Sitting of 16 May 1991

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

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Wednesday 22 May.

CATIEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Monday 20 May at Seven o'clock.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 22 May.
Mr. Speaker: As the next four Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS)BILL (By Order)
    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

      BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Wednesday 22 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Manufacturing Exports
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the current level of United Kingdom manufacturing industry exports.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): In the latest quarter, manufactured export volumes —excluding erratics — were 3 per cent. up on a year earlier, compared with a fall in imports of 4 per cent.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that during the past two years, the United Kingdom's share of the world trade in manufactures has increased, that United Kingdom manufacturing exports have increased by 18 per cent. and that this year investment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry is expected to increase by 60 per cent. over the 1981 figure? Does not that make a mockery of Opposition attempts to spread doom and gloom?
    Mr. Mellor: A number of manufacturing industries are certainly going through a difficult time at present, and nothing that I say is intended to diminish that fact. As the main answer to the question and some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) show, manufacturing industry is well capable of bouncing back from this recession and there are all manner of good statistics to be drawn from our performance. When points are made about investment, the extent to which investment increased in the late 1980s should be borne in mind.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that export-led manufacturing industry plays an important part in this country's employment base? The Chief Secretary and his fellow Ministers were quick enough to claim the credit when they thought that unemployment was coming down. Now that we are in the 13th month in which the unemployment figures have risen, rather than fallen, will the Chief Secretary, on behalf of the Government's Treasury team, come to the Dispatch Box and take his share of the blame?
    Mr. Mellor: It is true that manufacturing export performance is important in this country. That is why, despite the Labour party's perennial endeavour to talk down British industry and important parts of it, it is worth while saluting our manufacturing performance. Manufacturing exports have done well in recent years. In the British car industry, figures for the first quarter of this year show a 40 per cent. increase in exports compared with a year earlier. That is impressive and shows the underlying strength of British manufacturing.

    Income Tax
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the basic and highest rates of income tax in 1978–79; and what are the equivalent rates in the current tax year.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The basic and highest rates of income tax on income in 1978 –79 were 33 per cent. and 98 per cent. respectively. The equivalent current rates are 25 per cent. and 40 per cent.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since they have been in office, the Government have consistently kept their promises to reduce the rates of income tax? Will he confirm that all past Labour Governments have increased income tax rates? Will he further confirm that under the last Labour Government, the brain drain reached record levels, with management figures going abroad because they were too highly taxed in this country?
    Mr. Maude: I can certainly confirm that we have consistently and steadily brought down income tax rates and we propose to continue doing so. My hon. Friend was not quite right about the record of past Labour Governments. In fairness to the Labour party, I should say that the Attlee Government briefly reduced the basic rates of income tax before putting them up again, and the Ramsey MacDonald Government of 1924, during its nine months in office, failed to put up basic tax rates. But with those exceptions, Labour Governments throughout history have always raised income tax.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the combination of the tax system and the benefit system means that low-income families are being taxed by a combination of tax and benefit withdrawal at a rate of more than 90 per cent.? Does he agree that, in the new classless society that has been created, we have incentives for the rich, but not for the poor?
    Mr. Maude: Absolutely not. The intention behind the tax reforms that we have introduced was to take out of tax 2 million people who would have paid tax if the regime left by the Labour Government had remained in force. Two million people who would have paid tax under a Labour Government do not pay any tax at all. The benefit reforms that we have introduced were specifically designed to reduce the high marginal rate of the combination of tax and withdrawal of benefit to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is better now than it was under the regime left by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend believe that enough people have understood the point made by the Labour party that it intends to introduce a savings penalty of 9 per cent. on all savings income of more than £3,000? Would not that reduce the funds to building societies and cut the chances of people borrowing money to own their own homes?
    Mr. Maude: I find it difficult to understand how the Labour party can in one breath proclaim the merits of saving and investment and say that it proposes to increase the tax on savings. We believe that it is right that people should save. It is good for individuals and for families because it makes them more independent and less dependent on the state and it increases the funds available for investment. That is important. It will be interesting to hear how the Labour Front Benchers square that with their proposal to increase the tax on savings, or does Labour simply not care?
    Mrs. Beckett rose ——
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not allowed to answer at Question Time, at least not until we sit on the Government Benches.
    Having given the figures for income tax in 1979 and the present year, will the Financial Secretary now give the figures for national insurance contribution rates in 1979 and the present year, for value added tax rates in 1979 and the present year and for the overall tax burden in 1979 and the present year, which include both those figures as well as the cuts in income tax?
    Mr. Maude: As I understand the rules of the House, if the hon. Lady wishes to table a question to me about these fascinating and important matters, I shall provide her with a detailed and specific answer. However, as this question is about something completely different, I shall decline to do so. The hon. Lady mentioned the overall tax burden now compared with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked a question about the tax burden and I shall provide an answer. If Labour Front Benchers would quieten down, they would have an opportunity to hear it.
    It is right to say that the tax burden in 1980–81 increased substantially compared to that in 1978–79. It was necessary to raise taxes to pay off the enormous burden of debt levied on the country by the Labour Government—the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was a member of the Cabinet. The Labour Government reduced the tax burden, but they did so at the expense of increasing the tax burden on future generations. That is not a responsible way to proceed. Since 1980–81 the total tax burden has steadily fallen and it continues to do so.

    Inflation
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which index of inflation he treats as the most reliable; and whether he has any plans for a new index.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I pay close attention to a range of indicators of inflation. I am currently considering the recommendation of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service for a new index of consumer prices comparable with that of our European Community partners.
    Mr. Beith: When the retail prices index is published tomorrow, will the Chancellor draw attention to the advice of the present Prime Minister, given a year ago, that the RPI is an inaccurate measure of underlying inflation? Is it true that the Bank of England has developed a new index of contemporary inflation which suggest that underlying inflation is remaining stubbornly high and may be influencing the Governor's current advice to the Government?
    Mr. Lamont: On the first point, the RPI could hardly measure underlying inflation as it is a measure of headline inflation. It is the measure which matters to wage bargainers and to consumers, so it is good news for the country that it is coming down. It matters to pensioners, it matters to savers and it matters to British industry. All that the hon. Gentleman does is sit and nit-pick. We have said consistently that when looking at inflationary pressures we look at the underlying rate. The underlying

    413
    rate, excluding mortgage interest payments, has come down by 1 per cent. in the past six months. We are winning the battle against inflation and we shall go on winning it.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Surely the headline rate is what matters most to people with mortgages and community charge bills to pay. Is not the underlying rate likely to take a little longer to drop because of high wage settlements last autumn? Is not it likely to come down anyway later in the year if current policies are maintained?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, the underlying rate comes down less quickly than the headline rate. The underlying rate did not go up nearly as much as the headline rate did, so there is no great issue to be made out of that. My hon. Friend is also right about earnings in manufacturing industry. It is extremely good news that, in the past two months, the rate of increase in earnings in manufacturing industry has gone down by 1 per cent. That shows that people are adjusting to inflation coming down.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what United Kingdom bank base rates were in June 1983 and June 1987; and what they are now.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Bank base rates were reduced to 91 per cent. from 10 per cent. on 15 June 1983 and stood at 9 per cent. throughout June 1987. They now stand at 12 per cent.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Chancellor for that reply. Why does he keep insisting that Government economic policies are working when almost 3 million of our fellow citizens are not? Does he see any connection between the loss of 1,000 manufacturing jobs each day for the first 90 working days of this year and high interest rates? Will he acknowledge that electors were looking forward to a June election because it is only during election periods that the Government manage to get interest rates down?
    Mr. Lamont: Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the previous Labour Government, inflation was never lower than 7·4 per cent. We shall have an average rate of inflation for the whole of this year lower than that.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Contrary to the pessimistic forecasts of the anarcho-monetarists who wrote a letter to The Times a couple of months ago, is not it clear that Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism has been a great success, that it has led to exchange rate stability and lower interest rates and that there is every prospect that those will continue?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Only a few months ago, when we joined the exchange rate mechanism, people said that our only choice was to devalue and leave the ERM or we would be unable to cut interest rates. In fact, we have been able to cut interest rates by 3 per cent. That has been good news for business and it has also been extremely good news for mortgage holders. Since last October, the average mortgage payment has come down from £290 to £ 240 per month, saving the average mortgage payer £50 a month. First-time buyers are doing even better because of competition between the building societies.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Chancellor confirm and afterwards perhaps explain why interest rates were 12 per cent. or more for 60 months between 1979 and 1991 whereas, starting with the Attlee Government in 1945 all the way through until 1979, they were higher than 12 per cent. for only 26 months? Under the Conservative Administration of the past 12 years, interest rates seemed to be lower than 12 per cent. only in 1983, in 1987 and now in 1991. Are not the temporary low interest rates a politically expedient, but economically inadvisable blip? As soon as the Government win the next election —they hope —they will raise interest rates again.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is always telling us not to go back and make comparisons with the Labour Government, but now he seems to want us to go back all the way to the second world war, to a period when there was exchange control and control of bank lending. Interest rates all over the world were higher in the 1980s than they were in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or 1970s. That has not prevented Britain's economy from growing more rapidly in the 1980s than before, despite the fact that we have had relatively high interest rates.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the corporation tax rates and thresholds for small businesses; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.
    Mr. Maude: The small companies rate of corporation tax is 25 per cent. compared with 42 per cent. at the time of the 1979 general election. The profits limit for the small companies rate will be raised this year to £ 250,000, compared with £ 50,000 in 1979, and the threshold for marginal relief will be £ 1,250,000, compared with £ 85,000 in 1979.
    Mr. Gill: As one who vividly remembers the difficulties and frustrations of running a business under the last Labour Administration, may I say how much I welcome my hon. Friend's reply? The relative improvement since 1979 is substantial and welcome, but will my hon. Friend never lose sight of the fact that substantial additional benefits can be gained by continuing to reduce the rates of tax in the corporate sector?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend puts a powerful case. It is worth pointing out that, at 33 per cent., the main rate of corporation tax for the coming year is now lower than the small companies rate was under Labour, and that is a huge benefit for small and large companies alike. We now have a corporation tax regime which is more generous and lower than that in any other country in the EC or in the Group of Seven. That puts the United Kingdom in an advantageous position which we shall seek to maintain and enhance. The House is waiting for some answers to the questions that we put to the Labour party about its proposal for new capital allowances. We want to know how much that would cost and whether the Labour party would increase the rate of corporation tax to pay for it.
    Ms. Short: Labour Members of Parliament in Birmingham recently met the West Midlands Employers Federation. The situation there is desperate and worrying for manufacturing firms which are trying to invest and survive. The Minister should not mislead the House about its seriousness. Manufacturers badly want to be able to

    415
    offset corporation tax against investment, which will result in higher investment in our country. Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?
    Mr. Maude: I am a west midlands Member myself and I am aware of the difficulties that some businesses are experiencing in the west midlands, as elsewhere. I am also aware of the news from the car industry. Production of cars in the west midlands, as elsewhere, has increased this year. The number of cars produced for export has more than doubled and overall production has increased compared with last year. Exports have increased by 40 per cent. with the British car industry now exporting two thirds as many cars as are imported, compared with one third only a year or two ago. That is good news. It would be nice to hear the hon. Lady giving the credit that is due to the managers and work force in the British car industry who, in the past decade, have transformed the way in which the industry performs. It is now a powerful and good industry, not the joke that it used to be.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated public sector borrowing requirement for this financial year; and what are the comparable figures for the United States of America and the average of all European Community countries.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The latest forecast is a public sector borrowing requirement of £7·9 billion, around 1¼ per cent. of GDP. Substantially larger fiscal deficits are expected in the United States and on average among European Community countries.
    Mr. Fishburn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that of the seven largest industrial countries, only Japan has a stronger fiscal position than Britain? Will he further confirm that to borrow 1 per cent. of GNP after some years of healthy surplus is altogether different from borrowing 6 per cent., as happened year after year under the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that we have run a strong fiscal position has meant that we have been able to spend money on priority programmes. As my hon. Friend said, under the last Labour Government, the PSBR averaged 6 ¼per cent. of GDP. That is equivalent today to £40 billion. We have repaid debt of some £27 billion, enabling us to save £3 billion a year for the taxpayer —the equivalent of 50 new hospitals a year or 10 per cent. more on health care. The fastest growing part of the Labour party's public expenditure programme would be debt interest.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Recognising the linkage between the public sector borrowing requirement and interest rates, why was it that in 1983 and in 1987, which were both election years, interest rates were at the bottom of the trough? Does the Chancellor intend to orchestrate another cut in interest rates, against the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England? If the right hon. Gentleman opposes that action, what does he intend to do?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. The trough in interest rates occurred in 1988, not 1987. The hon. Gentleman ought to check his facts. There is no
    416
    disagreement between the Governor of the Bank of England and myself over interest rate policy. Our position is that interest rates will be maintained in order to safeguard our position in the exchange rate mechanism, and we will have the flexibility to reduce interest rates as and when inflation comes down.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that of all the unreliable statistics on which the Treasury has to pontificate, the public sector borrowing requirement is the most unreliable of all—as events have proved so many times in the past? It is always a mistake to base too much of the Government's economic policy on the current PSBR figure.
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the PSBR is the difference between two very big magnitudes, and therefore is subject to enormous swings. However, our interest rate policy is not based on the PSBR. I think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), was making the point that the PSBR has a consequential effect on interest rates.

    Manufacturing Trade
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what year was manufacturing trade last in surplus.
    Mr. Mellor: In 1982.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that Britain enjoyed a manufacturing trade surplus every year since the industrial revolution, until this mob came into government, and finished up with a deficit in 1982? We had a trade surplus when we had the spinning-jenny and when we invented the steam engine, but now, under this gang of spivs, we have a plastic economy —and the wheels have dropped off.
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the typically understated way in which he asked his question, and for auditioning for the job of conducting the proms at the same time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the manufacturing deficit turns on the increase in exports and in imports. As it happens, during the period that we moved into deficit, the increase in exports year-on-year was running at 7½ per cent. between 1983 and 1990. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to have the comparative figure under Labour between 1974 and 1979, when manufacturing exports achieved a year-on-year increase of 2 per cent. The increased prosperity of the 1980s of course brought increased demand for imported goods.
    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to study reports on manufacturing industry in the north of England? They show that it is holding up very well in the northern region and that small firms are doing better than large companies in the present recession. Is not that a credit to the Government, who have pursued a policy of broadening employment from the large manufacturing industries, such as shipbuilding and steel, across a wider variety of small businesses employing people in many different types of work?
    Mr. Mellor: What my hon. Friend has said is true not only of the northern region but of south Wales and Scotland, where a much more diversified manufacturing economy now exists than ever before. Most notably, this

    417
    shows the confidence of overseas investors in the United Kingdom and in those regions. The number of Japanese companies now investing in the north is especially noteworthy.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Chief Secretary not appreciate that, as well as the figures that show fast-rising unemployment, we have today seen figures released by the Central Statistical Office that reveal that investment has plummeted by 20 per cent. in the past year? Is that not the most awful way to prepare for the operation of the single market after 1992? What do the Government intend to do about that fall in investment?
    Mr. Mellor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to disclose that any fall in investment represents a fall from the dramatically higher level —indeed, the historically high level —of the past few years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I gave him the figures yesterday. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to ask questions and then to intervene from a sedentary position, but I shall give him the figures anyway.
    Total business investment in 1978 amounted to £35·8 billion at 1985 prices. By 1988 the figure had risen to £ 52 billion, in 1989 it had reached ££56 billion, and in 1990 it stood at £55 billion. To criticise the Government for a fall from historically high levels is not to go to the root of the matter.
    Of course we regret any reduction in investment, even when it represents a fall from very high levels, but, given the performance of manufacturing industry in the export market, even during the current recession, I am confident that investment will soon bounce back to the levels that we achieved in the late 1980s.
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the latest trend in the balance of trade for manufactured goods.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The deficit on United Kingdom trade in manufactures has fallen sharply. In the first quarter of 1991 the deficit was £1·3 billion—less than 1 per cent. of GDP and the lowest for over five years.
    Mr. Irvine: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that encouraging trend in the balance of trade in manufactured goods is reflected not only in a fall in imports, but in an increase in exports? Does she agree that that in turn reflects great credit on the competitive performance of our manufacturing exporters in world markets?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree. In 1990, the United Kingdom volume share of world trade in manufactures rose for the second successive year. Mention has already been made of the splendid performance of the car industry; in the latest quarter, the volume of exports was up 40 per cent. on the previous year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and exports are due to increase.
    Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that the Governor of the Bank of England described our recession as home grown? Given the massive reductions in export services, in assistance for innovation, and in training, how does the Minister expect us to regain our place in world manufacturing?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misquoted the Governor of the Bank of England, who qualified that observation.

    Employee Share Ownership
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry concerning recent Budget measures to encourage wider employee share ownership.
    Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend and I meet the CBI frequently. The CBI has given warm support to our Budget proposals on employee share ownership.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that management is now increasingly on our side, encouraging employee share schemes and, in particular, welcoming the Budget proposals for schemes which given an incentive to all employees to participate, rather than retaining the old executive share basis? Will my hon. Friend join me in hoping that more trade unions will welcome that development, which can be shown to be in the interests of all employees and should therefore be in the interests of the unions as well?
    Mr. Maude: There has certainly been a good response to the various measures introduced by the Government over a period of years to encourage employee share ownership. A total of 2¼ million employees have now benefited from all-employee schemes. In addition, the number of employees in profit-related pay schemes has increased by no less than 50 per cent. in the past year.
    That strikes us as the right way to approach participation by employees in the firms in which they work—in stark contrast with Labour's approach, which seems to be to hand the boardroom keys to the trade union bosses who are Labour's paymasters.
    Mr. William Ross: Given that one of the ways in which employee participation and ownership was increased was through the sale of nationalised industries, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that the employees of Northern Ireland Electricity and the citizens of Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to bid for and own shares in Northern Ireland Electricity when it is sold off?
    Mr. Maude: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but it is inconceivable that he would propose arrangements which would do anything other than what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is of great importance that when nationalised industries are privatised we encourage the employees of firms to participate by direct ownership in those companies and that the local population and customers of the industry or service also become owners. That seems to us to be desirable.
    Mr. Butcher: When my hon. Friend next meets the Confederation of British Industry, will he discuss its suggestion that compensation for house owners and owners of other properties affected by planning applications should be at the rate of 125 per cent. of market value? If such an increase causes an improvement in the rate at which approvals are considered, it would save an awful lot of money
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about share ownership.
    Mr. Butcher: I was referring to the CBI and its agenda for discussions with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maude: Whether my hon. Friend's question is in order or not, it is a great delight to all of us to see him back in the House in good health and reinvigorated to take part in our deliberations and to take a characteristically forthright and splendid role in our debates.
    We discuss a range of matters with the CBI, although the matter to which my hon. Friend referred is not, I confess, one that I have discussed with the CBI myself. However, I look forward to doing so in the near future.

    Fixed Investment
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which of the last 10 calendar years total fixed investment fell by more than 9·75 per cent.
    Mr. Mellor: None. Total fixed investment in 1990 at constant prices was higher than in any year other than the past three.
    Mr. McAvoy: In an earlier answer the Minister confirmed that the level of manufactured investment had fallen by 20 per cent. in the past year. Will he also confirm that the level of manufacturing investment as a proportion of fixed investment is now lower than when the Government took office? For the sake of British industry, why does not the Treasury Bench resign and let Labour do the job?
    Mr. Mellor: The key statistic is total investment in business in this country, which has shown a dramatic increase. I have given the figures. The House might be interested to know that in the 1980s total investment growth was higher in the United Kingdom than in any other country in the Group of Seven, bar one. Needless to say, between 1970 and 1980 Britain was at the bottom of that investment growth league.
    Mr. Butterfill: Is it not true that our growth during the three-year period to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred was 43 per cent., which was faster than in Germany, France or Italy?
    Mr. Mellor: Indeed, it was. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made in 1984 in corporation tax rates, and other benefits which resulted from the Government's policies, led to an unprecedented explosion in business investment. It is inevitable that if industrial development slows, the level of investment cannot be sustained every year. However, it is clear that even this year the investment rate will be well above that which prevailed for business generally in the 1970s in real terms. That is the key statistic.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Looking to 1991 and beyond, does the Minister accept that the International Monetary Fund report predicts a fall in investment for 1991 and that the Confederation of British Industry is even more pessimistic in its forecasts? Is it not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said, that that bunch on the other side of the House ought to
    420
    resign? Indeed, many people with considerably less important failures to record have shot themselves in despair
    Mr. Mellor: It is astonishing that Labour Members think that they are on to a good point about investment when the only way they can jeer at the Government's achievements is to compare this 12 months with the record levels established under the Government in the late 1980s. On the question of business investment, any comparison with Labour years will make only too clear how much of an advance there has been since then. In the 1970s, business investment in this country was stagnant. That is the key point which everyone should bear in mind.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when interest rates were last at 10 per cent.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Bank base rates last stood at 10 per cent. in July 1988.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he tell mortgage payers and businesses, in language that they can understand, why interest rates are not 2 per cent. lower? Is he aware that every time he reduces interest rates the banks put them up by 0·5 per cent. or 1 per cent. so that businesses are not at present benefiting from his policy on interest rates? Is he running the economy, or is it being run by the Governor of the Bank of England?
    Mr. Lamont: On the first point, it is not true that the benefits of the reductions in interest rates have not come through to mortgage payers. As I explained earlier, the result of the 3 per cent. drop in interest rates since last October has been a payments reduction of about £50 per month for the average mortgage payer. That is a very dramatic improvement in take-home pay. Furthermore, as a result of competition between the banks and the building societies, the first-time buyer has seen an even bigger decrease. The market is working, and it is following interest rates down.
    Mr. Wigley: If the inflation rate is coming down as rapidly as the Government believe, if sterling is so strong against the deutschmark and if consumer demand and manufacturing investment are low, surely the time has come to reduce the base rates further in order to stimulate the economy.
    Mr. Lamont: I do not believe that it would be right to reduce interest rates in order to stimulate the economy, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. Interest rates should, indeed, bear a relationship to inflation.

    CBI
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received recently from the CBI about business expectations.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I am in regular contact with the CBI. The latest CBI quarterly industrial survey shows a marked improvement in the trend of forward-looking indicators for business optimism, orders and output.
    Mr. Squire: Did my right hon. Friend notice two particularly salient points in that survey—first, that the number of firms expecting higher unit costs was the lowest

    421
    for three years and, secondly, that the overall level of business optimism was the highest for a year? Do not he and the country expect from the merchants of doom and gloom on the Opposition Benches some recognition of this improvement?
    Mr. Lamont: The Opposition seem to have a vested interest in failure and seem to want bad developments. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Another point that he might have mentioned is that the CBI survey also shows that the number of firms expecting to increase prices is very low. As my hon. Friend says, the CBI survey has a good track record as a forward indicator of growth in the economy. Everything in the surveys is consistent with my Budget forecast that the recovery will begin in the second half of the year.
    Mr. Boateng: Putting aside the merchants of gloom and doom, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with the remark of the chairman of Marks and Spencer that business is in for a "longish, hardish, roughish time"? If the Chancellor does not agree with that, let him answer this question: who knows more about running a business in these times—the chairman of Marks and Spencer or himself?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the chairman of Marks and Spencer knows much more about running Marks and Spencer—that is his job. I have always said that business is difficult and tough at the moment. But, equally, I have said —and I have given my reasons for this belief—that business will turn up in the second half of the year. All the indications are there. Surveys by the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, as well as the 3i's survey of business, including small businesses, all indicate that the business climate is slowly but definitely improving.

    Inflation
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest year-on-year rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: All-items RPI inflation was 8·2 per cent. in March. It is expected to fall sharply over the coming months to 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1991.
    Mr. Burns: In welcoming the improving inflation figures, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm that inflation is on target to reach 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of this year? Does he agree that it ill behoves certain individuals constantly to talk down the improving inflation figures, given that between 1974 and 1979 inflation increased by more than 100 per cent. and that the best year-on-year rate of inflation in that period was only 7·4 per cent.?
    Mr. Mellor: It is certainly true that during those years average inflation was 15½per cent. Indeed, the lowest point that inflation reached in those years is equivalent to the average that it has been during 12 years under us. I confirm, as I did in my original answer, that we are on course for a 4 per cent. level at the end of the year.
    Mr. Douglas: How does the Minister explain, apart from the statistical measures of inflation, the traditional view that inflation is a measure whereby the claims on resources in terms of money exceed those resources in real
    422
    terms? Therefore, how does he explain that the resources that we have available to call into use, in terms of labour and capital, are under-utilised? How does he propose to alter that situation?
    Mr. Mellor: I find that an utterly inexplicable question. I shall read the record and write to the hon. Gentleman.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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 be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree that today's unemployment figures prove conclusively that the Conservative party has one economic policy only—that of mass unemployment? Is it true that the Government intend to introduce some form of compulsory work scheme to reduce the numbers of jobless people in this country, or will he be following the example of his predecessor by adding to the 30 or so fiddles in the calculation of the number of unemployed? Or will he—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is taking a great deal of time from his colleagues.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Or will the Prime Minister do what is in the best interests of his country, by resigning and making way for a Labour Government with a genuine strategy on jobs and industry?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is being both silly and graceless. I am as concerned about unemployment as the hon. Gentleman is, and it is precisely for that reason that I propose to continue with the policies to get inflation down, to ensure that there is a stable basis for the creation of jobs. There are a million extra jobs today than there were when the Conservative Government came to power and, in so far as making way for a Labour Government is concerned, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said, because of Labour policy on the minimum wage people will lose their jobs.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that it is not part of his policy to increase taxation on earnings, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who proposes to increase tax on earnings for one in 15 people, the shadow Chancellor who intends to increase it for one in eight, or the people who are really master-minding the hidden Labour party agenda, who intend to increase taxes for everyone who earns?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is certainly correct that Labour Members seem to be in something of a muddle over their tax and spending figures. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—who, alas, is not here at the moment—has said:
    "Yes, of course, in an ideal world we would like to do what the Liberal Democrats are saying and say yes, we'd increase taxation."

    423
    That is their official policy.
    Mr. Kinnock: If, as the Prime Minister claimed last Friday, his economic policies are working, why are 2,175,000 people in our country not working?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the intention—and it is beginning to show clear signs of success—is to reduce inflation so that we may begin, yet again, to add to the 1 million jobs that we have created during the period of this Conservative Government. There is only one stable and sure way to create jobs and keep them—to keep inflation low, a policy which we shall pursue and he never could.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister seems to forget that today's unemployment figures show the highest April rise in unemployment since the war, that since he has been Prime Minister 3,000 people have lost their jobs every working day, that output is down and that investment has plummeted by 20 per cent. over the year. When the Prime Minister's policies are responsible for causing that huge damage, and when he has no answers and no policies to get out of it, is it not time that he went?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about unemployment, he should not advocate policies that will artifically increase it, such as the minimum wage. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said of his minimum wage policy:
    "If the point is to avoid people being poor this is an extraordinarily stupid way of doing it."
    If he does not like the IFS, perhaps Mr. Joe Haines of the Daily Mirror is more to his taste. He said:
    "The minimum wage proposals won't work and if they do, won't help."
    Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my right hon. Friend visit, in the near future, a hospital that has opted out? Does he agree that yesterday Lord McColl explained clearly the benefits to patients when a hospital opts out—putting patients before bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will also explain to people in the vicinity that when a hospital opts out, it opts out of bureaucracy and not out of the national health service—contrary to the dishonest literature passed around by the Labour candidate for Monmouth, which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) should repudiate.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down.
    Mr. McAvoy: Conservative Members seem very nervous. In 1979, the Tories promised that, if elected, they would not double VAT, but once elected they increased it from 8 to 15 per cent. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister failed to answer a question on future levels of VAT. Can this simple and honest Prime Minister give a simple and honest answer to the question? If the Tories are re-elected, will they further increase VAT?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman graciously concedes that we shall be in a position to decide that at the
    424
    next general election, but I want no lectures on value added tax from the party which put tax on children's sweets, even though its leader did not know it.
    Mr. Stevens rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Stevens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to raise the status of teachers is by giving them a pay review body, rather than reducing their take-home pay by increasing their tax?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our purpose in introducing a review body was to raise the status of teachers, and I believe that teachers across the country will accept that. The Opposition's policy, on the other hand, is entirely clear—to take away parental choice and, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has admitted, to increase taxation on a large number of teachers.
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Salmond: Has the Prime Minister heard of the great gas robbery? Is he aware that, last week, the Government gave permission for the development of up to 12 North sea fields to take gas from off the coast of Aberdeen straight to the north-east of England to generate cheap electricity, and that that will be done with public support through offsets against petroleum revenue tax? Why, under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, is Scotland set to become the first country in history to pay international oil companies to take away its most valuable natural resource?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might make some acknowledgement of the tremendous asset to Scotland that investment there has been —not least by the oil and gas industries.

    German Chancellor
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what subjects he intends to discuss with him.
    The Prime Minister: I expect to see the Chancellor next at the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June, when we shall discuss whatever business is before the Council.
    Mr. Hunter: In the course of his continuing dialogue with Chancellor Kohl, has my right hon. Friend found grounds to believe that effective common European foreign, defence and security policies are attainable, or have the events of a few months ago demonstrated that, at least for the time being, they are unattainable?
    The Prime Minister: What is entirely clear is that, whatever may be decided, NATO must remain the core of our defence for the future, and that includes beyond any doubt the continued presence in Europe of United States and Canadian forces. But I think that there is scope for improving the co-operation of European views within

    425
    NATO and the effectiveness of the European response outside the NATO area. We have put forward detailed proposals for both in the intergovernmental conferences.
    Mr. Wareing: As it is believed that Herr Karl Otto Poehl is about to offer his resignation as president of the Bundesbank, will the Prime Minister be telling the German Chancellor that he is about to offer a free transfer to Mr. Leigh-Pemberton, the Governor of the Bank of England, and offer him to the German Chancellor free of charge?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: When my right hon. Friend meets the German Chancellor, will he discuss the implications of the recent European Commission decision to intervene in German industry to remove the subsidies that the west German Government have been paying to west German industry for some years? And is not that a sign that the Single European Act and the single market are working very effectively and levelling the playing field for the benefit of Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I hope and believe that that is the case. We certainly wish to see the continued reduction of subsidies throughout Europe.

    Engagements
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with the chief executive of Alderhey hospital, who has told the district health authorities that any district health authority paying an additional £7,500 will be guaranteed not to wait more than 12 months for surgery to be performed on children sent to that hospital? Is not that a clear indication that the Government have completely abandoned the national health service principle of treatment when it is needed and also any pretence of providing other than a two-tier service that will deprive children of surgery at the time when they need it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is being very cheap and wholly inaccurate. There is no question of a two-tier health service. The hon. Gentleman may find what was said recently by a doctor on "Newsnight" interesting. He said:
    "I don't accept that there'll be any priority given"—
    [Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members do not like listening to alternative views, but it would do them good to do so occasionally. The doctor said:
    "I don't accept that there'll be any priority given in where the patients are treated at all. My enthusiasm for GP fund-holding is based on"——
    [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen. The doctor said:
    "My enthusiasm … is based on the belief that because I know my patients and because I know the resources in the health service and because I care about the patients, I'm in the best position to use the resources in a wise and helpful way"
    That is the view of people treating patients, and it is better than the hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind the adverse criticism directed so often in the past against English football supporters, does my right hon. Friend share my pleasure not only in Manchester United's excellent result last night against Barcelona but in the behaviour of its supporters? Does he agree with me that, good though the quality of the play was, it is likely to be bettered on Sunday in the third division play-off by Bury football club against Bolton Wanderers?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I should be in very considerable danger if I answered the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, however, I am glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Manchester United, and not only on the performance of its team ——
    Mr. Kinnock: "Up the Reds!"
    The Prime Minister: Well, on some occasions, maybe. I congratulate Manchester United not only on the performance of its team but on the behaviour of its supporters, which gave an excellent example in Europe that I look forward to seeing followed by British teams throughout Europe when they lift, I hope, a number of trophies next year.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?
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 20 MAY—Debate on "Next Steps" in the civil service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion to take note of EC Document No. 4936/91 relating to the European energy charter. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 21 MAY—Until about seven o'clock consideration of Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, followed by:
Motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order.
WEDNESDAY 22 MAY—Remaining stages of the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords].
Motion on Members' resettlement grant.
THURSDAY 23 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:
Wednesday 22 May at 10.30 am
Committee A—Document Nos. 8149/88, 9204/89, 5807/90 and 4684/91 relating to natural habitats; and
Committee B—Document No. 10146/90 relating to labelling of tobacco products.
[Monday 20 May:

Floor of the House

Relevant European Community document

4936/91

European Energy Charter

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-xvi (1990–91)

Wednesday 22 May:

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community documents

(a) 8149/88

Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats

(b) 9204/89

Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats

(c) 5807/90

Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats

(d) 4684/91

Protection of Wildlife Nature Habitats

(e) 6553/90

Import Ban on Furs

(f) 5618/91

Import Ban on Furs

(g) 6719/90

Nature Conservation(ACNAT)+ ADD 1

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-xxxix ( 1987–88)

(b) HC 11-iii (1989–90)

(c) HC 11-xxiv (1989–90)

(d) HC 29-xvi (1990–91) and HC 29-xx (1990–91)

(e) IIC 15-xxx (1988–89)

(f) HC 29-xx (1990–91)

(g) HC 11-xxxii (1989–90)

428

European Standing Committee

Relevant European Community document

10146/90

Labelling of Tobacco Products

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-xi (1990–91) and HC 29–xx (1990–91)]

Dr. Cunningham: Can the Leader of the House confirm what the press has apparently already been told—that the much-delayed White Paper on education and training will be published on Monday next week? If the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that, as I expect that he should be able to do, will he assure us that there will be an oral statement in the Chamber on the publication of this important White Paper? It can hardly be argued that next week is a particularly heavy week for business. Indeed, I was tempted to say when I put the question: "Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, if there is any?"
May we have an assurance that the appropriate Ministers will come to the House of Commons to announce their proposals and policies and will not announce them in a press conference outside Parliament?
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House were dismayed by today's unemployment figures. I share the view that Tory Members are concerned—they certainly should be as concerned as we are—about the awful, record rise in unemployment last month, the worst figures for April since the war.
That was coupled with two surveys, one from the engineering union pointing out that about 100,000 jobs had been lost in manufacturing industry, and one from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showing that about 33,000 training places for people with disabilities had been lost because of Government cuts.
May we have an early debate on the Government's employment policies? It must be in the interests of the reputation of the House of Commons that we should have such a debate, and one would have thought that the Government would want an opportunity to give an explanation of what has happened in that context. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will arrange for an early debate on employment policy and the disastrous consequences of the Government's economic policy failures in respect of jobs.
It is clear that the Government do not have much business for the House to conduct. In those circumstances, why do they continue to refuse our offer to co-operate now on legislation to abolish the poll tax? Why must we wait for the abolition of that detested tax when there is all the parliamentary time in the world to introduce a Bill right now? Why are the Government declining our offer?
Mr. MacGregor: I will answer first the first and last points made by the hon. Gentleman. On the first, the hon. Gentleman tries to pretend every week that there is not a great deal of Government business. The House will have noted that we have been very busy this week, and I suspect that we shall be very busy today dealing with amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]. Is he suggesting that we have no business to conduct today? If so, and if, as he said, we have little business to conduct, does he agree that we shall get through today's business extremely quickly and that the House will rise shortly?
Dr. Cunningham: Answer the question.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is obviously getting embarrassed by this line of response. He says each week that we do not have much to do, when it is obvious that the House has a great deal of legislation to take through, and that will be clear today as it will be next week. So he cannot go on peddling that line, which is far from reality. In fact, the House has been dealing with 35 Bills, with quite a number still to come, leaving aside the Finance Bill. That is more than in the past two Sessions. The House still has a great deal of business to do.
The hon. Gentleman employs the trick of asking for a debate on one thing or another and then, when I grant it —as I did with the public expenditure debate this week, which he knew I was keen to have—he claims that it is a light week. He cannot have it all ways. The hon. Gentleman talks total nonsense.
As for next week, the hon. Gentleman will know that on Tuesday we shall be dealing with two major items, one of which involves 63 amendments from the House of Lords—the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, and the remaining stages of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. That is a major undertaking. He cannot claim that the House is facing a light load when the position is entirely the opposite. There is a great deal of work to be done.
That is partly the answer to the point the hon. Gentleman made about unemployment. A number of the debates that we have had—on the Finance Bill, public expenditure plans and so on—all enabled employment issues to be raised, as they were raised in the debate yesterday, when it was clear that the Opposition proposals would greatly add to unemployment, rather than the reverse.
I noted that, when the hon. Gentleman talked about Government cuts in relation to employment measures, he added yet again to the range of issues where the Labour party is proposing to spend a great deal more money and is not prepared to face up to the need for higher taxation that would be involved under its policies.
I can confirm that there will be a White Paper on education and training, although I cannot at this stage confirm exactly when. But I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request—that there should be an oral statement in the House—and I hope to agree to that.
Mr. Speaker: The House has just heard what the Leader of the House said. Thirty-four groups of amendments have been tabled to the Bill under consideration this afternoon. Will hon. Members therefore ask questions about next week's business and not make general points?
Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for an early statement on the adequacy of safety precautions for the transport of toxic or flammable goods by rail? Is he aware that, in the early hours of this morning, at Bradford-on-Tone near Wellington in my constituency, there was a derailment followed by an immense fire in which, thankfully, no one appears to have been injured? However, great concern and alarm has been caused in the surrounding community. We must thank providence that the accident did not happen as the train passed through a built-up area. May we have an urgent inquiry into the causes of the accident, and can the results be brought before the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand entirely my hon. Friend's point and agree that it was fortunate that no injuries were reported. As he knows, as a result of the fire, the line is likely to be closed for about two days. It is too early for the cause to be established, but I confirm that British Rail will be holding an internal inquiry. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is in close touch with British Rail. I have noted my hon. Friend's request that the results of the inquiry should come before the House once the inquiry has been completed.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on unemployment which will allow us to examine not only the Government's abysmal record but the unemployment consequences of Labour's national minimum wage policy? Can the right hon. Gentleman also make time for repealing the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, given the welcome statement by the Prime Minister that there will be a moratorium on mining in the Antarctic?
The Leader of the House has not stated the business for the first week after the recess. Does he know something that we do not?
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he had been present on the numerous occasions when that question has been raised—I am sure that he was here—he would know that much attention has been focused on unemployment issues, especially on the point that he raised—the serious consequences for higher unemployment of the Labour party's proposal for a minimum wage.
As for a Bill to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act, we still have a great deal of legislation to take through the House this Session and I do not contemplate adding such a Bill to the already heavy load.
The significance of my not making a statement on business for the first week after the recess is that I am embarrassed by the choice of business still to be conducted in the House. There is no lack of choice but rather too much, and I hope to be able to make that choice soon. It is difficult to do so today, but I intend to make a statement on that subject next week.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is important to have a debate on the civil service, an issue that concerns not only the House but the whole country is the world environment? It is time that we had a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on tropical rain forests and other such matters, all of which are vital to us and future generations. The report seems to have been shelved for so long that there are inches of dust on it.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that that issue is important. I have said in past business statements that I hope at some stage to find time to discuss it. It is a question not simply of the Select Committee report but of the Government's response to it. I hope that we can debate those matters, because they are important. I know that my hon. Friend did not wish to underestimate the importance of the debate that we shall have for half a day on Monday. He will have noticed that we shall deal with opposed private business at 7 o'clock.
The next steps reforms in the civil service are among the greatest undertaken in the civil service for a long time. They will achieve much greater effectiveness and value for money, which is what the Government's policies are

431
about, and are already making considerable progress. The document "Making the most of Next Steps" is being published this afternoon and the debate is therefore relevant.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the light of an event this week, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week that there will not be a summer general election?
Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for a business statement at this stage, and I certainly do not intend to make such an announcement.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the NATO summit has been postponed from June until the autumn because the allies have been unable to agree on a European strategy, will my right hon. Friend make time for a wide-ranging debate on defence and security, especially as it affects Europe?
Mr. MacGregor: We certainly must find time for our usual defence debates. I hope to find time during the summer. We have already had one such debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Leader of the House any information about whether there might be a statement early next week about the "World in Action" programme on the Larry Goodman agricultural empire, particularly as it affects the economy of Northern Ireland, bank loans and the employment prospects of many people?
Mr. MacGregor: I have no such information.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: May I urge my right hon. Friend to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on employment? Given the recent decision by the Sabanci group in Turkey to create several hundred jobs in textile manufacturing in my constituency, we would welcome the opportunity to highlight this Government's policies, which have made Britain the foremost place in Europe for inward investment by those seeking to invest in the heart of the world's manufacturing zone. Such a debate would also give us a wonderful opportunity to contrast those policies with the Opposition's policies, particularly those on minimum wages, which would wipe out millions of jobs in this country.
Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we want to seek every opportunity to contrast the Government's employment policies with those of the Labour party. We have done so frequently recently, and with increasing effect.
Dr. Cunningham: Let us have a debate.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman says, "Let us have a debate", but we debated the subject yesterday. Perhaps he was not here to hear the issues being debated, but I was, and effective arguments were deployed by Conservative Members. It was clear which party had the best policies.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said on inward investment, and the specific example that he gave. I hope that he will find opportunities to make that point again.
Mr. Ron Brown: I know that not many of us enjoy vindaloo curry, but may we have the subject of press abuse on the menu next week because it is important to all of us?
Mr. MacGregor: No, Sir.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on dogs, and particularly on the increase in the vicious practice of dog fights? May we include in that debate discussions on penalties for the promotion of dog fights, bearing in mind the fact that the Protection of Animals (Penalties) Act 1987 that I introduced a few years ago, which doubled the penalty for such behaviour, is proving inadequate?
Mr. MacGregor: I know of the concern among hon. Members about recent attacks by dogs. The subject has been raised on a number of occasions. I fully understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, a number of possible options for toughening the law on dogs were set out in the Government's consultation paper on the control of dogs. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering those options and will bring forward his proposals in the summer. From April 1992, the Government intend to implement the package of dog control measures contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Lord President seek to find time to debate the future of ICI? Does he agree that it is the wickedest face of capitalism, as well as the unacceptable face of capitalism, for Lord Hanson to buy £250 million-worth of shares in the company and see the price rise again today by 65p so that he can without any effort make a tidy profit on the backs of those on Teesside who work for, are committed to and respect ICI? Are we not seeing the worst aspect of Tory Government in operation across the floor of the stock exchange?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, if Hanson does acquire a large enough stake in ICI or makes a takeover bid for that company, it will fall to be considered by the European Commission, under the European Community merger regulations, or by the United Kingdom competition authorities. Obviously, those are hypothetical matters and I am basing my remarks on that hypothesis. The acquisition by Hanson of what I understand to be a 2·82 per cent. shareholding in ICI does not constitute a qualifying merger under the merger control provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the City code on takeovers and mergers lays down the circumstances in which an announcement about a takeover bid is required. That would be a matter for the takeover panel to supervise.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to have employment, not unemployment, figures published? Today the fact has been published that there are more people at work in Scotland than there have ever been, and half a million more than under a Socialist Government. Will he also arrange a debate, next week if possible but soon thereafter if not, to trumpet abroad the fact that under their economic policy the Government have in 10 short years achieved a triumph in the transformation of the life and culture of Scotland? They have housed the Burrell

433
collection, renewed the national gallery of Scotland, the national library and the new museum of modern art., given funds for the new museum of Scotland and done a thousand other things.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the transformation in Scotland. It has been a good example of the success of the Government's policies in the past 12 years. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend could name a thousand other things, and I could add many to those that he mentioned.
My hon. and learned Friend was also right about employment. It is important to keep stressing the fact that the work force in employment has increased by more than 3·1 million since March 1983 and that there are almost 27 million jobs in the United Kingdom. The facts of employment show that there were considerable advances during the 1980s.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the rules on ministerial conduct require that on a visit a Minister must ensure separation between his political activities and those that he undertakes in his ministerial role? In that context, will the Secretary of State for Wales make a statement next week to explain why, on a recent series of official engagements, he has been using the official sections of his visits to advance the candidacy of a local prospective parliamentary candidate?
Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing about the right hon. Gentleman's allegations, so I do not wish to say any thing about them. However, I do not believe that that is the type of issue on which a statement is required next week.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Without impugning anyone's motives—in the way that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) did—does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there might be a need for an early debate on or statement about the developing situation at ICI? In view of the strategic and security implications of some parts of ICI's research and development programme, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a public interest dimension as well as a share price dimension to the future of that great British company which must be kept under tight parliamentary scrutiny?
Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a statement or a debate next week. However, if there are issues that hon. Members wish to raise, there are a number of ways in which they can raise them.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May we have a debate on the increased price of water? Is the Minister aware that Yorkshire Water has increased its prices by 15 per cent. and that that hurts people on fixed incomes who receive no rebates? More important, is he aware that small businesses are now being forced to install meters and that the private company can force entry if the businesses object? Such a practice is adding to the difficulties facing many small businesses in my constituency.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the hon. Lady's last point is relevant to the burden on small businesses. It is widely recognised that for businesses, and perhaps increasingly for households, water metering is a fair way to make charges.
434
On the hon. Lady's first point, she knows that the water companies are undertaking massive capital investment to improve water quality and to deal with environmental matters, and that has to be paid for. The Opposition call for improvement in environmental issues and in water quality, but often they are not prepared to face the consequence of who pays for it. That is typical of their approach.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 812?
[That this House notes with concern the continuing high level in the United Kingdom of deaths related to the abuse of solvent and volatile substances; further notes that draft figures for 1990 show that at least 120 people died from solvent abuse in that year, a rise of 6 per cent. over the 1989 level of 113 deaths; in this light, particularly welcomes the work of Resolv (The Society for the Prevention of Solvent and Volatile Substance Abuse) in helping to combat this problem; and congratulates those honourable Members who have established a new all-party parliamentary group to examine the issue.]
It draws attention to the continuing high level of deaths related to solvent abuse. Figures for 1990 show that at least 120 people died. Will my right hon. Friend also join me in congratulating Resolv on its work? Will he arrange for an early debate on that important subject?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, there are various ways in which hon. Members can raise issues in the House. In view of the heavy pressure on Government time, I cannot promise a debate on the issue. I had noticed the early-day motion. The Government are well aware of the problem of volatile substance misuse and are naturally concerned by the number of deaths related to such misuse. Our policy is focused on supporting initiatives that concentrate on the information and education not only of young people at risk, but of adults, including parents, professional workers and retailers who may become involved. We have taken a number of steps in that area.
My hon. Friend mentioned Resolv. We recognise the important part that it plays, and I point out to my hon. Friend that it receives Government support. The Government are monitoring trends in the nature of solvent misuse to see whether further effective action can be taken.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an early debate on the Government's policies towards the middle east, so that a clear statement can be made on the Government's attitude towards the peace conference proposed by the United States, on—I hope—the inclusion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in that conference, and on whether the Government are prepared to recognise the right of self-determination of Kurdish people as the only basis for a long-term peace settlement in the region? Too many lives have already been lost as a result of political instability in the region. Surely we now need a debate on a peaceful solution to all the problems and conflicts in that region.
Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, I am prepared to see whether time can be given, either through statements or a debate at an appropriate time, to deal with those important matters. However, it cannot be next week
Sir Dudley Smith: Last week, my right hon. Friend said that there would shortly

435
be a debate on the subject of charge capping. As he probably knows, the announcements are being made this afternoon. My right hon. Friend said nothing in his statement about a possible debate. When are we likely to have one?
Mr. MacGregor: There was reference to such a debate in the statement, but it may not have been immediately obvious. The motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order on Tuesday next week is precisely that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House answer a question the answer to which will be of interest to the public. Will he confirm——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the question about business next week?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes. Will the Leader of the House make provision for a statement setting out the role of Members of Parliament? Will he confirm that there are at least 100 Members of Parliament, who are all Conservative Members and who are all on the payroll vote because they are Ministers, who cannot ask written or oral questions? They do not have that right. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply confirm from the Dispatch Box that that is the case?
Mr. MacGregor: There has been no change in the position on Ministers in relation to questions. I do not think a statement is required next week.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had his attention drawn to the grave warning issued yesterday by the director general of the general agreement on tariffs and trade that, if the European Community and the United States do not reach agreement early, the collapse of trade, employment and growth could make the great depression look like a period to which we would wish to return. If that is so, should not we debate the matter as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: I have answered questions on the subject on a number of occasions. I confirm that I believe that the GATT talks are extremely important. The British Government regretted that the talks did not reach a conclusion in the timetable for which people hoped and we are using every endeavour to try to achieve a successful outcome of the GATT talks. There will no doubt be times when it will be appropriate to have a discussion in the House, but I do not think that it will be next week.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Leader of the House recall that in the past year I have often asked for a debate on the present condition of the prison service? Since I last asked for a debate, there have been, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, further suicides in prison. Prisons are overcrowded and more than 800 persons are presently remanded in police station cells rather than in prisons. There have been rulings against us in the European Court of Justice and various other matters have been raised in connection with prison discipline and medical services. It is a disgrace. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the whole future of the prison service?
Mr. MacGregor: I note the hon. Gentleman's request and I am grateful for his reference to "as soon as possible". Contrary to the view that the hon. Gentleman seems to take, my difficulty is that an immense amount of business is being undertaken and there are many requests for parliamentary time. I will bear it in mind.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 667, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members.
[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in a 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist; and calls for a similar system to be introduced as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applicants for Hackney carriage driver's licences to be expanded to all district councils in the United Kingdom.]
The matter is worrying many local authorities and it requires legislation and, possibly, a debate next week. Surely we can persuade the police to release criminal histories of would-be applicants for taxi drivers' licences. The situation in many local authorities is a scandal and the House is becoming extremely worried about it.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend has raised that point before during business questions. Let me bring my hon. Friend up to date. The Home Office has recently discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether the police could take on that task. The question will be looked at again in the light of the forthcoming report of the Home Office on criminal records.
Mr. David Trimble: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to new clause 3 of the Planning and Compensation Bill which is to be debated this afternoon. That clause provides for the enactment of equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland by an Order in Council subject to negative resolution which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is never debated at any time in the House. Is it not inappropriate to add such a clause at virtually the last stage of the Bill, thus depriving Northern Ireland Members of the opportunity of debating its application to Northern Ireland at a later stage? Can the Leader of the House provide a better way of handling that matter and enable us to debate it at another time?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise that matter this afternoon during the debate on new clause 3.
Mr. Trimble: Not when I am attending the Northern Ireland Committee.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May we please have a debate on the management of public sector pension funds in the light of the report published this week on the management of Derbyshire county council's pension fund by the district auditor, who says that the council has claimed a profit on shares which turned out to be worthless and that councillors voted £2 million of public money to be put into shares in a private company of which they were secretly directors, most of which has gone missing? Does he agree with the district auditor and the council's independent financial adviser that those actions amount to chicanery—that is the word that was used? What does my right hon. Friend feel that we should now do to bring those people to book?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not had the benefit of seeing the report, but I know there is much local concern about the issue. My hon. Friend may wish to find other opportunities to have it discussed in the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Before a general election is called, should we not have a debate about the state of the franchise, since it appears from the number of people aged over 18 in the population that 750,000 people are missing from the electoral register? We should discuss how that can be corrected before a general election.
Mr. MacGregor: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the election. This is not a matter for which I can find Government time next week.
Mr. Michael Latham: Why are we wasting yet more time next week on the obsolete Victorian farce of private legislation? Is it not high time that it was all scrapped? At the same time, will my hon. Friend find time for my Established Church Bill, which would scrap Church Measures as well?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know about finding time for my hon. Friend's Bill next week, but I agree that there is a need to reform the way in which the House handles private Bills. As he will know, we have already proposed changes to the procedures which will come into operation next Session and which will make some difference. But more important than that is the legislation which will follow from the Department of Transport consultation document on various aspects of private Bill procedure for which we hope to find early legislative time. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly be giving the Government's response to that consultation document.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have an early debate on foreign affairs, which would allow the House to review the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government, and discussion of the continuing and serious human rights violations in the Punjab and Kashmir? The House could also consider the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, whose circumstances are set out in early-day motion 828.
[That this House expresses concern that Karamjit Singh Chahal, a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom since 1974, has been detained in Bedford Prison since August 1990; notes Mr. Chahal is detained subject to a notice of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political
438
nature; calls for Mr. Chahal to be released immediately pending his being allowed to appeal, with legal representation, against refusal by the Home Secretary to grant political asylum in the United Kingdom; expresses concern that if Mr. Chahal is deported to India he is likely, in the view of Amnesty International, to be subjected to torture, disappearance or extrajudicial execution; recalls Mr. Chahal, when visiting India in 1984, was arrested and detained at Mehta police station for nine days, during which he was beaten and otherwise ill-treated and that he was transferred to a police station in Amritsar and held for another 10 or 11 days, during which he was subjected to torture, including severe beatings and electric shock treatments; and regrets that a number of Mr. Chahal's relatives have been tortured or ill-treated while held in police custody, that two relatives have recently been killed by security forces, allegedly in fake encounters and that another relative, Kulwant Singh Nagoke, died in police custody.]
If Mr. Chahal has committed offences relating to national security, why is he not being brought to trial in a British court rather than be facing removal to India without the right of appeal or of legal representation—removal to a place where he was tortured in 1984? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that all those matters can be raised by the many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who are deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in India?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that a number of hon. Members want a foreign affairs debate to be arranged. However, it is not possible to find time for one at present.
As for early-day motion 828 and the case of Mr. Chahal, it is not the practice—as the hon. Member knows —to give detailed reasons for deportation decisions taken on national security grounds. Mr. Chahal has access to legal advice, and he has intimated his wish to make representations to the three advisers. Arrangements are being made for them to consider his case, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will review it fully in the light of the advisers' recommendations.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an urgent debate on the position of teachers in grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that there are strong voices in the Labour movement arguing that those teaching in grant-maintained schools should be sacked, discriminated against or denied employment in maintained schools simply because they work in the grant-maintained sector? Is that not a particularly nasty, vicious, and spineless example of modern-day Labour party thinking, and should it not be resisted by the House at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that I am aware of some of the statements made by some Labour education spokesmen on those matters.
Mr. Derek Foster: Not from this Front Bench.
Mr. MacGregor: I said "some Labour spokesmen" on education matters. I chose my words with great care. As far as I am aware, they were not said from the Labour Front Bench. However, I know that such action has been suggested, and therefore that there is a debate in the Labour party on that issue. I know also that those threats have sometimes been made. I entirely agree with my hon.

439
Friend, and I hope that those threats will not be tolerated and will be rejected by the teachers—not least those in grant-maintained schools who are active Labour supporters and who see for themselves their great merits.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate that is to take place in European Standing Committee B next Wednesday morning on the labelling of tobacco is distinct from the recent proposal relating to the advertising of tobacco goods? Does he agree that it is wholly undesirable for EEC Commissioners to hold press conferences about proposals when the documents relating to them are not in the possession of the Government, the House, or the British public? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the issues raised by the set of documents on tobacco relate not only to the merits of the matter and to the law, on which very strong views are held in the House, but to who makes the law, where it is made, and under what powers it is determined under the treaties? Both aspects are relevant to the documents.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree that both aspects are relevant, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue so that I can clear up any confusion that might arise in the minds of the public. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the two matters are distinct. Next week, Standing Committee B will debate labelling and a ban on oral snuff products. It represents an amendment to an existing directive. The proposed new directive relates to the advertising of tobacco products. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well—because this is on the recommendation of his Select Committee on European Legislation—the labelling directive needs to be debated soon, because a decision by the Council on a common position may be imminent. The advertising issue is quite separate, as is its timing.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it will be a good many months before the European Council is asked to make a decision, so it is not urgent, and there will be time to consider the issues in a measured and sensible way. That will include, when the documents are available, scrutiny by the Select Committee of the new draft directive and its decision on what the House should do about it.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will know that local authorities have been given until 14 June to submit evidence to the Department of the Environment about the future structure of local government. Bearing in mind the pressure of time, will he consider arranging a debate soon after the recess so that the matter can be dealt with in the House before local authorities have managed to give their evidence?
Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I fear that it is extremely unlikely that we shall have time for such a debate before 14 June. That date, of course, marks only the end of the consultation process; there will be time for the House to consider the issues after that.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the allocation of the new accommodation that will become available in the offices in Upper Parliament street? While we are at it, perhaps we could decide in the same debate how we can make our facilities more attractive to ex-Prime Ministers, so that the
440
right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) can come and make a speech here. I believe that she has been here only three times since last November. We could save her all the time and effort involved in travelling around the world and making speeches in the United States and South Africa—but perhaps she does not feel comfortable sitting among her so-called friends on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that we can have a debate about accommodation next week. Perhaps worry about his own accommodation is at the back of the hon. Gentleman's question; if so, he knows that there are those to whom he can make application.
Mr. John Browne: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 776?
[That this House, conscious of the fact that real care for the men and women of our armed forces has enabled our country to rely, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice, upon their loyalty, steadfastness and efficiency in times of grave national threat, is astounded to note that, when digging a trench during an official Army exercise in Canada in July 1989, three men of the Grenadier Guards. (Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey) detonated a six year old unexploded shell which not only rendered them limbless but caused them such grievous wounds that Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey are still, after almost two years, in receipt of hospital treatment; notes that the Ministry of Defence find themselves unable, on the grounds of unattributable negligence, to pay compensation; and calls upon the Prime Minister to review this case personally and to ensure that, regardless of the possible legal responsibility of some unknown nation who failed to 'clear' the shell some six years previously, Her Majesty's Government is seen to follow truly a policy that shows an appreciation of human understanding, human dignity and the value of a human life on earth by awarding generous compensation and a return of the accumulated legal costs to these youthful British Grenadiers.]
The motion, which has been signed by more than 160 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-Bench basis, refers to a tragic Army training accident in Canada, in which three men of the Grenadier Guards—Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey—had their legs blown off. Their injuries were so grievous that now, after two years, only one of them is fit enough to be invalided out of the Army; and he was invalided out with legal benefits that can at best be described only as derisory. That was the fault not of the Army, but of a gap in the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. May we please have a debate on the Act so that we can ensure that that gap is filled?
In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to look at the matter personally and urgently to ensure that generous ex gratia compensation is given to those men? If that creates a precedent, so be it: surely we are here to create a good precedent.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that every hon. Member fully sympathises with those three service men, and was very concerned to hear what happened to them. I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government are dealing fully and sympathetically with the matter, and would do the same for any other service man injured as a result of serving in the armed forces.
As my hon. Friend knows, in this unfortunate case the Ministry of Defence was not legally liable for the injuries that were sustained. None of the three service men is in

441
receipt of a service invaliding pension from the Ministry. I understand, however, that yesterday the Department of Social Security approved the award of a war pension to one of them. If they are discharged, the other two will be entitled to apply for such award. Once such awards are approved, the Ministry of Defence converts the service invaliding pensions already being paid to service men to tax-free service attributable pensions.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Leader of the House will be aware that between 1964 and 1966, and between 1974 and 1979, both the major parties in the House required hon. Members to be brought into the precincts of Westminster when they were ill—sometimes seriously ill. On occasion they were brought from hospital so that they could be nodded through and majorities could be maintained or, in some instances, challenged.
Given that, at the next general election, the electorate may not confer an absolute majority on one party, would it not be a good idea to embark on urgent talks so that we can find a far more civilised way of enabling hon. Members to vote when they are critically ill?
Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for the business of the House next week. The hon. Gentleman raises a hypothetical question. I expect that the Conservative party will be on this side of the House for some time with a big enough majority.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the relief of Mafeking, the House sent a message of congratulation to its people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that a similar message can be sent to the people of Brent? The people in that beleaguered borough were relieved last night from the yoke of a Labour council when two Labour members defected to an independent party which supports the Conservative party. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate so that the Liberal party can explain to the country why, when even Labour elected members found the policies of their party unpalatable, the Liberals supported them to the end?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I am sure that he will continue to make it, and that it will be made clear to the people of Brent.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Leader of the House give the most serious consideration to an early debate, even just a three-hour debate, on the current circumstances of the United Kingdom shipbuilding and marine engineering industry? That industry has become the forgotten industry of the United Kingdom. We have not had a debate on it for some considerable time. We should be allowed to examine the implementation of the seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund and other matters such as the threat by Kvaerner Kincaid to cease building marine engines in my constituency. Many people in that industry are deeply worried about the parlous future that they face. Surely we are entitled to ask for an early debate on their future.
Mr. MacGregor: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not in any way underestimate the importance of the issue that he raises. However, the business for the next few weeks makes it extremely unlikely that I shall be able to find time for a debate in Government time. It is, of
442
course, always open to others to find time that is available to them to raise such matters. But I do not underestimate the importance of the industry. I fully understand the great importance of the issues and of the industry.
Mr. John Bowis: As we move into the warmer and open-window season when neighbourhood noise becomes even more of an urban menace, may we have a debate and perhaps a statement so that we can examine the issue and how our fellow citizens can protect themselves from the thoughtless actions of their neighbours? Perhaps the Government could also announce a public information and education campaign to persuade people to be more reasonable.
Mr. MacGregor: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was about to refer to the sticky July month here in the House. He will have to find other opportunities to raise in the near future the matter to which he referred. As I have had to say to others, we have a great deal of business to do in Government time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Leader of the House reverse the decision that he has already made about the need for a debate or a statement about the proposed takeover of ICI by the despicable Lord Hanson, whose record has been one of asset stripping——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he must not refer in those terms to a member of the other place. Will he please withdraw the word "despicable"?
Mr. Skinner: The despicable Hanson Corporation—will that do? [Interruption.] I thought it might. The Hanson record has been one of asset stripping. It is no use the Leader of the House talking about the takeover panel, because it missed the Guinness scandal, which went straight under its nose. There are 52,000 jobs at stake. Let the workers have a ballot and not allow Hanson to take the company over with the Government helping their friends.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not make any decision. I simply made a clear statement of the position on any potential takeover or merger.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on damage to the environment caused by some groups of itinerants? Will a Government measure, designed to give stronger powers to keep itinerants off private land, be one of those introduced to keep us busy over the coming months?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's particular interest in this matter. He will be aware of the legislative provisions that are available to deal with it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on wages and other incomes? In such a debate we could discuss the admirable proposals for a minimum wage. That would help people on poverty wages who have to clock on and clock off. Tory MPs who condemn the proposal would also have an opportunity to explain their position. How many of them, earning £30,000 a year here, are doubling, trebling or quadrupling their incomes by moonlighting as parliamentary advisers, company directors, and so on? We ought to be given an opportunity to expose the rank hypocrisy of those people who attack the poorest of the poor while they use this place to line their pockets.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows about having two jobs, for he was a Member of the European Parliament as well as of this House.
Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]
Mr. MacGregor: On the question of a national minimum wage—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman must not, from a sedentary position, carry on a conversation. He should listen to what the Leader of the House has to say.
Mr. MacGregor: We shall certainly be very happy to continue to debate the Opposition's proposals for a national minimum wage. I have made that clear several times. The matter has already been debated, and I hope that there will be further debates. Our estimates of the number of jobs lost simply have not been refuted by the Opposition, nor is that possible.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Government Members would like to have an early debate on the performance of water companies since privatisation? A debate would give the House an opportunity not only to set out the great success of privatisation but to question the shortness of the period over which some capital investment is being written off. Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that Eastbourne Water—previously a statutory company—has increased its charges by 100 per cent. over the past three years? That is something that my late constituent and parliamentary neighbour, Ian Gow, challenged last year, as did I. The situation has arisen largely because the director general has allowed investment to be written off over a very short period.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on this matter, or on water companies generally, in the near future. As I have said, we have a very busy programme.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I am grateful for having been called, Mr. Speaker.
I should like the Leader of the House to do a very simple job next week. He has been good at some things —and he knows what I mean. Will he drag a Treasury Minister to the Dispatch Box to tell the House why the Treasury is interfering with the allocation of finance from Europe, through Commissioner Millan, for areas, such as my constituency, where the Government have closed down mines? The money to which I refer is made available for the specific purpose of helping such communities to overcome their problems by creating jobs where the Government have created unemployment.
Mr. MacGregor: In a moment, I shall say something nice to the hon. Gentleman. In answer to his main charge, I have to point out that there has been a considerable improvement in the employment situation over not many years. The point about a Treasury Minister coming to the Dispatch Box is one that he himself must pursue. I cannot promise Government time for a debate next week.
With regard to the simple job to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I think that I know what he has in mind—I can promise that I hope to have one of the issues settled in the House next week. I know that it is of importance to him. Indeed, provision is made for it in next week's business, and I hope very much to be able myself to see it through the House.

Whitsun Adjournment
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment on Thursday 23 May, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today—perhaps the Leader of the House would listen to what I have to say—I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to explain the position about the tabling of oral and written questions by Ministers, who make up approximately 100 Members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in a flippant reply, he refused to advise the House and the country about the position. Perhaps, in the absence of a proper reply from the Leader of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, might care to explain the position to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member asked for a statement next week on that matter. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned it to me, I thought that he was referring to our exchanges last week on business questions I think that the whole House knows that there are constraints on Ministers, as there are constraints upon me and upon shadow Ministers, tabling questions, but it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that, during a short overlap period when I was also an MEP, I was at a financial advantage because I received one third extra to my parliamentary salary. I placed on the record repeatedly at the time—the Leader of the House has deliberately forgotten that—the fact that that money was given to the Sheffield Labour movement and benefited it I received no advantage from it.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me either.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day

  Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: new Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Clause 31, Clause 2, Clause 32, Clauses 3 and 4, Clause 33, Clause 5, Clause 34, Clause 6, Clause 35, Clause 7, Clause 36, Clause 8, Clause 37, Clause 9, Clause 38, Clause 10, Clause 39, Clause 11, Clause 40, Clause 12, Clause 45, Clause 13, Clause 41, Clause 14, Clause 44, Clause 15, Clause 42, Clause 16, Clause 43, Clause 17, Clause 46, Clauses 18 to 20, Schedule 1, Clause 47, Schedule 7, Clause 21, Clause 48, Clause 22, Clause 23, Clause 49, Clause 50, Clause 24, Schedule 2, Clause 51, Schedule 8, Clause 25, Schedule 3, Clause 26, Schedule 4, Clause 52, Schedule 9, Clauses 27 to 29, Schedule 5, Clause 53, Schedule 10, Clause 30, Schedule 6, Clause 54, Schedule 11, Clause 55, Clause 69, Clause 56, Clause 66, Clause 57, Clause 67, Clause 58, Clause 68, Clause 59, Schedule 12, Clause 70, Schedule 14, Clause 60, Clause 71, Clause 61, Clause 64, Clause 62, Clause 65, Clause 63, Schedule 13, Clause 72, Schedule 15, Clause 73, Schedule 16, Clauses 74 to 76 and Schedule 17. —[Sir George Young.]

New clause 1

  OLD MINING PERMISSIONS
  '. —(1) In this section and Schedule (Registration of old mining permissions) to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development—

  (a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or

  (b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

  which was deemed to be granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 by virtue of section 77 of that Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 21st July 1943).
  (2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
  (3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 1st May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out at any time after the coming into force of this section unless—

  …(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above, and

  (b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

  (4) An old mining permission shall—

  (a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and,

  (b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

  (5) An old mining permission shall, if—

  (a) such an application is granted, but

  (b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

  cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
  (6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section—

  (a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect, and

  (b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 102 of or Schedule 9 to the principal Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).

  (7) This section and that Schedule, and the principal Act, shall have effect as if the section and Schedule were included in Part III of that Act.'—[Sir George Young.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.26 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clauses Nos. 8 and 15.

  Government amendments Nos. 1 and 1(a)

  Government amendment No. 104.

  Government amendments Nos. 2 to 14.

  Government amendment No. 69.

  Government amendments Nos. 71 to 77.

  Government amendments Nos. 15 to 18.

  Government amendment No. 98.

  Government amendment No. 99.

  Government amendment No. 101.

  Sir George Young: The subject of interim development order permissions for mineral working has been debated several times during the passage of the Bill, and I announced on 1 May my intention to table amendments to deal with the problems of absence of records, inadequate working and restoration conditions, and dormant sites. New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 give effect to those proposals—new clause 8 and amendment No. 104 make similar provision for Scotland.
  First, they provide that land-owners or mineral owners with an IDO permission, who wish to apply to the mineral planning authority to have their permissions registered, must do so within six months of commencement of those provisions, or the permission will fall without compensation. Disputes about the validity of permissions will be determined by the Secretary of State. That will get the records straight and ensure that the extent and terms of IDO permissions are known.
  Secondly, once it has been determined that there is a valid IDO permission, either by the mineral planning authority or by the Secretary of State on appeal, the holder must—within 12 months of that determination, or such longer period as may have been agreed with the mineral planning authority—submit a scheme of operating and restoration conditions for the MPA's approval or the permission will cease to have effect. That will get active sites up to standard.
  In response to concerns expressed that the time period for registration and submission of schemes set out in our consultation paper was too short, we have provided for longer time periods and separated the two processes. There will be six months from commencement instead of four to submit applications for registration—as the time period is not public knowledge, applicants will have a much longer period—and a full year from the date the permission is registered for the submission of schemes. We have built in
  448
  extra flexibility by providing that that period can be extended if the MPA agrees. That should provide a reasonable time for the industry to prepare itself and the flexibility to ensure that the system is not overloaded. I hope that that meets the concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
  Thirdly, operations cannot recommence on dormant sites—sites where there has been no working to any substantial extent for two years preceding 1 May 1991—until the permission has been obtained as valid and a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been approved. That is an important proposal. It meets many of the concerns that were expressed about the reactivation of IDO permissions on environmentally attractive sites.
  4.30 pm
  There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with conditions imposed, but there is provision for appeal to the Secretary of State against the imposition of unreasonable conditions and for the Secretary of State to call in an application for his own determination. We shall issue full guidance on the preparation of schemes and model conditions, which we shall discuss with representatives of the industry and mineral planning authorities with a view to publishing draft guidance in September.
  I know that the industry is concerned that those proposals could lead to the imposition of unreasonable conditions that would diminish asset values. I think that its fears are misplaced. Throughout, I have drawn a distinction between expropriation of the asset and working it in a way that meets modern conditions. When representatives of the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries came to see me, they stressed that they already worked their sites to such standards. I conclude, therefore, that what we are asking the industry to do is not unreasonable. None the less, I can assure the industry that we shall have in mind the concerns that it has expressed.
  For working sites, we shall advise the mineral planning authorities that they should draw a distinction between conditions that deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which should not affect the asset value, and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. Conditions that would significantly affect the asset value would be more appropriate for MPA reviews under the provisions introduced by the Minerals Act 1981. We shall want to issue clear guidance and consult the industry on that matter.
  The amendments will ensure that in a relatively short period the details of all valid IDO permissions will be known, that the permissions are brought up to acceptable standards and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning or proper conditions. That will bring the IDOs within the embrace of a modern planning system.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I apologise for allowing my hon. Friend to complete dealing with compensation before interrupting him. It is rather novel for a Conservative Government to say that constraints should be placed on private property—whether it is owned by a company is immaterial—without offering any compensation. My hon. Friend will have to justify that to the House in clearer terms.
  Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which was expressed by representatives of the industry. The key point is that the industry already claims that it is voluntarily operating its sites to modern working standards. Currently, IDOs are outside the planning system. We are asking the industry only to bring IDO permissions up to modern standards. If it is an environmentally responsible industry, already working to those standards, there is no need to compensate it.
  I draw a distinction between conditions that deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which would not affect the asset value and where compensation does not arise, and conditions that the mineral planning authority might want to impose, which would affect the economic structure of the operation. It will not be able to use the provisions before the House to impose conditions that fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that should meet the industry's major concern.
  As was made clear in response to the consultation exercise on IDOs and in debates in Committee, permissions for mineral working granted in the 1950s and 1960s may have conditions attached that fail to meet today's standards. Opposition Members have tabled an amendment to the proposed schedule on IDOs that seeks to prevent development from recommencing at any mineral site where permission was granted before 1965 and that has been inactive for five years until the environmental effects of the development have been assessed and new conditions agreed with the mineral planning authority. That amendment is identical to an amendment that we debated in Committee. I explained then that it is important to distinguish between IDO permissions, which were originally granted prior to the introduction of a comprehensive planning system in 1948, and permissions granted thereafter.
  New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 address the immediate problem of bringing IDO permissions up to scratch, and as I have already said, we have provided that sites that have been inactive for two years—rather than the five years for which the Opposition amendment would provide—cannot be reactivated until a scheme of conditions has been approved by the MPA. Clearly, the preparation and approval of those conditions should have regard to the potential environmental effects of working the site, and we shall make that clear in the guidance that we issue.
  As regards permissions granted in the 1950s and 1960s —or, indeed any mineral permissions which are now unsatisfactory—MPAs have existing powers to take action, including powers to prohibit the resumption of mineral working where a site has been inactive for several years. They have a duty to review mineral working sites in their area and to make such orders as they consider appropriate, updating those sites to modern standards. However, there is no time limit on the reviews, and orders can give rise to compensation, and progress has not been so fast as we would have hoped.
  We therefore announced in the environment White paper our intention to review the mineral planning authorities' existing powers to take action to see whether any changes are necessary. That review is under way and that is the right place to consider the problems of 1950s and 1960s permissions, whether active or dormant. We shall consult on our proposals next year. I assure the House that we attach high priority to completing the
  450
  review and we regard it as essential that any changes arising out of that review can be implemented quickly. We have tabled amendments to ensure that that can happen.
  Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 provide a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the periods in which MPAs must carry out their duty to review sites and the matters to be covered in such reviews. Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 make similar provision for Scotland.
  Amendments Nos. 7 to 14 replace the existing powers on compensation in relation to winning and working, and those originally proposed in the Bill in relation to mineral waste, with a single order-making power to provide for the abatement of compensation, following orders updating permissions for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste. The amount of abatement and the circumstances in which compensation might be abated will be set out in the regulations themselves, which will be subject to consultation and affirmative resolution of both Houses. The existing provisions will be retained until the review has been completed and there has been consultation on any changes.
  Amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 15 to 18 make consequential amendments to clause 20 and the repeals schedule, schedule 17. The amendments—which, as I have said, will enable our review to be implemented quickly—together with new clause 1 and amendment No. 1 on IDOs, represent a comprehensive package which shows the Government's commitment to raising environmental standards in the minerals industry. Taken together, they will ensure that there is a rigorous framework in place to enable all old minerals permissions to be brought up to an acceptable standard over the next decade. These are tough proposals, but I believe that they are in the long-term interests of the industry and local communities.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I think that we can agree that the Government are definitely moving in the right direction but, as the Minister will know from our debates in Committee, the Opposition are still convinced that more could be done to deal with this very serious problem.
  The Government's proposals will clear up much of the confusion—even mystery—surrounding interim development orders and will enable mineral planning authorities to take steps to ensure that quarrying is carried out to higher standards. What is not, however, admitted, is that there are IDOs in connection with sites where quarrying ought not to take place at all. As a result, organisations such as the National Housing and Town Planning Council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales have all said that the Government have missed an opportunity to put right the really damaging consequences of IDOs hastily given in the 1940s.
  Even with the Government's current review of quarrying in the United Kingdom and even with the best possible interpretation of the outcome of the Government's efforts to deal with this problem, 18 months to two years will pass, during which serious damage will continue to take place on many sites of special scientific interest in the United Kingdom. As a result, the homes of thousands of people will continue to be blighted. Their worst fears about the threat of quarrying on their doorsteps will be confirmed. As IDOs are registered, even more people may be shocked to find out that they live in the middle, or on the edge, of a site where quarrying permission has been granted.

  451
  In addition to this blighting of people's homes right across the country, there is the issue of the damage being done to hundreds of valuable wildlife habitats. They are being destroyed now, they will continue to be destroyed, and a process of destruction will begin in new areas while the Government decline to act, perhaps giving some impression and hope that eventually they will deal with the problem in the way that is necessary.
  The Government will be familiar with the report "Losing Ground", drawn up by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, which records that 17 sites of special scientific interest are threatened by IDO quarry workings, as well as three national nature reserves and an important wetland. They will know that across Britain, in a large number of counties, sites are threatened every day of the week. In Dyfed, there is the 90-acre Carmel woods site, a unique ancient Welsh woodland designated in 1989 as a site of special scientific interest. It has an IDO on it, and McAlpine is threatening to move on to the site. At Asham in Somerset, a 350-acre SSSI of grade 1 woodland is being destroyed. In Leicestershire, at Budden wood, Redland Aggregates has already destroyed most of the SSSI. I could go on to give a catalogue of valuable wildlife and nature habitats that are being destroyed while the Government consult and wonder what action they might take.
  In addition to this destruction, there is also the matter of compensation, which is causing a great deal of vexation. Cheshire county council is in a difficult position over a wetland SSSI at Rixley clay pit. The council refused to give permission and faces a claim for £1·5 million compensation.
  It is plain that mineral planning authorities, although they wish to preserve these special sites, simply cannot afford to pay the compensation demanded under existing legislation. It is no wonder that groups such as "Stop Quarrying Under Interim Development Orders", the Backup moors action group—in the constituency of one of the Minister's ministerial colleagues—the Asham and East Mendip action group and the Somerset branch of the CPRE are concerned. Across the country people are making representations to the Government emphasising the need for changes.
  4.45 pm
  The Minister seemed to imply in his opening statement that we were perhaps precipitate in seeking an amendment to the Government's new clause that would allow proceedings to take place that would stop interim development orders going ahead without compensation. Although it is true that in some ways this is a new aspect of English law, in other ways it is not. If we look, for example, at improved standards of pollution control, we see that manufacturing companies often have to change their technology completely and invest huge amounts of money, or sometimes even close down altogether, because they cannot meet modern standards. They do not get any compensation when that happens. We are saying that, in certain specific circumstances, there is a case for arguing that, where a site does not meet modern environmental assessment standards, if the permission has not been taken up, it should be revoked; if it is an existing permission, an opportunity should be given to find out whether it can be worked properly: but there should be a time to stop.
  452
  Although this may be at least partially new in Britain, it is not a new concept in the European Community. This procedure has already taken place in Germany. I should like to read to the Minister a letter of 2 April this year from the German Economics Minister on the federal mining law, which was addressed to a Mr. Buxton in the United Kingdom. Mr. Buxton is involved in legal matters. The letter states:
  "In answer to the question raised in your letter of 2nd April 1991, I inform you as follows:
  In the Federal Republic of Germany there is no financial support on the part of the Government or other public institutions for mining concerns for the recently introduced environmental desirability check of plans. Neither do mining concerns received any compensation if a business plan is not permitted, by reason of the law whether or not it is for environmental points or other requirements. The same applies as regards the withdrawal of mining consents.
  Section 18 of the Mining Law and other items foresee that consents and approvals are to be withdrawn if after the events facts appear which would have led to refusal."
  So, if we acted, we would be doing something consonant with what already happens in other member states.
  I appreciate that the Government are undertaking a consultation process at the moment. However, given the steps already taken, and if the Government recognise the seriousness of the damage being done to existing sites of special scientific interest and the blight already taking place on the homes of thousands of people, they should be prepared to act swiftly and accept our amendment.
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: The Minister presented the amendments cogently, but I hope that he will clarify a few matters, bearing in mind that many of the points contained in the new clause and its related amendments are in some ways wholly unprecedented in planning legislation, and that causes some concern.
  Although I missed my hon. Friend's opening remarks in introducing the new clause, he referred to the consultation process, which I believe he estimated would be completed by September, and later he referred to consultation in the middle of 1992. Will he set out the precise nature of that consultation, its timing, the people who will be consulted and how it will move through the Association of County Councils, mineral planning authorities and users? It is crucial to know that at this stage, and my hon. Friend may wish to answer by writing to me in the wider notion.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I am raising some points on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who unfortunately cannot be here because she is serving on the Finance Bill Standing Committee. She has received a communication from a major employer in her constituency, and the Minister may have received representations from the National Federation of Clay Industries about the Government's proposals. A number of points have been raised and they must be clarified in view of the terms of the new clause. The company concerned is Steetley Building Products Limited, a major employer in my hon. Friend's constituency. Although it says, as do other members of the National Federation of Clay Industries, that it supports the principle of the registration of IDOs, it questions the time scale involved in the Government's proposals.
  Under the Government's proposals, existing IDO permissions will be subject to potential restriction and the imposition of additional operating and restoration conditions without compensation. Does the Minister agree

  453
  that the proposals are contrary to established principles of planning law and are potentially damaging to the asset values of permission-holders? Under the current proposals, the holders of IDO permissions must apply for registration of them within six months of the commencement of the Bill's provisions. Does the Minister accept that the proposal allows insufficient time for holders and the authorities to deal properly with the registration of an anticipated 1,200 permissions?
  Under the Government's proposals, appeal against the decision on the validity or extent of IDO permissions will be to the Secretary of State. Does the Minister agree that such an appeal is a legal, not a planning, matter and should be determined by the Lands Tribunal or other competent body? The Secretary of State will be unable to cope with the likely volume of appeals, bearing in mind the number of planning appeals that are currently outstanding.
  Under the Government's proposals, the holders of IDO permissions must submit a scheme of operating and restoration conditions for approval by the mineral planning authority within 12 months of registration. Does the Minister accept that 12 months is too short a period, having regard to the time and resources required to submit such plans and the capacity of the mineral planning authority to deal properly with the anticipated work load?
  Under the Government's proposals, operations at a site where there has been no working to any substantial extent for the last two years, ending on 1 May 1991—in other words, dormant sites—cannot recommence until the permission has been registered and a scheme for operating and restoring has been agreed with the mineral planning authority.
  Does the Minister agree that the definition of "dormant sites" must exclude marginal sites, which may not have been fully exploited since 1989 due to the recession and because of the cyclical nature of the industry, but which might be required for full production at short notice when demand increases?
  In other words, the company and the national federation is suggesting that a longer time scale is needed to enable the industry to comply with the requirements, which it believes are environmentally correct and which it supports but which it feels are being implemented too quickly. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will say whether he either accepts those points or is prepared to meet the national federation to discuss the matters that have been raised.
  Mr. David Bellotti: I agreed with all that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, and in view of the new clause and large number of associated amendments, I need not delay the House for long. A large number of homes in Sussex have been blighted by quarrying, many beautiful sites are being destroyed and the effect on wildlife is considerable. I do not detect in the Bill the strength of measures that we need to cope with those problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is also serving on the Finance Bill Standing Committee, has asked me to raise his concern lest the new clause will not deal with a local problem that his constituents face at Druridge bay. Hon. Members who know that area will appreciate that it has a magnificent six or seven-mile coastline of high sand dunes. Old planning permissions granted by Ministers on appeal in the 1960s
  454
  mean that sand will continue to be extracted from the beach and dunes there for nigh on 50 years, with the risk of grave environmental damage.
  Any attempt to buy out that permission by compensation would involve sums of money well beyond the resources of the community, because of the lack of limits on the sand that can be taken away. So the Bill will not be sufficient to deal with the problems that exist in Sussex and Northumberland. I hope that the Minister will at some stage consider beefing up his proposals.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thought some months ago that I would have to delay the House for a considerable time on the issues that we are discussing, because I did not believe at that time that the Government would move on the points that a number of hon. Members then made, even though there were consultations. I did not expect the Government to introduce the type of amendments that are before us today.
  I became involved in the subject in a considerable way about a year ago, having been approached by the Backup moors action group in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, it being adjacent to my constituency. I was concerned with an issue being pursued by that body, by Janet Anderson, the prospective Labour candidate for that constituency, and by a number of people in my constituency who were fearful of what might happen in Hapton moor, which runs through that constituency into my constituency.
  In October last year I visited the Britannia and Facit site,s in Rossendale, near Bacup. When I visited the site, I was told that the Minister had paid a visit to the area earlier in the day. I was absolutely horrified by the wanton destruction that I saw there, and I became convinced that speedy action had to be taken to deal with IDOs.
  While, therefore, I support everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I applaud the Government for having tabled the new clause and its related amendments. Any further delay in taking action to deal with the problem would have represented a negation of duty in protecting the environment. Anyone who sees at first hand what has happened in some areas must be utterly dismayed. We accept the need for quarrying and the fact that aggregates must be made available, but we must do everything possible to protect the environment.
  A problem that will be dealt with by the new clause was identified in a written answer that the then Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, gave me in November, when he said:
  "No records of applications made under interim development orders were required and no information about the total number of permissions granted is currently available."—[Official Report, 19 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 43.]
  We did not even know about that issue. I pursued it not only with the Department of the Environment but with the county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to the matter in Committee from material that I supplied to him. The county council had no records. One of the reasons why the records are inadequate is because of local government reorganisation. Many of the planning authorities that existed in the pre-planning days have now gone out of existence. Some of their records were pretty poor in the first place, but the records kept by some of the new bodies—the county councils that took over those responsibilities—vary considerably.

  455
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend was right to move the amendment, but I am sure that the Minister will not accept it. I sincerely feel that the Bill is a tremendous improvement on the existing position and will be welcomed by people in many parts of the country who wish to avoid the devastation that has been taking place as a result of interim development orders.
  5 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish to press the Minister on two problems in which I am particularly interested: sites where limestone pavements and limestone are taken for garden rockeries, and sites in parts of north Wales, where slate is extracted for fireplaces and patios.
  Most of the sites are small. They are rarely worked on a full-time basis but often are worked for only a few weeks a year and sometimes only on Saturdays and Sundays. On many occasions, much damage is caused to the environment. The problem is that local people object to a site being worked and, when they inquire, they are told that those who are working the site have permission, so they do not pursue the matter further.
  Although the new clause should cover such sites, how will the general public know that people will no longer be allowed to extract minerals from small sites in that historic way? How will they now be able to take action to get such extraction stopped? What advice will be given to people who live close to small quarrying sites and who, over the years, have suffered the nuisance and the environmental damage caused by them, so that they will know that those traditional works should not be continued?
  There will inevitably be continuing and increasing problems for planning in a conflict between the need to extract minerals and the need to preserve our countryside. What are the Government doing to reduce that conflict by considering the use of recycling materials, especially for road construction, to ensure that we dramatically reduce the demand for such minerals?
  Sir George Young: The debate on new clause 1 has been helpful. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) might have been more forthcoming in welcoming the Government's action. Even the Council for the Protection of Rural England said in a circular:
  "The CPRE welcomes the positive approach taken by the Government to reducing the problems associated with interim development orders."
  It is true that the CPRE would have liked us to go even further. The Association of County Councils said:
  "We are especially pleased that the Secretary of State has addressed this important issue, by means of New Clause 1 and the associated Schedules and amendments."
  It is worth putting it on record that IDOs have been around since just after the second world war and the Government have grasped the nettle and dealt with them after too long a period. We have instituted a review of planning permissions granted in the 1950s and 1960s, which also featured in our debates.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), any extraction of aggregates will now have to be covered by planning permission and must be entered on the planning register. I do not know, from what he told the House, whether that extraction takes place under IDOs or whether such works are already in the planning regime.
  456
  Once the provisions of new clause 1 are up and running, any member of the public will be able to look at the planning register and see whether planning consent was granted. People will also be able to see what conditions have been attached to the working of a particular quarry.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked how one could reduce demand for aggregates by, for example, recycling. A debate will take place later to deal specifically with that issue and the demand for aggregates and the potential conflict with the environment. My hon. Friend who will answer that debate will give a full response on how we address those broader issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) asked several questions. There will be two consultation exercises. The first will be on the guidance that we shall give to the mineral planning authorities on the working conditions that we should like introduced to deal with the IDOs. We shall consult them before we make our guidelines available. We want to get on with that quickly. The second consultation exercise will be next year on the review of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. That is a broader review of the regime covering consents in the 1950s and 1960s. We shall consult with the industry, landowners and mineral planning authorities long before we lay down regulations, which will be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament. The consultation will take place next year.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: On new clause 8, will the Minister confirm that identical consultations will take place in Scotland with interested parties? I ask that because quarrying activity taking place in Perthshire, at a site which is closely associated with Shakespeare's Macbeth, is causing much concern to local people and to Scots in general. I hope that the Minister has sought an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on that quarrying activity.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman may have seen that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was nodding vigorously. The Bill provides for Scotland in terms equivalent to those that apply to England and Wales. My hon. Friend will write to planning authorities and people in the minerals industry in Scotland to inform them of the action that we are debating this afternoon. A further and more detailed survey will also be conducted to try to improve some of the information available on IDOs in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has been actively involved in the debate in my Department and has a detailed knowledge of the conditions in Rossendale. As a constituency Member, he warmly welcomes the provisions of new clause 1.
  We welcome the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) back to our debates. He made an appearance earlier in the Standing Committee, but we were denied the benefit of his help for the rest of the proceedings. There was an Adjournment debate on Druridge bay about four months ago to which the Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) —responded. The broader review of the 1981 Act will embrace the conditions and problems that he described.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Vaz), we have consulted the industry and the mineral planning authorities on the time scale and, as a result of

  457
  representations, we lengthened the time scale and introduced flexibility. I am confident that the mineral planning authorities can now cope. If there is a local problem, those authorities have the discretion to extend the period beyond 12 months if they feel that more time is needed for applications in their areas.
  I agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgend. Parliament is for ever driving up standards of health and environmental protection. We do not give compensation to factories when we impose higher standards of safety. That is why it would be wholly unreasonable to provide compensation when we try to improve environmental conditions in the minerals industry. However, we do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman on the expropriation of assets. There may be parallels on the continent, but we shall not pursue them here. As for people who find that they have bought property close to an IDO, once IDOs are registered with the mineral planning authority, they should appear on that register within two weeks. Therefore, in future, a search should throw up the existence of an IDO.
  I think that I have dealt with all the points raised—if not, I promise to write to those hon. Members who have raised issues that have not been addressed. I hope that the House will agree that we can accept all the Government's new clauses, but I cannot advise the House to accept amendment (a) in the name of Opposition Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

  Demolition of buildings
  '.—(1) In section 55 of the principal Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted—
  "(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes—

  (a) demolition of buildings;

  (b) rebuilding;

  (c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and

  (d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

  (2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
  "(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities generally or to a particular local planning authority."
  (3) After section 108(3) of that Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
  "(4) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsection (1) shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order."' —[Mr. Yeo.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 6—Demolition of buildings.
  458
  Government Amendment Nos. 42 to 45, 64 to 67, 54 and 78, 35, 79, 59, 32 to 34, 38 to 41, 46 to 49, 51 to 53, 56 to 58, 81 to 85, 87 to 90, 92 to 94, 36, 50, 55, 60, 37, 100, 102 and 103.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Yeo: We have listened carefully to the arguments in the debates on demolition that have taken place in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. We have also taken account of the support for the legislation in the responses to our public consultation paper on demolition last year. We have considered the High Court's decision in January this year, in the case of Cambridge city council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd., which held that the demolition of certain semi-detached houses was development.
  Amendments were withdrawn in Standing Committee when my hon. Friend the Minister of State promised consultations within Whitehall and a further statement on Report. We have now concluded that the time is right to introduce selective controls on demolition. In reaching that conclusion, I pay tribute to the arguments adduced by hon. Members, in particular to the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who cannot be here today but has been a vigorous and persuasive supporter of the changes. I believe that it was in his constituency that one half of a semi-detached house was demolished without permission. It was that kind of unacceptable and absurd incident that convinced us of the need to extend planning control to cover demolition.
  The amendments may look complicated, but they represent the best way forward. Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the demolition of all building within the meaning of building operations and hence within the definition of development. The new clause also provides a direction-making power to enable the Secretary of State to direct that the demolition of any specified type of building does not involve development. That power will be used to exclude from planning control the demolition of all buildings that are not dwelling houses.
  Sir Anthony Durant: What will trigger the action that my hon. Friend has just outlined?
  Mr. Yeo: Once the Bill has passed on to the statute book, the Secretary of State will use the direction-making power and issue a direction to that effect. In our judgment, the demolition of non-dwelling houses has, on the whole, not presented the same kind of difficulties as the demolition of dwelling houses. Generally, people do not demolish office blocks or industrial premises unless they already have permission to do something else with the site.
  Dr. Godman: While I accept what the Minister says about non-residential buildings, there is often a problem with industrial buildings which might well be listed. In my constituency, Gourock ropeworks is a listed building which is literally falling apart and, for understandable reasons, the local authority might seek to demolish it. The proposed demolition of some industrial buildings can cause considerable controversy in local communities.
  Mr. Yeo: Listed buildings are already subject to control; there is already a restriction on anyone who wants to demolish a listed building. A local authority which wanted to do so would have to undertake the necessary procedures to obtain permission. Anyone who wants to

  459
  demolish a listed building, whether industrial or any other type, must follow procedures which are already quite restrictive.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to make an innocent inquiry about whether the new provisions will deal with the following practical and recent example. The building next to the former Department of Health and Social Security offices at the Elephant and Castle, which is still used for offices, but not for Ministers' offices, was a listed office building. Apparently, it was of great significance in terms of 1930s architecture, although I did not find it as beautiful as other people did. It was knocked down after it had been identified as important and the request for its listing had been made. I have not had a chance to check, but I believe that listing was imminent. Certainly it was known that it was ready to be listed. Will that sort of building be protected after the changes have been made to this legislation?
  Mr. Yeo: Not if the buildings are non-dwelling houses and unlisted. The protection available for listed buildings continues and will be unchanged by the new clause. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that some of the listings that have taken place have been somewhat eccentric. I do not think that the new clause is intended to address the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred—demolition taking place when listing is imminent. That is a separate problem which would need a different solution.
  The new clause deals with another problem related to dwelling houses. A detached house in a substantial plot in a suburban location could, at present, be demolished without permission and there could then be an application for planning permission for four or five houses on the same plot, thus producing an increase in the land value. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's concern.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister and hope that he will address the issues in its widest form. If a formal request for listed building status has been submitted and been considered by the relevant authority, whether local authority or Government, we need proper protection so that people cannot come and knock down a building literally the day before it obtains listed building status. The whole issue of whether it would have gained listed status then becomes theoretical. The legislation should contain the principle to ensure that a developer or anyone else who knocks down a building which may be of important architectural significance—whether residential, commercial or industrial—is penalised pretty hard.
  Mr. Yeo: Assuming that the new clause is accepted, any residential building will, in future, be capable of being protected. I acknowledge that a problem may still exist with non-residential buildings. It is not possible for us to deal with that problem during the passage of the Bill, but I recognise that there is, at least potentially, a problem. I shall reflect on that and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that some dwelling houses are attached to offices and industrial buildings, particularly in older districts, and perhaps more often in the north than the south—certainly in parts of my constituency. Those buildings are not necessarily in
  460
  conservation areas and I would not like my hon. Friend's exemptions to allow circumstances in which someone's home could be attached to something one day and next to a gap site the next. Will my hon. Friend look at that aspect of the proposed exemptions to ensure that such a problem will not arise?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Before the Secretary of State makes a direction under the direction-making power, I will look at the matter to see whether there is a way to give the same protection to someone who lives in a semi-detached house adjacent to an office as to someone living in a semi-detached house adjacent to a dwelling house. We should examine that point sympathetically.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the situation that arose in Salcombe, Devon, could not happen again under the proposed legislation? In Salcombe, a lovely Victorian villa was on the point of being demolished because a developer had bought the land on which the villa was situated and realised that he could build a block of flats there. But for the fact that the local community got wind of the developer's plans, he could and would have knocked down the villa. Fortunately, the local authority, with the help of the Department of the Environment, managed to extend the conservation area to include the house.
  It is not right to have to extend conservation areas to save buildings, as we shall end up with conservation areas all over the place where they should not be. Will my hon. Friend say something about people coming along and knocking down houses overnight which, under the new clause, will not be a criminal offence unless the building is listed or there is a tree on the land on which there is a tree preservation order?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is such a vigorous champion and exponent of tighter planning controls that I am amazed that anyone west of Bristol should dream of undertaking anything which might approach a breach of planning control. I can assure him that the new clause will deal directly with the circumstances to which he referred. It is intended to tackle precisely that situation.
  We shall propose amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of houses in most circumstances. That will reflect the fact that most demolitions are uncontroversial, but it would be possible to control the most damaging cases by excluding the demolition of semi-detached and terraced houses from permitted development rights.
  The amendments to the general development order will be subject to public consultation. I cannot say at this stage exactly what those amendments will be, but our aim is to implement the measure as soon as possible. Of course, the consultation process will give us the chance to consider carefully the points that have been made today.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Can the Minister explain how the measure will be given teeth because, by definition, it is quicker to knock something down than to build it? Does not the case for such control demonstrate the need for criminal penalties if people do not conform to the new planning controls? What penalties will be applied to people who demolish buildings despite the new controls?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend may be attempting to introduce into our proceedings a discussion of the principle of criminalisation, with which the amendments and new clauses that have been called do not deal. I can assure my hon. Friend that, if a building or house is demolished in breach of planning control, the local authority will be able to enforce the construction of a replacement building as similar as possible to that which was demolished. Such a building must comply with building regulations and the relevant enforcement notice. That power should act as a strong deterrent to the speculative demolition which has caused concern.
  I believe that if the owner of a house demolished it on spec, as it were, and then found that he faced a £100,000, £200,000 or £500,000 bill for reconstruction, that would represent a real deterrent, perhaps greater in financial terms than that envisaged by the advocates of criminalisation. The powers that we are now introducing will be an effective deterrent to such a problem which, although real, is not enormously widespread.
  As a result of the amendments, it will for the first time be open to planning authorities to use article 4 directions to prevent the demolition of houses where the authorities see a particular risk or in areas that they regard as vulnerable to damage from speculative demolition. Demolition in conservation areas is already subject to control, but there may be other areas in which greater planning control is desirable. While it would not usually be appropriate to control the whole of a district, we should be prepared to consider sympathetically article 4 directions served on particular buildings or streets where there was a case for extending control for more than six months.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I imagine that article 4 directions are likely to be used on older buildings and those which are, in that sense, of more intrinsic value to the community. I was with the Minister up to the point where he said that any replacement that could be enforced would be required to conform to building regulations. The problem is that many wonderful old buildings, which are perhaps not in conservation areas and are not listed, get some of their charm from the fact that they do not conform to building regulations. What will happen if a replacement that meets that requirement is sufficiently ugly not to be a decent replacement?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend poses a fascinating question, but such detail will properly be dealt with in the consultation process that I mentioned a moment ago. It is not appropriate to use the valuable time of the House to discuss it any more specifically than that. It should be possible for common sense to prevail. The local authority will be able to enforce the construction of a replacement building. It must be as similar as possible to the demolished building, but it must comply with building regulations. As my hon. Friend said, it is possible that, in some cases, those objectives may be incompatible, but there is a common-sense solution. Above all, the purpose of the measure is to provide a deterrent to people who demolish buildings on spec. It will be an effective deterrent and I should be surprised if there were many instances such as those to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I am concerned that the Minister is a little too sanguine in his reply. In some areas. especially in the west country, where land values are high and property is extremely valuable, fly-by-night merchants
  462
  and cowboys are prepared to indulge in speculative demolition. What the Minister says about the local authority being a substantial deterrent is not the case, especially when enforcement officers are hard pressed. My constituency has the fifth or sixth highest volume of planning applications in the country. The officers cannot get around all the sites to enforce the regulations. Because of the high land values, there is a great incentive—greater than the deterrent, I fear—to indulge in such practices which the Minister is apparently seeking to shrug off. The only solution is not a fanciful deterrent, but criminalisation.
  Mr. Yeo: I am tempted to go with the debate on criminalisation which was won comprehensively by the Government, who dispatched the advocates of criminalisation in all directions with some help from the Opposition. Although I am tempted to rehearse the arguments again, my hon. Friend is missing the point. Of course there is a significant temptation for people to indulge in what we could call speculative demolition. At present, there is everything to be gained and nothing much to be lost from creating a vacant site where there was previously a dwelling, and there is probably a good chance of getting planning permission for something that might be more valuable.
  In the future, people will still have to get planning permission but, once they have made their application, it will be apparent to the local authority—whether its enforcement officers are hard pressed or not—that a breach of planning control has taken place and the speculative demolisher will face an enourmous bill to reconstruct the dwelling that was previously on that site. Therefore, when the new clause has been accepted, the problems will not be nearly so serious as some of my hon. Friends seem to fear.
  Mr. Steen: I represent about a third of Torbay so I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is talking about. Is the Minister saying that under the new clause, if a developer knocked down a house he could be asked to rebuild it, but that he could then knock it down, having obtained planning permission to build something else?
  Mr. Yeo: It would certainly be a step-by-step process. My hon. Friend is right to say that if someone knocks down a house without the necessary planning permission, the local authority has the power to make him reconstruct that house at great expense. If he subsequently wishes to apply for planning permission to do something else on that site, he would be free to do so, as anyone owning land or a building is free to do.
  The amendments allow local planning authorities to control the worst excesses of demolition of dwelling houses without imposing any extra demand, in the majority of cases, on the developer or the local planning authorities. New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 64 to 67, Nos. 78 and 79, Nos. 81 to 85, Nos. 87 to 90, Nos. 92 to 94, No. 100, and Nos. 102 and 103 make similar provisions for Scotland by amending section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and by making equivalent consequential provisions. I commend the new clause to the House.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: I represent in the House the National Federation of Demolition Contractors. It may help the House if another point of view is expressed. I must make it clear that the federation is a responsible body. It has high training standards and believes in conforming to the law. It accepts that there are demolition men who do not conform to the federation's high standards on training, on working with the unions and on doing all the right things. It is accepted that there are some cowboys. In general, the federation is not against the proposals, although it is concerned about them.
  One concern is that there may be delay. A building may be ready for demolition, but it could be a long and drawn-out process before the demolition contractor gets permission to demolish. The federation is concerned about that because with the downturn in the economy, especially in the south, there is a lack of work.
  The federation has asked me to raise the issue of dangerous buildings, which has already been touched on by Opposition Members. Sometimes a building is in such a bad state that the only safe thing to do is to demolish it. Is such a demolition badly affected by the new clause and amendments? The federation would like to know the Minister's views.
  The federation is not against the thrust of the Bill and it understands that it has to conform to the law. Members of the federation would much prefer to work on a site when demolition has already been approved than be stopped half way through. They are not keen for such a situation to arise. The federation behaves in a responsible manner, and its only anxieties concern delay and dangerous buildings. I shall be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of a particular constituency problem. I hope that he will advise me whether the new clause and amendments will be helpful in this case, which is different from those raised in the debate so far. The residents would like demolition to occur, but the developer of the site is refusing to carry out demolition. It is a long-standing problem. The Harwood shopping precinct, which was built 25 years ago, has now been turned into a ghetto and the residents want it demolished, but the owner, who has planning permission to redevelop the site, has failed to do so and is dragging his feet. The council has failed to force him to do so and everyone is concerned.
  I tabled new clause 4 to help solve the problem, but it has not been selected. Will the new clause or amendments help, or are there sufficient powers in existence to enable the council to take action against the developer and to force him to redevelop, or to enable the council compulsorily to purchase the site and sell it to another developer who will do so?
  I received a letter today from Mrs. Sheila Turner, a constituent who lives near the precinct. She writes:
  "I am extremely concerned at the state of the precinct and the fact that Mr. Horrocks"—
  the developer concerned—
  "is thumbing his nose at the people of Harwood and being allowed to get away with it."
  The problem has persisted since 1984 and all the residents in the area are thoroughly fed up.
  464
  Mrs. Turner continues:
  "Can nothing be done to force him to demolish the buildings? I moved here 30 years ago into a house built by Mr. Horrocks' firm on New Heys Way. He was a familiar figure, striding along New Heys Way, watching his investment grow. Now that he has allowed the precinct to deteriorate to such an extent that it would not be out of place in an inner city deprived area (complete with yobs) he is constantly 'unavailable' like some prima donna.
  I have written to Mr. Horrocks challenging him to take his grandchildren on a walk through the crumbling, disgusting, obscene grafitti daubed wreck and I hope he will feel the shame and embarrassment that the Harwood residents feel every day… It is not a very happy situation for Harwood residents."
  Mrs. Turner has written to the council about the matter. The council has been absolutely feeble and pathetic. It has said that it is unable to do anything and it has tried to shift the blame on to the Government. The council said:
  "Central Government's view would be that the site is in private ownership and its existing planning permissions have been granted and it is up to the private sector, and Mr. Horrocks in particular, to achieve the necessary re-development."
  The residents feel that the council should act. Are the new clause and amendments relevant to the problem, or does section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 give the council sufficient power to act now compulsorily to acquire the land? Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether the spirit and principle of the 1990 Act give the council the scope to exercise power of acquisition in a way that harnesses the resources and skills of a private developer in putting the site to effective use?
  I have already shown my hon. Friend a cutting from the Bolton Evening News this week in which Mr. Earp, of Tonge Moor road, Bolton, says that I am the only person who is trying to do anything about the problem. Does the council have enough power to act? Does my hon. Friend feel that it should act? My hon. Friend is aware that all this week an enormous court case has gone on in the Strand, which was reported in the Bolton Evening News this week. Bolton council is in trouble for failing to enforce its powers with regard to a covenant. The residents want Barratt to demolish 10 houses that were built on land in contravention of a covenant that stated that there should be no building.
  Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability and power of a local authority to act on enforcement notices is the key to all these matters? At present, local authorities, after the experience on Sunday trading, are reluctant to get involved in lengthy court proceedings which are enormously expensive and which will add an enormous burden to community charge or council taxpayers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution is not necessarily to provide powers for local authorities but to ensure that local authorities are willing to enforce the powers that they already have?
  Mr. Thurnham: Indeed. It is no good for councillors to let themselves be walked over by developers. In some cases, there may be some political connotations. Councils may refuse to do their duty in certain areas because, for political reasons, they think that it may be wise to let the residents become unhappy. I am concerned about Bolton council's feebleness in such cases. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether there are

  465
  sufficient powers already or whether there is a need for further legislation. If there are sufficient powers, why cannot the council use them?
  Mr. Steen: It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Government on moving some way towards meeting the robust arguments that I and other hon. Friends put in Committee, where I was privileged to serve. The Government wanted the Bill to complete its Committee stage in a day and to be seen as a little tidying-up measure. They wanted it then to be nodded through the House on the day of the Monmouth by-election. The Government chose a good day on which there might be as few hon. Members present as possible. However, in Committee the Government realised that the Bill was important, and that Conservative and Opposition Members saw it as the greatest opportunity for 20 years to put right some of the planning injustices. Unfortunately, the Government tried to make it a tidy Bill and they have been resistant to the idea of extending the Bill to deal with other injustices.
  In Committee, I raised on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) the question of demolition. I want to pay tribute to the Government for listening to Conservative Members and for recognising that something needed to be done. I hope that there will be other moves this evening from the Government. I hope that they will be prepared to extend the Bill from being a tidy little measure into a more serious and important Bill which will put right some of the injustices of the planning system.
  We have tried to make it more difficult for certain categories of building to be demolished. I am fearful that local authorities could use the Bill as an opportunity to slow down the planning process. I am concerned that, if a building is to be demolished, the developers should not have the additional cost of delay, which is one of the problems of our planning system. I am told that in France and Germany proper compensation is paid and things get done as a result. I hope that that is one problem which the Bill will redress.
  My hon. Friend the Minister could also usefully say something about the consultation process. Will that last for months, or will it be completed by the end of July. so that by September or October the demolition clause will be in place?
  Mr. Moate: Alas, I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just said. This is a serious and important Bill and the Government should be warmly congratulated on a number of its provisions, including new clause 2. I congratulate them on having endeavoured to close a gap that has caused much concern over the years. It is right that demolition should be brought within the scope of planning control. I hope that we do not do any damage to the legitimate interests represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir T. Durant).
  I fear that once again we are giving duties to local planning authorities without giving them adequate powers of enforcement. We are raising expectations while still allowing those who abuse the law the opportunity to continue doing so. That point follows one dealt with in a
  466
  number of interventions to which my hon. Friend courteously responded but with which he did not deal satisfactorily.
  The law-abiding citizen has seldom posed a problem. In future, the law-abiding citizen will know that he has to obtain planning permission in order to demolish a dwelling house and the planning authority will have the power of enforcement. But the non-law-abiding citizen will pose a problem. If a house on a large site is demolished without planning permission—to quote the classic example of a large decaying villa on a large site—the person responsible could be required to rebuild it. But the practical consequence is that it is not logical to rebuild a large villa on such a site. In the end, logic will prevail and the planning authority will tell the cowboy that it obviously makes sense to put up a number of smaller homes on that site. In the end, the spec developer will win.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know that even where houses have been built without planning permission—we can all think of such examples—there are few instances where such unlawful buildings are demolished because in the end it would be illogical to do so. Therefore, unfortunately, in such cases the developer will always win.
  I accept that, as has been said, that leads back to criminalisation. The only way in which the measure can be given teeth is to have some criminal penalties. I suspect that that has been argued through. There are strong arguments for and against that, but at some stage specific penalties have to be imposed to deal with someone who wantonly and flagrantly disobeys planning laws. I welcome the control over demolition, but it is a fairly toothless proposal which will present many planning authorities with problems, not solutions.
  Mr. Allason: My concern about new clause 2 is that it does not cover the difficulties experienced in the south-west. A few moments ago I mentioned high property values. South Devon has experienced numerous examples of appalling abuses of planning regulations. In my constituency there is a major controversy relating to the improvement or development, call it what one will, of the Cockington valley preservation area. On the fringes of that site there has been a long battle over where the boundaries are to be drawn. We have had classic examples of a footpath going straight through the living room of a house that has never been occupied because a mistake was made in drawing the boundaries. In no case, as far as I am aware, has an order been made for the demolition of such properties, which have been put up quickly by speculative builders. Often, when there is a threat of enforcement, the dwelling will be occupied, probably more quickly than usual, in order to get through another loophole.
  5.45 pm
  I am sure that a substantial proportion of hon. Members' mail is dominated by planning issues which are not our direct responsibility. However, we should be prepared to shoulder the burden of responsibility for planning regulations for the next 20 years. The past 20 years have identified numerous loopholes that have been exploited by the unscrupulous. We have an opportunity this evening to close some of those loopholes.
  A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned giving those responsibilities to local authorities without giving them the power of enforcement. The House has a tendency to give

  467
  important responsibilities to local authorities without contemplating the costs involved or providing them with the resources necessary. I have already mentioned the cost of enforcement, but there are insufficient officers in the planning departments, certainly in Torbay, rigorously to enforce the existing regulations. Numerous other flaws have been exploited over the years. My great concern has always been development on green field sites, but in my constituency there are very few green field sites left because unscrupulous developers have concreted over every blade of grass around.
  Enforcement is the key. The Minister has strong faith in local authorities' ability to enforce demolition orders where there has been improper development, but can he cite cases where such enforcement orders have been enforced? In my recollection, there have been few and invariably they have involved lengthy legal proceedings. At the end of the day the developer has only rarely been required to demolish a property that has been put up in contravention of the regulations.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this evening that he is not just pushing a Bill through the House of Commons; he will be affecting the lives of millions of people throughout Britain who will have to live with this legislation for many years to come. There is a tendancy known as NIMBY—not in my back yard. We have an opportunity now to legislate for the future in order to ensure that some of the loopholes that have been so blatently exploited in the past are finally closed.
  I beg my hon. Friend to consider carefully what I have said. When the moment comes for him to retire to south Devon where I will welcome him as my constituent, he will not want unscrupulous developers building close to his retirement home.
  Mr. Wilshire: I imagine that in Committee it became clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am not an enthusiast for extending the powers of planning committees over the lives of individuals. I have said on a number of occasions that I have reservations about the wisdom of bringing demolition within the remit of planning control, and I still do.
  I say that against the background of my constituency being one of many with the sorts of problems that were discussed in Committee and which have been mentioned again today. The particular problem that my constituency seems to share with a number of others is the enthusiastic speculative developer who knocks down a large house and then negotiates on density afterwards. I am well aware of the consequences that that can have. Therefore, although I have reservations about the proposed approach, I keep an open mind.
  I have throughout been against a blanket requirement, in all circumstances, for any demolition to be subject to planning permission. The suggested change to the general development order as a means of ensuring that blanket prohibition is not the order of the day offers a very neat solution, and one that commends itself to me.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not succumb to the temptation to allow many councils to withdraw permitted development rights—or in this case, permitted demolition rights—across large swathes of a local authority's area. That would be to fly in the face of the measure, which is meant to give protection where it is needed without taking away individual rights.
  468
  Mention has been made of the possible slowing down in the planning process that could occur. In Committee, I commended to my hon. Friend the Minister a change in the law that would make a deemed approval the order of the day if, after 12 weeks, a decision had not been taken. In the case of an application to demolish, it would not be unreasonable to expect any planning authority, under all circumstances, to reach a decision within that period of time. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether a deemed approval could be a way of avoiding delay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred to dangerous buildings. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it crystal clear to planning authorities, inspectors, and courts if necessary, that the requirement to safeguard public safety would be adequate justification for not necessarily waiting for a decision in the case of a building that was structurally dangerous.
  Replying to my intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister said that a case could be made for leaving certain details to the common sense of the people involved. I implore him not to place too much store by common sense in the planning process. I chaired a planning committee for five years, and my experience of planning officers is that, often, they are not noted for displaying common sense in their approach to such issues—and I have yet to meet a developer who displays common sense when profit is dangled before him. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tie up all the details, to make it clear what is meant by the provision and by the general development order. Despite my reservations, I believe that the overall solution is neat, and I shall take great pleasure in supporting it.
  Dr. Godman: In speaking in support of new clause 6, I make no apology for touching briefly on a constituency matter. If one drives into my constituency from the east, along the River Clyde, one first sees the remarkably conserved Newark castle. Its superb condition is a tribute to successive administrations at the Scottish Office, Labour and Conservative, and to others involved in the conservation of Scotland's ancient buildings. Alongside that landmark, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, is the busy, bustling little Ferguson shipyard.
  The juxtaposition of that ancient castle and the shipyard is easy on the eye. However, just 50 or 80 yards further into my constituency is the most appalling, squalid, derelict and decaying cluster of buildings, which include the Gourock road works.
  I acknowledge that that site represents a fine example of 19th century Scottish industrial architecture, and that alongside it are two Georgian houses. In an earlier intervention, the Minister pointed out that if those properties are listed buildings, action can be taken to protect them. However, that is an extremely long-winded process, and I regret that new clause 6 will be unable to deal with the circumstances in which my constituents find themselves.
  Port Glasgow is ravaged by high unemployment. It is seeking to persuade industrialists, through the Locate in Scotland Bureau, to locate their operations there. However, if Japanese, American or Scandinavian business men drive into Port Glasgow, after they have been greeted by the agreeable vista of Newark castle they will be confronted by the Gourock road works. If that site and the

  469
  buildings alongside it can be conserved, that should be done, but it is unfair to place on the people o7 Port Glasgow the burden of living with that distressing squalor. New clause 6 will not allow Inverclyde district council to deal with that problem expeditiously.
  I mentioned that the buildings concerned might be conserved rather than abolished. The Scottish Office published a fine book on old buildings, which has a foreword by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, now the Secretary of State for Transport, in which he argued the case for conservation. However, despite the commitment that I have to preserving Scotland's historical architecture, both industrial and aristocratic, I believe that the moment has arrived for decisive action in respect of the appalling squalor of the Gourock road works and the adjoining buildings.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that representatives of his district council met me some time ago for a detailed discussion of the case to which he refers, and to ascertain whether the serving of a repairs notice on the property owner in question would be a good way forward. I undertake to give the hon. Gentleman a written account of the situation to date. We all share his interest in finding a way forward, bearing in mind the importance to industry and to the local community of a favourable decision being reached.
  Dr. Godman: I am deeply grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for displaying his characteristic courtesy in that intervention. The councillors and officials who met him told me that he gave their case a fair-minded and courteous hearing, and I am pleased to learn of his continuing concern. The situation that I have described is a blight on the residents of Port Glasgow and could deter people from setting up homes and industries on the lower Clyde. There is no waterway in the whole of the United Kingdom more beautiful than the firth of Clyde. It is a disgrace, and a continuing scandal, that such squalor should be allowed to remain literally on its banks. I repeat my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for his gracious intervention, and I repeat that something must be done in the near future about the situation of which I have spoken.
  Mr. Clive Soley: The best that I can say is that the Opposition give the new clause a low-key welcome. Let me add, however, that I greatly enjoy these debates; I am always impressed by the way in which right-wing Members from the south of England, confronted by the developers, suddenly abandon their commitment to Thatcherism and move so far to the left that they bypass democratic socialism and cross straight into authoritarian eastern European communism—of the old style, that is. They want to criminalise all the developers. Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) want to create a criminal offence—or perhaps that does not apply to the hon. Member for Spelthorne.
  Mr. Wilshire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting himself before I had a chance to correct him. I am not in favour of criminalisation
  6 pm
  Mr. Soley: I know that this does not relate to the substance of the debate, but it is important. I think that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) inclined towards the idea of criminalisation. It is not the answer; the answer is enforcement. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned this.
  Criminalisation is not the answer for three reasons. First, it does not deter; secondly, it is not necessarily any quicker; thirdly, it is not a particularly effective method. Enforcement, however, means that the developer must put right what he has done wrong, and it is therefore more effective. The distinction is important, although I do not want us to engage in the "criminalisation" debate all over again. I understand the force of the argument about irreversible development; indeed, I have put that argument myself. In such circumstances, a developer would be unable to put right what had been done wrong. In other circumstances, however, the most effective deterrent will be the power of enforcement. It is criticisms of that kind that get the Government into difficulties with their Back Benchers when new clauses such as this are being debated.
  Another problem is the way in which the Government legislate. I agree that something must be done about demolition, and that it must be covered by the planning rules. The Government, however, tend to favour secondary legislation, thus placing the Minister in a difficult position. He cannot answer his Back Benchers who present him with various types of case—not just specific cases—because the legislation is not spelt out in the detail that would enable us to know exactly what the law is. If I were asked to identify the main criticism of the Government's planning machinery, I would cite the lack of certainty.
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Throughout the relevant period, the law has been represented by the Town and Country Planning Act 1971— until the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I am at a loss to know what changes in the law the hon. Gentleman means.
  Mr. Soley: I am referring generally to the planning legislation introduced by the present Government. When legislating on planning and the issues surrounding it, they have tended to give the Secretary of State power to intervene. They have done the same in regard to affordable housing. It is a secondary power, rather than a clear power.
  I should place on record my admiration for the courage of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). Surrounded by colleagues all of whom were berating the demolition industry, the hon. Gentleman simply stood up and said, "I represent, and speak for, the demolition industry." That must have been rather like walking into St. Paul's cathedral and saying, "I speak for Satan"—or, worse still, walking into St. Paul's cathedral without paying the entry fee, which I suspect is now an even worse crime.
  There is a problem for the demolition industry; again, the problem is one of certainty. The industry has not consulted me, but I would guess that its representatives have complained to the hon. Member for Reading, West that they do not know where they stand. That is the problem which confronts the Minister. In my view, the legislation should have spelt matters out more clearly; the

  471
  Government have relied less on guidance and secondary legislation. That would have introduced a little more certainty into the planning system, benefiting both local authority planners, who must make the decisions, and the demolition industry itself.
  Having said that, I should add that I have no doubt that the measure represents a necessary part of the Bill in its present form. Although I do not like this type of legislation, I support its implications and the direction in which it is aimed.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I rarely speak in environment debates. Before the Whips rush off to sound the alarm bells, let me assure my hon. Friends that I have no intention of moving an amendment to the Bill. I had intended to speak later about enforcement, but, as the subject has arisen during our current debate, it may be more convenient for me to say now what little I have to say.
  I agree with the Government that it would have been wrong to criminalise the enforcement process, although I well understand the reasons given by some of my hon. Friends. We are looking for a deterrent. I have a suggestion which I hope the Government will consider and, if they deem it sensible, will introduce in another place.
  On so many occasions, development companies or individuals flout the planning laws and do something that they know they should not be doing. They may, for instance, put a caravan in a field, knowing perfectly well that such an action requires permission. They hope that, by extending the enforcement process—by appealing, and using various delaying mechanisms—they will be able to leave the caravan there for a long time. With any luck, they will be allowed, if they are persistent enough, to continue to do what they have already done illegally.
  Although I do not think that that should become a crime, I believe that the Bill would provide a deterrent if it provided that no council should be able to consider allowing planning permission to someone who had breached the planning law until he had stopped doing so. That would mean that no retrospective application for a caravan to be allowed to remain on a field—or a barn that had not been erected for agricultural purposes—could be even considered until the object in question had been removed.
  Mr. Keith Speed: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, I was involved in such a case. It lasted for six years, and goodness knows how many letters were written to the Department. The trouble was that the ownership of the caravan changed every other week. It belonged to a travelling family: ownership switched from the old lady to the son, and so on. Trying to establish responsibility for it was a lawyer's nightmare.
  Mr. Mates: Only rapid and forthright enforcement can solve problems like that. I am not talking about anything as blatant as my hon. Friend's example. There are people who will defy the law and go on doing it. Others, as a matter of policy, will dig footings without permission so that they can then say that they have started something
  472
  Until those footings have been removed and the land has been restored, nothing should be allowed to be started retrospectively.
  After several years—because of a change in the control of a council or planning authority, for instance—something that was known to be wrong when it was done becomes right. I do not believe that anyone should be able to negotiate with the planning authorities on that basis when they have themselves been in breach of the law.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: My hon. Friend's suggestion would obviate a problem that I have encountered. That problem has arisen when a breach of planning permission has been taken to court by the district council, and the court has refused to make a decision while planning permissions have not yet been decided.
  Mr. Mates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to go through all the possible examples; I am sure that every hon. Member will know of one that has affected him or her professionally. I am making a general point about the frustration experienced by local authorities when people have defied them, and then embarked on a process with which they must co-operate because of the present state of the law.
  If we can change that, we need not go as far as creating a criminal offence. The deterrent will be provided: as long as the offending breach is there, no one—not the courts, not the local authorities—will consider regularising the position. Planners must start again, as does the honest citizen, by doing what is proper and applying to do something before they do it. I acknowledge that I am rather late in putting this suggestion to my hon. Friends. I went to the Department of the Environment some years ago with it, but at the time Ministers were not in the same listening mode as I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is in now. I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion if they think it appropriate and do something about it in the other place.
  Mr. Yeo: This has been a formidable debate. Much more interest than I had imagined has been evinced in this humble new clause which we have tabled to deal with the problem in a way which we believe will be effective.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who acknowledged his interest in the matter at the start of his speech, will be aware—although the House may not be—that his predecessor in his role as parliamentary adviser to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors was none other than my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. In view of the advancement of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) from the post of adviser to the federation to his present post in Government, I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West to the Front Bench again shortly.
  I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West confirm that the National Federation of Demolition Contractors is not against the aims of the new clause. I emphasise to him and to other of my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate that, where planning permission has been granted for a replacement building on a site, even if it is the site of a dwelling house, it is not necessary to seek specific permission to demolish the dwelling house. The fact of granting permission for a new building on the site

  473
  which can be constructed only after the existing dwelling house has been demolished will remove the need to go through any further process.
  Some of the anxieties which have been expressed about delays may prove to be misplaced. The majority of responsible developers and, after the new clause has been passed, even irresponsible developers will find it much quicker and more convenient to seek permission for the building or development with which they wish to replace an existing dwelling house before attempting to demolish it. Therefore, they will choose to seek planning permission. Once they have obtained permission, they will be free to press on with the demolition without further delay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West spoke about dangerous buildings. It is an important point which I hope that we shall address when we consult about how the provisions that we are introducing will be implemented. There is a real issue at stake. I undertake to consider it carefully during the consultation.
  Sir Anthony Durant: Bearing in mind my interest, will the Government issue a consultative document to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors so that it can express its views?
  Mr. Yeo: Of course I shall ensure that the federation receives our consultation document.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) raised a constituency problem. He managed with some ingenuity to make a speech which it seemed had been prepared for the new clause which was not called. His speech gave the House a chance to recognise what a vigorous champion of his constituents' interests he is. I cannot comment on the specific cases that he raised. However, as he knows, I have written to him today to emphasise the powers that all local authorities have on compulsory purchase. Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local authorities powers of compulsory acquisition where that acquisition would be in the interests of the better planning of the area. Such compulsory purchases must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
  I recognise the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East identified. The powers that the local authority has can be used where the redevelopment would be carried out not by the local authority or any other statutory body but by a private developer. I hope that he will draw those powers to the attention of his local authority and ensure that if it is possible for it to use them in the cases to which he referred, it will do so, as it is so clearly in the interests of his constituents.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) raised several points which seemed in some respects similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. As I said, we shall consult local authorities. I am sure that they will advise us if they feel that their powers of enforcement are inadequate. However, existing enforcement powers are being put to good use already. There are plenty of examples of local authorities taking successful enforcement action to require the demolition of an unauthorised building.
  In today's press, hon. Members may have seen that a building described by the developers as a cow shed which was constructed at a cost of £350,000 and contained
  474
  windows and fireplaces—perhaps for fires to keep the lambs warm in their early months of life—was required to be demolished. It was an unlawful development and it has now been blown up. The developer has lost his £350,000 house as a result of the vigorous enforcement action taken by the relevant planning authority. There have been several other such examples. I shall not go through the whole list now, but the House should be assured that many local authorities are making effective use of existing powers, even before they have the benefit of the new clause.
  6.15 pm
  As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee—of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was not one—will know, the Bill contains a fair number of additional enforcement powers which greatly strengthen the position of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) suggested that the Government had hoped to put the Bill through its Standing Committee in a day. I assure the House, and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise, that there is no possibility of any Standing Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams serves completing its proceedings in a day. A year would probably be nearer the mark. However, in the end my hon. Friend showed great restraint, as he did again in his speech today.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams for his congratulations to us on responding to the anxieties that people have expressed about demolition. I share his anxiety about the delay, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, in practice, I do not believe that it will prove to be a major difficulty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made an interesting suggestion of a 12-week limit within which local authorities should consider applications. Thereafter, applications would be deemed to have been approved. I shall reflect on that point. In practice, the vast majority of delays will arise on applications for redevelopment rather than specifically for demolition, so I hope that long delays in considering applications for demolition will not be a frequent problem. I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked about the consultation process. I cannot give him a precise date. We certainly wish to implement the proposals as soon as possible, so I hope that the consultation process will be completed during the summer. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) expressed his opposition to criminalisation. I was interested in his suggestion that local authorities should refuse to consider applications where some unlawful development has commenced. My initial thought is that it would be a sweeping measure. In some cases, a minor and technical breach of planning control occurs inadvertently when some new development takes place before planning permission has been granted. It might be rather sweeping to say that no application for any development can be even considered while the technical breach exists. However, I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestions.
  Mr. Mates: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not suggest that, if a developer or individual makes a mistake and goes wrong after being given permission, the matter cannot be put right. I suggest that, if a developer sets off

  475
  to do something without permission, he cannot do so inadvertently. If one digs footings for a house, one knows that one must have permission to do so. If one sets up a caravan park, one knows that one requires permission to do so. When a development is undertaken without permission ab initio and deliberately, we should say that the breach must stop before any planning application can be entertained. That is a similar principle to the Latin saying which I cannot recall—I cannot immediately see a lawyer in the Chamber. It is to the effect that, when one comes before justice, one must come with clean hands. Someone else could put that more eloquently than me, but that is what I mean.
  Mr. Yeo: I appreciate the distinction that my hon. Friend draws. I shall reflect on his interesting suggestion and write to him.
  Mr. Soley: In Committee, this matter was thrashed out to some extent in the context of the matter of enforcement I want to put to the Minister again a point that I put to him on that occasion. It is related to the point that has just been made by his hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). If a local authority had a general duty of enforcement, including the possibility of retrospective planning permission, it would be able to get round the problem. If a breach, whether intentional or unintentional, were very minor, the local authority might not want to create a big hassle. In such a case, the authority could give permission retrospectively, but would still have a general duty to enforce. Extreme cases such as have been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire would be caught, but the local authority could deal with minor indiscretions.
  Mr. Yeo: I am not sure how that would fit in with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). It seems to me that the granting of retrospective planning permission would be made impossible if my hon. Friend's suggestion were accepted. I understand the force of the argument that any unauthorised development must be reversed before an application is considered. Such a procedure would indeed be a major deterrent. People would have to be extremely careful, even if they were thinking of erecting only a garage. What the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is suggesting is rather different. I do not think that the two suggestions go together.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith explained that he was not in favour of criminalisation. Perhaps, as he is a former probation officer, that is not surprising. He may not want to have to look after a lot of developers should he lose his seat in this House. But I do not believe that the problem of uncertainty is quite as great as he suggests. Indeed, I see some advantages in the use of secondary legislation. It would give the Government—indeed, any Government—some flexibility. If, after a number of years' experience, a review of practices were needed, it might be rather easier to change the law through secondary legislation than through a new Bill. Part of the problem relating to demolition arises from the case to which I referred when I opened this debate.
  476
  I hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. If not, I shall gladly write to any hon. Member who feels aggrieved. I believe that the Government's case is clear, and I commend the new clause to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  HOME LOSS PAYMENTS: NORTHERN IRELAND
  'An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (exercise of legislative functions for Northern Ireland) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of sections 61 and 62 of this Act—

  (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution procedure and procedure in cases of urgency), but

  (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 62.
  Mr. Yeo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of these measures is to permit the extension to Northern Ireland, by the negative resolution Order in Council procedure, of the home loss payment provisions contained in clauses 61 and 62. The measures are essentially technical, but I shall be happy to explain them further if anyone wishes me to do so.
  Mr. Soley: This issue was debated in Committee, but I should like to put it on record that what applies to the rest of the United Kingdom applies to Northern Ireland also. Tenants deserve a better deal. We welcome the increased home loss payments for owner-occupiers, but it is unreasonable to assume that a tenant's investment in a home is necessarily much less as is reflected in the provision. As was said many times in Committee, many tenants invest a great deal of time and money in their homes. If my memory serves me correctly, the compensation that such a person receives for his home is £2,500. That is a paltry sum for someone who has occupied a house for, say, 30 years and has spent much of his savings on putting it into high-class condition. It is sad that the Minister cannot be more generous.
  Mr. Yeo: We have had a fairly extensive debate on that problem. These measures will honour an assurance, given in another place many years ago, that the people of Northern Ireland would be treated no less favourably, in financial terms in relation to planning matters, than their counterparts in Great Britain.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

  DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS
  '.—(1) In section 19 of the 1972 Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted—
  "(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes—

  (a) demolition of buildings;

  (b) rebuilding;

  477

  (c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and

  (d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

  (2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
  "(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to planning authorities generally or to a particular planning authority."
  (3) After section 154(3) of the 1972 Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
  "(3A) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order.".'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

  INTERDICTS RESTRAINING BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL
  `After section 260 of the 1972 Act there is inserted—
  "Interdicts restraining breaches of planning control 260A.—(1) Whether or not they have exercised or propose to exercise any of their other powers under this Act, a planning authority may seek to restrain or prevent any actual or apprehended breach of any of the controls provided for by or under this Act by means of an application for interdict.
  (2) On an application under subsection (1) of this section the court may grant such interdict as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining or preventing the breach.
  (3) In this section "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause is supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It introduces a power to allow planning authorities to seek interdict in cases where a breach of planning control has taken place or is expected to take place. This express power to take action in this way, irrespective of the stage reached in the planning enforcement process, will greatly assist authorities to ensure that cases of the most flagrant abuse can be dealt with speedily. I know that this new power will be welcomed by planning authorities to help them to protect the environment in our towns and countryside.
  Once a developer decides to flout the planning system by putting up some monstrous development without seeking planning permission, it takes some time to go through the full enforcement procedures. Now, an authority will be able to take immediate action to prevent the development from taking place. Let me take another example—that or a developer who intends to cut down an expanse of woodland of outstanding amenity. Interdict will prevent that. Anyone breaching an interdict is in contempt of court, and risks a heavy penalty. I believe that the new clause will be widely welcomed.
  Dr. Godman: I welcome the new clause. Earlier today, I spoke to Mr. Ian Wilson, the chief executive of Inverclyde district council. Mr. Wilson—an official whom the Minister has met more than once—said that the new clause is precisely the kind of medicine that planning
  478
  authorities need. He referred to a case that has recently caused a great deal of controversy in Greenock. Developers simply ignored the local authority and commenced the construction of a private nursing home. I think that the Minister is familiar with the case. Inverclyde district council tried to have the construction halted. Under the existing scheme, the builders were issued with an order. But, as the Minister knows, many months can pass before decisive action is taken. If that issue had not been settled in a most amicable fashion this week, the council would eventually have had to take the case to the procurator fiscal. That would be an unwieldy and cumbersome means of dealing with builders and others who are less than scrupulous.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the destruction of woodland. What is proposed will please many rural authorities throughout mainland Scotland, as well as people in the islands.
  Presumably, as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has welcomed the provision, consultations took place with legal parties. Subsection (3) of the new clause says:
  "the court' means the Court of Session or the sheriff." Presumably "the sheriff" means the sheriff court. Is the Minister in a position to estimate how long it would take to obtain such an interdict, given that, with modern methods, a stretch of woodland could be cleared within several days, or an even shorter time?
  How long would it take to obtain the court's support? Also, has the Minister or his officials estimated the increase in the work load of the sheriff court or the Court of Session? The incident in Greenock to which I referred by way of illustration is not an extremely rare phenomenon, as any member of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would say. It is necessary to obtain the court's support in a shorter time. There is also the question of the extra work placed upon the sheriff court. Presumably—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—most of the actions will be taken in that court and not in the Court of Session.
  I welcome the proposal. It will be greeted with pleasure by many people throughout Scotland.
  6.30 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his remarks. Certainly this will provide another effective tool to enable local authorities to take very quick action indeed.
  The hon. Member is anxious about how quickly courts will consider such cases. It will be very rapidly indeed in the case of interdicts—literally within hours. Obviously there is a problem with the work loads before the courts, but that is because cases are taking much longer, and it does not relate to interdicts. Committees are sitting to ensure that the courts process cases as quickly as possible, and improvements have been made in recent months. With those assurances, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

  OLD MINING PERMISSIONS
  `. After section 49G of the 1972 Act there is inserted

  479
  "Old mining permissions.
  49H.—(1) In this section and Schedule 10A to this Act, `old mining permission' means any planning permission for development—

  (a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or

  (b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

  which is deemed to have been granted by virtue of paragraph 77 of Schedule 22 to this Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 10th November 1943).
  (2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
  (3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 16th May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out after the coming into force of this section unless—

  .(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above; and

  (b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

  (4) An old mining permission shall—

  (a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and

  (b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

  (5) An old mining permission shall, if—

  (a) such an application is granted; but

  (b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

  cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
  (6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section—

  (a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect; and

  (b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 49 or 49A to 49F of this Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).".'.—[Sir George Young.]'

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISION AS TO COMPENSATION REGULATIONS
  `. Without prejudice to section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made, or having effect as if made, by virtue of section 167A (regulations as to mineral compensation) of the 1972 Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of paragraph 10A of Schedule 7 to this Act, have effect as if made under section 167A of that Act as substituted by that paragraph.'—[Sir George Young.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

  ADDITIONAL SUM OF COMPENSATION FOR SMALL FIRMS
  `After section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 there is inserted—
  "5A.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in addition to compensation in respect of the value of any interest in land assessed in accordance with section 5 of this Act, there shall be paid by the acquiring authority an additional sum.
  (2) Payment of an additional sum under this section shall be made only where:

  (a) the land or premises acquired are used for the purposes of a small firm, and

  (b) the claimant is the owner of the land, or is a tenant entitled to compensation under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

  (3) Subject to subsection (4) the amount of the additional sum shall be calculated as 10 per cent. of the compensation referred to in subsection (1).
  (4) Where relevant the amount of the additional sum shall be adjusted as follows:

  (a) If the claimant is entitled to an additional sum under this section and a home loss payment under section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, only the higher of the two amounts shall be payable and not both.

  (b) No payment of an additional sum under this section shall exceed £25,000.

  (5) The Secretary of State may from time to time by order substitute another sum for the sum specified in subsection (4)(b) above; and the power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (6) In this section:
  `Small firm' means any person who, at the date of the notice to treat, is carrying on a business and the number of employees employed by him, added to the number of employees employed by any associated employer of his, does not exceed 20.".'. —[Mr. Monte.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. Moate: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause seeks to extend to small firms the treatment granted to home owners in the Bill. In my understanding at least, the term "small firms" includes small farms. Therefore, I believe that this proposal will certainly be warmly welcomed in the county of Kent because of the prospect of railway development there at some time in the future. Having said that, this is not a parochial matter—the clause will be welcomed by small businesses and farmers throughout the land, because it extends them justice which has so far been denied to them. I am also delighted that justice is now being offered to house owners in this Bill.
  New clause 5 is a sensible proposal. It is limited in cost and is impeccably drafted—in case any of my hon. Friends seek to suggest that it is faulty on those grounds. Also, I believe that it is well-precedented. I hope that it will be acceptable in some form or other to my hon. Friends.
  I should say how much I welcome the home loss payment which is incorporated in the Bill. That is an important measure and it has not yet received the welcome or the praise that it deserves from the country. There can be few hon. Members who have not had to face constituents whose homes are to be compulsorily purchased, especially as a result of road developments. We

  481
  have had to defend the argument that they would get a district valuer's valuation of their home, plus the modest home loss payment that has been provided for.
  Few of us would find it difficult to argue the case for compulsory purchase on the basis of public need. Equally, for a long time, most of us have conceded the principle that one would like more generous treatment of home owners and others who are compulsorily dispossessed of their property. Therefore, I warmly welcome the proposal that home owners whose property is compulsorily purchased will get 10 per cent. of the value—up to a maximum of £ 15,000—the fact that there is greater flexibility with blight notice acquisitions, and that the residential qualifications are reduced from five years to one year. Those proposals are warmly welcomed and it is right that Parliament should be doing that. The only people who will be unhappy are those whose property has been purchased compulsorily in recent years and who will not have received such a payment.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends on that proposal and I hope that it will be seen as a step in the right direction towards restoring equity and speeding up development. If we are generous in the way that we deal with compulsory purchase, it must reflect upon individuals who are faced with such purchases. That will make them less resistant and more willing to deal—less inclined to object when development is proposed. It has often been observed how much better the French are at getting on with developments. Why should that be? It is often because the French are more generous in their dealings with individuals, companies and others who are compulsorily bought out. We have not been generous in the past and the Bill goes a great way to remedy that. It is a step in the right direction, but let us take it a little further. Unwilling sellers of small firms or small farms should be treated in the same way as we are proposing to deal with home owners in the Bill. New clause 5 sets that out.
  As I have made clear, the clause is modest in its intent and limited in cost. We are not seeking to widen the clause to cover large businesses—it is specifically for small businesses. We are not seeking an open-ended commitment—it is limited to about £25,000 maximum payment. The clause has been well drafted—not by me, I hasten to add—because it follows clear precedents in other legislation defining small firms. I refer especially to the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill, where we clearly defined small firms and in clause 30 provide for compensation for consequential losses for small firms. If we could do it there, why should we not do it in this instance? I suppose that it will be argued that the Government are providing compensation for home owners because there are unknown costs if a person has to move home. If we apply that rule to home owners, why should we not apply it to small businesses?
  The old compensation legislation provided that no extra compensation should be given merely because the compulsory purchase involved an unwilling seller. But that same principle applied to homes, so why should it not apply to the fanner? In many cases, if a small farmer or a small company is going to lose land or a part of its land, it too is faced with the fact that tremendous uncertainty and unknown costs that might arise in the future. It is true that they might well already receive some compensation for severance or for other injurious effects of the development or compulsory purchase, but they do not
  482
  know quite what the future holds in terms of relocation, or how long it will take to get alternative land, or even if that is possible.
  The disruption that small firms and farms face in those circumstances is very serious indeed. Is it unreasonable that Parliament should say that an additional 10 per cent. of the land value should be paid to such companies or farmers because society has demanded their land for development? That seems an eminently reasonable proposition, and I should think that it will automatically gain acceptance.
  Mr. Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a compulsory purchase order is often a feared instrument which has an appallingly disruptive effect on people's lives and on small businesses? However, being more generous, as new clause 5 proposes, will assist in achieving the development for which the compulsory purchase order has been made and will avoid some of the fears, difficulties and constraints of time that result from orders being opposed.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new high-speed rail link through Kent is generating tremendous fear and alarm in many parts of the county, but how many landowners or small businesses on the proposed line of development would more readily accept the proposition if they knew that they would be offered fair compensation? By "fair", I mean a small payment as compensation for their property being compulsorily purchased. How much more willing they would be to respond constructively if the system were fair.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend is introducing this subject, which is important to many people in this country. Does he agree that the problem is that the planning process has not been generous? People have dug their heels in, as a result of which planning new development has taken much longer than necessary. New clause 5 would speed things up, because it offers a more practical, positive and constructive approach. People would co-operate rather than dig their heels in.
  Mr. Moate: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government introduced the home loss payment because homes are often disrupted or acquired to allow road construction. Most hon. Members are aware of cases where we would have wished a home owner to be compensated more generously. My hon. Friend rightly said that we have not been generous with the dispossessed, but surely society should be generous in those circumstances. Being generous will help the process.
  Mr. Steen: It will speed it up.
  Mr. Moate: It will speed it up. Being cynical, one suspects that sometimes the Treasury has found delay to be an ally as it has had to spend less money. Speed has not always been its main concern, but the home loss payment is evidence that that has now changed.
  The proposal to extend that to farmers and small businesses—limited in its effect along the lines precedented in the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill—is sound and will help tremendously in further development.
  Even if we do not manage to persuade Ministers of the importance of the new clause, the problem will return time and again. It will certainly return when Kent is faced with major development.
  Mr. Steen: I am told that the French build railways and motorways so quickly because they have a generous approach to compensation. Farmers, small businesses and home owners are happy to relinquish ownership because they are paid the market rate and more. Such development is appallingly slow in Britain. Under new clause 5, public money would be spent wisely and the process would be speeded up. Economically, it would be a much better way of proceeding.
  Mr. Moate: I believe that the French principle is to pay 125 per cent. of value. I do not know whether that produces a queue of applicants enthusiastically wanting to sell their homes, but it makes for a happier and fairer society. I hope that we will move steadily in that direction.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I intended to speak in support of new clause 5, but as my hon. Friend is putting his case so effectively, that will not be necessary. If my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) were here, they would support his points in respect of the north Devon link road, which has brought considerable benefits, although delayed, to north Devon. Will my hon. Friend consider a point that has been made to me and other colleagues by the National Farmers Union about a farmer who loses some land for development not only to a public authority but to a privatised company which enjoys compulsory acquisition powers, such as a privatised water authority? Will my hon. Friend draw out that example as evidence for his case?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Moate: The cost to public funds need not necessarily be high, because privatised companies will often be the beneficiaries of compulsory purchase. If society is giving compulsory purchase powers to companies that will ultimately obtain profit from the land that is acquired, it is reasonable that we should insist that the vendor be treated generously and fairly. The cost to public funds might be low because it would be passed on to other organisations that will be carrying out the development.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: It does not work out like that. I have an interest in road safety. Land was compulsorily purchased in my constituency for road safety improvements. But if the public expenditure of the local authority is being hit by the Government, it is in immediate difficulty in making money available for compensation. That makes it difficult to progress with road safety. The local authority must make available the money to buy land, but it is then clobbered for overspending. I look to the hon. Gentleman to support Labour local authorities which are doing just that.
  Mr. Moate: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not advance the proposition that we should not proceed on the grounds of equity because it might marginally increase development costs. If he follows that logic, he will vote against the Bill and the increased home loss payment. The home loss payment will be an expensive proposition, but we all warmly welcome it. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is saying that, at little additional cost to the Government, we should extend the principle to small businesses that have fewer than 20 employees.
  484
  We shall have to face up to that proposition when we start building new rail links to the Channel. It is right that the proposed developer should have to bear the costs and pay a little extra compensation to the farmers, small business men and home owners of Kent, who will have to make some sacrifice in the national interest.
  I hope that Ministers will accept the principle of new clause 5 and take us further on the road of justice, along which they have started to take us with the increased home loss payment.
  Mr. Speed: I support new clause 5, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) gave an excellent exposition. My constituency is not only threatened—as some would put it—by a new high-speed rail link but faced with the building of the missing link in the M20, which will place a number of small businesses and farmers in severe difficulty. The whole point of the home loss payment, which I believe should be extended to small businesses, is that it involves not only the market value of the property but a recognition by society that compulsory purchase entails dissatisfaction, hardship and very real problems and that compensation should therefore be paid over and above the market value of the property taken.
  I do not join my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham in welcoming wholeheartedly the setting of the home loss payment at 10 per cent. or a maximum of £15,000. On the Government's own figures in relation to the new council tax, 10 per cent. of residential properties in my constituency are worth £160,000 or more. Most of them are not mansions but comparatively modest, albeit most agreeable, dwellings in the countryside. In practice, the owners of such properties would receive not a 10 per cent. home loss payment but a payment of 7 or 8 per cent. The principle ought always to be the same. It should be recognised that whatever house one lives in, the state, or the new privatised companies, ought to be more generous than has been the case in the past. That is necessary to compensate the owner for the disturbance and problems that he suffers.
  Let us be honest about it: at the moment, small businesses—and I accept the definition—farmers and others have problems with the new business rate. In my area, members of that group are not happy. Moreover, for various historical reasons they may be paying more in the south and the midlands than in the north. They may then be clobbered by new rail or road developments, developments by the plcs or whatever. I certainly accept the point that some companies—privatised or otherwise —have used compulsory powers and found that the land or buildings that they have purchased are redundant in terms of their immediate requirement, and that those companies have made a considerable profit on that land or those buildings. The modest proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham goes some way towards dealing with that question.
  I would accept the home loss payment for which the Bill provides—10 per cent., and a maximum of £15,000—even though it is less than generous to London, the south-east and other parts of the country where comparable house prices are higher than in the north, Wales or Scotland. Half a loaf is better than no bread, but let us make it three quarters of a loaf by extending this important principle to small businesses, as suggested in the new clause.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), it seems almost churlish to rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) I do not, of course, disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton about the excellence of our hon. Friend's proposal. However, I come to these matters as something of a veteran. I represented the former constituency of Middleton and Prestwich. Having enjoyed the driving through that constituency of the M62, and having dealt with the spate of claims and difficulties to which it gave rise, I then had the good fortune to be chosen as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden and immediately found myself dealing with the aftermath of the construction of the M11 I found that, although the construction had been completed, the settlement of claims arising from it had by no means been dealt with; it dragged on for a number of years thereafter.
  We then had the good fortune to have the decision by the Government to develop Stansted airport, which gave rise to a few more examples of the kind of difficulties that can occur when people are dispossessed. I feel passionately that there is an unjustice here that needs to be given further attention. It is entirely right that the principle that the Government, to their credit, are applying in respect of home loss payments should be extended as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggests.
  I can recall one example in particular. The owner of a caravan site in my constituency was dispossessed to make way for the expansion of the airport. The British Airports Authority subsequently developed a new caravan site and, after a few years, decided to sell it because the BAA was not in the business of running caravan sites. Had there been adequate compensation in the first place, however, the business man who ran that caravan site in my constituency could simply have carried on his business. That would have been the fair and equitable outcome. At the moment, it seems that our arrangements are not adequate to allow business men a fair crack of the whip.
  The question that we should ask ourselves—the question that Ministers should address—is whether a need arises for the sort of payment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. On the basis of my experience in different places, I believe that the answer is most emphatically yes.
  I support the argument advanced by several of my hon. Friends about the help that the new clause would give not only to individuals but to the whole process of speeding development. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said in reply to me that it is usually other people who stand in the way of development and that they would not be affected by the proposals. I invite my hon. Friend to consider that, in the case of roads, in particular, it is very much the landowner and the business man who are directly affected. I believe that the proposals would—help in the development of roads and railways—in cases in which, at present, landowners, seeing their business threatened and knowing that they will not be compensated adequately to allow them to continue with their business, dig in their heels and fight the developments rather harder than they might otherwise.
  In the end, this is a matter of fairness, and a matter of balance between the need for development and the needs of those who are dispossessed. I do not think that we have matters right at the moment, and I think that the new
  486
  clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham would go a substantial way to putting them right.
  Mr. Steen: I could not have put it better than my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), whose experience of compulsory purchase orders and the suffering that they cause to people living in the area must be second to none. A number of us feel that the Government have made an enormous stride forward. We should welcome and be grateful for that and recognise that the Government have done a first-rate job in introducing a compensation concept plus something more. That is great news, and the public will welcome it.
  The problem is that the Government always say, "We cannot do more," because the Treasury let them go to 10 per cent. or £15,000 and then said, "No more." It is like the chap trying to sell a car who says, " I cannot sell it at that price, I am afraid, because it belongs to my brother-in-law." The Government say, "We cannot extend the concession because the Treasury says that it is not possible."
  My concern is not so much about the figures—although I am concerned about the group of people who would benefit—but about the fact that Britain is lagging behind and because our planning system is part of the problem. It is antiquated, slow, bureaucratic and ungenerous. The result is that, instead of developments going through quickly and our getting things done, everything takes too long. By the time an application is granted, the developer may have moved. The building of a road may be slowed up for so long that, by the time it is built, it is the wrong road, or in the wrong place, or too small.
  Mr. Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Local people in my area, too, are concerned because they simply do not know what the result of an inquiry may be, and they do not know because of the tremendous delay. If the element of delay were removed from the system, people would at least be in a position to know whether they would receive compensation and to know the outcome of the appeal. It is the delay that causes anxiety and hardship to so many local people.
  7 pm
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Member, who served with me on the Standing Committee and is experienced in matters of this kind, makes a valid point. It is uncertainty that leads to distrust, anxiety and, ultimately, a feeling of hostility towards the public authorities. In this country there is far too much hostility to central and local government, which is aggravated by our planning laws and the way we approach compensation when the public authority wants to do something. It is very much the big public body with a club saying to the members of a local community that it will take their land, their farms or their small businesses and pay them the market rate and nothing more. That is no incentive for anyone to co-operate with the public authorities.
  The Government have made a very constructive and useful move in saying that they will pay compensation plus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has said, it is a fine idea, it is most welcome, but it is not quite enough, so can we please extend it a bit so that

  487
  people whose farms or businesses are affected get something as well? That is an innocuous, sensible and practical suggestion.
  I hope that the Ministers who are dealing with this matter will not use the Treasury argument and that they will not blame the Treasury for the lack of progress in this country. Here is an opportunity to get this country moving again. It is extremely sluggish, and one of the reasons is the planning regime. When a public authority wants to do things, it is too difficult and too slow. With rather more generous compensation, with a slight extension, we can get the country moving again, and I cannot believe that Ministers do not want that to happen.
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad to have the chance to reply to this debate, which has been useful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for his support—which was stated in rather more unqualified terms than those used by my other hon. Friends who contributed to the debate—for our improvement to the home loss payment.
  My hon. Friend's new clause, as he explained, would provide for an additional amount of compensation to be paid where a small business is acquired compulsorily. This would be a business loss payment broadly comparable to the revised home loss payment scheme for residential acquisitions, but would be subject to the considerably higher ceiling of £25,000. Its basis is slightly different from that for home loss payments in that the payment would be calculated on the total compensation payable for the business rather than the value of the property only. The new clause goes on—perhaps somewhat bravely—to define a small business as one run by someone who, in conjunction with his associates, employs up to 20 people.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's evident concern about small businesses affected by compulsory purchase. Clearly, he struck a chord with quite a number of my hon. Friends. The encouragement and protection of small businesses are causes which remain very close to the Government's heart, as the House will, I am sure, recognise from the report entitled "Small Firms in Britain 1991" recently published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  It goes without saying that compulsory purchase of any property will almost invariably come as an unwelcome shock to those affected. However, on principle, I do not think that I can accept the sort of proposal advocated by my hon. Friend. As we have pointed out many times at earlier stages of the debates on the Bill, home loss payments are made in recognition of the intense personal distress and upheaval which are bound to affect almost anyone who is compulsorily displaced from his home.
  Although I would not dispute the possibility that the compulsory purchase of a property occupied by a small business could well give rise to a measure of distress for the owner—or, indeed, for his employees—I find it hard to accept that such distress could match that felt by someone who was forced to leave his home. Indeed, from time to time, small businesses may even gain by moving as a result of a compulsory purchase from a rundown area being redeveloped to, perhaps, a new commercial unit provided on advantageous terms by the local authority.
  From the debate, to which I listened carefully, it seemed that a number of my hon. Friends may not be clear about
  488
  the extent of existing compensation to small businesses. That compensation is by no means to the value of any property involved.
  I should point out that, when a business is compulsorily acquired, the owner is already entitled to receive, in addition to the market value of his interest in the land on which it is situated, full compensation for the disturbance of his business. This will cover all reasonable expenses that are likely to be incurred by the owner in relocating his business to similar replacement premises, including legal costs and compensation for the diminution or loss of goodwill.
  It takes into account how the business was run and how it would have fared if there had been no compulsory purchase. It also takes into account the temporary or permanent loss of profits, although, of course, that does not include profits which could arise from a future expansion of the business, but that may, in any case, be within the grasp of the owner. As the new clause acknowledges, someone displaced from the home from which he is running a business would normally be entitled to a home loss payment as well as a disturbing payment. We believe that to be a fair and satisfactory system of compensation.
  As I said, my hon. Friend had a stab at defining a small business for the purpose of his provision. I am not sure that his definition is one that would suit everybody. The level of 20 employees seems to me to be an arbitrary one and would be seen as unfair by those businesses with marginally more people working in them.
  My hon. Friend referred in particular to the position of farmers, and I know that that is a matter of great concern to him. Generally speaking, an owner-occupier or tenant farmer will receive, besides the market value of his interest in the land acquired, including the value of any potential it may have for future development, a home loss payment, where he has to leave his farmhouse, and also a farm loss payment.
  The farm loss payment is based on the average annual profit from the land taken. It is designed to help the farmer take up farming on replacement land, which is probably unfamiliar, and to cover the temporary loss of crop yields during the transition. Paragraph 6 of schedule 13 makes significant improvements to the farm loss payment scheme. I dare say that, as it appears on page 171 of the Bill, my hon. Friend may not have reached it in his study of the document. Nevertheless, those improvements are provided and they extend farm loss payments to tenants for a year, or from year to year, and to cases where only part of a holding is taken.
  My other hon. Friends who contributed to the debate were, I think, only reinforcing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. I have noted the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for an even higher ceiling on home loss payments. The Bill does, of course, raise the old ceiling very substantially indeed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) is, as he says, something of an expert on these matters, and I would not deny that from time to time landowners feature among the objectors to proposals for new roads and other such things. But I believe that the evidence of the powers that are held justifies my contention that often the greatest delay is caused by people who do not have a direct financial interest in the matter but have other reasons for advancing their objections.

  489
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) will be glad that I have not mentioned the Treasury so far, and I do not intend to do so. However, I should like to deal with the French system, which seems to be so much admired by many of my hon. Friends. Let us take a small farm, one of a size that is not untypical in France but perhaps not quite so typical in some of the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends—a 30-acre farm, the land value of which is, say, about £48,000. The French system provides for a general percentage supplement on top of market value on all claims. In some cases, that supplement can be as high as 25 per cent., but it is confined to the first 100,000 francs—in other words, approximately £10,000. Otherwise the percentage varies from case to case, but the normal percentage is about 10 per cent.
  The French system does not reimburse many of the incidental costs which are specificially covered by our provisions—for example, legal and surveying fees. There is no provision for separate home loss or farm loss payments. It is not clear to me that claimants do as well under the French system as my hon. Friends have suggested. However, on the evidence of what they say, it is clear that if we had a system which was much more generous than the French system they would not wish to press their new clause.
  Let us return to the example of the 30-acre farm worth £48,000. On the most generous assumption, even if the 25 per cent. figure in the French system were applied to the total value of that farm—I do not think that it would be —there would be an additional £12,000 on top of the £48,000, giving a value of £60,000.
  When a 30-acre farm was acquired as a result of the construction of the M25 in 1981, the value of the land taken, including the woodland, was £48,000, but under our system of farm loss payments, an additional £95,000 was paid for injurious affection, severance and loss of sporting rights. A further £18,000 was paid for disturbance, including new signposts, loss of timber, temporary loss of profits, damage to farm buildings, the cost of manure and land drains, reorganisation costs and surveyors' fees. In addition, £15,000 was paid for the value of accommodation works provided by the Department of Transport.
  In other words, under the system which is so much admired by some of my hon. Friends, the farmer concerned would have received £48,000 plus £12,000—a total of £60,000. Under the system already in operation in this country, the farmer concerned received a total of £176,000—[Interruption.]Are the noises that I hear coming from some of my hon. Friends indicative of their concern about control of public expenditure?
  I am beginning to be persuaded that I should table an amendment to make our system less, rather than more, generous. The point is clearly established that, were we to adopt the type of system that my hon. Friends have cited in support of their argument, we should be treating our farmers and small business men less generously than is the case at present.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the example that the Minister is recounting fairly typical, or is it the best of the last decade?
  Mr. Yeo: It is the only one of the last decade for which I have details tonight. It seems clear that we have in place a system that is probably much more generous and more far-reaching in its scope than many hon. Members
  490
  appreciate. For the reasons that I have given, it does not seem to us that there is a strong case for giving additional compensation for small businesses or small farmers, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Moate: Hon. Members will have been intrigued by the farm to which the Minister referred and will be wondering whether it is typical. I suspect that my hon. Friend might now be deluged with claims from farmers who feel that they have been treated less favourably by the taxpayer in recent years. He may also find a flood of farmers expecting similarly generous treatment should they lose part of their land to road building or to the proposed high-speed rail link through Kent.
  If the Minister is right, perhaps he should welcome the new clause enthusiastically, for he suggested that there would be no cost—indeed, that there would be a profit —to the Treasury. If he does not accept that logic—and he may not—he will perhaps at least accept that the matter should be investigated to see what is the right and fair treatment for farmers. After all, he is suggesting that the French system does not live up to what many of us widely believe it to be. I should be interested to know if what he says is so. Would he be willing to consider carefully figures submitted to him by, say, the NFU, which can no doubt research the matter to discover the correct position?
  When referring to the additional sums available to farmers, the Minister suggested that the compensation related in part to profits derived from the farm. That could produce hollow laughter from some farmers right now. They might find it difficult to give evidence of farming profits. It may be that the case that the Minister cited was a one-off instance and that we shall not witness that type of compensation arising again. He should at least respond to an invitation to examine the figures to see whether he is wrong. Is a 110 per cent. payment, with maximum compensation of £25,000, for small farmers more generous? He has really agreed to examine that, because he has conceded the principle.
  The Minister congratulated me on my courage in defining small firms. I give credit to the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill, clause 30 of which defines it in the way I have used. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree that there is a legitimate precedent for determining what is and what is not a small firm. Relating that to farming, a farm with 20 employees is reasonably large these days, so it seems that that is not a difficult or unreasonable line to draw.
  7.15 pm
  My hon. Friend justified his argument that there should be an extra payment to home owners on the grounds of the personal distress that is caused. It is legitimate to argue that, in such cases, there should be generous and fair home loss payments. But he did not argue forcefully that there was a major distinction between the personal distress caused to a home owner and the personal distress caused to a small business man or farmer who loses part or all of his land. The distress must be equally as great.
  Hon. Members are right to say that, basically, when society compulsorily acquires land, there should be a generous additional payment to recognise that factor. Whether it is mentioned in terms of distress, disruption or severance in connection with business, an additional payment should be made. That is the principle that we have conceded by the home loss payment. That is why

  491
  hon. Members have welcomed the principle of extending that payment. We may say that it does not go far enough, but broadly, the extra £15,000 is warmly welcomed. Exactly the same principle should be applied to small businesses and farmers.
  I suspect that this is not one of those evenings when my hon. Friends would wish to press this matter to a Division —[Interruption.]I hear noises coming from Opposition Members. Did we hear from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) an interesting speech from the Labour Front Bench, supporting our case? He has not said a word in the debate. There has been no support from him tonight for small businesses and farmers, yet he is now encouraging us to press the matter to a Division. Where are his troops?
  Mr. Soley: I have been so impressed by the compelling case that the hon. Gentleman has been making that my hon. Friends and I have been waiting anxiously to get into the Lobby to vote. The example from France that he gave was excellent, and he is right. They got the French side of the line through quickly because of their compensation system, whereas in this country we do not have such a link. When people come across Europe on the high-speed train, they will transfer at Dover into something resembling Thomas the Tank Engine. That says everything about the kind of system that we have. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he leads us into the Lobby, we shall be with him.
  Mr. Moate: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not made those comments about the contrast between what the traveller will see when he reaches the British Rail side, because, like many others, he is totally underestimating the amount of investment that has gone into providing a high-speed link which, from 1993, will take travellers from Waterloo terminal through to Paris in three hours—[Interruption.] That construction is under way. It is not the high-speed link, but there will be a first-class rail service and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that much has been achieved.
  Is the hon. Member for Hammersmith saying that he has more Labour Members ready to vote than the four or five currently in the chamber? If he claims that hordes of Labour supporters will be joining us in the Lobby, he tempts me, and if my hon. Friends feel the same way, I shall be delighted to press the matter to a Division—not because I believe that we can win, but because the message will have got through to the Government that we should be more generous in the compensation we give. By forcing the matter to a vote, we may be starting something, so that sooner rather than later we shall get more generous compensation arrangements in our legislation.
  Mr. Soley: I move that the Question be put, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the debate is coming to a natural conclusion, and I will now put the Question.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 107.

  Division No. 146]

  [7.18 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beggs, Roy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bellotti, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Battle, John

  Benyon, W.

  492

  Boateng, Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cox, Tom

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cryer, Bob

  Rathbone, Tim

  Dixon, Don

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Sillars, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Soley, Clive

  Grylls, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Steen, Anthony

  Haynes, Frank

  Trimble, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wallace, James

  McCrea, Rev William

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wolfson, Mark

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Meale, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Mullin, Chris

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Amos, Alan

  Knowles, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Lightbown, David

  Ashby, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Baldry, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Maclean, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Mans, Keith

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Boswell, Tim

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Mills, Iain

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Moss, Malcolm

  Brazier, Julian

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

  Needham, Richard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Page, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Paice, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Patnick, Irvine

  Chope, Christopher

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Couchman, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Eggar, Tim

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Shersby, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Sims, Roger

  French, Douglas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Fry, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hague, William

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Waller, Gary

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hayward, Robert

  Watts, John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hind, Kenneth

  Wilshire, David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Wood, Timothy

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Yeo, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Irvine, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jack, Michael

  Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Janman, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  New clause 9

    STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (No. 2)
    `For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
    "(1) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, shall be the starting point for the authority when dealing with such an application and it shall also have regard to any other material considerations".'.—[Mr. Soley.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 13—Status of the development plan—
    `—For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
    "(1) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations.".'
    Amendment No. 137, in schedule 3, page 108, line 49,
    at end insert
    `(11) The provisions of a current and properly constituted local development plan with an approved county structure plan shall prevail over any conflicting provisions or advice set out in planning policy guidance notes which may be issued from time to time by the Department of Environment'.
    Mr. Soley: The new clauses will give a much higher status to the development plan. On Second Reading, the Minister announced that the Government had made a welcome conversion and that development should be plan-led rather than market-led. We welcome the Government's conversion. We felt that the Bill was weak in terms of ensuring that the plan was given a high enough status. The Bill ensures that structure and local plans are available throughout the country, but it does not ensure that they are given sufficient priority to guarantee that, when decisions are taken about development, the plan and not the developers' desires comes first.
    7.30 pm
    We have tabled two new clauses. New clause 9 would insert:
    "The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, shall be the starting point for the authority".
    We included the words "starting point" because they seemed to help the Government out of their problems of definition. We also tabled new clause 13, which is signed by a number of Conservative Members. It goes into more detail and states:
    `—For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
    "(1) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations.".'
    That is a stronger interpretation than that of new
    clause 9.
    Mr. Lewis Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
    494
    Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but I missed the last Division. I was in my office, off the main Committee Corridor, and I did not hear a bell. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) did not hear one either. Will the Serjeant at Arms check whether the bells are working properly?
    Mr. Roger Gale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in Committee Room 21 on the upper Committee Corridor and heard no bell. It seems that the bells may not be working.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I shall have inquiries made and inform the House of the outcome.
    Mr. Soley: I am pleased that the Government have said that, following discussion between spokesmen from the two main parties this afternoon, the Government are to concede to us new clause 13. By any standards, that new clause constitutes one of the most important changes that the Government have made during the Bill's passage, both through this House and the House of Lords. I welcome that concession and look on it favourably.
    I can set aside much of the rest of my speech for the moment, although I may seek the leave of the House to catch your attention again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that will not be necessary and I think it might be easier and save the time of the House if I now make way for the Minister and other hon. Members to address the House so that we may take the matter further.
    The commitment that the Government have given today gives a much higher status to the development plan and will go a long way to ensuring that development is plan led. The Bill will still not be the ideal one that the Labour party would have proposed, but it is undoubtedly a significant step forward and one that I welcome.
    Mr. Wolfson: If what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has intimated is correct, I greatly welcome the Government's action. Over the past 12 years, I have had much correspondence with, and made many direct representations to, the Ministers' predecessors at the Department of the Environment on the key importance of local planning decisions—which are taken by local authorities with local knowledge and which are responsive to local interests and concerns being upheld on appeal. When such decisions are overturned, it is often a cause of anger, bewilderment and much concern in the local community.
    During the past two years, one of the responses that I have received when making representations to the Department of the Environment has been that, where local plans do not exist or are out of date, it makes it difficult for the inspector and the Minister to uphold the local decisions. My local authority has been pressed by me into bringing its local plans up to date. It has also done so partly of its own volition. Therefore, I have always believed that it is important to give the maximum weight to the local plan in planning decisions, and I welcome both the new clauses. I am delighted if the Minister is to concede them.
    Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Minister and one or two of my hon. Friends will know that I have taken a considerable interest in the planning process in the past few years. My attention was drawn to the subject by a substantial body of public feeling in my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends. At least 100 of them

    495
    have spoken of the almost unregulated way in which speculative housing was being permitted under our planning legislation. It swiftly became apparent that, to be constructive, I would have to become, if not expert, a great deal more knowledgeable on planning laws. Thanks to the able assistance of many people, I feel that my appreciation of the subject has improved. My conclusion has to be that the planning laws are a devious and elaborate device for the Government to impose their decisions on the population in an expensive, laborious and delaying manner, and without the due good effect of consulting local opinion, which is what we want.
    When the Bill was first thought about two or three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the then Secretary of State, intimated that he would abolis county structure plans. I shall not enter into a debate about the future of counties, because that is another matter, but it was more than 10 years before the majority of our counties had evolved proper structure plans. In my county of Avon, the structure plan was once again being amended recently. I do not complain about that, but to say that the county structure plan system had failed before the last of the babies were even born was a premature destruction of the theory—and I was totally opposed to that.
    We had a debate on that subject, and my hon. Friend the member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and others made it clear that we did not think that it was a good idea. Therefore, when the Bill was presented without such a proposal, we were all pleased. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
    "We want the system to be plan-led…We want the district plan to be the indicator—the signal—of what is permitted development and the market must respond to the local plan."—[Official Report, 12 March 1991; Vol. 187 c. 823.]
    In my constituency during the past two years there have been at least two substantial planning proposals—I can think of three, and there are probably many more—which fall well outside the structure plan. However, the proposals appeal to my district council and the planning authority for commercial and other perfectly good reasons, and so were given a "first reading" by the district council. The Minister, in my view rightly, called in both those cases and the plans have either been changed or the developers have withdrawn the applications. The system must work; it is no good having all the bureaucracy if we do not get a sensible result. Amendment No. 137 rightly gives priority to the local plan. On Second Reading and in Committee, there was much talk about the merits of the local plan. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that henceforth the local plan matters.
    The Minister's first job is to educate local councillors in the planning law—just as I had to learn more about the laws, the councillors will have to learn more about what they mean—and to emphasise again that, in inspectors' decisions confirmed by the Minister, the local development plan is the one that matters. It does not take much imagination to understand the expense and time involved in preparing detailed local plans. It is tiresome for a councillor, because he has to think into the future, make projections and consider what his district will look like. Once that has been done, Ministers must, for goodness' sake, uphold the decisions.
    496
    I am sorry to say that there is a fairly lengthy history of inspectors' decisions not upholding local plans. We come to the wretched intervention of central Government through the planning policy guidance notes and circulars which the courts have consistently regarded as overriding the local arguments and local opinion. I had hoped that the Bill would deal with that problem, but it has not. We are left with basically the same structure and with a mass of complicated guidance notes which are lengthy and legalistic—they have to be if they are to be used as the basis of planning decisions. More in sorrow than in anger, I must say that I believe that the Bill has missed an opportunity.
    We strongly support our planning laws. I say "we" because I include my hon. Friends. The country should be grateful for the basic framework of our planning laws because they have saved us from many disasters. One has only to consider parts of America to realise how disastrous a lack of constraint can be. However, we have got into difficulties. We should have the wit and competence to get ourselves out, and I am sorry that we have not done so. However, a road lies through the local development plans. Ministers have considerable administrative capacity and enormous discretion in planning matters, probably more than in any other local framework, and I hope that the Minister will use his administrative capacity. I know that he thinks a great deal about the issues, and that he is sympathetic to what we are saying. I hope that, in due course, the administration of our planning laws will be satisfactory.
    I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) which, to some extent, reflects what I am saying. If by any mischance he became the Minister, I hope that he would take the same good advice.
    Mr. Steen: New clause 13 and amendment No. 137 are very important and I hope that the Minister will say something more helpful than what was said in Committee.
    Some 10 to 20 per cent. of the country is covered by local plans—up-to-date, valid plans which govern the whole planning regime in a district. The remaining 80 per cent. of the country—I am taking a generous view, because it may be as much as 90 per cent.—does not have up-to-date valid local plans. That means that there is no consistency in planning: when one area that has no local plan decides against something and the matter goes to appeal, there is no local plan for the inspector to follow, so a different picture emerges. In one area, an inspector will find in favour of something that he finds against in another area.
    Over the years, the number of appeals has increased, as will the number of inspectors. I recently asked a parliamentary question and was told that more money was being spent on planning inspectors because there were more appeals. Ultimately, the Bill will make it mandatory for every area to be covered by local plans. That will mean that, in every area, the local district council will go through the motions of discussions with parish and church councils, with neighbourhoods and with individuals. There will be local meetings at which everyone can have some input, which is to be welcomed. I commend the Government for that imaginative and constructive step, because it is the right approach.
    In five years, every part of Britain will be covered by an up-to-date local plan approved by the Secretary of State. It will be a current local plan in a five-year cycle. Every five

    497
    years,the plans will be brought up to date, and in every local plan every piece of land will be designated for some purpose. There will be a development area for housing; there will be areas for agriculture, leisure and recreation, and so on. I think that, in five to 10 years' time, every part of the country will have a local plan.
    7.45 pm
    I am fortunate, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), because my council has a valid local plan. Indeed, we have five valid local plans which are excellent and we are updating them. There are meetings in every town and village to discuss what they should contain. However, the critical issue is that, if there is a valid local plan—or five local plans, as in South Hams—what happens when a planning applicant wants to go to appeal? The inspector who is appointed by the Secretary of State considers not only the local plan, but what is known as the PPG or planning policy guidance issued by the Department. There is often a conflict because the inspector sees the Government's PPG issued by the Department and the valid local plan—on which there has been proper consultation—with the Secretary of State's imprimatur. How does he decide how to proceed? He does not. One inspector will decide to follow the PPG and another will decide to follow the local valid plans.
    New clause 13 states:
    "In dealing with such an application the local authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan."
    Although that is welcome, it is hardly a major victory because it does not deal with the problem of the PPG issued by the Government. The clause states merely that the local authority should first consider the provisions of the development plan
    "so far as material to the application".
    That is all very well—the local authority will say that it first considered the plan and then it will either reject or approve the application. If the local authority says that it will reject the application because the local plan says that it should not be approved, and it has first considered the provisions of the plan according to new clause 13, it will say that the planning application should not be approved. However, the application may then go to appeal and the planning inspector considers it. He would need amendment No. 137, which states:
    "The provisions of a current and properly constituted local development plan with an approved county structure plan shall prevail over any conflicting provisions or advice set out in planning policy guidance notes which may be issued from time to time by the Department of the Environment."
    What is the point of going through the process in every district, with millions of pounds being spent and with hundreds of officials involved, if, on appeal, there is no clarity about whether the planning policy guidance note of the Secretary of State or the local plan carries sway? I believe that it must be the local plan. If not, what is the point of having a local plan? Local plans set the framework in which local decisions are taken. If, on appeal, the Secretary of State says that the planning policy guidance note says something slightly different and that he will follow that, it makes nonsense of the local plan. That is why amendment No. 137 is so important.
    A former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) answered a question that I put to him. I asked whether, if there was a local plan that said there was enough housing, the planning inspector would
    498
    be bound to follow the local plan. My right hon. Friend said that that was true. The Bill does not make it clear whether the planning policy guidance notes of the Secretary of State or the local district plan, approved by the county and by the Secretary of State, are to be followed.
    New clause 13, although a welcome move in the right direction, is a bit of a cop-out. It is, in effect, a non-clause. It is perfectly all right to say that the first consideration should be the local plan, but that would make no difference ultimately. On appeal, there is no clarity about what should happen and that is why I believe that amendment No. 137 is so important.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I am following my hon. Friend's arguments closely and I have great sympathy with them. There is a problem in my constituency. There are local plans in my area, but a development is proposed on the edge of two local districts. There is a conflict between the developer on one side and the developer on the other side. One district says that it must have the development, but the other says that it does not want it. There is a major problem in trying to get a third bridge across the River Thames. We cannot get a third bridge across the Thames because Oxfordshire will not allow it to land. We even have a developer who is prepared to pay for the bridge, but he cannot find anywhere for it to land on the other side of the river. How does one deal with such a problem?
    Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend always asks good questions. It is always a pleasure to see him in his own or anyone else's place. His point is not entirely relevant to my argument, although I think that I can give him an answer. If there is a conflict between two local plans—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is the better person to give an answer, but I am acting as the Minister in this case—
    Mr. Wiggin: And very well too.
    Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend.
    If there is a conflict between two local plans, the inspector will have to decide which is right. The inspector should get cracking, because one cannot have a bridge that does not land on the other side. However, that does not affect the question whether the Government's PPGs conflict with the local plan. The PPGs are generic, whereas the local plans are detailed. In this case, if one cannot get the bridge anywhere, the local authority would appeal to the Secretary of State and the inspector would decide. That would not necessarily conflict with the PPGs. If it did, the inspector might either approve the scheme or not. We need clarity on whether preference is given to the PPGs or to the local plan. What weight does the inspector give to local plans and to the PPG?
    I could give examples in my constituency where decisions have been wholly inconsistent with another decision taken a year later. I am sure that all hon. Members will have experience, as I have, of applications being made three times for the same development. The first inspector says one thing, the second says something else and the third says something else again. The problem is that there is no clarity from the Department of the Environment about whether the PPGs or the local plans take precedence.
    Mr. Soley: Regional government in this country would help to resolve problems such as the bridge that goes nowhere. It would not solve them, but it would help.
    The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point about amendment No. 137. We would not legislate in a confused way if we were in government. The PPGs may not necessarily be in conflict with the plan and the number of cases such as the hon. Gentleman has described may be limited, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to play down too much the importance of new clause 13, although I must say that he is on the right lines. When we are in government and legislation is more plan-centred, I am sure that we shall be able to deliver some certainty on the issue, which he will welcome. Given his revolutionary views on planning, I imagine that it is only a matter of time before the hon. Gentleman crosses the Floor of the House. I am sure that many of his hon. Friends would also welcome some certainty.
    Mr. Steen: I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to go into government. I will be a very old man by then.
    It is worth reminding the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who is unable to be here today, asked a telling question on 20 January 1988. It was similar to that asked by the late Member for Mid-Staffordshire, Mr. Heddle. He asked the Secretary of State when he would be
    "publishing his conclusions on the draft statement of planning policy on large out-of-town shopping centres."
    The Minister of State gave an interesting answer. He said:
    "My right hon. Friend is publishing today two new series of guidance notes. Planning policy guidance notes (PPG) will provide guidance on general and specific aspects of planning policy, and minerals planning guidance notes (MPG) will give advice on the control of minerals development.
    PPGs and MPGs aim to provide concise and practical guidance on planning policies in a clearer and more accessible form than in departmental circulars, the earlier series of development control policy notes (DCPNs), and other statements. In future, advice on legislation and procedures will be given in departmental circulars, while PPGs and MPGs will be the main source of policy guidance on planning matters.
    In most cases the content of the new notes will be based on extant circulars and DCPNs. An index of all the relevant circulars is also being published today—in fulfilment of an undertaking in response to the fifth report, Session 1985–86, of the Environment Committee in the last Parliament. Unless otherwise stated in the PPGs and the MPGs, those circulars remain extant for the time being, but the need to retain them will be reviewed in the light of experience with PPGs and MPGs. DCPNs are now being withdrawn to the extent indicated in the relevant PPGs."—[Official Report, 20 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 745.]
    I am sure that, although you do not have the script in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand that the answer was not very clear. If it was not clear in 1988, how can a planning inspector in 1991, faced with a local plan on the one hand and a PPG on the other, work out what he should do? Amendment No. 137 says that the local plan, if properly constituted,
    "shall prevail over any conflicting provision…set out in planning policy guidance notes".
    There must be some clarity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not fudge that issue when he answers, which I am giving him the immediate opportunity to do.
    Sir George Young: This has been a useful debate about the role of the district plan. Opposition and Conservative Members have urged me to raise the profile and credibility of the district plan within the planning system. I hope to be able to say something helpful in a moment.
    500
    The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) implied that if we accepted new clause 13, it would be a giant step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said that the new clause did not really matter. The House will have to decide which of the two is right.
    In reply to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), I must say that, if we are to enhance the credibility of the district plan, it must be up to date. That is an important ingredient. If one faces out-of-date plans, it is difficult to say that they should be the starting point or the first consideration. District plans must be consistent with national guidance. One cannot have a series of district plans that have somehow opted out of the national planning system.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) will not expect me fully to subscribe to his rather critical analysis of the planning system and to his view of the somewhat sinister motives of planning Ministers. However, I understand the import of his point that more importance should be given to the district plan if one has gone through all the procedures.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said that every local plan has to be approved by the Secretary of State. He is not quite right. Almost all such plans are now, and will still be when the Bill is enacted, adopted by the planning authority. In future, the structure plan will also be adopted by the county unless the Secretary of State calls it in.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) mentioned the problem of the bridge. If there was a conflict between two district plans, I hope that the county structure plan would pick up the fact that there was some incompatibility and would refuse to validate them. If two different counties were involved, I hope that someone in my Department would notice that there was a certain inconsistency in the approach to river crossings.
    8 pm
    Mr. Wiggin: I am sorry if my hon. Friend felt that I was implying that his activities were sinister. That is certainly not what I had in mind. But I am sure that he will be the first to agree that the Bill gives him substantial powers. I fully recognise that the Government should and must have a hand in the general structure planning of the nation. That is completely right. I do not understand why he is opting out of giving his approval to the structure and district plans, because that is one way in which the Government could organise the bureaucracy.
    Sir George Young: If we are not happy with them, we will call them in. The fact that we do not and that we allow them to be self-approved means that we have, in effect, validated them.
    Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the local planning authority considering a planning application to have regard to the provisions of the development plan in so far as they are material to the application and to any other material considerations.
    The intention of clauses 9 and 13 is to ensure that the local planning authority starts its consideration of the application by looking at the development plan. Having established that position, the authority will turn to the other material considerations.
    On Second Reading, I said that we wanted the development system to be plan led and that the market

    501
    should respond to the signals given in the development plan. That has always been the fundamental principal underpinning the planning system.
    If we are to go down the road of new clause 13, it is important that the development plans are up to date. But it would be wrong, within the planning law framework that has survived intact for more than 40 years, to change the status of a plan into a prescriptive document. We do not operate zoning mechanisms such as are found across the Atlantic. In our system, it is important that each planning application should continue to be considered on its merits and that all the material considerations should be weighed in the balance in reaching development control decisions.
    Amendment No. 137 seeks to affect the weight attached to development plans in planning decisions. It would allow structure and local plan policies to prevail over conflicting national and regional guidance set down by the Secretary of State in his planning policy guidance notes.
    Mr. Steen: That is correct. It would affect the balance. But then what is the point of having local plans?
    Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument, I hope to persuade him that the conflict that he describes will not arise in quite the way that he envisages.
    Just as we have made provision to ensure that consistency between structure plans and local plans is maintained when structure plans are updated, so it is right that we should expect planning decisions to reflect the most recent and up-to-date guidance issued at national and regional level. That must be done by properly weighing all the material considerations and taking everything that is relevant into account.
    The circumstances envisaged by the amendment and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams should not arise. Through national planning guidance, the Secretary of State aims to ensure consistency between planning at the local level and the changing requirements of national policies. The regional guidance ensures consistency on broad cross-border issues that are beyond the scope of individual structure plans.
    At the point when a new up-to-date development plan comes into force, all the relevant national policies should already have been taken into account. When new national or regional policies subsequently emerge that are not in line with the plan content, it is the plan that should be regarded as out of date in that respect. The planning system will not serve us well if those new policies are to be disregarded, because they could not have been taken into account in the earlier plan preparation. Therefore, I cannot agree that amendment No. 137 is either necessary or desirable.
    However, I have been looking at new clauses 9 and 13 and I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced this evening, particularly by my hon. Friends. This is not the first time that we have debated the significance and status of the development plan in considering planning applications. I recognise the concern that has been expressed. It may not be enough for us to use non-statutory guidance to emphasise that we are operating a plan-led system. Given the procedures that have to be gone through to prepare, to consult and to secure agreement for a district plan, I understand the force of the argument that we have heard this evening that the plan
    502
    should be the starting point or the first consideration when one looks at the planning application. I therefore propose to concede new clause 13 when the time comes, but to resist new clause 9.
    However, both new clauses are defective in that they remove the current requirement for the local planning authority to have regard to the development plan. They would also cast doubt on the way in which, for example, enforcement decisions are taken where the same wording as section 70(2) appears. I readily accept that those promoting the new clause do not intend either to downgrade the plan or to cast doubt on other procedures. Their intention is exactly the opposite.
    We shall therefore need to bring forward further amendments to the new clause in another place to achieve the effect desired by its promoters. We must be careful in our amendment not to remove the flexibility in our system that allows the weights to be attached to the various considerations to be determined by the relevance and significance of those considerations.
    I sympathise with all the objectives of all the hon. Members who have spoken today. The Government want the weight given to the development plan increased. The Bill will do that by ensuring that we have all the mechanisms in place to provide a comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date development plan system.
    Mr. Bellotti: If you place more importance on the development plan and if, as time goes on, development or local plans cover more and more of the country, will that lead to the Department turning down more and more appeals? In particular, on this historic day when we have had the launch in Birmingham of the United Kingdom forum for young people and gambling—it is a fact that between 1984 and 1989 two thirds of all appeals made on behalf of amusement arcade owners were upheld by the Department—do you think that we can in future look forward to fewer appeals being upheld and that that forum can look forward to a happier time for young people?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the convention of the House to refer to hon. Members in the third person.
    Mr. Bellotti: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Sir George Young: I do not want to be drawn into a rather narrow debate about amusement arcades, but I hope that we will have fewer appeals as a result of there being more confidence in the local district plan. If one has local up-to-date plans covering the whole country, there will be less need for appeals. Where that exists, it may be that there is less need for the Secretary of State to intervene. I want local plans to have more credibility and the decisions to be devolved down to local authorities. I do not want my Department to have to resolve on appeal a lot of decisions that could best be taken locally.
    New clause 13, suitably amended, may help all those using the planning Acts by ensuring that the right balance between the development plan and other material considerations, including national guidance, is struck.
    Mr. Steen: Let me be clear. There is a local plan which is approved by the county and the district which starts on day one and lasts for five years. During those five years, the Department of the Environment will be issuing PPGs which are sent both to the district council and to the planning inspectors. If there is an appeal from the local plan to a planning inspector, he will look at the local plan

    503
    but will have to have first regard to any new PPG, which therefore will affect the credibility of that local plan and it will constantly be brought to a different stage by the Government introducing PPGs. The PPGs will take precedence.
    Sir George Young: If national policy is changed after the preparation and adoption of the district plan, and if Parliament approves a change in national priorities, yes, the PPGs will then override a local plan. Where there are no such changes in national policy, on the scenario that I have just outlined, the local plan would be the starting point. At the end of the day, Parliament must prevail. It would be wrong for a local district plan prepared before national policy had been changed to be paramount in the circumstances that I described.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: When amendments are considered in another place, would it not be helpful to propose one to clause 13, to require that planning policy guidance notes take the form of statutory instruments? The Minister is saying that policy can be changed without Parliament being responsible or anything being brought before it. The PPGs are simply guidance notes issued by the Department without any scrutiny. If the Minister wants to keep the relationship between district plans and the PPGs, he could surely invoke Parliament's support by abandoning the quasi-legislative status of PPGs and introducing statutory instruments, so that, if right hon and hon. Members believe that requirements are being changed surreptitiously, they can have an opportunity to scrutinise them by putting down a prayer.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and wide-ranging point. He wants to change the way that the planning system operates by submitting the PPGs to parliamentary approval.
    Mr. Wiggin: What a good idea.
    Sir George Young: Whether or not it is a good idea is beside the point. That is certainly not the proposition before the House. If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had been more on the ball, he might have been able to table an amendment that would have done just that.
    Mr. Cryer: I was waiting for the Bill to be considered in another place.
    Sir George Young: The Bill has already been to another place, and the hon. Gentleman may find it difficult at this stage to do as he wishes. I must make it clear that the Government have no plans to change the present procedure. We have always regarded the development plan as important, but circular 14/85 appeared to downgrade it by referring to it as only one of the material considerations. Those days are well behind us. Today's debate should leave no doubt about the importance of the plan-led approach. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Hammersmith to withdraw new clause 9, and the House to assent to new clause 13, when the time comes for it formally to be moved.
    Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I intend to withdraw new clause 9, on the understanding that the
    504
    Government will legislate according to the same principles when the Bill returns to another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 10

    EXPLANATION OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
    `The local planning authority shall provide an explanation in writing of why it does not intend to take enforcement action if it receives a written request from any person who considers that there has been a breach of planning control.'.—[Mr. Soley. I
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 11—Annual review of enforcement provisions—
    `—Every local authority shall include a review of its use of the enforcement provisions contained in the principal Act on the agenda of a full council meeting at least once a year'.'
    Amendment No. 108, in clause 5, page 7, line 3, after
    `(1)',insert
    `Without prejudice to the generality of section (Explanation of enforcement action) below'.
    Amendment No. 109, in clause 10, page 14, line 44, at end insert—
    `(6A) Where the local planning authority refuse an application but do not take enforcement action it shall give to any person who submits a written request an explanation in writing of why the authority does not intend to take such action.'.
    Mr. Soley: New clause 10 addresses the question of enforcement. We argued on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill is weak on enforcement, and we touched on that aspect also when debating the first group of amendments today, when a number of Conservative Members and my hon. Friends confessed concern that a local authority would be unable to enforce a plan.
    We take the view that there is a need to impose a general duty of enforcement so that a local authority would have to enforce a plan, as well as be given the power to grant retrospective planning permission, to deal with exceptional cases, to avoid making the system too bureaucratic and rigid.
    The Government chose to resist that proposal, so we have produced three new clauses. New clause 10 states that the local authority must give an explanation in writing as to why it does not intend to take enforcement action, and new clause 11 requires that every local authority should include a review of its use of the enforcement procedure contained in the principal Act on the agenda of a full council meeting at least once a year. Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 give substance to those arguments.
    8.15 pm
    The issue was spelt out in the Carnwath report, which drew attention to a survey by Jowell and Millichap, which showed that between 75 and 80 per cent. of enforcement actions were initiated by local individuals, parish councils, or local interest groups. That clearly showed that enforcement is not only of concern to local people but is something that local authorities are not willing or able effectively to address. There must be a way of insisting that a local council, as the planning authority, pays attention to the desire of local people to see planning controls enforced.

    505
    As the Government have rejected a wider and more appropriate provision, new clause 10 would at least allow a member of the public to write to a local authority asking why it had not used its enforcement powers in a particular case. That might act as something of a deterrent, and would force the authority to provide an explanation in writing, which could then be made public, taken to a local councillor, and debated in the usual democratic way.
    Under new clause 11, a council would have to debate annually in full council the enforcement action that it has taken. That would provide an additional incentive to ensure that enforcement powers were taken seriously.
    In Committee, and to some extent on Second Reading, great play was made of the ability of local authorities to use their enforcement powers more than they do. At least, that was the Government's view. However, we have heard today from a number of Conservative Back-Benchers that a local authority often feels helpless. One reason why planning officers wanted to introduce the criminalisation clause that would make it possible to invoke criminal law against a developer who had done something without planning permission was that their hands are tied. I regret that the Government have chosen not to take the wider and more effective approach that we wanted and proposed in Committee, but we submit the alternative, albeit weaker, proposals for the House to consider.
    Mr. Vaz: Enforcement is perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill. Although the Committee, on which I served, proceeded on the basis of consensus—apart from one or two divisions on hedgerows—we feel that the Bill should be stronger and tougher, and that is particularly important in respect of enforcement.
    I will mention a number of local issues that are directly related to the sentiments behind new clause 10. They concern developers who breached planning controls, and who got away with it simply because the local authority did not act quickly enough to ensure that those breaches were brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities. There is a feeling in my own constituency that the area has become a developer's paradise. Any piece of land that becomes available is snapped up for housing development.
    In some cases, developers have acted in an irrational and unacceptable way. One such developer is Jelson's. It builds in different parts of the country, but has developed a lot of properties in Leicestershire. Jelson's bought bits of gardens in a part of my constituency described as Humberstone village. The firm would approach local residents and buy up bits of their gardens that were near the main road. When they had acquired enough, they would apply for planning permission to develop the area.
    Exactly a year ago, Jelson's applied for planning permission to build a number of houses. The local authority turned down its application. In breach of the request of the local authority and local residents, the developers then demolished the area. They knew very well that an essential part of the local people's argument would be that the land should be used as a wildlife sanctuary, but, disregarding the direct wishes of those people, they proceeded to act in a cavalier manner.
    A similar example involves Neal Brothers, another firm in my constituency—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, sought to rehearse a catalogue of
    506
    alleged breaches of planning consent in his constituency, we should be here for a very long time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep his remarks brief.
    Mr. Vaz: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to give the details of every breach of planning consent; if I did, I should be here all night, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to rush off to their television sets at 10 pm to learn the result of the Monmouth by-election. I merely wish to give one or two examples—as I said at the outset—of planning breaches, and of the time that it has taken for local authorities to act effectively.
    In the case of Neal Brothers—which involved noise nuisance in the Prestwell road area of my constituency—it took the local authority many months to serve proper notices. It also took many requests from me, and from local councillors, to ensure that meetings took place with the director of planning and other officers. New clause 10 seeks to ensure that local authorities make local people aware of precisely what is happening. If people received letters explaining how long the procedures would take, that would go a long way towards reassuring them about the need for effective planning control.
    Although the Government have strengthened the planning legislation and enforcement action procedures in the Bill—I am delighted that they have done so—and although we understand the jargon behind that legislation, ordinary local residents are still not aware of What is involved. That is why the explanation suggested in new clause 10 is necessary.
    Finally, let me mention the case of Mr. Dawes—not one of my constituents—who lives in Tandridge, Surrey. I was not able to discover the identity of his Member of Parliament because his letter has only just arrived. The letter told me of a development in which the developers had breached planning control: heavy lorries were arriving at 1 am, and residents were arrested when they protested. Mr. Dawes says that Parliament must ensure that local authorities have powers to bring such people to book, so that local residents—the same applies to residents of my constituency, and of all constituencies—can live peacefully within the law.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Given that new clause 10 is, as far as I know, the only new clause that deals with enforcement action, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State a question. I hope that that will be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try hard not to embark on a catalogue of planning cases in my constituency. I shall allude—briefly—to only one.
    In his letter of 13 May to me, my hon. Friend referred to a meeting between his officials and representatives of the District Planning Officers Society which took place in Bristol on 8 April. Among other things, they discussed enforcement, and, in particular, clause 3. The society's representatives asked whether the Bill could be amended to enable a mandatory injunction to be provided by the High Court in response to an actual or threatened breach of planning control.
    I understand that the officials said that they would consult the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that the Government have subsequently decided that the courts should not become involved in the detailed business of remedying breaches of planning control that should

    507
    properly remain the responsibility of the planning authorities. As clause 3 stands, the court is enabled only to restrain a breach of planning control.
    My hon. Friend said that, in his view, the existing powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, taken together with the provisions in clause 3, gave authorities the range of injunctive powers that they were likely to need. If section 222 exists as a means of seeking remedial action, perhaps my right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend; I have promoted him terribly quickly, but I am sure that it will come to him some day soon—will tell us why he thinks that circumstances like those at Gladwish farm, to which I referred on Second Reading, have arisen.
    Does my hon. Friend feel that the Wealden and Rother district councils could have done something that they did not do, given the powers conferred by the 1972 Act? Did they miss that opportunity? If not, can my hon. Friend explain why they have not been able to prevent the sprouting, unsightly development at Gladwish farm? I merely seek clarification: I am not an expert, and nor, I suspect, are most members of the public. I am sure that, when they see such unsightly developments, the public feel a strong desire to know what steps can be taken by planning authorities—and should be taken, if they are on the statute book.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I support the amendment, and press the Government not to reply that it would be "good practice" for local authorities to give writen explanations. I want them to accept that that is really necessary.
    Since I began to represent the Denton part of my constituency, a fair number of constituents have come to tell me about planning disputes with their neighbours. My heart sinks when a constituent comes to me with such a story; it sinks even more when, as I show that constituent out, the next in the queue tells me firmly that he has come to complain about that constituent. I do not know whether Denton is particularly odd in this respect, but I do not seem to have had the same experience in the Stockport part of my constituency.
    I have considerable sympathy for the planning officer who is called in because of a dispute between neighbours that involves a planning matter. Nice, reasonable people suddenly turn into completely unreasonable people when they are involved in such disputes. I get the impression that, on occasion, planning officers—certainly those in Tameside, who are responsible for the Denton area—who see people behaving in a way that they consider unreasonable think that the simplest option is to put their problems at the bottom of the pile, and hope that they will go away. In my experience, that is the worst way to resolve such disputes. In most cases, people must go on living next to each other, and such disputes should be concluded as quickly as possible.
    One neighbour may hope, and go on hoping, that the local authority will take enforcement action. The local authority may know that perhaps it should take action against the other neighbour but hopes that the matter will go away without it doing so. That is a recipe for the conflict to continue festering between the neighbours. The neighbours then involve more and more people in their dispute.
    508
    It would be far better for the planning officer to examine the case and decide whether a breach has taken place and action needs to be taken. He should make a decision either to take action or state that although technically a breach has taken place, it is not considered sufficiently significant to require enforcement action. I press the Minister to make it clear that local authorities should not duck their responsibility. They should be required to give clear, written answers. They should state either that they intend to take enforcement action or that they do not. They should get on with resolving the matter rather than hoping that, if a long time passes, disputes between neighbours over planning matters will disappear. In my experience, they do not disappear; they simply get worse.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with the debate in two parts. First, I shall deal with amendments Nos. 108 and 109 and new clause 10 together; then I shall come on to new clause 11.
    Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 and new clause 10 would require the local planning authority to reply in writing to any written request that the authority may receive from a person who thinks that there has been a breach of planning control, to explain why it does not intend to take enforcement action. That would include any case where the authority has refused to grant a lawful development certificate, under the new section 191 contained in clause 10, in respect of an existing use.
    I appreciate that the amendments are inspired by good intentions. We are all batting in the same direction. We accept that the citizen is entitled to know why local government decisions are taken. Indeed, we are very much in favour of the maximum amount of accountability. However, we cannot accept the amendments and new clause.
    It is hard to imagine the circumstances in which a local planning authority would deliberately refuse to reply in writing to any reasonable written request for information about an enforcement decision. The sole exception might be the persistent, frivolous or busy-bodying correspondent—with which I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar—whose object is to create difficulties for the authority or for the owner or occupier of a site who may be falsely accused of a breach of control.
    We naturally agree that all councils should respond helpfully and promptly to all requests for information about how they carry out any of their functions, not only in planning matters, but it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement specifically singling out their planning enforcement activities. If any request for information is made by a member of the public, or any amenity or civic organisation, it is up to the authority to respond, to the satisfaction of the people it represents, whatever the inquiry may be.
    Mr. Vaz: Does not the Minister feel that the sentiments behind the new clause square with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister about the need for a citizens' charter giving people new rights in their dealings with local authorities?
    Mr. Yeo: No, I do not. As I have just said, I believe that the majority of local authorities will respond helpfully and courteously to reasonable written requests for information about the reasons for planning decisions. I am aware from

    509
    my experience in my constituency and from discussions on planning issues with hon. Members from both sides of the House that planning issues tend to attract an element of people who are somewhat fanatical. Such people continue to correspond long after issues have been closed beyond any possible further consideration. To lay a statutory duty on the local authority, as the new clause seeks to do, would be an onerous requirement.
    Mr. Soley: We all know of cases such as the Minister is thinking of, but his argument is not a good one. The new clause simply says that a reason must be given in writing. Once the local authority had given a reason in writing, it would not be required to respond to every subsequent letter. It would merely be required to make the reason clear on one occasion.
    Mr. Yeo: That would be helpful in respect of repetitive requests from the same individual, but many planning issues are the subject of petitions. The availability of word processors and the ease with which circular letters can be signed may mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of requests could be made for a reason for a single decision.
    Mr. Vaz: What about the rights of citizens?
    Mr. Yeo: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks from a sedentary position about the rights of citizens. If an inquirer is dissatisfied with the response from the local authority or cannot obtain a reply, he or she can pursue that request with an elected representative such as a councillor or, indeed, a Member of Parliament. Alternatively, if the inquirer believes that the authority's inaction amounts to maladministration, he can arrange to have the case referred to the Commissioner for Local Administration.
    Mr. Vaz: That is the whole point. To refer the matter to the ombudsman takes such a long time. However, if the authority had a statutory obligation to reply to a citizen who wrote to request an explanation, the matter could be dealt with quickly. The other avenues that the Minister suggests would add to the delay. One of the objectives of hon. Members on both sides of the House is to reduce the delays inherent in the planning legislation.
    Mr. Yeo: I do not suggest that everyone should immediately have recourse to the local government ombudsman. However, there are several avenues for taking action of varying degrees of severity and importance. They are open to anyone who feels that the local authority is not responding in a helpful or responsible manner. There have been cases in which the local ombudsman has been willing to criticise maladministration in planning enforcement matters. In some cases, financial compensation has been recommended for people who suffered injustice as a result of a local authority's inaction.
    It is clear from what I have said that the Government believe that the amendments are unnecessary, and they might result in unprofitable use of the scarce resources of planning authorities. Indeed, in earlier debates today and in Committee, anxieties were expressed by both Conservative and Opposition Members that local authorities are in some cases fully stretched by their enforcement role. Therefore, we must be mindful of the need to avoid imposing any unnecessary burdens on them.
    510
    Local authorities might have to divert resources which would have been more effectively used for direct enforcement action.
    We do not have evidence that councils are reluctant or refuse to explain why they decided not to take enforcement action. Needless to say, that does not imply that the explanation given always satisfies the person who seeks it. I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, the Opposition will consider it right to withdraw their amendment so that we can leave the matter to the sense of the elected members and the officers of the authority involved.
    New clause 11 would require the full council of every local planning authority, at least once a year, to review the way in which the authority exercises the enforcement provisions in part VII of the 1990 Act, as they will be amended by the Bill.
    We appreciate that this amendment is intended to keep local authorities on their toes in enforcement matters—an objective that we share. We accept that councils ought to monitor their procedures for taking planning enforcement action, but we believe that councils should exercise discretion about how best to do so. We do not believe that Parliament should impose on every local authority the statutory extra burden that the amendment involves.
    There is apparently no good reason for singling out the planning enforcement provisions in this way and treating them differently from other local government functions. Nor is it essential, or appropriate, for the full council to conduct the proposed review. The council's planning committee, which has the day-to-day experience, might be a better review mechanism. If it is felt that some overview is needed, the council's policy and resources committee might be as well suited to the task, especially if priority in the use of scarce materials is one of the factors to be taken into consideration.
    The House will know that all councils have adequate powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to delegate powers to officers. It seems unnecessary to impose a further statutory duty on authorities, when members or officers can already carry out regular reviews of their functions to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. There are already strong financial pressures on councils to operate efficiently and to be accountable to their electorate.
    During discussion of some of the enforcement amendments in Standing Committee, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred, I undertook that we would issue a planning policy guidance note about enforcement policy. We aim to issue this note after consultation on a draft to coincide with the commencement of the new enforcement powers in clauses 1 to 11. This will give local authorities a further stimulus to examine their use of these provisions and, if necessary, to strengthen and improve their practical operation.
    We understand that Opposition Members and, indeed, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which inspired some of these concerns, want to see an effective enforcement regime in place in every local authority area. That is an objective that we entirely share. However, we think that the nannying approach of the amendment is inappropriate. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not press it further.
    I owe a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), who posed a very specific inquiry. I have to be careful about any comment on the

    511
    case that he raised, lest there be any outstanding enforcement appeals. We think that it might have been possible for Wealden district council to seek an injunction under the 1972 Act. Indeed, that may still be practicable. If my hon. Friend wants a more detailed response, I shall be happy to write to him and, if necessary, place a copy of the reply in the Library.
    The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) raised a number of cases that he had mentioned during the Second Reading debate. However, he also dredged up a new one. I can tell him that Tandridge is represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). It is very easy to establish which constituencies various places are in, and it would have been a courtesy to inform my right hon. and learned Friend that the matter would be raised.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 112.

    Division No. 147]

    [8.41 pm

    AYES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bellotti, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Meale, Alan

    Boateng, Paul

    Nellist, Dave

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cox, Tom

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Cryer, Bob

    Prescott, John

    Dixon, Don

    Sillars, Jim

    George, Bruce

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Soley, Clive

    Gordon, Mildred

    Spearing, Nigel

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Wallace, James

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Haynes, Frank

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Keith Vaz.

    Kennedy, Charles

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Dunn, Bob

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Amos, Alan

    Freeman, Roger

    Arbuthnot, James

    Gale, Roger

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Ashby, David

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Baldry, Tony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bellingham, Henry

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Benyon, W.

    Hague, William

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Bowis, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hayward, Robert

    Brazier, Julian

    Hind, Kenneth

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

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hunter, Andrew

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Irvine, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Jack, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Janman, Tim

    Chope, Christopher

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Knowles, Michael

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

    Lightbown, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Maclean, David

    512

    Mans, Keith

    Sims, Roger

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Speller, Tony

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mills, Iain

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Moate, Roger

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Page, Richard

    Warren, Kenneth

    Paice, James

    Watts, John

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Wilshire, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wood, Timothy

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

    Shersby, Michael

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New clause 12

    GENERAL DUTY OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
    `It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local planning authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to have regard to the desirability of securing sustainable development.'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 132, in clause 14, page 24, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
    Mr. Griffiths: Before we consider the new clause, for the sake of clarity, I wish to underline our welcome for a number of the important steps that the Government have made by seeking to introduce some environmentally important matters into the Bill. However, virtually all of them were introduced after pressure from some Conservative Back Benchers as well as the Opposition—for example, the introduction of environmental assessment, the concession which the Government have just made on development plan priority and the important step which I mentioned earlier on interim development orders, when I underlined that we thought that the Government had not gone far enough.
    We are in a similar position on sustainable development. The Government took on board a number of important environmental considerations, but unfortunately they were not prepared to move when we tried to press several matters which would have further improved the Bill in Committee. Yet the previous Secretary of State
    is on record as saying:
    "The planning system is in many ways the most effective tool of environmental management available to us."
    We agree with what the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) had to say about the planning system.
    We know that public concern about the environment is increasing and we were hoping that when the Bill first came to the Lords the Government would have been leading the way by introducing environmental considerations into the

    513
    planning process. However, in Committee we found that, when we wanted to place an environmental duty on local planning authorities, the Government were not prepared to take that on, even though, in nine other instances, such a duty had been placed on other bodies0 through legislation.
    The Government were not prepared to take a further step, from introducing environmental assessments for specific planning proposals, to get local authorities to use environmental assessment techniques when drawing up structure plans, even though there have been preliminary proposals for such developments through European legislation.
    The Government were not prepared to require local authorities to survey the natural resources within their area —water, minerals and the use of energy; nor were they prepared to accept the inclusion of policies for the conservation of energy and natural resources in development plans. The Government were not prepared to extend to other areas of environmental concern the present requirements for local authorities to use planning permission to minimise the impact of development on trees.
    We have been considering some other way which we think will be consonant with the Government's declared objective. We hope that we have found it in the amendment, and that they will be willing to accept greater concern for environmental matters in the planning process. We want to place a general duty on local authorities to have regard to the benefits of securing sustainable development, which is in line with the Government's previously declared objectives. A precedent in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill states that Scottish Natural Heritage
    "shall have regard to the desirability of securing that any thing done, whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable."
    The concept of sustainable development has been with us for some years. It is at the heart of much national and international thinking on environment policy and was the key plank of the Brundtland report, "Our Common Future", which gives a definition of sustainable development as
    "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
    Sustainable development is not a policy of no growth but a policy that says that growth is necessary and desirable, provided it can be done in a sustainable way. Economic development must be matched to the environmental and other resources that are available. In their response to the Brundtland report, the Government expressly accepted that principle and said that the Government
    "fully intends to continue building on this approach and further to develop policies consistent with the concept of sustainable development."
    The Government confirmed the relevance of the planning system to sustainable development by stating that the United Kingdom's planning legislation had already put in place some of the policies needed to achieve it.
    Introducing the Government's response to the report, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said:
    "At the Toronto Summit last month, I joined with my fellow Heads of State or Government in endorsing the concept of sustainable development, the central message of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development—Our Common Future…The message from the Toronto Summit echoed the Report's call for environmental considerations to be taken into account in all areas of economic policy making."
    514
    9 pm
    That was in July 1988, but the Government's positive approach to sustainable development was reaffirmed in the environment White Paper which was published last September. That document identified it as the foundation of policy making, and said:
    "The starting point for this Government is the ethical imperative of stewardship…We have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order to future generations. That is what the experts mean when they talk of `sustainable development': not sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today."
    We must put a proper value on the natural world. It would be odd to cherish a Constable but not the landscape that he depicted. The foundation stone of all the policies in the White Paper is our responsibility to future generations to preserve and enhance the environment of our country and our planet. Statements made several times by the Government show that they wish to take initiatives to further the achievement of sustainable development and that they recognise the role of the planning system in achieving those aims.
    We hope that the Government will give new clause 12 a fair wind, as it would be crucial in helping them to further their aims. Although we have had no indication of their thinking on the matter, given its background and their statements made in support of the concept of sustainable development, we hope that they will accept the new clause and place a general duty on local authorities to have regard to sustainable development when considering all planning matters.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to detain the House long, as many hon. Members wish to return to their constituencies. We all cherish our constituencies, and when one considers what has happened in the past 15 years we learn to cherish them even more. My constituency is still beautiful and contains a large area of outstanding natural beauty. The scale of development leads me to conclude that new clause 12 is well worth supporting, for the reasons so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
    Too often in the past, people have opposed development in areas of natural beauty because they suffer from the NIMBY—"not in my backyard"—syndrome. That has been true in the past 15 or 20 years, when we have seen an explosion in development. It is only natural that people should want to protect what they believe is their special view or their special environment, but there are much wider considerations, as we learn to cherish and treasure what we still have left of our environment. It is concern for those considerations that motivates me, and I believe that I speak on behalf of many of my constituents as they watch the extent and pace of development, which not only may be ugly from an architectural point of view but may jeopardise the environment itself.
    As development proceeds apace, our roads become congested. Our infrastructure—our schools and railways—become inadequate. That puts pressure on other Government Departments and on councils responsible for budgets in respect of private development and education.
    Mr. Speed: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in his part of the world and mine, the shortage of water represents a very real constraint on such widespread development?
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, of which, as an angler, I am

    515
    well aware. One has only to look around at some of our reservoirs in the south-east and to note the fall in the water table to realise that we are placing in serious jeopardy the water supply that future generations will enjoy.
    I shall not elaborate. I think that I have made my point, and I merely ask the Government to respond.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I happened to come through the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) yesterday. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I merely went through and admired it on my way to somewhere else. I understand the hon. Gentleman's attachment to preserving what is best about Sussex and many other counties.
    The Government could easily incorporate the important statement of principle that is proposed. In doing so, they would not merely confirm the statements that they have made about the general attitude that should govern all environmental policies; they would add something practical to planning legislation.
    At the moment, the duties in planning law fall on the Secretary of State—on the Government—or on local authorities. As I understand it, there is nothing in current planning law that requires that all the various jobs done by Ministers in exercising their powers and by local authorities should be compatible with the aim of upholding sustainable development. For example, it is not a prerequisite of the function of a local authority in drawing up a unitary development plan that all the policies therein should be compatible with sustainable development. When a local authority considers a planning application, whether for mineral extraction, for building a reservoir, or for a housing or industrial development, it is not a requirement that it must take account of the concept of sustainability. Similarly, it is not a requirement of Secretaries of State, in deciding planning applications that are remitted to them, that they should decide whether those applications are consistent with sustainability.
    If we write such a requirement into law, we shall be filling a gap. It is no good saying that Ministers and local authorities will impute that requirement to the legislation because, if they do not, there is nothing that anyone can do by way of redress; there can be no argument.
    There are obvious practical examples. I am not sure whether there have been such examples in Sussex, but there was a controversial case not long ago in Oxfordshire—very near, in fact, to the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was proposed to build a large new residential development in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside. The compatibility of such a proposal with sustainable development raises all sorts of proper questions. For example, is such a development near existing transport routes or will further routes have to be built to service the new town, whether near Henley or near Thame, perhaps with the countryside being destroyed in their wake?
    We are talking not only about a statement of principle but about the Government's general commitment, which they now have a chance to enshrine in legislation. It is not just, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rightly reminded the House, that the Government have already adopted, in legislation that has gone through the House in this Session of Parliament in the Natural Heritage
    516
    (Scotland) Bill, a very similar set of words reflecting the concept of sustainability. It is a test, in one of the most practical areas, of doing something about it.
    The planning law, the powers that we give to those able to influence the planning of our communities, the structural planning of what is built, what is destroyed and the rest, require sustainability. It is no good believing that we can have sustainable economics—from which the Government are still a long way removed—or a sustainable transport or energy policy, unless the simple step is first taken of having a sustainable planning policy reflecting sustainable development.
    So, without knowing exactly what the Government will offer in defence, it is anticipated that it will be said that this is unnecessary because structure plans and guidance issued by the Secretary of State will not make specific legislation a requirement. If that is to be the Minister's answer, I must say that it is not explicitly in legislation, it does not explicitly govern the duties on local and central Government and it is not necessarily enough that it is in guidance notes in read-between-the-lines script. If we cannot have it here, the Government will go into the next election—it is not a point that is any more advantageous to me than it is disadvantageous to the hon. Member for Wealden—with the accusation able to be made against them that they had an opportunity to state and implement their commitment to sustainability but did not take it.
    Even if it requires the Minister to throw away his present speech and concede that it is a good idea, that he is under pressure and that the Government should have said yes, I hope that he will so concede.
    Mr. Steen: I believe that it is recognised on this side of the House that, for the first time in 20 years, a major planning Bill has come before the House. I resent the view expressed by many of my hon. Friends and colleagues that the Bill should be speeded up because we all want to go home. We do not want to go home. This is a very important debate about a very important matter which affects millions of people in the south and the north of this country. Constituents all over Britain will be affected by this planning Bill. It is a very important Bill and I find it extremely disappointing that the Government are so intransigent as to say that no changes can be made. The Government should be making changes and this is a very important series of amendments.
    The new clause tabled by the Opposition talks about sustainable development. It is a matter that has been discussed for the past five or six years as the earth's resources have become scarcer. At the same time, amendment 132 in the name of some of my hon. Friends deals with page 24, line 4, of the Bill and asks the Secretary of State to change the word "may" to "shall", so that the Secretary of State shall make regulations to ensure that the environmental impact is considered by planning committees. How harmless that would be, and how important it would be to constituents all over the country who feel that the planning committee and the planning officials are not giving sufficient emphasis to the effect of development on the environment.
    It is all very well having local plans—we all agree that local plans are a good thing. It is all very well having PPGs and saying that they keep the thing running and take precedence over the local plan. But why can there not be

    517
    in local plans a recognition of the environmental impact of building houses and ruining green field sites? Why cannot the environmental consequences be considered?
    Why are the Government so resistant to any change whatsoever in this Bill? This is an opportunity that may not occur for another 10 years for the Government, being concerned about the environment, to take a lead instead of always acting because the EC has said that action must be taken. The EC has said that the environmental impact is important. Clause 14 says that the Government may introduce regulations when considering the environmental effects of developments. Why not take a lead and change "may" to "shall"?
    Dr. Godman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we in Scotland are familiar with environmental impact assessments of developments, particularly developments involving the offshore and onshore oil and gas industries.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is nothing new about what is proposed and the Minister may say that it is not needed, but the House may take a different view, and I urge the Minister to take advantage of being able to say, as we cannot say, that he considers this important, - that he is concerned for the Government's reputation of being concerned with green issues and that he is anxious to do something about it. My instinct tells me that he will not do that, and I want to know why.
    I want to be able to tell my constituents why, in towns such as Ivybridge, which has grown from 1,500 to 13,000 people today, there are not sufficient school places, why the police do not have sufficient police cover, and why the leisure facilities are inadequate. That state of affairs exists not because South Hams district council has not done a fine job, but because the local authority has not had the resources to deal with, nor was any assessment made of the impact on the environment and infrastructure of', that speed of development.
    The town of Roborough, just outside Plymouth, was built first and then thought was given to what the town needed, such as a police station, a school and health care. The amendment would make sure that before local authorities gave planning permission, regard would be given to whether there was enough water for the people, whether the electricity company could cope with providing power to the new homes and whether the gas board and all the other services could provide the necessary facilities.
    The little town of Kingsbridge in South Devon was built so quickly that the electricity substation could not cope. The public house at Stokenham, five miles away, is constantly being plunged into darkness because the electricity supply cannot be maintained. It may be romantic occasionally to dine by candelight, but the owner of that public house finds life intolerable. He cannot cook meals because he cannot rely on having power, and often he is unable to see his customers. He has candles constantly burning because the electricity substation cannot cope. That is the environmental impact argument at work.
    If local authorities were told that before agreeing to allow more houses to be built, even if they are included on the local plan, they must ensure that public services can be provided, many difficulties would be avoided. For example, they must ensure that the necessary school places
    518
    are available for the kids who will live in the new homes. Such an approach would result from changing "may" to "shall" in clause 14.
    Many of my hon. Friends and I want a firming up of the Government attitude to regulating the speed at which development takes place. If there is a defect in the amendment, at least let the Minister agree to do something about the problem with which it attempts to deal. A prior consideration to all development, even if it is in the local plan, must be the ability of the infrastructure to cope with it. That must be a priority.
    I apologise to the House for speaking for so long, but the matter is of great interest to me, to my constituents and, as can be seen by the number of hon. Members present, to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall give three examples in support of the new clause. The first is in an area of my constituency that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know well—Audenshaw. However, I suspect that if you returned to your childhood area, you would find amazing changes. Over the past five or six years, many open spaces have been built on because the local authority has had to agree to planning applications from local builders because it had no reason to turn them down. It turned down a couple of applications, but the builders appealed against the decision and won their case.
    The result of all that building is that Audenshaw now has insufficient places in the local primary schools to accommodate the children from the new housing developments. Some of the schools in Audenshaw are fairly old—at least two of the primary schools date back to before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, attended schools in the area—and can no longer cope with the large influx of children.
    The local authority could not have turned down the planning applications for new houses on the basis that it would have insufficient places in the schools to cater for the increased population. It must now cope with the ridiculous position of no longer having enough suitable land on which to build new schools. Other areas within Audenshaw have been put under stress as a result of the substantial number of houses that have been built in the area. The local authority should have had the opportunity to consider how many extra houses Audenshaw could take and what other facilities should be put in place before the houses were built.
    My second example is the development of supermarkets and do-it-yourself garden centres in Greater Manchester. Planning permission has now been granted to so many such establishments on the south and east sides of Manchester that they are no longer sustainable. Their success will certainly be to the detriment of groups of shops on housing estates and corner stores, on which the elderly and disabled rely because they cannot drive to the large supermarkets for their shopping.
    The approval of planning permission for so many large stores means that some of them, inevitably, will not survive. It may be the philosophy of the Conservative party that such competition is perfectly all right and that it is perfectly acceptable if some stores close down in the future, leaving abandoned and derelict sites. It is not acceptable to me. Planning authorities should be able to take account of how many supermarkets and garden centres are sustainable in an area without reorganising the infrastructure to take account of competitive demands.
    Mr. Steen: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. he is saying that local plans should be approved and enforced but that the pace of development in an area should be gauged by the planning committee, according to how much development can be sustained.
    Mr. Bennett: We should not allow the overprovision of shopping in a district because it will inevitably mean that some of the shops cannot be sustained, which will have a major impact on different groups of people. If local shops on housing estates close, car owners probably do not have a problem, but pensioners and those without cars, such as the disabled, have a major problem. That means that the local authority or another organisation will have to try to obtain home helps to do the shopping for the elderly, which will have considerable cost implications for the local authority. I could develop that point at some length, but I am trying to be brief.
    I deeply regret that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill became an Act. I hope that we do not see any more such private Bills. I fear that, with Government proposals for the privatisation of ports and if private business procedure is reformed, a series of planning applications for the development of some of the ports affected by the ports legislation could come before local authorities. One can make out a case for almost all those ports to expand, not on the basis that this country is to have more imports and exports going through its ports, but simply because one port can take business away from another port.
    There should be a limit to that sort of competition, particularly if it means that, each time one of the ports wants to expand, it has to take up a piece of estuary or mudflat—natural habitat that is already in scarce supply. We must make some attempt to look at this country as a whole. We must consider the level of dock development necessary for the country to be sustained and once we have reached that level, we should say that, although it may be nice for Hartlepool, Felixstowe or Southampton to take trade from each other, we do not want competition so that one port takes trade from another, a little bit more estuary disappears and more dockland becomes derelict. We want a sustainable, planned level of port activity, which minimises the amount of natural environment that is destroyed and offers this country some prospect of sustainable development to protect our natural environment for future generations—as outlined in the White Paper.
    Mr. Cryer: New clause 12 is of great importance, because development should be sustainable. However, at present, local authority planning committees cannot use that as a relevant factor when making decisions on planning consent. If local councillors say to their officials, "Let's see if this development is sustainable in secure financial terms before we consider giving consent to the developers, so that we are not left with a half-completed development and a pile of rubble on our hands, with the local authority left to pick up the pieces," the officials will almost certainly reply that that is not a planning matter. They will probably say, "If you councillors decide that planning consent should be deferred, the developer may say that that is deemed as refusal and go to court for a judicial review." No one wants to become involved in that procedure, because it is expensive and weighs heavily on the local authorities.
    In Bradford, the west end development scheme started off as a fairly modest development involving about £60
    520
    million, but the cost has now increased to £300 million and the project includes the proposed demolition and conversion of a perfectly good multiscreen cinema of long-standing—now called the Odeon, formerly the New Victoria—and the part or whole demolition of a co-operative shop based on the designs of Eric Mendelson. The cognoscenti will know that Mendelson was a distinguished pre-war architect who developed a clean, classical, functional, modern line, of which the Bradford Sunwin house co-operative store remains a splendid but isolated national example.
    The local authority decided that a firm called 3Ds Ltd. should be the developer. The company has 100 £1 shares, which does not seem to be the soundest basis on which to embark on a development of about £300 million. The company has made it absolutely clear that it depends on city grant for the sustainability of the development but city grant is not negotiated with the local authority, as the Minister knows. The local authority is excluded from the negotiations, which are conducted exclusively between Department of the Environment officials and the developer. Therefore, if the developer is not sustained—let us suppose that the Department of the Environment misjudges and the project falls—who picks up the pieces? The local authority picks up the pieces, but it has been excluded from the beginning. If it raises the question of the sustainability of the development, it is not allowed to pursue it, which is why the new clause is important.
    9.30 pm
    Let us consider another aspect of city grant and sustainability. Let us suppose, as in the west end scheme in Bradford, that the developer says that he needs £40 million. That is almost all the city grant award, which currently runs at £65 million or £60 million. Let us suppose that, as in this case, the developer has stitched up a deal with Department of Environment officials who say that they cannot award £40 million now but will do so over a period of years. The only application being considered at the time is £5 million of city grant. The Department of the Environment will not answer questions relating to the rest of the £35 million application.
    City grant's criteria require housing to be incorporated, but the first section that has been applied for does not include housing. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the local authority to inquire whether the Department of the Environment will give city grant to incorporate housing and to fulfill the criteria in future "tranches"—a buzz word in these affairs—of city grant. However, the Department of the Environment will not even say whether any other applications are being considered, so the sustainability of the project must be open to question.
    If the local authority raised the issue of the sustainability of the rolling programme to complete the £300 million development—I am fairly sure, but not certain, that it did—it would be told that that was not a planning aspect to be taken into consideration. After all, if planning consent is given, 3Ds Ltd. might sell it the next day to another developer. In that limited, narrow context, this is not a relevant factor, but it should be because development in the city of Bradford should benefit the people of Bradford. The local authority should be able to scrutinise developments and to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that the finance is there.
    What is even more worrying is the fact that, of the 100 £1 shares of 3Ds Ltd., 30 are issued to a firm called Old

    521
    Court Ltd., which is registered in Guernsey. I made a request that the planning committee should inquire into the firm to find out why one third of the shares were held in secret, with a complete lack of accountability. Does the firm have adequate resources? What is the financial position, and can the firm sustain the development and ensure that the local authority is not left with piles of rubble from the demolition work in the first phase because the firm has gone into liquidation? Although my letter was read out to the planning committee, I was told that it was not a planning matter and that those points would not be taken into account.
    The secret of the 30 £1 shares remained, until I saw the March issue of Labour Research, in which there was an article on firms profiting from pornography. It listed a number of companies involved in pornographic publications. One is a firm called Old Court Ltd., registered in Guernsey, which produces Penthouse and Forum.1t lists another firm called Power Radio Ltd., whose publications include Cheap Thrills and Electric Blue.
    In the first phase of development, there is an Omnimax cinema. I wonder what sort of cinema the developers have in mind, in view of the background information. Such information should have been available to the planning committee so that it could examine scrupulously, as it wished to, the sustainability of the west end scheme.
    Although some modest infill development in the west end of Bradford may be possible and desirable, the £300 million scheme, with the demolition of a splendid cinema and a perfectly well-designed co-operative shop is neither desirable nor needed. One aspect of scrutiny is consideration by the planning committee of the local authority, which includes elected representatives to exercise a degree of control. If the new clause is not accepted, that possibility remains limited.
    I have raised strong reservations about the west: end scheme. I have been informed that there will be scrutiny at the planning stage. However, because of the narrow interpretation of what planning scrutiny is, the scrutiny by the local authority, especially in association with city grant—the Government have deliberately cut out local authorities from the discussion process—is limited.
    I hope that all aspects can be taken into fair account in the planning committee's meetings, which are open to the general public. I hope that councillors will have the fullest information so that they can be guided on a wider basis by local authority officials. For that to happen, the new clause will have to be accepted. That would help local democracy, rather than hinder it and it would help planning procedures rather than hinder them.
    On a wider basis, as hon. Members of all parties have said, important environmental decisions could be taken into account so that developments are sustainable. Planning decisions should not be dealt with in the short term, with local authorities often having to pick up the pieces because planning decisions are translated into schemes that are not sustainable.
    Sir George Young: This has been a useful debate on environmental matters, in which a number of hon. Members have displayed their environmental credentials. I speak as a paid-up member of the Ealing branch of Friends of the Earth. With my wife, I am being sponsored on a tandem ride to Hever castle later this month to raise funds for a friendly and earthy group of people.
    522
    The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) welcomed some of the moves that the Government have made in the Bill, although he said that we could have gone further. When we have resisted amendments, it has often not been because we oppose what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. We have simply found better ways of doing it than putting it into primary legislation. Often the difference has been on the means rather than on the ends.
    I listened to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). We all have a responsibility to hand over our constituency—I hope that it will not be for a long time in his case—in the same beautiful condition in which we inherited it. He developed a theme, which was echoed by other hon. Members, that, when one makes a district plan, each ingredient, such as housing, education, water and sewerage should be consistent with the others.
    In a sense, the whole point of having a district plan is so that one does not build housing in isolation. One has a five-year plan that sets out the demands of the various statutory undertakers so that one has a planned cohesive development. I will say in a moment or two what we outline in PPG3 about infrastructure and the problems of reconciling all the different parts. I would not dissent from the general thesis of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall make a point of saying in a few moments that the amendment is unnecessary, because I know that he would be disappointed if I did not use those words.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) accused the Government of being intransigent. He is unfair in this case. His amendment No. 132 is an amendment to clause 14, which the Government included in the Bill in response to pressure in Committee—a concession from the Government on environmental assessment which my hon. Friend seeks to drive a stage further. So perhaps that is not the best example to allege that the Government are intransigent.
    I listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He said that there should be a coherent approach so that all the infrastructure pieces fall neatly into place. I think that I am right in saying that the House is looking at the relationship between environmental assesment and private Bills.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in an ingenious speech, developed the word "sustainability" in a sense that no one else had suggested. He spoke of financial sustainability, while everyone else was talking about environmental sustainability. In a sense, he may have done some damage to those tabling the amendments simply by casting doubt on what is meant by sustainability.
    At first glance, new clause 12 appears beguiling and unexceptionable. As an expression of principle, I could not find fault with it. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, in the environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" last year, the Government made clear their view that the concept of sustainable developments must guide our approach to the custody and use of the world's resources.
    On a general level, the term "sustainable development" can be defined in a number of ways. The White Paper described sustainable development as
    "living on the earth's income rather than eroding its capital…keeping the consumption of renewable natural resources within the limits of their replenishment"
    and

    523
    "handing down to successive generations not only man-made wealth…but also natural wealth, such as clean and adequate water supplies, good arable land, a wealth of wild life and ample forests."
    In other words, we should not sacrifice tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today.
    The Brundtland report, "Our Common Future", quoted by the hon. Member for Bridgend, defines the principle in similar terms as
    "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
    I suspect that all hon. Members would accept those as general acceptable descriptions of the principle. But even laudable general principles do not always translate well into legislation, and I think that that was the case here. The difficulty arises when we consider just how the requirement in the new clause would work in practice on a day-to-day basis.
    Local planning authorities are already statutorily required, when dealing with planning applications, to have regard to the material provisions of the development plan and to all other material considerations. Schedule 3 provides that local plans must include policies for conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the land, and for improving the physical environment. Every development proposal will therefore be considered in the context of those policies.
    New clause 12 would introduce a wholly new element into the determination of every development proposal. Each planning application would be subjected to the test of whether it secured sustainable development. That would substantially and unacceptably unbalance the planning system, conflicting with the thesis on which it has always operated—that development proposals should be allowed unless they would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
    The hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill which contains a similar provision to that suggested here. That is designed to guide the actions of a particular body—Scottish Natural Heritage. Because it has a statutory duty to weigh all material considerations before reaching a decision on a planning application, the position of the local authorities and the Secretary of State is different from that of Scottish Natural Heritage, which has a narrower remit.
    In practice, as we have seen from the debate just now, new clause 12 would attract differing interpretations of what sustainable development means. It would leave much room for subjective assessments, not only by decision-makers but by those affected by proposed development. That would be likely to lead to many more unresolved conflicts of opinion and an increase in the number of planning appeals. Some local planning authorities could use the proposed new provision unscrupulously to prevent development that they wanted to block for any reason.
    One could argue that any development that uses aggregates is not a sustainable development because there is a finite supply of aggregates. There is difficulty in saying to an authority that, with each application, it must—whatever the terms of the new clause—have regard to the desirability of securing suitable sustainable development. One could use that to knock out almost any development.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that the concerns that he expressed can be met by planning guidance or planning circulars. If the Government make a statement of principle in the Bill, as they have in planning
    524
    legislation since the war, it can be amplified and clarified by circulars and guidance—which can be the subject of consultation before being issued. Individual decisions would then be compatible with that general requirement, and a local authority would not need to have regard to sustainability as one of the requirements that it must observe. The Minister did not cite an existing example, and I suspect that that is because none exists.
    9.45 pm
    Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that local authorities should have a general duty to promote sustainable development, that is a thesis with which we can all agree. However, new clause 12 suggests that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of local planning authorities, in discharging any of their functions, to have regard to the desirability of sustainable development. A local authority could use that to reject any development it chose, on the ground that it was not sustainable.
    Mr. Hughes indicated dissent.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey shakes his head, but if one includes such a provision in primary legislation, local planning authorities will have a perfect opportunity to block just about anything they wanted.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Is not the Minister using an extreme example? He knows that such a practice would quickly be countered by planning guidance from his Department, if needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested the use of a statutory instrument procedure as a way of keeping us all involved in the process. The Minister is trying to excuse himself from accepting what he knows to be a perfectly good principle, by citing an extreme example.
    Sir George Young: I have made it clear that I have no difficulty with the principle. The Government have already signed up to it—I quoted the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman is on dangerous ground when he suggests that it does not matter if the legislation is slightly wrong, because it could be corrected by guidance. The whole thrust of the debate earlier today was that a number of my hon. Friends do not like the prospect of the Government using PPGs to change the planning system. The hon. Member for Bridgend must make up his mind whether he wants the Government to put things right by way of PPGs, or whether he is more interested in putting sensible legislation on the statute book.
    I sympathise with the aim underlying the new clause. The Government wholeheartedly support the concept of sustainable development—we are on record as saying so. Such an expression of general principle is useful to inform and guide the development of Government policy on environment matters. However, the new clause would give rise to intractable practical difficulties. Its apparent innocuousness is deceptive. Whatever is put on the statute book must have a discernible intention, and interpretation of the clause would inevitably be open to abuse.
    Mr. Steen: If the Minister cannot accept sustainable development, does he not agree that clause 14—which, as he pointed out, the Government inserted, and for which I am grateful—provides an easier way to proceed? It provides, very simply, that the Secretary of State may

    525
    make regulations about the environmental impact of any proposed development. He need merely change the word "may" to "shall", and get on with it.
    Sir George Young: Perhaps I can get on with it and deal with amendment 132, which requires the Secretary of State to make regulations under clause 14. As I said a moment ago, clause 14 was added in Committee, following careful consideration of the points made in several debates on environmental assessment in another place, and by hon. Members on both sides of this House on Second Reading. The clause provides an enabling power under which the Secretary of State can make regulations requiring environmental assessment of classes of development before planning permission is granted. Such regulations may make provision similar to that made in the regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, which implement the EC directive on environmental assessment.
    We agreed to the inclusion of the clause because we support the principle that, where a development project is likely to have significant environmental effects, those effects ought to be assessed before the project is permitted to go ahead, and because we also accept that the existing Community directive may not cover all kinds of project that are likely to have significant environmental effects, and which ought therefore to be the subject of assessment. But the coverage of the EC directive, and of the implementing regulations, is very full, so we do not expect it to be necessary to cover many types of project in regulations under the clause. If hon. Members consult "Environmental Assessment: A Guide to the Procedures", and the annexes in particular, they will note that most of the developments to which environmental assessment is appropriate are already included. The types are set out at the back. The reason why we included that is that some projects may fall outside it.
    It is too early to say what kinds of project might be included in regulations under the clause. That is why we prefer the permissive option to the compulsion suggested in the amendment.
    We have undertaken that the Government will consult those concerned before making such regulations. A number of suggestions have been made both in this House and in another place, and we will of course be looking at them. The principal criteria must be whether projects of the types in question are likely to have significant environmental effects, and whether they are already covered by the existing directive. The scope of the directive is, after all, very wide and the types of project that it covers already require assessment by virtue of the regulations implementing it.
    A final consideration relates to activities that are subject to the internationally competitive market. Our objective is to maintain a level playing field throughout the Community and in such cases we would aim to agree an amendment to the directive rather than to take unilateral action under clause 14.
    I have tried to explain why we cannot go along with the new clause, although we subscribe to the philosophy behind it. I have also explained why we prefer the permissive way in which clause 14 is expressed. I hope that, on reflection, the Opposition will not press the new clause to a Division.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 116.

    Division No. 148]

    [9.52 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Meale, Alan

    Bellotti, David

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Pike, Peter L.

    Boateng, Paul

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cox, Tom

    Soley, Clive

    Cryer, Bob

    Vaz, Keith

    Dixon, Don

    Wallace, James

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Kennedy, Charles

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Alexander, Richard

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Amess, David

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Amos, Alan

    Knowles, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Maclean, David

    Ashby, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Mans, Keith

    Baldry, Tony

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Bellingham, Henry

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Benyon, W.

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Mills, Iain

    Bottomley, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Moate, Roger

    Bowis, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

    Norris, Steve

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Page, Richard

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Paice, James

    Burt, Alistair

    Patnick, Irvine

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Carrington, Matthew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Chope, Christopher

    Rathbone, Tim

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Couchman, James

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Shaw, David (Dover)

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

    Shersby, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Sims, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Dover, Den

    Speller, Tony

    Dunn, Bob

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Freeman, Roger

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gale, Roger

    Stevens, Lewis

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Gregory, Conal

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Viggers, Peter

    Hague, William

    Waller, Gary

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Watts, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Wilshire, David

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Hayward, Robert

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Hind, Kenneth

    Wood, Timothy

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Yeo, Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Irvine, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jack, Michael

    Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Tim Boswell.

    Janman, Tim

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister—business motion.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Not moved, Sir.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
    Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Chapman.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Every morning, you have to go through the Order Paper. You know that today's Order Paper contains a business motion to enable the debate on the Planning and Compensation Bill to continue after 10 o'clock. The Government are now in such a mess that they cannot even move their own business motion. They have reached the end of their tether.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: There cannot be any point of order. I called the 10 o'clock business motion, but it was not moved.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The answer to your question, "Debate to be resumed what day?" was, "Tomorrow." We have to presume that that is a fiction, because there is business set down for tomorrow until 2.30 pm. Given that the Government accept that there will be lots of time in which this Bill can be debated, that they clearly recognise that an early election is off the agenda, and that we all here for several months to come, including you, Sir, perhaps they will have a chance to re-think some of the unsound policies in this Bill and get them right second time round.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I had better deal with points of order one at a time. "Tomorrow" is secret language; it might mean any day.
    Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is a Government who care about the family, is it in order for us to go home now, at 10 o'clock?
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we were expecting to complete the Bill tonight and as many of us stayed here to debate items that we have not reached, has the Leader of the House given you any sign that he wishes to make a statement about the business of the House? There was a statement earlier today announcing next week's business. May we expect him to make a request to you to make a statement, or can we assume that tomorrow is some time away?
    Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it clear that the Opposition are keen to go ahead with the Bill? Indeed, when you were not in the Chair, Conservative Members complained at the way in
    528
    which the Government were trying to curtail debating time. I imagine that Conservative Members who are interested in this important legislation will feel even more aggrieved that the Government are not pressing ahead. We invite them to do so. We are willing to scrutinise the Bill, but they have thrown the towel in, and it is a disgrace.
    Mr. Wilshire: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Is it parliamentary language to describe the 24 Labour Members who voted against the clause just now as "many"? I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Burnley say that many Opposition Members wished to carry on the debate. I do not think that 24 is many.
    Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The real point behind all this and behind the secret language that you are referring to is the secret language of new clause 16 and of new clause 22, which deals with hedgerows. The Government face defeat on both clauses because sufficient Conservative members were not going to support them. I suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an opportunity for the Government to complete the Bill as they intended to do tonight. Indeed, consultations with members of our Front Bench confirmed that the Government wanted to do so. If they concede on clause 22, as I suggested to them in a bid at the beginning, we would be willing to continue on that basis; the arrangements that they make on clause 16 are a matter for them. Otherwise, the only interpretation is that the Government cannot deliver their members on a vote of this sort.
    Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been debating a large and complex 76-clause Bill. This evening many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken a keen interest in the passage of the Bill. We have a long way to go, and, in the Government's view, it makes sense to devote further time on another day to the completion of this important measure. No doubt the usual channels will be in discussion to find a suitable time.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we need any more points of order. I often hear Members complaining that they are kept up late at night. Legislation is not—
    Mr. Haynes: This is a correction.
    Mr. Speaker: Legislation is not well dealt with at a late hour. The Government have not moved their motion; there is nothing more to be said. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) can get his car and go back to his constituency.
    Mr. Haynes: It is not fair. I am trying to listen to you, Mr. Speaker, but there is a load of rabble rousers on the Conservative Benches. I never heard a word that you said. I rise to correct something that was said by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He referred to 24 Labour Members voting. There were two Opposition Whips, and I was one of them. That is 26, not 24. You, Mr. Speaker, should correct him.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. If he did not hear me, I said that he should now get his car and go home.

  Nuclear Waste (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.10 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Many hon. Members are leaving to return to their families, but other hon. Members wish to raise important issues this evening. I am glad to see members of all parties present to listen to the debate. It is a brief debate, but I warn the Minister that my hon. Friends and I will return to this subject time and again because the Scottish National party regards it as critical.
  I shall seek information from the Minister on various points that concern me, my constituents and many others throughout Scotland. If he cannot respond as I raise them, I am willing to wait for a detailed written response, but I expect unequivocal answers to my points. I raise them with sincerity and humility, because this is one of the major issues facing not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom and the world. It deserves serious attention.
  I start from the point of view that my party has always argued that the disposal of nuclear waste should be addressed internationally. We recognise our responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste produced in Britain. We believe that nuclear waste should be stored on site and above ground, where it can be carefully monitored.
  It appears that Scotland is being singled out to become the nuclear dustbin of the world; we are being expected to launder everyone's nuclear waste. The only advantage that anyone can see is that money will go to the Exchequer in London, but we in Scotland will lose our vital industries.
  The Government have said clearly that they place the environment at the top of their political agenda. In her speech to the 1988 Conservative party conference, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said:
  "No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy, with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full."
  Perhaps for the only time, I agree with the right hon. Lady.
  Nuclear waste disposal is seen in Scotland as the key environmental issue of the day. The case against siting a repository for nuclear waste at Dounreay and Caithness is unassailable, whatever criteria any of us care to apply, be they moral, democratic, environmental or economic.
  Let me emphasise the democratic decision. Without doubt, the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Scotland is against the use of Dounreay as the site for a deep waste disposal repository. The vast majority of Scotland's elected representatives—in this House, in the European Parliament and in all other representative bodies—have clearly expressed their opposition.
  I refer in particular to what happens in the Highland region, where Highland regional council itself is spearheading the opposition to the use of Dounreay. In Caithness, the area most directly affected, a referendum was held in which the people voted 3:1 against Nirex using Dounreay as a waste dump. Almost 12,000 people voted. That is a 58 per cent. turnout, which, by most standards, is quite high. In a local government by-election, a turnout of half the electorate is considered quite good. In Caithness, 58 per cent. responded, and 73 per cent. of them
  530
  said no. Only 3,000—25 per cent.—of them were in favour. By any democratic yardstick, that is a clear indication of the opinion of the people of that area.
  The Minister should address himself to the democratic argument. I can think of no one better whose remarks to quote in this context than the present Secretary of State for Scotland. In April 1979, the right hon. Gentleman was the prospective parliamentary candidate for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, where consideration was being given to the possibility of using Mullwarchar as a disposal site. On 19 April 1979, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Conservation Society saying that he found it difficult to understand what the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was up to:
  "As they said they would take account of public opinion, which is unanimously hostile, I find it extremely disappointing that UKAEA should have decided to take the matter further, with an appeal to the Secretary of State, after the clear rejection of their earlier application."
  As that was the view of the Secretary of State on a proposal affecting his own area, let me make a direct plea to him to exercise the same attitude towards the people of Caithness, the people of Highland region and the people of Scotland who have spoken out against the proposal. The Government claim to listen to democratic voices and respect democratic aspirations. If that is so, they should surely respond and display an attitude much more constructive than that which they have recently shown.
  I do not wish to dwell for too long on the economic and social impact of siting a deep waste repository in Caithness because I have already spoken out about it in previous debates. I should say to the Minister, however, that when I speak on these issues I am not merely expressing the passion that I feel about them; I am recognising my responsibility to my constituents and to the many people who write to me on the matter.
  The Minister should talk to a fisherman from my constituency, a farmer in Caithness or a whisky distiller somewhere in the highlands—perhaps from Speyside, in my own area. He should talk to anyone involved in the tourist industry. All of them know full well the implications of the Government's proposals. They know what the knock-on effect will be. The perception of a clean environment on which our industries depend could be destroyed if the Government continue with their intention, through Nirex, to use Caithness as a site for nuclear waste disposal. All of them know that 100 long-term jobs may be made available through the siting of the repository, but that those 100 jobs will mean nothing if we then lost thousands of jobs because the perception of our clean environment has gone and we cannot sell our produce in the domestic or international markets. Those views have been expressed to me by business men who know full well what the implications are. It is not a question of scaremongering. It is a genuine fear. It is a genuine recognition of the situation.
  Again, the Secretary of State, on this very point, said in April 1979:
  "I believe it is quite unacceptable even to contemplate the irretrievable storage of nuclear waste in the manner proposed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as no amount of preliminary research can guarantee its safety for the very long period of its continuing radioactivity. For that reason the question of exploratory test bores is irrelevant and they should not be proceeded with."
  He went on:
  "As regards the suggestion that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be after the election, might grant approval to

  531
  the test bores without holding a public inquiry, I cannot of course speak for other parties, but having investigated the matter within my own"—
  that is the Conservative party
  "I am quite satisfied that under a Conservative Secretary of State such action would be entirely out of the question."
  We see a very clear contrast between what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in 1979 and what is now being said in 1991 because, Highland regional council having made it clear that it did not want planning permission for this to go ahead, the Secretary of State has overruled its wishes and is imposing a very different viewpoint from his previous one on the people of the highlands of Scotland. That is an element of hypocrisy which I am not prepared to accept as a Member of the House and a representative of the communities in the north of Scotland.
  When he last spoke about this issue in the House in a debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Minister, who is in his place, said:
  "Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield—not Dounreay—will be the preferred site because of transport considerations."—[Official Report, 25 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1254.]
  Within the House that evening there was a general consensus among all the parties, including supporters of the nuclear industry, who asked why in that case we were continuing to have this planning blight held over our heads in the north of Scotland. It became quite clear that the Minister believed that Dounreay would not be the site for the disposal of nuclear waste. Why then was it, since many of us went away feeling heartened by the situation, that a matter of days later the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he would allow 200 to 250 test boreholes to be drilled in the Dounreay area, with the possibility of 6,000 test boreholes eventually being undertaken?
  I have done a fair amount of research on what exactly is meant by these boreholes, or shotholes, as Nirex and the Minister seem to prefer to call them. What worries me in particular is how we in the area express our concern. The Minister says that there will need to be a further planning inquiry. What kind of planning inquiry will it be? Will it be a situation in which Nirex has an open cheque book, with blank cheques, underwritten by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Transport and for Scotland—by the Government themselves—while those of us who oppose this project will be left to beg, to raise money in charitable ways, in order to fund our advocates and solicitors? If there is to be any further planning inquiry, it must be on a level playing field, so that voices have equal force.
  At what stage will the planning inquiry be implemented? Will it be after the 250, of after the 6,000, or will it be when we get to the possibility of 1,000 metre deep holes being drilled into Caithness? I understand—and this comes from research undertaken by the House of Commons Library—that eventually there will need to be some 20 to 30 boreholes about 1,000 m deep. They will pass through unconsolidated surface sediments, Devonian age sandstones and then into Moine basement rock. The Devonian and Moine are both highly consolidated, so drilling through them is very slow. Coring is slow and expensive. The time taken to drill and test each borehole will probably be about six months and each will cost between £5 million and £10 million.
  When examining that type of situation, we must know in our communities what facility we have to argue our case
  532
  as matters proceed. There is a deep-seated suspicion and anxiety about why, if Dounreay is not the preferred option of Nirex but Sellafield is for intermediate and low level waste, we are going ahead with the testbore drillings.
  I want a categorical assurance from the Minister—I plead with him not to mince words—that there will never be the possibility of Dounreay being used for high-level waste disposal. Many people suspect that it will be, and I appreciate their fears because much secrecy has surrounded what has been going on. We need that type of assurance for our people, for our industries and for the sake of future generations.
  I could speak for 15 hours on this subject, but I see that the Minister is anxious to respond to my remarks. I do not have time to raise issues such as transportation and whether article 37 of the Euratom treaty is being observed or disregarded by the Government. I have spoken with sincerity and concern for the people of my area. I hope that tonight we shall have a positive response from the Government. We deserve such a response.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on being successful in raising this issue on the Adjournment, and I shall answer the questions that she asked. The first related to the Secretary of State. She referred to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend at the inquiry into a proposal for geological investigations in an area adjoining his constituency and suggested that his attitude towards the Dounreay application was at variance with the stance that he adopted at that time.
  It is over 11 years since that inquiry took place. Scientific understanding of the technology of nuclear waste disposal has moved on a great deal in the intervening decade. At that time, the question was whether low and intermediate-level nuclear waste could be safely disposed of on land. Since then, the Government have accepted the advice of their professional advisors that it is indeed safe to do so.
  The hon. Lady called for an international approach. I am glad to tell her that other countries have taken the same view including the Swedes who, as the House knows, take matters of environmental safety extremely seriously. Finland, Switzerland, Germany and America also take that view. As the Secretary of State for the Environment stated on 21 March 1989:
  "It is now Government policy that a deep repository should be established and that two sites which appear suitable should be investigated in detail."
  But Ministers have also made it quite clear, as I have said, that any proposal to construct such a repository will be the subject of full debate at a public local inquiry. This will provide every opportunity for a full discussion of the very understandable concerns about the implications of nuclear waste disposal that my right hon. Friend articulated on behalf of his constituents some 11 years ago.
  While I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate, I am disappointed that this morning, at a press conference, she should have engaged in an element of scaremongering. I appreciate that her opposition to a deep disposal facility for low and

  533
  intermediate-level waste at Dounreay has been longstanding, but her claim that the Government have plans for a high-level waste repository there is totally without foundation.
  I must make it clear that the United Kingdom has no disposal policy as yet for high-level waste. As I shall explain, it is to be stored in vitrified form for at least 50 years before disposal is required. UK Nirex has been charged to locate, develop and design a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level waste only. It has no such role in relation to high-level waste.
  Nor are the flaws in the hon. Lady's analysis confined to that suggestion. I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to her and to explain the intentions of the Scottish Office and its determination to dispose of radioactive waste in a way which guarantees maximum safety. The recommendation of UK Nirex, to which the Government agreed, was that a comparative study of the two sites should be made until the point was reached when efforts could be concentrated on one preferred site.
  It is important to establish at the outset that the disposal of radioactive material is a matter of direct relevance to Scotland, which is certainly not being singled out. Some 50 per cent. of the electricity generated in Scotland comes from nuclear power stations. It is therefore a vital element in our generating capacity and the Government must pursue a responsible policy for managing the spent fuel from the nuclear power stations and radioactive wastes from other sources in Scotland. Further wastes will arise from the decommissioning of power stations and the reprocessing plants at Dounreay as they complete their operational life. Decommissioning work has already started at Hunterston A power station. It will also be needed later this decade when the fast breeder prototype reactor at Dounreay stops production. Therefore, the Scottish Office has a moral duty to find the best and safest solution.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have many questions to answer and I should like to complete them, but I will follow up later any points on which the hon. Lady requires further information.
  Three categories of radioactive waste require Government action in terms of their safe disposal. Steps to dispose of high-level waste are best taken after 50 years, when the heat and radioactivity has significantly decayed. That will simplify disposal. Accordingly, the Government's policy on such waste is that it should be stored in a vitrified form for at least 50 years. A vitrification plant was opened at Sellafield earlier this year and will secure the crucial first step in that process. The arrangements for the final disposal of the waste remain to be decided, but we have time on our side because of the requirement that storage should last for at least 50 years.
  Heat generation from intermediate and low-level waste is no technical obstacle to emplacement, and UK Nirex has advised the Government that the most sensible course of action for those categories of waste is to be co-disposed in a deep disposal facility. It is proposed to adopt a multi-barrier containment approach, designed to keep the radioactive substances away from people, animals and plants by using a series of different and separate physical
  534
  and chemical barriers until the process of radioactive decay makes them barely distinguishable from naturally occurring materials.
  At present, there are shallow disposal sites for low-level waste at Drigg, near Sellafield, and at Dounreay. There is capacity at Drigg into the next century. However, there are no existing disposal facilities for intermediate-level waste, which must all be stored pending a suitable disposal arrangement. UK Nirex Ltd. has the task of developing a disposal facility for low-level and intermediate waste and, in the pursuit of that task, there have been activities and planning applications in respect of land at Dounreay to which the hon. Lady takes exception.
  Many parts of the United Kingdom have potentially suitable geology for such a repository. The principal requirement is that there should be suitable rock at the right depth with low and predictable water flow. The hon. Lady called for that problem to be redressed internationally, and there is a worldwide consensus that underground repositories are the most promising disposal option. Indeed, one is already in operation in Sweden, one is being constructed in Finland, and plans are well advanced in Switzerland, Germany and the United States. Scientists and geologists are satisfied that we now have the technological capability for a fully verified and safe repository.
  UK Nirex has chosen to concentrate its investigations at two sites where the nuclear industry is already established and where the local population has come to understand that safety—both for the work force and for the surrounding environment—is an extremely important consideration on the part of the nuclear industry. The two sites are Sellafield, where the country's major nuclear reprocessing plant is situated, and Dounreay, where reprocessing work, albeit on a much smaller scale, has been undertaken for many years and where there is a prototype fast breeder reactor.
  UK Nirex has systematically set about the necessary task of establishing whether the geological conditions were suitable at each site. To that end, it has completed two deep boreholes at Sellafield and a third and fourth are being drilled at present. Planning permission has been given for a further two deep boreholes, so that a complete and satisfactory geological analysis may be secured. At Dounreay, one deep borehole has been completed and drilling on another is to start shortly. Nirex only has planning permission for those two boreholes. Because the geology is more straightforward at Dounreay, it is not considered necessary to seek permission for more deep boreholes during the present preliminary investigations.
  The deep boreholes are extremely informative about the geology at Dounreay, but a complete geological analysis requires UK Nirex to understand the geology of the whole area and this requires a variety of geophysical surveys to be undertaken in the area surrounding the main Dounreay complex. A seismic survey using lorry-mounted vibration sources has been completed but this may need to be supplemented by a further survey in which the vibration sources will be small explosive charges in shallow shotholes—a standard and widely used survey technique, for example in the oil industry. UK Nirex sought permission for a maximum of 6,000 shallow shotholes. However, it is assessing the non-intrusive seismic work already undertaken and if further work is deemed necessary, it is intended in the first instance to do no more

  535
  than 200 to 240 of those shallow shotholes, following up with further shotholes in those areas where the geology remains unclear.
  It is intended that work at both Dounreay and Sellafield will be sufficiently advanced by the latter part of this year to enable UK Nirex to decide which of the two sites is preferred so that they may concentrate further efforts on that site alone. As I stated on the Floor of the House on 25 April—and I chose my words with care—UK Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield and not Dounreay will be the preferred site because of transport considerations.
  Highland regional council has made it clear that it is opposed in principle to any repository being established within its boundaries. It has sought to resist that possibility by a variety of means, including the exercise of its planning powers. It included in its structure plan review policies opposing the establishment of a repository within the region and any geological research needed to investigate the suitability of sites for such a purpose. It also refused planning application for two deep boreholes and for the shallow shotholes required for the seismic survey.
  The Secretary of State, in approving the structure plan, deleted the policies on nuclear waste disposal. That was because there is a national interest in the safe disposal of such waste. It would be entirely inappropriate if a local authority, in discharging its planning responsibilities, could on the basis of local consideration frustrate the pursuit of such a national objective. It was my right hon. Friend's duty, as the guardian of the national interest, to look at this matter objectively in the best interests of Scotland as a whole.
  Mrs. Ewing rose——
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a fundamental principle of the planning system that all applications and appeals must be decided solely on the planning merits of the development or operation proposed. But in both cases that have come to the Secretary of State on appeal, the council turned down the applications on grounds which in essence have nothing to do with the proposals themselves. It and other opponents based their objections not on the effects of the drilling and seismic surveys, but on the possible consequences of a subsequent application for planning permission for a repository, which might or might not be proposed. As I have already said, setting aside the geological considerations, Sellafield has significant cost advantages.
  The Secretary of State's decision on both appeals were in the nature quasi-judicial decisions and based on the planning merits of the proposals themselves. His decisions
  536
  showed that he had considered those proposals most thoroughly and taken great care to satisfy himself that they were acceptable. In particular, he took steps to mitigate any adverse environmental consequences that might arise. Thus, in granting permission for the seismic survey, he imposed conditions designed to ensure that the survey did not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise, dust emission, vibration and general disturbance and that loss of amenity was kept within tolerable limits. My right hon. Friend's reasoning is set out in full in the decision letter, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  I cannot repeat too often what has already been made clear by several members of the Government, including the Prime Minister—that this decision in no way pre-empts a decision on any future application to build a repository. As I said on Report stage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, planning permission would be required before a repository could be constructed at either Sellafield or Dounreay. The Government have given a clear commitment that the relevant application would be called in for decision by the appropriate Secretary of State and a full public local inquiry would be held.
  It is at that inquiry that the legitimate interests of the Highland regional council about any detrimental effects on the environment, economy and infrastructure, and the hon. Lady's points about whisky and fishing, would be fully taken into account if a planning application were submitted. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) implied that the Government would prejudge any such application. That is not the case, and it was a grossly irresponsible allegation that he made in the Press and Journal on 10 May.
  Due to the massive construction costs—about £2·5 billion—the Government are committed to a single facility for the United Kingdom. One possible result of the hon. Member's desire for an independent Scotland could be separate repositories north and south of the border. Were that to happen, such duplication could entail literally billions of pounds of needless expenditure, because the infrastructure and engineering costs would be exceptionally high, regardless of the eventual capacity of any repository.
  The Government give the highest possible priority to safety. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand why the Government cannot be swayed in their central determination to pursue in-depth investigations thoroughly, conscientiously and, above all, with the national interest constantly in mind. That is what UK Nirex has been doing at Dounreay—no more, and no less.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the annual fee income of the Court of Protection in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  The Attorney-General
  The annual fee income, including fees for receiverships undertaken by the public trustee for the court, was £5,764,111 for the year ended 31 March 1989 and £6,474,982 for the year ended 31 March 1990.

  Juveniles (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases involving juveniles the Crown prosecution service decided not to prosecute on grounds of welfare.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service does not collect statistics separately for cases involving juveniles whether as defendants, victims or witnesses. Such information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is, however, the policy of the Crown prosecution service to take into account, as one but only one of the relevant factors, the welfare of a juvenile, in deciding whether it is appropriate to institute or continue a prosecution.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will consider seeking to amend the law in the light of the court decision overruling the wishes of a 12-year-old girl's mother as to whether the daughter should have an abortion; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Where a child is a ward of court the High Court assumes parental responsibility including the duty to give or withhold consent to medical procedures. In discharging that duty the court must act as a good parent and treat the welfare of the child as the overriding consideration. The law governing the care and upbringing of children has been recently reformed by the Children Act 1989 which is expected to come into force in October this year. It will not prevent a court from overriding parental wishes in matters relating to children where their welfare is at risk, but it would be premature to make further changes in this area of the law until we have had a chance to see how that Act operates in practice.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Environmental Provision Committee
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the committee to make recommendations on the future development of environmental provision within further and higher education will be established; and what will be its terms of reference.
  220
  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce the membership and terms of reference of this committee within the next few weeks.

  Head Teachers (Extra Payments)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will name those schools in Humberside where the governors have used new powers available to them to make extra payments to heads and deputies; and how much was involved in each case.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available centrally.

  Primary Schools (Governors' Reports)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received over the holding of meetings in primary schools to discuss governors' reports to parents, in particular concerning the level of attendance at such meetings.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department has received a number of letters about the low level of attendance at annual parents' meetings held at primary and secondary schools since this requirement was introduced in 1987.

  VAT
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the cost to universities in 1991–92 of the increase in the rate of VAT to 17·5 per cent.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The gross additional cost to the universities of the increase has been estimated at some £30 to £35 million. A significant proportion of this should be recoverable through increased output charges.

  Temporary School Buildings
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what procedures he adopts for review of lifespan of semi-permanent or temporary school buildings in areas of stable or growing school population.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is for local education authorities and others directly responsible for the schools to satisfy themselves as to the state of their school buildings. In distributing annual capital guidelines to local education authorities, and in giving capital allocations to the governors of voluntary aided and special agreement schools, my right hon. and learned Friend makes no distinction between permanent, semi-permanent or temporary buildings.

  National Coaching Foundation
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his announcement of 11 March regarding funding of the National Coaching Foundation coaching scheme for school children, what is the total number of school children proposed to take part in this scheme expressed(a) numerically and (b) as a percentage of the total number of school children at maintained schools in England; what is the total number of local education authority areas from which children will be selected expressed (1) numerically and (2) as a percentage of the total number of local education

  221
  authority areas in England; and for what length of time the scheme will last expressed (A) numerically and (B) as a percentage of the standard school term.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Coaching Foundation's champion coaching project will involve about 3,600 children in 20 local education authority areas in England. This represents 0·2 per cent. of children aged 11 to 14 in maintained schools and 18 per cent. of LEAs. The aim of this pilot project is to establish examples of good practice for use in other areas. The scheme will last for eight to 10 weeks and will be complementary to the school curriculum. School terms are determined by LEAs or governing bodies for voluntary aided schools. Although all schools are bound to meet certain requirements, the organisation of terms is locally governed.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many meetings he has held with the organisers of the British Olympic bid since the British Olympic Association's announcement of Manchester's winning bid; what further plans he has to meet the organisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his answer on 1 May to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I am ready to discuss how best the Government can help to promote the bid. I have already spoken to Robert Scott, the chairman of the Manchester Olympic bid. Arrangements have been made for me to meet both Mr. Scott and the BOA.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, 7 December 1990,Official Report, column 212, if he will publish a table setting out separately the level of grant in aid to the Sports Council given or proposed for each of the years 1986–87 to 1990–91 and the level of support for sport provided through the urban programme for each of the years 1986–87 to 1990–91 together with the level of grant the Sports Council would have received and the level of support which would have been provided through the urban programme for each of these years had funding been uprated in line with inflation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The level of grant in aid to the Sports Council and the figures uprated by the GDP index are:

  (£ million)

  Year

  Sports Council Gram

  Uprated by GDP Index

  1986–871

  37·4

  37·4

  1987–881

  37·1

  39·4

  1988–891

  39·0

  42·3

  1989–901

  41·9

  45·0

  1990–922

  44·7

  48·5

  1 Outturn.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  Over the same period the Sports Council has increased its receipts from £5·46 million (outturn) to £10·95 million (estimated outturn). When receipts are added to grant in aid, funds available to the council have increased in line with inflation.
  222
  Expenditure on sport through the Department of the Environment's urban programme and the figures uprated by the GDP index are:

  (£ million)

  Year

  Urban Programme Funding

  Uprated by GDP Index

  1986–871

  21·3

  21·3

  1987–881

  25·2

  22·4

  1988–891

  17·8

  24·1

  1989–901

  15·5

  25·6

  1990–912

  15·7

  27·6

  1 Outturn.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  These figures reflect the increased emphasis within the urban programme on economic, rather than social, projects. Most projects involving expenditure on sport would occur in the latter category.

  HMI Reports
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of(a) school-related and (b) non school-related reports published by Her Majesty's inspectorate in each of the last two years; and if he will indicate the cost of publication.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988–89, 403 inspection reports were published, of which 231 were related to schools. In 1989–90, 358 reports were published, of which 144 were school-related. Her Majesty's inspectorate reports are printed and published by the Department, on behalf of the Secretary of State, and costs are currently not itemised within the Department's total printing budget.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he expects to publish a draft order to introduce a short course in geography within key stage 4 of the national curriculum;

  (2) when he expects to publish proposals to put into effect his policy of permitting pupils to take either history or geography at key stage 4 of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have today published for consultation a draft order with an associated document setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for a short course in geography in the national curriculum for pupils at key stage 4, as I am required to do by section 20(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  In publishing the initial statutory order and document for geography before Easter, I announced that I would be bringing forward shortly this further draft order, which builds on advice sent to me by the National Curriculum Council last November.

  I have accepted the basic structure of the course recommended by the council, although I have made changes to reduce its content to make it more manageable and to provide an element of choice within the material relating to physical and human geography.

  Therefore, in accordance with section 20(5)(a)(ii) of the Education Reform Act 1988, I have published a statement of my reasons for departing from the council's advice. Copies have been placed in the Library with those of the draft order.
  223
  The period for consultation on the draft order will end on 31 July 1991. I intend to make the final order in October 1991 in time to allow for the planning of syllabuses and courses for pupils at key stage 4 which will begin in the autumn of 1994. The draft order applies only to England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be publishing separately for consultation a draft order to introduce a short course in geography in Wales.

  The National Curriculum Council, as required by section 20(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988, has today given notice of my proposal for making the full history and geography courses alternatives for pupils at key stage 4. I announced my intention of issuing such a proposal in January. Copies of my proposal have been placed in the Library.

  My proposal is that pupils who elect to follow fie full course in history at key stage 4 of the national curriculum should be excepted from the provisions of the national curriculum for geography and that, similarly, pupils who elect to follow the full course in geography should be excepted from the provisions of the national curriculum in history. Pupils will thus be able to meet the minimum requirement of the national curriculum by taking the full course in either history or geography, or by taking the short courses in both subjects.

  It is our view, however, that virtually all schools should offer both the full and the short courses in both subjects and should give pupils a choice between full history, full geography or short history and short geography. I expect many schools to offer pupils the opportunity to study history and geography in ways that exceed the minimum requirement.

  The period for the submission of evidence and representations in the proposals to the National Curriculum Council will end on 31 July 1991. The council will then report to me. I intend to publish draft regulations, as required by section 20(5) of the Act, in October 1991. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is separately directing the statutory consultation process in Wales.

TRANSPORT

  Slow Drivers
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had concerning the practice of drivers on dual carriageways and motorways which have tong queues of slow-moving traffic who leave long gaps in the traffic and decline to close up on the vehicles ahead of them; and whether he will consider proposals to make it illegal because of the delays caused to drivers who wish to turn off the dual carriageways and motorways as part of their normal journey.

  Mr. Chope
  Although we have had no formal representations on the particular practice to which my right hon. Friend refers, trials of signing arrangements to encourage traffic to use both lanes on the approaches to road works have been carried out on sections of the A1 north of Doncaster and in North Yorkshire. The police can take action within their current powers against drivers whose vehicles cause unnecessary obstruction of the highway.

  Roads
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of land area of England is(a) currently covered by road and (b) will be covered by roads by the end of the century based on current plans.

  Mr. Chope
  A precise figure is not available, but the percentage for 1990 is estimated to be between 1·2 and 1·5 per cent. It is not expected that this percentage will change significantly during the next 10 years.

  The figure has been arrived at by taking known information on the length of roads in England and multiplying by an estimated average width. The data are as follows:

  Length (miles)

  Width (ft)

  Area (miles2)

  Motorway

  1,672

  70

  22

  Trunk

  5,083

  33

  32

  Principal

  15,439

  26

  76

  B, C, Unclassified

  147,456

  20

  560

  690

  The land area of England is 50,363 miles2

  690/50,363 x 100 = 1·37 per cent.

  Assumptions have been made about the average width of roads—particularly for minor roads. The percentage range given in the answer allows for the width of minor roads to be between 17 and 23 ft.

  Nuclear Fuel (Shipment)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the transport of spent nuclear fuel into ports in the United Kingdom on roll-on, roll-off ferries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Such cargoes are carried to United Kingdom ports on ro-ro ferries only in limited quantities, in flasks approved to standards set by the International Atomic Energy Authority, when they are engaged on "freight only" voyages. International regulations are under consideration at IMO which would make United Kingdom practice mandatory.

  Severe Winter Weather
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department's review of the arrangements for dealing with severe winter weather will be completed.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department's review of the current arrangements for dealing with severe winter weather, which I announced to the House on 10 December,Hansard col 685, has now been completed; I am placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  The review has included consultation with the French, Dutch, German, Swiss, Danish and Swedish railways, and with highway authorities in France and Denmark, as well as with the Scottish Office Environment Department and in England with the police, with the Department's agents for highway maintenance, and with British Rail.

  The review finds that in the period of 7 to 9 December serious problems were caused, particularly in the midlands and the north, by a combination of strong winds and

  225
  heavy, sticky snow which caused power lines and trees to collapse, blocking many roads and railways, and causing widespread power failures. The heavy drifting snow, exacerbated by heavy rain immediately beforehand which washed away much of the salt that had been spread in anticipation, quickly trapped vehicles, blocking roads and hampering ploughing operations. The conditions were exceptional; the Met Office suggest they may occur only once every 15 to 20 years.

  Over the weekend of 9 and 10 February, temperatures were extremely low and snow was again heavy in several regions. This time the snow was light and dry, which is not common in Britain. Motorways and trunk roads were generally kept open. However, serious problems were experienced on parts of the railway network; the blown powdery snow was able to enter mechanical and electrical equipment, and the low temperatures caused equipment to freeze up. Damage to 455 electric train motors meant that it took three weeks for Network SouthEast services to get back to normal.

  Our review of European comparisons shows that other countries also suffered severe disruption. On the roads other countries generally fared no better in dealing with similar conditions. For instance, in Belgium traffic was brought to "a virtual standstill" on 12 February in the Brussels and Antwerp regions in particular. In Germany on 15 and 16 February there was "a total breakdown of traffic throughout the Federal Republic", with tailbacks of more than 100 km. And in Holland on 15 February "traffic everywhere was snarled up", with about 13 jams totalling around 90 km.

  The severe spells also caused considerable immediate disruption to rail services. For example, in Holland there was serious disruption to services on 8 February and their emergency timetable was implemented. In France, powder snow got into the convertors of the RER trains in Paris and caused a complete line to close. In Germany, Frankfurt Main station was virtually cut off on 15 February, and elsewhere delays of up to three hours were quite frequent. In Denmark, there were major problems with the Copenhagen suburban services, with some 300 out of 500 trains being put out of service as a result of traction motor failures.

  We are acting on the lessons provided by these experiences and what we have learnt from other countries. One lesson is that rail services in other countries visited, apart from Denmark, appear to have got back to normal faster than in Britain on this occasion.

  A lesson that is common to both roads and railways is the need to improve communications systems and equipment, including an ability to continue functioning through a prolonged power failure. Better communications are needed within the relevant authorities, with travellers who are already on the road or rail system and with intending travellers before they set off.

  Specific improvements on the roads include a sharpening up of the arrangements to remove broken down vehicles, on which we did well in the February episode; an examination of the operational readiness of equipment; and a review of the levels of manpower and salt available to deal with possible longer spells of extreme conditions. We shall be considering with the emergency services procedures for helping vehicle occupants trapped during severe conditions. It is planned to have these actions substantially complete before the next winter. We shall also review operational procedures in the light of
  226
  practice overseas, including the rate of spread of salt and the level of selectivity in salting roads; and we shall examine additional sources of manpower and equipment—we found that both France and Denmark make greater use of contractors and farmers than we do.

  On the railways, operational responsibility lies with British Rail. We found that railways that used sliding doors experienced similar problems to BR; but most European railways use plug doors, and had no problems. BR now intends all the new types of stock to have plug doors. Our study also showed that other railways made more extensive use of point heaters; BR now has a programme to install many more modern point heaters. BR also now intends to test the first production vehicle of all new fleets for temperature extremes, which was the general practice of the railways visited. We also established that diesel fuel can be obtained, at a premium, that can cope with lower temperatures than that presently used by BR—down to minus 22 deg C (Germany), minus 25 deg C (Holland) or even minus 32 deg C (Sweden); BR is now examining the cost-effectiveness of this.

  Other improvements being examined in the light of what we learnt overseas, to see if they would be cost-effective in this country, include modifications to existing sliding doors, preventing electric motors from failing as a result of powder snow getting into them and using covers on automatic couplers. British Rail is updating its guidance to staff on how to keep equipment working and services running in severe winter weather. It is also preparing emergency service plans, to be published in advance. These will improve communications with the customer. It will also be introducing a pilot real time information system on two routes this summer.

  I shall continue to monitor progress, and I shall make a further report to the House in due course.

  Bermuda 3 Agreement
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had regarding a Bermuda 3 agreement on aviation matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Preliminary discussions have taken place with the United States about possibilities for further liberalisation of transatlantic air services. Talks will be resumed later in the year. No timetable has been set for their completion.

  Ilminster Bypass
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the final cost for building the Ilminster bypass (A303).

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of the construction works was £21·23 million. Compensation for land acquisition and other property matters is estimated to cost a further £1·5 million at 1991 prices.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is for the cost of dualling the Ilminster bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  Preliminary estimates range from about £20 million to over £30 million depending on the manner in which the dualling might be carried out.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his findings with regard to the provision of a channel tunnel high-speed rail link from Mailing, Kent, to central London termini; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on 9 May, Vol. 190, col 545.

  The Minch (Contingency Plans)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the contingency plans to deal with the foundering of an oil tanker in the Minch; if he will place a copy of the plans in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The foundering of a tanker in the Minch would be dealt with in the same way as it would anywhere in United Kingdom waters and the response would have to be tailored to the particular circumstances of the incident. The marine pollution control unit MPCU is responsible for dealing with pollution at sea. Coastal local authorities are responsible for preparing detailed clean-up contingency plans for their particular coastlines and for dealing with pollution that comes ashore, supported by the MPCU as necessary.

  MPCU resources, full details of which are already available in the House of Commons Library, are pre-positioned at strategic locations in the United Kingdom to permit rapid response to any part of the coast and there are no plans related to specific areas. MPCU remote-sensing and dispersant-spraying aircraft are based at Inverness and would be immediately reinforced by the MPCU remote-sensing and dispersant-spraying aircraft based at Coventry in the event of a major incident in the Minch. MPCU at sea oil recovery equipment, nearest at Aberdeen, and specialist beach cleaning equipment, nearest at Stirling, would be mobilised and further resources obtained as necessary from MPCU stockpiles, United Kingdom commercial sources and from other North sea countries under the terms of the Bonn Agreement.

  The Western Isles island council and the Highland regional council are responsible for the coastline in the immediate area of the Minch and have each prepared detailed oil spill contingency plans for dealing with pollution which comes ashore on their beaches. It is for them to determine the availability of their plans.

  These MPCU and local authority arrangements for responding to major pollution incidents in the Minch were successfully tested in the MPCU live counter-pollution exercise MINCHEX which was carried out on 4 and 5 May 1990.

  Taxi Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to protect public safety by ensuring that taxi licences are granted only to fit and proper persons.
  228
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Outside London district councils license taxi drivers and it is for those councils to undertake what measures they consider appropriate to ensure that licences arc granted only to fit and proper persons.

  In London, where the licensing of taxi drivers is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, who licenses taxi drivers on his behalf, carries out the checks that he considers necessary to satisfy himself that the applicant is of good character and fit to act as a taxi driver; these include a medical check and a check of any past criminal convictions.

  Value for Money
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will have discussions with the Audit Commission about ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of relevant activities which fall within the responsibility of his Department with a view to securing better value for money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 May 1991]: I welcome the studies which the Audit Commission has carried out in areas for which the Department of Transport has policy responsibility and the Department will co-operate fully with future studies.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on how many occasions consideration has been given to whether conflicts of interest have arisen in the case of persons appointed to the post of marketing consultant to Property Services Agency projects;

  (2) what is the fee paid per day to N. A. Batchelor for acting as a marketing consultant to Property Services Agency projects;

  (3) what steps were taken to ensure that civil service guidelines were fully complied with in the appointment of N. A. Batchelor as a marketing consultant to Property Services Agency projects;

  (4) what is his policy on delegating responsibility to the Property Services Agency's chief executive and accounting officer of responsibility for the appointment of all marketing consultants to Property Services Agency projects;

  (5) when N. A. Batchelor was appointed as a marketing consultant to Property Services Agency projects;

  (6) what outside advice he took before N. A. Batchelor was appointed to the post of marketing consultant to Property Services Agency projects;

  (7) what representations he has received as to the appointment of persons to the post of marketing consultants to Property Services Agency projects;

  (8) what steps he took to ensure that there was no family connection between the Property Services Agency projects marketing manager and any marketing consultants to Property Services Agency projects.

  Mr. Yeo
  Following the decision of the Property Services Agency projects board to establish a separate sales organisation to help secure the commercial future of the business, immediate advice was required on
  229
  organisational and other issues. Mr. N. A. Batchelor, who is the husband of the Property Services Agency projects marketing manager, had previously approached Property Services Agency projects' management to offer his services as a marketing consultant. He was appointed at the end of January to produce a report and to carry out some supplementary follow-up work. The commission, which has now been completed, amounted to 19 days in total and he was paid £400 per day.

  The chief executive and accounting officer for Property Services Agency services is responsible for the appointment of all consultants. He in turn delegates responsibility to his top management in each of the businesses. Although the Department's normal practice is to appoint consultants after competition, single tender action was taken to appoint Mr. Batchelor, but this was only because the requirement was seen as urgent.

  It is not the Department's general practice to seek outside advice when making such appointments and none was sought on this occasion.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors underlay the change in the level of domestic rate rebates between 1987–88 and 1989–90; and what figure he has assumed in calculating rebates on the amount of council tax.

  Mr. Key
  Many factors underlay the changed levels of domestic rate rebates between 1987–88 and 1989–90. These include the reforms of the benefits system introduced in April 1988, the introduction of the community charge in Scotland from 1989, and the change in the actual level of rate bills resulting from spending decisions of local authorities.

  Table 1

  Local authority sales to sitting tenants (full ownership) 1989–90

  Numbers of sales

  Discounted selling

  Market price

  Average discount

  Region

  houses

  flats

  price (houses + flats)

  houses

  flats

  (houses + flats) per cent.

  North (inc Cumbria)

  12,600

  600

  10,200

  21,600

  19,200

  51

  Yorks/Humberside

  19,100

  800

  11,100

  22,300

  19,000

  50

  East Midlands

  9,700

  800

  15,700

  32,200

  26,900

  50

  East Anglia

  2,300

  500

  23,900

  51,600

  45,600

  53

  London

  7,900

  19,200

  25,800

  67,900

  55,500

  57

  South East

  13,800

  5,100

  27,500

  60,800

  49,900

  53

  South West

  7,500

  1,700

  21,900

  47,900

  40,100

  53

  West Midlands

  16,600

  1,700

  15,000

  31,500

  24,600

  51

  North West

  16,000

  700

  11,500

  23,300

  19,500

  50

  England

  105,500

  31,100

  18,100

  35,300

  48,900

  53

  Table 2

  Local authority sales to sitting tenants (full ownership) 1990–91

  Numbers of sales

  Discounted selling

  Market price

  Average discount

  Region

  houses

  flats

  price (houses + flats)

  houses

  flats

  (houses + flats) per cent.

  North (inc Cumbria)

  8,900

  600

  n.a.

  25,400

  22,200

  n.a.

  Yorks/Humberside

  9,700

  900

  n.a.

  27,900

  22,200

  n.a.

  East Midlands

  4,000

  600

  n.a.

  36,300

  28,200

  n.a.

  East Anglia

  1,300

  300

  n.a.

  49,200

  44,800

  n.a.

  London

  4,700

  14,000

  n.a.

  72,300

  62,000

  n.a.

  South East

  6,600

  2,600

  n.a.

  62,900

  52,100

  n.a.

  South West

  2,800

  800

  n.a.

  52,400

  41,300

  n.a.

  West Midlands

  8,600

  1,700

  n.a.

  35,700

  25,500

  n.a.

  North West

  10,900

  900

  n.a.

  26,400

  22,600

  n.a.

  England

  57,500

  22,300

  n.a.

  38,000

  52,600

  n.a.

  230
  The Government have proposed that the maximum rebate for individuals or couples on income support or equivalent levels of income will be 100 per cent. of the council tax.

  No assumptions about rebates were needed to produce the illustrative council tax figures issued on 23 April.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed 25 per cent. reduction in the council tax for people living alone; and if he will consider increasing it to 50 per cent. when he brings forward legislation.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: We have received a number of representations on aspects of the council tax, including the level of the discount. The basic council tax bill for a couple represents half property, half personal element. The Government take the view that this is the appropriate balance between the two elements. Increasing the personal discount to 50 per cent. would mean that, if an empty property attracted two personal discounts, as we propose, it would not be liable for any council tax.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of (i) freehold and (ii) leasehold homes sold by local authorities to sitting tenants in 1989 and 1990 nationally and regionally; what was the average selling price and the average discount on the market place; and if he will give separate figures for flats and other dwellings;

  (2) what is the average selling prices of council flats and semi-detached houses to sitting tenants in each English region, Scotland and Wales, and what are the corresponding average market values.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information is given in the table. I refer the hon. Member to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales for Scottish and Welsh data.
  231
  n.a. not yet available

  Protected Landscape
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the land area of England is now covered by national parks, areas of

  1980

  1991

  Area (ha2)

  Percentage area of England

  Area (ha2)

  Percentage area of England

  National parks

  942,900

  7·20

  942,900

  7·20

  The Broads

  0

  0·00

  28,800

  0·20

  Areas of outstanding natural beauty

  1,430,700

  11·00

  1,898,200

  14·50

  Sites of special scientific interest

  648,198

  5·00

  760,210

  6·00

  Green belt

  1720,000

  5·50

  1,520,000

  12·00

  National nature reserves

  28,674

  0·20

  41,312

  0·30

  Special protection areas

  0

  0·00

  109,194

  0·80

  Ramsar sites

  18,803

  0·15

  115,463

  0·90

  1 Figures for 1979.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many designated sites of special scientific interest are in existence currently; and how many there were in 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 28 February 1991, there were 5,649 sites of special scientific interest. On 28 March 1980, there were 3,826 notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. These sites have, for the most part, been re-notified under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Water Meters
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any discussions with the water regulator regarding enabling people on low incomes to spread the cost of water meter installation in domestic premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The director general's consultation paper "Paying for Water" suggests companies should be prepared to offer customers a facility for meeting the costs of voluntary domestic meter installation over a period of years. OFWAT is currently analysing responses to the consultation paper and the director general intends to issue guidelines to water companies towards the end of the year.

  Environmental Assessment
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the response of Her Majesty's Government to their consultation document entitled "Environmental Assessment and Private Bill Procedures", published on 26 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received 35 responses to the consultation paper, most of which welcome, and none of which object to, the principle of requiring environmental assessment for private Bills for works projects. A list of responses has been sent to the Libraries of both Houses and copies of the responses have been placed in the Department of the Environment library at Marsham street.
  232
  outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, green belt, or other classifications of protected landscape; and what were the equivalent figures for 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will lay before the House a draft order under section 104 of the Local Government (Finance) Act 1988 setting out his decisions on the final caps of the authorities which he designated for capping.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today laid before the House a draft order, under section 104 of the 1988 Act, setting out my decisions on the final caps of the eight authorities which did not accept the caps that I proposed for them and put forward alternative amounts. Six authorities—Greenwich, Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Reading and Somerset—accepted and I have in each case confirmed the caps for these authorities at the level originally proposed.

  For the authorities in the draft order I have decided, after taking account of all the relevant information, including the new information which has been made available since I made my initial decisions, to confirm the caps for Basildon, Ipswich, Norwich and Stoke-on-Trent at the level which I initially proposed. I have decided to increase Bristol's cap by £1·5 million, Lambeth's by £3·9 million, Warwickshire's by £2·8 million and Wirral's by £3·2 million. I am satisfied that the caps I have now decided are in all cases reasonable, appropriate and achievable. The caps for each of the designated authorities and the resulting reduction in charges are as follows:

  r

  Authority

  Final Cap £ million

  Reduction in charge £

  Basildon

  22·1

  39

  Bristol

  54·9

  15

  Greenwich

  213·0

  16

  Ipswich

  16·0

  15

  Lambeth

  311·17

  25

  Langbaurgh

  15·6

  6

  Middlesbrough

  20·2

  7

  Milton Keynes

  20·2

  16

  Norwich

  15·0

  16

  Reading

  17·7

  10

  Somerset

  272·5

  6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  25·8

  11

  Warwickshire

  275·1

  9

  Wirral

  238·3

  32

  Trespass
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to introduce stronger powers to curb the abuse through trespass and damage to property and public land by itinerants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Anyone who causes damage to property can be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 it is an offence, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment, or life in the case of arson, to destroy or damage recklessly or intentionally any property belonging to another person without lawful excuse. Under section 3 of the Act it is an offence to possess anything with the intent to destroy or damage property. The police have the power to arrest any person whom they reasonably suspect has committed or is about to commit an offence of criminal damage. Simple trespass is a civil matter, but in certain circumstances, where trespass is accompanied by aggravating factors, including damage to property on the land, section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 applies. The Government have recently reviewed section 39 and will announce their conclusions very soon.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  African Relief
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will allocate additional new funds for emergency relief in Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On 22 April I announced in the House a new pledge of £33 million emergency relief assistance for Africa, col.299. I am currently discussing the detailed allocation of these funds with British and international relief agencies.

  Since September 1990 Britain has provided £90 million emergency relief assistance for African countries, including 158,000 tonnes of food aid. We intend to continue to respond speedily and effectively to the needs of famine-affected countries in Africa.

  I assured the House on 14 May, col. 220, that Britain would continue to play its full part in the international relief effort to help alleviate the terrible suffering in Africa, as well as to assist the people of Bangladesh to reconstruct their lives.

  Sport-as-Aid
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of resources, and what consideration, he has given to the implementation of sport-as-aid packages as part of development aid to disadvantaged groups and for developing the sports infrastructure of recipient countries; if he will make it his policy to develop further such packages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The provision of sports infrastructure has not featured significantly in our bilateral aid programme. We have found that neither poor people nor their Governments give high priority to using aid for such 234
  purposes, although they can be part of health or education projects. Our basic priority is to use aid to increase the productive capabilities of people in developing countries and we do not expect any change in this.

  We have occasionally funded small contributions to sports and other cultural developments through the heads of mission gift scheme, however. A recent gift was for South African black townships. We are also providing aid to match contributions by local people for sports equipment within slum improvement projects in India.

WALES

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the progress reports submitted by each district health authority to his Department on their reviews of the community dental services.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I have placed in the Library of the House copies of progress reports produced by Welsh health authorities on their reviews of the community dental services as presented for the Department's annual review of performance in 1990.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he intends to introduce proposals to make the full courses in history and geography alternatives in key stage 4;

  (2) when he will publish a draft order to introduce a reduced course for geography in the national curriculum at key stage 4.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have published today a draft supplementary order with an associated document setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for a reduced course in geography in the national curriculum at key stage 4. Copies of the documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  I am consulting widely on the draft as required by section 21(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988. The period for consultation will end on 31 July 1991. I intend to make the final order in October 1991 to allow ample time for the planning of syllabuses and courses. The statutory requirements for geography in the national curriculum in key stage 4 take effect from autumn 1994. I have also published today proposals to give effect to my intention that the full courses for history and geography in the national curriculum are alternatives at key stage 4. Consultation upon the proposals is the first stage in the procedure set out in section 21 of the Education Reform Act to make regulations under section 17 of that Act. Copies of the proposals have been placed in the Library of the House.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be publishing separately a draft order to introduce a reduced course for geography in England and his proposals in respect of history and geography in key stage 4.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Force, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any further plans to increase the police establishment in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has approved an increase of 13 posts for the Leicestershire constabulary with effect from 1 October 1991. The police authority has also made an application for a further 27 police officers in 1992–93 which, with the advice of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, is being considered along with applications from other police authorities.

  Referendum (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received for a referendum from the Isle of Wight county council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss making available the criminal records of taxi licence applicants to district councils.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Discussions between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers on this, and other questions of disclosure from criminal record, will take place as part of the formal consideration of the recommendations of the scrutiny of criminal records which reported at the end of April.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to respond to the report "Non-Disclosure of Criminal Convictions", issued by the Association of District Councils, with respect to the granting of taxi licences to persons with criminal records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office officials have written to the Association of District Councils. We are considering the question of access to criminal records in connection with the licensing of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers in the context of the response to the scrutiny of criminal recors which reported in April.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal offences have been committed by taxi drivers against their passengers in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify the number of offences committed by taxi drivers against their passengers.

  Establishment

  Date

  Incident

  Outcome

  1. Threats to security entailing a full search

  (a) Closed Prisons

  Birmingham

  25 February 1991

  Firearms alert

  Nothing found

  Bristol

  11 December 1990

  Bomb threat and firearm alert

  Nothing found

  Bristol

  18 January 1991

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Brixton

  7 August 1990

  Loss of security key

  Key not found—locks changed

  Canterbury

  1 December 1990

  Firearm alert

  Nothing found

  Cardiff

  18 November 1990

  Firearm alert

  Nothing found

  236
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to enable district councils to have access to police records when considering applications for taxi licences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are considering this issue in the context of the response to the scrutiny of criminal records which reported in April.

  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for taxi licences have been prosecuted for not declaring criminal records.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify the number of applicants for taxi licences who have been prosecuted for not declaring criminal records.

  Mr. Sadaf Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where in his Department the files Y24263, B459500 and K385506 are currently held; if he will release the passports of Mr. Sadaf Hussain (date of birth 15-2-1969, passport No. L682432F) and his wife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These files are presently held in the asylum division of the immigration and nationality department. The subjects of these files were granted exceptional leave to remain on 7 May and their passports were returned to their legal representatives on that day. The passports of Mr. Sadaf Hussain—subject of file reference H354158—and his wife were returned to their legal representatives on 13 May. Mrs. Hussain has been granted indefinite leave to remain.

  Prisons (Security Alerts)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for the last 12 months the dates on which each of Her Majesty's closed prison establishments were put on maximum security alert; for what reasons; and what were the results obtained;

  (2) if he will list for the last 12 months the dates on which each of Her Majesty's open prison establishments were put on maximum security alert; for what reasons; and what were the results obtained.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The term "maximum security alert" is not one used in prisons. Incidents recorded centrally between 9 May 1990 and 8 May 1991 which (1) involved a full search of the prison, or (2) presented a significant threat to control, were as follows:
  237

  Establishment

  Date

  Incident

  Outcome

  Channings Wood

  31 October 1990

  Missing inmate

  Inmate found after 2½ hours

  Chelmsford

  24 July 1990

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Chelmsford

  6 November 1990

  Loss of security key

  Key not found—locks changed

  Chelmsford

  18 February 1991

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Deerbolt

  16 August 1990

  Two missing prisoners

  Prisoners found in roof space

  Eastwood Park

  11 January 1991

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Erlestoke

  13 March 1991

  Loss of security key

  Key found

  Full Sutton

  6 December 1990

  Loss of officer's radio

  Radio not found

  Gartree

  31 December 1990

  Firearm alert and concerted indiscipline

  No firearm found; illicit alcohol discovered.

  Hindley

  31 May 1990

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Leicester

  9 October 1990

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Leicester

  6 November 1990

  Photographic film of a security area found

  Full search conducted for camera—nothing found

  Lewes

  22 November 1990

  Firearm alert

  Canister of an incapacitating agent found.

  Lewes

  2 December 1990

  Replica firearm found

  Blank ammunition found

  Lewes

  25 March 1991

  Two live rounds of ammunition found

  Blank ammunition found

  Lindholme

  13 September 1990

  Loss of 3 garden knives

  All knives found

  Liverpool

  11 September 1990

  Security key missing

  Key not found

  Long Lartin

  24 May 1990

  Firearm alert

  Nothing found

  Low Newton

  5 December 1990

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Pentonville

  2 October 1990

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  Preston

  14 November 1990

  Loss of kitchen knife

  Knife eventually found in drain on 28 November 1990

  Ranby

  21 June 1990

  Two prisoners missing

  Recaptured in prison kitchen

  Shepton Mallet

  31 July 1990

  Loss of security key

  Key found

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3 May 1991

  Firearm alert

  Nothing found

  (b) Open Prisons

  Finnamore Wood

  11 July 1990

  Security key missing

  Prisoner who stole key discovered

  Hewell Grange

  3 April 1991

  Loss of officer's radio

  Radio found on 9 April 1991

  New Hall

  14 January 1991

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  New Hall

  4 February 1991

  Bomb threat

  Nothing found

  2. Significant threats to control (All closed prisons)

  Acklington

  12 February 1991

  Refusal to return to cells

  Damage to prison property—resolved after one hour without use of force

  Cardiff

  1 November 1990

  Rooftop demonstration by 2 inmates

  Damage to roof. Inmates surrendered after 5 hours

  Cookham Wood

  6 December 1990

  Refusal to return to cells

  Resolved by negotiation

  Full Sutton

  3 June 1990

  36 prisoners barricaded in dining hall

  Damage to prison property. Surrendered after 7½hours

  Full Sutton

  5 January 1991

  85 prisoners refused to return to cells

  Resolved after 3 hours. No force used

  Full Sutton

  6 January 1991

  75 prisoners refused to return to cells

  Resolved after 2½ hours. No force used

  Hull

  30 September 1990

  Rooftop demonstration by 2 inmates

  Surrendered after 1¼ hours and 5 hours respectively

  Kirklevington

  12 November 1990

  Barricade and attempted escape

  Damage to prison property. Resolved by control and restraint teams.

  Leeds

  26 July 1990

  92 prisoners refused to leave exercise yard.

  Ended peacefully after one hour.

  Norwich

  2 December 1990

  Barricade and escape attempt by 9 prisoners.

  Control and restraint team intervened after 6½ hours of negotiation. Attempt thwarted.

  238 239

  Establishment

  Date

  Incident

  Outcome

  Parkhurst

  28 July 1990

  Rooftop demonstration by 2 inmates

  Control and restraint team intervened after 11½ hours of negotiation.

  Pentonville

  24 March 1991

  12 prisoners refused to leave exercise yard.

  Ended after 1½ hours.

  Preston

  15 July 1990

  Rooftop demonstration by 51 inmates.

  Surrendered after 4 hours.

  Rochester

  31 December 1990

  20 prisoners refused to leave TV room.

  Resolved by negotiation after 1½ hours.

  Rochester

  17 February 1991

  30 prisoners damaged dormitories.

  Resolved by negotiation after 1½ hours.

  Shepton Mallet

  15 November 1990

  Suspected concerted indiscipline.

  No incident occurred; suspected ringleaders transferred.

  Stoke Heath

  7 April 1991

  Prisoners refused to leave dining hall.

  Resolved by negotiation after half an hour.

  Winchester

  13 May 1990

  Rooftop demonstration by 7 inmates.

  Considerable damage to roof; resolved by negotiation after 10 hours.

  Winchester

  17 February 1991

  34 prisoners refused to leave exercise yard.

  Resolved by negotiation after one hour.

  Transferred Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in gaols in England and Wales were transferred in the interests of good order and discipline under the provisions of C.I. 10/74 and its successor C.I. 37/90 in each of the last five years; and how many of those prisoners were placed in segregation or solitary confinement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  West Middlesex Immigration Service Ltd.
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases since 1986 his Department has received written or oral representations from Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi directly or indirectly through the West Middlesex Immigration Service Ltd. in respect of applications for political asylum or applications concerning immigration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics of individual cases and representations by individual agents are not recorded. The information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reports he has received from the Metropolitan police about Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi and West Middlesex Immigration Service Ltd.; when reports were received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 26 November 1990 the police investigating the activities of Mr. Bedi and West Middlesex Immigration Service Ltd. have been in close and regular contact with the Home Office. Most of these exchanges have involved requests by the police for information, evidence and witness statements.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has information about any staff, or former staff, of the immigration and nationality
  240
  department, who have been retained, directly or indirectly, by West Middlesex Immigration Service Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am not aware of any present or former member of the department's staff being so retained. If the hon. Member has information indicating that a member of the Home Office staff has been retained by this organisation, I should be grateful if he would bring it to my attention.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official contacts there have been between his Department and Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi, (i) individually, (ii) representing the West Middlesex Immigration Service Ltd. or (iii) representing any other organisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics of contact with individuals, individual agents, organisations or representatives are not recorded. The information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines have been issued to officials in the immigration and nationality department about Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi and West Middlesex Immigration Services Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No general guidelines have been issued. But certain officials have been instructed to give the fullest co-operation to the Metropolitan and City police company fraud department in the conduct of their investigation into the activities of Mr. Bedi and this company.

  Juvenile Liaison Panels
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many police forces in England and Wales juvenile liaison panels are operating.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Juvenile liaison panels are operating successfully in a number of police forces, but comprehensive information as to their precise distribution is not available centrally.

  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the release of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal from Bedford prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am satisfied that a decision to release Mr. Chahal cannot be justified at the present time.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Representations on Mr. Chahal's behalf have been received from several hon. Members, his legal representatives, concerned members of the Sikh community, Amnesty International and other concerned individuals. The representations have concerned the reasons for the decision to make a deportation order on grounds of national security; the decision to detain Mr. Chahal; and his claim to political asylum. Mr. Chahal has indicated that he wishes to make representations to the three advisers, and I shall ensure that all representations made to the Home Office are brought to their attention. My right hon. Friend shall, of course, review the case fully in the light of the advisers' recommendations, the available evidence and any representations made on Mr. Chahal's behalf.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal to be able to appeal, with legal representation, against refusal to grant him asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Chahal has no statutory entitlement to appeal to the independent appellate authorities against the decision to refuse him political asylum. He does, however, have an entitlement to appeal against any directions set for his removal from the United Kingdom. In addition, he has asked to make representations to the three advisers about my right hon. Friend's decision to deport him for reasons of national security. Any request for him to be legally represented before the three advisers is a matter for their consideration.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to his policy for the disclosure of criminal background of those with access to children, what progress he has made in developing separate arrangements for those working with voluntary organisations, as envisaged in paragraph 1 of Home Office circular 102/88.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Three pilot schemes have been operational since early 1990 and are now being evaluated. They have enabled criminal records to be disclosed to certain voluntary organisations under the terms of Home Office circular 58/1989. Proposals for the future will be drawn up in the light of the evaluation report and the recommendations of the Home Office scrutiny of criminal records which reported at the end of April.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraqi Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific categories of armament are required to be included in the Iraqi Government's inventory of nuclear materials in Iraq under United Nations Security Council resolution 687.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UN Security Council resolution 687 required Iraq to submit to the Secretary General and the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons usable material, subsystems, components and any related research, development, support or manufacturing facilities.

  Nuclear Suppliers Group
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 26 April, column 600, whether any meetings of the nuclear suppliers group were sought between 1978 and 1991.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of informal discussions took place between 1978 and 1991 about the possibility of further meetings of states adhering to the nuclear suppliers group guidelines.

  Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz),Official Report, 30 April, column 140, about the volume of correspondence received by the Foreign Office Members of Parliament correspondence unit, if he will make it his policy to institute arrangements to enable him to answer substantively such questions in future.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Detailed statistics about the volume of correspondence received are not readily available, and at present could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, we are considering the results of a scrutiny of ministerial correspondence by the Cabinet Office.

  Mixed Oxide Nuclear Fuel (Japan)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been offered by the British embassy in Japan to British Nuclear Fuels plc in obtaining contracts from Japanese Electrical Utilities for mixed oxide nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has no mixed oxide nuclear fuel contracts with Japanese customers at present. The British embassy provides British companies, including BNFL, with commercial assistance as well as advice on the political background in Japan. There is a counsellor (atomic energy) on the staff of the embassy.

  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal; and if he will make a statement.
  243
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

ENERGY

  Electrostatic Dust Precipitators
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what directions he has given to PowerGen and National Power regarding the level of expenditure by each company on electrostatic dust precipitators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Regulatory control of emissions from the electricity supply industry is the responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Expenditure on maintenance of electrostatic precipitators is part of normal pollution control necessary to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements for the control of emissions. It is, therefore, a matter for the companies.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the cost per kilowatt hour of the most widely used(a) wet-dry, (b) wet and (c) dry flue gas desulphurisation processes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The cost per kilowatt hour of sulphur dioxide abatement varies considerably depending not only on the choice of process but on a number of other factors including the level of abatement required, fuel quality, plant size, load factor, accounting practices and

  Percentage of electricity production in 1989

  Conventional thermal1

  Coal2

  Petroleum products

  Gas

  Other3

  Nuclear

  Hydroelectric

  Geothermal

  Belgium

  22

  3

  12

  1

  61

  2

  —

  Denmark

  92

  5

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  West Germany

  48

  2

  10

  1

  34

  5

  —

  Greece

  72

  21

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Spain

  40

  6

  1

  —

  39

  14

  —

  France

  8

  3

  2

  —

  75

  13

  —

  Ireland

  457

  5

  31

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Italy

  13

  48

  18

  —

  —

  19

  1

  Luxembourg

  —

  2

  35

  3

  —

  61

  —

  Netherlands

  30

  4

  58

  1

  5

  —

  —

  Portugal

  28

  45

  —

  3

  —

  24

  —

  United Kingdom

  65

  10

  2

  —

  22

  2

  —

  Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  1 Data are not available separately for plant using flue gas desulphurisation.

  2 Including lignite.

  3 Steam purchased, wood, peat, industrial residues etc.

  4 Including peat.

  Source: Eurostat.

  North Sea Investment
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of total United Kingdom industrial investment is accounted for by capital investment in the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Capital investment in the North sea accounted for 16 per cent. of total United Kingdom industrial investment in 1990.
  244
  whether the installation is new or retrofit as well as site-specific factors. These factors will also affect the choice of emission control equipment. A comprehensive review of emission abatement technologies, "Manual of Acidic Abatement Technologies", undertaken by the Fellowship of Engineering for the Department of Environment, contains sample cost estimates for a number of FGD processes and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the level of expenditure in each EC country on fitting flue gas desulphurisation over the past five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not available. For the United Kingdom, expenditure on the installation of FGD equipment at Drax power station to end 1990 was £165 million.

  Electricity Sources
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table showing the percentage of electricity derived from(a) coal, (b) coal plant using flue gas desulphurisation, (c) oil, (d) gas, (e) hydro and (f) other renewable sources in each European Community member state.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The breakdown of electricity production which can be provided is given in the table:

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information his Department holds on interruptions of supply to domestic consumers of each electricity company in England and Wales from each year since 1985–86 up to and including 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Under regulation 35 of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, every supplier is required to give notice to my Department of supply failures where two days' prior notice to consumers has not been given.

  The figures for supply interruptions to all consumers, on a company basis, during the period 1987–88 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  245

  Electricity company

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  London

  7

  5

  13

  16

  Seeboard

  2

  15

  19

  7

  Southern

  5

  7

  20

  9

  South West

  7

  12

  12

  7

  Eastern

  14

  16

  25

  14

  East Midlands

  3

  9

  9

  9

  Midlands

  5

  8

  19

  11

  South Wales

  2

  4

  6

  2

  Manweb

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Yorkshire

  5

  4

  2

  8

  Northern

  6

  0

  13

  17

  Norweb

  4

  7

  7

  4

  TOTAL

  62

  87

  145

  106

  The figures do not distinguish between domestic consumers and others. Earlier figures are not readily available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Commercial Agreements (Iraq)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all current commercial agreements with Iraq that his Department has sanctioned.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Weights and Measures Agency
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has set performance targets for the National Weights and Measures Laboratory executive agency for 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  Yes. I have set the agency the following targets:

  Target

  1991–92

  Total number of new patterns examined

  80

  Total number of pattern variants examined

  360

  Total number of calibration certificates issued

  590

  Percentage of examinations completed in 18 weeks from registration

  75 per cent.

  Percentage of certificates published in 12 weeks

  80 per cent.

  Target annual fee increase

  1 per cent. less than inflation

  Target increase in cost of calibration of particular weight set

  1 per cent. less than inflation

  In working towards achieving these targets the National Weights and Measures Laboratory is again planning to offer a higher quality of service to customers at a lower real unit cost.

  Uncertificated Shares
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the draft regulations to permit the introduction of uncertificated shares.
  246
  Mr. Redwood
  In July 1990 I published a consultative paper entitled "Electronic Recording and Transfer of Shares". Many comments were received, and in the light of them and of extensive discussion with the stock exchange to establish how it wishes the system to work in legal terms, my Department has now prepared draft regulations. These regulations, to be made under section 207 of the Companies Act 1989, will provide the essential legal and regulatory framework for TAURUS.

  I have today published the draft regulations in the form of a consultative document entitled "The Uncertificated Securities Regulations". Comments are invited by 16 August. A copy of the document has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cross-media Promotion
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now respond to the report on standards of cross-media promotion, submitted to him by Mr. John Sadler.

  Mr. Lilley
  I announced on 13 March that I welcomed the publication of the Sadler report, and that I would be willing, during a period of six weeks, to hear the views of interested parties before making any final decisions. I am grateful to those who responded, both to me and to the Home Secretary, with whom I have discussed the way ahead.

  The newspaper industry

  The report recommended that the newspaper industry should be invited to establish a code of practice on cross-media promotion and suggested the points that such a code should cover. Virtually all those who responded welcomed this recommendation in principle. There have been encouraging indications from the industry itself that it is willing to draw up a code.

  The recommendation concerning premium rate telephone services attracted less comment in itself. Those who did mention it specifically were in favour.

  I have therefore decided to pursue the Sadler recommendation:
  "The newspaper industry should be invited to establish a code of practice on crossmedia promotion".

  I also accept the related recommendation:
  "The promotion of premium rate telephone services should be governed by the provisions of the general code of practice on cross media promotion which…the newspaper industry should be invited to establish".

  I have written today to the chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Association and the director of the Newspaper Society, which between them cover national and regional newspapers, welcoming the recommendations that newspapers both individually and nationally should draw up codes of practice on cross-media promotion, and inviting them to take these recommendations forward on behalf of the industry.

  The BBC's promotion of its magazines

  The Sadler report recommended that the Director General of Fair Trading should be asked to consider referring to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the BBC's practice in respect of the use of its air time to promote its magazines, because in his view this might be distorting competition. The overwhelming majority of those who responded to my invitation to comment strongly supported this recommendation. The Home Secretary and I have also seen the BBC.
  247
  After reflecting carefully on all the arguments regarding the BBC's promotional activities, the Home Secretary and I have decided to accept the recommendation.

  The issues are complex and a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will allow all sides of the argument to be heard by an independent body which has considerable experience in assessing the public interest where competition is in question. If I were to reject the Sadler recommendation I would be failing to acknowledge that such questions deserved careful consideration.

  I have written to the Director General of Fair Trading today to tell him of my and the Home Secretary's views.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Services ("Customers")
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what instructions or requests have been made by him or any Government Department to any office, agency, or publicly owned service or authority to use the word customers in respect of users of public services; and if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of this word in respect of British Railways, London Transport, the Benefits Agency, and schools.

  The Prime Minister
  No such instructions have been issued.

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the study by Sir Angus Fraser of the relationship between Government Departments and the "next steps" agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  Since my predecessor's announcement of the "next steps" initiative on 18 February 1988, 50 agencies have been set up, and nearly half of all civil servants will soon be operating under "next steps" principles. This is already leading to the real improvements in the quality of service to the public and better value for money which the changes are designed to secure.

  In the light of these developments Sir Angus Fraser was asked to examine the relationship between Departments and agencies and how Departments should be adapting their structure, size and methods of working. In his report to me, Sir Angus records the general agreement that "next steps" is going well. There is genuine enthusiasm and energy throughout the civil service for the changes that are taking place, with fresh ideas and increased commitment to improving value for money and quality of service, for the benefit both of the customer and the taxpayer. Running alongside this is a strong conviction that there is scope for more progress.

  The report contains a number of ideas for developing the roles of both Departments and agencies in support of Ministers. The objective is that both sides of the relationship between Ministers and chief executives—which lies at the heart of "next steps"—should be strengthened.

  For their part, Departments must provide well-informed and authoritative support to Ministers in order that Ministers can give agencies clear strategic direction firmly related to the Government's policy objectives; determine the financial resources to be made available: select and set suitably robust and meaningful targets
  248
  covering quality of service, financial performance and efficiency; and call chief executives to account for the performance. This means strategic advice and direction, geared to the relationship between each Minister and agency, not day-to-day involvement. As a result, the number of people at the centres of Departments can be reduced.

  On the other side, chief executives will need increased personal responsibility and authority for running their organisations in order to achieve the progressive improvements in performance, quality of service and value for money that are required. The Government believe that agencies' delegations and flexibilities can be enlarged as their track record of performance is established, provided that essential controls on public expenditure are not jeopardised.

  It is on the basis of these principles that I have asked the head of the home civil service to set in train arrangements to ensure that the ideas in this report are taken forward in each Department and agency in ways which fit each particular activity. The next steps project manager has been instructed to work with the Treasury and Departments to achieve this, reporting to me through the head of the home civil service. I look forward to seeing further improvements in the management of the civil service resulting from this process.

  I am grateful to Sir Angus Fraser and his team for their report. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and is being published by HMSO today.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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.

HEALTH

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total public expenditure so far on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available. Expenditure on the assessment, consultation and representation aspects of the Act is included in fieldwork and administration costs, while service expenditure attributable to the Act cannot be separated from service expenditure that might otherwise have occurred.

  Goodmayes Hospital, Redbridge
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will order an inquiry into staffing levels and the level of patient care at Goodmayes hospital, Redbridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many break-ins there have been in the case of Goodmayes hospital, Redbridge, over the last 12
  249
  months; what security arrangements exist in the hospital to deter breaches of the law; and what lighting arrangements exist in the hospital grounds and property for reasons of security and personal protection.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Security arrangements at health service premises are the responsibility of local managers. They are best placed to determine the appropriate security arrangements for the protection of both patients and staff in the light of their knowledge of their premises and the degree of access necessary for patients and their visitors.

  The hon. Member may wish to write to Miss Delva Patman, chairman of Redbridge district health authority, for details.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use has been made of bank nurses by Goodmayes hospital for night time cover in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Miss Delva Patman, chairman of Redbridge health authority, for details.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the funding of Goodmayes hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. Funding of all national health service provider units now depends on their success at securing contracts from purchasing authorities.

  Clinical Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue guidelines to health authorities and NHS trusts in order for them to comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the disposal of clinical waste, amputated limbs, soiled bandages, drugs and syringes;

  (2) if there has been a Government survey of the hospitals that do not now comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as it applies to the disposal of clinical waste;

  (3) if he will list the hospitals which are currently negotiating for temporary exemption from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the disposal of clinical waste;

  (4) if there will be negotiations with individual hospitals concerning temporary exemption from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the disposal of clinical waste.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A "Strategic Guide for Waste Management", which deals with the effects of the removal of Crown immunity from the national health service and the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library, was issued to health authorities and NHS trusts in March 1991.

  From 1 April 1991 health authorities with clinical waste incinerators have to obtain authorisation for their operation from the appropriate local authority. If upgrading of the incinerator is required in order to meet the requirements of the environmental protection legislation a programme for that upgrading has to be agreed with the local authority within six months of the date of issue of the first authorisation.
  250
  I have asked the NHS management executive to monitor the progress being made to meet the requirements of the environmental protection legislation and establish the number of units which are unable, by 1 April 1992, to comply with the full requirements.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is currently carrying out into benzodiazepines.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department is not currently involved in any such research.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for women the numbers treated by the national health service suffering from osteoporosis for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and at what cost to the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish figures for 1989–90 showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in England whose deliveries were(a) spontaneous, including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous, (b) instrumental, including forceps, vacuum and breech extractions, (c) caesarean section and (d) other and unspecified means;

  (2) if he will publish figures for 1989–90 showing the estimated percentage of women delivering in England (a) whose labours were induced, (b) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (c) who had elective caesarean section.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: Provisional estimates of the percentages requested for England are given in the following tables.

  Method of delivery

  Per cent.

  Spontaneous

  78

  Instrumental

  10

  Caesarean section

  12

  Other and unspecified

  1—

  1 Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Method of onset of labour

  Per cent.

  Induced

  18

  Spontaneous onset

  74

  Elective caesarean

  5

  Not known

  3

  Source: SMI2: Maternity hospital episode statistics.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Fixed Investment
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest International Monetary Fund forecast for the growth in United Kingdom fixed investment in 1991.
  251
  Mr. Mellor
  The International Monetary Fund will publish a new forecast of United Kingdom fixed investment in the "World Economic Outlook", which is expected to be published at the end of May.

  Working Mothers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the tax arrangements for working mothers with small children.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep the tax arrangements for working mothers continually under review. But, as he will recall, we decided that a priority this year was to give further help to all mothers with children, through increases in child benefit.

  Charities
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had on the implications of his Budget for charitable organisations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received a number of representations from charities following the Budget and I can assure my hon. Friend that their views will be carefully considered.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated public sector borrowing requirement for this financial year; and what are the comparable figures for the United States of America and the average of EC countries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn).

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the latest trend in the balance of trade for manufactured goods.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr Irvine).

  Inflation
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the inflation rate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  All-items RPI inflation was 8·2 per cent. in March. It is expected to fall sharply over the coming months to 4 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1991.

  Interest Rates
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to see a further reduction in interest rates.

  Mr. Mellor
  Interest rates will continue to be set at levels which are fully consistent with our commitment to keep sterling within its ERM bands and to bear down on inflation.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from businesses on the effects of high interest rates; and if he will make a statement.
  252
  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Bank base rates are 12 per cent.

  Insolvencies
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of insolvencies and liquidations in 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total number of business failures, including liquidations, winding-up orders and self-employed bankruptcy orders, was about 25,000 in England and Wales in 1990, representing around 1·6 per cent. of the companies registered for VAT at the end of the year.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the corporation tax rates and thresholds for small businesses; and what the equivalent figures were for 1979.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the corporation tax rates and thresholds for small businesses; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  Investment
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how has the level of total investment within the United Kingdom economy changed since 1980.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Total investment in the United Kingdom at constant prices grew by over 47 per cent. between 1980 and 1990.

  Productivity
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when in the last 30 years was whole economy productivity at a lower level than it is now.

  Mr. Mellor
  In every year but 1988 whole economy productivity was lower than in 1990.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Energy Committee's third report of this Session on energy efficiency in respect of taxation policies.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government will be giving their response to the Select Committee's report in the normal way.

  Aggregate Dredging, Solent
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much aggregate was dredged in the Solent in 1990; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Quantity Dredged

  1980

  891,747

  1981

  581,164

  1982

  542,756

  1983

  502,854

  1984

  540,123

  1985

  410,416

  1986

  438,557

  1987

  411,233

  1988

  336,011

  1989

  268,345

  1990

  324,345

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Crown estate earned from aggregate dredging in the Solent in 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Crown estate earned £117,358 from marine aggregate dredging licences for the Solent in 1990.

  Direct Taxation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans further to reduce direct taxation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  It remains our objective to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he possesses to veto proposals from the Customs and Excise authorities should they wish to change a valued added tax band in which any item is placed, and where the consent of the European Commission is not required.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Any proposal to alter the provisions of the VAT Act would be a matter for Parliament. Care and management of the tax is, however, specifically laid by statute to the commissioners of Customs and Excise and this includes interpretation of the existing provisions of the Act. The proper convention is that Ministers do not intervene in such matters. Disputes about interpretation of the provisions of the Act are subject to reviews by independent VAT tribunals.

  Profit-sharing Share Schemes
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies currently operate a profit-sharing share scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Of 1,943 all-employee share schemes approved by the Inland Revenue up to 30 April 1991, 966 were profit-sharing schemes. Any such scheme 254
  may relate to one or more companies, and I regret that information about the total number of companies covered is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  In the year to 31 March 1990, shares worth £380 million were appropriated under approved profit sharing schemes to 850,000 employees.

  Rating Valuation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of the work undertaken by the Valuation Office due for completion on 10 May under rating circular No. 58; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 2 May, Official Report, column 299.

  Platform Yards
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to Her Majesty's Exchequer for the building of(a) the platform yard at Hunterston, Ayrshire, and (b) other platform yards in Scotland in the periods 1975 to 1978 and 1978 to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act 1975 expenditure was incurred on Portavadie and Hunterston. The trading account for the year ended 31 March 1986 indicated expenditure of £29·2 million, of which £22·8 million was incurred between 1975 and 1978. A breakdown between the two yards is not readily available.

  Any financial support for other platform yards in Scotland is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the national milk quotas for all EC countries; and what information he has on the degree to which member states have succeeded in enforcing them.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of the milk quotas available to each member state of the EC are set out in the table. The Commission's proposal for quota reductions of about 2 per cent. have not been taken into account. It is for the EC Commission to ensure that the quota regulations are enforced by member states and expenditure from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund may be disallowed if infringements are discovered. In 1988, the latest year for which accounts have been cleared, disallowances were made in respect of expenditure by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands; the Commission has reserved its position in relation to Ireland, where court action is outstanding.
  255

  All figures in tonnes

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  (A) - (B) + (C)

  Member states

  Wholesale quota before suspension 1991–92

  Quota suspended by regulation 775/87

  Community reserve quota

  Total available wholesale quota

  Direct sales quota

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Belgium

  3,089,751

  144,495

  —

  5,511

  32,110

  2,982,877

  380,809

  Denmark

  4,686,720

  219,690

  —

  8,064

  48,820

  4,523,914

  970

  Germany total (of

  29,118,960

  1,360,215

  —

  135,000

  234,230

  28,127,975

  153,100

  which former GDR)

  (6,599,880)

  (306,180)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (60,000)

  Greece

  555,520

  24,165

  —

  —

  5,370

  536,725

  4,620

  Spain

  4,664,000

  209,250

  50,000

  —

  46,500

  4,551,250

  527,500

  Portugal

  1,779,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,779,000

  121,000

  France

  24,708,640

  1,153,530

  —

  53,672

  256,340

  23,865,122

  747,780

  Ireland

  5,068,800

  237,600

  303,000

  98,881

  52,800

  5,285,881

  15,520

  Italy

  8,796,080

  395,910

  —

  —

  87,980

  8,488,150

  732,520

  Luxembourg

  254,400

  11,925

  25,000

  674

  2,650

  270,799

  970

  Netherlands

  11,499,840

  539,055

  —

  40,141

  119,790

  11,120,716

  92,150

  United Kingdom

  14,716,391

  689,831

  65,000

  160,290

  153,296

  14,405,146

  383,563

  European Community 12

  108,938,102

  4,985,666

  443,000

  502,233

  1,039,886

  105,937,555

  3,160,502

  Footnotes:

  (a) Determined in accordance with Article 5c(4) of Council Regulation 804/68.

  (b) "SLOM" quota issued under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 764/89.

  (c) Additional quota allocated for 1989/90 and subsequent years under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3880/89.

  Fishing Fleet
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the extent of the required reduction of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet in percentage terms in relation to gross registered tonnes and engine power, under the European Community's multi-annual guidance programme in 1991 and 1992: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom's current multi-annual guidance programme is being amended to reflect the number of registered, as opposed to active, fishing vessels, and the final 1991 target is not available. The 1992–96 MAGP has not yet been promulgated.

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether permission has been granted to a private firm to dump 2,000 cu. m. of spoil off Bolt head; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  An application for a licence to dump dredged material off Bolt head has been received and is under consideration.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to protect the coastal waters off South Devon from spoil dumping at sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 no disposal of dredged material is permitted without a licence. In determining whether to issue a licence for any site in England and Wales, the Ministry must have regard to the need to protect the marine environment, the living resources which it supports and human health, to the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea and to the practical availability of any alternative methods of dealing with the material.

  Regulations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is normal practice for his Ministry to circulate relevant regulations to local authorities.
  256
  Mr. Gummer
  Legislation relevant to local authorities is publicised in a number of ways, including direct contact with local authority associations and their co-ordinating bodies. Printed copies are available from HMSO, but are not normally circulated by my Department.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Border Roads
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many border roads have been closed by order of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during the past five years; and if he will state the roads which have been closed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not readily available in the format requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There are, however, 291 recognised border crossing points, 98 of which are subject to closure orders. Seventy-five of these crossings are currently closed.

  Conservation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the enhancement strategies in respect of the conservation areas in Killough, Strangford, Ardglass, Saintfield, Killyleagh and Rostrevor will be published; and what action will be taken in respect of this matter.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  (a)

  Killough:

  A draft enhancement strategy was forwarded by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to the village committee for comment in September 1990 and the Department is awaiting a reply.

  (b)

  Strangford:

  The Department intends to finalise the draft enhancement strategy for June 1991 and the document will then be presented to the village committee for their comments.

  (c)

  Killyleagh:

  Has not yet been designated as a conservation area but is included in the designation programme for 1991–92 and an architectural consultant has been appointed to prepare design guidance for the conservation area.

  257
  The Department of Environment's intention, subject to availability of resources, is to complete designation and enhancement strategies for Ardglass, Saintfield and the extension to the Rostrevor conservation area boundary within the next five years.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers employed in each district council area on a monthly basis from 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991 according to the information collected by the Government Statistical Service.

  Mr. Needham
  Comprehensive information on the number of employees in employment by district council area is available only from the census of employment, currently conducted every two years. Information from the census for September 1987 and 1989 is:

  District Council

  September 1987

  September 1989

  Derry

  28,200

  30,000

  Limavady

  5,900

  6,500

  Coleraine

  15,800

  16,900

  Ballymoney

  5,300

  5,300

  Moyle

  2,100

  2,400

  Larne

  7,100

  7,400

  Ballymena

  19,200

  20,100

  Magherafelt

  8,600

  9,700

  Cookstown

  5,600

  5,900

  Strabane

  6,900

  7,400

  Omagh

  12,100

  12,500

  Fermanagh

  12,400

  14,300

  Dungannon

  11,000

  12,400

  Craigavon

  27,100

  28,000

  Armagh

  12,900

  12,600

  Newry and Mourne

  18,400

  19,500

  Banbridge

  7,100

  7,100

  Down

  13,000

  13,500

  Lisburn

  25,400

  26,700

  Antrim

  11,800

  12,000

  Newtownabbey

  20,900

  23,200

  Carrickfergus

  5,700

  5,800

  North Down

  14,200

  15,200

  Ards

  14,300

  16,200

  Castlereagh

  17,800

  18,800

  Belfast

  159,900

  159,700

  Northern Ireland

  488,700

  509,100

  (1) Figures relate to employees in employment and exclude Agriculture.

  (2) Employment figures are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not add due to rounding.

  (3) Source NI Census of Employment.

  (4) 1989 figures are provisional and may be subject to revision.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration of public policy underlay his decision not to offer the people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere the opportunity to apply for share ownership in the privatised electricity generating industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government, having considered with their advisers all possible methods of sale, decided that sale of the power stations by private treaty was more appropriate than a public flotation.

  The main reason for this is the size of the individual generation businesses which makes them unsuitable for sale by flotation.
  258
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will suspend the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity until the European Community directive to reduce emissions from power stations to meet EC regulations is met.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Legislation which will give effect to the large combustion plant directive in Northern Ireland is already in preparation and will be operative before the completion of arrangements for the privatisation of NIE. Accordingly, I see no reason why progress on the privatisation should be delayed on that account.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy, in the light of the impending privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity, to answer questions on the day-to-day running of that company during the two years immediately prior to flotation and sale.

  Mr. Needham
  The existing arrangements for answering hon. Members' questions on aspects of Northern Ireland Electricity's operations will remain unchanged while that organisation is in the public sector.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when refurbishment of Northern Ireland Electricity headquarters in Belfast is expected to be completed.

  Mr. Needham
  NIE advises that the work is expected to be completed by the end of May 1991.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the projected budget for advertising and marketing the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Needham
  The details of the marketing and advertising campaign have not yet been drawn up and therefore there is no budget.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations were received from the trade unions in Northern Ireland Electricity regarding the proposals to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Needham
  Since the publication of the Government's proposals, representations have been received from the trade unions in which they have sought assurances about the future rights of members of the NIE pension scheme and asked that the unions be consulted on this and other matters affecting their members' interests. Representations have also been received to the effect that work on the privatisation should be suspended pending the outcome of the current political talks.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether ministerial approval was sought by Northern Ireland Electricity for expenditure on refurbishment of its headquarters.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland Electricity is required to seek approval for major capital items and approval for expenditure on the refurbishment of NIE headquarters was sought and given.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether copies of all consultants' reports commissioned by Northern Ireland Electricity have been
  259
  made available to the Department of Economic Development (NI); and if he will place in the Library a copy of each report commissioned related to NIE In the last two years.

  Mr. Needham
  NIE has made available to the Department of Economic Development copies of those reports commissioned by NIE which are considered to be significant. These are commercially confidential and a decision to publish would lie with NIE.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the daily average percentage of Northern Ireland's electricity generated at Ballylumford power station, Kilroot power station, Belfast West power station and Coolkeeragh power station.

  Mr. Needham
  The daily average percentage of electricity generated by each of Northern Ireland Electricity's power stations fluctuates widely depending on the price of fuel at the time and maintenance and other routine requirements. During the year ended 31 March 1991, the percentage of electricity generated by Northern Ireland Electricity's four power stations was as follows:

  Number

  Ballylumford

  51

  Kilroot

  32

  Belfast West

  10

  Coolkeeragh

  7

  Estimated expenditure on rates by education and library boards-1991–92

  Belfast £000s

  North Eastern £000s

  South Eastern £000s

  Southern £000s

  Western £000s

  Secondary Schools

  2,610

  3,192

  2,161

  2,600

  2,025

  Further Education

  626

  683

  456

  593

  400

SCOTLAND

  Dampness
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessments he has made of the efficiency of erecting false walls as a remedy for dampness in local authority housing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for local authorities themselves to draw up programmes for tackling dampness and condensation in their housing stock and to take account of the relevance and effectiveness of particular repair methods adopted. The Scottish Office has in recent years undertaken or commissioned research, and published the findings, relating to condensation in public authority housing and the assessment of available thermal upgrading or other remedial measures. In addition, a considerable amount of guidance on these issues has been published by other bodies including the Building Research Establishment.

  Foxes
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of grant paid to fox destruction clubs in each of the past five years.
  260
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what media and other channels of communication will be used in the marketing of the four Northern Ireland power stations.

  Mr. Needham
  The details of the marketing arrangements for the four power stations have not yet been finalised and this has not yet been decided.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any refurbishment or redecoration of offices at(a) Kilroot power station, (b) Belfast West power station, (c) Coolkeeragh power station and (d) Ballylumford power station is planned before privatisation of electricity generation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  NIE advises that no further office refurbishment at Kilroot and Coolkeeragh power stations is planned beyond the routine work recently completed. The present work at Belfast West will complete a general update of the station and no further work is planned before privatisation. No refurbishment of the offices at Ballylumford is planned before privatisation.

  Schools and Colleges (Rates)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total rates bill for grant-aided secondary schools and further education colleges in each of the five education and library boards in the 1991–92 financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 1 November 1990,Official Report, column 723.

  Manufacturing Job Losses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total net job loss in manufacturing in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) the Paisley travel-to-work area since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Between 1979 and 1989, the net job losses in manufacturing in Scotland, Strathclyde region and Paisley totalled 209,500, 138,800 and 14,600 respectively. As Paisley is part of the Glasgow travel-to-work-area, the figures given relate to plants with a Paisley postcode.

  The table shows components of change in manufacturing employment between 1979 and 1989 in Scotland, Strathclyde region and Paisley. It takes account of job gains due to new openings and the expansion of existing plants; and job losses due to closures and contractions. These figures should be regarded as provisional, as they may change when more data become available.
  261

  Components of change in manufacturing employment between 1979 and 1989

  thousands

  Stock in 1979

  Gains

  Losses

  Stock in 1989

  Net change

  Percentage Net change

  Opening

  Expansion

  Closure

  Contraction

  Scotland

  563·2

  59·7

  42·7

  188·0

  123·9

  353·7

  -209·5

  -37

  Strathclyde

  307·4

  31·4

  17·8

  111·8

  76·2

  168·6

  -138·8

  -45

  Paisley

  19·1

  0·3

  0·4

  11·9

  3·4

  4·5

  -14·6

  -76

  Source: The Scottish Office Industry Department Regional Data System.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the percentages of disabled staff employed in the Scottish Office in each year since 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1981

  1·63

  1982

  1·65

  1983

  1·32

  1984

  1·20

  1985

  1·50

  1986

  1·70

  1987

  1·70

  1988

  1·40

  1989

  1·40

  1990

  1·20

  1991

  1·40

  My Department, in common with other Government Departments, accepts the same responsibilities for employment of the disabled as other employers of 20 or more staff. We work to a target of 3 per cent. of total staff for the total of registered disabled people.

  Rents
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the average weekly rental charge for houses owned by(a) Renfrew district council and (b) Scottish Homes or its predecessor in each year since 1975;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the average rise in weekly rental charges for houses owned by (a) Renfrew district council and (b) Scottish Homes or its predecessor in each year since 1975.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average standard rent per dwelling per week set by Renfrew district council and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and Scottish Homes and the annual increase in average standard rent per dwelling per week set by these authorities for the years requested are shown in the table:

  Renfrew District Council

  SSHA/Scottish Homes

  Year

  rent £

  rent increase £

  rent £

  rent increase £

  1975–76

  —

  —

  3·11

  0·50

  1976–77

  —

  —

  3·70

  0·59

  1977–78

  —

  —

  4·31

  0·61

  1978–79

  3·93

  —

  4·84

  0·53

  1979–80

  4·43

  0·50

  5·43

  0·59

  1980–81

  5·34

  0·91

  7·21

  1·78

  1981–82

  7·19

  1·85

  9·15

  1·94

  1982–83

  8·10

  0·91

  11·26

  2·11

  1983–84

  8·33

  0·23

  11·96

  0·70

  1984–85

  8·81

  0·48

  13·06

  1·10

  262

  Renfrew District Council

  SSHA/Scottish Homes

  Year

  rent £

  rent increase £

  rent £

  rent increase £

  1985–86

  9·81

  0·10

  14·23

  1·17

  1986–87

  11·50

  1·69

  15·79

  1·56

  1987–88

  12·99

  1·49

  17·28

  1·49

  1988–89

  13·92

  0·93

  19·02

  1·74

  1989–90

  15·97

  1·95

  20·65

  1·63

  1990–91

  18·42

  2·55

  23·35

  2·70

  1991–92

  21·10

  2·68

  26·51

  3·16

  Notes: (1) Average rents for Renfrew District Council are based on the estimated position as at 30 September in each year. Comparable data are not available for the years before 1978–79. The data for 1991–92 are provisional.

  (2) Average rents for the SSHA are based on the position as at 30 September for the years 1975–76 to 1981–82, as at 30 June for 1982–83, and as at 1 April for subsequent years. Average rents for Scottish Homes are based on the position as at 1 April for both 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Economic Development (Renfrew)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific plans he has to promote economic development within Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government are promoting locally based economic development in Renfrew district through substantial assistance to Scottish Enterprise and Renfrewshire Enterprise Company, and through public support for Paisley and Renfrew Enterprise Trust. The Government will continue to invest in the public sector contribution to infrastructure necessary to support further economic development. The district has also benefited from substantial inward investment projects assisted by the Government through Locate in Scotland. Other general measures to help increase industrial efficiency and competitiveness will bring benefit to Renfrew.

  Press Office
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the guidelines used to govern the activities of his press office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My press office operates under the same rules as govern the activities of other civil servants, namely, the civil service pay and conditions of service code and the December 1987 Armstrong note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers. Information officers are involved, as a proper part of their duties, in the processes of presentation of Government policies and decisions.

  Interior Soft Landscaping
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on interior soft landscaping in each unit under Scottish Office control for the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The amount spent on plants as part of internal furnishing in office buildings occupied by the Scottish Office in the last two years was as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  12,124

  1990–91

  1,994

  Information on earlier years is not readily available.

  Textiles
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote the manufacture in Paisley of articles in the paisley pattern; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no specific plans to promote the manufacture of articles in the paisley pattern. However, there are various forms of assistance and advice available to manufacturing companies in the Paisley area from the Scottish Office industry department, Scottish Enterprise and Renfrewshire Enterprise.

  Pensioners' Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners' homes in Scotland lacking basic draughtproofing or insulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on which to base such an estimate is not held centrally.

  Employment Prospects, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to improve the employment prospects of young people in Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 May at column 51.

  Tenements
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received from the Scottish Law Commission about changes to the laws affecting common repairs to tenemental property.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The Secretary of State received a copy of the Commission's discussion paper No. 91 "Property Law: Law of the Tenement" published on 10 December 1990 on which the Commission invited comments from a range of interested groups.

  House Repairs and Maintenance
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of owner-occupiers, through right to buy, who have been refused a 50 per cent. grant towards repairs and maintenance.
  264
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grant is available for repairs but not for works of routine maintenance. It is awarded mainly at the discretion of local authorities. I do not have information about the numbers of applicants, in any category, who have been refused grant assistance.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has of what expenditure on repairs and maintenance a right-to-buy owner-occupier could expect to face in the first 10 years after purchase of(a) a three-apartment flat in a high-rise building, (b) a three-apartment terrace house and (c) a four-apartment semi-detached house.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no such estimates. The expenditure required would depend upon the circumstances of the individual property concerned.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to estimate the cost of increasing the present 50 per cent. repair and maintenance private sector housing grant to 90 per cent., 95 per cent. and 98 per cent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Not all grants currently made are at the maximum rate of 50 per cent. and I am accordingly not in a position to make the estimates requested.

  A7
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the 10 accident area schemes on the A7; and when he hopes to begin improvement work on each scheme.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the nature and location of any accident improvement schemes authorised by him to be undertaken as part of the route action plan study of the A7 trunk route south of Hawick.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No accident improvement schemes have yet been authorised to be undertaken on the A7 trunk road south of Hawick. A first interim report has been submitted by Borders regional council to the managing group appointed to take forward a route action plan. The report puts forward proposals for accident remedial schemes at 10 locations.

  The locations are:

  Goldielands

  North of Teviothead School

  Teviothead Picnic Site

  Eweslees

  Fiddleton Toll to Mosspeeble

  Ewes Church

  Wrae to North of Highmill Bridge

  Highmill Bridge

  Langholm Town Centre

  Middleholm to Auchenrivock

  Some 27 accidents have occurred at these locations during the three-year study period and the report indicated that the implementation of accident prevention schemes could result in the accident rate at these locations being halved. The measures proposed include laying anti-skid surfacing and surface dressing, and providing additional traffic signs and road markings. My Department is presently examining the proposals in detail and hopes that it may prove possible to agree to implementation of the majority of these quickly.

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list in the Official Report those buy-outs of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries which fully involved employee participation in the buy-out;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report each subsidiary of the Scottish Bus Group already sold, indicating in each case the price received by the Government for the sale;

  Name of SBG subsidiary sold

  Name of purchaser

  Lowland Scottish Omnibuses Limited

  Lycidas (167) Limited

  (MEBO)

  Scottish Citylink Coaches Limited

  Vexamond Limited

  (MEBO)

  Midland Scottish Omnibuses Limited

  GRT Holdings plc

  Eastern Scottish Omnibuses Limited

  SMT Omnibuses plc

  (MEBO)

  Kelvin Central Buses Limited

  Choiceframe Limited Stage-Coach (Holdings)

  (MEBO)

  Northern Scottish Omnibuses Limited

  Limited

  In addition, the Yorkshire Traction Company Ltd. has recently been accorded preferred bidder status in the sale of Strathtay Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.

  Women Police Officers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by ranks from police constable to chief constable, the number of male and female police officers employed in each police force; if he has any proposals to increase the proportion of woman officers in the more senior positions; and if he will make a statement.

  Total police strength by rank and force as at 31 December 1990

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Total Scotland

  Chief constable

  Male

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  8

  Deputy chief constable

  Male

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Assistant chief constable

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  7

  3

  13

  Chief superintendent

  Male

  3

  1

  3

  7

  14

  4

  36

  6

  74

  Superintendent

  Male

  5

  4

  9

  12

  23

  6

  73

  10

  142

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Chief inspector

  Male

  11

  5

  10

  21

  46

  15

  120

  18

  246

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Inspector

  Male

  26

  18

  30

  60

  124

  24

  352

  57

  691

  Female

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  9

  1

  15

  Sergeant

  Male

  86

  54

  103

  171

  345

  106

  950

  151

  1,966

  Female

  2

  2

  5

  6

  16

  3

  21

  6

  61

  Constable

  Male

  447

  237

  528

  713

  1,672

  419

  4,709

  711

  9,436

  Female

  58

  34

  61

  145

  215

  53

  522

  90

  1,178

  TOTAL MALE

  580

  321

  685

  987

  2,229

  576

  6,249

  956

  12,583

  TOTAL FEMALE

  61

  36

  68

  151

  234

  56

  555

  97

  1,258

  TOTAL MALE AND FEMALE

  641

  357

  753

  1,138

  2,463

  632

  6,804

  1,053

  13,841

  266
  (3) if he will list in the Official Report the Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries already sold, indicating in each case who the new owners are.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table lists, for those subsidiaries sold so far, the names of the purchasers, indicating those which were management-employee buy-outs. Sale prices will be published only after privatisation of all SBG subsidiaries has been completed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information is set out in the table. Promotions up to chief superintendent level are a matter for the chief constable concerned. Appointments at assistant chief constable and above are for the police authority, subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend. The Department intends to issue a circular shortly which will seek to carry forward the development of equal opportunities policies in the police service.

  Mental and Physical Handicaps
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the main training programmes and number of places involved for each of the past three years on offer to(a) the citizens of Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) individuals in Inverclyde who suffer from mental and physical handicaps; what changes in such training provision are planned in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government's main training programmes, employment training and youth training, offer equality of access and treatment to all eligible people regardless of race, religion, sex or disability. Information about the number of employment training and youth training places on offer to eligible people in Greenock, Port Glasgow and Inverclyde during the last three years is not available separately. Training provision in the current financial year is a matter for Scottish Enterprise; and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  European Community (School Studies)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals concerning the teaching of subjects relating to the history, structure and legislative powers of the European Community he has received from the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum is currently collaborating with the Scottish Examination Board in the production of a series of short courses on European studies. These courses are being developed at the initiative of my right hon.

  Number of recorded injury accidents on the A77 in the years 1988 to 1990

  North of Ayr

  South of Ayr

  Trunk

  Non-trunk (Glasgow)

  Trunk

  Non-trunk

  Total

  All accidents

  1988

  98

  120

  58

  4

  280

  1989

  129

  104

  59

  7

  299

  1990

  112

  100

  61

  10

  283

  Fatal accidents

  1988

  3

  1

  1

  0

  5

  1989

  6

  0

  3

  1

  10

  1990

  8

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Serious accidents

  1988

  28

  31

  20

  1

  80

  1989

  41

  20

  17

  2

  80

  1990

  27

  16

  19

  1

  63

  Note: 1990 figures are provisional.

  Rent-to-mortgage Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date to Scottish Homes arising from the operation of the rent-to-mortgage scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Since the launch of the pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme in October 1989, Scottish Homes' operational costs have been almost £160,000.
  268
  Friend and will be available to pupils from the third year of secondary education onwards to enhance curricular provision in social and environmental studies.

  The Gulf
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the most recent guidelines given to local authorities by his officials concerning the payment of the poll tax by those serving in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Scottish Office finance circular No. 4/1991 advised local authorities of a scheme to compensate authorities for community charge income forgone where service personnel normally resident in their area were posted to the Gulf. A copy of that circular was placed in the Library. In addition, the Government have introduced a reimbursement scheme to ensure that service personnel and associated civilians do not have to bear the cost of the community charge for the period of their service in the Gulf. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for administering the scheme under which payments are made to individuals, on application, for the amount of the community charge that they were or are liable to pay while in the Gulf. The Scottish Office Environment Department has written to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities advising it of the scheme.

  A77
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all motoring accidents, including fatalities and injuries to persons involved, on the A77 for each year since 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The information requested is provided in the following table; figures for 1990 are provisional.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been(a) the average selling price and (b) the average discount to tenants buying their homes under the rent-to-mortgage scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Based on the latest information available, the average selling price and average discount to tenants purchasing their homes under the rent-to-mortgage scheme is £21,100 and 29 per cent. respectively.
  269
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland of those applications so far approved under the rent-to-mortgage scheme, what has been(a) the average mortgage loan secured and (b) the average Scottish Homes loan secured.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Based on the latest information available, the average mortgage loan secured is £8,077 and the average Scottish Homes loan secured is £13,033.

  Primary School Testing
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of any school board, parent-teacher association, or ad hoc meeting of parents which has made representations to him in favour of compulsory primary school testing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 May 1991]: It is not our practice to publish details of representations in the manner requested by the hon. Member.

EMPLOYMENT

  Radiation Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current dose limits and radiation protection standards applied to nuclear industry workers in the United Kingdom and other European Community countries; and what information he has on the reasons for any differences in the limits and standards.

  Mr. Forth
  Common dose limits and radiation protection standards apply to all workers, including those in the nuclear industry, who work with ionising radiation across the European Community. The directive that sets these standards, European Community directive 80/836/EURATOM as amended by 84/467/EURATOM, is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 and the mirror Northern Ireland legislation.

  The Health and Safety Commission has recently published part 4 of the approved code of practice supporting IRR 85 which contains additional guidance on restriction of exposure, but no change of statutory dose limit, to take account of recent revisions of the risk estimates from exposure to ionising radiation. This is an interim measure, pending revision of the European Community directive and subsequent revision of IRR 85 over the next few years.

  I cannot comment on the reasons other member states may have for introducing different limits in advance of a revised directive.

  Training Companies
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to provide greater security of employment both for those who staff training companies and for those who receive training; and if he will extend the period of review beyond the present one year to assist this cause.

  Mr. Jackson
  Security of employment for the staff of training provider companies is a matter for those 270
  companies. Where a TEC or LEC opts not to contract with a provider or reduces the number of training places the TEC/LEC is required to offer suitable alternative training for the trainees affected.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions govern the period of notice to be given to training companies which have been required to close or severely reduce their activities in the current year; and what information he has on the actual notice given.

  Mr. Jackson
  The period of notice is a matter for negotiation between the training and enterprise council and the training provider concerned.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why no ET training bonus was paid to Mr. T. Haslam of 105 Pendle road, Denton, Greater Manchester; and whether his Department will make an ex-gratia payment.

  Mr. Jackson
  The employment training training bonus was payable to trainees who spent at least three months on ET and who had successfully completed their training plan and/or achieved a vocational qualification or a credit towards one. Bonuses underwritten by the Employment Department were discontinued for new entrants to ET in April 1990.

  My officials are looking into Mr. Haslam's case, and I will write to the honourable Gentleman shortly when I have their findings.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the protective clothing recommended to be worn when dipping sheep when using an organophosphorus compound; and if he will take steps to have this list publicised.

  Mr. Forth
  Sheep dips are licensed under the Medicines Act 1968. The veterinary medicines directorate issues licences and product labels carry details of any protective clothing to be used. For the majority of organophosphorus sheep dips the basic clothing consists of protective gloves and a faceshield when handling the concentrate. These are usually supplemented by wellington boots and a waterproof apron during the dipping operation. Operator health and safety, including the use of protective clothing, will be covered in a free leaflet to be published in autumn 1991 by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that the toxic waste held at the premises of Wath Recycling since June 1989 is safely contained and that there is no risk to the local population.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 15 May 1991]: Since June 1989 the Health and Safety Executive has visited the premises of Wath Recycling to assess the company's compliance with health and safety legislation. HSE gave advice and took enforcement action to ensure that the toxic waste was properly stored. On this basis HSE has no

  271
  reason to believe that the toxic waste held at these premises is not safely contained, or that there is currently any risk to the local population.

  Other authorities also enforce legislation applicable to Wath Recycling including the South Yorkshire hazardous wastes unit, the Rotherham metropolitan borough council environmental health department and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

DEFENCE

  Soviet Naval Threat
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment has been made, as part of the "Options for Change" study, of the need to support maritime operations in the Norwegian sea;

  (2) what effect changes in the level of Soviet navy deployments have had on his assessment of the future of Rosyth naval base;

  (3) what effect changes in the level of Soviet naval shipbuilding have had on his assessment of the future of Rosyth naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All relevant factors are being assessed as part of the continuing work on "Options for Change", and the consequential work on the future of the naval estate.

  Naval Shore Bases
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his decision regarding the future of Royal Navy shore bases.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decisions have been taken. Proposals will be announced when it is appropriate to do so.

  Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the future employment prospects of employees at the Rosyth and Devonport dockyards.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Levels of employment at Devonport and Rosyth royal dockyards are a matter for the commercial judgment of the management companies. The companies are kept informed about the Ministry of Defence's expected refitting programme.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place with his NATO counterparts regarding the future of Rosyth naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 28 March at column 571.

  Cambodia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide the United Nations with information regarding(a) the use of mines in Cambodia and (b) the training given to those military forces in Cambodia that are fighting against the Government of that country and are not part of the Khmer Rouge.
  272
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No request for such information has been received from the United Nations.

  Thailand
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to request his Thai counterparts to agree to the release of information on the role of British service personnel working in Thailand.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place between his Department and the solicitors representing Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been a number of communications over a period of years with solicitors representing Mr. Colin Wallace. The most recent were a letter to the Department dated 21 September 1990—acknowledged on 1 October—and subsequent payment of fees in connection with the Calcutt inquiry.

  Civil Service Appeal Board
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last 20 years representatives of his Department have been in private communication with the chairman of the Civil Service appeal board.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am aware of only one occasion when representatives of the Department have been in private communication about undisclosed matters that could be material to the outcome of an appeal.

  Personnel Killed in Action
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the provision of information to the families of service personnel killed in action.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  When notifying next-of-kin of the death of service personnel who are killed in action, it is our policy to provide, in a sympathetic manner, information about the circumstances of the death, where known. Further information is provided when it becomes available. If a board of inquiry is held, a summary of the proceedings can be provided, on request, to the next-of-kin.

  The Gulf
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information has been provided to the families of those service personnel who died as a result of attacks by USAF A-10 aircraft during Operation Granby;

  (2) what plans he has to provide the families of those service personnel who died as a result of attacks by USAF A-10 aircraft during Operation Granby with further information on this incident; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his assessment of the cause of the attacks by USAF A-10 aircraft on British forces during Operation Granby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  An initial report into the incident in which nine British soldiers were killed on 26 February
  273
  by fire from United States A-10 aircraft has now been produced following the British military investigation. A formal board of inquiry was convened yesterday to consider this report, to obtain the further information required and to produce findings and conclusions.

  We are in close touch with the United States authorities, who are giving all the help they can and have nominated a senior officer to provide a point of contact. The aim is to reach agreed conclusions as soon as possible.
  274
  As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 13 May Official Report, column 58, as full an account of the outcome of the inquiry as is possible will be given to the next-of-kin and to Parliament. Until then it would not be proper to comment on the details of the incident or the initial accounts which may have been given at the time by the commanding officer and other members of the regiments.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Unemployment Figures
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in April 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,175,100.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as today's total is the 13th consecutive monthly increase and again affects all regions and all types of employment, how long do the Government consider that their present policies will take to reduce unemployment to any significant extent? Will the Government spare us any further inventions of economic terms, such as the recent one, "lagging indicators", purporting to show that unemployment is not as bad as it seems? Finally, did the. Minister read last week the heart-rending account of Mrs. Thatcher, who said that she was shattered by losing her job? Will the Government now shed at least one tear for those 2,175,100 people whose lives have been shattered for the same reason?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no one should underestimate the difficulties which unemployment can cause for the individuals concerned and their families. But pay will have a crucial effect on the extent and duration of the increase in unemployment. Excessive wage settlements will damage competitiveness aid threaten jobs. I should point out that in recent months there have been rises in unemployment across the industrialised world: in the United States, France, Canada and Australia.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the study undertaken by my trade union, AEU, which analysed the 90,000 jobs lost this year in the manufacturing sector? Although originally the Government were able to blame the trade unions, having now rejigged the law so that the unions are almost powerless to protect their members, what further excuse can they find other than that they have made a total mess of the economy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry has been a long established trend. Employment peaked as far back as 1966. The decline is partly the result of a necessary shakeout in the early 1980s when manufacturing was overmanned and inefficient. Some decline is evident in most other industrialised countries. It results from structural change in the modern economy. The fall in
1740
the United Kingdom is exaggerated by a reclassification of some of the jobs to the services sector. It is interesting to note that manufacturing output again rose last month.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, governments used to have full employment as an aim of policy. I understand that that has been given up, which is not surprising. But have the Government now any target for the rate of unemployment at which they expect to be able to run the economy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are keen to squeeze inflation out of the economy and that is the policy that they are pursuing. When inflation drops, as it will, that will create the conditions in which employment can be increased and businesses will again thrive.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, how does the noble Viscount equate the 90,000 manufacturing jobs lost this year with the 1980 shake out 10 years ago? There is no direct connection at all. We are speaking of 90,000 manufacturing jobs that have disappeared this year alone, for which there must be an explanation that we have not yet received. Will the Minister say something about the massive increases in remuneration that directors have given themselves prior to imposing a freeze on the workforce; for example, at Ford's and other places? The directors gave themselves huge increases out of all proportion to their worth in most cases and at the expense of people on the shop floor. Does he have anything to say about that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid that unit wage costs have a lot to do with the number of job losses in the manufacturing industry. For example, in the United Kingdom in the past three months unit wage costs have increased by 11 per cent. whereas those of our competitors in the United States have increased by 1 per cent. In Japan they are dropping by 1 per cent. That is an indication of how we are making ourselves less competitive, and that is a danger.
As for directors' pay, certainly some of the figures announced recently relate to production bonuses from a previous year. Equally, what I said about increases is as true for the boardroom as it is for other parts of industry.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House why and how the economic miracle of the past 11½ years has succeeded in producing such spectacular figures of relative uncompetitiveness which he has just produced to the House as though it were a great mark of achievement of the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, during the past 10 years we have shown record outputs and record growth, unlike during the two previous decades. Yes, there is a decline in the economy at the moment but the economy is much stronger than it was in 1980.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, have the Government made any calculation of what the Labour Party's proposed policy of a minimum wage would mean in terms of loss of jobs in this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Labour Party has said that it will introduce a minimum wage set at half the male median earnings. Officials in my department have estimated that it could cost around three-quarters of a million jobs if the wage differentials were restored by only 50 per cent.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the latest figures available on unemployment do not include further redundancies threatened in Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace, which will add to the problems facing manufacturing industry? If he does not feel inclined to listen to the advice from these Benches, does he not have anything to say to the CBI, which has made recommendations to the Government about support for manufacturing industry where unemployment is now such a scourge?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we face all talk about redundancies with some concern. However, according to the manufacturers themselves, 83 per cent. of the respondents to a 3i's survey thought that UK manufacturers were in better shape now to cope with recession than in the early 1980s.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the question put to the noble Viscount by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested a hypothetical calculation if there were to be a Labour Government; but the appalling figures that we are now discussing were created by this Conservative Government. Is the Minister aware that the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the TUC do not see eye to eye with the Government? Does he agree that it would perhaps be sensible for the Government to have joint meetings with those three organisations?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, it would not and they do not intend to do so. The Government intend to make certain that the economic policy which they pursue is followed. I fully expect that the figures to come out over the next few months will indicate how inflation will be dropping. On the back of that, interest rates will come down.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the figure for present unemployment if calculated on exactly the same basis as in May 1979 when the Government took office, excluding all the statistical adjustments made since then?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer, as he well knows because he asked the same question in a debate on unemployment. However, the OECD figures indicate that there is a very small statistical difference between figures in 1979 and 1991.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that specialist economists—such as those in the Unemployment Unit—state that the number can be calculated? It adds roughly half a million to the present number.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that figure is pure speculation and I do not accept it.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether the unit's directorates' costs are rising or falling?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the Minister care to draw attention to one aspect which seems to be ignored? Many thousands of the jobs presently being lost in manufacturing are in the defence industry? Does he agree that that is the dark, downside of the peace dividend; a dividend for which so many critics of the Government have been calling for so long?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. For those people losing their jobs, the threat of unemployment remains.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many of these dismal figures relate to the construction industry and when, if ever, he expects matters to improve?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have answered that question by saying that the Government intend to get the economy right. They are working towards that. It is coming right and the construction industry will improve once those figures are shown to be true.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will the Minister kindly give the House the unemployment figure for 1979 which compares with the 2,175,000 before the economic miracle began?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figure for unemployment in 1979 was 1,088,000.

London Underground: Improvement of Escalators
3.12 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the response so far by London Regional Transport to the objectives laid down by the then Secretary of State for Transport on 20th December 1989 for the improvement of escalators on the Underground.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, yes. London Underground was asked to increase escalator availability from 78 per cent. to 86 per cent. by 31st March 1992. In the last quarter of 1990 it achieved an overall availability of 85 per cent.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I acknowledge straight away that there has been an improvement. However, since I put the Question down I have been deluged with horror stories, including complaints about escalators which are repaired after a very long time and then break down again.

1743
As the Minister explained, the objective set by the Government—I have it with me—was that by next April 86 per cent. of the 275 escalators should be available and that those that were available should function for 95 per cent. of the time. In other words, the Government found it acceptable that 14 per cent. of the escalators—that is, almost 40—should be permanently out of use and that those that were available need not function all the time. Is that not rather defeatist? Should not the aim be to have all the escalators working all the time the stations are open?
Lori Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is clearly an impossible target, desirable though it may be. Maintenance and renewals have to take place. But we should like to see a higher availability than 86 per cent. After London Underground has met that target, we shall review the situation with regard to what will happen; after 1992. I merely point out that shortly after the King's Cross disaster, when many escalators were taken curt of service for quite a bit of work to be done on them, availability was down to 76 per cent. Therefore there has been considerable improvement, although I admit that further improvement is required.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the hardship caused to disabled people or people with baggage by escalators being persistently out of use? In the light of the gloomy figures that he has just given to your Lordships, will he consider further the answer that he gave me a few months ago when I suggested that the Government might appoint to London Underground an officer who knew something about escalators?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since my noble friend asked me the last question, there has been an improvement in the situation, as has been shown by the figures that I have given today. I am well aware of the inconvenience and hardship that can be caused to disabled people as a result of escalators being out of service. London Underground does its best to ensure the convenience of all passengers. It puts up notices and, where possible, announcements of all unavailable escalators.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the word "improvement" refer to new escalators? I should not mind a new one at Westminster and Liverpool Street Stations
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is a programme for new escalators to be installed; but whether it includes those two stations I do not know.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I query whether the Minister's reply states the position. Does he regularly view the performance statistics that London Underground publishes every four weeks, which we welcome? The statistics give important information. Is he aware that for four weeks in February the breakdown of no less than 37 per cent. of escalators was caused by defects? Although there was an improvement in March, the proportion is still nearly one-quarter of escalators. If one adds the maintenance work and defects together, it is almost 80 per cent.,
1744
and that takes no account of replacement work. It is a substantial proportion. Is sufficient labour available to carry out those tasks? Are there discussions with trade unions relating to much of the work being undertaken outside service hours?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot identify the figures that the noble Lord has quoted. The figures that I have indicate that 85 per cent. of escalators were available in the last quarter of last year. I understand that that is still the case. We monitor the quarterly performance reviews which contain performance data for all targeted areas on the Underground, and that includes escalators. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in frequent touch with the chairman to discuss progress and problems.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the information that I have given is taken from the performance statistics.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. However, the noble Lord quoted 80 per cent. of escalators being out of order. That is just not the case.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as targets are rarely, if ever, met, why is the target for escalators in working order not 100 per cent.?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, after the King's Cross fire the percentage of escalators which were working was so poor that the Government set London Underground a realistic but tough target. That target is monitored and it is in the process of being achieved.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that part of the problem may be that insufficient spares are readily available?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give a reason. Whether or not that is true, a large programme needed to be undertaken following the recommendations of the Fennell Report into the King's Cross fire which required the removal of all the wooden parts of all escalators. That was a major undertaking.

London Boroughs Grants Scheme
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the allocation of grants to voluntary agencies under the London Boroughs Grants Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch):My Lords, as I told the House on 5th March of this year, Her Majesty's Government agree that the operation of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme is unsatisfactory and consequently my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to include it within the review of local government.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am happy that the review of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme will be included in the general local government

1745
review. But is the Minister aware that after the fiasco of the setting of this year's budget many voluntary organisations went under, had to curtail their operations or found it difficult to plan them? Is she further aware that if that happens again next year many workers in the voluntary sector will be seeking work elsewhere? Can she assure the House, first, that the views and proposals of those in the voluntary sector will be taken into account by the review body and, secondly, that the decisions made by the body will be introduced prior to the setting of the budget for next year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are aware of the uncertainties that have been caused in the voluntary sector. We shall take all those issues into account in the local government review. I expect that the noble Baroness and many of her noble friends will submit their ideas about a way forward during the consultation stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my husband served as a member of the body about which we are speaking. Is my noble friend aware that more than 1,000 sheets of paper had to be considered by its members when making the decision on the last occasion? Will my noble friend confirm that the new local government review could not promise anything to any particular organisation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept the important point made by my noble friend. The question is not merely how the decisions should be arrived at in future but the way in which the body should work. The way in which it considers the grants leaves scope for improvement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ask the Minister for the Arts to request the Arts Council to prepare a report on the consequences of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme and the degree to which the Arts Council has had to step in to save London theatres from collapse? Such a report would inform us of the consequences of this ill thought out scheme.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Minister for the Arts is equally concerned about the way in which the body is working. He is submitting his ideas to the local government review body.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is not the first—although it may be the worst—example of brinkmanship in budgeting by this body? Is she further aware that the consequences of that are totally shattering to the voluntary organisa-tions, in particular the paid staff who are affected by it? Does she agree that some other arrangement is urgently needed which does not depend on the agreement of a qualified majority but an absolute majority of authorities and which provides for the carrying forward at the same figure of the previous year's budget if no budget is arrived at, so there is no saving if no budget is made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We are talking about the mechanism, and I agree that self-discipline on the part of that body would not go amiss. Having a date by which a decision must be made would be a way forward; certainly beginning the work earlier in the year would also be a way forward.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, had the GLC not been abolished, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, would have had no reason to complain about 1,000 pieces of paper?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that a reconstruction of the GLC is not the way forward. Any dissension among the boroughs under the present system does not compare with the dissatisfaction at a proliferation of expenditure by the GLC. The expenditure was simply levied on the local boroughs which had no option but to pay up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's belated recognition that the system is inadequate is welcome. Would it not now be appropriate for them to express regret to London and to your Lordships' House for the way in which they resisted the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Birk and others during our debates on the abolition of the GLC? While I am pleased to know that the review is taking account of the inadequacy of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme, what will happen this year? Many of the bodies that have been deprived of funding are still in a desperate plight?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, because he and the noble Lords mentioned by him believe that the resurrection of the GLC, or London government, would be an answer. We do not believe that to be a way forward. However, there is considerable scope for improvement in the mechanism of reaching decisions.

Taxi Drivers: Previous Convictions
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether applicants for hackney carriage or private hire vehicle drivers' licences are required to disclose any previous criminal convictions to the licensing authority.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no legal requirement for them to do so. However, district councils which license taxi and private hire vehicle drivers outside London and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who licenses taxi drivers in London, must satisfy themselves that an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The majority of councils and the Assistant Commissioner will require both new applicants and those seeking to renew their licences to declare any past criminal offences.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that many applicants for hackney carriage licences, and indeed some taxi drivers, have previous convictions for rape, GBH, theft, firearms offences, assaults on children and so forth, and given that the police outside London refused to disclose to the local authorities previous convictions, how does the Minister suggest that local authorities can fulfil their statutory duty to ensure that taxi drivers are fit and proper persons?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I admit that there is a problem; it is that police resources are overstretched in providing the kind of information to which the noble Baroness has referred. In 1990 the police conducted more than half a million checks in connection with those working closely with children. If required to conduct the kind of checks to which the Question refers, a further 30,000 to 40,000 would be added to that. The Home Office Scrutiny Team has recently examined arrangements for the maintenance of, and disclosure from, national criminal records. It may lock again at taxi and public hire vehicle access followi qg the report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his argument, short though it was, was replete with inconsistency? On the one hand he argued that it was inappropriate for the police to be given the additional work, while on the other hand he said that the matter was suitable for review? Which is the case? Is the Minister further aware that considerable public anxiety exists because, in pursuing the task of trying to determine whether people are fit and proper persons, district councils are severely hampered? My noble friend Lady Hollis has said that the matter has given rise to a number of extremely serious cases in 40 district councils across the country. When are the Government going to do something about the problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there was no inconsistency in my reply; absolutely none. The noble Lord will discover that when he reads Hansard. The situation is under review. We are anxious that any laws, regulations or systems of access that we might impose are capable of working effectively, and they must have the agreement of the police.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what will the Government do about the inconsistency of no licensing requirement for private hire minicab vehicles in London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, approximately 35,000 to 40,000 mini cabs operate in London. At present there is no evidence to indicate that they offer anything other than a safe, convenient element of public transport—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are not blind, however, to the anxiety expressed in some quarters. In an effort accurately to gauge the situation the Department of Transport is part funding a research project being carried out by
1748
the Suzy Lamplugh Trust on the incidence and perception of serious crime in relation to mini cabs in London.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem has existed for at least 15 years? It certainly existed when I was a member of the licensing committee of Cambridge City Council. I am amazed that it continues and that nothing has been done. Now that we live in the age of computers it should be extremely easy to call up criminal records. If that is done for social workers working with children it should not be so difficult for the police to discover the criminal convictions of potential taxi drivers.
They may not only carry women and children at all hours of the day and night but, if they are carrying luggage, they are able to make a very good examination of premises which are suitable for burglary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that computers are now coming into play on these matters. I understand that the police national computer is being updated in this respect but that that operation is not yet complete. It may be possible to do something in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the point of the licence is to protect the public? The licence now signifies that a taxi is a fit and proper taxi but does not signify that the taxi driver is a fit and proper taxi driver.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the licensing authority is required to satisfy itself that an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and that is what should be done.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister do something about this as a matter of urgency and not wait interminably for reports to pile up on his table?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot promise to do anything immediately.

Oversea Superannuation Bill
Lord Reay: 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 Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign Corporations Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Recognition of corporate status of certain foreign corporations]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("of a") and insert ("applied within a").
The noble Lord said: For many of the ideas behind these amendments I am indebted to the Law Society which in turn has had the benefit of the views of several prominent members of the legal profession engaged in international commercial affairs who formed themselves into a small working party to deal with matters arising from the Bill.
I wish to deal with the phrase "the laws of a territory" This Bill is of a technical nature and obviously every single word deserves concentration to make sure that we are not doing something which makes the duties of the court more difficult than they should be and also to show to practitioners in this field that we have studied the wording of the Bill very carefully in order to see that doubts do not arise which can be avoided. Therefore, I wish to ask whether it is satisfactory that the words in the Bill should be "the laws of a territory" instead of "the laws applied within a territory".
The reason for the amendment is that in my submission the present wording does not cover a situation in which there are two competing authorities which claim to have jurisdiction. Peculiarly enough, unless I am wrong, a most suitable example is one of the territories which, as I understand it, we are endeavouring to cover in this Bill. I am referring to Taiwan. The People's Republic of China could claim that its laws are the laws of Taiwan and for their part the authorities in Taiwan could say that their laws are the laws of China as a whole; China being a recognised state.
Therefore, I believe that my amendment has the benefit of imposing a purely factual test. Indeed, it is along the lines of the Australian legislation, which is of a similar nature to the Bill now before this Committee. That would avoid the problem set by two governments claiming theoretical jurisdiction over the whole of a recognised state. In case I forget to mention it, I have used similar wording in Amendment No. 4 to which we shall come very shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: I suggest that this amendment is worthy of consideration for two possible reasons. First, the words used in the Bill, "the laws of a territory", are vague and undefined and the words "applied within" are much more concrete and capable of being established.
At the beginning of a case evidence must be given to a court as to the legal situation in the territory in question. Such evidence is most likely to be what the courts in that territory are doing. Therefore, to say "applied within the territory" is more suitable to the factual evidence which will be required when the case comes to be considered.
1750
The second reason that I support the amendment is that the words are found in subsection (1) (b):
"are at that time applied by a settled court system".
That test is therefore already adopted there. For consistency, should it not also be adopted in paragraph (a)?
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the Australian legislation. It may be noted also that the American legislation of 1979 dealing with Taiwan—which, parenthetically, I venture to think is much simpler and more satisfactory than this Bill—uses the phrase "the law applied by the people of Taiwan". "The people of Taiwan" is an expression understood in the United States. It uses the words "the laws applied by". In agreement with the noble Lord I suggest that that is more satisfactory than mere use of the word "of". I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for bringing forward this matter and also to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce for his additional comments. Obviously I shall consider this further with the draftsman. However, so far we believe that the phrase: "the laws of a territory or country" is a well known phrase in statute. For example, Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972 talks about expert evidence as to the law of any country or territory. If dispute arises as to what is the law of a territory, the court must determine that question as a matter of fact whether dispute arises because of doubts as to recognition of the territory as a state or for some other reason.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce pointed out, subsection (1) (b), which must be read with subsection (1) (a), already points courts and others to the laws applied by a settled court system in the territory. We shall come to an amendment dealing with that in due course. Accordingly, we are inclined to the view that the present wording is satisfactory. However, if the noble Lord is prepared to leave this with me, I shall consider it further in the light of what has been said.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for supporting the amendment. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in reply on behalf of the Government.
I do not believe that this is so much a matter of the parliamentary draftsman thinking that they are tidy words, because there is a precedent for them. The amendment was specifically intended to deal with a situation where two competing jurisdictions or countries are saying that theirs is the law of that territory. It is a simple question of fact to decide the law which is "applied within" that territory. One makes a complex situation for oneself by asking what is the law "of" that territory, the former being a matter of fact.
The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say that consideration would be given to the matter. I have no doubt that we shall have an opportunity to return to it at a later stage, either by government amendment or, if the Government do not seek to alter the Bill, by tabling an amendment at a subsequent

1751
stage. In the meantime, in view of what the noble and learned Lord kindly said, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("applied") insert ("or at any other relevant time have been applied").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 deals with the question of the timing which is provided for in the Bill and which is neither precise nor comprehensive. At present the Bill looks for determination of a question arising under Clause 1 only by taking the time at which a question arises; that is to say. whether at that time there were the necessary ingredients called for by Clause 1. With respect, that is neither right nor commercially safe for those dealing with corporate bodies in that territory. I submit that the test should be applied also when relevant obligations are entered into at the time when the relevant body corporate was formed.
The amendment extends the time provision; and "any other relevant time", as mentioned in the amendment, is defined in Amendment No. 6, which it may be convenient for the Committee to consider with Amendment No. 2. I apologise for the somewhat cumbersome wording in paragraph (ii) of Amendment No. 6. With the help of parliamentary draftsmen the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be able to improve upon it by Third Reading, but the intent is. clear. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment in the context of the first amendment moved and of the later one to be moved. The practical situation with regard to what happens, for example, with the Cameroons should be taken into account. Part of the territory is dominated by English law, which is applied to interpret local law, and another part of the territory is dominated by the French code, which is also applied to interpret local law. The concept of "territory" and the concept of "time" must be looked at in relation to the practicalities of subsequent commercial operations. In that context I hope that some regard may be had to the analogy of the situation in the Cameroons and that the amendment will be accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of the clause is to answer a question having regard to the time at which the question arises. We are dealing with territories which are not recognised here when the specific question arises. We solve that problem by looking at whether there is a settled court system in the territory. If so, we look at the laws which it applies. They may be predecessors of laws in force when the question arises. Any court may find itself having to look at a statute applying at the time of a transaction, although it may subsequently have been repealed. In passing, perhaps I should say that that is sometimes one of the difficulties of using statutes in force in the ordinary course of discussions in courts.
If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is intended to permit that, then the amendment is not necessary. However, if the amendment intends to look at earlier court systems
1752
and not merely at earlier laws, that is a refinement which will make matters more complex and lead to more problems than it solves. The amendment is using the conditions which the Bill lays down, as to whether there is a settled court system at the time the issue arises, to bring in earlier events.
We tried to guide the courts in such a way as to enable them to give effect to the reality of the situation. We did that by looking to the law in question at the time the question arises. Once more I am happy to look further at what has been said today. So far I have not been persuaded that it is right to change the provision. I certainly undertake to consider the matter carefully before the next stage of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Again I am most grateful to the noble Lord who was kind enough to support the amendment. I am grateful also to the noble and learned Lord for the open-mindedness of his reply in which he said that he would reconsider the matter.
I wonder whether I have made myself clear. Perhaps I may be allowed to pose the question to the noble and learned Lord; it might help to economise on time when dealing with the amendment. As I read the Bill, there must be a question arising before the Act comes into operation. A question can arise in any number of ways. Obviously, whatever its nature, it is raised at a certain time. As I read the Bill, it means that the Act does not operate except at that time; namely, when the question arises.
What happens if a contractual obligation has been entered into before the question arises? What law then applies? The amendment endeavours to say that the "relevant time" is not only when the question arises, but may also be when the corporate body was formed—as I say in the amendment—or it may arise under the other definition of the "relevant time", to which I refer in Amendment No. 6; that is, when the obligations were entered into. That too must be a "relevant time".
If the amendment is not accepted, I respectfully suggest that it produces a hiatus and indeed a vacuum. There may be a case where we would want to help in our legal jurisdiction, as laid down in the Bill, but we would be unable to do so because, for example, there was not a settled law at the time the question arose but there was a settled law when the obligations were entered into or indeed when the body corporate was formed. The question of "relevant time" is therefore material.
It is not a useful exercise of the Committee's patience to debate the matter at this stage. I hope that I have made my position clear to the noble and learned Lord. If he says that the intention in the amendment is clear to him, even though he may disagree with it, and that he will give it further consideration, I shall take a certain course.
The Lord Chancellor: I followed closely what the noble Lord said. He always speaks very plainly. Like nature I abhor a vacuum. On the other hand, we are concerned in the Bill with the question of a body which purports to have or, as the case may be, appears

1753
to have lost, corporate status under the laws. It should be regarded as having legal personality. The Bill is not generally concerned with obligations undertaken by corporations at various times. The question relates to the status of a corporation at a particular time as either having corporate status or having lost it. The noble Lord's amendment and the way in which he has expressed it, particularly a moment ago, may be contemplating a wider question than that to which the Bill is directed.
Having said that, I shall consider carefully what the noble Lord has said. I agree that this may not be the best forum for carrying forward the detail of the discussion in the light of other business in which I am sure other noble Lords are more interested, interesting though this Bill is.
Lord Mishcon: Both of us are concerned with the next item on the agenda, so far as the House is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("a settled") and insert ("an established").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of a simple word. The Bill refers to "a settled court system" being the material consideration which has to be given by the courts. Is there a settled court system in that territory? I wondered whether "settled" was a very good word to use or whether there was not a better one. The word "settled" is difficult to define although it has occurred in other statutes. I wondered whether that word could be held not to apply where there is a court system in existence, and has been for some time, but is capable of being changed constitutionally in the territory concerned. Is that a settled court system? Does not "settled" imply that the court system is there in rather a monolithic way and not to be altered? Whether or not that is right, it seemed to me that "established court system" was a better phrase and nearer what was intended by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: I have only qualified support for this amendment. I say that it is qualified because it seems that the paragraph is undefined as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained at Second Reading. In reality, one wants to know whether in the territory in question (say, Taiwan), there is a court system dealing with commercial law or corporations. The Bill simply refers to "a court system". It may deal with anything in the world. It may be a system of religious courts administering the Sharia or tribal courts. Therefore the test is not a satisfactory one either way. If the matter is to be left no particular harm can be done. If there are Sharia courts and there is no law dealing with corporations, the necessary evidence will not be obtainable. If one is to have a test, then my preference between "settled" and "established" is 51 per cent. in favour of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I cannot carry the matter further than that.
The Lord Chancellor: That is certainly a narrower adjustment of the odds. I do not believe that "settled" implies that the court system needs to be that of the Medes and the Persians, which to some extent was unalterable. The idea of the use of the word "settled" is simply that there is within the territory a court system working which deals with the question of whether a body corporate has or has lost corporate status. If other questions are dealt with, so much the better or worse; but it is not important. The important question is whether "settled" gives corporate status to the body.
The word "established" has the connotation of looking at what it is and by what mechanism the court was set up. That may be an unnecessary inquiry for the existing situation. Once again, I am very happy to look at the matter closely in the light of all that has been said. In view of the way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has expressed it, the question is a narrow one and a matter of judgment. I am happy to attempt to judge the issue again, with advice from parliamentary counsel.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord will remember that I won by a very short head as regards the preference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for the word "established" as against the word "settled". It is a very narrow victory; but, coming from that source, I hope that it will receive due respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purpose of determining any material question relating to a body corporate, the laws of a recognised State shall be taken to include the laws applied within any part of the territory comprising the recognised State which are acknowledged by the federal or other central government or the courts of the recognised State.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. I am not sure that I entirely understand the intention behind Clause 1(2) (b) as it stands at present. However, on any view it deserves to have a separate subsection as I give it in the amendment. After all, its subject matter is not strictly necessary to explain or clarify Clause 1(1). If it is intended to do more than that, then the introductory words in subsection (2),
"For the purposes of subsection (1) above"
are inappropriate.
In the amendments before the Committee, I have assumed that the draftsman intended to do more than merely state the fact that recognition of a federal state includes recognition of its component parts. I assumed that the provision intended to cover a situation where, notwithstanding some dispute as to the sovereignty of, say, a breakaway region of a recognised state, the authorities of that recognised state acknowledge, presumably on some de facto basis, the laws applied within that territory. My amendment so provides, and I hope that it does so clearly.
Perhaps I may explain to the Committee that the reference in the amendment to the federal courts is to cover the possibility that, depending on the nature of

1755
the state in question, the acknowledgment referred to might be by the judiciary rather than by the government or the legislature. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I had some difficulty in determining the purpose of this part of the Bill. It may be that I had not understood it and, if so, I am in good company. It cannot be merely to deal with a situation of recognised federal states. One does not need a passage in the Bill to say that the laws of the United States include the laws of. the constituent states, or that the laws of the Cameroon include the laws of the different parts of the Cameroon.
I understood the provision to be dealing with the case of the unrecognised state, such as Taiwan, which we are dealing with here. We know that Taiwan has divisions. There are the Taiwan Islands and the Pescador Islands. There are a number of subdivisions. If the Bill is attempting to say that the laws of Taiwan are to be treated as including the laws of the Pescador Islands, if recognised by the central government in Taiwan, then I can understand the purpose. In that case, the provision should be differently drafted. Instead of referring to
"the laws of a recognised State"
the Bill should refer to the laws of the territory. We are not dealing here with a recognised state but an unrecognised one in a territory.
It may be that I have missed the point of the provision. If that is what it is supposed to deal with in the case of Taiwan, then it needs redefinition by putting in the territory or by referring to the law of a state deemed to be recognised by this Bill.
I support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in so far as he wants to move the subsection to a different place. That does seem more logical. The addition of the words "the courts of the recognised State" seems quite satisfactory. However, I have some residual doubts as to the purpose of the clause as a whole.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall seek to explain what I understand to be the purpose of this subsection. That may help to resolve the matters raised in the amendment. Clause 1 talks of a body corporate which purports to have corporate status under the laws of a territory which is not at that time a recognised state. The question that can arise concerns what may happen, for example, within a federal territory, which is recognised. The corporation will often be established under the law of the state—the unit under the federation—rather than under the law of the federation itself. I shall give, as an example, Canada. In Canada, a company is incorporated not under the laws of Canada but under the laws of, for example, Ontario. We do not recognise Ontario as an independent state. It would therefore fall within subsection (1) (a) as being a territory which is not at that time a recognised state. However, we have no difficulties about recognising corporations from places like Ontario—Ontario forms part of the territory of Canada, to which we do accord recognition. The Bill seeks only to deal with situations where a corporation
1756
might not be accorded legal personality here, because we do not recognise the territory from which it comes as a state. Therefore the object of subsection (2) (b) is to take out of the scope of subsection (1) (a) the kind of situation which I have described; to remove, for example, Ontario from the scope of subsection (1). There may be other ways of doing it but that is the purpose. That is why I do not think it is necessary, having regard to that very narrow purpose, to do more.
I shall look carefully at what has been said and see whether we can make this plain as it does disturb me if the purpose of the subsection is not clear. When one has in mind the phrases used in the early part of the clause, the purpose of the clause becomes somewhat clearer.
Lord Wilberforce: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. It comes as a complete surprise to me that in this day and age we are dealing with companies formed under the laws of Ontario or the state of Delaware, which have been in existence for many years and which have caused no problem whatsoever. I thought—I am obviously wrong—that subsection (1) (a) dealt, and dealt only, with unrecognised states or unrecognised federal states. However, as the noble and learned Lord has said that he will think about it, I am quite willing also to do some counterthinking on my part. I thought it right, however, to raise such doubts on the wording of the clause as appeared to me to exist.
The Lord Chancellor: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. There is no question but that the Bill is intended to deal with unrecognised situations. However, the phraseology that is used might be thought to cover in a federation that part of the federation—for example, Ontario—under the laws of which a company might be incorporated. It is to make clear that that is excluded that we have subsection (2) (b).
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord may be more encouraged to look carefully at the wording of the Bill, not because of anything I have said but because of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said about the meaning of the clause not being very clear to him. His doubts are shared by leading commercial lawyers who have written to me and who themselves say that neither is the intention behind this clause clear to them.
I appreciate the courtesy with which the noble and learned Lord has, throughout this Committee stage, said that he will be prepared to consider the amendments that have been put down, I hope not uselessly, this afternoon. All of us want to make this a good Bill. I believe I am right in saying that, subject to the approval of the House, the Report stage may be taken this afternoon. I am happy to agree with that, but it will save time if I say at this stage that the amendments are of sufficient import for them to have to be considered very carefully at the Third Reading, which will now be the next stage. I know that the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to let those of us who are interested in this Bill know his decisions on

1757
these amendments in good time so that we can consider our position again well before Third Reading. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kennet: I shall detain the House for two minutes with the greatest trepidation as a layman on what is pre-eminently a lawyers' Bill. I hope the Committee will be patient. I apologise also for the fact that I was prevented, to my great distress, from attending the Second Reading of the Bill.
I have misgivings because I suspect there may be a basic paradox concealed in, so to speak, the basement or the foundation of the Bill itself. The Government look at a given territory and say that there is no recognised state. But by this Bill, lo and behold, we can discern an effective or established system of law courts, whichever word we choose. (As a layman, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that "established" may be better than "settled".)
If the Government see that, if litigants see that, or if the courts think they see that, they see, presumably, a legislature to make the law and set up the courts; they see a judicature, because that is what they are looking directly at; and they see an executive to enforce the judgments of the courts in that territory. What is a social entity which has a legislature, a judicature and an executive? Is it not a state? I think that it is and nothing set out in the Bill or said at Second Reading tells me that it is not.
I note that at Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said:
"I stress that the Bill does not affect by one iota the Government's policy on the recognition of states".—[Official Report, 22/4/91; col. 68.]
If in a given case a government are aware or are made aware of the existence of the three established arms through which a state normally operates, how can this Bill not blow back on recognition policy itself? The British practice on recognition is that a government is recognised when it is visibly in control of the country concerned. How can there be laws which are applied in a settled court system when no government is in control of the country? Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have something different in mind? If so, what? With what countries are they really concerned? We have so far had mention only of Taiwan. However, when the Bill passes, will not the courts be instantly concerned also with, for instance, North Korea, the purportedly independent Bantu homelands set up by South Africa, and the Baltic states?
All these are different from one another in various ways and they should have been separately considered at the drafting stage of the Bill. I hope they were. I should be grateful if later on some account could be given of the considerations which apply to each of those categories of states, if not others, when this Bill comes into effect. In short, will the Government say
1758
what is this statehood, the recognition of which they desire to withhold in certain cases, and give us some idea what those cases are?
There is another difficulty. It concerns the question whether the court system in the given country is a settled one. In this respect, on Second Reading on 22nd April at col. 71, the noble and learned the Lord Advocate said:
"that will have to be a matter for the British court".
Can the Government say how the British court is to make the necessary inquiries? Will it just hear evidence from returning travellers? Will it rely upon the press? Will it ask the Foreign Office? Will it be empowered and have funds to be able to send someone to investigate? Further, will it ask the Foreign Office to send someone? If so, how would the Foreign Office do so without extending recognition? We must remember that the judgment whether a given court system is settled or established is a political and not a legal question. It will be most interesting to know the opinion of the Foreign Office on the Bill and the way around these difficulties.
My final question concerns the Australian Act which has been introduced. That is the only one that has been offered to us. Have cases been brought under it as yet? If so, what has been the outcome? I know that my noble friend agreed that we should elide the Report stage this afternoon. Therefore, it is to be hoped that we shall receive some answers on Third Reading.
Lord Wilberforce: With the indulgence of the Committee, I should like to make one short point which is more closely related to the scope of Clause 1. It is regrettable that Clause 1, and indeed the Bill as a whole, deals only with the case of incorporation of companies. We have heard that it is thought to be necessary to clarify the situation of certain Taiwan banks. No doubt that is a very beneficial purpose. However, if one is to legislate, I believe that it is more desirable to deal in a general way with the situation of an unrecognised state such as Taiwan—no one has suggested that it directly affects any other countries—than to concentrate upon one particular case.
If one is dealing with a state such as Taiwan—which ought to be recognised but is not—why not simply say that all civil matters arising such as births, marriages, deaths, wills, transfers of property and so on, shall be treated in the courts of that country as if Taiwan was a recognised state? That is what the Americans have done. Their Act is perfectly clear and works satisfactorily. Moreover, it does not leave a yawning gap, as this Bill does, between the one case of corporate companies (which is dealt with by the Bill) and all other cases of civil matters (which are not dealt with by the Bill) which I suppose have to be dealt with by the courts under their ordinary powers as was explained by this House to some extent in the Carl Zeiss case.
I asked whether it would be possible to amend Clause 1 so as to extend it to cover civil matters generally. However, I was told that it was not possible, having regard to the Long Title. Nevertheless, I could not let Clause 1 pass without expressing a certain regret that it is so narrowly drafted and not drafted so

1759
as to deal with other civil matters which may well arise in relation to such a case as Taiwan, Northern Cyprus or any other case which one may care to mention.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of Clause 1 is to allow the question of whether a body purporting to have corporate status has that status where it is related to a territory which is not at that time a recognised state. "A recognised State" is defined for the purposes of subsection (1) as,
"a territory which is recognised by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as a State".
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, what is involves in a state for the purposes of recognition is certainly something along the lines which he described. However, in addition, there is the judgment that it is appropriate for the Government in the United Kingdom to recognise that particular unit as a state. Where that has not happened, as for example in Taiwan, there is still a court system operating. That is why we have sought to direct attention to the court system and why, with all respect to those who have suggested the opposite, I venture to think that the phrase a "settled court" system is better than an "established court". If one uses the word "established", one is in the situation of asking by what authority, and so on. We seek to direct attention to the matter of fact; namely, whether there is a court system in that particular territory with sufficient continuity and cohesion to operate as a system.
That question is narrower than and different from the question of recognition as a state. We believe that it is wise especially in connection with corporate status, to have regard to that principle. The purpose of the Bill is to do that in relation to corporate status. I regard this as important. Bodies claiming corporate status on that basis operate in the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that the law in regard to them should be settled.
On the wider question raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, that is certainly an issue for consideration. Many points of view have been expressed in favour of more general consideration. However, the matter is of particular importance because, as I said, bodies purporting to have corporate status are operating. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with the matter. It was felt that attempting to deal with the more general problem to which my noble and learned friend referred might well create a great many additional questions than those which we have had an opportunity to consider in the light of the need for this Bill at present. That is why the Bill is restricted to this particular question and why I ventured to point out earlier that more general questions are not raised. The Bill focuses on a particularly narrow question and one which happens to be of present and rather immediate importance.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consider welfare of child
Where the Secretary of State, or any of his officers, exercise any of the powers and duties conferred by this Act, the welfare of the child shall be taken into account so far as is consistent with the requirements of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the welfare of the child, which has been a consideration of your Lordships throughout the Bill's passage. We all agree with the principle that the child should be the focus of concern, and indeed the Bill's title is the Child Support Bill. It is essential that that principle is in some way spelt out on the face of the Bill. This is the third attempt to meet the Government's objections to the proposal. They were proper objections, and were raised in Committee and on Report. I do not propose to repeat the whole of the discussion that we had in Committee and on Report, but I should point out that in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor welcomed the principle relating to the concern for the welfare of the child, and said:
"I do not wish to push the issue to one side. It may be possible to introduce something which would show that the whole idea of maintenance is for the benefit of the child. I shall consider whether we can do something of that nature".— [Official Report, 14/3/91; col. 341.]
The objection in Committee was that the amendment's wording made the child's welfare the paramount consideration, and that picked up the wording of the Children Act. We tried on Report to meet the Government's objection to the wording. We moved an amendment which merely stated that there was a duty to take the welfare of the child into account. Again the noble and learned Lord had some objections which I believe were correct. He pointed out the wide nature of the amendment. He queried whether the welfare of the child should be taken into account in exercising "any" of the powers and duties conferred by the Bill. We had to use the word "any" in the amendment, but we have tried to meet the Government's objection by adding the phrase:
"so far as is consistent with the requirements of this Act".
There are certain parts of the Bill, such as the calculation of the maintenance formula, and so on, where it is evident that the welfare of the child is taken into account. However, there are other areas, especially Clause 5, where there may be a difficulty. That was a point again made by the noble and learned Lord who said:
"In the case of Clause 5—and also in connection with Clause 22 which was removed in Committee—I can see that in such a situation the welfare of the child may be important if, for example, the result of requiring information would be to involve the child in threats of violence or actual violence".—[Official Report, 25/4/91; col. 409.]
I believe that it is right to bring the amendment to your Lordships again with the present wording, because the Government's answer on Report seemed to indicate a change of stance to some extent. The argument seemed to rest on the fact that the point was

1761
self-evident; that the whole purpose of the Bill is to benefit the child, and it provides for the assessment of the parents' financial liability. If it is self-evident, it can surely do no harm to say so on the face of the Bill. A fair point was made about the operation of the formula, and we have tried to take that into account.
When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will tell the House whether the Government have changed their stance on that principle since the Committee stage. The amendment is intended to be a variation of the one moved on Report. It has been varied to meet the points made then by the noble and learned Lord about the contradictory nature of the wording. The Government seem to have changed their mind on this point. It would be helpful to the House to know whether that is so.
The amendment is not intended to undermine the operation of the Bill, but to apply only in those cases where there is a question of discretion in the actions of the child support officer or the Secretary of State; for example, with the child support officer's discretion to pursue any inquiry, or of an inspector to investigate employment particulars. In such circumstances, the sensitive nature of the issues might have repercussions on the welfare of the child.
Clause 5 was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord on Report. It is the element of compulsion in Clause 5 which might mean that the child's welfare would not be taken into account unless it was stated on the face of the Bill. Presumably the caring parent will give some consideration to the child's welfare if she was requesting the agency to take action. The principle of the amendment has been agreed throughout, but the Government have seemed to change their stance from time to time. I cannot believe, with all the discussions that we have had on the Bill, that the Government wish to reject the amendment. We have tried hard to use wording which would meet the objections which have been raised at various stages. We hope that the third time round we shall not be rejected on some—I can only describe it in this way—pettifogging drafting point. The House should have the opportunity to state its support for this crucial principle. The amendment's intention is clear. I am sure that every Member of the House supports the principle and the intention of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment which would help child support officers. Their task will be made easier if the amendment is in the Bill. Perhaps I can give a practical example. If a woman does not want to name the child's father but feels that she will be forced or pressurised to do so, she may give up income support and take a low-paid job. If she takes a low-paid job, the child will lose a number of the entitlements. The child would lose a number of educational benefits, including school meals which amount to a considerable sum each week. If the mother were on income support she would receive those benefits, but she loses them if she is on a low income. A number of women will take up that stance.
It would be helpful if the phrase proposed in the amendment were in the Bill, so that with every
1762
decision a child support officer makes account is taken of the child's welfare not just in the context of the Bill but in the context of education Bills, health Bills and so forth.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches I too support the amendment. Last night, rather later than perhaps I would have wished, I was reading the noble and learned Lord's reply to this amendment on Report. He said:
"The whole purpose of the Bill is, self-evidently, to benefit the child in that it provides for the assessment of the parents' financial liability for their children."—[Official Report, 25/4/91; col. 409.]
On reflection, I am not convinced that that is the case, because the effect of the Bill will not be to give children more maintenance than they were receiving before but to make the maintenance come from the father rather than from the taxpayer. The real principle behind the Bill—we on these Benches have always recognised that it is a valid principle—is the interest of the taxpayer. It is a good interest, but it is capable of conflicting with the interests of the child.
The noble and learned Lord further implied that it is in the child's interests to receive maintenance from its parents. That is a case which deserves to be taken seriously. I would go so far as to say—if I may use a legal term with some hesitation before the noble and learned Lord—that there is a rebuttable presumption that that is the case. Other things being equal, it probably is good for the child to receive maintenance from its parents, but the presumption is rebuttable. There are cases, some of which we have discussed, and to some of which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has referred, where it is definitely not in the child's interests to obtain maintenance from its parents. Some of those instances, such as cases of rape or incest, have, from the start of the Bill, been conceded by the Government. Therefore, I believe that they concede the basic principle of the amendment: that the interest of the child is capable of conflicting with the Bill's basic thrust. We say that where it does, it should be taken into account. I cannot believe that the Government disagree with that proposition.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said; that there are certain instances when the caring parent will lose the benefit for the child of free dinners and access to the social fund if she comes off income support.
Another point has not been touched on by noble Lords. In his speech on Report, my noble and learned friend referred to possible confusion for the child support officer who has the duty to follow the formula on the amount to be paid. However, many provisions in the Bill are not mandatory but discretionary. There is no yardstick that I can see in the Bill that sets out the polarisation on which these discretionary acts must be based. For example, in Clause 10 the child support officer may make an interim assessment. The Secretary of State may make regulations. However, on what basis are these regulations to be made and on what basis are the decisions of the child support officer to be made when he has to exert his discretion?
We all know that the Bill has not been popular anywhere in the House. Nevertheless, presumably it

1763
will end up by becoming law. Surely it is our duty to see that those who have to implement and apply the provisions of the Bill have guidance on how the discretion is to be exercised. I cannot go along with the wording of the amendment: it refers to "duties", and where something is a duty there may be circumstances where the welfare of the child will not be taken into consideration because the formula exists.
As my noble and learned friend said, all this could cause confusion. Perhaps he can give an indication of an amendment which could be put forward in another place when the Bill reaches there. It would show that the welfare of the child must be taken into account in the provisions that are discretionary. Where child support officers, and the Secretary of State, must exercise their discretion, perhaps there could be a formula that would delete the word "duties" but nevertheless recognise that this is the fundamental purpose of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, surely the words in the amendment,
"so far as is consistent with the requirements of this Act",
are qualifying words. They suggest that there may be something in the Act which would affect the welfare of the child less completely than if the words were not the same as, the provisions in different parts of the Act. It is a qualifying phrase. It would be stronger if all the words were omitted after the word "account". Then there would be the simple proposition that,
"the welfare of the child shall be taken into account".
It would suit my purpose still more if, instead of the words,
"so far as is consistent with",
we were to introduce the words,
"notwithstanding the requirements of this Act".
Quite honestly, it is not a welfare Bill but a money Bill. It is about money, and only about money. That has been my complaint all along. It is a debt collecting Bill; the agency to be set up is a debt collecting agency. The debt collectors and the agency are provided with all the equipment for tracing the debtor, pursuing, persecuting and prosecuting him.
One wonders where the welfare of the child comes into it. Do we really believe that with the kindliest administration of the Act there will not be some deleterious effect upon the welfare of certain children? Will they possibly see their mother or the caring parent go through the anguish of this machinery, with all the emotions that it will arouse and all the other side effects of the traumatic experience that somebody in the family will undergo? Do your Lordships really believe that the children will come out unscathed? I am sure that the children will feel some of the emotional reactions that are bound to occur.
I am uneasy about mixing welfare in a Bill of this kind. If we wish to pronounce that the welfare and wellbeing of the child shall come first—and we keep on saying that the children must come first—then they should come first notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill. With that provision, we shall strengthen our attitude towards the Bill with a note of defraying any possible ill effects in the course of its administration.
1764
I am worried about this, and I hope that my criticism will not lead the Government to say that it suits them fine. The truth is that to put the amendment into the Bill as it stands would, I fear, complete the deception behind the Bill conveying the impression that it is doing a great deal more for children than it is. That is a serious criticism of the Bill. It largely concerns money; it exists to reimburse state funds for the support given under the social security and child benefit arrangements to children of broken marriages or in the care of lone parents.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I regret that I missed the four-minute speech of my noble friend Lady Faithful] when she moved the amendment; but I have a clear idea of what she would have said. I apologise, it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who moved it and I am sure that what he said was along the lines of what my noble friend said.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to be told again that I am in favour of statements of principle in legislation, not for their own sake, not just for the sake of having statements of principle, but where there seems to be a need or desire for them. I suggest that clearly there is a need for them here so that when discretions are being exercised, there is a removal of doubt, as my noble friend Lady Elles said. There will be occasions when the child support officer, or even the Secretary of State and others concerned with implementing the Bill wonder how to exercise their discretion. If it is made clear to them early in the Bill that the welfare of the child shall be taken into account—those words are very moderate—it will offer guidance to them and remove the doubt.
One should note in passing that the words, "taken into account" are not strong. They are not the same as, for example, "shall be paramount" or "shall be overriding". A statement of principle in these terms or along these lines helps to ensure that the will of Parliament is observed.
I now come to the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I have such respect for him that I hesitate to disagree with him. Nevertheless, I warn your Lordships that if his suggestion were accepted and the words, "notwithstanding the requirements of this Act" were inserted, it would enable somebody exercising his discretion to flout the provisions of the Act and defy the will of Parliament. Therefore, that would not be acceptable.
Here we have an issue of principle, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able in reply to say, "Yes, for the good reasons given, the principle is accepted". I see that my noble and learned friend has returned to the Chamber. I wonder whether his ears are burning. Just before he entered the Chamber, I was about to say that I was sorry he was no longer on the Woolsack. However, we now have the benefit of his presence.
It is a benefit because my noble and learned friend has made it clear that not in every case—not for the sake of having it—but where it is appropriate, a statement of principle can be helpful in a Bill. I wish to suggest to him in case even at this late stage he is able to give any advice to my noble friend Lord Henley, who is to reply to the debate—I have just been

1765
informed that my noble and learned friend is to reply to the debate; that is even better—that here is an opportunity for inserting a statement of principle into the Bill which can do only good. As I was saying in the absence of my noble and learned friend, it can do good mainly for the removal of doubt in people's minds when exercising a discretion under the Act that this Bill will become.
I find the wording acceptable at the moment but if for some technical reason my noble and learned friend feels that the wording could be improved upon he could take the straightforward course of saying that the Government will accept the amendment, get it attended to in another place, and make any adjustment to the wording that is necessary.
I made one other point in the absence of my noble and learned friend. I am sure your Lordships will not mind if I repeat it. The words,
"shall be taken into account"
are moderate words. They are not the equivalent of "shall be paramount or overriding". I should have thought that makes this new clause, as a statement of principle, even more acceptable. We live in hope.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am particularly glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as he was the chairman of a committee of which I had the honour to be a member which advocated the use, where possible, of statements of principle. The members of the committee were unanimous on that point. I wish to support the amendment, as the noble Lord has done, to demonstrate the unanimity of that committee. This is an appropriate place in which to insert a clause of this kind. I welcomed the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who said that the House has not been receptive to the amendment. When the Bill goes on to the statute book its implementation will command much greater respect if the words of the amendment are included.
The noble Baroness had the main principle of the amendment in mind when she said that it would help child support officers and the Secretary of State in discretionary cases. That principle can only be effective in discretionary cases. It is an important principle as child support officers will need guidance. I refer to the example mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Child support officers will be able to point out to the mother that if she takes a certain course she will lose benefit. That will help child support officers make dispositions in matters where they have discretion and help the parent concerned where there is a case for adopting alternative procedures. I am very much in favour of the amendment from that point of view.
If this provision were included in the Bill, it would at the outset dispel the rather unpleasant suggestions that have arisen throughout the passage of this Bill that we are dealing with an unfeeling bureaucracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, this is purely a matter of debt collecting. The Short Title of the Bill is misleading. It gives one the rather comfortable, cosy
1766
feeling that the Bill aims to give support to children, whereas the whole tenor of the Bill is to extract money in the form of maintenance from the absent parent.
As I have said, I believe this provision would strengthen the Bill. Throughout our proceedings we have heard of cases where, if the measures in the Bill are pursued with utmost rigour, children will be affected deleteriously. As a general safety net and as a means of giving advice to those who will operate the provisions of the Bill, the amendment contains an important provision to place at the forefront of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have supported what my noble friend Lord Houghton has said. During the progress of the Bill the impression has grown that this is not a Bill about supporting children and that it is more a Bill about collecting debts from parents. My noble friend referred to that. If we believe that this is a Bill aimed at child support, this amendment would help the Government to prove their case. I am sure the Government wish to do that. Those of us who have had experience of dealing with any government department—I certainly have had experience of that—and in particular with the Department of Health and Social Security as it was when I was a Member of another place, will know perfectly well that the officers who make the decisions feel themselves bound by statutes. Therefore, if the statutes are rigid, with the best will in the world the officers making the decisions must be rigid.
This amendment gives an officer who is making a decision some discretion and some opportunity to say, "Ah, yes, the regulations say that but I am also told that I must take into consideration the welfare of the child". This amendment is extremely helpful in that respect. It does not alter the essence of the Bill but it would help the Government, if they would only accept it, to show that they consider the welfare of the child.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I wonder whether any noble Lord who has supported this amendment would not prefer it to be drafted in the form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As it stands at present I believe the amendment is inadequate, whereas if it ended, "the welfare of the child shall be paramount"—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I commended the wording of the clause as it is and contrasted it with the expression "would be paramount". I think that expression would be going too far. I believe that the moderate wording of the amendment makes it more acceptable.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I misunderstood the noble Lord and therefore I shall not pursue this point as others do not seem to agree with me. I believe that everyone takes the conditions that are in front of them into account. However, that does not mean that one gives those conditions preference over other conditions. I thought we wanted

1767
officers to give the consideration of the child preference over any adverse consequences of the Bill as it stands.
Baroness David: My Lords, the original amendment moved in Committee was tabled in my name, though my noble friend Lord Carter moved it in my absence. When I read the proceedings of that stage I had the impression that the noble and learned Lord had given a sympathetic reply to the amendment. I was not present during Report stage because I was in the Far East with a parliamentary delegation. I read with some dismay the noble and learned Lord's comments on a milder amendment which was put down at Report stage. I do not like the amendment which is now before the House as much as my original amendment, but I accept that we have had to modify it in order to accommodate what the noble and learned Lord said. The present amendment has received very strong support from all round the House, and I shall not repeat the arguments. I understand my noble friend Lord Houghton's point.
I hope that we shall accept the amendment as it is because that is better than not having it at all. For the reasons that have been given from all sides of the House, I should like to add my strong support for the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will remember that this is the last occasion on which this House can place its imprint regarding the welfare of the child on the Bill. If there is a vote against the amendment, the Bill will go to the other place without the interests of the child even being mentioned as being one of the purposes of the Bill. In my view that would be tragic.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, helped the House by reminding us of the stages through which we have gone. We started by talking in terms of the welfare of the child being paramount. That had to be watered down because of arguments against the use of the word "paramount". We were told that it might end up in court with people saying that the Minister had not made this the paramount consideration. Therefore we watered down our proposal. The amendment now states merely that:
"the welfare of the child shall be taken into account"
as one of the elements.
We went further, even though that did not meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—and I can understand his point of view. We were reminded of the requirements of the Bill. One cannot think of every one of them when looking at the amendment. What happens if the requirements of the Bill are arguably inconsistent with the welfare of the child? As a result, we again watered down our proposal. We have said in this amendment:
"so far as is consistent with the requirements of this Act".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right in his recollecti ans, as he usually is. I remember the noble and learned Lord—who I am sure is giving a sympathetic ear to the amendment and I hope will agree to it in a moment—was pleased when we brought forward similar amendments on other Bills. I think that I am right in saying that it was on the Children Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, and also the Legal Aid Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that is right. I believe that it was in the first part of the Legal Aid Bill that we set out the principle behind the Bill.
As I mentioned, this is the last stage of the Bill. We cannot afford any more bickering about wording. We have come to the end with the amendment. It would be grossly misunderstood in the country if the Bill left this House with a vote against the welfare of the child being taken into account so far as is consistent with the requirements of the Bill. I hope there is unanimity in the House and that we all support the purpose of the amendment in the sense that the welfare of the child must be one of the elements to be taken into account. I hope that on this occasion the House will vote with unanimity. It would be preferable, however, if there were no vote at all.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships are content that I should reply to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Henley kindly agreed to do so because I had a public commitment to discharge in the swearing-in of a judge which had been fixed a long time ago. However, I have been able to return. I think that I have gathered sufficiently what has been said. The only speech which I did not hear as fully as I should have liked was that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Having heard his point of view in respect of the Bill expressed forcefully on occasions in the past, I can make a reasonable assumption about what he may have said on this occasion and take it into account.
I expressed my point of view in answer to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at Committee stage. I remain of the point of view which I expressed then. There is no question of my changing my basic point of view. However, as the amendments have developed in answer to those observations, I have not simply repeated what I said before but tried to take account of the changes that have been made in the amendment.
I said at Committee stage that we would consider carefully embodying wording relating to the welfare of the child in the Bill. What I had in mind then and still have in mind is something of the nature of a purpose clause on the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has described and to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred. Actions often speak louder than words in these matters and I have, as has been mentioned, incorporated such provisions in the Legal Aid Act 1988, for example. That was one of the first Bills which I had the privilege of bringing to your Lordships' House after I assumed my present office.
However, it is important to understand that a purpose clause sets out the purpose of the Bill as a whole. The whole purpose of the Bill is expressed in the purpose clause. Strictly speaking, the amendment is not a purpose clause of that kind. That is what I have been searching for, and I have asked for help in that search. However, so far I have not been able to come forward with an adequate clause. A purpose clause, in the nature of things, if it is adequately to

1769
express the purpose of the Bill must be succinct on the one hand and yet fairly comprehensive on the other. It is a challenge to succeed in that in a Bill as important as this one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. I hope that he does not mind my rising at this point to say that none of us has suggested that a purpose clause is what is needed. As my noble and learned friend so rightly said, a purpose clause describes the purpose of the Bill as a whole. What we want here is something less than a purpose clause; it is a statement of principle. That is what the proposed clause is. It is intended to give guidance as to the way in which the Secretary of State and the child support officers are to exercise their discretion when using the powers which the Bill clearly gives them. That is different from a purpose clause, but it is essential as a statement of principle. I hope that my noble and learned friend did not mind my making that intervention.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly not. I have no objection whatsoever to my noble friend intervening with that extremely helpful observation. However, I was saying that I was seeking to produce a purpose clause because I thought that that would help to settle some of the matters which have been raised as the Bill has progressed. It would be helpful to express the underlying purpose of the Bill succinctly and with clarity. However, your Lordships will appreciate that it is not the easiest thing to do and so far we have not been able to do so. I am certainly willing to undertake to continue that search.
As has been said, this clause is not a purpose clause in that sense. This is a statement of a consideration which the Secretary of State and the child support officers would take into account. I should like first to acknowledge with gratitude that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the others who have supported this amendment on the Marshalled List have taken account of the arguments that I put forward at various stages, and the question is whether it goes far enough. One has to be extremely careful in this context to gather the considerations properly.
One of the principal places in which this arises is in relation to Clause 5, as has been said before. One has to think about the circumstances rather closely. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested—I am not sure precisely about the word he used—that the argument on the wording of the clause might be regarded as less than—
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was pettifogging.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that that was the word, but I did not wish to reproach the noble Lord by using it unless I was certain that it was the word. The purpose of my discussion would not be to be pettifogging, but to attempt to show your Lordships that there are considerations that have not been fully taken account of even yet in this clause.
1770
Let us take the case of Clause 5, the case of a lady who has a difficult relationship with the father of the child. The father of the child is one who may well be able to provide quite a substantial amount of money, maybe taking the child outside the situation which otherwise it would be in, and the question is: should that father be pursued?
The father might be a person who has shown violence towards the mother in the past, but no such thing towards the child. In other words, it would be very much in the child's interest to get the maintenance from the father; but if the mother disclosed the father's name, the result might be violence to her. The clause as drafted here directs the Secretary of State and his officers to take into account the welfare of the child. In that situation, an important element to be taken into account also would be the welfare of the mother and her situation. This does not expressly exclude other considerations, but it puts great emphasis on the welfare of the particular child.
I venture to think therefore that the clause as presently drafted has not overcome all the difficulties that there are in the situation; and my noble friend Lady Elles has pointed out that the clause refers to the duties which are imposed as well as to the powers. I feel sure that your Lordships are seeking some provision which would ensure that in exercising discretionary powers, the Secretary of State and his officers would have regard to the welfare of the child, along with other considerations that might be important—and I have given one example.
We shall consider this further and in the course of this Bill's further proceedings, we shall seek to come forward with provisions dealing with these matters. I should like to try to achieve a suitable purpose clause because it will help to give an understanding of the Bill which would be important. I know that it is not easy, because I have been trying to get it for some little time; but I do not yet wish to give up on that.
As regards the second point that your Lordships wish to cover, which is dealt with primarily in this amendment, I shall certainly undertake that we shall seek a suitable form of words to bring into the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion, among other considerations, in a plain way the welfare of the child, so far as that is a proper consideration on the basis that the later words of this amendment show.
I do that not in any pettifogging spirit at all, but in the desire to get this right. It is an important matter and certainly we have not lost sight of it at the various stages of this Bill. I personally have been anxious to try to secure a good provision which all of your Lordships could support wholeheartedly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may say this. I am sure that he wants to be helpful. But we have come right the way through the stages of this Bill in this House, as I have tried to point out before, and we dare not—and I use the words advisedly and in no sense at all in a party way because of the feeling throughout the House—miss this opportunity. What is the harm if this very modified amendment goes into the Bill at this stage, giving the noble and learned Lord, and all the other people who will be advising on the Bill, the

1771
opportunity of putting in anything by way of rectification, if that is necessary, in another place during other stages. The Lords will have said that they want the welfare of the child at least to be taken into account.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to do what would meet your Lordships' approval. I once before found myself in a situation—perhaps more than o ice, but once that I recollect very plainly at the moment—where, in order to do my best to meet the entreaties of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I think it right to describe them as such, I accepted an amendment on that basis. I then found at a later stage in another place that, because of the attempt to alter in order to supply what I considered to be the necessary filling-out of the undertaking I was in a situation where it was thought that I was trying to undercut the main purpose of the undertaking.
It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, never suggested anything of that kind. But it was quite difficult, having the situation once passed where an amendment had gone in, to produce, as it were, corrections or emendations. If your Lordships are of the view that this amendment should go in, and you are willing to put it in on the basis that we shall have completely free scope, without in any way transgressing the spirit of what we have done here to fill out the detail of it then I should be willing to contemplate that course. I am still keen to get a purpose clause if I can, but, if once we have this, I suspect that the purpose clause and my search for it on this occasion will be abandoned.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply and to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who put extremely well the case for this House being able to state its view. I do not intend to go through the arguments. I simply thank all those who supported the amendment. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there was no need to apologise to me for mistaking me for the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I can think of no higher compliment. We feel that this is a separate issue from a purpose clause. That is a separate point with which only the noble and learned Lord can deal. On the undertaking and assurance that he has given to the House, I commend the amendment to the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are in a slightly different position. I am asking for a clear understanding on the part of noble Lords that, if I do not oppose the amendment at this stage, it is under reservation of the full right to elaborate and bring forward any amendments supplementary to it which appear, on full consideration, to be necessary. That will of course have to be done in another place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, let me say at once to the noble and learned Lord that I regard his attitude as completely generous and typical of him. It is understood on all sides of the House, I believe, that, if this amendment is accepted, he is at complete liberty to bring in refinements should he feel it necessary at a later stage and that that applies to his colleagues in another place.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, we entirely understand his position. We agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. It is also clear that on that basis we also, if we were unsatisfied with what another place did, would have locus standi to amend the amendment when it came back to this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Applications by those receiving benefit]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert:
("(IA) That authorisation shall extend to all children of the absent parent in relation to whom the parent first mentioned in subsection (1) is a person with care.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak to this amendment on behalf of my noble and learned friend. It is a small drafting amendment which makes clear that, when a caring parent gives authority to the Secretary of State to seek maintenance from the absent parent, that authority extends to all of the absent parent's children who are living with the caring parent. This amendment removes any doubt that there may have been about our intentions in this matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 39, after ("without") insert ("unreasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at various stages of the Bill we have played with the words "without delay". This is an important matter because we visualise the mother of a child having a certain duty under this Bill. Doubt was expressed at the earlier stages about what was really meant by the words "without delay".
The Minister, with a smile—let me make that abundantly clear; it was certainly not a scowl—said that he had received advice to the effect that the words "without delay" meant in law "without unreasonable delay". In order to clarify the matter completely, even preceding his remarks I tabled an amendment with the words "without unreasonable delay". To my utter astonishment that amendment was in some way resisted, at least by the requirement to think further about the matter before coming to a conclusion.
Therefore, I bring before the House this weighty amendment so that a person who has not had the tuition and experience of the adviser of the Minister may see upon the face of the Bill that "delay" means what the Minister says it means; namely, without unreasonable delay. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can respond very briefly. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be pleased to know that his powers of persuasion are such that he has convinced me and those who advise me that it will be acceptable to include the word "unreasonable" and that it will put beyond doubt our intentions in this matter. Therefore I am most pleased to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert:
("() The obligation to authorise the Secretary of State which is imposed by subsection (1)—

(a) shall not apply in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(b) may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, be waived by the Secretary of State.").

)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, since my name is attached to one of the other amendments in this group and I am happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, I shall in his absence move Amendment No. 4 and speak to Amendment No. 9, with which it is grouped. These amendments deal with the matter of the requirement on the woman to name the father of the child. Amendment No. 4 lays down the vital principle of allowing for exceptions.
It is common ground that there should be certain cases in which there may be exceptions. I understand that the Government have always conceded the cases of rape and incest. There are other cases that we have discussed, in particular that of domestic violence, which is dealt with by Amendment No. 9. It is a problem of quite considerable extent.
Since we last discussed this Bill another body of research on this subject has been published by the Family Policy Studies Centre. It states that one in eight separated mothers gives domestic violence as the reason for the original separation. That is quite a high number. The centre also states that 5 per cent. of those who at present refuse to name the father give violence as the reason. That is a considerable number but a much smaller one. It is so much smaller that one must form the suspicion that it may be the tip of an iceberg.
On this subject, I believe that our procedures have operated as they should. At each stage of the Bill the differences between us have narrowed somewhat. The White Paper began by admitting rape and incest as a ground for exception and the argument was simply about whether or not that should be on the face of the Bill. In Committee my noble kinsman admitted that domestic violence should be a ground for exception.
Two questions arose. One was about whether that too should be on the face of the Bill. The other was about what should be acceptable evidence of it. With regard to acceptable evidence, the gap has very largely been closed. A commissioner's ruling—the reference is R(SB) 33/85—has been brought to my attention. The words of the ruling appear to me to be important. It states:
"The Tribunal may reach this conclusion even though the only evidence is that of the claimant himself. There is no rule of English law that corroboration of the claimant's own evidence is necessary. In some cases a Tribunal may rightly think that they cannot act on the claimant's uncorroborated evidence either because it is self-contradictory or inherently improbable or because the claimant's demeanour does not inspire confidence in his truthfulness. (It is seldom safe to reject evidence solely for this last reason …)".
In other words, in the issue of domestic violence the woman's word is good evidence. As I understand it, there is to be a rebuttable presumption that it is true but it is not to be taken for granted. Nobody in a court
1774
or indeed in any judicial matter can claim to have his evidence taken completely for granted. So that gap has been closed.
The other issue that remains is whether to have the provision on the face of the Bill. The movers of the amendment believe that that is absolutely vital. The issue has given rise to a good deal of fear up and down the country. We should not understate the fear associated with the subject. It causes great harm and distress to the women subjected to it. We hope to achieve a final resolution of the subject. It is essential that some provision is put on the face of the Bill.
There is the problem of suspicion, in particular in cases of incest. In many cases a daughter says that the father has abused her. The mother does not know whether to believe her husband or her daughter. In those circumstances it is clearly undesirable to force a renewed contact by a demand for maintenance. One would not wish to insist on making the woman name the father. Nor would one wish to do anything which prejudices any future case against the father.
We have suggested a form of words in the amendment. We are not wedded to it. If the Government come forward with a better form of words, I am prepared to listen to them with great care and sympathy. I thank my noble kinsman Lord Henley and his officials for their care, courtesy and consideration at every stage of the discussion. But we must have some provision on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble Earl for so ably moving my amendment in my brief absence, for which I apologise. I support the amendment. I speak also to Amendment No. 9 which stands in his name.
The amendment that he has moved on my behalf inserts into the Bill a provision that I believe to be wholly consistent with the Government's intentions as set out in the White Paper, Children Come First. I go further. I suggest that it may be only as a result of an oversight that the provision does not already appear in the Bill.
Clause 5(1) provides that a parent with care who is in receipt of income support, family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind must authorise the Secretary of State to recover child support mainte-nance from the absent parent. Subsection (6) provides that she is obliged to give the child support officer all necessary information to enable the absent parent to be traced. Subsection (7) provides that she is not obliged to provide information in such circumstances as may be prescribed. The amendment applies the provision of subsection (7) to the primary obligation which is to give the authority to the Secretary of State.
When my noble friend replies will he state whether it was ever the intention of the department to impose on every parent with care who comes onto income support, without regard to the circumstances, the obligation to give that authority?
Paragraph 5.30 of Volume One of Children Come First carries the clear implication that that was never the intention. It expresses a view that there should be exceptions to the general requirement that the caring

1775
parent should be required to make and pursue a claim for maintenance through the child support agency in instances when,
"the child has been conceived as the result of rape, or where there had been incest".
Those words convince me that it never was Government's intention that the parent should be under an absolute duty to give the authority and merely to be excused from co-operating further under the later provisions of the clause.
It is an important point. I have tried to illustrate it by the example of rape referred to in the White Paper. Where the rapist has been tried and convicted, the identity of the absent parent will be known. In such a case it would not be right to compel the mother to authorise the Secretary of State to pursue the man for maintenance of the child, leaving the mother only with the worthless right to withhold necessary information which the Secretary of State already has—that is, information relating to the identity of the man.
Perthaps one may contrast that example with the situation in which the mother never reported the rape, there was no prosecution, and, by legitimately withholding information under the provisions of this clause, the mother can prevent the child support agency from pursuing the matter further even though she has to authorise the Secretary of State to do so.
There are already enough reasons for a woman not to report a rape. I believe that this additional reason would be unfortunate indeed. I do not believe that the Government intended that position. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
The noble Earl moved three amendments at Report stage. They were designed to state on the face of the Bill what constitutes good cause for withholding information. My interest arises because Amendment No. 9 applies to the amendment now before the House. We were glad that in reply to the debate on Report my noble friend was sympathetic to the argument that good cause should, if possible, be spelt out, even though his advisers had been unable to draft a suitable amendment. He asked the noble Earl to allow time for further consideration of the amendment. I join the noble Earl in thanking the noble Lord for the discussions that took place.
In that debate on Report, my noble friend drew attention to the fact that what is set out in the amendment are criminal offences; and that for the Secretary of State to make a finding against an absent parent might be prejudicial to a later criminal trial. I do not think that that was a point well taken. The burden of proof to be satisfied before the Secretary of State's officer will be considerably less than that needed to prove a criminal offence. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which there was any possibility that the finding made by the child support officer would prejudice a later criminal trial.
My noble friend also pointed to the danger that if a definition of good cause were put on the face of the Bill, it might be too narrow and too inflexible for our purposes. I am inclined to agree. When the noble Earl's amendments were debated on Report, I stated that I sympathised with the thinking underlying them. When he summed up the noble Earl chided me slightly
1776
for not making my views clear. In order to put the matter straight, I have added my name to Amendment No. 9. I do not think that he will chide me, but he will find that once again my support is slightly equivocal. It is a case where the best ought to take priority over the good. I believe that the amendment can be improved.
I agree that it should be clearly established that rape or bodily assault on a wife or child should be grounds for the woman not to have to give information or to authorise the Secretary of State. Those are grounds based on criminal behaviour on the part of the man. However, there are other grounds on which the woman may properly not wish to bring the absent parent into the child's life. She may properly not require or permit that parent to support the child because in her judgment it would not be right or in the interests of the family for him to do so.
There will be many cases where such a judgment made by a woman will be perverse, erroneous and unacceptable. I hope that we shall try to put on the face of the Bill provisions that deal with those anxieties. I hope that we shall not close the door on the woman who does not wish the genetic father of a child, perhaps born as a result of the casual encounter in Wood Green referred to by the noble Earl on an earlier occasion, to play any part in the upbringing of that child.
I have made no secret of my agreement with the Government that absent parents should not escape their responsibilities, leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. But there is another good—the good of the family. As a taxpayer I submit that there are cases where it is better that the taxpayer should foot the bill than that the child support agency should be let loose. Such cases should not be restricted to the criminal or quasi-criminal hard cases.
We must look at the issue in the knowledge that there is and will be substantial abuse. As many as 70 per cent. of single parents may now exist on income support. Many of them may also be supported in a backhand way by the absent father. However, that is not a reason for legislating on the basis that all single parents are social security scroungers.
I look for provision in the legislation requiring the parent with care to give the authority and to provide the information except where she can show that it is reasonable and in the interests of the family not to do so. In such cases there should be a right of appeal to a court. The appeal should be entirely outside the social security system because the reasonableness of the woman must in the ultimate be a matter of family law and not of social security law.
I wish to make a final suggestion which may help to resolve the difficulty in deciding cases where one woman's word must be believed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I suggest that provision should be made requiring the parent with care in such cases to make a sworn statement of the facts on which she relies. She should set out in writing the testimony dealing with any relationship that she may have had with the father after separation from him and any support that she has received or will be receiving from him. The introduction into such cases of the

1777
possibility of bringing criminal proceedings for perjury might be what is needed to oil the wheels and will enable the Government to be a little more yielding on the matter than has previously been the case.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by my noble kinsman and my noble friend about the debate that we had during earlier stages of the Bill and in our discussions last week. As I said previously, we are more or less at one on the issue; it is merely a question of finding the right form of words. I am also grateful to my noble kinsman for mentioning a commissioner's case, reference number R(SB)33/85, to which I referred in Committee. I made copies available in the Library. I hope that the anxiety about the corroboration of evidence has now been dealt with.
Good cause is the key to the issue. I understand the anxieties expressed by all noble Lords who have intervened both today and during earlier stages of the Bill. I accept that we need to reassure parents. They should understand what we are trying to do and why and how the child support agency can help them and their children.
I shall speak to the amendments in the order that they were spoken to by noble Lords and address first Amendment No. 9 tabled by my noble kinsman. We have been looking at how we can meet the anxieties put forward, in particular the feasibility of putting provisions on the face of the Bill. At Report stage I pointed out some of the difficulties. There can be a difficult balance between the need for precise definitions and the risk that by attempting such definitions we might exclude cases which on reflection we would not wish to exclude. In addition, there is the possibility that the Secretary of State could appear to be making administrative judgments about what may be criminal offences. I accept my noble friend's argument that there might be a different burden of proof. However, I believe that there is a genuine possibility of later prejudice in a criminal case.
An alternative and possibly better way forward might be to look at the consequences of an event rather than the event itself. For instance, if we were reasonably satisfied that the consequences might be harm or distress for the caring parent or her children, or something of that kind, that would be the trigger for the Secretary of State not to require co-operation. This seems to us a better approach. There are still difficulties and we need to find the right wording to fit properly into Clause 5. So I regret that I have not been able to bring forward an amendment in time for Third Reading.
However, work continues and I hope that it will be possible to find a suitable form of words which can be incorporated at a later stage. Rather than have a list, we wish to consider a general definition of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might not require co-operation which takes into account the risks to the family. Clearly I cannot give a commitment on behalf of another place but I can give an assurance to this House that I shall be
1778
recommending to my right honourable friend in another place that such an amendment should be included if at all possible. I hope that that will satisfy my noble kinsman.
I now turn to Amendment No. 4 tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. I am grateful to him for joining our discussions last week and for raising this matter. I fully accept the point he is making. It will form part of the work that we are doing in trying to find a suitable amendment on good cause. Our intention is that where a parent establishes the fact that she has good cause for not co-operating, she will be relieved of the obligation to authorise the Secretary of State to pursue maintenance, as well as the obligation to provide information. I hope that with those assurances my noble kinsman and my noble friend will agree to withdraw their amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble kinsman for that reply. The line along which he suggests moving forward is constructive. The idea of looking at the consequence rather than at the cause is thoroughly practical. It also enables us to deal with cases such as that which I mentioned where there is a suspicion of child abuse. There might be an uncomfortable situation but one does not wish to make a definite assertion that someone has done something.
My noble kinsman has suggested a constructive and practical form of words; that is, "harm or distress to the caring parent or her children". It is worth considering whether one might take in the words, "or other people in the household". Cases have arisen where the grandmother of the children has been attacked by the father. That is equally undesirable and an incident that we should be concerned to prevent.
I understand that my noble kinsman cannot give any undertaking as regards what another place will do. However, I should like him if possible to be a little more forthcoming and perhaps to give an undertaking that the Government will recommend a form of words to another place. Is it possible for my noble kinsman to go that little bit further? As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us a few moments ago, this is the very last moment at which this House is able to have any input into the Bill. Is it possible to say that a form of words along those lines will be recommended by the Government to another place? That would be of great assistance to us if that were possible.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can take the matter any further. I used the words "if at all possible" and I must always include that caveat. It may be completely impossible to draft such an amendment. I give an assurance to my noble kinsman that we shall try as hard as we can to find suitable words. However, I must include the cautionary words "if at all possible". I hope that my noble kinsman will accept that I shall press this matter as hard as possible. My right honourable and honourable friends in the department are fully cognisant of what we wish to do and we are at one on the matter. It is purely a question of finding the right words.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. I am sorry that it has not yet proved possible to find the right words. I hoped that it would be. I accept entirely my noble kinsman's good faith and goodwill and the entirely sensible and practical way in which he is pursuing the matter. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("can") to ("to"), in line 11, and insert ("comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the child support officer being provided with the information which is required").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 in the name of my noble and learned friend, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6 in the name of my noble and learned friend and my noble kinsman.
We have spoken at some length at both Committee and Report stages about subsection (6) of Clause 5, which seeks to ensure that the caring parent provides information needed to recover child support maintenance from the absent parent. We think it right that the sort of information needed should be set out in regulations, as this will be helpful both to the caring parent and to the child support agency, and this has always been our intention. However, it was pointed out on Report that subsection (6) as drafted enabled the Secretary of State to make regulations which could be used to ask for information from the caring parent which was additional to that needed for the purposes of obtaining maintenance from the absent parent. I promised to take the matter away and, after looking at it, we came to the conclusion that the drafting was in need of improvement.
These amendments will oblige the caring parent to comply, as far as she reasonably can, with regulations which set out what information is required from the caring parent to enable the absent parent to be traced and to assess and recover maintenance from the absent parent and I hope make our intentions in this matter perfectly clear.
Noble Lords have previously asked what sort of information will be needed. We have still to work out precise details of what will go into regulations, but the sort of information we shall be looking for is full name of the absent parent or, if not available, the name by which he was known to the caring parent, and somewhere where he can be contacted—whether it be a home a idress, his workplace or some other location. If that is not available, or is insufficient, we shall need other information which may help us to find him—for example, previous addresses, or employers, occupation or trade, places frequented, his national insurance number and car registration number. If there have been previous separations, it would be useful to know where the absent parent went on those occasions. Names and addresses of family or friends where he may be staying, or who may have information about him, could enable us to find the absent parent. These are just examples of the categories of information which could be needed to locate the absent parent and assess the amount of maintenance he should be
1780
paying. We believe that it will be helpful to everyone to know what sort of information we shall be asking for.
My noble kinsman supports Amendment No. 6 but has not put his name down in support of Amendment No. 5. If agreed on its own, Amendment No. 6 would remove from the caring parent the requirement to comply, so far as she reasonably can, with regulations which will prescribe the categories of information to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of her application for maintenance. However, it also removes altogether the regulation-making power, which, as I explained, we believe to be important and which we are now proposing should be contained in subsection (6) (a). I assume that my noble kinsman's aim was to remove the wider power which the original wording seemed to give. In view of what I have said and the Government's own amendments, which I believe rectify the problem identified on Report, I hope that the noble Earl will not oppose Amendment No. 5 and will support Amendment No. 6 in his own name. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a great moment. I have never before appeared in such distinguished company on the Marshalled List. I am delighted. I originally tabled this amendment in Committee. I agree that I did not intend to deprive the Government of the power to obtain necessary information. My noble kinsman has given us a more precise list of the sort of information which will be sought. That sounds to me to be reasonable, practical and directed to the purposes of the Bill.
I did not put my name to Amendment No. 5 because I did not have the chance to read it properly, as I was engaged in my work until 11.30 yesterday evening. At that time, I did not have the opportunity to add my name to the amendment. Had I had that opportunity, I should have taken it.
This form of words is a great improvement. It is tighter. Although the practical difference may be small, depending upon one's reading of the original words, it is much tighter and sounds a great deal less arbitrary. Since legislation has a hortatory effect, that is important. I am happy to support my amendment and that of my noble kinsman.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, leave out lines 16 to 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert:
("(aa) shall not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person to whom it would otherwise apply had reached an arrangement with the absent parent that they would not be asked to contribute to the upkeep of the child; and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by offering the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his inevitable absence from the Chamber. He has a previous engagement but had hoped to return in time to move the amendment. However, he will be back as soon as possible.
The effect of the amendment and Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with it, is to prevent the Bill from having a retrospective effect. I choose those words carefully because in a technical sense, this legislation is not retrospective, but it will have a retrospective effect. Where a couple have separated some years ago and have reached an agreement—possibly involving transfer of property but not involving maintenance—the effect of this Bill will be to upset that arrangement.
It seems to a good many of us that that could be unfortunate. There are a number of cases—some known to me personally, one of which I have mentioned before in this House—where the couple are satisfied with the maintenance and property arrangements which they have. They do not wish those arrangements to be upset and would find it extremely disturbing and confusing, and that may possibly give rise to expensive legal costs.
There is much sense in the maxim "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". There seems to me particular sense in that maxim where we are dealing with the after effects of a broken marriage. That is inevitably painful, with the best will in the world. When one has closed and wrapped up that chapter in a life, there is often a very strong will not to reopen it, particularly in cases where there is a second husband or a second wife. They do not wish to be dragged back into recrimination or near recrimination which has arisen in the past.
I cannot believe that the effect of not carrying this amendment would be other than to reopen a great many old wounds which are better left to heal. As far as I can see, that would do no good to the child and no good to the mother, nor do I believe that it would be of benefit to the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, similar amendments were proposed on Report, which were somewhat wider in scope than those now before us. We opposed the earlier amendments, and one of the arguments I put forward against them was that they applied in any case where the children had been born before April 1992; that is, they would have meant that we could not seek maintenance even if the parents did not separate for several years after 1992. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, accepted that he did not intend that to be the effect and has taken steps in his new amendment to overcome that particular difficulty.
Despite the attempts by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to improve these amendments by narrowing their scope so that they more closely reflect his intention, I still cannot support them. I do not think it is right automatically to take away from the child concerned any hope of ever obtaining maintenance from his father. I do not see how that can be right. It is unfortunately true that some parents wish to avoid all responsibility for their children. But I do not think that the Government should be encouraging them to do so or perhaps increasing the pressure on the mother to make such arrangements.
Parents have a responsibility for their children. The father has a perfectly clear duty in law to maintain his child and, as I said on Report, it would not be fair on taxpayers for us simply to accept that the existence of
1782
this type of agreement automatically precludes the agency from seeking maintenance from him. If there is some good reason in a particular case that the parent should not be approached—for example, because of some risk to the family—then we shall of course consider the position on the basis that applies in those cases.
Accepting these amendments would also mean that parents who have reasons other than those put forward by my noble kingsman can avoid payment of maintenance. It opens the door to fathers who are simply looking for a way of avoiding paying maintenance that they can perfectly well afford. Such fathers may well make some sort of arrangement with the mother to persuade her to tell us that an agreement exists when it does not. Both parents will therefore gain; the losers will be the children and the taxpayers, who of course may well be parents bringing up children themselves.
I do not accept that the Bill is retrospective in the usual sense. There is no question of seeking arrears for periods earlier than any application for maintenance. Parents have a duty to maintain their children and where children are involved—as my noble and learned friend has said on many occasions—there is no such thing as a clean break. One's liability to maintain the children continues. I hope that in view of my remarks my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he could explain what would happen in this case: a husband and wife part and a written agreement is drawn up by lawyers to transfer property to the wife and child, stating also that the child will be fully maintained to the age of 18. Would that not secure the release of the absent parent from sending monthly or six-monthly payments to a child? The agreement may be a transfer of property, possibly settling a lump sum or paying the whole of the school fees for the next 10 years.
If my noble friend is not prepared to accept the amendment, which I assume would cover that kind of case, perhaps he could confirm that it is the kind of issue that would be covered in subsection (7) where it says,
"circumstances which will be prescribed".
Are those the circumstances my noble friend envisages being prescribed in order to protect an absent parent from paying twice? It is surely in the interests of a wife and child who have been deserted that a settlement should be reached at an early stage before there is any change in the circumstances of the absent parent. That must be in the interests of the child.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question but perhaps this is not the point at which to raise it. I hope that we shall come to a full discussion of this aspect of the matter when we reach Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 45.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for making the point that I intended to make. My noble friend's remarks are the subject of Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 45 and I hope that she

1783
will come back to them on that occasion. Perhaps I may add that this is Third Reading and I had already spoken and sat down before her intervention.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. I cannot say that I am as fully in agreement with it as I have been with some of his previous replies. However, he made one point which we must accept as valid. That is the point with regard to not excluding the woman from ever having any hope of maintenance. We were concerned with valid agreements validly entered into. I concede that in some circumstances those arrangements may come unstuck and need reviewing.
We who support the amendment concede the other arguments advanced by my noble kinsman. However, we do not concede their right to reign in the sort of lonely eminence to which the Government's case has raised them. My noble kinsman said that the parents have a responsibility. That has never been denied from these Benches. It has never been denied in the argument for the amendment. I was concerned only to argue the case for a situation where there is a perfectly valid, satisfactory agreement already in place between the two parents, and both are happy that it should continue
My noble kinsman said that the taxpayer had an interest. Of course he does. That also has been conceded from these Benches at every opportunity. But I cannot see that the taxpayers' interest is unsatisfied if there is another agreement to maintain the family which is satisfactory to both parents and maintains the children. The desire to pursue fathers to pay maintenance is becoming a little obsessive in the way it arises in the arguments for the Bill.
However, having conceded the point regarding the validity of the argument for not ever excluding the woman from seeking maintenance, I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I ask my noble kinsman whether he can think again about some more tightly-drawn way of excluding perfectly valid, satisfactory past settlements from the operation of the Bill. If he cannot, he will do an awful lot of harm and very little good. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("(8) A person with care who has authorised the Secretary of State under subsection (1) but who subsequently ceases to fall within that subsection may request the Secretary of State to cease acting under this section.
(9) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to comply with any request made under subsection (8) (but subject to any regulations made under subsection (10).
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such incidental or transitional provision as he thinks appropriate with respect to cases in which he is requested under subsection (8) to cease to act under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 responds to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Committee. The noble Lord was concerned with the position of a parent who had given an authorisation under Clause 5 and subsequently ceased to receive any benefit to which Clause 5 applied. I
1784
undertook to consider whether an amendment was necessary to ensure that recovery action could cease if she wished. This amendment is the consequence.
As I said then, we believe that the parent with care who leaves benefits should be able to decide for herself whether she wishes the Secretary of State to continue to recover maintenance for her. This amendment gives her that choice. If she wishes maintenance recovery to stop she can ask the Secretary of State to cease action and the Secretary of State is bound to comply. If she still wishes to receive maintenance without any break or need for a new application under Clause 3, then she need do nothing and recovery will continue on her behalf. We expect that many parents will prefer the latter. The move from benefit into work will often have been made on the basis of a regular and secure income from maintenance and it will not be in the family's interests for that to be interrupted even if only for a short period. The important thing, as I have already made clear, is that it is for the caring parent to decide.
I hope that in the light of my remarks noble Lords will feel able to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not wish to be obstructive, but I am puzzled as to why the Secretary of State needs to be given the power laid down in subsection (10) to make regulations to cover those cases which are requested under subsection (8). They are matters of detail. The idea that, in addition to the scores of other regulations which may have to be made under the Bill, there should be this further power to make these incidental or transitional provisions on these matters of detail, defeats me. Perhaps I have missed something.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about regulations, which was well made. But, while accepting it, for the second time today I offer my support to a government amendment. The basic principle behind it is sensible—namely, that the caring parent should not be forced to continue to go for maintenance when it seems unsuitable. I also warmly accept the general principle which my noble kinsman outlined—that it is for the caring parent to decide. I suggest that acceptance of the principle might supply a way forward for the later stages of the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. The powers are included in case they are needed as regards a point of detail on the arrangements for bringing a maintenance assessment to an end. It is quite clear that the arrangements are transitional and incidental and do not affect the basic position of the parent's ability to prove. I hope that my noble friend will accept that there is a need for the powers in this instance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Clause 7 [Role of the courts with respect to maintenance for children]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 11:

1785
Page 6, line 15, at end insert:
("() This section shall not prevent the court from exercising any power which it has to make a maintenance order in relation to a child if the order is made as part of a final order in ancillary relief proceedings in which capital is provided for housing the dependent children.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 45, both of which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who asked me to deal with these matters. Uncharacteristically, he delivered his brief a little late so if there is any failure on my part—I hear a noble Lord asking about the fee; I do not know about the fee. I am sure that that will arrive promptly.
These amendments return to the question raised a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles; namely, that of balancing the obligation of a father (I use the term "father and mother" if possible) to make payments out of income and his ability to provide capital in lieu. It is a situation in which we have to look not only at the interests of the child but at those of the mother and the father, because in these circumstances they often hang together.
The aim of the amendments is to allow property substitution whereby the value of any property transfer or any other capital settlement can be taken into account when assessing maintenance. Without that change to the Bill absent parents may well be tempted to resist property transfers. There may be an increase in homelessness among one-parent families.
Less dramatic than that, but still a serious point, is that there will be discouragement of what has come to be known as the clean break. It is a truism that there never can be a completely clean break where there are minor children still to be considered. However, it is still desirable, not just for the adults but for the children, if their parents can resolve as completely and finally as possible everything which has hitherto connected them. At both the Committee and Report stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that there were two aspects of the formula that would ensure that, where there was a transfer of property, the award to the children would be reduced to reflect the absent parent's loss of property and his increased housing costs.
The noble and learned Lord stated one aspect of the formula that would have such an effect: the reduction in the lone parent's housing costs would lead to a reduction in the absent parent's maintenance payments. That is open to question in a number of ways. First, the lone parent's housing costs are taken into account only in working out maintenance when the lone parent is working. At present about 70 per cent. of lone parents are on income support. In all those cases, even if the transfer of property results in lower housing costs for the lone parent, that will not be reflected in the maintenance costs of the absent parent.
Secondly, if the lone parent is employed, her housing costs do not affect the absent parent's maintenance payments unless her income is relatively high and exceeds the level of her exempt income. The
1786
White Paper stated that there would be few cases where that would occur. In volume 1 at page 13, it states that,
"The vast majority of the mothers who have the care of children either do not work or have earnings which will be below the level of their exempt income".
So that of itself is not a great encouragement to the proposition put forward by the noble and learned Lord.
Thirdly, research undertaken by the Family and Community Dispute Research Centre at the University of Newcastle, shows that most lone parents who take over the family home have higher housing costs. Therefore the transfer of the family home would result in a decrease in the lone parent's contribution to maintenance. In consequence the absent parent's maintenance payments would be increased.
While the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was correct in stating that a reduction in the lone parent's housing costs would result in lower maintenance payments, the points I have made show that that would be relevant in only a few cases. In almost all cases the lone parent will either be unemployed or not earning enough. In the majority of other cases the transfer of property will not result in higher housing costs.
The second aspect of the formula which the noble and learned Lord referred to as reducing the maintenance award is the way in which the absent parent's housing costs are taken into account in working out maintenance. It is quite clear that there will be some reduction in the award through that mechanism, but it would not be sufficient. In addition, some absent parents will find that they are unable to take up mortgages without a down payment. That is where one has to look carefully at the likely effects of the Bill as it stands at present. The majority of absent parents will find that decreases in their maintenance payments resulting from property transfer will not equal the reduction in their housing costs which would have resulted if the property had been sold and the profits divided.
I shall not weary noble Lords with a detailed example. I ask your Lordships to accept that at face value. By agreeing to a property transfer an absent parent could find himself considerably worse off than if he tries to insist on a sale of the property. If property substitution were allowed and properly reflected, the level of maintenance payments could be reduced where there was a property transfer. The absent parent would not be substantially worse off.
In that illustration I have balanced the transfer of property outright and the sale of property. There is a half-way position. That is one with which I am more familiar and which has been referred to at earlier stages of the Bill. It seems to me and others more experienced than myself, that the Bill fails to make a sufficient or any quantitative or qualitative distinction between a father who says "I will transfer to the mother all my interest in the home outright" and a father who says "I will let her have the benefit of my half-interest in the property for so long as may be necessary until the children reach a certain age or until she remarries or starts to live with another man. On that state of affairs arising I shall want my half-share

1787
back". In both cases what is envisaged is the provision of a home for the children and the mother, but there is no distinction between the housing costs on either side. In other words, the housing costs of the parties will be precisely the same. It appears that the result of the formula will be exactly the same. A distinction should be made between the father who is prepared to give up everything to his wife—or the mother of the children—and the father who insists on retaining some deferred interest in the property.
Those cases in which the father retains a deferred interest have come to be known to the lawyers as "Mesher orders". They have been heavily criticised in recent years as storing up problems for the family. They can create upheaval and force the mother to sell up at an inconvenient moment. They can create upheaval for the children, who may, strictly speaking, still be children in the home, or young adults. If there is no incentive to the father to give up his interest in the home completely, as distinct from simply asking for the deferment of his interest, there will be a revival of those problems.
I can also see the potential for further argument about chattels, a subject beloved by family lawyers. We will all be familiar with cases in which the parties agree almost everything but happily bicker away at considerable expense over the furniture. Again, there has to be some incentive to the adults in the case to behave like adults and not to argue about such things. If there is a risk of a higher obligation to pay child support, that incentive will not be there. A great number of cases which in settlement allowed for a discount in child maintenance will, if the Bill becomes law, have to be retrospectively unscrambled—at-tempts will be made retrospectively to unscramble them.
Accordingly, I suggest that the absent parent will be worse off if he agrees to a property transfer. If as a result of this Bill the absent parent is worse off and is perceived to be worse off if he agrees to a property transfer, there will be fewer property transfers in the future, and potentially lone parents will have to make calls on local authority housing stock, which is in short supply. There is also a risk in extreme cases of increased homelessness and increased cost to the taxpayer.
With that rather lengthy introduction, I shall now speak briefly to the details of the amendments. Amendment No. 11 retains the power in the court to deal with the family finances as a whole. That does not mean, as I understand the intention of Amendment No. 11, that the court must disregard the formula. However, it saves the mother having to go through two doors, as it was put at an earlier stage in these proceedings. In other words, she can go to the court and the court can deal with the matter of the child as well as the matter of the maintenance and other aspects of the case for the benefit of the mother.
I heard the other day an account of the Australian experience of their legislation which is remarkably similar. I wish I had heard it before Second Reading and been able to take greater account of it in the debates on the Bill. The recent Australian legislation, which is to a similar effect, is rather better in some
1788
respects, but it has the same broad purpose. That is, to transfer responsibility from the courts to an administrative agency. One of the respects in which it is better is that one of the parties can apply to the court to be allowed to depart from the Australian equivalent of the formula. Amendment No. 11 is a modified version of that.
Amendment No. 12 provides, by addition to Clause 9, that the amount of child support maintenance determined in accordance with those provisions may be adjusted to take account of the value of the property transferred. The second paragraph of the amendment ensures that the risk is not taken of leaving these matters dangerously to the courts because the Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions as to the adjustments to be made. Finally, Amendment No. 45 adds to the special cases listed in Clause 34 a specific potential—I put it no higher—for a capital settlement to he taken into account in regulations where such a capital settlement is made in lieu of child maintenance. That is consistent with the Law Commission's recommendations on illegitimacy and the subsequent legislation. I apologise for such a lengthy introduction. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support the amendments. These composite arrangements are very much to the advantage of parties whose marriage has broken up and are often easier to arrange than when their components are argued over piecemeal. Once that is accepted it seems to me that there is no alternative—indeed it is desirable—but that the courts should deal with it. The circumstances are of infinite variety. It is quite impossible to deal with it by the impersonal imposition of the formula. I therefore support the amendments.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall briefly follow upon the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Never was a brief more worthily delivered. I rise only to deal with one of the amendments covered in his very adequate and forceful speech. Amendment No. 45, which he mentioned at the very end of his address, adds to the special cases a capital settlement which has been made in lieu of child maintenance. The object of the exercise, as he rightly said, was to ensure that in those special cases one could protect clean break capital settlements from being upset by a subsequent claim for child maintenance.
The reason for my rising to speak is purely to add a very up-to-date and contemporaneous recommendation. The House will know of the activities of the Select Committee on Social Security of another place. It published a report as recently as 30th April, only a couple of weeks ago. None of us wants to introduce politics into this amendment, or into any amendment on this Bill, but the majority of members on the committee are supporters of the Government. The committee pointed out its anxiety about the impact which the Bill is likely to have on clean break settlements, particularly those made in the past. In giving evidence to the committee, I should point out that the Law Society drew attention to the fact that

1789
Section 8 of the Social Security Act 1990 is already causing similar problems and that solicitors are therefore making underwriting provision for this eventuality in drafting clean break settlements. Under the Bill however such arrangements would be void.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Australia in a very interesting way. The problem does not arise in Australia, I am told, because the child support scheme there cannot be applied retrospectively to cases already settled by the courts. That is not the position at present under this Bill. Amendment No. 45 will deal with that situation. However, I mention the matter at this stage for the sake of economy of time so far as concerns the House and because, as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, grouped that amendment with the amendments to which he spoke.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have had the advantage of discussions on this subject both in Committee and on Report. The noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Mishcon, have contributed to them. We appreciate that there is an interaction between the transfer of property or capital for the benefit of the children and the payment of periodic maintenance for those children. There are several points I should like to make so as to explain more fully why we believe that the formula we propose both recognises and embraces that interaction. Of course, in the nature of things, it cannot do so with absolute precision; but I believe that it does so in principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I have said, there can be no question of a clean break where there are children. That is because the parent continues to have responsibility for the child, whatever the state of the relationship between the parents may be.
One of the key objectives of these proposals is that they should produce a clear, consistent and predictable outcome in all cases involving child maintenance. I believe that that objective has been widely supported. The present system, which is essentially based on discretion, has contributed to the variability and unpredictability which we seek to avoid. But Amendment No. 11 would return all cases of child maintenance to that discretionary system whenever the question of capital or property transfer was also involved.
Further, as has been said in previous debates on the subject, the fact of a property transfer does not in itself establish anything about the financial circumstances or consequences for the parties. A property transfer can consist of anything from the acquisition by the caring parent of a substantial unencumbered asset to the acquisition by that same parent of a quite considerable liability, often in the form of a rather heavy mortgage. It is also true, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that chattels may well be involved. He described them as "beloved" of family lawyers. Of course, one understands that they have to deal with them for that or for other reasons.
It is not therefore the fact of the transfer which is the key issue; the key issue is the financial consequences of the transfer. I invite the House to agree that the formula does indeed take account of the wide variety of financial consequences which can
1790
ensue. Some examples are set out in the White Paper. Moreover, I have by way of correspondence supplied other examples to some noble Lords.
If the caring parent has acquired equity in the family home—I take the typical case of the mother—then her housing costs will be lower than would otherwise be the case, her exempt income will be lower, her assessable income higher and her contribution to maintenance higher. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested that, in some situations where the caring parent is not working or has income lower than her exempted income, the trade-off, as we call it, would not work. I suggest that it would work even in those cases. If the absent parent has little or no capital because of a property transfer, his own higher housing costs will be taken into account in the reduction of his responsibility. If the absent parent, because he has forgone his share of the family home, has little or no capital with which to start again in the housing market, his housing costs will be higher, his exempt income higher, his assessable income lower and his maintenance obligation lower.
In an effort to try to make a concrete argument, perhaps I may take the example mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on a previous occasion. I refer to Example 7 in the White Paper. It shows the absent parent trading up by moving from rented housing to owner occupation. When he increases his housing costs in consequence, the children forgo their entire share of the income which was previously available for maintenance and is now expended on the absent parent's housing instead. It is true that the maintenance obligation does not fall by the amount that he puts out on the new housing. But the maintenance share of that income is entirely removed. The children were never entitled to the whole of his income; they were entitled only to a share of it. Therefore, to the extent to which that share is affected by the transfer, the children's income from maintenance in respect of it is reduced. In that example the children's maintenance is immediately reduced by £27 per week. That is a considerable sum. The loss to them will be for as long as the absent parent is liable to maintain the children. I do not think that any noble Lords who support the amendment are asking for the "trade-off" to go any further than that.
I believe I am right in saying that in Example 7 the youngest child is 10 years of age. Therefore, from the age of 10 to 16 years, which is the minimum period, the result would be a reduction in the maintenance of something in the order of £8,500 in respect of that child. That shows how the increase in housing costs resulting from the transfer of property does affect the maintenance formula in a reasonable way and in the correct direction.
There are various pieces of research on the subject. I have studied research which shows that three-quarters of those parents who were owner occupiers and who left the family home, subsequently re-established themselves as owner occupiers. There is nothing in our proposals which will prevent that happening, as the example I chose demonstrates.
The amendment refers also to capital transfers. The formula deals with this in an exactly similar way. If the

1791
capital is invested, the income that it produces will be added to the caring parent's income. That will increase her assessable income and flow through into a reduction in the absent parent's maintenance in the way I described. And again, because the absent parent has lost capital, his assessable income will be lower and he will pay less maintenance. Thus his transfer of capital is already reflected by the formula.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale expressed some fears that there may in the future be a greater reluctance to transfer the family home, or institute such agreements, and that the children a may suffer as a result. I do not see why there should be any grounds for such fears. It will remain the case, as it is now, that the welfare of the children must come first in the making of any settlement. The courts will also be fully aware that the formula for child maintenance will adjust to any settlement which is mad on the lines that I outlined. Indeed, the formula is more sensitive than that and will also adjust to any subsequent changes in housing costs of any of the parties—changes of which the court can at the time of the settlement have no foreknowledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the Australian scheme. Of course, we had information about that before the Bill was put together. Naturally such information is gathered as time goes on. However, I believe I am right in saying that the Australian scheme does not allow housing costs to be taken into account in the formula. Hence the need there to allow the courts to modify formula awards to take account of transfers of the family home.
It is true that the formula makes no distinction between total transfer of equity and Mesher orders. The formula takes the circumstances as they are. Therefore, the circumstances are the same so far as concerns the results—that is, the financial consequences to the parties—whether the transfer is made on the basis of Mesher orders or outright. If anyone can suggest in any more detail the relevant distinction between the two, we shall be glad to consider the matter further. However, I have given this a certain amount of thought. I believe that, so far, we have hit on the best way of dealing with the matter by looking at the financial consequences to the parents as a result of the transfers and taking them into account in the formula in the way that I have outlined.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 45 would enable the amount of child support maintenance determined under the formula to be adjusted where there was a transfer of capital. We agree that it is right that the effects of a transfer of property or capital should be reflected in the amount of periodic child maintenance paid. These amendments are not necessary to achieve that objective. We want to incorporate the results in the formula; and Amendment No. 45 does nothing more than what we intend to do anyway.
As I have already explained, the formula already takes account of the consequences for both parties of a property or capital transfer. It can take account of a wide variety of such circumstances. To that extent, therefore, Amendments Nos. 12 and 45 are unnecessary. But Amendment No. 12 in particular would also amount to double counting. In the
1792
example quoted in the White Paper to which I have referred, the absent parent Robert increases his housing costs when he buys a property and his children forgo £27 per week in consequence. This is their entire share of Robert's income which was previously available for maintenance and is now devoted to Robert's own housing costs instead. Over the remaining period of Robert's continuing duty to maintain his children, that £27 per week will amount to a minimum of £8,500. The children's maintenance is already abated to reflect the fact that their absent parent has to start again with the purchase of a home for himself. If we did it as Amendment No. 12 suggests, we should be doing it twice, as I see it.
Finally, there are some practical difficulties with the proposition contained within Amendment No. 12—that the value of the property should be taken into account in adjusting the formula. It is certainly the case that we canvassed the possibility in the White Paper that there might be some abatement. But we have considered the matter further and have been persuaded that to do so would constitute just the sort of double counting I have described. It is not a case of us not having considered the possibility when we put forward the proposal, but mature consideration shows that the formula does quite well by taking proper account of such matters.
Among all the comments we have received on the point, no commentator has been able to suggest how we might set about achieving a fair and reasonable result. It is clear that transfers often reflect deals containing many elements. The quantum of child maintenance is but one such element. They can all be valuable considerations, including the child maintenance obligation. To assign a precise value to that portion of the property transfer which might be deemed to be offset against child maintenance would be a monumental task. Many would argue that it would be a hopeless one. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale pointed out, in many cases the answer is arrived at on a global basis. It is because of such complications that we have preferred to deal with houses and their value by building actual housing costs into the formula rather than by going for notional offsetting values related to the benefit to the child of being housed through a capital transfer.
The formula which deals with the parents' actual financial situation is more responsive to their circumstances. It reflects the consequences of any transfer and adapts to any subsequent changes. The operation of the formula requires no minute investigation into the parties' intentions in reaching property settlements.
Amendment No. 45 reflects the recommendations of the Social Security Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. We have seen its recent report which touches on those matters. We are considering carefully that initial report which focuses on the Bill's alleged retrospective effect in cases where in the past capital settlements have clearly been made in lieu of child maintenance. We look forward to its full report which also promises to consider the Bill's other implications on the way property is dealt with on divorce. I cannot say at this stage that it will lead

1793
to changes in the Bill, but I can assure your Lordships that we shall carefully consider what it says, as well as recognising your Lordships' deep concern about those matters. We shall go thoroughly into any novel concerns raised in the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, apologised for the length of time he took to introduce this matter. I must do the same in respect of the length of time I have taken to answer, but the matter is somewhat complicated, and I feel it right to try to set out in as much detail as I can what our answer is. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful, and we should all be grateful, to the noble and learned Lord for his full response to all three amendments. I am also grateful for the succinct support I received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. His reference to composite arrangements put in a few words what I had endeavoured to say at greater length.
As has already been indicated, in general terms the Bill takes out one element from the negotiations to achieve, if not a clean break, the next best thing to it—as final and as satisfactory a settlement as possible of disputes when the family breaks down.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the financial consequences of the variety of settlements or orders that the court can make have been taken account of. I have suggested, and I shall continue to maintain, that the interaction to which he referred does not sufficiently take into account the variety of results which can be achieved and that the adjustment in the housing cost allowed for is insufficient. As I understand it, he frankly accepted the argument that the Bill does not—he suggested that it cannot—distinguish between the outright transfer where the father forgoes his interest in the home and its contents completely and the Mesher order, or some variant of it, when he forgoes his interest but for a limited period only on a variety of terms. That is now at least understood and accepted. It is something which is greatly to be avoided if at all possible, because it does the children no favours to have a revival of the Mesher order, with all its problems not just for the children but for their mother, even in middle-age.
That said, I do not intend to press Amendment No. 11. It is something which another place may need to look at. I accept the force of what the noble and learned Lord said about Amendment No. 12 as presently drafted, in that it may have an unintended double effect. I also note with interest what he said about Amendment No. 45. It is a matter of concern that the Bill may have a retrospective effect on past settlements which were entered into in good faith and provided for a complete capitalisation or a discount in lieu of child maintenance. I am a little surprised that the Government feel unable to accept Amendment No. 45 which gives them nothing more than an enabling power. I do not intend to speak further on that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Maintenance assessments]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Powers of inspectors]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert:
("() An inspector shall not exercise the powers conferred upon him by this section until he has made all reasonable endeavours to obtain all such information and documents as he may reasonably require for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) by written request to the occupier of the premises to be inspected.
() An inspector shall not exercise the powers conferred upon him by this section until after the expiry of seven days' written notice to the occupier of the premises to be inspected specifying the date and time of any intended entry and specifying or describing the information and documents required.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to all the amendments to Clause 13 which stand in my name; that is to say, Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19. Whatever view one takes of the merits and likely effectiveness of the Bill overall, the House as a whole has been and should be properly concerned to scrutinise Clause 13, which creates and gives new powers to a new force of inspectors.
The view your Lordships take of the proposals set out in the amendments in my name may influence your decision if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moves Amendment No. 21 in an endeavour to persuade the House that Clause 13 is beyond repair by amendment. Clause 13 is drafted in such a way as to give wide and general powers to inspectors to enter a wide range of premises and once there to question anyone present and to call for and examine documents.
A number of points have been made about these powers at earlier stages of the Bill and I shall briefly summarise them. First, the inspector needs no warrant or similar prior approval before he exercises his powers. The only authority he needs, as the Bill is drafted, is his certificate of appointment and he has generous discretion as to how and when to exercise his powers.
I am grateful for having been sent a copy of a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As I understand and recollect it, the letter seeks to meet part of the anxiety by requiring a specific authorisation in certain circumstances. Perhaps the House can be assured of the Government's intention in that respect.
Secondly, the premises concerned are not those of the absent or alleged parent but those of employers and employment agencies. Thus, not only are the premises and the privacy of third parties being intruded upon, but sensitive questions of paternity, actual or alleged, are being pursued by the authorities in places of work.
Thirdly, the third party whose premises are entered faces a criminal sanction if he does not co-operate with the inspector. At Report stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised that it was surely necessary to have effective mechanisms to achieve the ends of the Bill. If we accept that proposition, it does not mean that we cannot look

1795
carefully, as indeed we have already, at the width of those powers to see whether any reasonable safeguards can be written on the face of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord pointed out at an earlier stage that the clause is based on powers created by earlier social security legislation. Indeed it is, but not everything one buys off the peg necessarily fits well. Similar powers given in the 1975 and 1986 social security legislation are concerned with the liabilities of the employer himself to make contributions and with the investigation of industrial accidents, not with the private life of his employees. These amendments seek to give further safeguards and they are largely and unashamedly borrowed from other legislative pegs.
Amendment No. 13 makes it an express precondition of the inspector's exercise of his powers that he has tried to get what he needs by other inquiries. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to indicate at an earlier stage that this would normally be the case and the amendment would make it clear on the face of the Bill. I suggest that it should do so for the reasons I have already stated.
The second part of Amendment No. 13 makes it a further precondition that the occupier of the premises is given seven days' written notice, together with a date and a time for the intended entry and details of what information and documents he will be required to provide. This should be good practice in any event. It should also be remembered that the premises concerned are defined sufficiently widely in Clause 13(3) to include premises which are in part domestic. For example, they could be the flat above the shop or the home which is also an office.
In the context of the Bill, to have the provision which I suggest will minimise confusion and any embarrassment and make the task of the inspector easier. In the circumstances of this clause, giving prior notice is unlikely to defeat the inspector's purposes. He does not need an element of surprise and, conversely, the occupier is entitled to notice of the intention to enter and notice of what he will have to produce.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are concerned only with drafting in that they simply remove what seemed to me to be surplus words in the description of an employment agency in Clause 13(3) (b) to produce something closer to the definition in the Race Relations Act 1976. If the words I seek to remove have any purpose, of course I should not wish to press those two amendments.
Amendment No. 16 removes from subsection (4) the express ability given to the inspector to question people found on the premises either alone or in the presence of any other person. At Report stage anxiety was expressed about the possibility of an employee's personal affairs being investigated in the presence of children, talkative tea ladies or their male counterparts. Such is clearly possible, particularly given the wide range of premises which could be entered, including, it occurs to me, a school, a part domestic property or a public place. The amendment seeks to require private discussion as the normal course to be taken, leaving the person being interviewed with the
1796
option of asking for some other person to be present to assist or to witness what is going on. I readily accept that the point about children is dealt with in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Amendment No. 17.
Finally, Amendment No. 19 provides that an inspector should not retain documents any longer than necessary and also that he should give a receipt and copies if asked. These are reasonable requirements in the interests of all, assuming that he has the right to take documents away, which itself is not entirely clear. That seems to me to depend on how widely the words "furnished" and "furnish" in the Bill are to be construed. Even if they do not enable him as of right to take documents away, it seems to me that it would be useful to have such provisions if documents are taken by agreement. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think it would be appreciated by the House if I made some remarks now on my amendment, which has not yet been moved, to leave out Clause 13. Your Lordships will appreciate that then we need not have two debates. I drew attention at every stage of the Bill to the dangerous powers that were being given to inspectors. In the way in which we sometimes talk of it in the High Court, I cried throughout your Lordships' corridors, "Freedom of the subject".
At Report stage the noble and learned Lord said that he would look into the powers that were given to inspectors under this clause. He was good enough to write a letter to me dated 14th May and I have his permission to read it to your Lordships. I feel that it should be in the Official Report in view of the action which I propose to take. Copies of the letter were sent to those who had taken part in the discussion. It said:
"During the Report stage of the Child Support Bill, I promised to inform you and the other Lords who spoke in the debate on Clause 13 about the powers of inspectors.
I have considered very carefully all that was said at Report and I would stress that I fully appreciate the importance of the arguments put forward and feel that there is some room for manoeuvre where we may be able to tackle some of your concerns. I cannot promise to put amendments down by Third Reading but my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been looking at whether it may be possible to amend Clause 13 with a view to bringing forward amendments in due course.
As I said at Report, officials in the Department of Social Security are holding meetings with a representative group of employers' organisations which act as a consultative group on the development of working procedures for the Child Support Agency".
I end my partial quotation at that point and make the observation in parenthesis that I hope it is not just employers' organisations that will be consulted. I hope that employees' organisations such as the TUC will also be consulted because obviously it is employees' rights that will be interfered with in the event of inspectors carrying out the powers under Clause 13. The powers may merely cause inconvenience to employers. The noble and learned Lord's letter continued:
"Its aim is to minimise the impact on employers and DSS have been actively seeking their advice and agreement on Inspectors amongst other things. The Employers Panel are content with our current proposals for the use of inspectors.

1797
The negotiations with the Panel are, of course, ongoing and we will continue to consult them on any change we might consider.
As the Bill is drafted at present, and as I said at Report, an inspector will carry a 'warrant' or certificate of appointment, saying that he is appointed under section 13 for the purposes set out in the clause. This certificate of appointment will be authorised by a senior official on behalf of the Secretary of State who will need to satisfy himself that the inspector is a fit person to be vested with the powers laid out in clause 13.
We intend to use inspectors only in those rare cases where other methods of obtaining information have failed, i.e. from the parents themselves, or postal or telephone enquiries direct to the employer. We had envisaged that inspectors would be used where an employer or self-employed absent parent had requested a visit, had not responded to reminders, or has refused to supply information, or where the wage details were particularly complicated and it was easier for the employer to have a visit. In addition, there may be comparatively rare occasions when it is necessary to see or identify the employee. In all these circumstances, the inspector would normally make an appointment to visit. Where the Child Support Agency is trying to contact an absent parent, we propose to continue the existing practice of sending the employer a sealed envelope addressed to the employee, and the employer can either post the letter on to the employee at his home address, thereby keeping their involvement to a minimum, or they can pass it directly to their employee. This letter will ask the absent parent to contact the Agency and there need be no further involvement by the employer if the absent parent does so. If the absent parent does not contact the Agency, further inquiries would be made by letter or telephone to the employer.
We hope to bring forward an amendment to bring the powers more explicitly in line with the use we intend to put them to. This would mean that the majority of visits would not involve the need for a certificate of appointment, merely the official identity card. It is only in cases where the employer or the self-employed person proves to be uncooperative that the powers will be needed. We propose to restrict the authorisations to act under Clause 13 to cases where other means of obtaining the information, including an ordinary visit by appointment, have failed. A separate authorisation would be given by authority of the Secretary of State for a particular officer to visit a particular employer or self-employed person. This authorisation would only be issued when there was no other option left".
The substance of the next passage that I wish to quote is revealed in an amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Marshalled List. His letter continues:
"Finally, I can assure you that we will be bringing forward an amendment to exclude children from the list of people who can be questioned by the inspector.
I hope I have made things a little clearer and that you will feel able to reconsider your amendment to leave out Clause 13 in the light of the proposed amendments".
I end my quotation from the letter at that point having already said that the noble and learned Lord stated in his letter that he would send copies of the letter to other Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in this matter. In the light of this letter I shall take a certain course when we reach my amendment to leave out Clause 13 because, on the face of it, I shall not need to move that amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has enjoined us on several occasions to watch where we are going. This is a good place to take stock of what is involved in the Bill. This provision by no means stands alone but it is one of the most offensive of the Bill's provisions. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, moved the amendment to mitigate in some measure the harshness
1798
and outrageousness of this clause. I am grateful to have received from my noble and learned friend a copy of the letter, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just read out. Although it makes emollient noises and is couched in emollient terms, the fact remains that these powers remain even if they are to be used only as a last resort. We are bound to ask ourselves how far that is compatible with what we have always understood by the rule of law.
Your Lordships will remember the famous discussion by Dicey on the rule of law which includes the concept of the equal subjection of people of all classes and condition to the ordinary law of the land. Is an ordinary creditor entitled to demand entry into the place of employment of his debtor? Is he entitled to interrogate the employer and the fellow employees and to make them answer his questions on pain of a penalty? The ordinary creditor is not allowed to do that, but the official appointed by the Secretary of State is allowed to do that. That is not equality before the law; it is taking executive powers. The matter is not improved at all by telling us that this provision is contained in another statute—so much the worse. The next time we shall be told that such a provision is contained in two statutes.
I do not dissent from the course that has commended itself to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because we all know how useless it is at this stage to call a Division on a clause. The critics of this measure were successful on what was formerly Clause 22 but that was discussed at a reasonable hour before a full House. Noble Lords could vote on the merits of the argument as they heard it. That clause was removed. That does not obtain at this hour any more than it obtained late on the second evening of the Report stage when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, bravely called a Division and there voted in favour of his amendment 12 and against 25. Of those 25 only two noble Lords had heard the argument, and they were the two Ministers in charge of the Bill. What is more, of those 25, 13 were Ministers. That means that 11 of them had been kept working in their rooms here. Therefore it would be quite futile to call a Division. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has taken absolutely the right course in putting my noble and learned friend's letter on the record.
However, let us not pass over the clause without registering with indignation how far it is an intrusion on traditional concepts of the rule of law and how far it puts the minions of the Secretary of State above the ordinary law of the land. I am very glad that the amendments have been moved.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are both right. The exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of the doctrine of equality before the law was magnificent, correct and persuasive. On the other hand, we have here a very significant series of concessions, which I welcome very warmly indeed, which go a long way if not all the way to meet what we want to achieve.

1799
In particular, the restriction of the powers of inspectors to cases of last resort where no other means of obtaining the information is successful is a concession of great value and substance. Under those circumstances, although I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and shall return to that matter whenever any similar principle comes before us, nevertheless I shall follow the same course of action as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on a point which perhaps I ought to understand but do not. Can the noble and learned Lord help me? Are the inspectors appointed by the Ministry to enter premises without a court order? In all other areas of social work one has to have a court order. "Health visitors have no right of entry. Social worker; have no right of entry unless invited in. If they feel that they must enter the premises for reasons of child care, they cannot do so without a court order. I think that I am right in saying that the same applies to housing officers. Can the noble and learned Lord let me know whether it is intended that inspectors should enter on a court order or simply as inspectors?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for his intervention and for quoting the very long and informative letter which he had received from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his contribution.
I feel that this part of the Bill, and much else, has no place in any Bill except in an authoritarian state. Powers are given to a new type of plain clothes police force which even collectors in the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise do not possess. We must attempt at this late hour to obtain firm assurances that Clause 13 and associated provisions will not stay in the Bill as they are
We are in a dreadful situation at this moment. We are on the Third Reading of the Bill. This is its final stage in your Lordships' House. I feel acutely depressed that we face this important interlude in our debates in so thin a House and at this hour.
The other day I had the privilege of talking to a large audience of senior students of two London schools. They asked me where in our parliamentary institutions at the present time the safeguard of our liberties rest. I said that in the absence of a Bill of Rights and of fundamental laws with strict conditions attached to them as regards amendment, I believed that the list bastion of the rights of the citizen did not rest in the House of Commons, they did not rest with the Crown; they rested in your Lordships' House. The Lords are the only people who can stand between the caprice of an unrepresentative House of Commons and the liberties of the subject. As for the monarch, the guardianship of our constitution in the hands of the monarch has been so drastically reduced by the evolution of the practices of a constitutional monarchy as to provide no safeguard whatever.
One cannot be sure, one can only speculate, and I do not want to do that, but I stress that we are the only people who can do what needs to be done on this Bill.
1800
One wonders how our procedure can fit the expectations and requirements of public opinion upon how we legislate. I do not know, but it may be that a noble Lord will get up in a few minutes time and ask the House to adjourn while noble Lords go and eat. I am glad to receive an indication from the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite that that will not happen. Nevertheless, strange things happen in your Lordships' House which seem to me to be highly inconsistent with the dignity and repute which your Lordships' House enjoys throughout the land today.
As far as I can gather, we are asked to take on trust what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has written to my noble friend and other Members of your Lordships' House. I did not take part in that debate. I had too much to say on other matters related to the Bill so I kept out of it. I did not receive a copy of the letter. This is the first I have heard of it. It would have altered my thinking in my waking hours in the past few days as to what to do with this wretched, wretched Bill.
When one sees the powers that will rest n the hands of child support officers there is surely no other description but that they will be the most powerful plain clothes police force in Britain. They will have powers short only of arrest without warrant. On that footing they may enter places of employment and serve notices on people to render an account and provide the information they want. There is a whole, wretched catalogue of powers in the hands of those officers. For what purpose? To bring about a more rational, disciplined and acceptable arrangement for providing for support to be given by absent parents to the parent who has young children to look after. That is what it is. It is money to be transferred from one citizen to another—spouse, companion or whoever it might be.
As I said, the powers given in this process, which are probably derived from the Social Security Act 1986, seem to conceal under the umbrella of social security powers which were probably not appreciated at the time. But when you go to the Department of Social Security you are nearly always seeking something from them. You are an applicant; you are a citizen seeking to take advantage of the benefits which are provided.
But this Bill is entirely different. This is a Bill which provides for the clammy hand of bureaucracy to rest upon you, because something is being demanded from you. It is not a debt to the state; it is directly a debt to another citizen. These powers are put into the hands of those who are acting as intermediaries between one party and another in arrangements regarding the financial support of children.
There is a good deal of nonsense talked about maintaining children. Fathers and parents do not maintain their children, or anything like it, under present conditions in our social and welfare state. They do not provide fees for education, they do not provide money for doctors' bills and hospitalisation when the children are ill. In many cases, they do not even provide food at school. It is ridiculous to say that the state places upon absent fathers the full responsibilities of maintaining children.

1801
But that is only part of my pent-up feeling of rejection of so much that is in this Bill. There is another way. No Bill of this kind would have come out of a Labour Government so long as I was in it. I can assure the noble Lord of that. I was responsible for social services in the Cabinet in 1964 –67, and no Bill of this type would have reached this House or the other one. We would have found a better way, but not this way.
Here we are. What are we going to do? Presumably when we come to the appropriate amendment my noble friend will outline the course of action that he recommends us to take. Since we have neither the House nor the opportunity at this time to devote the time needed to discuss this matter afresh, we ought to have a recommittal to a Committee stage and get down to this before we pass the Bill to another place.
Can we rely upon them to deal with it there? I do not know, but is this how we are going to do our business? I feel very upset indeed. This is not what we ought to be doing on this very important subject. Everybody will be helpless. This is the Third Reading and we must go on with the Bill. If we go on all night, we must go on with it. All right, let us go all night. Let us sort this out here and now. Let us have a debate on the matter, hear other views and not just say that it is unfortunate that all this comes at the last minute.
The whole structure of this Bill has been changed during the various stages through this House and we have to swallow the whole lot on Third Reading. Instead of having a summing-up, a verdict on the Bill as a whole and on this movement in our social and personal relationships, we are engaged in this detail, with new clauses about commissioners. The whole bureaucratic citadel is erected before our eyes, and we have not had an opportunity of discussing these matters earlier at all.
I am exhausted, but I feel very deeply about this matter. Who will save this situation? What are we to do? Who is leading us anywhere as a House at the present time? Who can defend our reputation, our dignity, our peace of mind? Where is the Leader of the House? Where is the Leader of the Opposition? Where are we all in this House tonight? I shall now sit down.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, after two very great speeches on matters of principle, may I make three very brief points? First, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking my noble and learned friend for the copy of the letter which he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which has been put before the House. Most of us will feel very strongly that we object to the contents of this clause and to the arrangements for inspectors, because the amount of money involved will be minimal. It seems to me that for a country like Britain with its standing in the world to have to send out inspectors to chase up people to pay £20 or £30 a week is almost a matter for shame.
In the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which I quoted at the Report stage, there was a paragraph which implied that maintenance was paid in 1980 –81 in about 50 per cent. of cases. It was only
1802
because the number of officers was reduced at the Department of Social Security (or the DHSS as it then was) that they were not able to pursue cases. The number of officers was reduced from something like 2,700 to about 1,600, and I apologise for not having the precise figures. But the fact was that maintenance was obtained from absent parents without the need for inspectors. This is why I question the necessity for the introduction of inspectors into this Bill.
Having said that, I assume that they will remain on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend, in view of his letter in which he said that there would be very few cases in which action would be taken by the Secretary of State, to give an undertaking that there will be an annual review of the actions taken by the Secretary of State in this field; I ask how many inspections had been made; what were their results; and what were the kind of premises to which the inspectors went?
Finally, subsection (3) (c) refers to the right of an inspector to enter any premises at or from which,
"any person carries on any trade, profession, vocation or a business of any kind".
Presumably, this will apply to all homes in which the absent parent happens to be self-employed. This means therefore going into a private property and not just one where somebody is employed. Perhaps when my noble and learned friend comes to reply he will comment on that and on the question of a published report, as to the number of cases of inspectors being used in the future on this kind of case.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for sending me a copy of his letter. It is quite true that the contents of the letter, if put into practice through amendments in another place, will, to some degree anyway, mitigate the worst effects of Clause 13. But my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has just exposed this Bill, if I may put it in that way, and has shown quite clearly how things can get on to the statute book if proper care is not taken.
What worries me most of all is that this clause should have been put into the Bill in the first place. Who put it there? Why did they put it there? Did they feel that Parliament was asleep and that the clause would be let through unamended? Were they trying it on? If we had let the clause through unamended or unremarked at this point of time, what would have been the next clause in the next Bill?
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby can take some comfort from the fact that we are having this debate tonight and that we have received that letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because my noble friend Lord Mishcon, and my other noble friends and other noble Lords in this House, were alert to what this clause meant and were not prepared to let it pass without severe comment. That has resulted in the Lord Chancellor's letter which shows that he has taken note of what we said and shows many of the worries about the clause that we express.
Having said that, the clause is a mistake. It ought not to be in the Bill for the very reasons outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We

1803
are speaking of a civil debt. To seek to criminalise not only fathers who get into debt but their employers also seems to take a very big hammer to crack a very small nut. I wish that the Government would think about these matters very carefully.
I suppose that this is the result of legislation made on impulse. This was an impulsive Bill. It was not properly thought out. Suddenly fathers became the "out" persons; those persons who had to be pursued; those persons who, in our new Victorian era, did not bear their proper responsibility. They ought to be and must be pursued. Therefore rational and reasonable thinking went out of the window.
I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord. He has shown that there is a glimmer of hope and that when confronted with arguments in this House—perhaps privately as well—he is prepared to understand our points. Therefore he has been good enough to assure us that some amendments will be made. But in the last analysis I make one final appeal to him. This Bill would be a better Bill if he would delete Clause 13 in its entirety.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I shall be brief. In following the noble Lord who has just spoken, I wish to associate myself with what he said; namely, that this clause should not have been put in the Bill in the first place and that we must trust the House of Commons to take it out. We have done our utmost in this House and there is precious little more that we can do. However, I have one word of comfort for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. There is one suggestion which I shall speak of in a moment.
I was not one of the recipients of the letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having read that letter into the Official Report. It is indeed encouraging that the noble and learned Lord has listened to what we have said. It is nothing more than we have come to expect of him, and we are duly grateful.
I am afraid that it does not remove the fundamental feeling on all sides of the House that this clause should have no part in any Bill of this kind in our Parliament. The constitutional arguments have been most eloquently expressed in this House, in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. From the Conservative Benches came the expression from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that it is a matter of some shame that a clause of this nature should enter into the Bill. At an earlier stage I expressed my feelings. I find this Bill repulsive and this clause the most repulsive clause in the whole Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asks what we can do. Clearly it is no good continuing this discussion all night. Clearly it is no good calling a Division. I suggest that we call the media to publicise what has been said in this House. I note that the television cameras are covered with red hoods, so there is no hope of television coverage. On the other hand, broadcasting is still going on. The broadcasters may make something of this debate. The newspapers might pick up on what we are doing. I have one suggestion to offer to the newspapers and perhaps the broadcasters;
1804
namely, that the newspapers print and the broadcasters read over the air Clause 13 without comment. Or perhaps they could invite the public to send in their comments on this clause. In isolation the clause is horrific. Putting it in the context of this Bill does nothing to diminish its horror. I should like to see this clause put into print and spoken across the air so that the general public know what is being done in their name by their Government.
Baroness White: My Lords, I had no intention of entering this discussion at all until I looked at the Bill and was horrified by subsection (4). That has been modified by the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the effect that it will no longer apply to those under the age of 18. Apparently it will apply to anybody else. I find it incredible that an inspector could question anyone either alone or in the presence of any other person, provided now that they are over the age of 18, whom he finds on the premises. It is an astonishing power to be given.
I was impressed by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who said that such an authority is not given to other people who have grave responsibilities for family affairs who have to have a much more specific authorisation than is necessary on the face of this Bill, or so it appears to me. I do not wish to detain noble Lords; but as someone who has come fresh to this discussion, I have been deeply disturbed by what I take to be the methods approved of in this clause. I hope very much indeed that we can be reassured.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have discussed this clause on a number of occasions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for reading out so fully my letter to him on this subject. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did not receive a copy. I tried to send a copy to everyone who had taken part in the debate on this clause. I had to restrict distribution in some way and that is the way I took. The noble Lord explained that he had not spoken on this clause although he had contributed substantially to other parts of the Bill.
The enforcement of obligations of a particular kind is a matter of quite considerable importance. One of the important aspects of the Bill is the need to provide an effective enforcement procedure for the recovery of maintenance debts; that is to say, debts which arise as a result of obligations in respect of the maintenance of children. In my submission, that is a worthy purpose for which the necessary powers to make it effective ought to be given by Parliament.
First, this is not a question of matters about paternity. Those are matters for the court under the clauses of the Bill.
The only matter with which we are concerned in Clause 13 is information that the Secretary of State requires for the purpose of ascertaining the

1805
whereabouts of the person responsible for maintenance and any information relevant to that maintenance. Those powers are given for the purpose of acquiring information.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it is right to have effective powers for that purpose. I am sure that I am not alone in your Lordships' House in having received information from mothers who, having had a court order made against a man for money for their children, try desperately to enforce it. They say, "What is the good of this order? We have it but we cannot get the money. What is the good of a piece of paper? My child needs the money which this person has but which he is avoiding paying". The purpose of the Bill, and of this clause, is to make effective provision for that obligation to be enforced.
It gives me particular pleasure that it is as a result of discussion on the Bill in your Lordships' House that I have been able to write that letter to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I believe that it contains a very clear circumscription of the clause and the circumstances in which it would be necessary to use it. I am glad that the entire letter has been read into the report.
I do not share the views of those who find the Bill repulsive. On the contrary, I regard it as extremely important and as achieving an important social aim. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that no such Bill would have been produced under a government of which he was a Member. If it had been, perhaps the problem would be less serious than it is today.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked me about the authority that would be required. I have undertaken that the specific authority on behalf of the Secretary of State should be given in respect of the premises and the person to be visited, in accordance with the terms of the letter. It is not a court order but the authority of the Secretary of State relating to the specific matter in question.
In case we forget, I remind noble Lords that we are discussing Amendment No. 13, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I suspect that we have wandered a little to more general matters. As the letter suggests, we shall consider again the way in which the clause is drafted. I have no difficulty with the thrust of the first part of Amendment No. 13. I have more difficulty with the second part. If we need the information and we wish to enforce the provision quickly, it may not be wise to have so much notice. The idea is that the authority of the Secretary of State will be granted if all else has failed. In a sense that takes care of notification.
Amendment No. 19 requires specific comment. The situation is that an inspector need only take a document with the permission of the employer. That document may be a ledger or a large wage book which it would not be practicable to copy. That question is best left to practice and written procedures. In the vast majority of cases nothing will be taken from the employer because verification—what is required is information—can normally take place on the premises.
1806
The objective is simply to obtain the best information in order to follow up enforcement of the obligation to maintain. I believe that the circumstance that the noble Lord has in mind is unlikely to arise. However, in the light of the undertakings that I have given, I am happy to consider those points also. At present I do not believe that such circumstances are likely to arise. The most important provision to which the noble Lord spoke is the first part of the first amendment. We shall certainly take into consideration the drafting amendments, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked me about reports. The child support agency may submit a report. We shall certainly consider what should be put in it. Records of any inspection will be kept. There is always a possibility of a Parliamentary Question, either here or in another place, if any noble Lords are anxious about how the powers are being used.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for what he said about the way in which he treats the letter I wrote to him. I should like also to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell. To hear Members' views is after all the purpose of these discussions. It is my privilege and pleasure, as well as my duty, to listen carefully to all that your Lordships say and to do my best to meet anxieties which you have expressed. The letter endeavoured to do that in relation to the clause.
I hope that, in the light of all that we have discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may trouble him for his view on Amendment No. 16. It touches on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady White, raised.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry; I should have dealt with that specifically.
One may well be seeking information—for example, about numbers—by looking at the employment or wages records. One may go to an office and find the person responsible. However, that is achieved only by asking the group which runs the wages records. That is the purpose of the phrase,
"alone or in the presence of any other person".
There may be a misunderstanding underlying some of the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, opened by talking about delicate questions of paternity. No such material is referred to in this clause. That is dealt with in different part of the Bill and is left entirely to the ordinary procedures of the court, which involve the kind of investigations that the noble Lord knows well. In obtaining the information to which this provision refers it may be better and more convenient, for example, to find out from the group who is best qualified to give the information rather than examining in private a succession of people.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. My references to paternity were not meant to suggest that the inspector could go in and ask indelicate questions about the relationships of the employees concerned but only that the basis of the inquiry would be that an employee was said to be the father of a child. When confronted with an

1807
inspector, the employer might ask, "Why do you want to know?", and it is highly likely that the inspector will say, "He is the father of a child". That is a source of embarrassment. That is why I have suggested that those discussions and questions should be conducted in private.
I heard and understood the noble and learned Lord. However, perhaps Amendment No. 16, or something like it, should be given further consideration. The debate arose from my attempt to amend Clause 13 in various ways. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not overstate matters when he said that it was a dangerous clause. Nor did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, overstate the fundamental considerations of principle which arise. Clause 13 was a mistake. There would have been no such problems if it had been originally tailored to meet the needs of the Bill and the feelings of those whom it most affects.
Unfortunately, Parliament did not take the same care to scrutinise the predecessor of Clause 13 in the Social Security Act 1986. If Parliament—and one must include this House—had taken care about the equivalent provision in that Act we should not be in this position today. My mistake was in not trying to bring forward these or similar amendments in Committee. If that had been done we should not have been left with this kind of debate on Third Reading.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for reading out the letter and we welcome its contents. We now know that the powers will be used in rare cases and as a last resort. We also know that there will be consultations with the employers' organisations. I echo the noble Lord's comments about including employee representatives in those discussions.
I do not believe that Clause 13 is beyond repair. I am glad to hear that the Government share that view. I shall rely on the assurances that we have been given; namely, that good practices and appropriate safeguards will be introduced in the Bill in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("other person, any") and insert ("person who is not under the age of 18, any such").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 20. Amendment No. 17 is tabled in response to a point raised on Report by my noble friend Lady Elles. Its purpose is to make clear that authoritative question would be in respect only of persons over 18 years of age. Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 seek to improve the drafting by deleting some words and removing a minor inconsistency. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend. He has listened carefully to all the points that have been raised during the debates in Committee and on Report. Although this is a modest and minor point I am grateful to him for having taken it on board and produced the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
1808
Page 9, line 29, leave out from ("require") to end of line 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 36, leave out from ("powers") to ("as") in line 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have made my position abundantly clear and shall not burden the House with a second speech. However, I wish to make the following comments so that there should be no misunderstanding. From the commencement of our discussions on the Bill I have made clear the fact that we on these Benches regard Clause 13 as abhorrent and consider that it should not be part of the Bill. For that reason I tabled the amendment, as I did at the previous stage, to leave out Clause 13.
I greatly appreciated the consideration that the noble and learned Lord gave to our submissions. The amendments which he intends to make to the clause will be considered by another place. However, the last thing I wanted was that there should be a vote in this House which might give the wrong impression. The amendment might well be defeated not as a result of the debate but due to the presence in the House of Members who have not listened to the debate. I did not wish to risk it being interpreted that the House approved of Clause 13 because it voted against a Motion to leave it out. That appears to be a clumsy way of dealing with an important subject.
I shall not move the amendment. I repeat my thanks to the noble and learned Lord and trust that the amendments will be dealt with in a proper way by another place.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Periodical assessments]:
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 19, leave out ("a") and insert ("any").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 35, 47, 51, 53 and 55. Amendment No. 22 arises from an amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is a technical change to clarify that the provision about periodical reviews applies to any maintenance assessment. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising that issue.
Amendment No. 29 removes some words which are unnecessary and might in fact be taken to have the mischievous effect of overriding the normal rules of statutory interpretation which we wish to apply to this clause. Amendment No. 35 removes the word "special" since it is already made clear earlier in the

1809
subsection that this refers to "special damage". I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon for identifying this superfluous word.
Amendment No. 47 is designed to bring the order-making power in subsection (6) of Clause 36 into line with the Lord Chancellor's other enabling powers in the Bill by providing that he may make an order under Clause 36 after consultation with the Lord Advocate.
Amendment No. 51 provides for the reference to the benefit Acts in the definitions clause to conclude social security legislation up to 1991 instead of 1990. Amendment No. 53 makes the meaning of this subsection plainer.
Amendment No. 55 does nothing more than rectify an untidiness whereby there is a reference to "him" in the definition of the child benefit element of the formula without it previously having been made clear to whom the word refers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Appeals]:
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64. The amendments are designed to create the necessary statutory provision for appeals from child support appeal tribunals to be heard by child support commissioners, together with two small technical amendments to the provisions about child support appeal tribunals. Amendment No. 23 deletes subsection (6) which will no longer be needed if your Lordships are content with the other amendments.
Your Lordships will recall that on Report while introducing the clauses about the proposed child support appeal tribunals I announced that I hoped to bring a further amendment at Third Reading to create specialist commissioners to hear appeals from the tribunals. These amendments simply seek to bring effect to that undertaking. Although they appear to be lengthy, they are very similar to those set out in the Social Security Acts 1975 and 1980 in relation to the social security commissioners. As I said on Report, there is provision in the social security appeals system for further appeals to be made on a point of law against decisions of appeals tribunals to social security commissioners. We thought it right to follow that precedent but to establish a separate identity for child support officers.
Amendment No. 26 is the first of the new clauses and enables the appointment of a chief child support commissioner and child support commissioners. They will all have at least 10 years' experience as lawyers. It is envisaged that they will also be social security commissioners and that the chief social security commissioner will be the chief child support commissioner. I should like to make it plain that child support commissioners will have that status. In relation to this matter we are making use of the expertise of the chief social security commissioner and
1810
the social security commissioners. The clause also has a regulation-making power to permit the making of procedural regulations.
Clause 27 is a separate clause which sets out when and how appeals can be made to child support commissioners. Appeals will be entertained only on the grounds that there has been an error in law.
Amendment No. 28 is the final new clause. It provides for further appeals on a point of law from the commissioner to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session. Again, that follows the social security model.
Amendment No. 63 is a new schedule which deals with the details of the tenure of office of the commissioners, their remuneration, expenses and pensions, the appointment of deputies, the use of tribunals of commissioners for cases of particular difficulty and the finality of commissioners' decisions.
The remaining amendments are minor technical provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may make a general comment on this group of amendments and a particular comment with reference to Amendment No. 26. I should like also to ask some questions.
The general comment is that on Report a series of amendments was brought forward to resolve a point which had been left open in the Bill as presented and, indeed, left at the Committee stage; namely, that appeals could be to a court or tribunal. Many noble Lords fastened on that and obviously the matter had to be resolved. Of course it was resolved in favour of administrative tribunals. That merely put another administrative provision, another piece of bureaucracy, in an already bureaucratic Bill. To have child support commissioners and a chief commissioner merely puts the cap on that. Having swallowed the disagreeable draft on Report, it would be ridiculous to strain at this particular draft.
However, I beg to draw attention to the way in which we are fragmenting our system of judicature. As your Lordships know, in 1873 and 1875, by the judicature Acts of those years, a great number of disparate jurisdictions were drawn into one High Court which was part of one Supreme Court: five courts of common law, a court of chancery and three courts which administered the ecclesiastical or civil law according to the particular jurisdiction. That was welcomed as a great improvement and I have not seen its beneficence questioned at any time since.
Lately we have been moving again towards fragmentation of our system of judicature in order to provide additional specialisation. I regretted the first step although it has worked quite well; namely, the setting up of a Lands Tribunal. It would have been valuable if that had been made part of the Chancery Division. There would have been no difficulty in associating lay members with the judge of the court because in the Admiralty Division lay assessors habitually sit with the judge on collision cases and, indeed, on many others; for example, fishery cases.

1811
The steps which have been taken with regard to administrative tribunals seem to be gaining momentum. I suggest that we should be cautious in going further down that road or we shall find ourselves with our judicature as fragmented as it was before 1873.
The questions I wish to ask are minor compared to that constitutional question. What will be the cost of the commissioners? I do not believe that we investigated the cost of the tribunals on the last occasion. It would be helpful to know what will be the costs of the new provisions.
Secondly, an appeal to the commissioners and to the chief commissioner is on a point of law. Will legal aid be available? It certainly should be. It is available to an ordinary appeal court of law but I am far from convinced that it is available here. In registering what has been done, your Lordships will wish to note that.
The last question 1 wish to ask is in relation to subsection (4) and the regulations. Are they to be subject to affirmative or negative resolution? I should be most grateful if those questions could be answered quite shortly. I should be grateful also if my noble and learned friend will bear in mind the disadvantages of fragmentation of our judicature to be set against the undoubted virtues which come from specialisation.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining this group of amendments. In Committee we discussed the procedures of the child support officer and the review. We were merely dealing with decisions by the child support officer that the parent with care should receive maintenance for the child and questions as to whether the maintenance was to be too great or too small.
There is now a very large set of procedures which deal with the review, the child support appeal tribunal and the child support commissioner on a point of law. I should like to know at what point the absent parent starts paying and at what point the parent with care begins to receive money if she has made a complaint about a decision of the child support officer.
I wonder whether we need this immense pyramid of inquiry to determine those facts. I wonder whether it is possible to telescope that somewhat so that a child support commissioner sits with a child support appeal tribunal. That way we would dispose of one tier. I see that a child support commissioner must have 10 years' general qualification. That is to be defined in the Bill by reference to Section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which deals with qualification for judicial appointments. My noble and learned friend tells me that that means a lawyer of 10 years' practical experience. For the life of me I cannot see why the child support appeal tribunal should not be headed by somebody with that general qualification and why we need the extra tier. I am sure that there is a good reason and perhaps my noble and learned friend will be prepared to explain it to me.
8.p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sure that the House is obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for carrying the
1812
discussion a little further into matters of administration. This may be the moment to look at how, since the beginning of the passage of the Bill, the appeals procedure, has developed. It is strengthening the position of the citizen. What astonishes me is how ill-thought out the whole matter must have been to begin with.
The right of appeal against a disputed determination was originally vested in a child support officer who had not been concerned with the original assessment. That seemed to be an odd way of dealing with disputes within such a disciplinarian ethos as the Bill. However, appeals tribunals were introduced, and in order to put the top layer of reference on the machinery of the Bill we introduced commissioners.
It looks as though we have put alongside the Department of Social Security the appeals procedure and the system of commissioners that is in place in the social security system itself. That seems to bring the two rather more in accord one with another. What continues to trouble me is the obscurity in which the administration of the Bill seems to rest. We hear about the "agency" but the Bill contains no reference to the agency. We heard something about it in the notes on the Bill in the first instance and indeed were given some estimate of the amount of staff it would need and the cost; but the Bill makes no reference to an agency. All the powers are in the hands of the Secretary of State. Only today I heard a reference to the Secretary of State for Social Security which removed from my mind the doubt as to whose Bill it is. Is it a Home Secretary's Bill? Is he the Secretary of State referred to? Is it a social security Bill with the Secretary of State for Social Security being the Minister concerned?
The Bill is not a social security Bill. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon said a moment ago, it is a Bill which regulates relationships between two parties in a matter of civil debt. Normally it would be a Home Office Bill, and powers given to the Secretary of State would be recognised as being within the province of that department.
I do not know when we shall have the opportunity of looking at the transfer of the organisation built up under cover of the Bill from the department to an agency. I am slightly hazy about how agencies came into existence. There is a big distinction between the work and structure of the organisation which will be built up under the Bill and similar agencies which are already created or coming into being. For example, the valuation office of the Inland Revenue becomes an agency and that transfers a whole slab of work from the Inland Revenue to the agency, putting it in the position of being able to undertake private work of valuation on a professional basis. To some extent it places it in the position of a business. The Stationery Office is another example. Again, it is the transfer of a well known element in our public affairs. It is given powers to undertake private printing work and become part of the publishing industry. The Property Services Agency that looks after government departments and so forth is also a transfer of work within the Civil Service.
The child support agency will have new tasks to perform. It will be a new concept altogether. We have

1813
no idea where the staff is coming from and what kind of staff it will be. As we debate the Bill we assume that the administration will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. But if the whole shooting match is to be transferred to an agency immediately after the Bill's enactment, there should be some way in which the House can express its view on the composition of the organisation.
It is very unsatisfactory not to know whether one is dealing with a branch of the Civil Service or dealing with something with separate powers outside. I raised a number of questions with the Minister a few days ago and I may well raise them again when we consider whether the Bill do now pass. They are very open questions and affect one's attitude to what we are doing. We do not know who will exercise the powers; whether they will be retired police officers; whether there will be a trawl through the Civil Service; what training they will have received; what responsibility they will be given. Will women be freely employable in this field bearing in mind some of the situations that may arise? Where are the applicants to be interviewed?
When creating a new force with such powers of intrusion upon the rights, the abode and the working place of citizens it is desirable to know a little more about the kind of organisation it will be. I welcome the idea of commissioners, though I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, regarding the use of offshoots of the judicial system. That too is a tendency which needs to be watched and probably curtailed. To have a multiplicity of commissioners with powers to decide questions of law, fragments the whole of the system of our judicature. That is another important aspect of the Bill.
So many issues arise under the Bill that it is a shame it was not given more adequate thought and understanding by those responsible for it. Having been behind the scenes myself at times I wonder what went on in the legislation committee of the Cabinet when the Bill was tabled.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall try to save your Lordships a multiplicity of speeches. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the question of legal aid, it seems suitable to speak in terms of what would be Amendment No. 24 if it were moved. I can dispose of that matter in the course of the speech. Having said that, I point out the amazing sequence of events as regards the amendments which we are now considering. They include the appointment of a chief child support commissioner. An appeal can be made to him. A definition is given of the kind of person he should be; namely, someone having a 10-year general qualification or someone who is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of 10 years' standing.
One notes that the regulations providing for the conduct of the procedures before the commissioners are under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor after consulting the Lord Advocate. My mind goes back to the initial stages of the Bill and to those who protested against the idea of making an agency in the Department of Social Security responsible for these
1814
matters. We argued from our point of view that that was a deviation from the course that we hoped would. be pursued; namely, that all family matters would be dealt with in a family court. We could not see the reason for the setting up of a Government department when the courts should be dealing with these matters.
We were told by the noble and learned Lord, with the clarity we have come to expect from him, that the reason was because the issues were purely administrative. We have now reached the stage where there is an appellate procedure. The chief child support commissioner and other child support commissioners are presumably to be appointed from among qualified lawyers. The procedures are laid down by the Lord Chancellor's Department after consultation with the Lord Advocate. One immediately recognises that there is a judicial process which is different from an administrative one.
One wonders if, having come the full circle, the logical conclusion is that that rules out the agency and supports the idea of these issues being matters for the courts, strengthened as they should be by the very substantial expenditure that will be laid out on this new development of a Government department.
I now turn to an extraordinary matter. It may be that I have overlooked something. These matters are very private to individuals. As a rule we are talking about the father who is being made to maintain his child either on the basis of a certain assessment or in certain circumstances which end in the appeal procedure. In our courts matters of maintenance, the private means of people and their private circumstances in matrimonial affairs, are protected as regards privacy through being heard in chambers. The public are not admitted. Perhaps I should not be surprised, but I am. I find to my surprise that the regulations dealt with in Amendment No. 26 "shall provide", not "may",
"that any hearing before a Child Support Commissioner shall be in public except in so far as the Commissioner for special reasons directs otherwise".
There has to be a special reason to hide from the public gaze, public hearing and the public press an appeal of a citizen as regards the maintenance to be paid to a child. If, as it may well be, it is a matter of law, then it will be very interesting for the public at large to know about the legal decision. We shall get a history of precedents which may be very useful. However, there are ways of ensuring that decisions of law made in chambers are publicised in a perfectly proper way.
I have looked at Clause 18 (2) (a) and (b) and the grounds for the original appeal, which are that it:
(a) "was made in ignorance of a material fact; (b) was based on a mistake as to a material fact".
These are the private affairs of individuals and deal with family affairs. Why is there to be a different procedure in dealing with these matters from that usually followed in our courts? Let us not forget that the Bill provides that there is a shut door to the courts for certain individuals and classes of people. If that is so, then we are forcing into public hearings people who, if going to the courts, would have a private hearing, as I understand the position.

1815
I now move speedily to another matter in order to avoid inflicting upon your Lordships another speech on the subject of legal aid. We have a legally qualified commissioner and, presumably, the department is represented at the appeal. But what about the aggrieved person who is appealing? If the matter were dealt with in a court of law, in most cases legal aid would be granted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked a very pertinent question. I ask the House to realise that this procedure will be held in public. That is rather a frightening state of affairs for most of our citizens, especially the humble folk who are most likely to be conducting such appeals. Are they to have a legal representative paid for out of legal aid?
At Report stage I did something which I am sure the noble and learned Lord did not consider impertinent. I asked him rhetorically whether he had read a report which was commissioned by his department. It was certainly a report made to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The report is entitled The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals. That report was made in July 1989. If he has not read it perhaps he will be kind enough to refer to it before we reach the next stage of the Bill. The report must have been of some value, or it was considered of some value to the public, because I note that the price was £5 in July 1989.
I wish to quote two paragraphs from that report.
"Representation of appellants and applicants contributes to more accurate decision-making and to the fairness of the process by which decisions are reached. If it is considered desirable that tribunals should achieve these objectives, and if those appearing before tribunals unrepresented do so because free representation is not available to them, and they cannot afford to pay for representation, then the argument for improving access to representation is unassailable".
The final paragraph of the report states:
"Finally, it is clear that calling adjudicative fora 'tribunals' rather the n courts does not constitute sufficient justification for assuming that representation is unnecessary. It is not the name that is important. It is the nature of the issues at stake, the characteristics of the proceedings and the quality of justice meted out that are important".
Is not this such a case? If the parties concerned were in court and there was a similar kind of dispute in respect of which there was an appeal, in most cases legal aid would be granted. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord—and I echo the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—whether legal aid is to be granted here; and, if not, why not? Does he really believe that justice will be done in a public hearing before a special commissioner who has 10 years' or more legal experience; with a department, presumably represented on the appeal, arguing a point of law; and with a citizen before that court as the appellant who finds himself at a hearing in public in those circumstances? What chance does the citizen stand of getting justice?
The Lard Chancellor: My Lords, the adjudication procedure will be concerned with applications of the formula to a given set of facts. On a previous occasion I set out the arguments for believing that that kind of matter was apt to be considered by a tribunal specialising in that area. I know that there are risks in specialisation, but there are advantages in it also. So
1816
far as concerns the ordinary courts, my noble and learned friend referred to the history of the unification of the general courts' jurisdiction. Questions of specialisation are raised. The family court is one of those which goes somewhat in the other direction. We have within the framework of the ordinary courts sought to create specialist approaches to particular cases. The Children Act is a good example of what we are seeking to do in that connection.
On the other hand, in recent years there has been a good appreciation of tribunals which specialise. The Lands Tribunal has been taken as an example—and the Social Security Appeal Tribunal is another example. We have modelled our system here on them. The appellate tribunal that we are now seeking to put in place is modelled on the tribunal for social security.
The cost of the appellate functions was included in the original estimate which was made of the total costs of the legislation. The present arrangements will be, so far as is necessary, extended to deal with the appeals under this set of provisions. It is thought that the cost will not be very high by comparison with the subject matter. This has been included in the total cost, though, as I have said, it is an estimate.
The second question I am asked is whether legal aid will be available. The answer is that legal aid will be available at the last stage; that is, the appeal to the court that is allowed from the social security commissioners and the child support appeal commissioners in the circumstances that are narrated in one of the amendments. So far as concerns the commissioners and tribunals, legal aid will be available only on the advice basis which is applicable in other tribunals.
The report to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred was commissioned to study this matter. At £5 from the Lord Chancellor's Department, it is very good value for money. It is important to remember that the reporters were talking not only of legal representation but of other representation as well. I hope that that will be kept in mind. At the present time I believe that it is right that these matters should be regulated on the same basis as appeals to the social security commissioners.
I should like to mention one important aspect of the procedure. Many of the cases can be dealt with on paper. The question that arises is one that very often is easily ascertainable on the forms that are used. Oral hearings are by no means necessary in every case. Where an oral hearing is allowed it is usually because of some general interest in the case, or a particular reason. I cannot see at the moment why the ordinary rule that applies to the social security commissioners should not apply—that the hearing should be in public unless there are special reasons for it to be private at that stage in the appellate structure.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine asked why we need this structure. The structure has been proved over time in relation to the social security system. The function of these tribunals is much the same. It is to apply to a set of facts a formula set out in the statute and in regulations. That is very like the type of question that the social security tribunals have to address. It has been found that the ordinary tribunals are very good

1817
for addressing the bulk of the cases. Then only some of them—rather few in comparison with the total number considered by the tribunal—require to be reconsidered by lawyers who specialise in the matter in question and have particular qualifications.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked some questions about the agency. The primary obligations are put on the Secretary of State. I am not talking now about the appellate system. The original obligations are put upon the Secretary of State. He will have the responsibility within the framework established by the Bill of determining how these obligations are implemented. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he had written to my noble friend Lord Henley on this point. I understand that a complete answer has been prepared and is in the post. I hope that the noble Lord will find it very satisfying when he receives it, which I hope may happen tomorrow. I therefore commend this series of amendments to your Lordships and renew my Motion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 13, line 34, at end insert:
("(7) Any person who is a party to any appeal pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be eligible for legal aid in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Child support appeal tribunals]:
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 38, after ("to") insert ("proceedings before").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 28:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
Child Support Commissioners
("—(1) Her Majesty may from time to time appoint a Chief Child Support Commissioner and such number of other Child Support Commissioners as she may think fit.
(2) The Chief Child Support Commissioner and the other Child Support Commissioners shall be appointed from among persons who—

(a) have a 10 year general qualification; or

(b) are advocates or solicitors in Scotland of 10 years' standing.

(3) The Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Lord Advocate, may make such regulations with respect to proceedings before Child Support Commissioners as he considers appropriate.
(4) The regulations—

(a) may, in particular, make any provision of a kind mentioned in section 19(3); and

(b) shall provide that any hearing before a Child Support Commissioner shall be in public except in so far as the Commissioner for special reasons directs otherwise.

(5) Schedule (Child Support Commissioners) shall have effect with respect to Child Support Commissioners").
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
Appeal to Child Support Commissioner
("—(1) Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of a child support appeal tribunal, and any child support officer, may appeal to a Child Support Commissioner on the ground that the decision was wrong in law.
(2) Where, on an appeal under this section, a Child Support Commissioner holds that the decision appealed against was wrong in law he shall set it aside.
(3) Where a decision is set aside under subsection (2), the Child Support Commissioner may—

(a) if he can do so without making fresh or further findings of fact, give the decision which he considers should have been given by the child support appeal tribunal;

(b) if he considers it expedient, make such findings and give such decision as he considers appropriate in the light of those findings; or

(c) refer the case, with directions for its determination, to a child support officer or, if he considers it appropriate, to a child support appeal tribunal.

(4) Any reference under subsection (3) to a child support officer shall, subject to any direction of the Child Support Commissioner, be to a child support officer who has taken no part in the decision originally appealed against.
(5) On a reference under subsection (3) to a child support appeal tribunal, the tribunal shall, subject to any direction of the Child Support Commissioner, consist of persons who were not members of the tribunal which gave the decision which has been appealed against.
(6) No appeal lies under this section without the leave—

(a) of the person who was the chairman of the child support appeal tribunal when the decision appealed against was given or by such other chairman of a child support appeal tribunal as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; or

(b) subject to and in accordance with regulations so made, of a Child Support Commissioner.

(7) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision as to the manner in which and the time within which appeals under this section are to be brought and applications for leave under this section are to be made.
(8) Where a question which would otherwise fall to be determined by a child support officer first arises in the course of an appeal to a Child Support Commissioner, he may, if he thinks fit, determine it even though it has not been considered by a child support officer.
(9) Before making any regulations under subsection (6) or (7), the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Lord Advocate.").
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
Appeal from Child Support Commissioner on point of law
("—(1) An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the appropriate court from any decision of a Child Support Commissioner.
(2) No such appeal may be brought except—

(a) with leave of the Child Support Commissioner who gave the decision or, where regulations made by the Lord Chancellor so provide, of a Child Support Commissioner selected in accordance with the regulations; or

(b) if the Child Support Commissioner refuses leave, with the leave of the appropriate court.

(3) An application for leave to appeal under this section against a decision of a Child Support Commissioner ("the appeal decision") may only be made—

(a) by a person who, immediately before the proceedings before that Commissioner were begun, was entitled to appeal to such a Commissioner from the decision (the "original decision") to which the appeal decision relates;

(b) any other person who was a party to the proceedings in which the original decision was given;

(c) the Secretary of State; or

(d) any other person who is authorised to do so by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.

(4) In this section "appropriate court" means the Court of Appeal unless in a particular case the Child Support Commissioner to whom the application for leave is made directs that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and in particular the convenience of the persons who may be parties to the appeal, the appropriate court is the Court of Session.
(5) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision with respect to—

(a) the manner in which and the time within which applications must be made to a Child Support Commissioner for leave under this section; and

(b) the procedure for dealing with such applications.

(6) Before making any regulations under subsection (2),(3) or (5), the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Lord Advocate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 23.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Reference to court for declaration of parentage]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 15, line 44, leave out ("as amended by section 36").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations about deduction from earnings orders]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 18, line 42, leave out paragraph (g) and insert:
("(g) with respect to the notification to be given to the liable person of amounts deducted, and amounts paid, under the order;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. These are drafting amendments to clarify the intended provisions in regulations to be made under Clause 26. The first amendment is concerned with notifications that the employer will be required to give to the liable person when making deductions under a deduction from earnings order. The other two amendments deal with provisions to determine priority between orders. The current provision in Clause 26(4) does not clearly state our intention in this area, which is that the regulations may make provision as to the priority between deduction from earnings orders and orders made under other enactments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 19, leave out line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, put forward on Report and which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed to take away and consider. After consideration, we have agreed with the noble and learned Lord that the phrase in question is not necessary to the meaning of the clause. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing the matter to our attention. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
Page 19, line 37, leave out from ("between") to ("under"), in line 39, and insert ("a deduction from earnings order and—

(a) any other deduction from earnings order;

(b) any order").

Page 19, line 42, leave out from ("(c)") to ("against"), in line 43, and insert ("any diligence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should point out at this stage that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 35.
Clause 29 [Enforcement of liability orders by distress]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 21, line 28, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that it would be convenient if I were to deal, first, with this amendment and then speak separately to Amendments Nos. 36 to 40. Although the latter deal with different points, I believe that they can be dealt with together.
Amendment No. 34 seeks to omit subsections (5) and (6) from Clause 29. The clause deals with the remedy of distress. It is a very harsh remedy. Most forms of execution have to be done through the courts—a typical example would be a charging order. But distress is quite peculiar; it is a remedy by way of self-help. Over centuries the common law, while allowing it, has limited it and provided safeguards. I was about to say that the strange thing about the clause—although perhaps in this Bill it is not so strange—is that the common law safeguards are eliminated with the Secretary of State and his officers who are levying the distress.
I shall be most grateful if my noble and learned friend will say how that can possibly be reconciled with the principle at which your Lordships have already glanced; namely, equality of all subjects before the law whatever their status, condition or class. Are we now moving rapidly in this Bill to a position where these officials have a special status, a special enjoyment, which places them before the law in a different position from other citizens? Noble Lords saw that in the clause relating to inspection, and it is again apparent here.
Subsection (5) says:
"No person levying a distress under this section shall be taken to be a trespasser—
(a) on that account".
I must confess that I do not know what that means. If it alters the ordinary common law position, then it is coupled within the mischief to which I referred a moment ago. Normally, an illegal or an irregular distress constitutes a trespass giving a right to general damages and, in some cases, to special damages. The subsection continues to say:
"(b) from the beginning, on account of any subsequent irregularity in levying the distress".
That is undoubtedly an alteration of the common law. One of the safeguards, or protections, given to a debtor by the common law was that any irregularity

1821
relates back to make the whole of the distress unlawful or irregular and therefore gives rise to, at any rate, nominal damages in trespass—or possibly more, possibly to the value of the goods unlawfully or irregularly seized.
I ask my noble and learned friend first, does that alter the common law position? Secondly, if it does, does it put the officers of the Secretary of State in a privileged or superior position before the law from the ordinary creditor; for example, the landlord distraining for his rent or the rating authority distraining for rates?
Subsection (6) reads:
"A person sustaining special damage by reason of any irregularity in levying a distress under this section may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise".
The drafting solecism has now been corrected and it is not important. However, it is important to inquire whether that again alters the common law. Why should the person on whom distress has been levied under this Bill be placed in a worse position than the ordinary person on whom distress has been levied, such as, for example, the tenant by his landlord or the ratepayer by the rating authority? I shall be most grateful if my noble and learned friend will say in relation to that subsection, as to the previous one, whether it alters the common law to the detriment of the debtor and in favour of an official. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment. The principle of equality before the law as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, stated it, is absolutely right. It is a touchstone we have used and which has in fact been used for many centuries. It needs constant reiteration and constant effort. The noble and learned Lord is also, if I may say so as a historian, very obviously right about the general principle of distress in that any irregularity makes the whole process irregular. That is a vital guarantee of civil liberty.
Not for the first time during the passage of this Bill I have been reminded of the many proceedings involved in the levying of ship money. The point that the noble and learned Lord makes that there is no reason why the person who is subject to distress under this Bill should be worse off than anyone subject to distress for any other cause, is an important one. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has reminded us, it is a civil debt. It should not be treated as some sort of special prerogative case which is subject to far more arbitrary standards of enforcement than anything else. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has put down the amendment. I am happy to support it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, subsection (5) of the clause is based on the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, and provides that a person levying distress shall not be prosecuted for trespass when carrying out distress, whether or not there was found to be any irregularity in the distress action. Subsection (6) of the clause is based on Section 78(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, and provides that any person who suffers a monetary loss as a result
1822
of an irregularity in the distress action may, through litigation, attempt to recover that loss. The result is that the loss to which the person is entitled is the special damage.
The important point that one must bear in mind in that connection is that the provisions are not novel. We are not here concerned with a creditor recovering his debt by his own action, but with the state providing to a person, for the benefit of a child, a system of recovery. I do not accept the idea that that is constitutionally improper or a failure to allow equality before the law.
Before the powers are exercised, a liability order has to be made by the court on the application of the Secretary of State. When that liability order is made, the results are the same as under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to which I have referred. The way the object is achieved in Section 78 is to say:
"A person acting under a warrant of distress shall not be deemed to be a trespasser from the beginning by reason only of any irregularity in the execution of the warrant".
Subsection (3) provides:
"Nothing in this section shall prejudice the claim of any person for special damages in respect of any loss caused by a defect in the warrant or irregularity in its execution".
That makes it plain that the special damage is recoverable and no other. That is the provision we have reflected in the Bill. I hope in the light of that explanation the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I do not believe that he has specifically answered my question, but I believe that he did by implication; namely, that the provisions place officials in a different position from that of the ordinary creditor. He sought to justify that position by saying that the official is not like an ordinary creditor; he is seeking to recover maintenance for a child. That is unrealistic.
The Bill is very much a Treasury Bill. I naturally say that with no venom or animosity, but the hand of the Treasury is heavy on the Bill. By seeking a liability order and then levying distress, the child support officer is recovering money as an official for another government department. That is the reality of the position. I have drawn attention to the point. There would be no object in dividing the House at this hour, and so, without in the least conceding that this is other than another objectionable provision derogating from the equality of people before the law, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 21, line 35, leave out ("special").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 21, line 36, leave out from ("regulations") to ("of") in line 37, and insert ("for the purpose of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No. 36, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40. The amendments have two objects. The first is to try to achieve greater precision in the drafting; and, secondly, to try to limit in some way the wide general powers, especially of regulation, which the Bill again seeks to give Ministers. If amended, the clause would provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provision of this section, and so forth. That is a Henry VIII provision. The Minister is given power to legislate; to add to an Act of Parliament.
The amendment seeks to have the provision read:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of this section",
and then "to" followed by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I then seek to leave out paragraphs (b) and (d). The first part of the amendment is purely a drafting point to provide greater precision, to excise a Henry VIII provision and to give greater precision and limitation to the wide regulatory powers that are here, as so often in the Bill, sought.
Paragraph (b) would:
"provide that such a distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order".
Am I right in thinking that that again is a derogation from the common law which places the officials in a more favourable position than the ordinary distrainer for rent Or any other debt? Paragraph (d) is designed to
"make provision as to the powers of the court on an appeal (which may include provision as to the discharge of goods distrained for the payment of compensation in respect of goods distrained and sold)."
My first question is: what does the Secretary of State have to do with providing for the powers of the court by regulation? So far as I can recollect I have never come across any such case. If anybody makes regulations as to the powers of the court, it should be Parliament. The Lord Chancellor can make provision as to the procedure of the court. That is perfectly acceptable. However, what is not acceptable is that the powers of the court should be defined by regulation, least of all regulations made by the Secretary of State, who has an interest in the matter. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for bringing the matter to our attention. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may recall answering a question from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, not long ago about whether the Government would abandon the use of Henry VIII clauses. On that occasion I took a rather more moderate line than the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I asked the government instead to restrict themselves to the limited circumstances in which such clauses were allowed by the Donoughmore Committee. I am beginning to wonder whether I was wrong and the rather more: fundamental position of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was correct.
We are not following the Donoughmore safeguards here. In particular, in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill no explanation is given as to why the Henry
1824
VIII clause is necessary. Before the Bill leaves this House, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will explain precisely why these powers are necessary.
I also entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that among possible circumstances to which Henry VIII clauses could be applied, extending the powers of the courts is one of the most undesirable. Even at this time of night, if the noble and learned Lord does not receive satisfaction, I hope that he will think seriously about what he does next.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 36, are intended to restrict the regulation-making power for which we have provided in Clause 29(7). My understanding of the position, as I tried to explain in my previous answer, is that these provisions are based on the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The general rules contained in that Act are in no way confined only to officials. The purpose of the Magistrates' Courts Act is to provide a proper arrangement for the enforcement of magistrates' court orders. In subsections (5) and (6) we wish simply to give effect to these provisions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend allow me to intervene? Is he saying that the Magistrates' Courts Act contains such a Henry VIII clause?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords, I had not reached that yet. The main clause with which we are dealing reflects the powers contained in the Magistrates' Courts Act so far as subsections (5) and (6) are concerned. My noble and learned friend is repeating, as he did on a previous occasion, the suggestion that these powers are available only to officials.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend but we have already passed from subsections (5) and (6). We are now concerned with the Henry VIII clause and the following subsection.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that. However, I am trying to put this into its proper perspective. The power to make regulations under subsection (7) is intended only to supplement the provisions of the clause, not to allow amendment of the statutory provisions which a Henry VIII clause would require. This allows regulations which are simply supplementary to the provisions of the clause. It is intended to allow the section to contain such supplementary provisions as may be necessary properly to take account of the circumstances to which the clause applies.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40, these seek to restrict the scope of the matters which may be included in the regulations. As the subsection is drafted at present, examples are provided as to the matters which are likely to be included in the regulations. I agree that it is important that examples should be given.
We do not seek to introduce novel provisions for enforcement generally or for distress in particular.

1825
With Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 the noble and learned Lord seeks to remove from the scope of the regulations two particular provisions: first, subsection (8) (b), which might, but for this provision, call into question the validity of the liability order. For example, there may be a misspelling of the name of the defendant or some other minor error. My noble and learned friend debated this point at Committee stage when he also had an amendment down to remove this provision.
I have considered the matter and think it necessary that the defect or want of form in the liability order should be capable of being dealt with. This provision is not concerned with a major defect which would have been established when application for the liability order had been made to the magistrates. In such a case a liability order would not have been made under the provisions of Clause 27(3) of the Bill.
In practice, if, for example, the person who is the subject of a distress action protests that he is the wrong person or the order is for the wrong amount, the bailiffs will refer back to the agency, as they refer back to the courts now in such circumstances. Accepting this amendment would have the consequence of not including this matter in the regulations and could render the distress unlawful through some mere technicality of the kind that I have mentioned. In my most recent letter to my noble and learned friend I suggested that this could well invite frivolous litigation.
With Amendment No. 40, my noble and learned friend seeks to remove from the matters to be included in the regulations the procedure to be followed for anyone who objects to the levying of distress against them. Such appeals will be to a magistrates' court. The regulations will set out the powers of the magistrates' court when hearing such an appeal, including the consideration of any compensation award which might be appropriate.
The point is that the magistrates' court itself is the court that has granted the liability order in respect of which the diligence or distress has proceeded. In my submission these are appropriate powers to be granted to the Secretary of State in the circumstances. He would be making the regulations under the authority of Parliament and he would be answerable to Parliament. I submit to your Lordships that these are appropriate provisions to have in the Bill. I shall be glad to consider further with my advisers the matters which my noble and learned friend has raised to see whether any of these measures may be restricted further. But as I am advised at present, I have concluded that these are necessary provisions for the regulations to contain.
9.p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for replying to the debate. Your Lordships may have heard a story from the southern states of America at the time when the coloured population was first given a limited franchise subject to an educational test. An old negro presented himself to the registration board for his test. He was
1826
asked what hermeneutics meant. He said sadly, "I guess it means that you do not want me to have the vote". As we listen to the dazzling web of argument spun by my noble and learned friend, we reflect sadly that it means he does not want this or any amendment to be accepted which derogates in any way substantially from the powers given by the Bill.
I turn to the matter of the Henry VIII clause. I remember asking my noble and learned friend during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill whether the Government accepted the recommendations of the Donoughmore Report to which the noble Earl has just referred. My noble and learned friend said that in general the Government accepted those recommendations. However, this provision is right outside anything that Donoughmore countenanced, not merely in the formalities which are demanded but also in its substance. My noble and learned friend said that the provision in the Bill does no more than allow the Secretary of State to make any necessary regulations to supplement the provisions. However, he has read in the word "necessary". That word does not appear in the Bill. The Bill gives an unlimited Henry VIII power and that is quite unacceptable.
As regards paragraph (d), my noble and learned friend merely said he regarded it as entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should lay down the powers of the court. He did not say why he thought that was appropriate. I was not surprised that he did not say that as to my mind it is absolutely unheard of to allow a Minister to define the powers of the court in respect of cases in which he has an interest, or in any other case. That is no business of the Secretary of State.
My noble and learned friend has said he will consider this matter with his advisers. However, he said that as at present advised, he sees no reason to change the provision. However, he did not say why he felt that way. We are left in the position of the old negro. We know what this means—that no substantial amendment will be accepted. As Disraeli said,
"A majority is the best repartee".
My noble and learned friend knows that he has a majority outside the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Commitment to prison]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 23, line 2, after ("person") insert ("and that the liable person has adequate means to pay at his disposal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have now reached the amendments to Clause 32. I thought it right that we should not let this clause, which relates to commitment to prison, pass without comment on Third Reading. Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, cannot be present today. I believe he has apologised to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his absence and he has asked me to apologise to the House. The noble Lord has figured prominently in our previous debates on this clause. We miss his counsel.
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the undertaking he gave on Report. He said:
"I have in mind to propose amendments to the Bill to give power to make garnishee or charging orders".—[Official Report, 29/4/91; col. 582.]
That is extremely welcome. It would have been pleasant if the noble and learned Lord had been able to table amendments for Third Reading. We fully understand that he has perhaps not had time to do so and wi11 give effect to that undertaking in another place.
This amendment is slightly different, but I should like to place it in the context of the debates that we have had in this House on the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the subject of distress and of the general feeling in the House that we should do without imprisonment, if at all possible, for default of maintenance.
The amendment is designed to have the effect of imprisoning defaulters only where there is wilful refusal or culpable neglect and not where the absent parent cannot pay. It is self-evidently futile to imprison a maintenance defaulter who cannot pay. That would be merely spiteful. It would also be self-defeating because it would add to the costs in relation to the defaulter who cannot pay. In addition to the cost of paying maintenance out of social security one would be adding the cost of prison, which is considerable, and getting no further.
As the Bill is drafted, the only methods of recovery envisaged are deductions from earnings and, as the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, distress. That means that distress and imprisonment are likely to be used extensively. Amendments designed to eliminate imprisonment have not met with favour from the, Government, to put it mildly.
There are alternative approaches, such as to putting a charge on property. Using charging orders—which the noble and learned Lord has promised us—whereby the child support agency could place a charge on property held by the absent parent, would ensure that when property was sold the agency would be able to recover the debt. That is a much more effective way of guaranteeing—in the cases where there are no earnings—that the agency would be able to recover amounts owing than the use of distress or imprisonment. That will be a highly important amendment.
Using bailiffs to recover debt is highly inefficient. It could mean that even if sums were raised to clear the maintenance liability which has accumulated, the absent parent would be less likely to be able to fulfil future liabilities because if he is subject to distress he will have to replace his furniture and equipment. It is thoroughly inefficient. Incidentally, imprisonment can lead to loss of livelihood and economic discrimination. It; can have a severe impact on the child or children in the family.
During previous discussions we heard about the Payne Committee's views on the enforcement of judgment; debts. The Committee reported in 1969. It wished imprisonment for defaulters to be abolished
1828
forthwith. However, three members considered that premature. If it was premature in 1969 it may be thought to be mature in 1991.
The Finer Committee, reporting in 1974, stated:
"Everyone agrees that sending maintenance defaulters to prison is an essay in social and economic futility as far as the tax payer is concerned".
This is a taxpayers' Bill and those words are highly relevant to this Bill. The Finer Committee considered that imprisonment is:
"inadmissible as a sanction to enforce family obligations".
That cannot be repeated too often. Finally, the May Inquiry into the UK prison services in 1979 also recommended that prison should be avoided wherever possible for maintenance defaulters.
I said "finally", but the real final word comes from Lord Justice Woolf, and I quoted him on a previous occasion.
The amendment is designed to keep out of prison those maintenance defaulters who cannot pay. I accept that there has to be a final sanction. I accept that we have searched for alternative final sanctions, without success. Therefore I have to accept reluctantly that prison should be the final sanction.
We have been very successful in reducing the number of maintenance defaulters over the years. In 1976 2, 876 men who did not pay up were imprisoned. There was a huge improvement in 1986 when only 616 men who defaulted were imprisoned. Indeed there has been an improvement since then, because in 1989 only 316 were imprisoned. I should like to see that reduced to nil or next to nil, even though I have to concede that prison has to be preserved as a final last resort.
This amendment would ensure that only those who had the means to pay and refused, or neglected, to pay went to prison. We should be able to improve on the 1989 figures by not allowing fine defaulters who cannot pay to be sent to prison. That is a self-evident exercise in futility and a costly exercise at that. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, of course this whole clause is an abomination and we are dealing with only part of it on this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was speaking, I recalled the provisions in a Finance Act of several years ago related to delays in the payment by traders of VAT. As Members of your Lordships' House will probably recall, under the Finance Act of several years ago the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have been given power to apply their own code of penalties.
The astonishing step was taken of removing from the courts the power to impose penalties for unreasonable delay in handing over VAT receipts. These penalties which are written into the Finance Act are non-discretionary, rather like the assessments under this Bill, where the bureaucracy pleads that it has no room for manoeuvre; they are there and they have to be applied.
In that Finance Act, they provided for an outlet in certain cases where they could say that a person had reasonable excuse, but they stipulated that shortage of

1829
money could not be accepted as a reasonable excuse for not paying. It seems to me that we are in very much the same position in Clause 32.
The fact that you cannot pay is no reason for being sent to prison for culpable neglect or refusal. I hope that this clause will find no place in the final edition of this Bill. I cannot see how we can reconcile this with the concern about the number of people in prison and about how the numbers in prison constitute an intolerable burden upon the Exchequer, upon police forces, upon prison officials and so on.
How does it help to support children to send to prison those upon whose payments they rely? This is so unacceptable that I sincerely hope that no future government will tolerate some of these objectionable clauses in this scheme of things. I also hope that recovery can remain, as a last resort, as deductions from wages or distraint on personal effects. I suggest that if there is anything to go further than that, it would be a period of compulsory, unpaid community service, which might be some penance for failure to pay over the money. In many cases, refusal or neglect to pay will not injure the children who are being supported on child benefit or social security. It will merely lessen the recoupment by these methods of moneys which are being paid out of the social security fund. Can we not be realistic? Can we not have some sense of humanity in this matter? Do we have to send people to prison? And in a minute or so apparently we shall be asked to say that it will not exceed six weeks. What nonsense it all is. To put it in a Bill of such social importance and sensitivity is quite unacceptable.
Along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I feel that this Government have no sense of accommodation in dealing with Bills that go through this House. If they set about a punitive code they apparently cannot depart from it. I suggest quite seriously that eventually we shall have to give this new civilian police force a separate identity and a separate status in the scheme of penal practice. In the meantime I hope that we shall obtain a concession on this amendment or throw out Clause 32 altogether.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is not much between the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and me on this clause. I think that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for forced labour as an alternative is perhaps not an advance. It is only as a last resort that that particular form of coercion should be allowed.
The clause as drafted is intended to make clear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made in his speech. He mentioned a number of committees that have dealt with these matters, bringing us right up to date with that of Lord Justice Woolf, who dealt generally with imprisonment. I understand that the Payne Committee had in mind the enforcement procedures that it wished to see. The report, taken as a whole, regarded an effective enforcement procedure as necessary as a preliminary to the abolition of the custody sanction.
We have made clear first of all that the court can impose this warrant for commitment only if there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of
1830
the liable person, and that follows an inquiry in his presence into his means. I believe that that has the same effect as the passage that the noble Lord now seeks to put in the Bill. I cannot see how there could be wilful refusal or culpable neglect unless the person has at his disposal adequate means to deal with the obligation and either wilfully refuses to hand it over or simply culpably neglects to bring it into the power of the person in whose favour the obligation is couched. So I believe that there is nothing at all between us on the principle.
I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said in support of the amendment. I also note—I am very interested to hear it—that he has considered carefully whether there is any other ultimate sanction available. I too have considered that matter carefully and I do not think that there is an ultimate sanction. But to reduce any use of this measure we can make as effective as possible the other methods of enforcement. We mentioned the two methods of enforcement already in the Bill. I have promised that the other two will be put in. Sadly, the amendments were not ready for this stage of the Bill but I have undertaken that the amendments will be included. Accordingly, I believe that we have done as much as we can to meet the objective of the noble Lord's amendment. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he may feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and for saying that we are almost together in our thinking on this important subject. I am sad that he cannot accept my form of words. As he said, the form of words that I use is implied in the Bill. My words spell it out. If they are not in the appropriate place, will the noble and learned Lord consider putting these words or something like them in the right place in the Bill? It is important that the proposition should be in the forefront of the minds of those responsible for bringing someone to the brink of imprisonment. It would be comforting to know that it was brought to the forefront of their minds when they considered what to do with fine defaulters who had no money. I am not convinced that at present fine defaulters with no money are not sent to prison. It should be an absolute requirement that fine defaulters who have no money are not sent to prison. Prison is a final means of extracting money. If a man has no money there is no sense in sending him to prison.
I strongly urge the noble and learned Lord to consider spelling that requirement out on the face of the Bill. It would help immensely if he could do so. Perhaps I may appeal to him to respond to that suggestion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may add this. I have indicated that I believe that the words in the Bill have exactly that meaning. However, I am perfectly content to consider further whether the words suggested by the noble Lord are in any way better than those in the Bill. If the noble Lord is prepared to leave it like that, I am prepared to consider the matter further. However, I believe, and am advised, that as currently drafted the

1831
provision exactly reflects our intention: that the court should be satisfied that the refusal is a wilful default or a culpable neglect. That means that the basic requirement is that the person in question has the necessary means to meet the judgment if only he would use them.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I understand that. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for considering what I said. The courts may take the view that a person had some money concealed somewhere which the child support officers have not been able to get from him and that a term in prison might reveal those sources.
I am not happy that all courts will take the view that I wish them to take: that a person without money should not be sent to prison for a fine default. For that reason I should like that stated expressly on the face of the Bill.
I am extremely grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 23, line 23, at end insert ("but shall not exceed six weeks")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 implements an undertaking that I gave at Report stage to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the maximum sentence of imprisonment is six weeks for non-payment of a maintenance order. That replicates the existing law, which has always been our intention. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how many six-week periods can be imposed? For example, if a person comes out of prison after serving a sentence of six weeks and culpably continues to refuse to pay or is unable to pay can he be imprisoned for a further six weeks? Can the situation go on ad infinitum or is the six-week period conclusive?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the provision reads:
"The maximum period of imprisonment which may be imposed by virtue of subsection (6) shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule 4".
At the end of that line we have added the words:
"but shall not exceed six weeks".
Perhaps I need to consider the matter, but I believe that six weeks is the maximum period that could be specified in a warrant. It would arise in respect of a proven default. I do not easily envisage a situation in which the warrant could be renewed on the basis of exactly the same facts and in respect of precisely the same default. However, another default committed at a later time would be a different matter but one could not have a second imposition in respect of the same default.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand therefore that the child support officer and the Secretary of State must go back to the beginning. They must apply to the court to make a person liable and
1832
then attempt to distrain or use other methods to obtain money and then go back to the court for a further warrant. Is that the procedure?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord off the cuff. My understanding is that he is correct. If I discover that my belief is incorrect I shall advise the noble Lord. I understand that the warrant can be issued only in respect of a default and in the circumstances described by the noble Lord. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 43:
Leave out Clause 32.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising at this time of night to move the final abolition of the imprisonment for debt, I find that I am addressing a rather bleak House. For the third time in succession a matter of such importance has arisen after dinner. When I arrived at the House today I had expected that the amendment would be in the capable hands of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. I did not know that I was to move the amendment until about 40 minutes ago and therefore your Lordships will be presented with a slightly undigested argument.
The general power of imprisonment for civil debt was defended for a long time with passionate conviction. I remember as a boy reading Bleak House and finding it impossible to understand why the power had ever been defended. Having listened to the high quality of the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord in respect of Clause 32 I understand the argument a little better. I cannot say that I find it any more persuasive because the central point against imprisonment for debt of all kinds is that it does not do any good. To pay off a debt one needs money. In order to have money one needs earning power. If one is put into prison one loses earning power and may have difficulty in recovering that power when released. If the person were unable to pay the debt before he went into prison he will be even less able to pay it afterwards.
It took a very long time to bring about the abolition of general imprisonment for civil debt. I believe it took something like 200 years of continuous argument to get that across. I hope that it will not take quite as long on this issue. If it does, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be with us to see it through.
I shall not dwell on the reports of the Payne Committee and the Finer Committee. My noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris has drawn the attention of the House to those matters. The crucial point to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has called attention at all stages is the question of alternative sanctions. No one who has spoken on this amendment at any stage of the Bill has ever argued that no sanction should exist.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, proposed an alternative sanction which appears so far not to have found favour. I admit that between half past eight and now I have not come up with a new

1833
alternative sanction. However, I do not believe that it can be beyond the wit of the Government to find any form of alternative sanction if they give their mind to it. Moreover, if an amendment of this sort were carried it might, like the Johnsonian threat of death, have the effect of concentrating the mind wonderfully.
The crucial point which my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris quoted—and I do not remember whether it was from the Payne Committee or the Finer Committee—was that there should be civil sanctions against the income or property of the debtor, either by attachment of earnings or seizure of property. We want the man's money; we do not wish to shut him up in prison.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the Government to find powers for seizing a person's property. We have just listened to a debate on Clause 13 which shows that they are capable of considerable ingenuity in that respect. I do not suggest for a moment that all of that ingenuity should be devoted to this matter. I hope that I am too good a libertarian for that. However, if just a quarter of that ingenuity were devoted to seizure of the debtor's property, it may be possible to do something about it.
If the debtor has no property, then he can be imprisoned many times but there will still be no money forthcoming. Either the sanction will be effective or nothing will be effective. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris that that is the line we should follow.
I agree also with all the arguments developed this evening to the effect that debts owed under this Bill should not, whatever the noble and learned Lord says, be given a special status above and beyond all other debts. I do not believe that they should be treated as having a mystical, semi-royal quality which entitles them to be collected by prerogative when nothing else can be. That is typical of what I have described in the past as the obsessive approach behind this Bill. That would be less in evidence if this clause were removed. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on these Benches we support the amendment. The general points have been made extremely well by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I repeat the point made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon on Report; namely, the effect on the children. He wondered what would be the effect of the father saying to his child "Your mother is responsible for sending me to prison". As my noble friend said, that is a ghastly thing with which to face a family. Although it is argued that very few men will be sent to prison, there is always the chance that the father will say to the child that the mother is threatening to have him sent to prison.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to the debate on Report, he did not answer that. When he replies to the debate I should be grateful if he could deal with the point as regards the effects on the children if this clause remains in the Bill.
Finally, the Payne Committee was mentioned on the last amendment, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It contains a quotation which reads,
1834
"Imprisonment of maintenance defaulters is morally capricious, economically wasteful, socially harmful, administratively burdensome and judicially wrong. We wish it abolished forthwith".
It will do no harm also to repeat the quotation made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on the previous amendment from the report of the Finer Committee, which states:
"Everyone agrees that sending maintenance defaulters to prison is an essay in social and economic futility as far as the tax payer is concerned".
Apart from the effect on the welfare of the child it would be helpful to know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agrees with those two quotations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall not rehearse all the arguments used when we last discussed this matter on Report. But it is worth repeating that it is a futile exercise to send people to prison at huge cost to the state. The minimum cost to the state of keeping a person in prison is £260 per week. We have just heard that the maximum period will be six weeks, and that will probably be the norm. That amounts to £1, 560 a term. That is probably more than the social security would pay if they had to pick up the default. Furthermore, as I pointed out on Report, while the man is in prison he will not be earning and he will slip further into debt. What is more, when he comes out he may well have lost his job and will be in no position to pay anything at all.
Those arguments have been made and 1it is clear that they have not found favour with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He is entitled to his point of view. All our debates on this matter of defaulting parents, particularly fathers, indicate that we are making an exception and an example of these debtors; we are making an example of fathers and treating them differently from other debtors.
Clause 32 (Commitment to prison) states:
"Where the Secretary of State has sought to levy an amount by distress under this Act but it appears to him that no, or insufficient, goods can be found on which to levy the amount, he may apply to a magistrates' court for the issue of a warrant committing the liable person to prison".
There is no alternative. He does not apply to the courts to enable them to hear the case and decide on the punishment as courts normally do. He can apply to the court for only one punishment—that is, commitment to prison. In my view that is nonsensical. If an application is made to a court and the court is a free court which wishes to try a case and take all the considerations into account, it should not be told in advance what the penalty shall be. Otherwise, it is not a free court in a democratic society. When the matter is referred to a court, the court should be allowed to decide the punishment.
Taking the matter further, the court may decide that the punishment should be a fine. I venture to suggest that most courts would make that decision in the first instance. They would say that the default is worthy of a fine. I very much doubt whether they would say that it was worthy of imprisonment. In any event, there would certainly be a suspended sentence. We now have suspended sentences even for robbery

1835
with violence. I venture to suggest that given the opportunity to make a decision on the merits of the case, a court would say, "We shall impose a fine".
Matters become equal under those circumstances. If the man does not pay the fine then it is open to the court to commit him to prison. The court is able to commit anyone to prison for contempt of court. Now we begin to see a way in which equality can appertain. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that that is the way forward and it should have been so in the first place. We have mentioned alternative sentences before. There is no doubt that the community service order should be considered. Under the Criminal Justice Bill it can be considered in a different way from that in which it is considered at present. These matters should be considered very seriously before we write into a 13ill the only penalty for default which is, and will be, a term of six weeks' imprisonment.
I shall support the amendment if it is put to a vote. I very much doubt that it will. Therefore, I appeal to the noble and learned Lord once again to consider this matter again and to consider it very seriously.
9. 45 p. m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the Bill is laced with hostility. The clause, like so many others, conveys a presumption of guilt towards the persons, mostly men, who will come within its provisions. That is a very bad thing. A great many people concerned will not feel guilty. They will believe that there is something else to be said and they will probably say it to the child support officer. He will probably say that he is very sorry but he cannot possibly listen to what they have to say because his remit is confined to the recovery of money.
What I have just said leads to the presumption that the child support officer will encounter some very obstinate people. They will feel that they have no right to be dealt with in this way. The issue will probably arouse feelings of hostility towards their womenfolk. Difficulties may be put in the way of amicable relations between the child support officer and the person he is seeking. It may be that this obstinacy will lead to a form of martyrdom.
As a boy I lived in a home where a father refused to pay the education rate imposed by the Government in 1902 In part that levy was to help finance denominational schools. On more than one occasion I have recounted to the House what happened because of that kind of obstinacy. Some people would call it almost bigotry. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has had some experience of that.
People in that state of mind are very difficult to move. They become their worst enemy. What are we going to do with these people? They might say, "I' m not going to pay. I will go to the bitter end and you can do what you like about it". These are not normal debtors and they are not criminals. They are not all people who are trying to escape their responsibilities, which seems to be the keynote of Mrs. Thatcher. They are separated from the mother of their children and there are reasons which in their own mind stand in the way of them fulfilling what is conventionally regarded as the obligations of a father towards his children.
1836
The Bill offers no inkling of any imagination having been used in its construction. It is disciplinarian; it is authoritarian and it is hostile. The child support officer, when it is realised that he is around, will be known to be visiting someone who is regarded as a defaulter in the payment of maintenance support for his children. The Bill will function in a very bad atmosphere. The child support officer, who will have a certificate and other documentation to hold out to the public to disclose his identity, will be as well known as the relieving officer in my youth and the child attendance officer. It will be known that wherever he goes there is trouble and some social delinquency somewhere which officials are seeking out. That is why I think that to regard prison as the kind of conventional ending to what may be a bitter struggle between a so-called absent father and the authorities will lead to very disagreeable consequences.
I am one of the very few noble Lords in this House who was born while Queen Victoria was on the throne. Although for a couple of years or so after I was born I was oblivious to her declining faculties and her reputation, I recall the atmosphere and tradition in the house in which I was born. My father hated the Queen just as much as he hated the House of Lords. However, I have recovered from his bias against the House of Lords.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon: And the Queen!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I forgive my father for that. Anyone born in the reign of Queen Victoria should now think of recalling her and telling her that wherever she may be all is forgiven. She should come back and bring her debtors prisons with her. To encourage her to do so we could say that these fellows will go to quod for only six weeks; in your time they went for as long as was necessary to get the money, but we have learnt greater compassion than existed in the days of Victorian values. Never forget the Victorian values! They were right at the time and they were pretty disagreeable. They were mostly humbug and hypocrisy.
I feel that some people will approach the Bill with a feeling that it is all humbug and hypocrisy. It tries to deal with people in a stereotyped way, using the conventions of the law of the land to deal with delinquency or neglect in one form or another. It seeks to do so by docking wages and restraining on goods; sending people to prison and sending them back again, and so on. It is all monstrous on the eve of the 21st century. We should be able to organise things rather better.
There is no doubt in my opinion that a system of family courts would have overcome many of these problems. We are not given the opportunity to do that. We go blindly on in a disciplinarian way—a combination of Queen Victoria and the back-room of a shop in Grantham. I am unable to believe that that is the right cradle in which to develop a new form of legislation in order to deal with this very old problem.
Not all men who are in this position have failed in their own concept of where their duty lies. It is part of the great and growing problem of marital and sexual

1837
relations which we do not understand and with which we can only deal according to conventional ideas. It may be necessary to establish some form of contract, apart from that contained in the prayer book and marriage services. What is the contract between men and women who are living together and who are not lawfully married? There is some form of understanding there. There could well be a civil contract which has to be observed and under which action could be taken. But no, we go blindly on saying, "They mustn't escape their responsibilities; the children must come first", and all the other idioms of social change and reform.
It is high time that we had a government with a very different outlook on the problem. However, I am not sure whether we will get it either way; nevertheless, it is time we had it. Public pressure will have to be brought to bear on the problem. I am fully in accord with the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that what we want is a great deal more light thrown upon the position of people who will come within the scope of the Bill. If it passes into law in its present form, some people will get a very rude shock indeed.
Finally, I feel that I must say that if we pass Clause 32, for my part, I would wish to have placed upon it the same tag of reservation so far as concerns my noble friends on this side of the House; namely, that if we let it go it is only because of the lateness of the hour and the circumstances in which we had to deal with it. We must let the House of Commons know that if the Bill comes back to this place in this form in many of its objectionable respects, then some of us will have to make up our minds to exert all the strength we have in your Lordships' House to give it a very rough time.
10.p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Clause 32 embodies existing law generally speaking so far as concerns the maintenance of children. There is no question of this being a punishment for some past misdeed for which, for example, a fine would be appropriate. Apart from anything else, if you cannot get the money for the maintenance from the person, the chances of getting the money for an additional fine must be extremely remote. Therefore, the purpose of the imprisonment provision in the clause is to provide a sanction under which the payment will be made. That is clear from the terms of the warrant.
Subsection (6) says:
"A warrant issued under this section shall order the liable person—
(a) to be imprisoned for a specified period;—
that cannot exceed six weeks—
"but
(b) to be released (unless he is in custody for some other reason) on payment of the amount stated in the warrant".
The idea is to use the sanction of imprisonment to obtain payment for the continuing wrong of failure as a result of culpable neglect or wilful default to pay the maintenance mentioned in the warrant. That is why I do not believe the sanction is to be equated with punishment in the way, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, did. I wish to set
1838
aside the question of community service orders: a community service order involves someone doing something. One can only achieve that if the person is prepared to agree to the community service order. The fundamental point of a community service order is that it must be agreed to. It is no use as coercion in the case of someone who refuses to do what is required. It is used as a punishment. If people are prepared to agree to it, it may be preferable to the alternative.
The idea of the sanction is to persuade the person in question to pay up. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to refer us to the Johnsonian point that the threat of death concentrates the mind wonderfully; the threat of imprisonment concentrates the ability to pay wonderfully. I believe experience shows that it usually does. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, pointed out the recent considerable fall in the use of that sanction. I have made it clear, and I want to do so again, that we shall provide the additional powers required to obtain the money under the garnishee order and the charging order which are to be used before the sanction. It is only where there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the liable person, ascertained after an inquiry into his means, that the power is available.
I shall deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We are talking about a power available to the court, and when deciding whether to exercise it a court will take account of all the circumstances. There is no reason why circumstances such as he mentioned should not be taken into account. Even if there is a failure to pay, there is no obligation on the court to send a person to prison. There is no power to do so unless the conditions are satisfied. If the conditions are satisfied, it is a discretionary power only and the matters mentioned will be taken into account.
The chances are that the person in question may be offering defiance in respect of the payment of maintenance, and in those circumstances the effect that that will have on the children is a matter that may be somewhat problematical. Whatever the situation is, the court can take account of it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that careful and thoughtful reply. The difference between us may not be immense even if its practical effect may be considerable. I concede instantly his point that the provision embodies the existing law; it is the existing law with which a good many of us are dissatisfied.
I accept—it was clear from the noble and learned Lord's reply—that he has tried to find an alternative sanction. I agree with him about the difficulty of using a fine. I was recommending seizure of property and attachment of earnings. I am not convinced that anything which is not solved by one of those two remedies can be solved at all.
The noble and learned Lord argued that the sanction was not to be equated with punishment. In intention perhaps; but in effect, if one is sent to prison it feels rather like punishment. I am reminded of the story of when the Kaiser, being in infancy chastised by

1839
his nurse, found her saying, "This hurts me a great deal more than it hurts you". "Oh", said the Kaiser, "and n the same place?"
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the threat of imprisonment concentrates the mind wonderfully, but of course the fact of it does not. Here we ha re the central dilemma in the debate about the clause; that where the sanction is used it denotes failure and provokes further failure. In effect, these people are being imprisoned pour encourager les autres. Since it was one of my noble ancestors who was the original man shot pour encourager les autres, I have some slight doubt as to whether the principle is entirely fair. Nevertheless, at this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Arrears of child support maintenance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 24, line 42, at end insert:
("() In cases where the Secretary of State has assessed the maintenance requirement and determined the amount to be paid by the absent parent and the absent parent has failed to pay, the Secretary of State shall, where requested to to so by the person with care, pay to the parent with care that amount of the requisite sum necessary to guarantee the income of the caring parent at least to the level of income support. The Secretary of State shall use his powers under section 3 to recover the whole of the liable sum due from the absent parent and pay on collection any outstanding sums due to the caring parent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment that we dealt with at Report but there are still some clarifications which would be helpful to the House on the answers given at Report by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that lone parents' income is not disrupted where the absent parent fails to pay the agreed maintenance award. We feel that without this amendment, some lone parents will have to live on incomes below income support level and others will be forced to give up their jobs and return to benefit.
The Principle is accepted by the Government. At col. 587 of the Official Report on 29th April the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the Government would continue,
"the arrangements for income support claimants where, in some circumstances, benefit is paid gross of any maintenance received, while the Secretary of State collects the maintenance on behalf of the claimant".
Thus the principle is accepted. The recent DSS survey conducted by Bradshaw and Millar, of which I am sure the noble Lord is aware, found that 28 per cent. of the lone parents who were questioned had experience of maintenance contributions being deducted from their benefit when they were not actually receiving maintenance. Only 6 per cent. had experience. of the DSS collecting maintenance directly from their partner.
Since we believe that the Bill will ensure that more lone parents than at present will be reliant on maintenance payments, it is important that when he replies the noble Lord should deal with the point on the figures which emerged from the DSS survey.
The noble Lord also said that:
"In the event of a person with care in receipt of benefit not receiving full payment of maintenance, it is intended that the
1840
agency will be able to inform the benefit authorities directly, so that the benefit can be adjusted quickly"—[Official Report, 29/4/91; col. 587.]
I understand that the median processing time for change of circumstances for lone parents on income support is 12 days. So even if the child support agency notifies the department straightaway that maintenance has not been paid, in half of the cases the lone parent will have to manage for more than 12 days on an income below income support level.
Finally, the noble Lord made the point at Report stage that there was a need to differentiate. The Government need to provide some protection for those on income support. However, again at col. 587 he argued that,
"if a person with care is not in receipt of benefit, the use of the agency's services is entirely voluntary and it would not be right for the state to intervene"
The noble Lord seems to have missed the point that lone parents on family credit and on disability working allowance will also be obliged to claim maintenance. Yet there is to be no safeguard of their income if their maintenance is not paid. That will obviously lead to severe problems for those on family credit because that benefit can only be reassessed every six months. These points are intended to obtain an answer and clarification on the replies we were given at Report stage.
Since we are dealing with family credit, my final point is that in a Written Answer on 6th February 1991 at col. 191 of Hansard for the other place, the Under-Secretary of State, Miss Widdecombe, stated that the response time for family credit applications in 63 per cent. of cases was 20 days; in the other one-third of cases the time was longer. I believe that we all agree that three weeks or more is a long time for a family to live below the benefit level. How many will be forced to give up their jobs and return to income support? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is another of the string of amendments which assert the principle that children come first and without which it would be difficult to apply that principle to the Bill. The vital statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted are of the number of people who are assessed for benefit on the assumption that they are receiving maintenance but who are not in fact getting it. If the amendment is not accepted, they will be a great deal worse off as a result of the Bill. I believe that that was not the Government's intention and I hope it is not what they will do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment closely resembles the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, except that he has added the words,
"where requested to do so by the person with care"
With respect, I must say that reinforces the arguments I put on a previous occasion, particularly as the noble Lord has already acknowledged that the situation when a parent with care is in receipt of income support will normally not be a problem because income support payments can be adjusted very quickly to take account of circumstances where maintenance has not been paid. The noble Lord said that the median was about 11 days to process a claim for income support.

1841
I believe that our record is much better than that. We have a target of five days, and that target is met on many occasions. We do not therefore believe that the parent with care will suffer.
The noble Lord pressed me on the matter of family credit. He was anxious about parents with care in receipt of family credit. As the noble Lord knows, this is a fixed rate benefit paid for a period of 26 weeks. During this period changes in income or circumstances will not alter the level of benefit payable. Paying family credit gross would involve a revision of the amount of family credit every time the rate of maintenance changed. This would erode a fundamental principle of family credit that the rate of benefit should not be reviewed. It would not be right to allow a review of entitlement to benefit following a change in one source of income, but not following changes in other forms of income. That would probably introduce extra complexities into the family credit scheme that would not be helpful and might lead to delays in the processing of claims.
The noble Lord made some further points but I am afraid that I have momentarily forgotten them. I hope that I may write to the noble Lord because I suspect this hour of the night is not the right time to deal with those matters.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. My intention was to obtain some final clarification on the points that I raised. I admit the points are rather complicated. I mentioned a period of 12 days. That was taken from the Government's White Paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Special cases]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Contribution to maintenance by deduction from benefit]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 25, line 38, at end insert:
("() The power referred to in subsection (2) shall not be exercised where an absent parent is in receipt of income support and that benefit is subject to deduction by virtue of any of the following—

(a) Regulation 22 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987;

(b) section 105 of the Housing Benefits (General) Regulations 1987;

(c) Regulation 87(5) of the Community Charge Benefit (General) Regulations 1989;

(d) subsections (6) and (7) of section 33 of the Social Security Act 1986;

(e) Schedule 9 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987;

or where a sum is being recovered by weekly instalments from a benefit where it has been determined that there has been a recoverable overpayment under section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a brand new amendment. It could not have been moved previously because it would have been unnecessary if I had succeeded in carrying an amendment which I pressed to a Division on Report. The effect of this amendment is to deal with the case of the absent parent on income support who is at present assessed to pay 5 per cent.
1842
towards maintenance. The point of the amendment is to say that this should not apply if the absent parent is already the subject of a reduced benefit direction.
The amendment is designed to give effect to paragraph 17 of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. Therefore it has some outside opinion behind it. The vital point here is the point about which we have been arguing for some time; that is, whether it is reasonable to ask people to live below income support level. So far as I can see, it is assumed by practically everybody who advises us—as it has always been assumed by me—that income support is a subsistence benefit. In fact there is a growing body of opinion arguing that income support is not even adequate to be a subsistence benefit.
When we discussed the related amendment on Report, my noble kinsman said categorically that income support is not a subsistence benefit. It appears to be his opinion that subsistence level is somewhere below income support. If he is to use that opinion to persuade the House to reach a conclusion on any particular amendment, he is bound to tell us what he thinks subsistence level is. I do not of course expect an answer to that point; but I have given my noble kinsman notice of it. I give him notice that if I do not receive an answer to that point tonight, this will not be the last time that I ask him about it. We need to know what the Government think subsistence level is. They seem to have been doing some questionable thinking on this. As they have been using that questionable thinking as a premise for a great many measures about which we have had a good deal of argument, it is worth getting at the root assumption. That will save us all a great deal of trouble. This is a very limited amendment and it is a very practical one. It has good opinion behind it. I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to answer my noble kinsman very briefly, he said that it is not a new amendment. However, as he said, it is very similar to previous amendments on which we have had similar discussions on previous occasions.
Yet again the noble Earl claimed that income support is a subsistence benefit. I am glad that he repeated that I have denied that it is a subsistence benefit. I have never claimed that it is a subsistence benefit. He demanded to know what is subsistence level, the implication being that it must be below income support levels. That is not a question to which there is any answer. However, I can say that we have no evidence that people are not able to survive on income support. We have no evidence that people cannot survive even when deductions are made from income support—and the noble Earl knows that there are a great many occasions on which deductions are made from income support.
I do not think it right to proceed on the lines of the amendment and specify that if certain deductions are made from benefit no deduction could be made from the income support of the liable parent.
Obviously I shall not satisfy the noble Earl on this occasion, and I do not think that I shall be able to satisfy him on future occasions. I believe it is a matter

1843
on which we shall have to agree to disagree. I do not accept his argument that income support is a subsistence benefit.
10. 15 p. m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. It is a fair one. I accept that we shall continue to disagree. However, I should like rather more precision about exactly what it is that we disagree about. My noble kinsman says that he has no evidence that people cannot live adequately on income support. I should like to draw to his attention the research done by Melanie Henwood for the King's Fund, published last year, on the number of cold weather deaths in this country, in other countries in Western Europe and in the United States. This country comes very near the top of the league. I do not find that altogether a cause for satisfaction.
In asking whether I have any evidence that people cannot live on income support, my noble kinsman has not asked the right question. The question we are discussing here is whether people can live at levels below income support. It is a fact, whether it causes
1844
hardship or not, that a number of people do live on income support. What is causing the argument is the evident belief in the Department of Social Security that people can live adequately on levels below income support. That is a rather surprising view. I have been asking my noble kinsman to justify it because it does not prima facie appear to me to be convincing. He has not justified it.
I shall not divide the House tonight, but I shall ask him the question again. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 26, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert ("after consultation with").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I beg to move Amendment No. 47, which has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Supplementary powers to make regulations]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
Page 27, line 18, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am told that it would be very inconvenient if discussion on this Bill goes beyond 11 o' clock. As it is quite obvious that no argument is going to make the slightest difference to the Government's reception of any amendment, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
Page 27, line 33, after ("10(2)") insert ("24(7)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the very important matter of parliamentary control of delegated legislation. Ordinarily there would be a great deal that requires to be said but it cannot properly be said now. I am afraid that Amendment No. 49 is printed incorrectly owing to my bad handwriting and the fact that I did not see the printed version until I got to London. I therefore do not move Amendment No. 49.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 27, line 33, after ("35") insert ("36(7)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 refers to a Henry VIII clause which quite plainly falls within the first heading of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation; in other words, it is not trivial, it is not tidying up and it is not consequential. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at the risk of giving the lie to what my noble and learned friend said in respect of Amendment No. 48, I am prepared to accept this amendment in principle. The only problem is that one needs to refer to more than Section 36(7), because the powers are really contained in the earlier parts of the clause. But in principle I accept this amendment and undertake to bring forward the necessary amendment in due course. I hope that, this being the last amendment that my noble and learned friend has on the Marshalled List on this occasion, he may feel that it has been worth waiting for.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I thought that there were difficulties in addition to the one that he described in the way that the provision is framed. But
I am grateful for his consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 64:
Page 28, line 16, leave out ("1990") and insert ("1991").
1846
Page 28, line 27, at end insert:
("general qualification" shall be construed in accordance with section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (qualification for judicial appointments)").
Clause 42, page 29, line 41, leave out ("do so") and insert ("fall within that subsection").
Clause 44, page 30, line 40, at end insert:
("(6A) Until Schedule 1 to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991 comes into force, paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 shall have effect with the omission of the words" and disability appeal tribunals" and the insertion, after "social security appeal tribunals", of the word" and".").
Schedule 1, page 31, line 18, leave out ("him") and insert ("the qualifying child").
Schedule 3, page 38, line 34, at end insert:
("(2A) Subject to any regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, no person shall be nominated as a chairman of a child support appeal tribunal by virtue of paragraph 3(2) (a) unless he has a 5 year general qualification or is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of 5 years' standing.").
Page 38, line 35, leave out ("after consultation with the Lord Advocate").
Page 38, line 38, leave out from ("qualification") to first ("or"), in line 39.
Page 38, line 45, leave out ("after consulting the Lord Advocate").
Page 39, line 2, leave out ("after consultation with the Lord Advocate").
Page 39, line 9, after first ("of") insert ("such").
Page 40, line 3, at end insert:
("Consultation with Lord Advocate
8. Before exercising any of his powers under paragraph 3(2A) or 4(1), (4) or (5), the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Lord Advocate").
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONERS
Tenure of office
1.—(1) Every Child Support Commissioner shall vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72.
(2) Where the Lord Chancellor considers it desirable in the public interest to retain a Child Support Commissioner in office after the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72, he may from time to time authorise the continuance of that Commissioner in office until any date not later than that on which he reaches the age of 75.
(3) A Child Support Commissioner may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.
Commissioners' remuneration and their pensions
2.—(l) The Lord Chancellor may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of persons appointed as Child Support Commissioners as, with the consent of the Treasury, he may determine.
(2) The Lord Chancellor shall pay to a Child Support Commissioner such expenses incurred in connection with his work as such a Commissioner as may be determined by the Treasury.
Commissioners barred from legal practice
3. Section 75 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (judges etc. barred from legal practice) shall apply to any person appointed as a Child Support Commissioner as it applies to any person holding as a full-time appointment any of the offices listed in Schedule 11 to that Act.
Deputy Child Support Commissioners
4.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint persons to act as Child Support Commissioners (but to be known as deputy Child Support Commissioners) in order to facilitate the disposal of the business of Child Support Commissioners.
(2) A deputy Child Support Commissioner shall beappointed—

(a) from among persons who have a 10 year general qualification or are advocates or solicitors in Scotland of 10 years' standing; and

(b) for such period or on such occasions as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit.

(3) Paragraph 2 applies to deputy Child Support Commissioners as if the reference to pensions were omitted and paragraph 3 does not apply to them.
Tribunals of Commissioners
5.—(1) If it appears to the Chief Child Support Commissioner (or, in the case of his inability to act, to such other of the Child Support Commissioners as he may have nominated to act for the purpose) that an appeal falling to be heard by one of the Child Support Commissioners involves a question of law of special difficulty, he may direct that the appeal to dealt with by a tribunal consisting of any three of the Chili Support Commissioners.
(2) If the decision of such a tribunal is not unanimous, the decision of the majority shall be the decision of the tribunal.
Finality of decisions
6.—(1) Subject to section (Appeal from Child Support Commissioner on point of law), the decision of any Child Support Commissioner shall be final.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not be taken to make any finding of fact or other determination embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which it is based, conclusive for the purposes of any further decision.
Consultation with Lord Advocate
7. Before exercising any of his powers under paragraph 1(2) or (3) or 4(1) or (2) (b), the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Lord Advocate.").
Schedule 4, page 40, line 15, second column, at end insert:
("(b) A Child Support Commissioner appointed under section (Child Support Commissioners) of the Child Support Act 1991 and any tribunal presided over by such a Commissioner.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken, on one basis or another, to all the amendments from No. 51 to No. 64. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
10.21 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, this Bill, despite all your Lordships' efforts, discriminates against caring parents and their children who are poor and in receipt of state benefits. It also discriminates against fathers who maintain step-children. It deprives our courts of some of their hallowed jurisdiction and deprives litigants of recourse to the courts and the right to legal aid.
Put simply, the Bill puts money before children; for example, the extraordinary formula in Schedule 1, with its 10 equations, is designed to save expenditure on state benefits, and that is the primary purpose of
1848
the Bill. We heard earlier today about good value for money in a certain report from the Lord Chancellor's Department. The department which will get good value for money from this Bill is the Treasury. We have, of course, made some headway in improving this Bill by the rejection of Clause 22, the proposals on Clause 13 and, only today, the acceptance by the Government of the new clause dealing with the welfare of the child.
A very effective criticism of the Bill, even as amended by your Lordships, came in the recent report of the Family Policy Studies Centre Supporting our Children and that of the Social Security Committee in another place entitled Changes in Maintenance. Arrangements. This was the report which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mishcon earlier today.
The report of the Family Policy Studies Centre is indeed extremely critical and I shall quote it only very briefly. The centre points out that, as most lone-parent families claim income support, this means that 62 per cent. of all children living with one parent would be no better off. Of those in families dependent upon social security fewer than 9 per cent. would benefit and they would have to come off income support to do so:
"An opportunity may have been lost to allow them to benefit directly at what is often the most critical time for them (both socially and emotionally) and when maintenance is most likely to be paid, namely in the first few years of their lone-parenthood".
The whole proposal fuels criticism that Ministers' primary concern is to cut social security costs. The report of the Select Committee on Social Security in another place is equally critical of the retrospective effect of some parts of the Bill.
As I said, we feel that the Bill is disappointing in both its social security and legal aspects. We have tried hard to amend it and ameliorate its worst effects on the income of lone parents but we have not been very successful. Indeed, at times Mr. Gradgrind would have been very much at home in giving the Government's response. We have not succeeded as we should have wished. We must hope that when the Bill reaches another place the Government may be able to accept at least some of the powerful arguments that have been advanced by numerous organisations which have expressed a great deal of concern about the Bill and its effects.
My strictures on the Bill do not in any way relate personally to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or his noble friend Lord Henley. As always, they have been unfailingly courteous throughout the passage of the Bill and extremely helpful outside the Chamber and by letter in explaining a number of complicated points that have arisen in the course of our debates. We feel that the Bill remains a bad Bill but we have improved it to some extent and we must be thankful for that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to express my warmest gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble kinsman Lord Henley for the way in which they have managed this Bill. Never can so bad a Bill have been managed so well. Being up against the noble and learned Lord in this Chamber is a fascinating experience. He has an

1849
essentially judicial mind. It is always possible to persuade him, but often he makes one work for it. Yet one occasion during the passage of this Bill has for me been quite memorable when he did not do that. He accepted an amendment which I tabled at Report stage but did not even move. He went away, thought about the matter and decided that the case for it was sound and that he would accept it. Fair-mindedness cannot go further. That is the spirit which in this Chamber we must welcome very warmly indeed.
My noble kinsman knows how grateful I am to him for the trouble that he has taken in the discussions between us and for the care and courtesy with which he has handled all the arguments. I should like to thank him, not for the first time and I am sure not for the last time.
As for the Bill itself, on 30th April we listened to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, hold forth about the evils of the single issue Bill. I know that this is not in strict form a single issue Bill but in effect it is. It is a Bill for the benefit of the taxpayer. I welcome the principle behind it—the noble and learned Lord may remember that in a statement on October 24th I welcomed the principle of the Bill itself, and I still do—but I have become convinced that the pursuit of that principle is a little obsessive. There are problems that have not been addressed or not adequately addressed.
The problem of the second family is not addressed adequately. I believe that the formula will give rise to many more problems than have yet been foreseen. There is a problem of arbitrary power, on which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, held forth with great eloquence and very valuably. There are problems of drafting that have not been addressed. Above all, when this Bill reaches the statute book, if it does in anything like its present form, there will be colossal problems of enforceability. I do not believe that the Government have yet thought about how bad they will be.
When they think about putting the Bill together in another place, they will have to make revisions somewhere. If they should choose to accept the deletion of Clause 22 there will obviously be consequential amendments to Clause 5. If they do not choose to accept it, they may have to look again at the wording of Clause 5. In that area there has to be some adjustment. What strikes me is—if I may adapt the famous saying—that you may coerce all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time but you cannot coerce all of the people all of the time. One can coerce one of the parents all the time; or one can coerce all the parents some of the time. In fact one can coerce the mother or one can coerce the father, but if one sets out to coerce both the mother and the father at the same time, the administrative problems of enforcement will be greater than can be handled.
I believe that the Bill can work only if it is effected on a voluntary base, with the word "shall" at the beginning of Clause 5 replaced by the permissive "may" so that the Bill works only if the mother wishes.
1850
Some people may think that right; some may think it wrong. In either case, I believe that it is the only way in which the Bill will work.
Attempts to force women to name the father have been going on for centuries. I heard only last Monday about an attempt to refuse them churching after deliverance if they did not name the father. That coercion failed. All other attempts have failed. If the measures are persisted in, they too will fail. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place that factor will be seriously considered.
10. 30 p. m
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, first, perhaps I should commend the usual channels for their foresight in removing the debate on the Atomic Weapons Establishments Bill from the Order Paper. Some of us would have sat in the Chamber until very late had they not had such foresight. However, as my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have already done, I too should like to commend the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their courtesy throughout the Bill and indeed for their attention to the amendments and the arguments put forward by many noble Lords. I believe that they have been most helpful, and have certainly tried to meet many of the objections of noble Lords.
However, despite that courtesy and their attention, I remain convinced that the Bill is bad. As we discussed it, I realised that it is worse than I had thought at the beginning. As my noble friend pointed out, some improvements have been made. Nevertheless, I believe that it is fundamentally a bad Bill. It is not about child support. It will injure rather than support the interests of many children. Unfortunately I cannot erase from my mind the thought that the provisions of the Bill save the Treasury£400 million. For that reason, the Bill fails, and will continue to fail, in its objective.
Today we have had arguments about imprisonment, inspectors calling, and so on. I do not wish to return to those. However, during Committee and Report stages, I raised the subject of the so-called virgin births and the position of parents in relation to artificial insemination by donor. Make no mistake about it, my Lords, that is a matter which will have to be addressed. It continues to worry me because there will not be equity between children born by AID, where no husband or male partner is involved, and the child of a father who has been physically involved in a relationship. One cannot make fish of one and fowl of the other.
Furthermore, I have a further worry. Men do not yet understand the situation. If a man simply accompanies a woman to an AID centre, from then on—whether or not he has had any physical relations with the woman—he may be deemed to be the father.
That is the position under Clause 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and it must be addressed in relation to this Bill. Instead of the Bills being considered together they have, unfortunately, been considered in isolation. I am confident that had that Act been considered at the same time as this Bill

1851
the provisions would have been different in both Bills. Quite clearly that was impossible. I tried to deal with the matter by tabling an amendment. That failed because it could not deal adequately with the position.
The situation must be addressed. I hope to have conversations with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to ascertain what can be done to put the situation on a proper basis. I hope that further improvements will be made to the Bill in another place. If Members in another place give it the close attention that we have given to it they may be successful. I hope that they will be listened to with the degree of courtesy that we have received.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall make my briefest speech in this long series of debates. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We always heap praise upon him because, he deserves it. He is a most patient man and shows great courtesy under trying circumstances. We thank him for that. I also thank the eight noble Lords who are now present in the Chamber for the work that they have done in shouldering so much of our tiresome efforts on the Bill.
Finally, perhaps I may issue a whip for tomorrow. There will be some satisfaction to be found if noble Lords will attend for the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991. It expands the role of veterinary surgeons on the treatment and welfare of companion animals and will prohibit the docking of dogs' tails. That will be an achievement for all noble Lords tomorrow morning when we deal with the order. I shall not send a written whip but shall rely on seeing noble Lords present tomorrow.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my speech will be even more brief than that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I shall say my last farewell to the Bill From this House with these words. My mother, who was a dedicated teacher, somewhat sentimentally referred to her children as the nation's treasures. I wish that the Bill forwarded the interests of the nation's treasures, but I have found that it looks only at the interests of the nation's Treasury.
I echo the compliments that have been paid to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Henley. They were always courteous, always prepared to listen, always patient and usually not forthcoming. However, we have greatly appreciated the occasions when they have been forthcoming.
I wish to repeat the tribute that I paid on a previous occasion to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He has spent hours and hours in this House until late in the evening in order to give us his invaluable views, not only on the brevity which statutes should be able to attain but also the benefit of his great knowledge of constitutional law and how evil is the memory of Henry VIII when it attaches to clauses.
The other gallant person whom I wish to mention is my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He treads a lone course, he treads it with great ability and tenacity and we admire the way in which he expresses his views, even if we do not agree with them.
1852
I wish also to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He has spent many hours giving the benefit of his views to this House. I believe we should now be able to go home feeling that we have endeavoured to do our duty. These are the closing passages in this House of a Bill which could have been good if only the spirit behind it had been right.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be appropriate for me to be brief on this occasion. I am grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in our debates: the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Carter, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, the noble Baroness, Lady David, who achieved quite a success, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am grateful to them all for their interest and for the spirit in which matters have been addressed. We did not agree all the time but I believe that we came to understand fully the points being made on both sides of the argument.
I am a grateful also for the contributions from the Cross-Benches, especially from my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Not only his knowledge of constitutional law but his knowledge of all law is general, deep and always available to put the Government's proposals to a rigorous test.
I should like to thank my noble friends Lady Faithfull, Lady Elles, Lord Coleraine and Lord Renton. I express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my noble friend Lord Henley. He has special responsibilities which he has discharged with great skill and courtesy. I am particularly grateful to him for the willingness he has shown in making himself available at short notice when I am not able to be here and, perhaps even more, his willingness when I suddenly reappear in time to respond to a debate.
I should like to thank also the voluntary organisations which have taken an interest in this Bill and have kept this House informed of their practical experience. That is very important. They have not all agreed on every matter. They have different points of view and represent different interests. In this House—I have no experience of the other place—their knowledge and experience, so freely given, is a tremendous advantage to us in the course of our debates.
During its passage through your Lordships' House, the Bill has been amended. We have been persuaded of the need to make amendments. The principle of the Bill is good and I believe that it puts the nation's treasures first. There is inevitably an effect on the nation's Treasury; but there are many of the nation's treasures who have no direct call on the Treasury. I believe that the Bill provides a machinery for giving caring parents what they have long wished for—an effective means of securing proper maintenance from the responsible parent who is absent.
The Bill now goes to another place with the undertakings that we have given. I hope that it will return in due course to enable your Lordships to approve the amendments which I have undertaken to carry out and to which my noble friend referred also.
We come to the conclusion of what have been long discussions, but about an extremely important

1853
subject. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed with us until this stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS: PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION
  FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS: PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION
  SEVERE WEATHER
  SEVERE WEATHER