommissioning scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  I regularly meet individual fishermen. Most recently I spent two days in north-east Scotland where I talked individually to a large number of fishermen from the region.

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what objectives he is setting for his consultative paper on agricultural tenancy legislation.

  Mr. Gummer
  Any reform must ensure that there is more land to let.

  Milk
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Milk Marketing Board on proposed changes to the milk marketing scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  In March the Milk Marketing Board submitted proposals setting out the terms on which it might transform itself into a voluntary co-operative.

  Beef
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to help British beef producers and to reduce the levels of beef intervention stocks.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the long term we will be pressing the Community to replace the present intervention system with a mechanism which provides more direct help to the farmer.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the slaughtering industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government fully support the principle of common health standards for all meat plants after 1992 and believe that there will continue to be opportunities for businesses of all sizes producing high-quality British meat products.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the extensification scheme for organic farming.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has made clear the Government's intention to introduce a scheme under EC rules to help farmers who wish to convert to organic production. I hope that the European Commission's proposals on agriculture and the environment will provide the legal basis for the type of scheme we have in mind.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for encouraging the growing and sale of agricultural and horticultural produce free of additives, pesticides and non-organic fertilisers.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and this Department have been long-time supporters of organic farming.

  We expect to commission research projects shortly in hill grazing of livestock and on a mixed arable and pig unit.

  Research is already under way on pests and diseases in organic winter wheat.

  Animal Carcases
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide financial assistance to farmers to deal with the problem of disposal of animal carcases.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. As with all other industries it is the responsibility of the livestock sector to find ways of handling its waste within existing health and environmental controls.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of people employed in the state veterinary service in 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of people employed in the state veterinary service on 1 January 1980 was 1,652 and on 1 January 1990, 1,402.

  Fishing, North-East Scotland
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to visit the north-east of Scotland to study the local fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  I shall meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in advance of the next Council of Fisheries 590
  Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Minister visited Scotland last week and met fishermen in the course of his tour.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations his Department has received on methods of disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected carcases.

  Mr. Maclean
  We receive a number of representations on methods of disposal of carcases affected by BSE.

  Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his recent decision to suspend imports of captive birds from Tanzania.

  Mr. Maclean
  In my reply of 20 February to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, column 166, I explained that veterinary officials from the Ministry had visited several major exporting countries in order to impress upon their veterinary authorities the need to fulfil our import requirements and to follow International Air Transport Association standards during flights to the United Kingdom. I also made it clear that we would cease to authorise the import of birds from any country which failed to co-operate in implementing our requirements.

  The issue of licences for import of captive birds from Tanzania was suspended because of the failure, despite numerous reminders, of the authorities there to respond to our request to send a veterinary official of the Department to discuss with them various animal health and welfare matters, the standard of health certification and the conditions under which future imports of captive birds would take place.

  We have recently had a positive response from the authorities in Tanzania and one of our veterinary officials is arranging to make a visit this month. We have decided that, until we receive his report and are satisfied that imports of captive birds from Tanzania can take place under satisfactory health and welfare conditions, it would not be appropriate for the suspension of the issue of import licences to he lifted.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of humming birds imported into the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989, indicating in each case the number dead on arrival and the number of deaths while in quarantine.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given below. Copies of the reports from which the figures are taken, "Imports of Birds—Mortality Statistics from Quarantine Returns", have been placed in the Library of the House.

  1988

  1989

  Humming birds imported1

  128

  158

  Found dead on arrival

  24

  2

  (Percentage dead on arrival)

  (18·75)

  (1·26)

  Died in quarantine

  62

  51

  (Percentage died in quarantine)

  (48·44)

  (32·28)

  1 Includes all species in the family Trochilidae (Humming birds).

  591
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many (i) green-cheeked Amazon parrots and (ii) grey parrots were imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given below. Copies of the reports from which the figures are taken, "Importation of Birds—Mortality Statistics from Quarantine Returns", have been placed in the Library of the House. Figures for the year 1990 are not yet available.

  Number of birds imported

  1988

  1989

  (I) Green-cheeked Amazona (Amazon Viridigenalis)

  22

  17

  (II) Grey parrot (Psittacus Erithacus)

  5,565

  6,043

  Mr. Ron Davies
  ; To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the annual running cost of the regional veterinary investigations centres relating to investigations of mortalities among imported birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  The estimated annual running cost of the veterinary investigation centres relating to investigations of mortalities among imported birds for the year April 1990 to March 1991 is of the order of £350,000 at full economic cost.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of imported wild birds which died after leaving quarantine for the most recent period for which data are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Data on the number of imported birds which die after leaving quarantine are not collected by the Ministry.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been, for each year since 1984, the cost to the European Community of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  Expenditure from the European Community budget on the common agricultural policy was:

  Year

  billion ecu

  £ billion

  1984

  19·0

  11·1

  1985

  20·5

  12·0

  1986

  22·9

  14·8

  1987

  23·8

  17·2

  1988

  28·8

  19·6

  1989

  27·3

  17·9

  11990

  28·2

  19·7

  1 provisional

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by the Council of Agriculture Ministers to ensure that spending is maintained within the legal limits in the current calendar year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Council is currently considering agricultural price proposals for the 1991–92 marketing years which are intended to keep CAP expenditure within the agricultural guideline in 1991.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to bring into effect in England the new multi-annual guidance programme from the European Commission.

  Mr. Curry
  No such programme yet exists.

  Agricultural Land (Ownership)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural land in England and Wales is owned by overseas investors; and if he will list(a) the countries concerned and (b) the percentage of land owned by each.

  Mr. Curry
  I regret that no official statistics are available on such ownership of agricultural land.

  Whaling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has commissioned or published any research regarding the penthrite explosive harpoon method of whaling.

  Mr. Curry
  No, the United Kingdom ceased whaling in 1963. We have examined the reports made to the International Whaling Commission and see the need for a further review.

  Flavoured Potato Crisps
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to resist the European Commission's proposal affecting the sale of flavoured potato crisps after 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  We are pressing the Commission to accept the amendment to that proposal which was put forward by the European Parliament. We shall take the matter up again in discussions in the Council if the Commission's revised proposals do not include the provision we are seeking.

  Gumboro Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of Gumboro disease in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  As Gumboro disease is not notifiable, accurate figures on its incidence are not available. Latest estimates suggest that there has been a slight improvement in the situation in the last year.

  Sweeteners
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement outlining the procedures which Her Majesty's Government will be subject to in raising at the European Council of Ministers the issue of the exclusion of snack foods from the directive on sweeteners; and when the meeting will take place;

  (2) what is the timetable of further procedures which the draft directive on sweeteners in food will undergo before coming into effect.
  593
  Mr. Maclean
  The proposed directive on the use of sweeteners in foods is subject to the procedure for consultation with the European Parliament laid down in the Single European Act, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Following the European Parliament's first opinion, the Commission is now engaged in preparing a revised proposal for the Council. The Council will then seek to adopt a common position by qualified majority, after which the Parliament will have three months to reconsider it. Depending on the outcome of the Parliament's consideration, the Council may adopt the proposal, or the Commission may again amend it within one month. The Council must then act within three months or the proposal lapses. No more precise timetable can be given.

  Quarantine Stations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Ministry-approved quarantine stations are owned or managed by importers or traders in wildlife.

  Mr. Maclean
  All Ministry-approved quarantine premises, whether for foot and mouth disease, rabies or Newcastle disease, are privately owned, but information as to owners/ownership is not available in the precise form requested. However, in 1990, the Ministry approved 137 premises in England for the quarantine of small mammals, other than domestic dogs and cats, imported under the rabies import controls. In the same year the Ministry issued a total of 644 import licences in respect of consignments of captive birds to be landed in England. In 594
  each case the quarantine premises would have been subject to prior inspection and approval by the Ministry before the issue of a licence. Some of the bird quarantine premises will have been used, and thus approved, more than once during 1990.

  Animals (Live Exports)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received concerning the export of live horses and ponies; and what action he proposes to strengthen European legislation on this matter.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government continue to receive many representations on this subject. Negotiations have recently resumed on the Commission's proposals for a new Community regulation on protection of animals during transport. The Government are pressing hard for the retention of measures which will prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter.

  Nitrogens
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for reducing nitrogen use in farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We continually emphasise the need for farmers to avoid nitrogen fertiliser applications beyond good agricultural practice and we are pleased to note the reduction in autumn and total applications to key crops that has occurred since 1985.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Training and Enterprise Councils
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they respond to the concern of voluntary organisations at cuts made by training and enterprise councils in training schemes for those with special needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the voluntary sector has played and will continue to play an important part in providing training, particularly for people with special needs. We have given training and enterprise councils responsibility for planning and delivery of training locally. They are required to set out in their plans how they will meet special training needs and are bound through contract to carry that forward. It is for training, and enterprise councils to decide with whom they contract to provide training to meet local needs, which may or may not include voluntary organisations.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am disappointed at the Minister's Answer. Is he aware that the specialist colleges for the deaf, the blind and the physically handicapped are known throughout the country as colleges of excellence? Does he agree that TECs cannot take on that responsibility because the people who attend such colleges come from all over the country and not one particular TEC area? Does he agree that he is preventing those special people from receiving a training which will stand them in good stead for life and can give them a job?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to endorse what the noble Baroness said when she stressed that those colleges are colleges of excellence. The Government agree entirely with that point. I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to residential colleges whose funding at the moment is on a pilot basis with the TECs in their areas. That pilot study is to be reviewed. No decision has been taken about their future funding.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as the TECs are being judged on the placements in employment they obtain and the qualifications their trainees acquire, it is improbable that they will view favourably the spending of money on special needs people whom they will find much more difficult to place, and who will find it much more difficult to obtain qualifications? At the same time, the failure to train such people will, in the longer run, place a heavy burden on the community as a whole.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness in some ways simplifies the issue. In their corporate and business plans, TECs are required to set out how they will meet special training needs. They are bound through their contract with my department to carry forward that commitment. Their performance in that regard, including the production of regular management information, will be closely monitored. So it is wrong to assume that they will be judged or paid purely on the outcome of the training.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a year's time, when those pilot schemes are judged, many of the special schemes for the disabled will have disappeared, because some of them are already having to dispense with staff? Does he agree that it is much more difficult to re-establish something than it is to maintain it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is the TECs' responsibility to ensure that not only is the training that they provide for the people in their area of a suitable standard, but that the specialist training required by those with special needs is also available in their area. It would be wrong to believe that they would not take into consideration the availability of such trainers with whom they were contracting to provide the special training.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in his first Answer the Minister rightly mentioned the excellent contribution made by voluntary organisations, but he did not say that he shared their concern at the lack of funding. Will he confirm that he shares their concerns and will do something about them?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are talking about employment training. Research has shown that training is not always the most suitable method of helping back into work those who are unemployed. The Government have increased the numbers in job clubs by some 100,000 to help those people, many of them with special needs, to get back into work.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am deeply suspicious of the phrase "research has shown". Any one of us could produce research to show anything we wanted. Research has shown that people with special needs do not need training. I should have thought by definition that they obviously did. What research has shown that special needs people do not need training?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I did not seek to suggest that those with special needs do not need training. I sought to suggest that that was not the only way in which they could be helped back into work. I suggested that the operation of job clubs, in which there has been a large expansion in numbers, is an equally good way of helping many such people back into work.
Lord Brain: My Lords, does the Minister realise that, because those specialist training establishments are national rather than local, the structure of TECs militates against their financing? Does he also realise that TECs are geared much more to shorter courses,

1199
and that because of the disabilities involved the training centres provide one and two-year courses which are another cause of the funding problem?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the flexibility given to TECs allows them to tailor courses according to the needs of the people for whom they are providing training both in the shorter term, where they believe that better value for money is provided, up to the longer period suggested by the noble Lord for those with disabilities or special training needs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a need for some form of national co-ordination for people with special needs? A number of my noble friends have voiced some anxiety as to whether TECs are suitably equipped and staffed to provide the kind of training that people with special needs require. Should there not be some national policy and national co-ordination?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I sought to stress that TECs are a national body. They have to set out their business plans which are monitored nationally by personnel from the Department of Employment. That gives a national overview of the quality of training being delivered by the TECs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what action will the Government take on the Audit Commission report published recently—letters from the controller of the Audit Commission have gone to TECs—on the serious mishandling of their financing by TECs? If that is the case, is it not as certain as it can be that those on the training schemes who will suffer more than others will be those with special needs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the department has made it clear that it will investigate any breach of contract that it has with TECs. Any information that comes to the department is acted upon immediately.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister have discussions with the Royal National College for the Deaf, the Royal National Institute for the Blind at Hereford and Birmingham, and with the Queen Alexandra College for the physically handicapped? They are national colleges for training people with special needs. I feel sure that if the Minister had conversations and consultations with them, he would see what we seek.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course they will be consulted.

GATT: Uruguay Round
3.9 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions are continuing within GATT on the delayed Uruguay Round, and what efforts they are now making to promote an agreed settlement.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government
1200
greatly welcome the resumption of negotiations in the Uruguay Round. We are continuing, with our European Community partners, to work to resolve all outstanding issues as soon as possible. We are also encouraging a flexible, constructive approach by other participants in the negotiations. We should like to see all parties commit themselves to concluding the round by the end of this year at the latest.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the Uruguay Round is the best chance we are likely to have for a long time to achieve drastic reform of the common agricultural policy, which is becoming more expensive than ever. Why does our own Minister of Agriculture make speeches that sound even more protectionist than the agricultural commissioner in Brussels?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the absence of a more specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I suggest that his inference may be wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, it is important to remember that these negotiations are being handled not by the Ministry of Agriculture but by the Commission.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is probably the most important of a European nature that could be raised at present? I sometimes think that it is the least discussed. Success in these talks is absolutely vital to world trade. Will he use every effort to secure with our partners a successful outcome to the discussions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the prosperity of this country and every country in Europe and the world depends demonstrably, and has been seen to depend, on successive GATT rounds in the past 40 years. It is also true that the common agricultural policy is one of the great issues involved. It is worth remembering that the Commission has agreed to negotiate on specific binding commitments in three areas of internal support within the CAP. Those three areas are: market access, export competition and internal support.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are not the European Commission and the common agricultural policy seen as the greatest obstacles to obtaining agreement on the Uruguay Round? Unless that can be resolved, the implications for our friendship and trade with America and the rest of the world will be very serious indeed. Under those circumstances, will Her Majesty's Government make sure that they protect our interests and press the European Commission to reach a proper agreement and make proper concessions within the Uruguay Round?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it comes as no surprise to hear the noble Lord's belief that the common agricultural policy is the greatest influence. It is true that there are other influences outside Europe which are obstacles in the negotiations. I shall certainly draw the attention of my honourable and right honourable friends to the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do my noble friend's replies this afternoon mean that the EC position remains as agreed at the last meeting of the agriculture ministers, or is there still some flexibility left in negotiation?
Lord Hesketh,My Lords, the negotiations go far beyond those discussions. They take place in the context of the Commission, rather than the agriculture ministers, negotiating on an individual, country-by-country basis within the Community.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, as 1992 is election year in the United States, to delay the conclusion of these talks until the end of 1991 is to leave matters dangerously late?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is absolutely correct. The Government believe that the extension of the fast-track process would not be of particular advantage if that timescale goes beyond the presidential election in the United States. That is why the poi it made by the noble Lord is correct.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how much we welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and how much we, from these Benches, agree with the thoughts that he expressed? Will the Minister assure the House that the Commission takes seriously the agricultural plan put forward by the Swedish agriculture minister, Mr. Hellstrom? It seemed at one point about a month ago to offer a way out of this difficult dilemma.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are two concepts in this mailer. One is the internal European concept; the other is the relationship between the Community and the GATT. The Swedish suggestions are no doubt useful, but at the end of the day they must be recognised as being acceptable within Europe.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, is my noble friend aware that the countries of Latin America are struggling to recover from a heavy debt burden? They are severely prejudiced by the lack of a conclusion to the current round. This round should be designed to give greater access to tropical agricultural products and allow those countries to compete on level terms.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of the point that the noble Viscount makes. It is also an example of the perceptions of other groups from other areas of their access or lack of access, as they see it, to world a ad individual markets.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, following the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, can the Minister tell the House to what extent the British Government, in engaging in these negotiations, take into account the fears in the developing world that the result of the negotiations may well be to their detriment? It may result in raising protection against their exports. For example, are the British Government using the ODA? Is the Minister for the ODA, together with the Treasury team, engaged in these negotiations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I pointed out earlier, the negotiations are being conducted by the Commission.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend ask his right honourable friends to convince their colleagues in the rest of Europe that any collective satisfaction they may feel from gaining a Community point will be as nothing to the damage that will be collectively sustained if it results in the failure of the talks?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to make that point. I shall report it and carry it through.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in a world where millions of people are starving, tampering with agricultural production will need to be carried out very carefully indeed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is absolutely true that the thoughts of Her Majesty's Government are on successfully sustaining agriculture in this country at the same time as achieving reform and prosperity.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the whole democratisation of Eastern Europe may be prejudiced if those countries do not have access to the rest of the world?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to that remark.

Sport: Tax Revenues
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total amount of revenue raised from the taxation of sport for the most recent period for which figures are available.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I regret that neither the Inland Revenue nor the Customs and Excise keep figures of tax raised from sport.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I find that Answer disheartening, bearing in mind that the last set of figures produced on the subject by the Henley research centre in 1984 showed that the income was £2.8 billion. Does the Minister not agree that by now that sum will have substantially increased? Will the Government therefore look more generously upon ploughing back some of the money to assist sport at the bottom level and to increase facilities for schools which are sadly in need of them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is more suited to a debate than to a short reply from this Dispatch Box. There are deep complications. It is worth remembering that of the ever-increasing amount of money involved in sport a large part comes from commercial sponsorship and commercial endeavours undertaken by clubs to their financial benefit. If the noble Lord is suggesting that there should be a reduction in VAT, which

1203
represents a substantial part of the tax he is discussing, I suspect that he would not be surprised if the Treasury took a rather dim view of the proposal.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a difficult matter. It is difficult to define what one might call the sports industries and in this case to define what we mean by taxation. However, is the Minister saying that no one knows anything about the matter? Perhaps he can tell me the relevant department. Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury or the Department of Education and Science? I raise the question because people involved in sport have the impression that they are disproportionately taxed relative to other industries and on the basis of international comparisons. I certainly do not know the answer to the question. Is the Minister telling us that he does not know either and that literally no one knows the answer?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are aspects of this taxation that can be defined. The levy on gambling is a clearly identifiable example. However, when one is talking about licensed bars which are operated within sports clubs it is hard to separate out the revenue the Government raise through the tax that is levied on alcohol, through VAT or through the uniform business rate.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister must surely know what tax is levied for example on the betting industry. The Government know what tax they levy and the amount of VAT that is levied. They also know of the appalling difficulties that the racing industry is experiencing. Is it not therefore time that something was done to help that industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with respect, my reply to the previous question answered exactly the point that has just been made. The Government certainly do know the amount of tax that is levied in the form of betting duty. In that context it is worth remembering that the duty on the football pools was cut from 42.5 per cent. to 40 per cent. to help football.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that comparisons between support for sport in this country and support in other European countries are not valid because in Europe local government gives massive support to sport whereas in this country local government does not have any money to support anything?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is an interesting point. It is also interesting to note the number of sports where the British do demonstrably better than our European rivals without that form of support.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some local authorities offer a lot of support to sport? Guildford is in the process of building a super new sports centre. If statistics are to be compiled on taxation of sport, presumably they will include such things as the VAT that is levied on farriers for shoeing hunting horses, hunt subscription VAT, VAT
1204
on cartridges and taxes levied on all the sports which receive no subsidy from the Government. Long may that situation remain.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. The key to success in sport is talent not taxation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I agree, of course, with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that VAT on shoeing horses is the central sporting issue that confronts the nation at the present time. However, the matter I am trying to probe—this is my final attempt—is that I assume the sporting authorities complain to Ministers about what is going on. Am I to understand that all Ministers can offer in reply is to say they know nothing about the taxation of sport and therefore they cannot say whether sporting authorities are more or less highly taxed than they should be or are more highly taxed than sporting authorities in other nations? What do Ministers say in these situations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we know about the areas where there is a straight levy, for example, gambling. The difficulty with VAT is that many more inspectors would be required if we were to search the highways and byways of sport to define what is a sporting activity on which tax is levied in the context of a licensed bar and what is not a sporting activity in the context of a licensed bar. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would not be in favour of incurring vast expenditure to ascertain that information.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my Question. I am not disputing what is being collected in the form of taxation. I asked for more sympathetic consideration for people at the bottom end of the scale. Is the Minister aware that the target of the British Olympic Association for the four years leading up to 1992 is £5 million, and that that will be subject to a tax of between £1.5 million and £1.8 million? Our rival competitors in Europe will not face such a tax. Will the Minister consider the case of the British Olympic Association and give some sympathetic consideration to ameliorating the tremendous burden it has to carry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to put down a specific Question with regard to the British Olympic Association—I assume he will also relate the Question to Manchester—I would be more than happy to answer it.

Baker Street Tube Station Exit: Incident
3.25 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of assurances given when automatic ticket gates were introduced in the London Underground system, they are aware of the failure to operate an emergency system for the opening of these gates at Baker Street station on 29th April, despite an alarm warning, and of the

1205
consequent subjection of a substantial number of travellers to serious discomfort and alarm; and t action they propose to take.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the incident at Baker Street followed the arrival of a train at platform five that emitted a series of bangs. There was no smoke or fire. As a precautionary measure the immediate area was cleared and the train emptied. British Transport Police officers arrived and ordered the station evacuated. Due to passenger build-up, two ticket gatelines were opened on staff's own initiative. On BTP orders all gatelines were opened and the station was evacuated in seven minutes. There was no panic at any time. London Underground has initiated an internal investigation of the incident.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, does he recall that when the gates were installed assurances were given both by Ministers and by London Underground that in the event of an emergency equipment would be available which could be operated instantaneously by a man who would always be on duty to open the gates? Quite plainly at the Baker Street incident that did not happen. If the alarm had been genuine rather than, mercifully, an unsound one, there would have been serious consequences. Will the Minister ensure that London Underground faces up to this problem and produces an acceptable and reliable solution?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am certainly well aware of the assurances that have been given on this matter. I am particularly well aware of my noble friend's interest in this matter from the questions he has asked on previous occasions. I have taken considerable care to investigate this incident. It appears that London Underground is blameless in this matter and the gates were opened within a reasonable space of time. Following the request made by the British Transport Police, all the gates were then opened and the station was evacuated within seven minutes from that time.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is not instantaneous action? Is it not a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, stated, that with a delay of seven minutes this incident could easily have turned into a serious disaster involving a great many injuries? How often are the gates tested? Is London Underground complying with the recommendations of the working party which it accepted? What is the position on staff numbers? Have they been reduced, and to what extent, as a result of the installation of the gates?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord but in this case there was no question of the gates not opening as soon as the staff took the decision to open them. That is quite clear. The staff were on duty at the barriers and those barriers were opened. A little later the British Transport Police took the decision that all the barriers should be opened. At that time all the barriers were then opened immediately. From that time it then took
1206
seven minutes to evacuate the station. As regards the number of staff, as I have said a member of staff was in position at the gates. A member of staff must always be present at the gates and I am told that that is always the case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that his response is not entirely reassuring or satisfactory? In a matter of a few minutes hundreds of people at a closed crash barrier can be injured and some can be killed. Is my noble friend further aware that this is the third time that I have suggested in your Lordships' House that the administration of the London Underground should be revitalised?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry if my reply is unsatisfactory. So far as I have been made aware, the gates were opened when the necessity arose. The number of passengers built up at some gates and the staff decided to open them. It is important to remember that the original instructions given out on the loudspeaker after the incident occurred were not to evacuate the station.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that makes the situation rather worse. Is the noble Lord aware that what is necessary in these cases is instantaneous action? Were there not reports that references had to be made to other parts of the Underground organisation before a decision could be taken to open all the barriers? Is that the case? If so, what will be the effect of further reductions in manpower on the London Underground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no question of reductions in manpower affecting this type of incident. As I have said, all automatic ticket barriers are manned. If for some reason they are not manned the barriers have to be left open. The incident was monitored on closed circuit television by the station inspector throughout. There was no question of a disaster occurring.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Football (Offences) Bill will be taken.

Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill
3.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Justice Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 9 to 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 and 15,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 16 to 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 31 to 48,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 49 to 59,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 60 and 61,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 62 to 64,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 65 to 82,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 83 to 93,

Schedule 10,

Clause 94,

Schedules 11 and 12,

Clause 95.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 28,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 29 to 34,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 35 to 55,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 56 and 57,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 58 to 69,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clause 70.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 8th May), Committee negatived. Bill read a third time, and passed.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Norrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Bill
3.33 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 54 [Proposed action by London authorities likely to affect priority routes]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 49, line 34, leave out from second ("affect") to end of line 39 and insert ("a priority route").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 105, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 168 and 177.
These amendments concern the quick procedures available to the London authorities to notify the traffic director of their proposals for minor unforeseen road improvements on priority routes or roads which affect them, and similar procedures available to the authorities to notify the Secretary of State in connection with "designated" roads under the Local Government Act 1985.
On further consideration, the present drafting of Clause 54(1) appears to be wider than we had intended. Amendment No. 105 provides that local authorities should notify the traffic director of their proposals only if they affect priority routes, which is the main point. Amendments Nos. 106 and 168 both bring the procedures under Clause 54 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 of the 1985 Act more closely into line. Amendment No. 106 expands the scope of the instrument excluding powers from the application of the priority route notifications, and Amendment No. 168 recasts and simplifies the designated roads procedures in the 1985 Act. Amendment No. 177 is consequential upon Amendment No. 168. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendment. However, I do not think that it is appropriate that it should be taken on the nod. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but in relation to Amendment No. 106 there is a logical reason for making a distinction by sections of priority route. Some priority routes may be busier than others or more important than others. However, a distinction by borough does not seem to have any logic at all. Indeed, the situation could be invidious and even dangerous.
We could have a situation in which the Secretary of State might allow Westminster the ability to introduce pedestrian crossings on red routes but refuse to allow Kensington and Chelsea, the adjoining borough, to do the same. There would seem to be very little reason for making a distinction of that kind. I ask the Minister to explain that position.
If I may allude to Amendment No. 168, as the Minister said the amendment gives the Secretary of State's veto, which had previously been stated in the Bill, to the traffic director. However, it excludes the power of veto from roads which are not on the designated road network, where traffic may affect traffic on designated roads. That exclusion, which is in line with an earlier amendment to the Bill, is something to which we make no objection. However, it raises a more significant issue concerning the general hierarchy of roads in London.
We now have the following tiers of roads: trunk roads, primary routes, priority routes and designated roads. Surely it is right to say that those categories overlap in that some designated roads are also priority routes while others are not. Similarly, some designated roads—which are not the same as our priority routes—are primary routes and others are not. That can lead to great confusion and ought to be put right.
I submit—and I ask the Minister to comment on this point—that there is a strong case for abolishing all designated roads in this Bill on the basis that they will either be priority routes and therefore fall within that purview or should be just local roads. I ask the Minister to comment and to indicate whether he might consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has drawn my attention to inconsistencies in two areas. Although he spoke very clearly, I have not quite followed what he said. Therefore I hope that he will be agreeable to my reading carefully what he said and either writing to him or discussing the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am perfectly happy for the Minister to write to me. Letters rain on us like confetti following these stages. They are sometimes quite difficult to follow too. Nonetheless I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that he will do that. However, perhaps the letter might be circulated to other Members of the Committee who are interested in this matter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I did not for a moment question the noble Lord's clarity. Indeed, I made a point of saying that he was clear. I shall indeed circulate the letter to all interested parties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 50, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("as respects—

(a) all or any of the London authorities;

(b) all or any of the priority routes; or

(c) the exercise of the power in such manner or circumstances as may be specified in the instrument.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [The Secretary of State's parking guidance]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 52, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend who is unavoidably absent from the Committee, I beg to move Amendment No. 107. At the same time I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 108, 148 to 156 and 158.
I understand from my noble friend that she considers the procedure proposed in Clause 57 to be too cumbersome, too slow and often too divided on political issues between the London boroughs to work well. Her series of amendments seeks to provide a more practical and workable solution. She considers that local authorities should be empowered to set all parking charges and that they are in the best position to assess the relative demands for parking space and the need for deterrence within their own areas. I understand that she also considers that local authorities should continue to be empowered to act autonomously, setting all the parking charges which relate to the enforcement services that they provide. At the moment an authority can set both its ordinary on-street tariff—the initial charge —and the excess charge for the first period of overstaying at a parking meter. To that should be added the power to set the charges for the new penalty charge notice and for clamping and towing away.
The Government have stated that they believe that the level of penalty charge should be related to the level of penalty imposed by a police-issued ticket and that this should be dealt with in the Secretary of State's parking guidance. The Government have also stated that, because the penalty charge is related to the ordinary parking tariff, that guidance must also deal with that tariff in some way.
I understand that local authorities believe that, in central London, all parking charges need to be set so that they play their part in achieving the strategic objective of restraining unnecessary car journeys. Only the local authorities are in a position to judge what those charges should be and what area they should cover.
Penalty charges should be dependent on the level of initial charge, not the other way round as implied by the Government. There is no reason why the level of penalty imposed by the police should not also reflect differing levels of demand for parking from area to area. The charges should also reflect the enforcement costs. For example, high staffing and land costs will make towing away significantly more expensive in central London than elsewhere.
I understand that councils review their charges regularly. Although the Bill is unclear as to exactly how the Secretary of State's guidance will affect the ability of local authorities to set initial charges, it appears that the long-winded process by which charges are to be set will not allow councils to respond quickly to changes in demand. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill: The Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for taking on the task of proposing the amendments on behalf of his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes because it will enable us to take a careful look at the Minister's reply on matters which vitally affect local government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, this is an important matter for local government. We must ask ourselves how the matter should be dealt with in local government. The clause allows the Secretary of State to produce parking guidance based on advice produced by the London Planning Advisory Committee. The amendment seeks to remove the LPAC's role. We believe that the parking advice should be produced in local government, as the noble Lord rightly said, since most of the proposals will directly affect local government. However, we argue that the logical body to produce that advice would be the joint committee for parking, the LPAC, as proposed in Clause 66. That would first lodge the preparation of advice on issues such as penalty charges with the same body that must later set them. That would simplify a complex process for establishing local government enforcement.
In addition, the joint committee has a role to play in the production of the advice, but the amendment would leave the preparation of the guidance on parking entirely to the Secretary of State with no advice from local government. We cannot therefore support the amendment. However, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that, as Amendment No. 108 extends consultation on parking guidance to the individual London boroughs, we are prepared to support it.
Amendments Nos. 148 to 156 and Amendment No. 158 seek to make the setting of penalty charges and the arrangement and operation of the adjudication system the responsibility of each borough individually rather than of the boroughs as a whole. We oppose that approach for a number of reasons. First, on efficiency grounds, it is unlikely that the call for an adjudication system will either be even throughout London or sufficient to require one adjudicator per borough,
1212
except perhaps for central London boroughs. It therefore makes great sense for the adjudication process to be handled jointly.
Secondly, there is a need to secure consistency across London for penalty charges. That is not to say that the charges will be the same across London, but it is necessary to avoid the position in which the penalty for parking against the regulations is three or four times the level on one side of the road than it is on the other, just because they are in different boroughs.
Thirdly, on a practical ground, there will have to be a degree of co-ordination between the boroughs; for example, on information about which vehicles have been towed away. As a surprising number of people already have difficulty working out which borough they live in, more will have problems knowing in which borough they parked their car. It will be highly unsatisfactory if a driver who found his car was missing had to contact both the police and three or four town halls to check which had towed the vehicle away.
I cannot therefore give the noble Lord too much satisfaction. We support Amendment No. 108, but are critical of the others and would like to think that the Government take the same view.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for having outlined the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. When we referred to the traffic director during our Second Reading debate, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes quite rightly said:
"a director of traffic should be able to take a strategic view of the overall London position and should be of enormous value".—[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 458.]
Just as it will be for the traffic director to work within the overall policy framework of the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance, so it will be for the London authorities to develop and co-ordinate their parking policies within the framework of the Secretary of State's guidance.
The guidance will be a recognition that coherent and properly focused parking policies can make a major contribution to improving traffic conditions. It will therefore be a strategic document and will need strong local authority input. Because parking is, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, of intense local interest, regard must be paid to the character and needs of local and adjacent areas. The local authorities have considerable knowledge and expertise in that respect.
Provision has therefore been made for early advice from the London Planning Advisory Committee. The LPAC was set up under the Local Government Act 1985 to represent the views of all the London authorities in preparing advice for the Government on planning and development matters, and it has gained valuable experience with the Government's strategic planning guidance for London.
It has independently commissioned a study of parking policies and standards off-street, and that should provide a useful base from which to develop its proposals for the substance of the Secretary of State's guidance. I am confident that it will be able to make

1213
a useful contribution towards the development of the guidance and represent the views of the London author. ties. Because of the strategic nature of the Secretary of State's guidance, he will find it more productive to consult the associations of the London author] ties, rather than individual authorities, before he issues or varies his guidance.
Traffic conditions in London will be affected by the levels of both parking charges and "additional parking charges" as defined by Clause 67(7). It will therefore be appropriate for the parking guidance to discuss both topics. The discussion about parking charges. will be about appropriate overall levels and will be in broad terms. It will not mean that the Secretary of State or LPAC will become involved in the detailed settlement of parking charges, nor that the role of the London authorities in this respect will be diminished. I hope that that will encourage my noble friend.
The discussion about additional parking charges will cover their relationship with the corresponding charges for contraventions for illegal parking controls. That discussion and the Secretary of State's approval of the charges will be necessary in order to ensure that drivers are not encouraged to breach one set of parking controls rather than another. Proposals for "additional parking charge" levels from the joint committee, provided for in Clause 66, rather than from individual authorities, will be necessary in order to avoid displacing traffic from one area to another and encouraging undesirable traffic growth. Regard to the whole of the Secretary of State's parking guidance —rather than a limited number of topics as proposed by the amendment—will be necessary if the opportunities offered by the new parking regimes and co-ordinated local authority parking policies and practices in London are not to be missed.
Although there are a number of steps in the proposed procedures, it is reasonable to expect that the Secretary of State's parking guidance could be issued within about six months of Royal Assent, and there would be nothing to prevent the London authorities establishing their joint committee before the guidance is issued. So there should be no delay in the introduction of the new "permitted" parking system in London. In conclusion, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is nothing to stop the joint committee making joint arrangements for parking adjudicators.
With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his response. I know that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parks will read with interest all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the Minister. On behalf of my noble friend, I shall withdraw the amendment but I know that she would like me to reserve her right to come back at a later stage with either the same or revised amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Contravention of certain orders relating to parking places in London not to be criminal offence]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 53, line 7, at beginning insert:
("() In section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (provisions as to use of parking places provided under section 32 or 33) the words "but this section does not apply in relation to any parking place in Greater London" shall be added at the end of subsection (4).").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109B, 110A to 110E inclusive, 126A, 126B, 133A to 133C inclusive, 134A, 134B, 168A and 168B. Before I speak to Amendment No. 109A, Members of the Committee who were here the other night may be amused when they cast their eyes over this amendment. They may remember that I asked the Minister whether there was such a place as Greater London as I slightly disputed its existence. When I look at the Marshalled List I find that I have used the same term in my own amendment. I thought that perhaps I should mention it before the Minister does.
This group of amendments seeks to extend the new local authority enforcement powers introduced in the Bill for on-street offences to offences in local authority car parks. At present boroughs can only deal with motorists out-staying their welcome at meters in residents' bays during the excess period. The boroughs do not have the power to wheel-clamp. Although they have the power to tow away vehicles, they cannot charge the motorist for the cost of doing so.
As currently drafted, the Bill gives local authorities a comprehensive range of new powers to deal with unauthorised parking on the streets. It gives them powers to issue penalty charge notices, which are similar to the fixed penalty notices issued by traffic wardens and therefore simple to collect, to wheel-clamp and to tow away and charge the costs of that towing away to the offender.
So far as concerns on-street parking, the Bill introduces a streamlined enforcement system which will allow boroughs to deal effectively with unauthorised parking. The local authorities are duly grateful for that. However, there seems no reason why those procedures should not be extended to local authority car parks off-street. The procedures in car parks are similar to those currently in force in on-street parking. The difficulty is that the boroughs have to take offenders to the magistrates' court for non-payment of fines. That is a cumbersome procedure which gives rise to great bureaucratic problems and clutters up the courts. The boroughs do not have clamping powers. Although they are allowed to tow away, they cannot charge for towing away vehicles from car parks.
These amendments seek to extend the new enforcement system to the car parks. Under the Bill's provisions the boroughs will need to set up quite a substantial system of operations for on-street parking. If a borough applies for special parking area status, under the terms outlined in the Government's Amendments Nos. 160 and 161, to which we shall come later, it will be the sole parking enforcement agency in the majority of its area. It would add greatly

1215
to the efficiency of the enforcement if there were a single simplified procedure applying equally to all its parking enforcement.
These amendments also seek to extend the new system of local authority enforcement to loading areas designated under Section 61 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984. That section allows local authorities to impose restrictions on land which is used for loading that does not form part of a highway. A practical example of that is private land behind a row of shops which is used for traders to receive deliveries, where illegal parking can be a positive nuisance to everyone.
This group of amendments is similar to the group which seeks to extend the simplified enforcement procedure to local authority car parks. The amendments merely seek to rationalise further the procedures which the boroughs will need in order to fulfil their responsibility for parking enforcement. We can see no reason for a distinction to be made between the procedures for off-street and on-street offences. This is an opportunity for the Government, in setting up the new enforcement procedures, to ensure that they apply across the board.
Perhaps I may give a brief example of the kind of problem which can occur. My friends in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames had a case in which a foreign car had been parked in one of their car parks on frequent occasions. They were unable to check the ownership of this car because it is not on the computer at Swansea. They were not allowed to wheel-clamp it and if towed away they could not charge the owner for the cost. That is a rather specific case but it indicates the kind of problems that could occur. With the new regulations, should that car be parked on-street it could be towed away and it could be clamped. If it were towed away the borough would have the power to charge the cost to the owner or the user when he came to reclaim his car.
There are genuine problems. It is not just an esoteric idea on our part. Quite practical problems are involved. When the Minister was good enough to indicate on an earlier amendment that the Government were willing to bring forward their own amendment at a later stage, I had the impression that so far as concerns these amendments they might be less sympathetic. I hope that what I have said has helped to change their mind or at least to think again about this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has presented a good argument for the amendment, in particular for simplifying and co-ordinating the parking responsibilities that are now placed on local authorities. That seems very important. The noble Lord did not refer to the amendments in this group regarding loading and unloading areas.
Lord Tordoff: Yes, I did.
Lord Underhill: I must have been dreaming or considering what I would say. The amendments referring to loading and unloading areas are
1216
important. We hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the general principles of those amendments put forward by the noble Lord.
4 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for introducing this group of amendments and for the illustration concerning the foreign car, which I understand. In Part II of the Bill we seek to improve traffic conditions in London and relieve congestion. We have already discussed clauses relating to the introduction of a network of priority routes, a major new traffic management initiative, and now we are to consider in detail the provisions for new and strengthened systems of on-street parking to be administered and enforced by the London authorities. Both traffic management and parking controls have a direct bearing on traffic conditions, and the new initiatives will help the movement of traffic on London's main roads and tackle the substantial and urgent problems relating to on-street parking control enforcement.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, aim to decriminalise offences at off-street parking places—that is, local authority car parks—and loading areas in London, and to apply the penalty charge, wheelclamping and associated provisions of the Bill to those offences. I appreciate the noble Lord's motives in proposing the amendments. However, such amendment would be unlikely to have any direct impact on traffic conditions, which is where the main thrust of our proposals lies. More importantly, the Government are not aware that the present arrangements for enforcement of local authority off-street parking places, through the normal charging mechanisms, are unsatisfactory. No evidence to that effect has been submitted. Any changes would need careful and detailed consideration and consultation with interested parties. We submit that the case for such changes is neither proven nor urgent.
I can assure the noble Lord that the department maintains regular contact with the local authority associations on traffic and parking matters. No pressure has come from that quarter to decriminalise off-street parking offences. But it would be open to discuss the matter in due course in the light of experience gained from the new on-street enforcement regime. Amendments that we shall be debating later today—to which reference has been made—will, if agreed, enable the Secretary of State, by order, to add further stationary vehicle offences to those which will in future be decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities in special parking areas. So there will be opportunity to consider the matters raised by the noble Lord, and, if appropriate, to act upon them at a later date.
I hope that in view of those remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I do not intend to press the amendments. However, I am surprised that the noble Lord says, first, that there is no evidence—I thought that I had given a little evidence—and, secondly, that

1217
there has been no pressure from local authorities. I am advised on the matter by the London Boroughs Association. It is not something that stemmed entirely from my fertile mind.
Perhaps I may press the Minister. Is it possible that between now and a later stage of the Bill the Government will reconsider their position? It seems a logical extension of what the Government seek to do by decriminalising the position of on-street parking. It is clearly a good opportunity to put the issue straight on local government parking across the board. Will the Minister consider an approach from the London Boroughs Association between now and the next stage to discuss what can be done? I know that it may cause difficulty in the department; amendments of some complexity may have to be produced. I am sure that as usual my amendment will not be entirely adequate. However, I hope that the Minister and his department can give us some hope of further consideration before the Bill leaves this Chamber.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is true that the noble Lord gave an illustration which was interesting. I was minded to satisfy myself how that position might work. I reiterate that we have not been approached. That is rather surprising in the light of the noble Lord's remarks. We are not hostile to the principle of the amendment. Without any commitment, I shall be pleased to consider it again.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendmen t.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109B not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 53, line 9, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. Clause 58 seeks to decriminalise offences at designated parking places in London, for example, meter bays and residents' bays, so that the controls at these places can be enforced by parking attendants appointed by the London authorities. It seeks to do this by amending Section 47(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, which makes contraventions of those controls a criminal offence. The amendment adds the words,
"but this section does not apply in relation to any designated parking place in greater London"
at the end of Section 47(1). The reference should, however, be to "this subsection". It is not intended to disapply the whole of Section 47 in London. That would, for example, disapply the important offence in Section 47(3) which covers interference with, or operation of, a parking meter with intent to defraud. The amendment to Clause 59 puts that right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Parking penalties in London]:
[Amendments Nos. 110A to 110E not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 111:
1218
Page 53, line 39, at end insert:
("() Notwithstanding subparagraph (2) (a) (ii) and paragraph (2) (b) above, no penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, if a current disabled persons's badge is displayed on the vehicle and the vehicle at the time at which it was parked was being used or was to be used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge was issued.").
The noble Lord said: At present the orange badge for disabled drivers is not recognised in the cities of London and Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and that part of the London Borough of Camden that lies south of the Euston Road. The amendment grants a partial recognition of the orange badge in those areas by allowing parking without time limit in meter bays. It would not permit parking on yellow lines.
Originally, five inner London boroughs were excluded from the orange badge parking scheme introduced by virtue of Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Since then the whole of the London Borough of Islington has been covered in addition to a part of the London Borough of Camden.
The orange badge scheme is now recognised throughout Great Britain with the exception of those inner London areas to which I have referred which operate their own schemes for disabled people living in their areas or having a permanent place of employment there. The schemes allow badge holders to park at meter bays without charge or time limit. Disabled people in one area cannot use their badges in another.
The cities of London and Westminster and the borough of Camden set aside a few on-street parking places for the general use of orange badge holders. Those are most welcome but further help is needed by people who are unable to walk. Disabled people who need to travel around London or into London on business enjoy no parking concessions whatever. Nor do disabled people living outside the area who wish to visit for shopping or recreation.
The proposed amendment provides such help while not imposing on the inner London boroughs a requirement to allow parking on yellow lines even though that concession is enjoyed by badge holders elsewhere in Great Britain. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: I support what the noble Lord said and the amendment. It may interest Members of the Committee to know that at present in the guest room is the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, and her husband. Her husband has recently had a series of operations and is now in a wheelchair because he has become severely disabled. As a resident of Kensington and Chelsea, he has had to lay up his car in Scotland. He is unable to have a car in London because of the attitude of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea to badge holders. It is monstrous that in this country the blind, the deaf and the disabled should have to fight every inch of the way to obtain from bureaucracy—local government or whatever—facilities that are available in other European countries.
I strongly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is no excuse for boroughs to say that too many people are using the orange badge

1219
scheme. That is an impertinent reaction and they must find a way around the difficulties. Surely they can reduce the number of people who are abusing the scheme. The important point is that disabled people should be allowed to use vehicles wherever possible. The proposed scheme is excellent and it is not good enough that one or two boroughs can escape by saying that a few miscreants will abuse it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I too support the amendment and agree with what has been said. On Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, gave a graphic account of the problems of people who do not live in Westminster and Chelsea. I must point out that the orange badge scheme is recognised not only by the rest of Britain but throughout the European Community. I welcome the fact that the cities of London and Westminster and the borough of Camden have set aside a few on-street parking places but that goes no way towards solving the problem.
On 5th February in Committee in another place Mr. Chope said that whether the central London boroughs would accept the orange badge scheme in full depended very much on whether they are satisfied that some limitation has been placed on the abuse of the scheme. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The most effective way of limiting the abuse would be to implement the changes incorporated in the draft regulations of April 1990. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was deeply involved with those regulations. It is crucial that we should act now because the change is overdue.
A further problem arises because some towns have started to issue their own badges. My neighbourhood town has issued its own blue badge and "bizarre" is a good description of the criterion used. If one has difficulty in walking 50 yards one is eligible for a badge. However, the reply to my application stated that because I am unable to walk I am not eligible for the badge. That is a strange criterion. It leads to further diminution in the value of the badge and to an increase in the public's perception of the abuse of the badge. This is an important amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wish to speak in the defence of the London boroughs whose handling of the matter has been severely criticised this afternoon. I declare an interest because a member of my family has a badge issued by the Kensington and Chelsea borough. It was issued promptly and honourably and has proved most useful for the person concerned. It is unfair to criticise the London boroughs for concentrating first on providing facilities for the disabled people who are resident in their boroughs. That is where their first obligation lies. People resident in the boroughs are regularly in need of parking facilities there and to a greater extent than people who reside outside and travel in from time to time.
I do not know whether adoption of the amendment would result in denying to the inner London boroughs the right to issue their badges to their residents. If that is the case I hope that it will be resisted. On the other hand, if it is contemplated that the inner London boroughs should not only issue their own badges but
1220
must recognise those issued under the orange badge scheme one may ask how any control on the number of badges issued can be operated. Valuable as such badges are to disabled people, it is obvious that if two separate sources are issuing badges in a particular borough there is a risk of excessive issue. That could prove to be frustrating because there would be more badges than available suitable parking spaces—
Lord Clinton-Davis: How does the noble Lord reconcile the attitude of these boroughs and part of the London Borough of Camden with the position elsewhere in London where it is found perfectly possible to operate the orange badge scheme?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is not for me to reconcile that in the sense of justifying the attitude of the other boroughs. To some degree I am speaking in defence of the attitude of these boroughs. A possible explanation is that they are in the centre of London where the demand for parking spaces is greatest. I was suggesting to the Committee that there would be a strong case for allowing them to protect their own residents. If that is right, there must be a limitation on the use of parking spaces by people holding the ordinary orange badges.
It may be that a limitation on the numbers can be inserted into the amendment. The last thing that I wish to be is dogmatic but I do not want the discussion to be held on the basis that the inner-London boroughs concerned have done anything wrong, selfish or unthoughtful in maintaining the system that they operate. They do so in good faith in support of the people whom they represent. The need of their residents must be greater than that of people whose homes and needs are in other boroughs. If the two systems can be reconciled everyone will be happy, but the issue is not as simple and clear cut as has been suggested.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I declare an interest because I have been a disabled driver for 43 years. I held a licence in 1939 but was wounded and disabled during the war. Afterwards, and when I was able to do so, I had.to take another driving test using a hand clutch. When I was a Member of another place I was one of the sponsors of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That was enacted just before the 1970 election after which I became Secretary of State with responsibility for putting that into force. One section of the Act introduced the orange badge scheme.
During the past eight years I have initiated at least two debates in this House on the orange badge scheme and disabled parking. As yet the scheme has not been accepted in a certain part of central London. I have supported the reasons for that in the debates that I have initiated.
I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Within a 30-mile catchment area of a central point in London one can imagine the tens of thousands of people who are rightly entitled to orange badges who may come into the city. Because of the motorways, they can do that within a very short

1221
space of time. They may wish to do their shopping at Christmas time, to visit the theatre and so on. They could take up every available parking place and meter. That has been the main reason for the central boroughs introducing their own schemes. For example, in Westminster, where I have a white card, the test is that one must 85 per cent. or more disabled; whereas the orange badge scheme requires a level of 60 per cent.
Most of us concerned with this subject have been waiting for some time for the improved parking scheme which the Government have been involved in negotiating with all the organisations concerned. We have seen a draft of what is proposed. It would tighten up the scheme from the point of view of making it more difficult for the scheme to be abused. For example it is proposed that not only the name but also the photograph of the disabled person should be on the badge. For years I have said that the holder for the orange badge should be one from which the badge can be taken in and out and that the badge should not be stuck to the screen. The fixture of the badge causes people to continue to use the car with the badge on while the disabled person is no longer in it and, therefore, offend when it comes to parking.
As I understand it, this amendment would make it possible for the orange badge to be used all over London. Therefore, at present that would not be consistent with the special additional schemes in Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that this proposal is premature, given that we hope the Government will bring out a new scheme.
As part of the new scheme we understand that there will be a change in the situation in the central London boroughs. We understand and have grounds for hoping that they are changing their views in return for the scheme being improved and tightened. When that happens, I hope that my noble friend's amendment will be appropriate. At present, I cannot see that it is consistent with the special parking arrangements in central London.
Behind the scenes as well as publicly I have been urging the Government to try to make progress with the new scheme because in central London everything depends on that. The effect of the amendment would appear to depend on the progress of that proposed new scheme. When the Minister replies I hope that he will be able to tell us whether we are close to reaching an agreement and publication of the scheme.
Lord Glenarthur: I am a beginner on this subject. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, struck a chord with me. However, I take a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there are local difficulties in London which may mitigate against the proposal in the amendment.
I do not know to what extent in other parts of Great Britain —for instance, large conurbations like Manchester or Birmingham—such differences apply. Circumstances may well be different. However, to have a whole range of orange badges issued in the way which his been described cannot be helpful to those who may try to park their cars. That applies not only
1222
to those who live within the boroughs, which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter described, but also, for example, to those who may wish to go from one part of Manchester to another and then perhaps come to London. That makes life difficult.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy makes the point that the Government are making progress towards an agreement. That is important. I hope that my noble friend will give some reassurance on that point.
The Viscount of Falkland: It seems that boroughs believe that to widen the use of the badge scheme would leave the way open to abuse, whether or not widespread I do not know. Perhaps the Minister can indicate how many prosecutions are recorded for abuse and what would be the penalties for a person who took a badge and used it when he was not disabled, thereby further aggravating the position as regards the genuinely disabled, person.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not believe that either my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy or I suggested that there is abuse. We were concerned with the practical question as to whether the system would be feasible and whether there would be room to provide adequate spaces in areas which, first, have a good many disabled people living in them and, secondly, attract disabled people from the outer perimeter. No suggestion of abuse was made by either of us.
The Viscount of Falkland: I did not wish to imply that the noble Lord had suggested that. I believe that the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has gone on record as saying that it fears widespread abuse. I am concerned about that. That is why I asked the Minister whether he can give any evidence of widespread abuse, the number of convictions and the kind of penalty given to people who abuse the system.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Once again we have had an interesting debate on this subject. First, I should explain to Members of the Committee that relief to orange badge holders from parking regulations comes from the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England and Wales) Regulations 1986. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned Scotland, but this Bill deals only with London. Where the regulations apply, orange badge holders may park free of charge and without time limit at parking meters. Those arrangements will continue to apply automatically when the new decriminalised system of permitted parking is introduced under the Road Traffic Bill. Orange badge holders will not face penalty charges in connection with this type of parking in areas covered by the orange badge scheme. That means that this Bill makes no change to existing orange badge arrangements.
As my noble friend said, I accept that the regulations do not currently apply in all areas of London. The cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the area of Camden south of and including the Euston Road are exempt from the scheme. As my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Boyd-Carpenter have

1223
said, that is because they have particularly severe problems with traffic congestion and pressure on parking space. That was recognised when the schemes were first put in place. However, each authority operates its own independent concessionary scheme for people with disabilities who live or work in its area. Having heard the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I am surprised that that person was not able to obtain a badge. I hope that that matter may be looked into.
It is widely recognised that the current orange badge scheme is abused and has become somewhat discredited. I should tell the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that at present there have been very few prosecutions for fraudulent use of orange badges but I am sure that we have all seen examples of their misuse. We shall deal with that in a later amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, we are taking steps to remedy this and the package of changes which we are now considering is intended to ensure that only people who have a legitimate right to an orange badge are able to take advantage of the parking concessions it affords. I cannot give to my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who asked the same question, a timetable for that but I hope that it will not be too long before we reach a conclusion. We are still consulting with the interested parties. However, I can say that most of the changes proposed would not require new primary legislation.
As part of the plan we have opened discussions with the four central London boroughs on what range of concessions might be available in their areas to orange badge holders. They have agreed to consider the possibility of granting some concessions to badge holders subject to the implementation of the modified scheme and to changes in parking enforcement responsibilities and powers as provided for in the Bill. I am confident that we shall see improvements in parking provision arrangements for disabled people in the central area before too long.
I believe it is right that those improvements should be made with the authorities' agreement and co-operation. It would not be appropriate to bypass those discussions or practical to impose the orange badge scheme on the four authorities as the amendment effectively seeks to do. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I would add that I referred earlier to the regulations under which the scheme operates. Were a satisfactory conclusion to be reached with the boroughs it would not be necessary for new primary legislation to be introduced to make the change; it could be introduced under the regulations. To that extent, if my noble friend withdraws the amendment he will not be missing the opportunity afforded by the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I did not intervene earlier as I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say. I want to advance another possible way out of the difficulty. I was not sure whether the Minister would anticipate that.
The Committee is indebted to the Minister for describing the consultations that are taking place. I understand that the Minister is not able to offer a clear timescale for their conclusion. Perhaps he could do that in relation to the consideration by the four London boroughs. That would be helpful.
Clearly a problem exists and it is not one that I addressed sufficiently before I added my name to the amendment. I am advised that there is substantial abuse of the system and I underestimated the measure of the abuse. However, we are speaking here not about clamping or towing away but of penalties, and, it follows from that, the way in which the penalties are to be collected by the boroughs and the loss of revenue that results. Perhaps one could overcome part of the problem by enabling a disabled person who had received a notice of penalty—either by its being attached to the windscreen or subsequently—to have a defence if he can establish that the vehicle was being used by him. I do not say that he should establish that beyond all reasonable doubt but simply that he should assert that the vehicle was being used by him. That would put the person to a degree of inconvenience through having to write and it may be a way that the Minister could consider of not necessarily avoiding the abuse but perhaps mitigating it.
I do not ask the Minister for a response now, nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is not an easy matter. The disabled person could be compounding the problem by enabling another person to use the vehicle. It would be easy for him or her to write to the local authority or to the police and say that they were using it at the time. However, it would be another difficulty placed in the way.
The problem arises in trying to achieve a balance. A balance must be found between the great inconvenience to the genuinely disabled person who finds that a penalty has been imposed but was in a position where he had no alternative but to break the law and the rights and concerns of local authorities about the abuse continuing. It is a difficult issue. I put forward that idea, almost plucking it out of the air. The Minister may feel it is something that could be worked on. I do not say that I have come forward with a perfect solution; far from it. It is something that may be regarded as a positive way of addressing the problem.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord has done the Committee a service by putting forward that suggestion. I make an immediate comment on it which is nothing to do with abuse. Most genuinely disabled drivers want to do what they know they are entitled to do. They do not want to go beyond that; they do not want to park on a double yellow line or commit any other offence of that kind. We need to ensure in any changes that we make clear what they are entitled to do and what they are not entitled to do.

1225
Cases come to my notice where severely disabled persons may be due to attend an appointment or an office; they drive round and round and find that there is absolutely no parking facility. They therefore park somewhere which is not appropriate. My experience is that under the present system, if a ticket is issued and the disabled person writes to explain the position, he is usually very well heard and receives the benefit of the doubt. He can prove who he is and where he was going.
That brings me to my last point in this regard. Disabled drivers do not want to be involved in a system where they must write every time they are given a ticket. That is a disadvantage of the suggestion of the noble Lord. Correspondence can go on and on. Most people want to know where they are and what they can do without resorting to such a procedure. At present when they resort to correspondence, they usually receive a very good reception.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment I shall respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We would like to think about the idea put forward and consider whether it is something that could be included in the overall consideration I mentioned earlier. However, having been pressed to come to a speedy conclusion perhaps we should try to do that. It will be difficult but we shall see what the noble Lord said. He asked also whether we could go forward with the four London boroughs before our overall review of the scheme came to fruition. That would not be possible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was merely asking the Minister the timescale for consideration by the four London boroughs.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must give the noble Lord the same answer I gave earlier. We could not ask the four London boroughs to change their minds until we have actually come to a conclusion on our review of the scheme.
Lord Swinfen: We have had an interesting and useful debate on this subject which gives a lot of food for thought. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), were worried about abuse of the orange badge scheme. Amendment No. 115 is an attempt to deal with abuse in some respects and I am sure it will receive their support.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that the amendment was unfair to some of the central London boroughs. It is not intended to be unfair to them. I am sure that they in their turn do not intend to be unfair to disabled people. However, if one is an able bodied driver from outside central London one is in the same position with regard to finding a parking space when coming into the area as a person who knows it well.
If the holder of an orange badge, comes into central London possibly once a year and applies the normal rules that would apply to another town or city in the British Isles or, as the noble Baroness said, on the continent of Europe, he finds that he has committed a misdemeanour and finishes up with a penalty when he
1226
thought that he was within his rights and behaving in a legal fashion. That is a disadvantage of the scheme. I agree that there must be adequate parking in central London boroughs for those who live and work in them. That is a different question. We may have to do something about providing other parking spaces, difficult though that may be.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that we should tighten up the orange badge scheme. I entirely agree. My personal assistant is disabled and has an orange badge. She would very much welcome the scheme being considerably tightened up even though it would probably mean that she was no longer eligible for such a badge. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke of establishing that a disabled person was using the vehicle at the time. That could be difficult under the present scheme. One noble Lord mentioned a photograph being put on the new badge. Everyone would like that provision. It would be quite easy for parking attendants and the police to see whether the vehicle was being mis-parked at the time. One must bear in mind that it is not just the drivers who are entitled to the orange badge. Very often a disabled person is physically incapable of driving and has to be driven by a member of the family. Therefore the badge can be on the car and left there. There are licence holders available in which a licence can be slipped in and out. They cost a very small amount of money. I purchased one the other day for my wife to use with her pass into Canterbury cathedral. She can put the licence in when she is on duty and remove it at other times so that no other member of the family can misuse it.
I do not intend to press this amendment this evening. I shall read very carefully what everyone has said. I may well come back to this matter at a later stage because it is an important issue and one that needs attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 54, line 3, leave out ("25 per cent.") and insert ("the specified proportion").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment No. 113. Clause 60 presently provides for a discount of 25 per cent. for prompt payment of the penalty charge. We now believe that is unduly restrictive. Accordingly these amendments provide instead for the level of discount for early payment of the penalty charge to be determined by the London local authorities acting through the joint committee. A single uniform discount will apply at the level agreed jointly by the authorities. But the authorities will be able to increase the discount if, for example, in the light of experience that offers a greater incentive to early payment.
The Secretary of State's principal interest will be to ensure comparability between the full penalty for prohibited parking offences so that the two do not get out of step. There might otherwise be a danger that motorists would be influenced by differential penalty rates. The Secretary of State will do that through his

1227
parking guidance in Clause 57 and the procedures for approving additional parking charges in Clause 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 54, line 8, at end insert:
("(3A) In subsection (3) (d) above "specified proportion" means such proportion, applicable to all cases, as may be determined by the London authorities acting through the Joint Committee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) Notwithstanding the general powers to remove a vehicle in pursuance of an order to which section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988 applies, or of regulations under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1988 apply, those powers shall not extend to permit a vehicle displaying a current disabled person's badge to be removed unless—

(a)the vehicle was on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to cause obstruction to other persons using the road or as to be likely to cause danger to such persons, or

(b)at the time the vehicle was being parked the vehicle was not being used or was not to be used by the disabled person to whom that badge was issued.

(2)In the case of the removal of a vehicle under subsection (1) (a) above, the removal shall be in accordance with provisions set down by the Secretary of State in a Code of Practice.
(3)Matters covered by the provisions in the Code of Practice shall include—

(a)the general responsibilities of the disabled badge holder and the competent authority;

(b)notifying a disabled badge holder of the proposal to remove a vehicle;

(c)where a removed vehicle is to be placed; and

(d)notifying a disabled badge holder where a removed vehicle may be found.").

The noble Lord said: Because of the very grave difficulties which an orange badge holder would face, a vehicle displaying a disabled person's badge may not be wheel clamped. However, it can be removed. That presents just as great a problem to the disabled person. The amendment is designed to help protect the disabled person from the worst dangers but would still allow a vehicle to be removed if it constituted an obstruction or a hazard. When wheel-clamping was introduced in London it was recognised at the time that disabled people who were unable, or virtually unable, to walk and others with severe walking difficulties, would be far more adversely affected by wheel-clamping than able-bodied motorists. Some disabled people would be physically unable to get from their vehicle to the police station to pay for the vehicle's release. Others, such as those with weak hearts, poor circulation or breathing difficulties, could be at great risk in making such a journey.
Section 105 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 therefore expressly exempted from wheel-clamping all vehicles duly displaying orange badges. The same argument of difficulty and risk applies to the
1228
towing away and impounding of vehicles. However, towing away applies to a vehicle causing an obstruction or constituting a hazard to other road users whereas wheel-clamping does not. That makes it impossible to secure a blanket exemption for orange badge holders in respect of towing away and impounding. My amendment seeks to secure some protection for orange badge holders by permitting the impounding of vehicles duly displaying orange badges only if the vehicle constitutes a hazard or obstruction.
It also proposes that the towing away or impounding of any such vehicle is undertaken in a manner which is in accord with principles set down in a short code of practice. Some of the principles are indicated in the amendment. They are designed to help protect disabled people. It is anomalous that a vehicle displaying an orange badge may not be wheel-clamped. The disabled person can sit in the vehicle while a friend goes for help. In adverse weather what does a disabled person do if his vehicle has been removed? In some respects that is a much more difficult problem. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. There seems to be a disparity of treatment between wheel-clamping and towing away at the present time. That is a matter which should be addressed in this Bill. The way in which the matter has been posed by the noble Lord is eminently sensible and very easy to apply. The Minister will no doubt give some reasons as to why there is a disparity of treatment. The onus is on him to do that. The noble Lord said that somebody whose car has been wheel-clamped can sit inside the vehicle and rely on a friend. A friend is not always available. Presumably that is why the provision was made in the Act.
The noble Lord has a very strong point concerning the enormous inconvenience that ensues if a vehicle is towed away. In such circumstances, it is quite difficult to get to the pound even if the disabled person can use public transport, and that is not always the case. To be able to get to the place conveniently by public transport is, in my experience, far from easy. For the ordinary person it is part of the deterrent and part of the penalty that one should be exposed to the burden of having to find a place at the back of beyond where the car has been placed. That is reasonable enough. However, as the noble Lord said, when it comes to a disabled person, who is physically unable to get to the police pound and pay for the release of the vehicle, it is a totally different state of affairs.
The matter is one of considerable urgency. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce today, without having to wait until the end of the consultation period, that action can be taken under the regulations to which he referred and that, moreover, this is what the Government propose to do. That is the undertaking which I believe Members of the Committee wish to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to add a few words in support of the amendment. The case has been put very strongly both by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. As the latter said, the hassle involved for everyone in

1229
getting a. vehicle out of the pound is the same, but for the disabled person it involves extra time, energy and also expense. I say that because such a person is on his own and has to find an accessible taxi or hire car because he cannot use public transport. I fully accept the need to be able to shift vehicles which are causing an obstruction or hazard. If the amendment is accepted, I very much hope that the disability organisations will be consulted about the drafting of the code of practice.
Viscount Mountgarret: I must first apologise for my late arrival. It seems to me that this amendment is very much in line with Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 which are tabled in my name. They are very similar. With the leave of the Committee, it may be a good idea to dispose of the point at this stage. In my view, it is entirely fair that such facilities for parking should exist and that disabled people should not be subject to the provisions of the clause. I add my voice to the support expressed for the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I well understand why this amendment has been tabled. However, with respect to Members of the Committee, I am not convinced that it is appropriate. As has been said—and I feel that I should reiterate this—it is against the law to wheel-clamp vehicles displaying an orange badge in places where wheel-clamping is authorised by the Secretary of State. There are no proposals in the Bill or anywhere else to change the position. Wheel-clamping will not take place.
So far as concerns the removal of vehicles, matters are a little less straightforward. I can however assure Members of the Committee that the police and traffic wardens are already sensitive to the needs of disabled people. The general policy of police forces is not to remove vehicles displaying an orange badge unless they are causing a severe obstruction or danger. Metropolitan Police district instructions highlight that provision. In such circumstances, vehicles will normally be removed to a better position—just around the corner, it is to be hoped—and not to a car pound, so as to avoid hardship to the disabled driver.
I must point out that the code of practice proposed in the amendment also gives rise to some difficulty. I believe that it would complicate the orange badge scheme and raise severe practical difficulties. For example, how could an orange badge holder be notified of the impending removal? The warden is unlikely to know the whereabouts of the orange badge holder. Further, how could the orange badge holder be informed of the place to which the vehicle has been taken?
However, I believe that it is important for the police to have the flexibility to take special considerations into account when dealing with the removal of vehicles. While they will not normally remove vehicles except in cases of danger or obstruction, they must, for example, retain powers to remove vehicles if there are security considerations as regards a terrorist threat or a Royal procession.
Therefore, I cannot accept an amendment which, by attempting to define the circumstances in which removal may take place, could hamper the operations
1230
of the police. In those circumstances, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept my undertakings and assurances about police practice and will also accept the need for police operational flexibility in exceptional circumstances. I give my noble friend the assurance that nothing in the Bill will affect police practice in the matter. That will continue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, I do not find the Minister's reply at all reassuring. He says that the matter is less straightforward than is the case with wheel-clamping. However, he does not indicate why. He raises various arguments about serious situations, such as terrorism, which may cause the police to seek to remove a vehicle but then says that it is impossible for him at this stage to go further. I am not sure whether he is saying that it is virtually impossible to define in legislation those serious situations which may arise and which may make such action necessary. I do not accept that view. I believe that legislation can define the sort of situations to which he alluded. In the meantime, a very serious state of affairs continues to exist. I do not need to elaborate on the arguments eloquently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The Minister has overlooked the qualifications which have been imported into the proposed new clause so far as concerns subsections (1) (a) and (b).
As regards a code of practice, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The code is put forward here in principle. I do not agree that it will confuse the situation about the orange badge scheme. The matter can be elaborated upon and reconsidered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will agree. Indeed, this is not necessarily the final draft. Those who draft such amendments do not have the great advantages that Ministers have when it comes to drafting. Therefore, one has to be reasonably flexible about approaching amendments and new clauses. What we are trying to put forward is a principle. In my view there is a case for a code of practice, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness that the details and principles of it are matters which can be further considered by the Government and by the organisations that support this proposed change in the law.
I am disappointed that the Minister was unable to go further. However, it is to some degree reassuring to know that in removing vehicles the police may—and probably do under most circumstances—engage in the sort of conduct which enables the vehicles to be removed to a reasonably convenient place nearby. However, that is by no means always possible. Moreover, it is by no means certain that that does happen in all cases. Even if it is only in the minority of cases that vehicles are removed to the police pound. people are put to the most serious inconvenience.
In the circumstances, I urge the Minister to reflect further on what has been said rather than to say that he rejects the idea totally. We can then return to the matter on Report. There will be sufficient time for the matter to be considered between now and the Report stage which, I believe, will take place some time next month. That is the course I encourage the Minister to take. However, it is for him to decide what he proposes to do.
5 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, decides what to do, may I ask the Minister a little more about police practice? Does the practice vary from area to area?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Not so far as I understand it. We are talking about police guidelines. Those guidelines will continue, so far as the police are concerned, where these new provisions apply, where towing away and clamping are in practice. They will also apply to the local authority areas concerned.
Lord Swinfen: Will my noble friend be kind enough to send to me a copy of the police guidelines, and also send a copy to other Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate? Perhaps he can give me that undertaking so that I can decide what to do on this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, I will send my noble friend a copy and will put a copy in the Library for other noble Lords.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend. We have had an interesting and useful discussion on this subject. I should like to read the report of what has been said so that I can consider just how to deal with the matter at the next stage of the Bill. In Committee last Tuesday my noble friend undertook to meet me between now and Report stage. Perhaps at the same time we could discuss this matter. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 115:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Misuse of disabled person's badge
.—(1) A person who displays a disabled person's badge on a vehicle shall be guilty of an offence if at the time the badge was being displayed—

(a) the vehicle was not being used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge had been issued, or

(b) the vehicle was not being parked for the purpose of enabling it to be used by the person to whom that disabled person's badge had been issued.

(2) Any person convicted of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".
The noble Lord said: I referred to this amendment earlier. For some considerable time, disabled people have wanted the orange badge scheme to be firmly enforced to stop abuse. It is fair to say that pressure for firmly enforcing the scheme has come far more from disabled people than from people who are not disabled, who very often do not realise that the scheme is being abused. Disabled badge holders are anxious that the scheme does not get further into disrepute.
Leaving aside the careless issuing by local authorities, which sometimes happens, one form of abuse has been that disabled people's badges have been used by non-disabled people. At present such misuse is an offence only when a non-disabled person fraudulently uses the concessions available to badge holders; for example, parking on yellow lines or overstaying at a meter. Determining that such an offence has occurred takes up too much time. Generally, a potential offender would need to have his
1232
or her vehicle under surveillance from the time of parking until returning. On a meter bay that could be for over an hour, which I think the Committee will agree would be a waste of police time.
To aid the authorities in enforcing the scheme, disabled people have therefore sought a small change in the law which my amendment seeks to meet. They ask not for the mere displaying of a badge to be made an offence, but for it to be an offence when the badge is being used by someone who is not a badge holder.
Last January, my noble friend Lord Brabazon wrote to me stating:
"We have decided in principle that it would also be helpful to introduce a new offence of displaying an orange badge when the legitimate holder is not with the vehicle. It may be some time before a suitable legislative opportunity for change occurs".
I put it to my noble friend and to the Committee that that time has now arrived and that this Bill is the ideal vehicle for this change. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Again, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on this matter. I believe that in advising the Committee as to the present state of the law the noble Lord has stated the position correctly. Because the prosecution has to establish fraud on the part of the non-disabled person—a very difficult burden indeed—and having regard to the nature of the fraud, the police or the prosecuting authority are likely in such circumstances to ignore the matter. Consequently, the abuse is not at all deterred. There lies the mischief at present. To be able to simplify the matter in the way that the noble Lord has suggested seems to me to be of considerable benefit.
I shall listen with interest to the arguments that the noble Lord the Minister might adduce against the amendment. I am ever hopeful that the Minister will not adduce such arguments and will say that he warmly welcomes the proposal, but I think that I shall be disappointed in that regard. Nevertheless, I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): I, too, support this amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Clinton-Davis, have already said how useful it would be as a step towards stopping the abuse. It would also be a very useful step towards stopping the perception of abuse. I am thinking of the able-bodied person who may have left his disabled relative's orange badge on the windscreen and dashes into a shop. He is parking legally on dotted lines and is not misusing the badge—he is not even using the badge consciously—but it is perceived by the public as yet another case of abuse.
In Committee in the other place on 7th February, the Minister, Mr. Chope, said (at col. 423 of Hansard) that he had considerable sympathy with this amendment but that in view of the new passport style badge that the Government intend to introduce—we hope as soon as possible:
"I am by no means sure that the offence of displaying an orange badge when the badge holder is not using the vehicle will be needed in such circumstances".
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already said, it is disabled people who view this amendment as necessary. RADAR has consulted the Home Office and the Department of Transport who say that there

1233
is no objection to such a change in the law. The joint committee on mobility of disabled people is totally in favour of it, and the Spinal Injuries Association says that it believes that the new passport style badge must be supported by making it an offence wrongfully to display the badge. I hope that the Minister, who is a sensible listening Minister who has shown that he has a good understanding of the problems of disabled motorists, will take account of what disability organisations firmly believe and that he will give an encouraging response to this amendment.
Earl Nelson: I rise to support the amendment. If the Government do not agree and there is a Division in the Committee I shall certainly support the amendment. The fact of the matter is that there is so much abuse of the current orange badge that disabled people themselves are getting a little embarrassed about the whole matter. To use an orange badge fraudulently is the same as using a tax disc fraudulently, or driving without insurance. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do indeed have considerable sympathy with the principle behind this proposed new clause. I am very grateful for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (De Knayth). I do listen. Unfortunately, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I am not always able to agree with everything that is put forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I know that only too well.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I do not agree with the noble Lord as much as he would like me to do, but I have considerable sympathy with the principle of this new clause.
I should explain that there is already an offence of misusing, an orange badge to profit by a disabled person's concession under Section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and that what we are discussing here is the need for a supplementary offence. Able-bodied people who misuse orange badges have contributed greatly to the scheme becoming discredited in the eyes of other road users and we are keen to ensure that the parking benefits which disabled people quite rightly enjoy are not abused by able-bodied people.
However, following a major review we have undertaken into the working of the orange badge scheme, to which I referred when we were discussing an earlier amendment, we propose to introduce a package of changes. The most important from an enforcement point of view, and one which does not need primary legislation, is the introduction of a new passport-style badge with a photograph. That will not be stuck to car windscreens as orange badges are at present. It will be carried by the motorist and left on the dashboard when the vehicle is parked. That is a substantial step forward in dealing with abuse of the scheme. The temptation for people to use a badge to which they are not entitled will be greatly reduced when it can be easily discovered that they are not the legitimate badge holder.
1234
As soon as we are satisfied that we have the right package of changes, we shall go ahead with the new style badge. We shall then need to review what supporting changes in future legislation might be needed. I am by no means sure that an offence of displaying an orange badge when the badge holder is not in the vehicle would be needed to support the new badge. With new passport-style badge, the holder will not need to display it at all times. He will normally keep it in his wallet. So a generalised offence relating to display will be unnecessary. When the car is parked, the badge will be on display and will be covered by the existing offence.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the existing offence causes prosecution difficulties for various reasons to which I listened carefully. I shall wish to look hard at what has been said in that respect. As I have explained, my original impression was that such an offence will be unnecessary when the new badge scheme is accepted. Without commitment, I should like to return to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, replies, the Committee is grateful to the Minister for what appears to be a more positive response on this issue than on others. As I understand it, he is not closing the door on this legislation being amended to encompass the issue where apparently the Government's thinking is rather more advanced and which would not have to await the outcome of broader consultations on the orange badge scheme to which I alluded previously. I hope that my interpretation is right. If it is, I warmly applaud the Minister's response. He has strongly indicated that he will consider returning with this matter on Report, and that is an important concession.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for what he has said and for offering to return to this matter at a later stage. How advanced is his department's thinking on this issue? How close are we to implementation? Is the department just thinking about it and going to put it on the drawing board at some time in the future? Is it on the drawing board, or are models being made? Which stage have we reached? He also said that when the scheme was thought out he might have to use future legislation to put some parts of it into operation. Legislation is going through Parliament at the moment in the form of the Bill. If the Bill is not to be used as the vehicle for the new scheme, when will another Bill that can be used come before Parliament? I know of nothing in the planning stage.
5.15 p.m
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Is my noble friend referring to the new passport-style badge?
Lord Swinfen: Yes.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Our plans on the new badge are well advanced. It is a question of introducing it with the changes to which I referred on this amendment and earlier amendments. I have said that I cannot give a firm date as to when the whole

1235
package of proposals might be brought into effect. The new passport-style badge will be one of the matters to be introduced with the rest. I have already said that most of the proposed changes to the new orange badge scheme will not require primary legislation. If our conclusion is that the change proposed in the amendment is needed, which I have said we shall consider although I have not given a commitment to agree to it, it would be possible to make it in the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: Does my noble friend believe that the new passport-style badge would go a long way towards dealing with the other problems suffered by disabled drivers that have been mentioned this afternoon?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, I do.
Lord Swinfen: That is every indication that matters will be moved on as fast as possible. I shall read what everyone has said, and in particular what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Parking penalties]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 89, line 17, at end insert ("and
(g) the effect of paragraph 5 below.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 123.
Schedule 5 deals with the procedures to be followed subsequent to the issue of a penalty charge notice by a London authority parking attendant in respect of contraventions of permitted parking regulations. The schedule sets out the details to be included in a notice to owner which may be issued by a London authority if a penalty charge notice remains unpaid after 28 days. The notice provides a right for the motorist to make representations to the appropriate local authority concerning the service of the notice and for that authority to consider and respond to the representations. The schedule goes on to detail the procedure to be followed for the making of appeals to a parking adjudicator if the motorist is dissatisfied at the outcome of the local authority's consideration of his representations.
The eight proposed amendments which have been tabled are all of a technical nature. They are all intended to make the schedule more comprehensive and to improve the operation of the provisions for representations and appeals. I consider therefore that they are likely to be generally welcomed as presenting a reasonable safeguard for the motorists. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We generally welcome the amendments, which are essentially drafting amendments. However, I have one point of concern about Amendment No. 122. That amendment sets out circumstances whereby a keeper who has appealed to
1236
the relevant local authority and had the appeal turned down can appeal to the adjudicator. The appeal has to be made within 28 days or:
"such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow".
What reason is there for allowing the adjudicator to increase the length of time within which keepers can appeal? Will not that extended period lead to uncertainty on what is essentially a clear issue? A similar point arises in relation to Amendment No. 144. I shall not raise it again if I am satisfied by what the Minister says.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Amendment No. 122 substitutes a new paragraph 5. It provides the procedures for making an appeal to a parking adjudicator within 28 days, as the noble Lord said, or within such longer time as permitted by a parking adjudicator. If such an appeal is made, the adjudicator is required to consider the representations in question as well as any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds listed in paragraph 2(4).
The reason for the delay essentially rests with the point that discretion should be allowed, for example, if the motorist was out of the country, ill, or for some other similar cause. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 123:
Page 89, line 45, at end insert:
("(f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.").
Page 90, line 10, at end insert:
("(7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.").

Page 90, line 13, leave out from ("accept") to end of line 15 and insert ("that the ground in question has been established they shall—

(a) cancel the notice to owner; and

(b) state in the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above that the notice to owner has been cancelled.").

Page 90, line 24, leave out from ("concerned") to second ("notice") in line 27 and insert ("do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above ("the").
Page 90, line 37, leave out ("procedural rules as to the form") and insert ("form and manner").
Page 90, line 41, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
("5.—(1) Where an authority serve notice under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2 above, that they do not accept that a ground on which representations were made under that paragraph has been established, the person making those representations may, before—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or

(b) such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow,

appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph, the parking adjudicator shall consider the representations in question and any additional representations which are made by the

1237
appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 2(4) above and may give the London authority concerned such directions as he considers appropriate.
(3) Its shall be the duty of any authority to whom a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2) above to comply with it forthwith.").
Page 92, line 19, leave out ("provides a statement") and insert ("makes any representation under paragraph 2 or 5(2) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [Recovery of vehicles or of proceeds of disposal]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
Page 54, line 33, leave out from ("storage") to end of line 34 and insert:
("of the vehicle—

(i) as the authority may require; or

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

Page 55, line 1, leave out from ("disposal") to end of line 2 and insert:
("of the vehicle—

(i) as the authority may require; or

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

The noble Lord said: These are both technical amendments. Clause 61 of the Bill amends Section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which deals with the ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removable under the Act. The two new subsections added to Section 101 by this clause are applicable to London only and enable the owner of a vehicle removed by a London authority to recover the vehicle if the outstanding penalty charge, and such sums in respect of the removal and storage as the authority may require, are paid. If the vehicle has been sold, the owner will be paid the proceeds of the sale less the penalty charge and such sums in respect of removal, storage and disposal as the authority may require.
However, an unwanted effect of the revisions to Section 101 is that they will oblige the police in London to charge the same sums for removal, storage and disposal as those charged by the London authorities. The levels of charges that the police in London and elsewhere apply are prescribed by the Home Secretary under the provisions of separate regulations unrelated to this Bill.
These two amendments have been tabled, therefore, to allow where appropriate that a "competent authority", other than a local authority, may charge such sums as are prescribed. "Competent authority" is defined in Section 101(8) of the 1984 Act as including the police. The ability of the police in London to continue to charge the sums prescribed in the regulations is thus preserved. I therefore recommend that the Committee accept these two amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 126:
1238
Page 55, line 16, leave out ("9 or section") and insert ("6, 9 or").
The noble Lord said: The new subsection (2) (d) in Section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers London authorities to recover from any person responsible such charges as they may require for the removal, storage and disposal in respect of a vehicle removed from a designated parking place under Sections 9 and 45 of the Act. At present, the authorities do not have power to recover their charges and consequently do not remove vehicles from such parking places.
The majority of parking places in London are believed to be designated under Section 45, but Section 6 powers may have been used to designate free parking places even though free parking places can also be designated under Section 45. This amendment therefore broadens the application of the new subsection (2) (d) to include parking places designated in traffic regulation orders made under Section 6 of the 1984 Act.
The amendment will only be of assistance to London authorities if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State amends the removal of vehicles regulations made under Section 99 of the 1984 Act to enable the authorities to remove vehicles from Section 6 designated parking places. He proposes to effect such an amendment once the amended powers to make those regulations, also in the Bill in Schedule 3, are in force. The London authorities will then have a full armoury of powers so far as vehicle removal is concerned. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places]:
[Amendments Nos. 126A and 126E not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 63 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Mountgarret: First, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fanshawe who is unable to be present, so I am a lone voice crying in the wilderness. The objection to the clause, I assure the Committee, does not arise from any form of abject dislike or distaste at being clamped, although I suppose that most people do not particularly like it. It is rather to encourage the removal of illegally parked motor cars.
There can be nothing more infuriating—at least I think so —than to try to find somewhere to park the car. We see a parking area and find that a car has been clamped because it sat there longer than it was supposed to. It denies the use of that parking area to any other citizen. It reduces the amount of money that may be fed into the parking meter by the new customer. It does no good to anybody. There would be nothing to stop the person so clamped from keeping his car there for ever and a day, if he wished. No one can remove it. Having said that, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is quite possible to remove a clamp. All one does is to deflate the tyre and the wheel falls out of the clamp. However, that is another point and I shall not let on as to whether I have gone down that route myself.

1239
Joking apart, this not only happens in parking bays. Cars are clamped in residents' parking areas which, in all conscience, are few enough anyway for the number of people in London who have cars outside their homes. It must be frustrating for them. Worse still, I am sure Members of the Committee have seen all over London that cars have been clamped on double yellow lines and in places where they are not allowed to park where they cause inconvenience and are an obstruction. It does no one any good to immobilise vehicles.
I suggest that instead of clamping them we should substantially extend the removal of cars. It is far more inconvenient to a person who has parked his car illegally or inconsiderately to have to go miles to the north, south, east or west of London, to fetch it. It would not be impossible to set up a force rather like traffic wardens and licensed under the authority of the Metropolitan Police. We cannot have the time of the police taken up in removing cars. That force would work within parameters and guidelines and it would physically remove cars. The cost to the taxpayer would be nil. If anyone were kind enough to suggest that they would offer me a contract for removing cars in London, I could make a healthy profit. In other words, the costs of the exercise would be borne by the offender. My noble friend and I therefore wonder whether there is any merit in wheel-clamping and whether it defeats its own object. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a good deal of sympathy with the speech of my noble friend and with his objection. I have never thought that clamping was a good idea ever since its introduction into our road traffic system. After all, the major reason for dealing with a vehicle that is wrongly parked is that it is obstructing the traffic or is parked in such a way that it constitutes a danger to traffic. However, what is certain is that clamping ensures that the vehicle stays put. That seems to me a self-defeating object. As my noble friend has said—I wholly agree with him—where a car is wrongly parked, the solution is to take it away either by towing or on a truck. Such an action is perhaps even more disturbing to the owner of a car than for him to return to find his car has been clamped.
There is also the matter of the time limit on clamping. If someone parks his car where he should not and goes abroad on holiday, his car may be clamped. No one else will be interested in that car. I hope my noble friend can tell me how many weeks, months or years the car will remain clamped. Does it simply remain in a place where it should not be parked and where it is probably obstructing the traffic? I believe clamping has been a mistake. I very much regret the fact that clamping has been turned into a business. I believe it was a mistake to introduce clamping into our road traffic system as the powers to remove vehicles deal adequately with this evil. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend's speech.
The Earl of Shannon: I wish to express sympathy with the two Members of the Committee who have just spoken. As they pointed out, the philosophy of clamping is utter, blithering nonsense.
There is another point which occurs to me that I do not think has been touched on before. I remember sitting in this Chamber when the matter was first discussed. The Government were more or less asking Parliament for permission to indulge in this activity. If I remember correctly, we were given two reasons for introducing clamping. The first was that it would deter persistent offenders. But has it deterred persistent offenders? The other reason—this is much more serious because it meant that Parliament was conned; there is no other way to describe it—was that it was claimed clamping was the only way to deal with the diplomatic corps.
Parliament accepted clamping and within about a week the Government were advised that the cars of diplomats could not be clamped under the terms of a convention. No one is going to tell me that the Government did not know that that was the case during the previous week when they were asking permission of Parliament to introduce clamping. Clamping was put through Parliament almost under false pretences.
If I remember rightly, various questions have been asked in this Chamber and in another place about who authorises clamping. We were told that, although clamping was put out to private contractors, a police constable always had to give permission for clamping to take place. However, I believe it was only 10 days ago that I read in the press that a police force was furious when it discovered that a disabled person's moped had been clamped and also that a police car had been clamped. Where was the police constable in those circumstances? This matter needs to be carefully considered as it does not bear scrutiny.
Lord Underhill: One has a lot of sympathy with the comments made by those who have spoken so far. However, Clause 63(1) relates to,
"the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place".
In other words, we are discussing designated parking places. We are not talking about clamping vehicles parked on yellow lines where they may pose a danger to other traffic. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. To clamp a vehicle parked in a dangerous place poses a danger in itself and should not be attempted. However, we are talking about designated parking places. Clamping in designated parking places constitutes the only effective deterrent for persistent offenders.
Anyone who has spoken to someone whose car has been clamped will know that such a person will not risk having it happen again. I agree that in many circumstances towing vehicles away may be a more sensible course to take. However, we must consider this matter in the context of designated parking places and of the circumstances specified in Clause 60. While I have some sympathy with what has been said, I believe there is a good case for keeping Clause 63 in the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope I may comment on his point about authorised parking places. Does that not make clamping worse as it ensures that a valuable parking space—in London all parking spaces are valuable—is occupied for an indefinite period by a clamped vehicle? Is not clamping a worse course of action to take in that situation than in other situations?
Baroness Faithfull: I know two people who prefer to pay fines for clamping as a result of having parked in designated parking places as that means their cars cannot be stolen while they are away on holiday.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting debate. I have heard some of the concerns about clamping expressed on previous occasions in the Chamber. I do not think anyone expects clamping to be popular. That is not the purpose of it. I do not believe that the concerns are well founded.
At present wheel-clamping in London may be authorised by a police officer only where a parked vehicle is in breach of the criminal parking law within the approved wheel-clamping zone. Clause 63 provides. for local authority parking attendants in London to authorise wheel-clamping action, or take it themselves, in the case of vehicles which they believe have infringed the new decriminalised controls at designated parking places such as meter bays and residents' bays. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was right to stress that point. The clause requires the attendants to follow strict procedures and provides new offences against interference with the clamps or attempt. at removal of the clamps. I was interested to hear how my noble friend Lord Mountgarret attempts to remove wheel-clamps. I draw his attention to Section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is an offence to remove or attempt to remove a wheel-clamp. I say that as a warning to my noble friend.
In the main the requirements and provisions mirror those that apply to police wheel-clamping. Wheel-clamping by the London authorities will be an integral part of the system of enforcing the new permitted parking controls in London. It is needed to ensure that the system is both effective and viable.
The benefits of wheel-clamping as a deterrent against illegal parking cannot be doubted. Its introduction in 1983 and its gradual extension in central London since then have been subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Annual surveys by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory show that illegal parking on yellow lines has fallen by over 50 per cent. since the introduction of wheel-clamping. Illegal parking acts at residents' bays have also fallen significantly. The revenue flow of parking charges to local authorities has improved both from meters and at off-street car parks and this has led to an increased chance of finding a legal parking space. I say that in reply to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.
The presence of a wheel-clamped vehicle on the street is a strong, visible deterrent to other would-be offenders. Wheel-clamping is also cost-effective, as its costs are fully recovered in the fee charged for—and
1242
Obtained—before the vehicle is released. Under the Bill the London authorities will in addition be able to recover the penalty charge before releasing the offending vehicle.
I believe it is wrong to view the clamping of a vehicle as simply perpetuating the offence of unlawful parking. As I have said, it offers a salutary lesson to others who might be tempted to park illegally. Where the vehicle is impeding traffic flow it is more likely to be removed on the grounds of obstruction. I certainly agree that removal is also a powerful component in the armoury of weapons against illegal parking. However, I believe it is Complementary to wheel-clamping and is not always an alternative to it.
Across central London—which covers the city of Westminster, the City, Kensington and Chelsea and parts of Camden and Hammersmith and Fulham—over 10,000 vehicles are wheel-clamped every month. The fact that very few of those cases hits the headlines is a reflection on the extent to which clamping has now been accepted by the motoring public as an appropriate response to illegal parking. It is also a tribute to the manner in which clamping has been fairly and justly carried out by the Metropolitan Police. That is the standard which the local authorities must seek to emulate.
Checks and balances are written into the Bill. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to control the level of the wheel-clamping fee. So it would be wrong to suppose that wheel-clamping itself will be a licence to make money. In addition, there will be the parking adjudicator under Clause 66 to whom representations can be made in cases of grievance. Further guidance on procedure can always be given by the Secretary of State under Clause 57, and there are the standard exemptions given in Clause 64, including full protection for orange badge holders.
My noble friends Lord Mountgarret, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Faithfull suggested that having one's vehicle clamped was a good way to leave it while on holiday. I would not advise that. Clamped vehicles remaining on the road for more than 24 hours are normally, and should be, removed to the vehicle pound.
At the end of the day we are all anxious to see that parking regulations are properly enforced for the benefit of the law-abiding motorist and for the good of the capital generally. Wheel-clamping has proved itself thoroughly as an effective weapon against the selfish and inconsiderate motorist. I believe that it has a legitimate place in the armoury of the local authorities alongside the other powers being made available to them in the Bill. Therefore I believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful for the support that I have received from unexpected quarters for my reasons for suggesting that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has drawn my attention to the fact that we are dealing only with designated parking spaces rather than parking anywhere. I take his point. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right to say that that

1243
enforces the argument that vehicles should be removed if they are taking up a designated parking space to the exclusion of the law-abiding motorist.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon has said, and I shall not argue with him, that wheel-clamping is a deterrent to the illegal parking of motor cars. At the same time it has certainly greatly affected the law-abiding motorist. That is the person I seek to protect. There is not a single thing that my noble friend has said which will make me change my view.
My noble friend said that clamping is a visible deterrent. Indeed it is, but I know what I should prefer. If I had a lovely, brand new—I was going to say combine harvester—Rolls-Royce I would far rather see it securely clamped than have a crane lift it up, swing it around and dump it on a truck to be carted away to a pound. That is a very visible deterrent and far more effective than a clamp.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was absolutely right. One could leave the vehicle there while one goes on holiday. There may be a guideline of 24 hours but I can assure my noble friend Lord Brabazon that I have seen many vehicles near where I live in London —the Kensington area—which have been left clamped for several days, either at parking meters or in residents' parking places. The intention may be to remove them after 24 hours but in practice it does not work like that.
Perhaps mine is a lone voice crying in the wilderness but it may not be entirely a lone voice. We ought to find out what the Committee feels about the matter. We have to do something to protect the law-abiding motorist. I should like to know what the feeling of the Committee is on this matter.
On Question, Clause 63 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 64 [Exemptions from section 63]:
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 128:
Page 56, line 22, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 60 and").
The noble Viscount said: I was caught out. I misheard the question being put. We have covered Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 in connection with Amendment No. 114 when the matter was discussed. I shall therefore not move the amendments.
Lord Underhill: The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, intervened on a previous government amendment and said that he was speaking to these four amendments. However, no one else had known that he would do so and therefore no one else has spoken to the amendments because that was not in our briefing. The Minister did not refer to them. I was inclined to offer sympathetic support for the noble Viscount's amendments. I should like to know the Government's reason as to why those amendments should not be approved. They certainly do not appear on the grouping list with the earlier amendment although the noble Viscount thought that that was the position.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am sorry about this. I am slightly confused. I thought that the matters referred to in Amendment No. 114 were in essence what I propose in my Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 and I thought that the point had been covered. However, if it is the Committee's wish that the amendments should be moved I am happy to do so but I see no reason to add anything further to what I said in connection with Amendment No. 114. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the amendments. I apologise to my noble friend. When he mentioned the amendments in the course of our discussion of Amendment No. 114 I did not respond. Perhaps I should have done so then. However, this is a very different issue from the one we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 114.
I do not believe that there is any justifications for allowing any period of grace before a penalty charge notice is issued. It would destroy the purpose of the sanction. I understand that it can be very frustrating if a motorist is unforeseeably delayed and comes back to his parked car five or 10 minutes late only to find a ticket on the windscreen. However, I am afraid that, the world being what it is, if the motorist knew that he had an extra 30 minutes before he could receive a penalty notice, he would simply use that time as an entitlement to free parking. That would not be consistent with our aim to produce a rational and commercial system of on-street parking. It would also reduce parking opportunities for other motorists seeking short-term on-street parking spaces.
I agree that the position on wheel-clamping is slightly different and I accept that a period of grace is reasonable because it is a particularly serious and inconvenient sanction for drivers. A 30-minute period is too long, particularly as a driver may have paid for only 60 minutes of parking time, or perhaps less. Fifteen minutes is a reasonable compromise period. It allows a little leeway for those who are genuinely delayed and is not so long as to lead to an abuse of the system.
Extended periods of grace would be used by drivers as "free" time. The likely consequence would be that the local authorities would seek to distort the parking and penalty charges or the system would become uneconomic, which is not acceptable. Of course provision is made for drivers who are aggrieved at local authority enforcement action, including the issue of penalty charge notices, to make representations to the local authority concerned and they may ultimately appeal to the independent parking adjudicators.
Lord Underhill: I am interested in the Minister's reply. As Clause 64 allows 15 minutes, what is the present position? Perhaps the noble Lord will explain. Is any extra time allowed? I have found myself in difficulty two minutes afterwards. Is it a case of being dead on time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are talking here only about clamping, not about all penalty charges to which my noble friend's amendment refers. As I understand the position on clamping, it is a little

1245
unclear as to how much time is allowed afterwards. The Bill allows 15 minutes which we believe is the right period.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful for my noble friend's response. I take his point. It seems best to leave the Bill as it stands. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 56, line 25, leave out ("15") and insert ("30").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 130. There has been a slight printing error on the Marshalled List. My noble friend Lord Fanshawe has not put his name to these amendments. Something appears to have gone wrong. A period of 15 minutes is a little short. My noble friend may consider 30 minutes' grace to be more realistic these days. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I apologise to my noble friend. He did not move the amendment last time although we had agreed that Amendments Nos. 128 to 131 should be grouped together. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I attempted to deal with my noble friend's proposal for an extension from 15 to 30 minutes and I have nothing more to add.
Viscount Mountgarret: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Representations in relation to immobilisation of vehicles under section 63]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 57, line 1, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 13 and insert. ("who—

(a) removes it from the custody of a London authority in accordance with subsection (4A) of section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removable under that Act);

(b) receives any sum in respect of the vehicle under subsection (5A) of that section;

(c) is informed that the proceeds of sale of the vehicle did not exceed the aggregate amount mentioned in subsection (5A) of that section; or

(d) secures its release from an immobilisation device in accordance with section 63(4) of this Act,

shall thereupon be informed of his right under this section to make representations to the relevant authority and of the effect of section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act.
(2) The relevant authority shall give that information, or shall cause. it to be given, in writing.
(3) Any person to whom subsection (1) above applies may make representations to the relevant authority on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (4) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 133 to 143 and to Amendment No. 144.
When the Bill was introduced in the other place, there had been insufficient time to draft provisions which would allow the owner of a vehicle removed by a local authority parking attendant to make
1246
representations to the relevant authority and which, if the representations were rejected by the authority, would allow a right of appeal to a parking adjudicator. The Bill has therefore gone forward on the basis of Clause 65 providing only for representations and appeals against wheel-clamping actions by a London authority under Clause 63.
The amendments have therefore been tabled to include provisions for representations and appeals against removal action taken by a London authority. There is need to provide a protection for drivers or owners who feel aggrieved at a local authority enforcement action and that should extend to removal action as well as wheel-clamping. Because of the resultant size and complexity of the extended clause, I propose that the provisions relating to representations to London authorities should be separated from those relating to appeals to a parking adjudicator. Clause 65 therefore will deal only with the question of representations to a London authority about wheel-clamping or removal action and the proposed new clause after Clause 65 will contain the provisions for appeals to a parking adjudicator.
Amendments consequential to the broadening of the scope of the clause to include removals are also proposed. The list of grounds on which a representation may be made is extended to include the case where a penalty or other charge in question exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. The amendments place a duty on a London authority to consider and reply to representations and to inform an owner, where it has not accepted that a ground on which representations have been made has been established, that the owner has a right to appeal to a parking adjudicator. That is now explicit in the provisions of the Bill.
The new clause provides that an owner, dissatisfied about a London authority's decision on his representations under Clause 65 about removal or wheel-clamping, may appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision within 28 days. The adjudicator is required to consider the representations and any additional representations made and, if he accepts that they are justified, he shall direct the authority to make the necessary refund. The authority will be under a duty to comply with such a direction.
As Members of the Committee will realise, the amendments are in the nature of technical and drafting amendments which clearly establish the principle that owners should have an entitlement to make representations to the London authority and to make appeals to the parking adjudicator. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 57, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 133A to 133C not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 57, line 23, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 134A and 134B not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment Nos. 135 to 143:
Page 57, line 25, at end insert:
("() in a case within subsection (1) (d) above, that, by virtue of an exemption given by section 64 of this Act, section 63 of this Act did not apply to the vehicle at the time in question; or
() that the penalty or other charge in question exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.").
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("The") and insert ("An"). Page 57, line 29, leave out ("(a)").
Page 57, line 30, leave out subsections (6), (7), (8) and (9) and insert:
("(6) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this section, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which they receive the representations—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and,

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

(7) Where an authority serve notice under subsection (6) (b) above that they accept that a ground has been established they shall (when serving that notice) refund any sums—

(a) paid under subsection (4A) of section 101 of the Act of 1984 when the vehicle was removed from the custody of the authority;

(b) deducted from the proceeds of sale of the vehicle under subsection (5A) of that section; or

(c) paid under section 63(4) of this Act when the vehicle was released,

except to the extent (if any) to which those sums were properly paid or deducted.
(8) Where an authority serve notice under subsection (6) (b) above that they do not accept that a ground has been established, that notice shall—

(a) inform the person on whom it is served of his right to appeal to a parking adjudicator under section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act;

(b) indicate the nature of a parking adjudicator's power to award costs against any person appealing to him under that section; and

(c) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal is required to be made.").

Page 57, line 47, leave out ("representations in question are justified") and insert ("ground in question has been established").
Page 58, line 3, leave out subsections (I 1), (12) and (13).
Page 58, line 11, after ("section") insert
("or section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act").
Page 58, line 18, at end insert:
("(16A) Where the person on whom any document is required to be served by subsection (6) above is a body corporate, the document is duly served if it is sent by post to the secretary or clerk of that body.").
Page 58, line 19, after ("section") insert ("and in section (Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65) of this Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 144:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 65
(".—(1) Where an authority serve notice under subsection (6) of section 65 of this Act that they do not accept that a
1248
ground on which representations were made under that section has been established, the person making those representations may, before—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or

(b) such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow,

appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision.
(2) On an appeal under this section, the parking adjudicator shall consider the representations in question and any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in section 65(4) of this Act and, if he concludes—

(a) that any of the representations are justified; and

(b) that the relevant authority would have been under the duty imposed by section 65(7) of this Act to refund any sum if they had served notice that they accepted that the ground in question had been established,

he shall direct that authority to make the necessary refund.
(3) It shall be the duty of any authority to whom such a direction is given to comply with it forthwith.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 59, line 15, leave out ("statutory instrument make regulations") and insert ("regulations make provision").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord says that this is purely a technical amendment, but is that so? It is hard to see the merits of making the change. The change removes a level of parliamentary scrutiny from the process. If my noble friend's amendment—Amendment no. 145A—is carried, the position may not be so difficult. As my noble friend will explain, there would be consultation. Is there any special merit in a change which removes a measure of parliamentary scrutiny?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Clause 72(5) states:
"Any power to make an order or regulations conferred by this Part [of the Bill] shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
There is therefore no need for Clause 66(11) to state that regulations as to the procedures to be followed in relation to proceedings before parking adjudicators shall be made by statutory instrument. The revised wording omits the superfluous statement. I hope that that explanation is acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 59, line 17, at end insert:
("() Before making any regulations under subsection (11) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Joint Committee.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment calls for consultation with the joint committee before the Government make any regulations under subsection (11). Clause 66(11) sets out no fewer than 16 matters on which the Secretary of State shall issue regulations

1249
as to how the parking adjudication procedures will operate. This is a novel procedure. It is important that it should be regulated by the Secretary of State.
The trouble is that many of the issues for regulation involve cost implications for the joint committee which has to fund the procedure. These include the procedure for the appeal, the likelihood of appeals in written form, the award of costs and procedures for the notification of decisions. I should have thought that it was perfectly reasonable to enable the joint committee to be consulted so far as concerns these regulations. I do not assert that the Minister will say so, but if he were to say that this would involve undue bureaucracy and be long-winded, it would be a flawed argument because there is no reason for that to be the case. The result would be to ensure that the body that will have to provide and finance the service will be involved in its regulation.
There is another matter of some worry which I raise here rather than in the discussion on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. It has a connection with what I have been saying, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider it now. The burdens which are to be undertaken by local authorities in the form of the joint committee are very considerable indeed. I want to know what the Government propose to do to ensure that those additional financial burdens which are set out, for example in Clause 66(8) among others, can be properly discharged. These days more and more responsibilities are being imposed on local authorities by legislation without providing the wherewithal to enable them to undertake those duties satisfactorily and efficiently.
Another point that I should like to raise is that the start up costs of the matters referred to in Clause 66 are likely to be considerable. My understanding is that a very large computer, possibly costing as much as £20 million or £30 million, will have to be installed and consequently that is expenditure which will be undertaken before any income is received from the scheme.
At the beginning of the Bill on page vi the Committee will see a reference to the scheme as self-financing. It states:
"There will be additional income from charges and the system, overall, should be self financing".
That cannot be the case in terms of the start-up costs because t that stage there is no money coming in and presumably it will take rather a long time for those expenses to be consumed by the revenue that will be attracted as a result of the operation of the scheme.
Those are quite important points, and I ask the Minister to address them in addition to the points that I specifically raised in relation to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is our intention to consult the Council on Tribunals on the procedure regulations to apply in proceedings before parking adjudicators. They are the body with special competence in such matters. The parking adjudicators system will come under the direct supervision of the Council on Tribunals with regard to such matters, by application of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.
1250
We do not believe it is necessary or desirable to provide for further statutory consultation on the preparation of the procedure regulations, but there will be informal consultation on the draft statutory instrument. I should expect that to include the joint committee.
The noble Lord asked about two areas of cost and mentioned the financial burden under Clause 66(8). I can confirm that the new parking system will be self-financing and that will include parking adjudicators. With regard to the start up costs about which he spoke, I shall have to look into that matter and let him know further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before we pass from this amendment, perhaps my noble friend could enlighten me on two points. What sort of person is it intended to appoint as a parking adjudicator and, broadly, on what sort of salary scale? Perhaps we may be given some idea of the costs involved.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am afraid that I have no idea on either point. I shall look into the matter and inform my noble friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not understand. If the Minister says that they are prepared informally to consult, why cannot he actually accept a statutory obligation to do so? It does not seem to make sense to me.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We are talking about procedures and how the system will work.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Precisely, but it is because the joint committee has a considerable interest in perceiving how the scheme will work that in my view they have a right to be consulted. I should have thought that it was just as easy for the Government to accept this amendment as not to do so. It seems to me that if they intend to consult I should have thought it would be accepted as a statutory obligation.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: As the noble Lord will have gathered, I am not quite clear about the answer and therefore it is only fair that I should look further into the matter. I have subsequently had advice about the questions raised by my noble friend. To be qualified for appointment as a parking adjudicator, a person must have five-year general qualifications within the meaning of Section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I hope that goes some way towards answering him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I think that the figure is £100,000 a year, and a PhD is needed. But it would be quite easy so to qualify.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps there will be some applications from this Chamber.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord and I will be first in the queue. However, the Minister has been very frank. He does not have the answer. He will consider the matter and come back to it. I am most grateful.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 146:

1251
Page 60, line 15, at end insert:
("(15A) Subsection (15) above does not apply to a penalty charge which remains payable following an adjudication under paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of a technical nature. Unless amended by the proposed new subsection, there is a danger that drivers or owners who, quite properly, have followed the appeals procedures written down in Schedule 5 but failed in those appeals, may be required to pay a penalty charge immediately as if the amount were subject to a court order, instead of following the procedures set down in Schedule 5 for the recovery of unpaid penalties.
The amendment therefore avoids that situation while at the same time retaining the ability of a local authority or an individual to recover other amounts payable as if they were subject to a county court order, such as costs and wheel-clamping charges.
As presently worded, Clause 66(15) may possibly be read so that penalty charges are to be included in the amount payable following an adjudication under Schedule 5, as if they were payable under a county court order. That is not the intention. If it were, the procedures set down in Schedule 5 for the recovery of unpaid penalty charges, and for their enhancement by a charge certificate should payment be delayed overlong, could be bypassed following an adjudication.
Therefore the amendment specifically excludes those penalty charges from the application of Clause 66(15). Penalty charges payable following an adjudication by the parking adjudicator under Schedule 5 should be pursued, if not paid, in the same way that other unpaid penalty charges are pursued under the provisions of Schedule 5. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The Minister said that it was a technical amendment. That is contrary to the advice that I have been given. It seems contrary to the fact that it was necessary for the noble Lord to give a detailed explanation to make clear the purpose of the government amendment.
I am informed that the Bill requires any payment due after the adjudication process to be paid as though it was an order of the court. The proposed amendment disapplies that provision from the original penalty charge. That means that even after adjudication a local authority may have to go back to the county court to obtain a court order to enforce payment if the keeper refuses to pay.
That seems a completely unnecessary move. If the keeper has been through an adjudication process, there will already have been two opportunities to contest the penalty: with the local authority directly; and with the adjudicator. Although we welcome every opportunity for people to appeal, to allow a further opportunity to challenge the penalty seems a complete waste of time and effort. I should like to hear the Government's justification for the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Sometimes if we do not speak to a technical amendment, we are challenged. Sometimes we say too much. However, I believe that the noble Lord's points were covered in my answer
1252
which was complicated. Perhaps having read the answer, the noble Lord will agree that those points are covered. If not, I shall come back to the issue.
Lord Underhill: The Minister kindly makes that offer. I agree that it is a complicated matter; it is complicated for me. I act on advice, as does the noble Lord. I readily accept his suggestion that I read what he said.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord is right. The adjudicator has no means of enforcing his orders; and the county court has.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 60, line 19, after ("make") insert ("and publish").
The noble Lord said: This brings forward a principle contained in an Opposition amendment tabled, but not selected for debate, at the Report stage of the consideration of this Bill in the other place.
We accept that there is a good case for publishing the joint committee's annual report to the Secretary of State on the discharge by the parking adjudicators of their functions. The adjudicators are a major safeguard for owners and drivers using the new system of permitted parking in London. The report is to be made to the Secretary of State so he can be satisfied that the new system is being enforced fairly. The report is to be made in the public interest and there is good reason therefore for requiring the committee to publish it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Fixing of certain parking and other charges for London]:
[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 60, line 25, at end insert:
("() Any such additional parking charges may include the requirement that all outstanding parking charges registered against a specific vehicle and the current registered keeper should be paid as part of the release fee for vehicles which have been removed or immobilised.").
The noble Lord said: It has been emphasised in a number of debates today that a major problem in enforcing parking regulations is the persistent offender who consistently ignores the law and the penalty associated with it. Tracking down such offenders and enforcing payment requires considerable costs and effort. It is only when a vehicle is clamped or towed away that there is any certainty that the payment of penalties will be forthcoming. Even in those circumstances, the present system of enforcement causes difficulties since police pounds not only do not require the fixed penalty notice to be paid at the same time as the release fee, they will not even accept payment for the fixed penalty notice if it is offered. A bureaucratic inertia therefore encourages drivers not to pay their fixed penalty notices.
Unpaid fixed penalty notices can therefore be accumulated and in many cases mount up to large numbers. A study by the National Economic

1253
Development Office shows that of all those people who hal outstanding fixed penalty notices, no fewer than 40 per cent. had two or more notices outstanding. However, that number owed 80 per cent. of the outstanding income. Those are frightening figures. One driver had 57 fixed penalty notices unpaid, thereby owing a considerable amount. I believe the sum was about £700.
The procedure in the Bill make one advance. For local authority enforcement, the penalty charge is required to be paid as well as the release fee before a car which has been clamped or towed away can be released. That will bring about some improvement. However, greater improvement may be achieved if provision is made for persistent offenders. The amendment suggests that the penalty includes this requirement: if a vehicle is clamped or towed away, all outstanding penalties during the time that the current registered keeper has been the keeper of that vehicle must be paid before the vehicle is released unless such penalties; have been challenged and are subject to adjudication.
That would mean that a registered keeper of the vehicle would have to pay any outstanding penalties incurred during his period of liability unless he is in the process of challenging them.
A further safeguard is that the Secretary of State must approve all penalty charges under Clause 67 of the Bill. Such provision allows the Secretary of State the final say over the wording and operation of the approach to tackle persistent offenders. If approved the amendment offers an opportunity for a completely different style of enforcement in which local authorities would concentrate on getting offending motorists to pay the penalty charge and reserve the use of clamping for persistent offenders, thus addressing the problem of those very occasional offenders whose vehicles become clamped. There seems sound reason for the amendment. I welcome the Government's comments upon it.
Lord Tordoff: I support the important principle underlying the Bill. I do not know whether the Government will find technical faults with it; I am sure that they will. People are becoming very disillusioned by the fact that certain people seem to get away with not paying fines over and over again. People do not mind having to pay fines if they have been caught, but they object to a situation where large percentages of their fellow citizens seem to get away without paying time and again. Any provision which helps to restore the credibility of the system is to be welcomed.
Lord Swinfen: I too support the principle underlying the amendment. But how can one ensure that the driver of the vehicle is the person who pays the penalty, rather than the owner? They are not always the same person. An effective extension to the amendment might be for unpaid fines to be registered with the DVLC in Swansea, and for the vehicle not to be relicensed until such time as all outstanding parking fines are paid. In theory that should put the vehicle off the road. If it did not, there would also be a much higher penalty for the driver when caught.
The Earl of Harrowby: In his reply, will the Minister inform us whether the list of unpaid fines is computerised? Although I agree with much that has been said, the system would not be practicable unless the records were available for instantaneous response.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his introduction to the amendment. It gained a certain amount of support for reasons that I understand. However, I am unable to accept the amendment.
Procedures for local authorities to recover outstanding penalty charges issued under the new system of parking enforcement are already set out in Schedule 5 to the Bill. I believe that these procedures and the provision already made in Clause 63(4) that vehicles which have been wheel-clamped for breaches of the new controls should not be released until the penalty charge in respect of the breach has been paid will be effective in minimising unpaid penalties. I do not believe that there is a case for further sanctions.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are not dealing with further sanctions but with penalties whose payment is overdue. There is not a further sanction but moneys are owed to the local authority or whatever. There is not a new sanction but unpaid fines.
Lord Swinfen: Does the Minister consider that it is thoroughly unfair to the honest members of society who pay their fines if there is not a method of ensuring that fines properly imposed are paid? A method such as that proposed in the amendment would be effective, as would my suggestion of not allowing the vehicle to be re-licensed at the end of a year. A time limit would be set.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is right in saying that there are no further sanctions. I was about to say that there are a number of serious difficulties with the proposals in the amendment. For example, the person seeking recovery or release of the vehicle may not have been liable for the previous penalty charges. It would be wrong to face that person with demands for which he or she was not responsible. It would also be difficult to establish all the relevant facts of the previous cases at the time of collection; for example, they might be subject to an appeal to the parking adjudicator. It could also be the case that the unpaid notices were issued by a different local authority. In the absence of any central record system—and I must tell my noble friend that there is none—the procedure could become unmanageable. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I shall consider withdrawing the amendment but not on the ground advanced by the Minister. We are not involved with the detail of the matter but with the principle. The Minister has advanced no argument as to why the principle should not be followed. In proposing the amendment I realised that if it received publicity I might do a disservice to the honest offender. There are honest offenders; there are people who receive only one fixed

1255
penalty notice which they pay immediately. We are talking about the persistent offender with whom the Government have agreed we must deal.
I understood the Minister to say in answer to his noble friend that there is no central computerised record. Someone could offend every day and could mount up fines worth thousands of pounds. I hope that the amendment will at least encourage the department to consider compiling a central register; otherwise we shall not deal with the persistent offender. In moving the amendment I have told people the best way of avoiding paying a fixed penalty notice. That was not my intention; I wished to catch them. Unless the Minister has any further comments to make I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I recognise that I have simply advanced technical difficulties with the amendment. I also recognise the force with which the noble Lord dealt with the principle. It is that the person collecting the vehicle may not be liable and innocent citizens might be put at risk. I should like to look at the matter a little further because I have been unable totally to understand some of the advice that I have received. I am prepared to consider the principle.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister. I became worried because I want the matter looked at not a little further but seriously. However, the Minister's last comment suggests that the Government will do that. I hope that at a later stage they will come forward with an amendment. We cannot deal with parking offenders in London unless we take action against persistent offenders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wish to add that anxiety about the issue is not confined to the other side of the Committee. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to reconsider the matter and comment upon it at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I recognise the force of the argument on all sides of the Committee. I shall do exactly as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 156 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 60, line 40, at end insert:
("(6A) The London authorities shall publish, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, the levels of additional parking charges which they have set.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Immobilisation of vehicles in London by police]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 159:
1256
Page 61, line 16, leave out from ("consult") to end of line 18 and insert ("the appropriate local authority".").
The noble Lord said: This a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 160:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:
Special parking areas
(".—(1) Where a London authority apply to the Secretary of State for an order to be made under this section, the Secretary of State may make an order designating the whole, or any part, of that authority's area as a special parking area.
(2) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the relevant Commissioner or, if appropriate, both Commissioners.
(3) While an order under this section is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the special parking area designated by the order—

(a) section 8 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, an order under section 6 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an order—

(i) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles on any road; or

(ii) relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act (conditions for loading or unloading, or delivery or collecting);

(b) section 11 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, an experimental traffic order under section 9 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an experimental traffic order—

(i) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles on any road; or

(ii) relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act (conditions for loading or unloading, or delivery or collecting);

(c) section 16 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of a temporary restriction order or notice under section 14 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to the contravention of any provision of an order or notice under section 14 of that Act which suspends any provision of an order made under section 45 or 46 of the Act of 1984;

(d) section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (parking of vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);

(e) section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (parking of heavy vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);

(f) section 21 of the Act of 1988 (prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks), so far as it makes it an offence to park a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (3) above by adding further provisions (but only in so far as they apply in relation to stationary vehicles).
(5) Before making an order under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the two Commissioners; and

(b) such associations of London authorities (if any) as he thinks appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 161. During earlier stages of the progress of the Bill through the other place there was considerable all-party support for the idea of extending the powers of London authorities beyond those for enforcing the permitted parking controls

1257
already contained in the Bill. The Government have therefore developed a suitable scheme that will enable the London authorities to assume wider parking enforcement responsibilities. These two new clauses will enable the Secretary of State, on application by a London authority, to make an order decriminalising specifies parking offences in the area to which the order relates.
The decriminalised offences are specified in subsection (3) of the first new clause. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State by order, after consultation with the police and the relevant local authority associations, to add to the list of decriminalised offences to apply in the special parking areas. Orders may be made in respect of the whole or any part of a London borough and they will be subject to negative resolution procedure in this Chamber or in the other place. The police will of course be consulted before an order is made.
Illegal parking on and adjacent to main strategic routes will continue to attract criminal sanctions and be enforced by the police and their traffic wardens. Off the main arteries, however, traffic and parking has fewer strategic implications but raises heightened environ mental and residential questions. Therefore, it is appropriate that the present illegal parking in those areas —except for endorsable offences—should be decriminalised and enforced by the London authorities.
Under the provisions of the second new clause the new sys tem of penalty charges developed for the enforcement of permitted parking are applied to the decriminalised offences within the special parking area. London authorities will have extended powers to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles in the special parking areas. There is also power in the order to modify any of the provisions of Part II of the Bill in respect elf their application in the special parking area.
It will be for the London authorities to propose the extent of the special parking areas. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with their proposals for enforcement control because there will be traffic and safety implications. He will need to be sure the authorities are in a position to take on the new responsibilities and to arrange a smooth transition in order to avoid any major problems or disruption. He will consult the police about the proposals. When he is satisfied, he will make an order decriminalising the specified parking offences in the special parking area.
Finally, I should explain that the police will retain overriding powers for use against vehicles parked anywhere in London where security or other policing issues are involved. They will be responsible for enforcing all parking controls on the main arteries other than those associated with permitted parking. Contraventions of these controls will remain criminal offences. The main arteries will include priority routes and some other roads as well. The precise selection of roads will be a matter for discussion between the local authorities, the police and the Secretary of State. In the special parking areas, the police will continue to enforce endorsable parking offences —for example,
1258
parking on a pedestrian crossing and dangerous parking—and will retain the power to deal with vehicles which cause an obstruction.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships. They have the potential of making a significant contribution to the more efficient enforcement of parking controls throughout London. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I referred to these two amendments earlier when I suggested an extension of similar provisions into car parking. They are greatly to be commended and I congratulate the Minister and his department on putting together these two amendments because it is not an easy task to draft amendments like these.
I believe that they will greatly assist the local authorities in carrying out their tasks. It is to be welcomed that people will not face criminal charges but will be penalised to an extent that they will be dissuaded from parking in the wrong place in the future. I commend these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I join in welcoming these very important amendments. It is good that at this stage of the Bill they are being introduced. I believe that I detect my noble friend's own knowledge of the Bill and his concern for it in securing that the department has moved so sensibly in this direction.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. My noble friend has given me credit when perhaps he should not have done. These amendments were promised in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. I am fulfilling his promise but, nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 161:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:
Application of provisions in relation to special parking areas
(".—(1) This section applies in relation to any vehicle which is stationary in a special parking area (but which is not in a designated parking place) in circumstances in which an offence would have been committed with respect to the vehicle but for section (Special parking areas) (3) above.
(2) A penalty charge shall be payable with respect to the vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle.
(3) Section 60 of, and Schedule 5 to, this Act shall apply in relation to penalty charges payable by virtue of subsection (2) above, but subject to such modifications (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make in the order designating the special parking area in question.
(4) Where a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above, he or another person acting under his direction may fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle.
(5) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 63 of this Act shall apply in relation to a device fixed to a vehicle under subsection (4) above, but subject to such modifications (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make in the order designating the special parking area in question.
(6) An order under section (Special parking areas) designating a special parking area may make such modifications of any provision of, or amended by, this Part of

1259
this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of the provisions of section (Special parking areas) or this section or of the order.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Financial provisions]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 161A:
Page 61, line 38, leave out from ("reimbursing") to ("Act") (line 40) and insert ("all reasonable costs incurred by any London authority under sections 48 to 56 of this Act, and deemed by the Director to be essential to the operation of the priority route network.").
The noble Lord said: The present powers of the director enable him to direct the detailed design of priority routes and to specify what needs to be included. However, it must be remembered that, apart from on trunk roads, the scheme must be paid for by the boroughs. Clause 70 makes provision for the director to pay boroughs' costs in whole or in part. That leaves open the option for the director to insist on expenditure but not have an obligation to pay for it. That could leave boroughs in the equivocal position of having to fund a scheme at the expense of other committed expenditure or otherwise suffer the penalties specified in Clauses 55 and 56. It must be recognised that that would not only be unfair but would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.
This matter was raised during the passage of the Bill in another place with an amendment which merely required the director to pay all the costs of implementing a priority route scheme. The Government resisted that approach on the basis that boroughs could attempt to gold-plate a scheme and that many items of expenditure could be on local roads, which would not be strictly necessary for the operation of the scheme.
This amendment specifically addresses that point. It provides that the director shall pay all the costs for measures which he deems necessary for the operation of the scheme. Therefore, it would be open to him to fund extra provisions if necessary. Having addressed that point, I hope that the Government will view this amendment sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. I have noted that it seeks to address the points raised in the debate in Committee in the other place. I confirm that I shall seriously consider whether I can bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the Minister for being so forthcoming. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments in relation to London]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 92, line 35, at end insert:
("The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974(c. xxiv)
. In section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (parking on footways etc) in subsection (12) (b) for the words "under section 84" there shall be substituted the words "made by virtue of section 84(1) (a)".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 164 with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164:
Page 93, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("(provisions"), in line 18, and insert ("In section 7 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984").
Page 93, line 21, at end insert:
(". In that Act, after section 13 there shall be inserted—
"Temporary suspension
Temporary suspension of provisions under s. 6 or 9 orders.
13A.—(1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of Police for the City of London may temporarily suspend the operation of any provision of an order made under section 6 or 9 of this Act so far as that provision relates to any road or part of a road in Greater London which is within his area, in order to prevent or mitigate congestion or obstruction of traffic, or danger to or from traffic in consequence of extraordinary circumstances.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the period of suspension under subsection (1) above shall not continue for more than 7 days.
(3) If the Secretary of State gives his consent to the period of suspension being continued for more than 7 days, the suspension shall continue until the end of such period as may be specified by the Secretary of State in giving his consent." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 93, line 22, leave out ("In") and insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 165 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 166 and 167. My noble friend tells me that these amendments will give a local authority a greater degree of freedom to use any surplus funds in the parking places reserve account.
That account is a special account in which a local authority must keep any surplus made from its on-street parking operations. That money can be spent only on providing new parking facilities or other transport or highway improvements. At present, expenditure on routine highway matters, principally maintenance, cannot be drawn from that account.
I understand that the City of Westminster's geographical position means that it makes a surplus on its parking operations. It is a considerable handicap that money raised from one transport activity can be ploughed back only into a limited range of highway or transport related projects. I suspect that that may be the case also with other inner city authorities.
In particular, Westminster seeks the power to apply the funds from that account to all activities authorised by the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That would allow those funds to

1261
be spent on new stretches of road, maintenance and works in connection with traffic management orders as well as on improvements. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, moved the amendment on behalf of his noble friend Lady Gardner. He said that it would give greater freedom to an authority to use the surplus fund in its parking account. I am all in favour of an authority having greater freedom to use moneys under certain circumstances. However, he explained how the money could be used at present. Any money in the reserve accounts may be spent on any highway scheme including road maintenance. He emphasised also that parking reserve account money must be spent, first, on parking measures. If no further expenditure on parking is considered either desirable or essential, then the money may be spent on improving highways or on improvements to public transport.
Some boroughs—the noble Lord mentioned Westminster—possess large parking reserves due to income from on-street parking facilities being higher than expenditure. For that reason I can understand such authorities welcoming this type of amendment which enables them to spend money currently locked up. But there is a worry. Some boroughs are in that position and a blanket provision such as that contained in the amendment would place the parking account under great pressure. It may mean that enforcement is not given sufficient expenditure priority.
We regard the question of enforcement as a priority in using a surplus in the parking reserve account. Therefore the amendment could be supported only if it gave the general provision to spend money on highway matters as the lowest priority. For that reason we could not accept the amendment in its present form. If the Government like the principle and are able to table an amendment which would make clear that the first priority must be enforcement and that expenditure on highways matters would be given a low priority, we would support it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Government have some 5ympathy with the suggestion that local authorities should be able to use surpluses on their parking revenue accounts for routine highway maintenance or traffic congestion measures provided that there is no need for further parking provision to be made in their area. Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 alrady allows them to use such surpluses for road improvements within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980 but that does not extend to maintenance.
As the Committee will be aware, there is to be a comprehensive review of local government structures and functions, and restrictions on the further use of surplus parking revenues will be one of the topics to be considered in that review. I believe that that review would be a better vehicle for considering changes in the purposes to which surpluses from local authority accounts can be applied. For those reasons I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and also to my noble friend. I shall draw both speeches to the attention of my noble friend Lady Gardner, who will make up her mind what she will do with these amendments at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness:Lord Cavendish of Furness: moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 93, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 94 and insert:
("7. For paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 (designation of routes in London) there shall be substituted—
"5.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the movement of traffic in Greater London, the Secretary of State may by order designate a road in that area.
(2) Before doing so, he shall consult—

(a) the council of the London borough in which the road is;

(b) the council of any other London borough or of any county where there is a road which he considers is likely to be affected by the designation; and

(c) such other persons (if any) as he considers it appropriate to consult.

(3) No council of a London borough shall exercise any power under the Highways Act 1980 or the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect, a designated road unless the requirements of sub-paragraph (4) below have been satisfied.
(4) The requirements are that—

(a) the council concerned has given notice to the Director, in such manner as he may require, of its proposal to exercise the power in the way in question; and

(b) either—

(i) the Director has approved the proposal; or

(ii) the period of one month beginning with the date on which he received notice of the proposal has expired without his having objected to it.

(5) The Secretary of State may by an instrument in writing exclude any power from the application of this paragraph to the extent specified in the instrument.
(6) Any such instrument may, in particular, exclude a power as respects—

(a) all or any of the London boroughs;

(b) all or any of the designated roads; or

(c) the exercise of the power in such manner or circumstances as may be specified in the instrument.

(7) This paragraph does not apply to the exercise of a power under section 14 or sections 32 to 38 of the 1984 Act in relation to a road which is not a designated road.
(8) If the council of a London borough exercises any power in contravention of this paragraph, the Director may take such steps as he considers appropriate to reverse or modify the effect of the exercise of that power.
(9) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the Director in taking any steps under sub-paragraph (7) shall be recoverable by him from the council as a civil debt.
(10) In this paragraph—
"designated road" means a road designated under this paragraph; and
"Director" means the Traffic Director for London." ").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment
when moving Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendments Nos. 168A and 168B not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 62, line 24, leave out from ("attendant"") to ("section"), in line 25 and insert ("has the same meaning as in").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 169 was spoken to with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 63, line 15, at end insert:
("() For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions in sections 44 to 56 of Part II shall not apply to, and shall not be extended to, areas beyond London.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 170 is a curious amendment for which I take no pride of ownership. It is a probing amendment to allay worries in certain metropolitan areas outside London that the Government could by order under the statutory instruments provided in the Bill introduce similar schemes in other areas without resorting to primary legislation. I am sure that the Government will be able to give the assurance without any difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In his amendment the noble Lord uses the word "London". He may recall that on an earlier amendment he used the words "Greater London". I should like to know whether he makes any distinction between the two or simply uses one expression or the other as they come into his head.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall allow the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to respond to my noble friend's point.
I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. The Government have no intention, nor do they have power within the Bill, to extend to other areas those clauses listed in his amendment.
It would be wrong to accept the amendment because it seeks to bind future Parliaments on legislation that they may or may not wish to introduce. I readily understand that if Parliament proposed to extend the legislation to other areas its first action would presumably be to wipe out the noble Lord's provision. I think that that answers his point.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said at the beginning, I have no great pride of ownership. In dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will know that we receive advice from a number of sources. My earlier amendments tended to come from people living within Greater London. I suspect that this has come from my old native heath in the North West, where London is regarded as anything south of Birmingham. The differences between London and Greater London are niceties not observed by the people of Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. Nevertheless, I am grateful for
1264
the reassurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, as I am sure they will be. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Commencement].
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 171:
Pae 63, line 24, leave out from ("and") to ("in") in line 25.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 171 is designed to provide greater flexibility for commencement of the provisions in Part I of the Bill. It extends the provision that has already been made for Part II of the Bill which would allow different provisions to be made in relation to commencement in different areas. I believe it would be prudent to take a similar power for Part I. While it is our intention to commence the majority of the measures in Part I at the same time throughout Great Britain, there may be particular instances where, for example, different commencement dates might be desirable in Scotland and in England and Wales. I hope the Committee will accept that this is a sensible provision. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Until the Minister tabled the amendment and gave us his explanation I was having nightmares that this situation was not being addressed. He has put my mind at ease. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for having done so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 to 77 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 96, line 9, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 17(2), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b).").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 172 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 173 to 179:
Page 96, line 12, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 85(1) the words "the prescribed". In section 85(2) (a) the words "the prescribed".").

Page 96, line 12, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 99(2), paragraph (c) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.").

Page 96, line 20, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 105(3) (b) the words "under section 49(4) of this Act."").

Page 96, line 30, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 13, in paragraph 40, the words "and for" onwards.").

Page 96, leave out lines 31 to 33.
Page 96, line 44, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 45.
Page 96, line 45, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 41(3) (b) and (c).")

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. With the leave of the Committee I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Royal Assent
6.50 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, Representation of the People Act,

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act,

Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act,

Shard Bridge Act,

Adelphi Estate Act,

Heathrow Express Railway Act,

and to the following Act passed in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949:

War Crimes Act.

Football (Offences) Bill
6.52 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Nobly; Lords present will know that this is not the first occasion over the past few years when this House has debated a Bill relating to football. One almost gets a feeling of déjá vu when one considers what the Bill is about. I pay tribute to Sir John Wheeler and Members of another place of the all-party football committee and the Home Office group. They produced this Bill. It is a privilege that I have been asked to pilot this Bill, simple as it is, through your Lordships' House.
It is not a very complicated Bill. It contains six clauses. The first clause indicates where the Bill will apply and for what period of time. I shall now jump to Clause 5. That clause indicates the penalties for the offences contained in the Bill. Clause 6 gives the Secretary of State power to decide when the Bill will be activated. My information is that the Government would like this Bill in place for the start of the next football season.
It is appropriate now to pay tribute to some people in football. When we first began to debate professional football three to four years ago only a few noble Lords rose to speak on behalf of football and to defend it. Some of the behaviour associated with football at the time, mainly spectator violence, could not be allowed to continue indefinitely. A number of reports have been ma de about sport and soccer grounds. I was
1266
asked to give evidence for the Popplewell Committee. I think that was in relation to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act. I was also asked to give evidence as regards the legislation which came to be known as the ID Bill and which eventually became an Act.
I was asked by Mr. Justice Popplewell for my views about such matters as people invading the pitch. That is going back about two or three years. I said that I would make it an offence beginning with trainers and managers who should set an example. Now it is in the Bill and appears to be acceptable. During the passage of what we call the ID Bill that was laid on one side. Noble Lords warned the Government about certain matters that could happen. That was finally accepted by them. During the passage of that Bill, noble Lords such as me and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, speaking from the Liberal Front Benches, attempted to get some amendments accepted. I believe that the amendment relating to incursion on the pitch was either tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, or me. Whoever tabled the amendment was supported by the other noble Lord. Nevertheless, at the time the amendment was rejected. We have now returned to a situation where that provision is in the new Bill.
Clause 3 deals with racial chanting. That has to be made an offence. That may be one of the worst aspects of the Bill to apply. When one person in a crowd starts to chant and it is taken up by others, it is very difficult for the police to identify the culprit. Nevertheless, the amendment gives power to do that and to deal with the situation as the police see it.
Clause 2 deals with the question of missile throwing. That is one of the worst aspects of soccer and it has been so over the past few years. It will be silly to simplify and say that the police can sort that out quickly, because one has to identify who has thrown the missile. Nevertheless these three clauses give the police power to act on the questions of pitch incursion or invasion, racial chanting and the throwing of missiles.
As I have said, the Government want this Bill to be made an Act and to be in operation at the commencement of the next football season. I would like to pay tribute to some of the people in professional soccer who took quite a great deal of criticism a few years ago. It was not criticism in the fairest sense. The criticism made them appear unconcerned with the violence surrounding professional football. I visited clubs near where I live such as Manchester United, Manchester City, and Leeds United. My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Graham, has associations with the London clubs. We literally covered the widest spectrum that we possibly could in order to bring to your Lordships' House the collective view of what football was trying to do to rid itself of an image.
The enormous improvements that have taken place have some bearing on what those clubs, including Everton and Liverpool, did at the time. I was in contact with those clubs. The people concerned tried very hard, in the face of an adverse press and an unsympathetic government, to get the matter right. The excesses of violence, racial abuse and pitch

1267
incursion have now diminished tremendously. It is not legislation that has achieved that. Legislation has helped, but that is a fallback position. Football itself has made tremendous strides to eliminate the violence that was rampant a few years ago. It is right that we should recognise what my noble friend Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, myself, and other noble Lords have done in order to defend football at the worst times. We should recognise what was trying to be achieved.
On the face of it, this is a simple little Bill. As I see it, it will not create any extra work for the football clubs that I mentioned or indeed for the smaller clubs. However, it will give the police attending those grounds the power to act when they find that people are behaving badly so long as they can identify the culprits. I think that it is a move forward. The recommendations from the report of Lord Justice Taylor have been included in the Bill. That is why the legislation is commended by Members of all parties in another place and by football authorities in general.
I strongly recommend to the House that this Bill be given a quick passage so that we can respond to what is being asked of us. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
7 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, especially after he has made such an excellent and clear speech setting out the need for this relatively simple Bill. I extend my compliments to him and hope that his success will be repeated next week in Manchester both as regards football and in other areas. I should also like to compliment the honourable Member for Westminster, North—at least I think that that is his constituency—Sir John Wheeler and his committee and also all those in another place who helped to put the Bill before this House. I should also like to thank Mr. Norman Frankland and all those at Everton Football Club who gave me considerable help, guidance and advice over the weekend on some of the more practical applications of the measures set out in the Bill.
It seems to me that the measures set out in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and those following in Clause 5 are the three recommendations requested in paragraph 71 of Lord Justice Taylor's report on Hillsborough. I very much concur with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that the Bill which he has so ably introduced to the House and which has been taken through another place is the proper way to proceed so as to attempt to nibble away at hooliganism and the unpleasant type of behaviour which can occur at football games.
I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that many of us may frequently behave quite differently when we go to football matches in a state of high spirits. I do not say that we would be full of alcohol, but we may be in such high spirits we might say and do things which we might not say and do in your
1268
Lordships' House, especially on an evening like this with what one might call an attendance rather than a crowd present in the Chamber.
I was somewhat curious on one aspect when I read the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, or my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to reply for the Government can advise me. I refer to Clause 1(2):
"References in this Act to things done at a designated football match include anything done at the ground".
I was wondering how far the provision extends. For example, what area does the "ground" cover? Does the provision apply only within the perimeter of the ground? Further, I assume that "designated" matches would be league matches in England, cup matches, international matches and I hope in the future international European club matches with English clubs.
For the purposes of the Bill I believe that we are excluding Berwick which, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, is in the county of Northumberland, whereas matches at Shielfield Park are of course conducted under the aegis of the Scottish Football League and the Scottish Football Association. However, if I could receive clarification in this respect as regards what happens at the stadium I should be most grateful.
It is quite clear what the "throwing of missiles" means in Clause 2. I do not believe that the throwing of a football could be included in that meaning. For example, when the ball is kicked into the crowd and a spectator throws the ball back rather hard and knocks a policeman's helmet off, I do not believe that the ball could be said to have been used as a missile. I do not think that anyone could be taken to court under the Act for so doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, fully explained the purpose of Clause 3. Its content is also set out in paragraph 71 of the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's report. However, I am curious about one aspect and perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give me guidance. Subsection (1) refers to the,
"chanting of an indecent or racialist nature".
It is possible that people may shout or say things at a football match which could be classified as indecent. I shall certainly not repeat in this House the sort of things we quite often say to visiting supporters when their team is suffering a major defeat. However, perhaps my noble friend or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, can give me some indication as to what is an "indecent" chant. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I realise that it is rather unusual to intervene at this stage of a Second Reading debate. However, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to do so. What I would term "indecent" chants at football matches are such that I believe them to be unprintable in Hansard. That may give the noble Lord some idea as to the meaning.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I was going to suggest that we might try to do so; but perhaps we ought not to do so tonight.

1269
I turn now to Clause 3(2)(b). I fully understand what is in the mind of Lord Justice Taylor and in the mind of anyone associated with the Bill when dealing with matters of a "racialist nature". However, I simply cannot imagine that any chants, songs, sounds or suchlike could be threatening. Of course, the police and the stewards will be the first people to draw attention to behaviour which could contravene any of the parameters set out in Clauses 2, 3 or 4.
When I go to a football match, I may well set out to insult and abuse players and perhaps the referee. However, I hope that I do not do so within the terms of the Bill. For example, when an England player puts the ball into his own goal while playing in a match against Scotland, I can imagine many Scots supporters chanting, "There will always be an England". I trust that that is done in sporting terms and that it is mildly titillating and teasing; I hope that it would not be meant to be insulting or abusive. However, bearing that factor in mind, the contents of Clause 3(2)(b) could realistically be interpreted by the arresting police officer, should such an occasion arise.
From what I understand of advice given to me at Everton I believe that one would have to behave in a pretty extreme way before the stewards drew the behaviour to the attention of the police and before the police had to take the stringent action which is laid out. The offences will be arrestable offences.
Clause 4 deals with going on to the playing area. It could be difficult for someone who had gone on to the pitch to prove later that he did not necessarily do so in order to cause annoyance or aggravation. Nevertheless, I am sure that the police and the football clubs will be able to ensure that this measure is interpreted in a realistic way.
As regards Clause 5, it seems that arrestable offence 3 are exactly what is required to ensure that the three types of behaviour are much more heavily and swiftly punished than is the case at present. I believe that the Bill is a perfect example of how offences of hooliganism and behaviour of the type that can disfigure sporting fixtures should be treated in a realistic way. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for raising the matter. I look forward to hearing the response of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I wish the Bill a swift passage; indeed, the quicker it gets on to the statute book the better.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I read this Bill I thought how very sensible, and certainly all on these Benches hold the same view. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, who cannot be here today, said that it is a very sensible piece of legislation, very straight forward and dealing with very recognisable offences. The only possible problem is if certain members of the police force behave somewhat over-zealously when enforcing it. However, that is a problem with every bit of legislation which affects the criminal code in any way, shape or form, so I do not think have to worry about that too much provided that we have the usual sane level of behaviour that we tend to enjoy in this country from our police force.
1270
The offences themselves—that is, throwing missiles, invasion of the pitch and chanting of racialist or indecent chants—are all reasonably straight forward, if possibly rather difficult to identify in a large crowd. Once again, we shall just have to make sure that the police, possibly with surveillance cameras, will be able to identify those who have perpetrated these crimes.
Further, I should like to say that the association football authorities have made great strides over the past few years in bringing down the amount of violence and other types of activity which have occurred in their grounds. In that respect I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Everybody agrees that that has been done, and I hope that it will continue.
There is no longer quite the same problem inside the grounds. Outside the grounds is a different matter and what happens there cannot be covered by the Football Association or by legislation which directly relates to the Football Association's activities for the simple reason that unless the association is allowed to have control over the streets on the days of football matches it cannot do anything about them.
The association deserves credit for what it has done. In bringing down the most obvious flashpoint in this type of violence, it has made a great contribution towards getting rid of the problem, or at least reducing it. Unfortunately, there will always be a hard core of people—some of them young males—who will cause trouble on occasions and football matches are a very convenient venue in our society because of the large crowds. I repeat that this Bill enjoys the total support of these Benches.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the Opposition Front Bench is, as is normal, neutral on this Bill and I speak personally. Old boxers boasting of their skill used to say, "'e never laid a glove on me, squire; never laid a glove on me." This Bill can make the same claim. I have read the Official Report carefully and from the Bill's inception, through all its stages in another place, it seems to have commanded general, universal approval. Improvements have been suggested and accepted to all the clauses. There has been cross-party support and never a cross word has been spoken. I do not intend to blemish that record tonight.
Of course, there are imprecisions and imperfections, but the effect of the Bill will be to contribute substantially to ensuring a less hostile atmosphere at football grounds. Progress in the last year or so has been remarkable in this respect and, as the honourable Member for Ryedale said in another place, it will positively assist the creation of a good atmosphere if we underpin policing with a proper, clearly understood, penal code for those who misbehave.
If someone runs onto the pitch he will be arrested. Damage and hurt can be inflicted in many different ways and if someone throws stones, cans or sharpened coins—which can so easily take somebody's eye out —or bananas, he will know that video cameras are in operation and that he may well be arrested. Moreover, if he and others indulge in this mindless chanting of

1271
indecent or racialist utterances, they may well be identified and arrested. That is clear and it will surely have a salutary and admonitory effect on public behaviour. In time, it should lead to fewer policemen being required at our football grounds and to a most welcome reduction in the cost of policing. Lord Justice Taylor's report is well reflected in this aspect of the Bill.
Lord Taylor also pointed out that he wished to encourage pre-match entertainment. Cup finals have long done that and many local clubs are now taking up the idea. The whole family is involved and it often contributes to the establishment of a happy atmosphere at the ground. However, as was pointed out in another place, it may mean that people are at club grounds well before the "two hours before kick-off" specified in the Bill and it is possible that disturbances will take place and offences could occur. Perhaps the Government have already considered that point and found an answer. If so, I should be most interested to hear it.
Clause 3 will, of course, be difficult to enforce and the definition of "chanting" may well not get the total approval of the General Synod of the Church of England. It seems that an alleged offender would have a defence at law if he could prove that he had chanted abuse alone and not in concert with others. We all know of occasions when one, easily identifiable person, has started up this abusive chanting alone, others have taken it up and a great chorus of filth and abuse has developed. If that person stopped when others started the originator and perpetrator of this offence—the mindless baying and braying of offensive language or animal sounds—might well get away with it. That would be tiresome.
Incidentally, it was also pointed out in another place that during the Gulf war the chanting of anti-Iraqi slogans at football matches might well have been abusive or insulting by reason of nationality under Clause 3(2) (b), but perhaps it is unnecessary to consider tabling an amendment to cover that contingency.
Clause 4 deals with the most serious matter of pitch invasion. At Hillsborough, Ibrox, and elsewhere, we have seen what can happen especially when there are insurmountable fences at the front of enclosures. Those fences must go and, as a direct consequence, it must be an offence—and I hope that the courts will regard it as a most serious offence—to invade the pitch. Offenders can and must be arrested, because this issue can be literally a matter of life and death. We must find a way by which we can treat people attending football matches as normal, civilised human beings.
If any of your Lordships had to attend a performance at the Royal Opera House and view the stage through a wire mesh fence with barbed wire on top of it you might justifiably feel that you had cause for both complaint and resentment. Clause 4, if it is strongly enforced, may well be a giant step in the direction of encouraging civilised behaviour and it may well also save lives.
1272
I end by reminding your Lordships that we who follow the rugby code of football have no need of legislation of this kind, since rugby has been well described as a game designed for ruffians but played by gentlemen. Had Clause 4 applied to the invasion of the pitch at rugby grounds, the man who ran on to the pitch after a match which Wales had succeeded in failing to win and was charged with carrying an offensive weapon would have been arrested. But I think he would have had a good defence in claiming that it was not an offensive weapon but simply a white stick which he intended, generously, to present free of charge to the referee.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government welcome this Bill and with it the opportunity to implement the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor on offences inside football grounds. Your Lordships will be aware that for some time the Government have been taking firm and positive steps to rid football of the unacceptable behaviour of hooligans who have blighted our national winter game and sullied our reputation abroad. We have enjoyed some success in reducing the scale of the problem. Firm but sensitive policing has made a contribution. So has the creation of the national football intelligence unit whose valuable work was recognised by the Home Affairs committee in another place. But the Government acknowledge that much has still to be done. As Lord Justice Taylor recognised in his report, the football clubs themselves have an important part to play in providing better facilities for spectators and better stewarding, and some improvements are under way.
Part of the Government's contribution is to establish the right legislative framework and to provide the police with all appropriate powers to act against hooligans. Specific measures already introduced in respect of football include the provisions in Part IV of the Public Order Act 1986, which empower the courts to exclude convicted hooligans from attending matches in England and Wales; the restriction on the availability of alcohol at football matches under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985; and Part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 which allows the courts to restrict the travel to matches abroad of those convicted of relevant football offences. The general criminal law also applies at football matches, of course; and many prosecutions are brought in respect of offences under the public order, criminal damage and offences against the person legislation in particular.
I believe however that the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will provide an important and welcome addition to the range of measures that can be brought to bear against football hooligans. The Bill has our full support and includes strengthening amendments introduced by the Government in another place which received broad all-party support.
The Bill is designed to tackle specific forms of undesirable conduct inside football grounds in England and Wales—the throwing of objects; chanting indecent or racialist abuse; and going onto the pitch without lawful authority or lawful excuse.

1273
Those measures would not apply to Scotland as we believe that in Scotland the common law already adequately covers that type of undesirable behaviour.
Lord Justice Taylor recommended the creation of those very specific offences, rather than a catch-all offence of disorderly conduct at a sports ground which had previously been recommended by Mr. Justice Popplewell in the final report of his Committee of Inquiry into Crowd Safety and Control at Sports Grounds presented to Parliament in January 1986. Lord Justice Taylor based his recommendation on the grounds that specific offences would make clear to hooligans and to the police precisely the type of behaviour which would not be tolerated. Specific offences would therefore be a more effective deterrent. The Government agree.
Lord Justice Taylor also recommended the creation of a fourth offence: ticket touting on the day of a football match. That lies outside the scope of the Bill; but the Government will bring forward additional legislation when parliamentary time permits.
I was asked some questions by my noble friend Lord Lyell. He asked whether it would be possible for him to attend a football match and continue to insult the referee and the opposing side, and not fall foul of the Bill. The insults would have to be chanted; but, in the final analysis it would be for the courts to decide and for the police to use their discretion as to whether to bring a prosecution. He asked where a match begins and ends. The offences have to be committed inside the stadium at a designated football match. No definition of indecent is provided in the Bill. It is a concept well known to the police and prosecutors, and we foresee no difficulty for the courts in deciding whether chants are indecent.
He was correct when he talked about European club matches. We shall include such matches in due course. Berwick is excluded because it is a Scottish League club. He wondered whether a ball returned to the pitch would constitute an illegally thrown missile. It would not constitute an offence as there would be a lawful excuse. In that case the lawful excuse would be that the ball would be required so that the game could continue.
1274
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, indirectly asked whether we wanted the Bill to be completed by the start of the next football season. We do.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked about chanting. My understanding is that anti-Iraqi chanting would be illegal as it would be racialist on the grounds of nationality. He asked whether a two-hour period in advance of the kick-off would be sufficient. In our view it would be because few spectators arrive at a ground more than two hours before the kick-off even for major matches where pre-match entertainment may be provided.
The measures contained in the Bill have been widely welcomed by the police; by the football authorities; and by genuine supporters of the game. I hope that they will be equally welcomed by the House.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It was remiss of me not to say that Clause 6(3) states clearly that the Act extends to England and Wales only. We are not telling the Scots how to run their football or the Welsh how to run their rugby.
I should also mention that improvements have taken place in some grounds. They have been due to the fact that additional sums of money have been made available from the Football Trust. Under the chairmanship of a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, it has disbursed substantial sums of money to help carry out everyone's wish to make football a safer and more wholesome game and to provide better conditions for people who pay to watch the game. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  THE KINGSWAY TUNNEL
  THE KINGSWAY TUNNEL
  THE "HAVEN"
  THE "HAVEN"
  SOVIET UNION: BILATERAL TREATIES
  SOVIET UNION: BILATERAL TREATIES
  FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST
  FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST
  LICENSED BETTING OFFICES
  LICENSED BETTING OFFICES
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: PUBLICITY
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: PUBLICITY
  TANZANIAN CAPTIVE BIRDS: IMPORT LICENCE REQUIREMENTS
  TANZANIAN CAPTIVE BIRDS: IMPORT LICENCE REQUIREMENTS