Sitting of 20 February 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read a Third time on Monday 24 February at Seven o'clock.
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Monday 24 February at Seven o'Clock.
  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)
  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police Authorities
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to police authorities.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We have no plans to change the existing arrangements for the constitution of police authorities, where two thirds of the members are local councillors and one third are local magistrates.
    Mr. Paice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent opinion poll only 8 per cent. of the respondents supported the idea that police authorities should consist only of elected members? Is it surprising that the public should resist such an attempt to politicise the police, despite the fact that it is the policy of the Opposition?
    Mr. Baker: As far as I can see, it is the only policy that will appear in Labour's manifesto, in that Labour want fully elected police authorities. There is no popular support for that and there is no evidence that policing is made more effective by tinkering with the membership of the police authority. In my judgment, magistrates add an important element of non-political independence to any police authority and they help to improve the effectiveness of that authority. We remain strongly opposed to bringing police forces under total local political control.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that in London there is a majority in favour of Labour's proposal to set up an elected police authority for the Greater London area? We already have one elected police authority in London—in the City of London. Is the Secretary of State further aware that the proposal is welcomed not only by the majority of Londoners, but by all the senior officers of Scotland Yard? What has he got to say to that?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents that opinion of senior police officers of the Metropolitan police. I know perfectly well that when he was chairman of the Greater London council he wanted an elected police authority, and I think that he wanted to be chairman of it—
    Mr. Tony Banks: No.
    Mr. Baker: I can think of nothing more damaging to law and order in the metropolis than having the hon. Gentleman as chairman of such an authority.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary has just misled the House. He is a liar.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment, even though I was on my feet.
    Mr. Banks: If the Secretary of State withdraws his allegation, I will withdraw my accusation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No ifs and buts, please.
    Mr. Banks: I called the Home Secretary a liar. It is true and I regret it.
    Mr. Speaker: That compounds the offence. The hon. Gentleman must not call an hon. Member a liar.
    Mr. Banks: I withdraw it, Sir.

    Police Expenditure
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extra police expenditure resulting from the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 is estimated at £930,000 for 1991–92.
    Mr. Townsend: On reflection, does my right hon. Friend agree that precious police resources—the figure of £2 million has been mentioned—should not be used on vindictive, Soviet or Israeli-type show trials which are bound to be a travesty of British justice as practised by this country for a long time? Should not the money be used instead to deal with rapists, murderers and muggers in my constituency and in other parts of Greater London today?
    Mr. Patten: There are two points there. I respect my hon. Friend's strong personal feelings, but I point out to him that Parliament has expressed its view very strongly. It is now up to those charged with the duty of investigating alleged crimes to do so. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that no Government have brought the police force to such a level as this Conservative Government have done. It is better manned, it has more resources and it is better equipped than any police force in British history.
    Mr. Winnick: I totally disagree with what the Minister said about police resources. We know only too well of the crime wave in this country.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Friday, on a delegation to Kiev, I took the opportunity—as I had always promised myself that I would if ever I were in Kiev —to visit Babi Yar, just outside the city limits, where in two years of Nazi terror and occupation tens of thousands of people were murdered? There is a monument to those who fell—men, women, children, babes in arms and the aged. Why should those responsible for such crimes and atrocities against humanity go scot free because they have managed to escape justice for 50 years?
    Mr. Patten: I appreciate the effect that the hon. Gentleman's visit, of which I was not aware, must have had on him. Parliament has already expressed its view that investigations should proceed and, if necessary, prosecutions should be brought. It is then a matter for due process of law before a trial judge and jury as to whether people are found guilty and punished.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he implies any strictures at all, he should be aware of the amount of help that has been given to the police force since 1979. He should recall that in the last two years of the last Labour Government, up to 5,000 police men and women were leaving the police force each year and voting with their feet.
    Sir John Farr: Is it not time to cease the spiteful vendetta against a group of pathetic old people who really have nothing left to offer?
    Mr. Patten: Again, I respect my hon. Friend's strongly held personal views, but Parliament has expressed its views and I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave to the two previous questions.

    Drugs
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information on drug shipments and drug seizures from illegal traffic from European countries and from other countries is shared with United Kingdom, European countries and other interested organisations.
    Mr. John Patten: Responsibility for combating drug trafficking is shared between Her Majesty's Custom and Excise and the police service. There are close and developing links with other European countries and elsewhere. In some of those countries, those links are enhanced by the posting or exchange of drugs liaison officers. Effective exchange of information is essential, and we devote considerable efforts to that. The United Kingdom also plays a full role in the work of international organisations—in particular, Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council.
    Mr. McFall: I am sure that the Minister will congratulate Customs and Excise on the record seizures of drugs that it has undertaken. Nevertheless, heroin is still coming into this country at an increasing rate, and something must be done to control it. In view of the recent "Dispatches" television programme, has the Minister conducted an inquiry into how the police, Customs and Excise and the security services work together and how they share information with other countries so as to reduce the hard drugs problem that each and every hon. Member sees weekly in his or her constituency?
    Mr. Patten: I agree that it is a serious problem—and not, I hope, one for party political debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that co-operation between the services—customs and the police at frontiers and at ports of entry —is very close indeed. Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they possibly can to cut off overland supplies of heroin, in particular, coming along the so-called Balkan route. In the next few months, with British taxpayers' money, we shall be setting up a national drugs intelligence unit in Czechoslovakia to try to intercept drugs coming overland. We hope shortly to do the same in Hungary.
    Mr. Soames: Would it not be a good idea if the airlines, when checking in passengers in those countries from which large quantities of drugs come to this country, were to hand each passenger a paper in his or her own language clearly explaining that if they bring drugs into the United Kingdom they are likely to be caught and, if they are caught, they are likely to go away for a very long time indeed?
    Mr. Patten: That is an interesting thought from my hon. Friend and I shall pursue it. The effect on anyone flying into Kuala Lumpur and hearing a Malaysian Airlines hostess saying, "You are about to land in Kuala Lumpur: if you bring drugs into our country, the penalty

    449
    is death by hanging" must be very salutary indeed. We do not have that penalty, but we have life imprisonment—which means between 20 to 30 years in the case of some of those convicted in the most serious cases. The notice to which my hon. Friend referred is a very good idea indeed.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the shadow Home Secretary?"] My right hon. Friend is presenting awards at an important lunch. The Minister of State does not want to make this a political issue, but I want to make two important political points. It is all very well for the Government to pretend to mount a campaign against drugs and drug imports, but at the same time they have allowed another Department, the Treasury—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear—to cut 400 customs officer jobs. Customs officers are the front-line troops. They are the people who stop drugs flowing into Britain. The Government have also allowed the Port of London police to be privatised What does that do for the campaign against drug imports?
    Mr. Patten: What a rant—the hon. Gentleman gives his well-known imitation of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but without the charm and lightness of touch. The Government are spending about half a billion pounds per year dealing with the serious international problems caused by drug traffickers trying to bring drugs into Britain. I would hope for a little bipartisan support for the sort of work done, for example, by our drugs liaison officers abroad, who have brought about such successful seizures of heroin and other drugs in recent months.

    Car Crime
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on new initiatives undertaken by car manufacturers as part of his strategy to defeat car crime.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am glad to report that in the past few months we have made real progress with the car manufacturers. I have had three meetings with them and our manufacturers are committed to improving the security of their cars and, in particular, introducing immobilising devices, deadlocks and visible identification numbers. Much has been done in the past few months, but more needs to be done. I am meeting the manufacturers again early in March.
    Mr. Hague: I welcome the moves made so far by my right hon. Friend to encourage manufacturers to make cars more defensible. Will he undertake to include the insurance industry in his fight against car crime and encourage it to give financial incentives by way of lower premiums to owners who improve the security of their vehicles?
    Mr. Baker: I have had two meetings with the Association of British Insurers. At the first, there was not much co-operation, but I am glad to say that in October the association announced a scheme similar to that which my hon. Friend suggested—to offer discounts to certain car owners who have security devices fitted when the car is being made in the factory. It has also introduced excess payments for when goods are stolen from people's cars. That is a beginning, but I expect the insurance industry to do much more in helping to reduce car crime.
    Mr. William Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that any measures taken to increase car security will be welcome in Northern Ireland, where stolen vehicles are so often used in terrorist murders and other such crimes? Will he also ask the manufacturers to consider the possibility of installing devices to enable stolen cars to be traced, so that if a terrorist murder is committed the police can get on the track quickly?
    Mr. Baker: I acknowledge that in Northern Ireland cars are used extensively for terrorist activities, quite apart from normal criminal activities to support terrorism. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad to say that work is being done on such devices so that we can trace cars more effectively. All those measures must be taken because cars are now involved in 30 per cent. of all crime. Unfortunately, that is a record unique to Britain. We have a uniquely high level of car crime and we must all do something to reduce it.
    Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of that car crime is carried out by juveniles and how many of them come into the category of persistent offenders?
    Mr. Baker: A large proportion of car crime is carried out by young males between the ages of 12 and 22. I must ask my right hon. Friend to wait for an answer to his question about persistent offenders. I shall be making a statement in the next few days about offending while on bail.
    Mr. Darling: It must be six years since the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) first met the manufacturers. Since then, there have been about half a dozen glitzy launches—featuring among others, the Home Secretary grinning into the television cameras, telling us that something was going to be done some time. Is it not time that the Government forced the pace and, if necessary, made regulations requiring manufacturers to incorporate safety procedures? We do that regularly for aviation safety matters. Why cannot the Government force the pace, make real progress and do something about reducing what the Home Secretary acknowledges is the fastest growing crime?
    Mr. Baker: Progress is being made. Significant changes have been made during the past few months. As a result of my promptings, car manufacturers are committed to introducing immobilising devices on all new cars by the end of the year. In addition, I have put the matter on the agenda for the Ministers of the Interior of our partners in Europe, because I want a European standard with tighter security applying to all cars made in Europe and sold in this country.

    National Drugs Intelligence Unit
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual budget of the national drugs intelligence unit.
    Mr. John Patten: The annual budget for 1991–92 is £5·2 million.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Minister agree that something must be done to control imports of the drug known as Ecstasy, which is not merely creeping into schools in London but has reached teenagers in my constituency in

    451
    south Devon? Is he aware that that drug is not grown on some poppy field in South America but that 98 per cent. of it is manufactured in Holland, which is one of our EC partners? The Dutch have been very lax in dealing with that. What does my right hon. Friend think that we could do to stop the drug being imported into this country, or arranging some reciprocal arrangement whereby we would stop importing Dutch cheese or some such thing?
    Mr. Patten: I do not know about that kind of radical suggestion, but the police were very successful last year in closing down four domestic manufacturers of Ecstasy—hence the fact that most of the drug being sold on our streets comes from abroad, some from continental Europe. That is why it is so important that, as one of the conclusions of the Maastricht settlement, it was agreed that the 12 countries should set up an organisation loosely known as Europol whose first job would be to set up a Europeanwide drugs intelligence unit among the Twelve, which should lead to a greater level of co-operation with our continental partners to stop Ecstasy and other drugs coming into the country.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How do we know that the drugs enforcement authorities are doing their job when there is no point at which they are democratically accountable to elected people? Is that not a pertinent question in the context of the millions of pounds worth of drugs on the streets throughout the United Kingdom? Where is the process of accountability whereby elected people can ask questions such as, "What are you doing to stop it?"
    Mr. Patten: There are thousands of police officers in the 17 drugs wings who are accountable to the police authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I come to this place to answer questions about them. Also we have democratic accountability for the customs service, which is deeply involved. Occasionally it is important to ensure that people are protected, such as the brave police officers, both men and women—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has not time to listen—who serve abroad as drugs liaison officers on difficult and dangerous work. We should support them and not seek to undermine them.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have lost a young constituent to one Ecstasy tablet? It is a killer drug. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charity Release is putting out the leaflet that I have here, which dupes young people into the belief that Ecstasy is somehow not a harmful drug? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to withdraw all Government funding for that organisation until it sends a clear message to young people about drugs—"No, no, and no"?
    Mr. Patten: I shall read carefully the evidence that my hon. Friend will probably wish to send me about the document to which he referred. I agree entirely that Ecstasy is a drug which can kill. The first reported death was in 1989 and there were five deaths last year. Ecstasy kills because it affects the respiratory system and causes lung failure and hence death. Also clear evidence is emerging that, unfortunately, long-term psychotic effects may be involved. That is why we are absolutely determined to make sure that the advice that reaches young people is correct. My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on advice
    452
    that he thinks is wrong. That is why I give a clear undertaking that our answer to pleas to legalise the use of soft drugs will be no, no, and no again.
    Miss Lestor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of ranting and raving as I am always the sweet face of reason.
    I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) about the dangers of Ecstasy. There is not a parent of teenage children who is not worried out of their life about the use of cocaine, Ecstasy and heroin, especially when our children can obtain them almost without question anywhere in the country, even in the constituency of South Hams. The Minister has few suggestions on how to combat that problem and the Government have cut the number of customs officers by 400. I believe that all parents would rather pay increased taxes or not receive tax cuts if that would deal with the problem. Why has the number of customs officers been cut when only recently an amount of Ecstasy was seized at Sheerness and cocaine is periodically seized in various parts of the country? Such a cut is a false economy and it is killing our children.
    Mr. Patten: I enjoyed the hon. Lady's charmed offensive and I would never in any circumstances dream of comparing her with her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
    I have two things to say in response. First, customs have been extremely successful this year with record seizures of Ecstasy. Secondly, the hon. Lady does not seem to be aware that 17 drug prevention teams have been established in areas where Ecstasy and other drugs are being consumed in large amounts and sold on the streets. I visited the drug prevention team in Newham only last week. I have also seen the excellent work being done on prevention in schools and with young people to get across the message, which must be repeated year after year as children come into the consuming group, about the dangers of drug abuse. The work of the drug prevention teams deserves the support of the whole House.

    Police Clerical Posts
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the civilianisation of police clerical posts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): In the past eight years, some 5,400 police officers have been freed for operational policing duties by civilianising posts which do not require the powers or skills of a police officer, representing an efficiency gain of around £100 million per year.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he extend his congratulations to the West Midlands police, who have civilianised 413 posts since 1985? Does not that suggest how we can release police officers to duties within the community at very little cost to the police authority?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly extend my congratulations to the West Midlands police. It has done well and civilianised 73 per cent. of the posts identified, but, even though it has done very well, it has somewhat further to go.
    Mr. Alton: In the light of the 86 per cent. increase in robberies on Merseyside in the past 13 years, does the Minister agree that the freeing of police officers through the civilianisation of posts should give Merseyside police the chance to put more policemen back on to the beat? Does he further agree that there is a need to reopen neighbourhood police stations and to put more emphasis on community policing?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right about the benefits from civilianisation. That suggests to me that he supports the policy of sector policing that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put his weight behind. That policy means that the police identify with the local community that they serve.
    Sir Peter Emery: In parallel with civilianisation of the police, will my hon. Friend ensure that instructions are given to all chief constables to increase further the designation of special constables and to increase the special constabulary, which would lead to more bobbies on the beat? Is that not the best discouragement to crime and an encouragement to those elderly people who fear being attacked on the streets?
    Mr. Lloyd: Our objective is that the number of special constables should equal about 20 per cent. of the regular police force. The campaigns that we have been conducting are moving in that direction because special constables have a particularly valuable part to play.
    Mr. Randall: On the question of police numbers, why has the Minister constantly refused to provide chief constables with the number of police officers that they need to reduce crime? Why do not the Government copy Labour's policy of supporting our police forces by substantially increasing the number of bobbies on the beat in a self-financing fashion?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box to suggest that the Government follow Labour's policy. When the Labour Government left office, they left the police force about 7,000 under strength.

    Travellers
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the penalties for the unlawful occupation of private or public land by traveller families; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The main criminal penalties for unlawful occupation of land, under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986, are fines. The maximum level of all fines will increase when the Criminal Justice Act 1991 takes effect in October.
    Mr. Dunn: Does the Minister realise that traveller families pose an immense law and order problem to local authorities and the police, especially in north-west Kent? Will he therefore liaise with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment so that a joint effort can be made to give the law the rigour to prohibit the illegal occupation of public and private land by traveller families?
    Mr. Lloyd: I well understand, as my county has similar problems involving unlawful occupation of sites by gipsies and other travelling folk. As my hon. Friend implies, the
    454
    principal Act belongs to the Department of the Environment—the Caravan Sites Act 1968. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recognises that there can be difficulties with that Act and is considering whether a review would be helpful. However, local authorities have had a duty, since 1968, to provide adequate sites for gipsies normally resorting to their area and, where they have done so to the satisfaction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, they have criminal powers to remove illegal campers.
    Mr. Trimble: Would it be possible to have another look at the last provision that the Minister mentioned, which imposes on local authorities a duty to provide sites for travellers? Why should they have to facilitate what is, in all its aspects, an anti-social form of life and thus impose a loss on rate and charge payers, who then have to put up with such sites in their neighbourhood?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty of moving on people who lead a nomadic lifestyle when there is nowhere to move them to. As I said, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is concerned about the issue and I shall draw the remarks that have been made today to his attention.
    Sir George Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware that section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 has proved something of a disappointment in protecting those whose homes are near tracts of land that are habitually invaded by travellers? Does he agree that those peaceful citizens have their rights too, particularly against the disturbance, disorder and disruption that is often brought by those people? Is not further legislation urgently needed?
    Mr. Lloyd: Section 39 is available for the police to use at their discretion. It was designed to deal with seriously aggravated unlawful occupation, not to undermine the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which is the basic legislation in that area. We have no plans to change section 39. It was recently reviewed and guidance was issued, but we shall examine how that guidance has been used.
    Mr. Madden: While I recognise that the occupation of unofficial sites can cause a severe nuisance to settled communities, surely the Minister must appreciate that the only proper way of dealing with the matter is to enforce the 1968 legislation. How can he justify the fact that, so long after that legislation was introduced, local authorities such as Kirklees and Calderdale have made absolutely no permanent provision with proper facilities to provide proper homes for travelling people?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. In not getting themselves designated, county councils cause problems for their local residents, as they are unable to achieve the powers that would enable them to deal with unlawful campers.

    West Yorkshire Police Authority
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision relating to West Yorkshire police authority's application for a £3.6 million grant from the urban crime fund.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We expect to receive details of applications from all those eligible, including West Yorkshire, later this month, and to make decisions by the end of March.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the residents of West Yorkshire will be pleased to know that a decision on the matter is not too far off? I am sure that every one of them would want that extra money to come to West Yorkshire, as I do. Is not the extra £3·6 million further evidence of the Government's clear commitment to fighting crime? Does not that contrast sharply with the complete mess that the Government inherited from the Labour party in 1979, when there was low police morale, low police pay and the police were way under strength?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. We expect the authorities to come up with imaginative schemes, designed to tackle specific local crime problems, such as kerb crawling, mugging and burglary. If they do, they will certainly bring great benefits to the public in their district.
    Mr. Lofthouse: I am sure that West Yorkshire will welcome any assistance that the schemes can give, and will also appreciate that its rate support grant has increased by 16 per cent., but that does not mean that it can bring its force up to the required standard. Has the Minister any plans to assist the West Yorkshire police authority to enable it to bring its police forces up to the required standard?
    Mr. Lloyd: Although spending nationally on the police has risen 73 per cent. during this Government's life, in West Yorkshire the figure is 83 per cent. Therefore, the spending in that police authority area is higher than elsewhere, so it does have the resources to police to strength and it will receive additional resources under the arrangements.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that we welcome the £3·6 million in West Yorkshire? Will he ensure that the money is spent throughout the county?
    Mr. Lloyd: It will be spent throughout the police area, except in those regions that do not come within the urban crime catchment area—
    Sir Donald Thompson: That is the wrong answer.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am giving my hon. Friend the correct answer; if he has asked the wrong question, that is his problem.
    The area does not include Wakefield and Calderdale, but if the police authority has good sense, it will arrange its spending so that the benefit will also be felt outside the immediate area to which the money applies.
    Mr. Sheerman: Conservative Central Office does not seem to have got its questions and answers right today. At a time when crime has doubled in this country and is increasing at a rate of 28 per cent. per annum in West Yorkshire, how can a Minister stand in the House and say that it will keep West Yorkshire 154 police officers under strength this year and next year?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had listened the last time we had Home Office questions he would know perfectly well that the standard spending assessment has been set in West Yorkshire to enable it to employ police
    456
    officers up to the full establishment. The problem in West Yorkshire is that it costs more there to put a police man on the beat, and the authority spends more per head of the population. If its cost effectiveness was equal to that of the average police authority, it would be able to recruit up to full establishment.

    Derek Bentley
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Derek Bentley.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The report which I have received from the police is receiving careful consideration. I shall decide as soon as I can whether any action on my part is appropriate in this case.
    Mr. Burns: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recall that it is now 40 years since that unfortunate and backward youth was hanged? Does he accept that not only that youth's family but many other people have a total lack of comprehension as to how someone could be hanged in this country when he was in police custody when the gun was fired and the unfortunate police officer was killed by another person? Although it is 40 years since the incident, I urge my right hon. Friend to give urgent consideration to the case because the suffering of Derek Bentley's family continues day in and day out.
    Mr. Baker: I appreciate the importance of the case and the public interest in it. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has taken new evidence which has been received and is being assessed by my Department. It will then be submitted to me and I shall review not only that evidence but all the earlier evidence, the reports of the trial and all the voluminous other aspects of the case. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do that as soon as I can.
    Mr. Corbett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on raising this issue. Has the Home Secretary considered exercising his powers of a posthumous pardon in this case? If he has, will he explain why he decided not to act? Secondly, I urge him to make the best possible speed in this matter because for many of us it represents the most dreadful stain on our criminal justice system.
    Mr. Baker: The material new facts that have emerged involve new evidence from certain officers who were present on the night of the crime and who witnessed certain things. That evidence has to be assessed, and when that is done I shall, of course, make a decision.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions on the future of Sunday trading.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My extensive programme of separate discussions with a wide range of major interest groups on possible ways of reforming the Shops Act 1950 is nearing completion. For the present, there remain great differences between the groups. Once the legal position of the Shops

    457
    Act 1950 in relation to Community law is clear, I hope to be in a position to recommend a way forward to the House.
    Mr. Coombs: Is it not by now abundantly obvious to everyone that those organisations that remain implacably opposed to Sunday trading will never agree to any compromise solution to the problem that could be laid before the House and command widespread support? Has not the time come for the Government to commit themselves unequivocally to legislate in the next Parliament so that those who wish to shop on Sunday and exercise their free choice to do so are enabled to do so by total deregulation of the law?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend represents the important views of a number of colleagues. However, another group of people have equally strongly held views, and for that reason it is not as easy as my hon. Friend would have the House believe to introduce legislation that would command total respect in the House.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Minister appreciate that tomorrow there will be an opportunity to ensure that proposals put to the House could be accepted, could go into Committee and could form the basis of discussion for any Government returned on 9 April? 1 know that a Labour Government will be returned and I am sure that that Government will not take as long as from 1986 to the present time, as this Government have, to do something constructive about changing the law and bringing in legislation that could be enforced throughout the country.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's views; I also appreciate the fact that he is presenting a proposal to the House of Commons. I think that he knows that it is difficult for the Government to accept, any proposal before the question of Community law is resolved, and also that his proposals are relatively controversial.
    Mr. Malins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the supermarkets that have recently been opening on Sundays? Does she accept that very few people are totally opposed to Sunday trading, but millions want some form of compromise that recognises the special nature of Sunday?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Many people wish to recognise the special nature of Sunday. Interestingly, however, each time that the topic is raised in the House of Commons, very diverse views are expressed. That, I think, clears the stand that the Government have been taking, and their view that the matter cannot be easily resolved. I share some of my hon. Friend's views, but I do not believe that the House is yet ready to accept a proposal from the Government that will command wide support from a large number of hon. Members.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings
    458
    with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Salmond: When the Prime Minister visits Scotland this weekend, will he be big enough to acknowledge that, sooner rather than later, he will have to bow to the wish of the Scottish people for self-determination? Does he not understand that, at a time when even he is forecasting a Europe of up to 30 member states by the end of the century, it is inevitable that the Scottish nation will demand to be a full part of that process of change?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. The Union between England and Scotland is greater than the sum of its parts, and always has been. I understand what activates the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is profoundly misleading Scotland and treading a path that is damaging Scotland and the Union.
    Mr. Fishburn: At a time of economic difficulty and rising unemployment across the world, does not this nation—as a great trading nation—need, more than anything else, constant tax policy, the lowest possible income tax and competitive rates of corporation tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster to adopt a policy that changed almost from hour to hour under Labour, with no constancy or purpose of any sort?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of clear-cut and low corporate and personal tax rates. I note that the Opposition's tax plans have gone back to the drawing board; after five years of careful preparation, they have been ditched in a period of five weeks. I also note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who said, when he took on the job that there would be
    "no more phoney shadow Cabinet Budgets"—
    has now promised that there will be a phoney shadow Cabinet Budget.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that today's official figures show that the British economy is in its longest recession for over 60 years? As the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor before it started and has been Prime Minister throughout its course, is it not clear that he is not only the Prime Minister of recession, but the prime cause of recession?
    The Prime Minister: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into overdrive, perhaps he will confirm that, in the past three months, industrial production has fallen faster in Germany, faster in France, faster in the United States and faster in Japan than it has in this country; and that, if we take the last year as a whole, industrial production fell more in Japan, and more in Germany, than in the United Kingdom. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is, if he blames me for everything?
    Mr. Kinnock: To put it into perspective, let me point out that since 1988 the German economy has grown by 10 per cent. The British economy, under the Conservative Government, has not grown at all. Will the Prime Minister recognise that and stop groping round to try to find excuses for his own failure? Does he recall that it is exactly a year since he told us in this House, "Our policies are working"? Does he recall that in that 12 months the British economy has contracted by 2·5 per cent. and that

    459
    unemployment has gone up by 750,000? Do not today's figures make it clear that it is official—Majorism isn't working?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is now keen to look at a longer period than just the last year, he will also be interested to know that between 1981 and 1991 the British economy grew faster than the German economy, the French economy, the Italian economy or the economy of any other country in Europe. Will he now confirm, since he seems to regard all problems as being entirely domestic, that over the second half of the last year industrial production fell in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere and that Germany's gross domestic product has now declined for three quarters in succession and Germany is in recession? How can this be if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, it is all a British problem?
    Mr. Kinnock: In the last 18 months of recession—[Interruption.] British people are not on the dole in Germany; they are on the dole in Britain.
    In the last 18 months of recession, unemployment in Britain has gone up by 1 million and the British economy has contracted by nearly 4 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. During the course of the time the right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister he is convicted by his own record and condemned by his own inaction in the face of the slump that he caused.
    The Prime Minister: The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the facts and cannot handle the questions. He may recall that in Germany more than 3 million people are unemployed and he may bear it in mind that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in Germany or in any other European country except Denmark. Let me try again to help the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the world is in an economic slow-down, as even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has now acknowledged. That makes domestic politics even more important. That is why we have cut interest rates seven times in a year and halved inflation in a year, have the lowest number of strikes for half a century and have cut the basic rate of tax. As a result of our action, real earnings are rising and we have lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, lower inflation and the right circumstances for recovery. The people of this country will not let the right hon. Gentleman throw that away.
    Mr. Stanbrook: When my right hon. Friend sees the new Irish Prime Minister soon will he tell him that the biggest contribution the Irish Republic can make to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to renounce its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as that claim encourages Irish Republican terrorism and gives it legitimacy, as well as being the strongest stumbling block in the way of all-party talks aimed at constitutional progress?
    The Prime Minister: I have already spoken to the new Taoiseach and we have agreed to meet shortly. I think that we must wait and see what his detailed policies will be, but everything that I have seen and heard suggests that he is certainly very understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. Amendment of the Irish constitution is, of course, a matter for the Republic, but I am glad that it continues to be an issue that could be tackled in fresh political talks.
    460
    The Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement unless and until agreement can be reached on new and more broadly satisfactory arrangements.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Prime Minister had time today to study the Department of Trade and Industry's figures that were released on Tuesday, which showed that over the last five years Chinese quotas for the importation of cashmere garments into the European Community have been exceeded by 500,000 units and that in 1991 the actual importation exceeded the quotas by over 400 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that 500,000 cashmere jerseys are worth £75 million to textile communities such as my own in the central borders in Scotland? Will he take a personal interest in stopping this scandalous dumping and make sure that the overshoot is clawed back during the next two years, the time remaining to the EC-Chinese trade agreement?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because he was courteous enough to give me an indication of what he was going to mention this afternoon. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into the matter and to contact the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: To revert to the Scottish question that was raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has the Prime Minister noted the statement today by the leaders of the financial services industries north of the border that in the event of a measure of devolution or independence, to which the Opposition parties aspire, the likeliest result would be that many of the financial services companies would move south of the border? In his forthcoming visit to Scotland, will the Prime Minister underline the fact that these are matters which the Scottish people should also take into account before moving in the direction Opposition Members would like them to go—in favour of devolution or independence?
    The Prime Minister: I did notice those remarks, which were widely reported this morning. We have made it clear for a long period that we believe that devolution or independence would damage very severely the degree of inward investment into Scotland and the degree of self-generating investment within Scotland as well. The Union has been in the interests of both this country and Scotland for many years, and it remains so.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: May I also raise a matter with the Prime Minister, of which I have given him prior notice? It concerns the tragic death on 5 February of six-year-old Carley Reavill who died in hospital of meningitis. That is the reason why I gave the Prime Minister prior notice of the question. She died not because, as the Department of Health says, she was too ill to be moved, but because,

    461
    according to her paediatrician, Dr. Alison Schurtz, no intensive care hospital bed was available at St. Mary's hospital or Great Ormond Street hospital. Is not that a tragic waste of a life? Does it not provide further evidence for the argument that if money is available it should be spent not on tax cuts but on our health service?
    The Prime Minister: I asked for a report on this tragic case this morning. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I reply assuming that he has received the permission of the family for it to be the subject of a public exchange. I am advised that doctors at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital have confirmed that Carley could not have been transferred when the hospital test results showed that she had meningitis and the test results were available within one hour of Carley's admission. Carley's decline, I am informed, was sudden and fast. Medical advice is that paediatric intensive care is unlikely to have arrested this.
    The House may wish to know that between 1979 and 1990 the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales dropped by 45 per cent. It is now at its lowest ever recorded level. As for national health service resources, the hon. Gentleman will know of the very large real-terms increases that have been made—in excess, in fact, of the real-terms increases promised by the Opposition at the last general election.
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who live on their income from savings are either widows or those who retired early, very often to look after an elderly dependant? Does he further agree that it would be a grave injustice indeed to put swingeing extra taxes on the savings of these people as a result of the profligacy of socialism?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that such people would find it inexplicable if that were to happen. We have sought to encourage savings by abolishing the investment income surcharge and by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is the Labour party which wants to increase
    462
    tax by extending national insurance. Its plans would hit more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom pay tax at the basic rate. So much for the Opposition's promise that no one earning under £20,000 a year would be hit. That promise is worthless and that pledge by the Opposition illustrates why the promise is worthless.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the stabbing to death of the young black schoolboy Rolan Adams and in the year since then 15 black families—council tenants and owner-occupiers—have been driven out of their homes on the Thamesmead estate. The campaign, including a fire-bombing, has been orchestrated by the local headquarters of the British National party. Is there anything that the Government can do to change those events? Will the Prime Minister support the unanimous decision by Greenwich Conservative councillors to support the demonstration called by the Anti-Racist Alliance for Saturday at noon in Plumstead High street to demand the closure of the British National party headquarters?
    The Prime Minister: I have every sympathy for Rolan Adams's family at this sad time and I wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks and those who commit or incite racial hatred. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in December and my office subsequently corresponded with the mayor of Bexley. Although the location of the British National party office is a matter for Bexley council, we have drawn the council's attention to the laws available to deal with racial hatred.
    The local police searched the BNP premises in January and evidence has been submitted to the Crown prosecution service which is considering a prosecution. Rolan Adams's murder a year ago led to the speedy identification and prosecution of the attackers and the murderer subsequently received a life sentence. I very much hope that in the future that will deter similar attacks which are a blot on our country.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order
Proceedings on the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations
WEDNESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Debate on inflation on a Government motion
Motion on the Fire Service College Trading Fund Order.
THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions
MONDAY 2 MARCH—Until seven o'clock motion to take note of EC documents relating to asylum and immigration; details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Monday 2 March
Floor of the House
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 8810/91 Right of Asylum

(b) 8811/91 Immigration

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 24-x (1991–92)

(b) HC 24-x (1991–92)]

Dr. Cunningham: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider the High Court's decision that computer evidence on the non-payment of poll tax is inadmissible in magistrates courts? Is he aware that, as a consequence, local authorities will be denied revenue of about £3 million each week until the Government's belated action to correct this appalling blunder in their legislation comes into effect? Will the Government compensate local authorities and local poll tax payers for their inefficiency in the poll tax legislation, which means that the biggest single cause of non-payment and non-collection of the poll tax is the action of Her Majesty's Government and their appalling and inadequate legislation? May we have a statement on this important issue next week from the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Why does the Leader of the House persist in giving the Government Supply days, as he is planning to do again next week, when he cannot find time for the proper consideration of legislation and introduces guillotines almost weekly? He cannot find time to give the Opposition
464
Supply days, but he can find time—[Interruption.] We are talking about next week's business—but he can find time to allocate to the Government. We are very happy to debate the Government's abysmal economic performance, of course, but should not he think harder about finding time for more Opposition Supply days before the end of this Parliament?
Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance—if not today, certainly in his business statement next week —that, following the Budget on 10 March, we shall have the normal allocation of time to debate the Budget proposals? If there is to be a general election on 9 April, the proclamation will have to be announced on Monday 16 March, so how will the Government allocate proper time for debate on the Budget in that short period? Will he assure us that the Budget debate will not be truncated and that we shall have the normal period to debate the Government's proposals?
Mr. MacGregor: As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that it was not the Government who caused, in the case of some local authorities, considerable funds not to be paid as a result of non-payment of the community charge; it was the action of those who did not pay their community charge, as most responsible citizens did. It was certainly aided and abetted by the members of the Opposition and the many Labour councillors who actively encouraged them not to pay, so the hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with that. We must be clear where the fault lies.
On the question of computer evidence in magistrates court cases, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are taking action as quickly as possible by means of an amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill in another place. I hope that we shall have his support for that amendment when the Bill returns to this House. As so many of his hon. Friends have encouraged non-payment, he can now assist us by actively supporting that amendment.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question about a debate next week on inflation, he knows that I have been pressed on many occasions to find Government time to debate the economy. I am happy to agree to that as Second Reading debates are progressing. Incidentally, I have been very fair to the Opposition with regard to Supply days. After yesterday's Supply day, there is a heavy demand from my colleagues for more such days. The Opposition were routed yesterday and their Front-Bench spokesmen were wiped off the floor.
On the question of a normal allocation of time for the Budget debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is not a matter for next week's business.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make the plea which I made last week, the week before and the week before that: will hon. Members confine business questions today to the business for next week? There will be opportunities during next week's debates to make party political points.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 are now quite inadequate to deal with the growing problem of travellers in many constituencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) mentioned earlier? May we have an

465
urgent debate on this subject next week to discuss ways in which these two pieces of legislation may be strengthened and whether we should introduce a new criminal offence of aggravated trespass?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the concern felt in many constituencies about travellers. I understand that there was a question about it earlier this afternoon. I shall certainly discuss it further with my right hon. Friend, but I will not be able to find time for a debate in Government time next week.
Sir Russell Johnston: Given the wild enthusiasm for Opposition Supply days that the Leader of the House tell us now exists among Conservative Members, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls that, by this time last year, and in 1990, there had been a Liberal Democrat Supply day? I know that approaches have been made through the usual channels. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will follow precedent and arrange for a Supply day the week after next?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give that precise assurance, but I can say that minority parties are normally allowed about one sixth of the Supply days, and that we have had five Labour party Supply clays. I am working pretty well to the normal timetable. I am aware that there has been discussion about the matter, and I shall certainly keep it in mind.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will know of my concern about standards of reporting in broadcasting in this country, and I know that he shares that concern. I wonder whether he read the centre pages of the Evening Standard last night, which were about an extraordinary incident that seems to have taken place on the BBC television "Nine O'clock News". Someone who was interviewed was portrayed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is just the point that I was seeking to make. Is this question about a debate next week?
Mr. Tracey: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: It does not sound like it.
Mr. Tracey: Somebody who was interviewed on the news was portrayed as being deprived but was subsequently revealed to be far from that, and was possibly a "plant". May we have an urgent debate on bias in broadcasting in the BBC news?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the newspaper report, and, although I did not see the news programme, it seemed to me that it not only gave a distorted impression of the whole student situation but failed to make the point that we have one of the most generous student support systems of all equivalent countries. Furthermore, a single example was given—a sample of one—and it turned out to be highly distorted. I agree with my hon. Friend that the programme was an example of highly biased reporting which should not have happened. I cannot promise a debate on the subject next week, but I hope that the authorities in the BBC will consider the case carefully. I am aware of the concern among my hon. Friends.
Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside the continued Tory vendetta against the BBC, when business
466
is due to be announced and the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to speak, will the Leader of the House make it clear that the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be a renewal of his leadership campaign to decide who will be Leader of the Opposition after 9 April?
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to yesterday's debate, I notice that there is a renewed campaign about who should be shadow Chancellor.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Now that we have been given the opportunity to see that the national health service reform proposals are working extremely well, and that the only suggestion from the Opposition is that the whole lot should be reversed and the monolithic NHS, which worked so patchily in the past, should be restored, may we have a debate in which the poverty of the Opposition proposals could be exposed and the very good story that we have to tell about the NHS reforms could be fully told?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that a debate would be desirable. Labour's so-called health policy amounts to a wrecker's charter, wrecking so many of the benefits that the NHS reforms are already bringing, and makes it clear that they would bring back trade union domination, putting union demands before patients' needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that we may wish to debate the issue, but I do not think that I could accommodate a debate next week.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come back to the Chamber this afternoon and make a statement on this morning's High Court ruling in favour of my constituents David and Eleanor Bullard, and against the Government's persistent illegal use of uncorroborated computer printouts in poll tax cases in magistrates courts? The ruling puts a question mark over 11 million liability orders in England and Wales—[Interruption.] Tory Members may shout, as if we were talking about a minority of people, but this matter affects more than one in four of all adults in this country.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to conduct from today an urgent review of each of the 170 people, including 13 pensioners, 35 people who are unemployed and four whose only income was invalidity benefit, who have been put in prison on the basis of uncorroborated computer evidence, so that their cases may be considered and compensation can be paid?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the vast majority of people are incensed by the fact that some people have not paid their community charge when they are perfectly able to do so. Within the community charge system, there are benefits and rebates for those on lower incomes and for those most in need. The fault lies with those who do not comply with the law as everyone else does. On the point about magistrates courts, I have already made plain what the Government are doing.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is many, many months since the tragic events at Hillsborough. He will equally be aware that, for many of the relatives of those who lost their lives—11 of my constituents died at Hillsborough—the anguish goes on, because they are still not satisfied that the truth has come out of the inquiry. For them, that is the only way in

467
which they can put their loved ones finally to rest. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Attorney-General to address the issue as a matter of urgency? Every day it goes on brings renewed anguish to those tragic families.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand, of course, the concern that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of the families. We all recall that tragic day. Without commenting on the details, because I do not know them, I will raise the case with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, Mr. Malcolm Edwards, the commercial director of British Coal, informed the Select Committee on Energy that, if the present energy policies of National Power, PowerGen and the Government continued, the outlook would be more pessimistic than suggested in the Rothschild report which suggested that the number of pits would go down to about 14? Mr. Edwards suggested that the figure would be 12.
Is the Leader of the House also aware that, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was in Committee, Associated British Ports, through its mouthpiece, Mr. Frank Layfield QC, misled the Committee? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging an urgent debate next week on the future of the mining industry?
Mr. MacGregor: We have already had a number of debates affecting the mining industry, so I cannot promise a debate next week. I am aware of the view that one individual put to the Select Committee yesterday. The Government's aim is to create the largest economic United Kingdom coal industry that the market can support in the longer term. We do not accept that the industry will be reduced to 12 pits. The future size will depend on the performance of the industry itself. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is encouraging that Boyds, the United States mining engineers, has found great scope for further productivity improvements, so British Coal should be well placed to compete in price with imported coal and to secure the lion's share of the electricity market by offering competitively priced coal.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement either today or on Monday on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill, and on the Government's response to the debate in Committee and on Second Reading on the Transport and Works Bill? The Minister for Shipping said in Committee that that was not the place to talk about the level of alcohol that a public service driver of a train or of a national bus could take.
Given the level of debate on Second Reading on 2 December and the Minister's comments in column 45 of Hansard, and given the comments made in Committee, it would be appropriate to find some way of ascertaining the Government's attitude on that important issue. At present, the Government say, in effect, that it is all right for a train driver to have five glasses of wine before driving a train. I raise the matter especially because it is almost 20 years since the Eltham Well Hall crash, when six people died and 126 were injured. It was one of the rare events in which a public service driver was over the limit.
Mr. MacGregor: I know that the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill has been recommended by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration on Monday evening. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.
Mr. William Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great interest that has been created in Northern Ireland about the on-going constitutional debate—that is, whether there should be devolution to Scotland and Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some advice on what procedures my hon. Friends and I should follow and what facilities he will make available to us and to hon. Members from elsewhere in the United Kingdom to attend debates of the Grand Committees in Scotland and Wales whenever those Committees discuss the constitutional position of Scotland and Wales?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows the position in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee, but I very much agree with what is behind his question: there is considerable interest throughout the United Kingdom in those constitutional matters, and rightly so because the implications go much wider than Scotland. I cannot say how that matter might be taken forward at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are four half-day debates being given to the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make clear those wider implications in the debate.
Sir Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the accommodation that is given to servants of the House who must stay overnight in this Palace, and will he examine the facilities that are offered to them? Will he also consider a change so that we ourselves, rather than the Department of the Environment, have responsibility?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend suggests, under the Ibbs proposals, we will have responsibility for that matter from 1 April. I do not think that a debate is necessary. My hon. Friend can raise the matter through the appropriate committees that we are now setting up.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that we will be given the opportunity of having four full days to consider the Budget statement, in particular because one of those days must be given to the debate on industry? I shall want to expose Volvo Bus of Sweden's secret agenda for the United Kingdom, which is to close down the British bus industry and switch its production to plants principally in Sweden.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have frequently said to him that he must find his own way of raising that matter, and I notice that he has not yet done so. On his first point, he will know that I have not announced the Budget for next week. I must obey your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and not deal with that matter now.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on national health service trusts? It has just been announced by the Opposition that they would abolish such trusts. A debate would give us an opportunity, among many other things, to mention the independent survey of 900 patients in eight national health service trust hospitals who had been in those hospitals

469
before and after they became trusts. Those patients were asked, "Is the hospital better, the same, or worse?" Forty-eight per cent. said that the hospitals were better as trusts, and about 42 per cent. said that they were much the same. Nearly 90 per cent. said that trust hospitals are either satisfactory or very satisfactory.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I entirely agree with him. Indeed, it is one of the features that I hope that we will be able to debate, certainly in the coming weeks and months, the Opposition's health policy. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that all the efforts and enthusiasm of the many thousands of people making a success of NHS trust status and GP fund holding would come to naught under Labour. The patients who have clearly said that they would benefit would also find that those benefits did not continue.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I know not whether the Leader of the House heard the Radio 4 programme this morning concerning Mr. Payne, who was convicted of murder 20 or more years ago and who has served increasingly lengthy periods in prison although he has always denied the offence. On that programme, it was said that instances of interference by political appointees, either the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Minister of State, in the decisions of the Parole Board have risen from 3 per cent. to 30 per cent. over the past five to 10 years. Bearing in mind the liberty of the citizen, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on whether decisions on life sentences should be made by Parole Board officials or whether they should be made by the Secretary of State of the day or his officials? Often the liberty of the individual is denied for no reason at all.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not hear the broadcast this morning, so I cannot comment on it. There is no time for a debate in Government time on the matter next week.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider discussions through the usual channels on whether, instead of a debate on the Adjournment, the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House could be on a positive motion? That would perhaps allow us to agree to the report generally so that, after the election, a Government could proceed in the knowledge that the House had agreed, not on every aspect but in principle, to reform the sitting hours of the House. Many people in the House wish to see such reform.
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point; it enables me to make clear the position on the debate that I have announced for a week on Monday. The report of the Select Committee will be published tomorrow. I am sure that the whole House will wish to see it and to join me in expressing warm thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the members of his Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for the extremely hard and swift work that they have done to enable the report to come before the House.
My hon. Friend is entirely right in intimating that there is great interest in the report. I am very much aware of that from the many representations that I have received. That is why I thought it right to give the House an early opportunity to express its views on the report and its recommendations and why I acted particularly swiftly. I
470
hope that the House will have enough time to study the report. It is not particularly long so it should be possible for the House to do so. The form chosen for the debate —a motion of the Adjournment—is the best way to ensure an open and full debate. Thereafter we can consider how the House should move forward to take decisions on the report's recommendations.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is considerable interest in Wales, too, in the constitutional issue. We understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is agreeable to the Welsh Grand Committee meeting in Wales, possibly on 9 March, to discuss that very issue. Will the Leader of the House inform us whether, in the course of next week, as required under Standing Order No. 98, he will table a motion to amend the Standing Order to enable the Committee to meet on Monday 9 March? If it does not happen next week, will he give an assurance that it will happen before the appropriate date?
Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen to have a debate and has suggested that it should be held in Wales. In principle, I see no objection to that; indeed, I see advantages in it. The difficulty is that it involves a change in Standing Orders. I was not aware of the deadline to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We shall have to consider that matter.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone who had been holding his breath for the appearance of the Government's White Paper on railway privatisation would long ago have expired? May I assume that the reason for the delay is that sanity is beginning to prevail and that the Government intend to seek to define the problems of the railways before proposing a specific solution? That being so, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to announce that the Government have no intention of producing a White Paper containing such solutions before the election? If he did so, he would save demands on valuable time next week.
Mr. MacGregor: I can make no such statement. All I can say is that the Government are considering the whole matter thoroughly. They are right to do so, because the issue raises major matters. Therefore, it is right for the Government to spend a good deal of time on it. I cannot give the precise timing. The matter does not need to take up a great deal of time next week.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Leader of the House reconsider initiating a debate next week on the important issue of the Government's reforms of the national health service, with special reference to the 13·8 per cent. reduction in fees for NHS treatment paid to dentists? In Bristol, 180 dentists—virtually all the NHS dentists in Bristol and Avon—met last Tuesday and took the decision that, if the Government force the 13·8 per cent. reduction in their fees for treating NHS patients, they will restrict new health service patients from 1 March arid some practices will terminate the treatment of new NHS patients. Obviously, that is of great concern throughout the country and not merely in Bristol, where the Secretary of State for Health is a Member of Parliament, because dental hygiene is vital.
Mr. MacGregor: The Government continue to negotiate with dentists' representatives. A further meeting

471
took place this afternoon. As part of those discussions, my right hon. and hon. Friends agreed to re-examine, in association with the dentists' representatives, detailed elements of fee levels. At the next formal meeting in May, the results of that work will be considered and fee scales set accordingly. Meanwhile, the proposed reduction in fees will not be implemented, so a debate next week is not necessary.
Mr. James Hill: Can my right hon. Friend make room next week for a debate on European Commission legislation which, it is rumoured, will allow domestic animals to be imported and exported across the channel without any check for rabies? That concerns my constituents in Southampton, where there is a large port and several marinas. The Government should do anything they can to restrict that legislation, as rabies is a killer disease for humans and for animals.
Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I think that he knows that the Government have no intention of supporting any proposal which would increase the risk of rabies being introduced into this country. Scientific evidence on rabies control measures is being reassessed at Community level. Formal proposals from the Commission will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.
Mr. Bob Cryer: A week on Monday there will be a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. Would the Leader of the House consider making a change so that we might debate facilities in the House for disabled people? I remind him that last summer I brought a group of blind students from Temple Bank school for the visually handicapped in Bradford to the House. There is nowhere for them to sit and nowhere for them to have a meal, so they had to walk out, leading each other to a nearby park to have something to eat. At the same time, the private dining rooms were full of corporate hospitality, with Members wining and dining chums and using the facilities there. Those dining room bookings are not published, to maintain a cloak of secrecy.
Could we have a debate on such facilities, coupled with a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the lobbying organisations which book dining rooms through Members? That report has been in the hands of the Leader of the House for two or three months, yet the report which proposes that our sitting hours should be cut and looks after the selfish interests of Members of Parliament is to be given priority. That is completely wrong.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman talks total nonsense. The report goes way beyond the question of sittings and deals with a number of other important matters of procedure. I know that the vast majority of hon. Members would agree that many Members wish the subject of sittings to be debated, considered and probably changed. That has been made clear to me throughout my time as Leader of the House, and that is what all the pressure has been for. Therefore, it is right for us to give early consideration to the report of the Committee. That would be the wish of most hon. Members.
On the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised, it is not necessary to have a debate a week on Monday,
472
because he will know that the appropriate Committee of the House is considering the possibility of extending refreshment facilities for Members' guests.
Mr. Cryer: That is what was said last summer.
Mr. MacGregor: The Committee is actively considering the matter. Also, as the hon. Gentleman knows, some building work will be required, and it is studying that.
On the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I hope to find time for that in due course, but the Select Committee on Sittings of the House undoubtedly takes precedence.
Sir Teddy Taylor: It has just been announced that the European Community has broken all records by spending more than £1,000 million this year on dumping high-tar tobacco in the third world and in eastern Europe. Although I appreciate that the Government can do nothing about that shameful expenditure, will the Leader of the House ensure that, next week, out of respect for the sufferers from that expenditure in the third world, the Government will not submit any more supplementary estimates to cover excessive and unlawful expenditure by the European Community?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been as critical as anyone of the common agricultural policy regime on tobacco. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I endeavoured to get that policy changed substantially. The supplementary estimates were passed in accordance with the procedures of the House, following a debate. That is why they were accepted.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the Minister for the Environment and the Countryside returns on Monday from the important weekend conference in Estoril on ozone layer depletion, will he report to the House? There is the possibility of 300,000 skin cancers—that is not an alarmist forecast, but a NASA statistic—and if anything is to be done about that appalling prospect in the northern hemisphere, it must be done early, before the spring conditions of April and May.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall consider in what way my hon. Friend can, if appropriate, report to the House.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on the Representation of the People Act 1983, in view of the widespread practice in the student community of planning for and voting twice at parliamentary elections? Will he draw to the attention of the House the fact that that offence may result in a penalty of £2,000 as well as disfranchisement? May we have a debate to allow us to consider abuses by the student community at the ballot box?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is correct. Voting twice in a parliamentary election or byelection is an offence and it is subject to a fine of up to £2,000. I am happy to underline that fact, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention. I shall consider what other steps we might take to draw further attention to the issue.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There is widespread interest on both sides of the House on the constitutional issues affecting Scotland and Wales. I wish to encourage that, because such matters should be approached constructively. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, subsequent to the Scottish Grand Committee

473
sitting in Edinburgh on Monday, he will bring forward an opportunity for the other two half matter days to be taken by that Committee so that we can consider the other constitutional options open to the people of Scotland? Surely we must debate all the options before the general election.
Mr. MacGregor: I know that another two half-matter days have been proposed, but I do not know when they will be taken.
Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that freedom of speech and the conduct of elections are paramount to the House? Will he find time to debate those issues in light of The Sunday Times court ruling yesterday which prevents local authorities from taking action on libel? Isle of Wight county council threatened my previous agent, John Bull, with libel as a result of pressure from the ruling group of Liberal Democrats, for remarks that he made during the borough elections. The Liberal Democrats continue to use taxpayers' and chargepayers' money to pressurise officers of the county council to try to gag proper debate on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that matter next week, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point that he makes. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will find other ways of raising the matter in the House.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was very disappointed to hear no mention in the business statement of the remaining stages of the Offshore Safety Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it sailed through its Committee stage on Tuesday morning. It has widespread support in the House and among those people who have members of their families working offshore. There is a growing belief in Scotland that the Bill may fall by the wayside because of the forthcoming election. That would be a great shame because we have all been waiting for the Bill, which was born out of the excellent Cullen report. On behalf of all those men and women who work in our offshore installations and standby vessels, I make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman that he bring the Bill to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages as soon as possible.
Mr. MacGregor: As the House knows, I am trying to accommodate as many Bills as possible, as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the need to give them full and proper consideration. I entirely agree about the importance of getting that Bill on the statute book, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.
Sir Michael Neubert: Will there be an opportunity next week to debate early-day motion 710?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take the necessary steps to ensure that all television programmes, including party political broadcasts, on all channels, which report on, or comment on, political matters are signed and subtitled, so that the two and a half million people who are deaf or hard of hearing are put on a par with the general hearing public in the run up to the general election.]
It proposes that all political broadcasts on television be signed and subtitled for the deaf and hard of hearing. Would not such a proposal inflict unnecessary suffering on
474
many people? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while there can be few advantages to the distressing disability of deafness, not hearing party political broadcasts must be one of them?
Mr. MacGregor: I was about to give my hon. Friend a different answer, because I thought that his question would go in a different direction. As he will know, programme content and scheduling are matters for the broadcasters, not for the Government. In this case, it is for them to decide.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Could the Leader of the House arrange, before the debate on inflation next week, for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on how he proposes to establish the financial arrangements for community-based training programmes? They have done an excellent job in the past, but they are under pressure at present, despite the fact that they have done a great deal, throughout the Province, to help young people and to keep them out of the hands of the paramilitaries.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about those programmes, and I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will it he possible to have an early debate on early-day motion 263 in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and myself?
[That this House opposes proposals arising from the review of its regional organisation by the Ministry of. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; considers that the proposal to reduce the Ministry's five regional and divisional offices Eastern England to one regional centre at Cambridge will substantially diminish its service to the farming community in that region, will reduce the effectiveness of such conservation schemes as the environmentally sensitive areas and set aside schemes and will prevent the Ministry from implementing EC proposals for reforming the Comnzon Agricultural Policy; and calls for the Ministry to establish a second regional centre in Norwich.]
It criticises proposals for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reduce the number of offices in eastern England from five to one. Will my right hon.. Friend particularly bear in mind the fact that the matter needs to be reviewed in the light of the recent volte-face by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food office in Truro?
Mr. MacGregor: I am familiar with the situation. The concentration of administrative work at fewer regional centres will significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of the operations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including the service that it provides to its customers. The matter has been thoroughly aired, and I cannot promise a debate on it in Government time next week.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Home Secretary has written to inform me that 11 million summonses have been issued for non-payment of the poll tax. Can we debate next week the legislation that demands that local authorities prosecute the estates of people who have died for their share of the poll tax, particularly in the case of many of my constituents, whose estates cannot even pay for their funerals?
Mr. MacGregor: I see no way in which that issue can be raised in the business that I have announced for next week.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider his reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who asked for more Opposition day debates? Will he consider, in the light of developments this week, having such a debate next week? Is he aware that this week in the Chamber the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was unable to name a single strike that the Labour party had condemned in the past 13 years? Is he also aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was unable to name a single economist who approved of increasing taxes as a way out of recession? Would not an Opposition day debate next week give the public an opportunity to see that, when the Labour party has to answer questions on its policies, those answers are about as straight as a right-angled bend?
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that a number of the points that he raises can be discussed during our debate next Wednesday. There can be no doubt that the Labour party's policies on taxation and, inevitably, on borrowing—given its high spending policies —will lead to inflation. Therefore, the issue will be directly relevant to next Wednesday's debate. It will be interesting to see which speakers the Opposition choose for that debate. Whoever they are, I am quite sure that we shall have the same resounding victory next week as we did this week when comparing the policies of the two parties.
Mr. Harry Barnes: According to the best available estimates, including a parliamentary answer, more than 3 per cent. of the population are missing from the electoral register. That is unique in this country in modern times, and it is a serious issue that should concern Conservative Members—indeed, any hon. Member. May we have a statement next week, together with full details of the figures, constituency by constituency, on the current electoral register as electoral returning officers had until last Sunday to return the complete figures, which are now available in the Department of Health, and which it will not reveal to the House? We need a full, frank investigation of the current position before we move closer to the general election. Today is the last day for sending in registration details if there is to be a general election on 9 April. We are now in the final position, so we need the final information so that we can discuss it.
Mr. MacGregor: I have noticed, week after week, the hon. Gentleman's obsession with the electoral register. I think that there must be something other than he suggests behind his concern. He is obviously getting even more apprehensive as the general election approaches. It is entirely up to the individual, who is always encouraged to register for voting. The Government spend about half a million pounds every year on publicity to encourage people to register, so we are doing everything that we can in the way of encouragement.
Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend is renowned for being a fair person. May I refer him to Wednesday's debate on inflation? Does he appreciate that, inadvertently, he will cause the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer his broad back to the knife throwers behind him. I offer my right hon. Friend a
476
solution: he should invite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to open on behalf of the Government so that we can flush out Her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition and listen to his solutions, once and for all, to our economic problems.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that my action was not inadvertent. I am looking forward to hearing what the Opposition spokesmen say in next week's debate on inflation. Perhaps the right solution would be for both of them to speak so that we could spot the differences.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have a statement next week on moving mentally handicapped people from hospitals into the community? Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Health to investigate what is happening at Westwood hospital, in Bradford? Is he aware that that hospital is being emptied, and there is widespread suspicion that the local health authority hopes that it will become empty next year when it can be closed without the inconvenience of having to consult properly with the community or obtain the permission and approval of the Secretary of State for Health? Surely that is a scandal, and the clear intention behind the secret closure of the hospital is to enable the community health trust to flog off the hospital and its extensive grounds for an enormous profit. That scandal should be investigated, the patients should be prevented from being removed, there should be a proper investigation, and proper procedures should be observed.
Mr. MacGregor: From the information that is available to me, the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. Bradford health authority conducted a full public consultation between August and November 1990 on its proposals for the development of services for people with learning disabilities, and that included the future role of Westwood hospital. It is currently consulting the community health council about the next phase of those plans. The health authority has confirmed that it will continue to consult with the health council and other interested parties on its proposals. There is widespread public consultation, so it would not be appropriate to have a debate next week.
Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter which is circulating in Battersea purports to show that a certain Mr. Phil Brown is a Liberal Democrat councillor for the area? Given that there is not a single Liberal Democrat councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth, and that in the constituency of Battersea there was not even a single Liberal Democrat candidate at the last borough elections, could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for the Environment so that we can discuss the legality of the use of the word "councillor" and so that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that subject can explain this disreputible, dirty trick?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend will wish strongly to pursue the matter locally. If I heard him aright, it seems that the Liberal Democrats are trying to establish that they have a presence in that area when they certainly have not.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 713?

477
[That this House deplores the actions of Dr. Gwyn Jones in obtaining a grant of £16,895 in July 1988 under false pretences from the Welsh Development Agency Rural Conversion Grant Scheme, four months after being appointed Chairman-designate of the Welsh Development Agency; notes that the grant was awarded for converting the Old Flour Mill at Porthmadog into craft workshops, whereas in the event it was converted into residential accommodation; notes further that Dr. Jones has recently made a partial repayment of the grant of £3,395; and urges the Agency to seek repayment in full from its Chairman, lest any other Chairman-designate of any public body follows his example in attempting to defraud the body of which they are about to become Chairman.]
It has been signed by me and seven other hon. Members and severely criticises the conduct of the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Dr. Gwyn Jones, for obtaining a grant of £17,000 from the WDA while he was chairman-designate of the agency for building craft workshops in Porthmadog.
Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, as I understand from yesterday's proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee that a minor repayment of £3,395 has now been made by Dr. Jones to the agency which he chairs? The repayments started only three weeks ago, whereas Dr. Jones was warned by Mr. Evan Lloyd Jones, the monitoring officer for the agency for north Wales, that the development at the old flour mill in Porthmadog was not craft workshops and did not comply with the terms for a grant under the rural conversion grant scheme.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State on nominated bodies that are staffed and stuffed with Tory rejects and are the means that the Government use to rule Wales? That should shortly come to an end.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand that, at yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the agency's accounting officer promised a full note.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Members who are standing, but I ask them to be brief because we need to move on to the next debate.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the "Can't pay, won't pay" campaign which is being conducted by people who are best described as poll tax parasites? In that debate we could highlight the fact that those people are trying to unload their local government costs and the legal costs that they incur on to their honest, law-abiding tax-paying neighbours.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are having to pay for the non-payment by others of the community charge. We have deplored that on many occasions and will continue to do so.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On Monday's business, has my right hon. Friend received a clear indication from the Labour Opposition that they will support the prevention of terrorism order or, as I suspect, does my right hon. Friend know that they will be soft on terrorism again and will not support the order?
Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for me, but at the moment I am not aware of what the Opposition's stance will be.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: As he has visited Bristol twice in the past few weeks and has been warmly welcomed by the residents of that great city, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Avon county council has refused to use the criminal law to evict travellers from illegal sites. Consequently, my constituents in Royate hill have for 15 months suffered death threats, violence, crime and squalor. Is it not about time that we had a debate not just on travellers' needs but on residents' rights? May we have a debate on amending the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986?
Mr. MacGregor: I know of the strong feeling that exists in my hon. Friend's constituency. As he rightly pointed out, I have visited it twice in recent months, and on both occasions the matter was raised with me with considerable force and vigour. I sympathise, and understand exactly why that is so.
I am aware that concern is felt about the operation of the Acts that my hon. Friend mentioned. We shall certainly have to turn our attention to that matter, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to debate it next week.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the difficulties experienced by insulin-dependent diabetics? Although they are grateful for the Government's sanctioning of free autolet needles, they are seeking an extension to the free prescribing of pen needles, for which there is an urgent need in particular cases. A specific group in my constituency is experiencing such a need, but I believe that it exists throughout the country.
Mr. MacGregor: The Department of Health recognises that injection pens offer a convenient alternative to disposable syringes, which are already on prescription, but the cost is significant. A decision to make them available on prescription must therefore be made in the light of available resources and other competing priorities. Pens and other needles may be provided free through a hospital when a consultant considers them necessary on clinical grounds.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May we have an early debate on the gross misuse of stolen Government documents by Opposition Members? Would not that give us an opportunity to discuss the appalling double standards shown by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who seems content to use and receive stolen property for his own political devices, but who, when his source appears to dry up, suddenly becomes enamoured of the idea of a freedom of information Act that would make his irresponsible and deceitful actions wholly illegal?
Mr. MacGregor: I note that, so far, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has favoured highly selective leaks. He seems to disaprove of all leaks other than those for which he is responsible.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May I revert to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who drew attention to the urgent need for a debate on the national health service next week? A debate would give many of us an opportunity to

479
highlight the success of general practitioner budget holding—especially in Longfield and New Ash Green, in the Dartford constituency, which contains one of the first waves of budget holders. Perhaps, during the same debate, we could wish every success to the Dartford East health centre, which will adopt budget holding from 1 April.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that, in the coming weeks and months, the House will have many opportunities to debate the issue, and to highlight the fact that GP fund-holding measures are working extremely well—and that the Labour party is making a great mistake by pledging to get rid of them.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the administration of justice in Greater London, and, in particular, on the independence of magistrates? A view is circulating in Greater London—it is, in fact, the view of the Greater London Labour party—that magistrates should be subject to party discipline, and should follow what is described as the party line on justice. I do not know what that means, but it sounds extremely sinister. I think that we should establish, and let people in London know, precisely what Labour means by this.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know what that means, and I do not know too much about it at this stage; but I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter further. Certainly, if what he has described were the case, it would be absolutely deplorable.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Given the imminence of the general election, may we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on the funding of political parties so that we can discuss—among other things—the recent £500-a-head Labour party fund-raising dinner? Does my right hon. Friend consider that the main significance of the
480
dinner is the fact that only people who can afford to £500 for a dinner can afford to vote Labour, or the fact that only under a Tory Government can people afford to spend so much on such a daft dinner?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own inimitable way. Certainly the disposable income of a large number of people throughout the country would be substantially reduced—considerably reduced—if Labour were ever in a position to carry out its tax and spending policies.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: With the general election not too far away, would it not be a good idea to debate some more substantial issues before it is called? The Prime Minister has said that he believes in a classless society. Why do we not have a proper debate about that before the election? Why do we not have a debate about the fact that if there is to be a classless society we shall need to get rid of the House of Lords, the honours list, tax-assisted private education, private health treatment and queue-jumping? And it would not be a bad idea if we were to have a debate about taxing the Queen's income.
Mr. MacGregor: I should be very happy at some point to have a debate about the classless society. In such a debate, we could point out that the average living standard of people in this country has risen by about one third in real terms during the period of the Conservative Government, that 4 million people have become home owners for the first time, that personal pensions and occupational pensions have been hugely extended, and that the savings of so many people have greatly risen. Such a debate would enable us also to point out that many of the other changes we have introduced have been actively used by members of the Labour party, to their benefit. There is no doubt that the classless and much wider owner-occupying society has been achieved by the Conservative party. The Labour policies about which we are beginning to hear would set that back greatly.

Carley Reavill
4.31 pm
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions today my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) put to the Prime Minister a question concerning the appalling tragedy that had befallen Carley Reavill. May we have it on the record that the Prime Minister seems to have been misadvised about this tragic case? Dr. Alison Shurtz has confirmed that Carley was diagnosed as having meningitis shortly after arrival at Queen Elizabeth II hospital, and she would have been transferred to another hospital if an intensive paediatric care bed had been available. Dr. Duncan Matthews, of the Great Ormond Street hospital, has said that critically ill children are being denied intensive care treatment because there is not any money to make beds available. It was the shortage of beds, caused by the shortage of funding in the national health service, that led to this appalling tragedy.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order for me. It seems to be a continuation of Question Time.
Mr. Dickens: I promise—
Mr. Speaker: Try to make it a point of order for me.
Mr. Dickens: Do you. Mr. Speaker, think that it would be helpful to you and to the House to know where that information came from so that a judgment might be made?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be helpful to me. This is not a point of order for me.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  That the draft Commonwealth Development Corporation (Raising of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to

Orders of the Day

  Transport and Works Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the political law of detailed explanation. Normally when a Minister has given a detailed reason why something cannot happen, life changes—for example, when it is explained in detail why a polytechnic cannot be called a university, and within six months the Government change their policy and bring in a Bill to allow that change; or when a Minister explains the practical advantages of the community charge, and a short time later the community charge is changed to the council tax; or when it is explained why HIV victims cannot he compensated and then there is a change. That normally comes about because, when a Minister gives a detailed explanation, it is possible to engage in debate and the Government can review their proposals.
  As it is not easy to extend the time for Second Reading of a Bill—this Bill had a half-day Second Reading debate —and as there are rules about what may be considered on Report, might my hon. Friend the Minister be invited to see whether, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, he can find some means of meeting, in private if not in public, an all-party delegation to consider whether the limits for public service vehicle drivers proposed in the Bill, which, if the Bill is passed, can be changed by regulation, might be reduced?
  Mr. Speaker: That is surely a matter that could be raised on Third Reading. I imagine that it forms part of the Bill and that it can therefore be raised on Third Reading.
  Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I had assumed that what was not in the Bill, which is a different set of limits, could not be discussed. This is not the time to go through what happened in Committee. It is worth pointing out, however, that, on the eighth day of the Committee, a very detailed opening discussion, or Second Reading discussion, was introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Other hon. Members, who were not members of the Committee, would, I believe, have liked to take part in that debate. I suspect that your guidance will be useful to the House. It may also be that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will want to consider my suggestion.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be for the hon. Member to raise that matter on Third Reading, if he catches the eye of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman asks the Minister to see a delegation, I have no doubt that he will be willing to do so.

  Transport and Works Bill
    New clause 2

      MAINTENANCE OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS
      '.—(1) Section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 (highways maintainable at public expense) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c), the word "and" shall be omitted.

      483
      (3) After paragraph (d) of subsection (2), there shall be added—
      "(e) a highway, being a footpath or bridleway, created in consequence of a rail crossing diversion order, or of an order made under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964, or of an order made under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992."
      (4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) above shall not apply to a footpath or bridleway, or to any part of a footpath or bridleway, which by virtue of an order of a kind referred to in that subsection is maintainable otherwise than at the public expense.".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 43 and 52.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The new clause arises from the constructive discussions that we have held with the Rights of Way Review Committee on the provisions in the Bill relating to footpaths and from promises given in Committee. It amends section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 so that new paths or ways created as a consequence of rail crossing diversion orders or harbour orders or works orders made under clauses 1 or 3 of the Bill will be maintained at public expense, except where that is not appropriate—for example, that part of a new right of way which crosses a railway, where responsibility for maintenance must rest with the operator. The new clause, combined with amendment No. 43, offers the necessary flexibility to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive arrangements for maintenance can be made by the Secretary of State in confirming a rail crossing diversion order or in making a harbour or transport works order. Amendment No. 52 is a consequential small repeal, of section 36(2) of the Highways Act. I commend the new clause, and the amendments, as I have said, achieve what the Rights of Way Review Committee wants.
      Mr. Peter Snape: Hon. Members who served on the Committee, as well as all other hon. Members, will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that explanation. It clarifies the position relating to section 36 of the Highways Act to which the Under-Secretary referred. It goes a long way —indeed, I believe that it goes the entire way; let me be placatory at this early stage—towards meeting the assurance that the Under-Secretary gave in Committee, for which we are grateful.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 8

      FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS OVER RAILWAYS
      '.—(1) This section applies where—

      (a) a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway crosses a railway or tramway otherwise than by a tunnel or bridge,

      (b) the operator of the railway or tramway has made a closure or diversion application in respect of the crossing, and

      484

      (c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State the crossing constitutes a danger to members of the public using it or likely to use it.

      (2) The Secretary of State may by order require the operator to provide a tunnel or a bridge, or to improve an existing tunnel or bridge, to carry the path or way over or under the railway or tramway at or reasonably near to the crossing to which the closure or diversion application relates.
      (3) An order under this section may include particulars as to the tunnel or bridge which is to be provided or as to the improvements which are to be made.
      (4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the closure or diversion application is made, and not less than two months before making an order he shall give written notice of his proposal to make the order to the operator and to each local authority in whose area the crossing (or any proposed new crossing) is situated.
      (5) A notice given under subsection (4) above must be accompanied by a draft of the proposed order under this section; and any order eventually made may include modifications of the draft.
      (6) An operator shall not be regarded as in breach of a duty imposed by an order under this section if he has used his best endeavours to comply with the order.
      (7) Where an operator is required by an order under this section to provide or improve a bridge or tunnel, but is unable to do so because he does not have the powers or rights (including rights over land) needed for the purpose, he shall not be taken to have used his best endeavours to comply with the order unless he has used his best endeavours to obtain those powers or rights (whether by means of an order under section I above or otherwise).
      (8) In this section—

      "bridleway" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;

      "closure or diversion application" means—

      (a) an application made under section 6 above, or

      (b) a request made in accordance with section 120(3A)(aa) of the highways Act 1980,

      for an order by virtue of which a public right of way would be extinguished or diverted;
      "footpath" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;
      "local authority" means a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London, a parish or community council and a parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council;
      "operator", in relation to a railway or tramway, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McLoughlin: 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: Government new clause 6— Amendment of Level Crossings Act 1983.
      Government new clause 7—Orders under Transport Act 1968.
      Government amendments Nos. 96 and 97.
      Mr. McLoughlin: New clause 8 meets an undertaking given in Committee to introduce a power for the Secretary of State to compel a railway or tramway operator to provide a bridge or tunnel as a replacement for a footpath or bridleway level crossing. This might be constructed either on the site of the crossing or at another reasonably convenient location to which the path or way could be

      485
      diverted. In some cases, it may be cheaper or more appropriate to improve a nearby bridge or tunnel to take a diverted right of way, and an order may require this instead. We have consulted on this proposal and it has been widely welcomed.
      The intention is that the railway or tramway operator will identify potentially dangerous crossings in the first instance, using as criteria the guidance recently issued by the railway inspectorate, on which comments are being sought. It is right that this responsibility should remain with the operator. BR is currently surveying all its footpath crossings, beginning with those on high-speed lines.
      Where a crossing is identified as unsafe and, following consultation with the council and other parties, it appears that a stopping-up or a simple diversion to another crossing point is not appropriate, the Secretary of State may step in and propose a bridge or tunnel order. Where all the interested parties agree that a bridge or tunnel is necessary, the Secretary of State will be able to give notice of a bridge or tunnel order at the same time as the operator applies for a diversion or extinguishment order. If a works order under part I is required, that could be dealt with concurrently.
      An inquiry may be necessary to decide whether it is reasonably practicable to retain a crossing and to make it safe for use by the public. In such cases it would be premature to publish a draft bridge order as that would prejudice the outcome of the operator's application. If the inquiry inspector recommended that a crossing was unsafe and could not be made safe, but should not be closed, a structure would be needed and the Secretary of State would consider making an order. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport will make all the administrative arrangements to ensure that each is aware of the diversion and extinguishment applications.
      That meets a commitment given in Committee, which was widely accepted.
      Mr. Snape: One question that arises directly from the Minister's speech is, who pays? The Minister said that the responsibility would lie with the railway or tramway operator once they have identified a level crossing or footpath that is considered to be unsafe. I said on behalf of the Opposition during a similar debate in Committee that we would be unwilling to see a greater financial burden placed upon British Rail, perhaps at the expense of railway services.
      In Committee we used the example of a level crossing in Doncaster where tragic fatalities occurred comparatively recently. Can the Minister turn his mind to the future of that crossing? Does he feel that that crossing would be covered by the provisions of the new clause? That crossing goes over no fewer than four or five running tracks and a goods loop or a siding. Obviously, any alternative, whether a bridge or a tunnel, would be expensive. In those circumstances, it is all very well to say that the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment would give the authority, but who would sign the cheques?
      Mr. Robert Adley: I should like to follow the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). It would be churlish not. to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy and
      486
      help on the points that I have raised directly with him. I spoke on Second Reading, but I did not serve on the Committee.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposition that a level crossing is a cost to be borne by the railways and that it should be part of their expenses and shown in their accounts is another example, of which dozens could be listed if it were in order to do so, that will show that it is always the railways that are expected to bear the cost when road meets rail. Road transport has all its track costs borne by the taxpayer. It is the same for the British Transport police. A total of £40 million is shown for them on the railways books, but all the costs of road policing are borne by the taxpayer.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that if, at some future date, we are to have a discussion about railway policy, the question of who pays when there are historic hangovers such as level crossings needs to be tackled? I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would agree that it could be done on a bipartisan basis. Perhaps my hon. Friend will recognise that this is an ongoing problem. Level crossings are just one example of a wider problem.
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The Minister will recollect that, in Committee, although we welcomed a clause such as this, I raised the question of the disabled. In the past, when bridges have been constructed, the disabled have not been considered. Whose responsibility will that be now? Does it rest with the local authority and local planning committee, with British Rail or with the construction company operating the crossing? We know that there are various crossings in Britain to which the disabled do not have access and where they have to travel many miles before they can cross. Whose responsibility will that be?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the new clause and the amendments. I am pleased that the Minister has met the points that we raised. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should like to know who will pay and, more importantly, how many orders there will be. There is no point putting the provision in the Bill if, in practical terms, there will not be any.
      As I understand it, British Rail identified in its legislation on east coast main line safety that 11 crossings were causing concern. I understand that negotiations on two of the crossings are at an advanced stage. That leaves nine crossings. Can the Minister tell us whether any of those nine will be the subject of a tunnel or a bridge, particularly the one at South Mimms, which is on the London way and is probably the most controversial? Has British Rail now agreed to drop the east coast safety measures in view of the fact that they will effectively be overtaken by this legislation?
      We know that some of the regulations under the Bill will not come into force for some time, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that the level crossing provisions and the safety measures related to them will come into force quickly and that it will be possible for British Rail to start constructing bridges or tunnels, where it is deemed necessary, at an early stage.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that I can go some way to helping my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr.

      487
      Adley). I am grateful for his thanks for meeting him and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) during the passage of the Bill.
      Where a bridge or tunnel order has been made, the Department will pay a grant to British Rail in England and Wales under EC regulation 1192/69. The regulation prescribes that the grant shall be equal to the proportion of the cost borne by the railway operator, less any additional costs for modification made at the request of British Rail and the value of any benefit that British Rail derives from work carried out. That means that the grant proportion is likely to be higher than the 50 per cent. grant payable for level crossings. Because of that, we estimate that the annual grant expenditure, assuming 10 orders for foot bridges, would be nearly £2 million rather than the initial figure of about £ million that I mentioned in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the east coast main line legislation that is presently before the House. It is for British Rail to decide how it wishes to proceed with that legislation. It will want to take into account what happens with this Bill if it reaches the statute book.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also asked about crossings, particularly the one at South Mimms. I would rather not try to answer him today, but I shall write to him and suggest what I think will be the outcome of any discussions on that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6

      AMENDMENT OF LEVEL CROSSINGS ACT 1983
      '.—In section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (safety arrangements at level crossings) in subsection (II), for the definition of "operator" there shall be substituted—
      " 'operator' ", in relation to a crossing, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way;".'.—]Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      ORDERS UNDER TRANSPORT ACT 1968
      '.—Section 124 of the Transport Act 1968 (which gives the Secretary of State power to impose obligations in respect of level crossings), in its application in England and Wales, shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      EXCLUSION OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE LEGISLATION
      '.—(1) In section 4 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (interpretation) in the definition of "hackney carriage", for the words "not a stage carriage" there shall be substituted the words "neither a stage carriage nor a tramcar".
      (2) In section 4 of the London Cab Act 1968 (display of signs etc) in subsection (5) in the definition of "private hire-car", after the words "public service vehicle" there shall be inserted the words "or tramcar".
      488
      (3) In section 80 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (interpretation) in subsection (1) in the definition of "private hire vehicle", after the words "London cab" there shall be inserted the words "or tramcar".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 88 to 92.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The proposed new clause and amendments deal with a topic that has not so far been considered in connection with the Bill—hackney carriage legislation. The Joint Committee, in its report on private Bill procedure, said that tramway legislation needed considerable updating and revision to meet modern requirements. Elsewhere in the Bill we have been able to do that in relation to safety. Here, we are proposing to deal with the regulatory aspects. The Tramways Act 1870 introduced a system for regulating the conduct of drivers and passengers and for the licensing and operational conditions of vehicles by applying existing hackney carriage legislation that dated from 1847. That legislation covered horse-drawn vehicles and it might well have been sensible to bring tramways under the same controls when trams were horse drawn. However, that seems wholly inappropriate in the context of modern tramcar and light railway vehicles.
      It could also lead to some bizarre circumstances. As the letter of the law stands at present, a constable who was convinced that a tram driver was behaving erratically could take over the tram and its horses and drive them to the nearest livery stables. The law would also impose on the driver of the tram in, say, Croydon, if that scheme succeeds, the need to pass the taxi drivers' knowledge examination. I do not think that that would be sensible.
      The new clause will put trams in much the same position as buses, which is why clause 58 applies to trams some of the provisions of the bus legislation contained in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. In the matter of safety, trams will remain under the supervision of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate.
      I commend the new clause to the House. With other provisions in the Bill, it will help to update the legislation governing the tramcar.
      Mr. Snape: Clearly, this is the last time for a while that we shall approach the legislation in such harmony. We note what the Minister says and, again, it appears to make a great deal of sense.
      It is probably out of order for me to ask this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall do so anyway—it is, of course, fatal to draw Mr. Deputy Speaker's attention to such a breach of conduct. It seems that many aspects of the London Cab Act 1968 and previous taxi carriage legislation need to be updated, including not only the definition of tramcars but, for example, the six-mile limit from the Palace of Westminster which appears to be based on the days when cabs were pulled by horses. There certainly appears to be no justification for that legislation to remain in the latter part of the 20th century.
      We welcome the attempt to tidy up the legislation. We hope that, in the last few weeks remaining to the Minister in his present post, he will reconsider some of the other and, in our view, greater anomalies of the legislation.
      Mr. Fearn: The Minister will recollect that many of us spoke about tramcars when the Bill was in Committee, and many of us mentioned Blackpool. Having spoken to tramcar persons—especially the drivers and conductors in Blackpool—we know that they are worried about any legislation that will alter what they are doing. Will the Minister reassure them that there will be no alteration to the way in which they operate at present?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I knew that the Tramways Act 1846, with which we are all conversant, would lead to some debate.
      The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about what might happen in the next few weeks. He obviously knows something that we do not. I look forward to many more months of further exchanges at the Dispatch Boxes with us both in our respective positions. The hon. Gentleman asked a valid question about hackney carriages and the old legislation. He will know that a working party is currently considering hackney carriages and public minicab regulations in London. I hope that we can reach a common agreement when the report is published.
      I assure the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that there is no intention to change the way in which Blackpool tram drivers, whom we see at least every other year—if not more often—operate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      PROCEDURE WHERE SECRETARY OF STATE OVERRULE'S RESULT OF INQUIRY
      '. Where, following a public local inquiry pursuant to section I I above, the Secretary of State makes an order modifying or overruling the recommendation of the person appointed by him to hear objections, such an order shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following amendments: No. 101, in clause 1, page I, line 17, at end insert
      'provided that no such order may be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.
      No. 102, in page 1, line 17. at end insert
      'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 103, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert
      'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
      No. 110, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, at end insert
      'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
      Mr. Bennett: The new clause deals with one of the essential principles of the way in which we are changing the private Bill procedure and—I hope—getting rid of many such Bills from the House of Commons.
      I think that most hon. Members would be very happy if we could pass responsibility for enacting legislation which is currently introduced in private Bills to local communities and local people. However, we would not be
      490
      very happy if Parliament were to give up its powers, duties and rights to the Secretary of State. "[hat is the issue covered in the new clause and some of the associated amendments.
      I understand perfectly that it is far better to hold a local public inquiry at which local people can put their case to the inspector than having people come to London—perhaps from the north of England—to put their views to a Committee of four hon. Members. One of those hon. Members has a casting vote and is there, so to speak, in a double capacity. Often, hon. Members are not especially interested in the issue—in fact, they must be disinterested parties, because they have a semi-judicial role. They may have to sit for many hours being told about local circumstances. Although they can visit the area involved, they do not have a great deal of knowledge. That is a very unsatisfactory procedure and it is far better—as the legislation provides—for people to be able to express their views to a local inspector.
      If the local inspector hears their views, reaches a balanced judgment and makes recommendations to the Secretary of State who implements them, that seems eminently more sensible than the present private Bill procedure. Of course, if the scheme is of national significance, it is reasonable that Parliament should judge whether the principle should be accepted and the detail considered by an inquiry.
      There might occasionally be arguments about whether a scheme is of national or local significance, but an amendment that was tabled to deal with that issue was not selected, although the Minister could not resolve the problem in Committee. He said merely that it was always easy to tell whether a scheme was of national or local significance, but when we tested him on one or two schemes, he could not answer.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that, following his logic, it would in the end be for the House to have the powers to decide on a matter of doubt whether an issue was of national or local significance?
      Mr. Bennett: Yes, I certainly tried to argue that in Committee and I tabled an amendment to that effect, but it was not selected.
      I still believe that there is a problem—I hope that someone in another place will return to this issue—in deciding what is of national or local significance. Assuming that it is approved by Parliament, because it is of national significance, or it is referred directly to an inquiry by the Secretary of State, because it is of local significance, I envisage no problems, as long as the inspector makes a recommendation which is then made law by the Secretary of State. I envisage that problems will occur if the Secretary of State decides to take a different decision from that recommended to him by the inspector or if he decides to modify the recommendations substantially. At that point, Parliament should have the right to exercise a final judgment in the matter if there is a disagreement between the inspector and the Secretary of State.
      We all know that, in most such cases, political pressure of one sort or another will have entered the equation. I have no doubt that, when the Minister replies, he will hold up his hands in horror and say that, when he gets the

      491
      inspector's report, he does not let anyone else influence him. He will say that he merely reads what the inspector has said and arrives at a conclusion.
      Mr. Spearing indicated dissent.
      Mr. Bennett: However, as my hon. Friend indicates, we all know that that does not happen. Of course, the Minister or the Secretary of State dealing with such an issue takes political considerations into account. There is nothing wrong with that in a democracy—in fact, we should be proud of the fact that Ministers respond to political arguments.
      There is no problem with that, but if a Minister responds to a political problem, in the end it should be up to Parliament to decide whether that Minister has responded correctly or incorrectly to the political arguments and whether he should have followed the inspector's directions or suggestions. The amendment simply says that, in the relatively rare circumstance of the Minister's disagreeing with the inspector, the final decision should come back to Parliament. It would not introduce a complicated procedure—we have aimed for almost the minimum amount of parliamentary accountability—but in those circumstances Parliament should retain the last word. We should not hand over to the Secretary of State the power to make political judgments.
      I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will be able to find a way of accommodating the views expressed in Committee, and those being expressed on Report, on this important issue.
      5 pm
      Mr. Spearing: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Clearly, if a Minister of the Crown reversed an inspector's public recommendation—although the recommendation would not be public until the Minister changed it—it would be right and proper for the House to have the final say. If that were written into the Bill, the Minister would, of course, bear in mind when considering his view the fact that the House would have the final say.
      That is an important principle—it is what I call the "hidden gate", which Parliament provides on many issues. Those issues may not necessarily be debated, but Parliament's power is in the minds of Ministers and officials. If any part of that gate were taken away, the actions and decisions of Ministers and officials in Whitehall would be different.
      I agree with my hon. Friend's new clause and will support it, but I do not believe that the restrictions and qualifications in it go anything like far enough. To the casual listener, the debate so far will have seemed to concern details about tramcars, railway crossings and bridleways. However, there is no doubt that clauses 1, 2 and 3 transfer enormous powers from Members of the House of Commons and therefore from those who sent us here to officials and Ministers in Whitehall. Nobody has denied that.
      I am worried that in doing so we have left too few backstop measures at the end of the process—too few opportunities for the House to say no. The powers being transferred from the House to Whitehall represent almost the whole range of private Bills that have come to the
      492
      House over the centuries. Transport Bills have included Bills in respect of canals—historically canals were the first —railways, harbours and, now, barrages in our estuaries. All works Bills relating to such matters are to be transferred to a completely new procedure. The powers exercised by an Opposed Private Bill Committee of the House are to be transferred to Whitehall.
      Moreover, Ministers will exercise those powers, not by introducing a Bill in the House—a public Bill, as distinct from a privately promoted Bill—but by a single statutory instrument. Clause 1(2) says:
      "The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
      It may not be known to hon. Members, still less to members of the public who may be listening to the debate, or even seeing it, via some electronic means—I did not know it myself until my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised it in Committee—but there are statutory instruments that are not even susceptible to a negative procedure. As well as the range of statutory instruments that become effective only after a draft has been laid or a motion approving them has been passed by the House, there is another range of statutory instruments for whose annulment it is not possible to put down a motion in the House.
      One might suppose that even those who support the principle of shifting all the private Bills about which we are talking away from the House would want there at least to be an affirmative instrument to approve the Minister's decision, which may be contained in a 300-page wodge of paper. But there is not an affirmative instrument in the Bill —the instruments will not even be subject to annulment. In other words, unless the matter is of national significance, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, the House will have no say. The matter will be in the hands of Whitehall and the Minister. Unless we agree to the amendment that would change all that to an affirmative procedure, allowing a maximum of an hour and a half's debate in the Chamber—for the House to say yes to what the Minister and the inspector have decided as a result of the public inquiry—there will be no control whatever.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has tabled another amendment, which would make the process subject to annulment. I hope that he will speak to that amendment later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it would at least provide some safeguards, although I do not regard those as being as good as an affirmative resolution.
      We have here a statutory instrument in camouflage. When people think of statutory instruments and regulations, they think of relatively small matters of detail, such as the design of buses and other vehicles, regulations on tramcar drivers or other abstruse administrative details. But under the Bill there would be a new breed of statutory instrument which would replace the scope of a Bill authorising a railway of pretty well any length. A future subject of such a single statutory instrument could be a railway line from King's Cross halfway to the coast —the document could be 300 pages long.
      Such a statutory instrument could affect my borough of Newham, where the Ove Arup plans show a tunnel under the town, and various other buildings. That provides a convenient example, because, although there would be a public inquiry, the House would not be able to make a final decision on the balance of the public advantage that

      493
      a railway would undoubtedly bring against the private disadvantage of the compulsory purchase orders that such a statutory instrument would entail.
      This is a matter not only of compulsory purchase, although that is important, but of giving powers. Properly and understandably, private Bills have hitherto given their promoters powers to make byelaws and regulations on the operation of, for example, a railway system. Under the Bill, those powers could affect a system of new elevated magnetic track, such as we hear could well be introduced.
      I have already mentioned coastal barrages. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish talked about the difference between local and national significance. A barrage across the Mersey has already been mentioned. Would that be a local or a national matter? A Severn barrage has been talked about for more than a century. Would that be a purely local matter for the west country and south Wales, or would it be a national matter? Certainly, if it affected electricity generation, it would be a national matter, but under the Bill the Minister would decide whether it was national or local. If the Minister or his successor decided that one of those projects—or a project in Scotland, such as a barrage across the Solway Firth—was not of national significance, the House would have no part to play.
      Now we have some idea of the scope of the orders. As schedule 1 affects clauses 1 and 3, and the orders, I hope that it is in order to refer to it. It lays down in fair detail the matters that the statutory instruments can include. They may be surprising to some people outside in their scope and significance.
      Schedule 1, which contains 18 paragraphs, is headed:
      "Matters within sections 1 and 3",
      and covers the matters that can be dealt with by statutory instrument. The paragraphs include:
      "2. The carrying out of any other civil engineering or other works.
      3. The acquisition of land …
      4. The creation and extinguishment of rights over land ….
      5. The abrogation and modification of agreements relating to land.
      6. The conferring on persons providing transport services of rights to use systems".
      I hasten on to paragraph 9, which says:
      "The making of agreements to secure the provision of police services."
      That means the creation of a police force. We are all familiar with the British Transport police and there are private police forces. One will be set up at the port of Tilbury; that is a very controversial proposal. The Bill could create a Severn barrage police force, a canal police force, or a channel tunnel railway police force which would have nothing to do with the Kent constabulary or the Essex constabulary. The provision is as bland as that.
      The worst and most extraordinary of all is paragraph 18, which refers to:
      "The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament."
      By virtue of a small paragraph which cannot be got at by the House, unless new clause I is accepted, any Act of Parliament relating to the powers of any body can be changed.
      I think that when I came to this place, such a proposal by any Minister of any Government, whether right, left or centre, would have been thought impossible by any hon. Member. Here we have powers, not only in clauses I and 3, but in other clauses, to change Acts of Parliament by relatively obscure Orders in Council which cannot be
      494
      prayed against by the House. A Minister can unilaterally, without any proceedings in the House, change any Act of Parliament within the defintion that I have just read. I challenge the Minister to tell me now that my interpretation of the Bill is wrong. We have been round the course already in Committee and, very unfortunately, the answer is that I am correct.
      Time and again, members of the public, members of the press and Members of Parliament say that Whitehall and Ministers have too much power. We must claw back the power to the House of Commons. The Bill claws back nothing; it gives it all away—and on a quiet Thursday afternoon. I am not a betting man, but I bet that most hon. Members do not know that the Bill is giving away the rights of their constituents.
      On the Solway Firth, anywhere in Scotland or anywhere where there is a coastal barrage, a railway, a tramway—I am glad to say that there will be many more railways and tramways, of which many of us are in favour —someone may go to an advice service. He may ask a Member of Parliament what he can do about a particular proposal. Unless the proposal has been designated as of national significance, the Member of Parliament can only say, "I will write to the Minister, I will see him with a delegation, I will see him in the Lobby or I will catch him when he comes to a garden fete, but I cannot do anything in Parliament."
      Mr. McLoughlin: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's wider point about the police later, because to deal with it now would take longer than an intervention allows.
      The hon. Gentleman must be a little more generous about the idea that we are giving away powers. Under the Bill, we seek to remove the locus standi and we shall give many more people the right to be able to appear at public inquiries, which are usually held in their locality. That has been the subject of exhaustive debates in the House on many occasions. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not like what we are doing, but I believe that it is a greater democratisation rather than a removal of democracy.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Spearing: I am extremely glad that the Minister has intervened in that way. He was very obliging in Committee, and he has been the soul of courtesy. However, he has forgotten one fundamental point. I agree, of course, that it is far better for some inquiries to be conducted locally. I am the first to understand that a bewigged and terrifying procedure in a Committee Room is far less satisfactory for some constituents than a local inquiry such as we have for planning.
      However, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which made this recommendation, might have looked a little further into the matter. It was perfectly possible to ensure that one of the rules for private legislation was that planning permission and local inquiries—with which we all agree—were carried out and came to a conclusion before the private Bills were laid. That would get rid of all the problems, make the private Bill procedure swifter and save hon. Members' time.
      Parliament would be used as a court of appeal, which it should be, rather than as a court of first instance, which it has become with many private Bills. If it had not been for the abuse of the private Bill procedure by some people, whom the Minister knows, and even by the Government,

      495
      we should not be here today. It is perfectly possible to combine local hearings and local democracy with the central powers of a central democracy of this kingdom.
      I have made a long contribution, but I believe that the seriousness of the matter deserves such comment. The powers under schedule 1 are very great. I did not read out paragraph 1, which refers to:
      "The construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, demolition and removal of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other transport systems within section 1(1) of this Act, waterways, roads, watercourses, buildings and other structures."
      Barrages are included because they affect navigation, which is included under clause 3.
      As some colleagues know, because we debated the matter in Committee, that is not the extent of the Minister's powers. A lawyer or someone conversant with legislation might look at schedule 1 and say, "The Minister's proposal is not contained here. He cannot do it under the order." Having made some inquiries, I am sorry to tell the House that the Minister's powers under the orders are even wider than the powers under schedule 1.
      Under clause 1, the Secretary of State
      "may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction or operation of a transport system of any of the following kinds".
      The magic words—perhaps I should say ominous words —are "matters ancillary to" and "relating to". Let us suppose that a private person said, "The matter is not in schedule 1, it does not concern a police force, it is not this or that. The Minister cannot do it." Let us suppose that the matter went to court. The court might find that, although the matter was not covered by schedule 1, it was definitely "relating to" or "ancillary to" and the Minister would get away with it. The scope of the orders is almost beyond imagination and is certainly beyond belief.
      Many people both inside and outside the House have said that the powers of the Executive have grown, are still growing and need to be diminished. Unless my amendment, which makes it necessary to have an affirmative vote in the House, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett) is passed, the power of the Executive will wax much greater. Many people will rue the day when the House loses the power of the people who sent us here to officials, Ministers and those in Whitehall who support them.
      Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested that this measure will slip through on a quiet Thursday afternoon. There was never any prospect of it being a quiet Thursday afternoon, with the hon. Gentleman and others contributing to the debate. From beginning to end, the procedures on the Bill have been full of surprises. In Committee, what appeared to be relatively modest proposals on the amendment paper, time and again became issues of great principle. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that again this afternoon.
      I thought that this was a relatively minor proposal. Very quickly, we returned to the fundamental principles of the Bill. The new clause is described as a simple procedure whereby the Secretary of State overrules the result of an inquiry—a relatively modest suggestion, and not impossible to concede. The hon. Gentleman soon talked about extending police powers and the privatisation of
      496
      police forces, and perhaps applying them to the high-speed link to the channel tunnel, Severn barrage, and so on. On this relatively small point, the hon. Gentleman built an enormous argument of principle.
      I have much respect and admiration for the hon. Gentleman, as do most hon. Members, but the truth is that he does not like the Bill at all. He is totally against the transfer of planning controls from Parliament to the planning system. It is a surprise that he did not vote against Second Reading, because he is totally against the measure. He wants to hang on as long as he possibly can to control over railway planning. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should continue to plan railways through the archaic private Bill procedure, he should apply the same logic to highways and to the myriad of major planning matters that are dealt with through the planning procedure.
      If the hon. Member for Newham, South wants to control the details of a railway, he must consider why we should not bring back to Parliament control over highway matters. He might thoroughly enjoy that. He would probably claw back great powers from the Executive, but I am not sure whether that would help our constituents. It certainly would not streamline the planning procedures or get things done, but it would certainly bog down Parliament in a vast quantity of detail and not be efficient. With this proposal, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are clinging on by their fingertips to a little residual control over railway matters. Although I can understand that, it misses the point.
      Mr. Spearing: Let me make our position absolutely clear. I would not want to claw back more powers over motorways, for example, although there were turnpike Acts many years ago. However, I want an hour and a half for debate on matters of local significance that may be very important. That is not time consuming—the rest may be done outside the House. Why not have an hour and a half?
      Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. It is just as logical to apply that argument to roads. Exactly the same argument applies. If he wants to bring that matter back to Parliament, he should argue that case. He again suggested the dual procedure—a public inquiry system outside the House, with Parliament retaining a system of control thereafter, with much of the work having been done. That point was considered by the Select Committee. Nearly everybody who has been concerned with those matters is totally against having two bites at the cherry. A public inquiry system—analysis outside this place—would be very unsatisfactory if it were known that it would thereafter go to Parliament and all the work would be thrown away because our unsatisfactory system could simply reject it.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: New clause 1 does not mention that. It says that, if the inquiry reaches one decision and the Secretary of State comes up with a different decision, the House should be the arbitrator.
      Mr. Moate: I understand what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish says, but the hon. Member for Newham, South was not saying that—he was going a little further. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Newham, South. He is desperately trying to cling on to a Parliamentary procedure when, fundamentally, the

      497
      Select Committee and Parliament–1 hope that it will continue—have endorsed the principle of moving such planning matters out into the planning system.
      The hon. Gentleman is right—of course that means that Parliament is giving up that control, but it is doing so deliberately, because it knows that it is almost an accident of history that we have retained control over such matters. There are efficient systems which we still ultimately have to control matters and for which we ultimately have political responsibility, but they are outside the House and it makes sense to apply the same rules to railways and ports.
      Of course it is a litle irritating when a Minister overrules the decisions of an inspector, but surely the same logic applies to a range of other public inquiries. If Parliament said, "Because, for historical reasons, we have had all those controls, we wish to retain residual control just over railways," why should we not have the same power over highways and all other planning matters? Whenever the Secretary of State overrules a local inspector, he will be saying that an order should be brought to the House and subject to the same negative procedure.
      We must accept the argument in principle of passing those matters into the planning system. Therefore, I do not feel that the case for the new clause has been made out.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I refer to amendments Nos. 102 and 103. Of course we are not talking about an entirely unqualified procedure. Under clauses 1 and 3, which relate to the
      "construction … of a transport system … or to matters ancillary to … the construction or use of an inland waterway",
      the Secretary of State is given power to produce statutory instruments which are not subject to any procedure. My amendment simply requires that they should be subject to annulment. That is to say, if a prayer is tabled and the opportunity is provided, there should be a debate of one and a half hours—inadequate but better than nothing. For the information of the House, in 1991, of 114 prayers that wer tabled, 25 were debated, it is not as though we are talking about an overwhelming number of prayers being debated on the Floor of the House.
      Clauses 1 and 3 provide the Secretary of State with power to make instruments, but only on application under rules provided under the negative procedure in clause 6. In Committee, we improved the Bill by making the negative procedure—that is, instruments subject to annulment—a requirement for the production of the rules. There is some element of public accountability, but, once the rules have been laid down, the Secretary of State can consider an application. Under clause 11, he may cause a public local inquiry to be held for the purposes of an application made under clause 6 under the rules made by a statutory instrument. However, it is not an absolute requirement that the Secretary of State holds a public local inquiry, because he may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to hear an objection and then report to him.
      5.30 pm
      Of course, if the Secretary of State thinks that an application is frivolous or trivial, he can turn it down on those grounds. So he can turn it down on three different grounds. However, if a local authority applies, he must hold a local public inquiry. So there is a procedure. All that we ask in the new clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) says, is that
      498
      Parliament should have reserve powers to examine an order if the Secretary of State differs from the decision or recommendation to hold a public inquiry.
      What is the Minister's worry? If he makes an order after an application under clause 6, whether or not it is considered by a local public inquiry under clause 11, why should he not make an order with a negative procedure attached to it so that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to request a debate if they want one? There might be special local circumstances. There might be a difference of view between the local public inquiry and the Secretary of State. That would be one argument for having a debate. Another would be that a section of the local community was dissatisfied with some procedure of the inquiry. Local people might feel that their case had been denied a proper hearing. That might lead a Member of Parliament to table a prayer and seek a debate.
      However, in our experience the likelihood is that a debate will not be sought. The likelihood is that one of the negative procedures will be used and the order will go through the House without objection. That would happen in the majority of cases. We simply want a reserve power to enable people outside the House to invoke the support of their Member of Parliament for a debate if they feel dissatisfied in some way.
      Anxiety about a proposal might give rise to reluctance to allow the powers in the Bill to be used in such a way that they go unchallenged. The powers are pretty wide. Clause 5 states that an order under section 1 or 3 may
      "apply, modify or exclude any provision of an Act of Parliament (or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made under section I or, as the case may be, 3, and
      (b) make such amendments, repeals and revocations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary".
      Those wide powers are known as a Henry VIII clause. In effect we are giving power to the Minister to repeal or modify primary legislation made by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is an important power.
      I am pleased that we are having this debate because over the years Parliament has given a power such as we are discussing to lots of Ministers lots of times. It has slid through the House with the greatest of ease. People are now examining such powers a little more closely. It is fair and proper that we should do so. As the powers are wide and involve criminal sanctions—penalties could be imposed on people under them—we should have a reserve power to have a look at things.
      The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments recently took evidence on an instrument presented to it. The evidence was not a bright, shining example of evidence submitted by a Department with clarity of thought. Indeed, the Department had clearly got things wrong in its memorandum. It apologised for that. After the evidence was given, we obtained from our counsel some comments about which Department was responsible for the most confusing and misleading instruments. I must tell the Minister that high on the list was the Department of Transport.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was the winner.
      Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend says, it was the winner. So we would be giving powers to issue orders to the Minister and his Department when the Department has not the best record for clarity of expression. That is

      499
      important, because people have to use these orders. The orders are laws, we should attempt to make them as clear as possible.
      I said in the Standing Committee, and it is worth repeating here, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not simply a policing body. It is an assisting body. If a Department approaches our counsel, who is an efficient and effective counsel, he will give advice if he finds faults in the instrument. An instrument can often be rectified before it is laid in the House. That is a useful service. If a Department does not have to go through any parliamentary procedure of annulment, of course it does not have to bother so much. It is important that the Department should have to bother.
      It is not so much that we insist on having a one-and-a-half-hour debate,—but if that is at the back of people's minds, it helps them to concentrate on what is in hand. Under the orders, fines can be imposed, albeit not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. People can be accused of a criminal offence. So it is not a bad idea for the Minister to accede to our request to make them subject to annulment and, therefore, to some examination outside the Department of Transport.
      Schedule 1 lists matters within sections 1 and 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to some such matters but I wish to draw the attention of the House to several other points. First, the orders can relate to
      "The charging of tolls, fares (including penalty fares) and other charges, and the creation of summary offences in connection with non-payment (or in connection with a person's failure to give his name or address in accordance with provisions relating to penalty fares)."
      So although a limited penalty is laid down in the body of the Bill, orders can cover a wide range of activities. Orders can also apply to sub-delegation. That is giving power to bodies not in Parliament, and other than Parliament, to make laws. Subdelegation comes under paragraph 13 of schedule 1 where it refers to:
      "The making of byelaws by any person and their enforcement, including the creation of summary offences."
      We are not dealing with draconian offences or penalties but none the less they are criminal offences for which people can be taken to a magistrates court. The magistrates would consider the case and pronounce sentence because summary offences had been created.
      Whether we should give the Secretary of State powers to make orders is arguable, but it seems even more dubious to give the Secretary of State powers to give a third party powers to create penalties and summary offences. Schedule 1(18) states:
      "The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament."
      That impinges on primary legislation. The orders could change a body set up by an Act or the powers of such a body. To that degree the schedule curtails, alters, modifies and, indeed, extends legislation—an alteration could mean that the power of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament was extended.
      I accept that, under the powers provided in clauses 1 to 3, an order is subject, before it is made, to a local public inquiry in most circumstances. But in some circumstances it will not be subject to an inquiry. Parliament should have a reserve power to assist the Department in drafting orders that are clear, without ambiguity and intra vires rather
      500
      than ultra vires. That would be a help to the Department. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that we wanted to maintain control. He exaggerated the position. We do not seek control. We want to streamline the procedure. I am simply saying that Members' rights should not be eroded.
      Perhaps in one in 100 cases—or not even that many —there may be a case of controversy, for example when railways are being considered or inland waters, which are being subject to rules of navigation. However, the areas covered in clauses 1 and 3—with the exception of the section of clause 3 which has been improved by making it subject to negative procedure—are not so likely to be free of controversy that we should exclude the 100th case when hon. Members may wish to raise the matter, on a prayer against an instrument, because they feel that it is wrong, is badly drafted or seeks to obtain powers not contained in the primary legislation that we are discussing. All those were problems mentioned in Committee and are realities.
      The Minister has been helpful. In many other areas of the Bill the Minister recognised the strength of the argument that orders should be subject to negative procedure. As the powers contained in clause 1 and 3 are so extensive, they should also be included—in the way in which I have proposed—rather than excluded from further parliamentary procedure. That is not much to ask. It is not a question of holding on to centralised control but of saying that, as a last resort, because of errors, controversy or possible confrontation, Parliament should have the right to a mini-debate.
      After all, it is not a bad idea to keep the spectre of a debate on a prayer before the Secretary of State. It ensures that he takes a closer look at the instrument. Instruments have been drafted—as the Minister knows—containing words and phrases that the Minister does not know about. The Minister has signed them. His civil servants did not know, and if he had asked them, they would have told him. The problem was that he did not ask them—and that was subject to negative procedure.
      I am not asking much. This is a small request, and I hope that the Minister can meet it.
      Mr. Snape: What the debate has lacked in numbers it has more than made up for in its quality. I have listened carefully to the four contributions and anyone who was impartial—none of us is—would have been swayed one way or the other listening to each speech in turn.
      I shall consider the amendments in reverse order. The cricketing metaphor has already been used and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) proposes a long-stop piece of legislation. I listened carefully to what he had to say and was fascinated by his view that the amendment would only be used, if it became part of the Bill, in about one in every 100 cases.
      I am not sure whether I can go along with that figure. I have known my hon. Friend for many years. A short time after he and I first entered the House he introduced me to some of the more bewildering complexities of orders and praying against them. After a comparatively short time here, he demonstrated a labyrinthine knowledge of some of those procedures.
      Knowing my hon. Friend and his diligence, I suspect that, if we accepted his amendment, he would use each and every opportunity to have a debate—I do not blame him for that—although he tells us that that would arise only in one in every 100 cases.

      501
      Occasionally such matters can lead to competition between hon. Members—sometimes between hon. Members on the same side of the House. Having set that precedent, with the great knowledge which I know that he possesses, one could envisage that other hon. Members would also use the procedure. Far from being one in 100 cases, it would become accepted custom and practice.
      Although I admired the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South pushed his amendment, if we accepted it, the loophole that it would open would soon widen into a window of opportunity and, given the amount of use that it would get, the wall on that side of the building would fall down.
      Mr. Cryer: I think that my hon. Friend has attributed to me more of a spirit of inquiry than I justify. In 1991, about 1,750 instruments were laid before the House and a tiny proportion—perhaps 200—were under the affirmative procedure, but there were only 100 prayers from 650 Members of Parliament. I tabled only a handful. Based on that experience, my original claim that about one in 100 would be dealt with through that procedure is right.
      Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend does not care to tell us what percentage of the 100 he tabled. I guess that it was more than one.
      Mr. Cryer: That is quite right—it was more than one.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Snape: If he tabled more than one, it has blown a hole in his argument that it will only be one in 100. He knows full well that all too often such matters generate controversy when other proposed work does not.
      I invite the House to look at today's Order Paper, which contains a considerable number of such Bills. Most of them would be covered by the proposals in this legislation and many of them prayed against. I do not single out one and I am sure that the names of those of my hon. Friends which appear on the blocking motions appear there because those hon. Members are concerned about the scheme involved.
      Let us take as an example a non-railway Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who represents a large part of my home town of Stockport, has a deep and abiding interest in the Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Bill, and that is why his name appears on the blocking motion. The fact that our procedures allow so many railway Bills to be blocked at present does not fill me with confidence that the acceptance of some of these amendments would speed up our procedures.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I remind my hon. Friend that, soon after I entered the House in 1974, he told me of the brilliant Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which he served, and suggested that I might like to take his place on it. I have served on it ever since. The ability to question statutory instruments does not mean that they always have to be questioned, just as the ability to table a blocking motion does not mean that legislation always has to be debated. It may well mean that the promoters will want to talk and to give assurances—just as, if one tables a prayer against an order and starts to make a fuss about having a debate on it, Ministers are sometimes prepared to
      502
      be helpful to Members to avoid a debate. It is not necessarily a question of having a debate, but prayers allow Members to apply pressure.
      Mr. Snape: There was no doubt that I was wise to give up my place on the Statutory Instruments Select Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. It has allowed him to display the remarkable expertise that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South display with great regularity in the House. The fact that I so willingly relinquished my position on that Committee to him explains why he can run rings around me and many other hon. Members when it comes to procedural matters.
      While accepting everything that he has just said about the importance of getting Ministers in any Government to reconsider proposals—especially when, in the opinion of the hon. Member concerned, they might adversely affect the interests of his or her constituents—we are talking about finding some method of dealing with certain legislation.
      As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moale) rightly pointed out, railway legislation regularly comes before the House only as an accident of history. Uniquely, railway matters—even supposedly less controversial railway matters—have to come before the House. I am told that the purpose of the legislation—or at least the Government said it was—
      Mr. Spearing: Ah!
      Mr. Snape: I shall reply to my hon. Friend's scepticism in a moment.
      I am told that the legislation was intended to put different modes of transport on an equal footing. I know that that philosophy unites all Labour Members. Many of us have long felt that the railway industry has been unduly penalised because of those procedures. Delays have been regularly inflicted upon railway projects because of the time that they take to clear the hurdles of the House.
      The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is not a long-stop amendment, to continue the cricketing parlance. He has moved all the fielders to one place and they are all lining up. If the first seven miss the ball, there are still a few more behind them to stop it. I do not see any purpose to the Bill, if each and every case comes back to the House in the way that my hon. Friend outlined. I am more attracted to new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, whereby, should the Secretary of State overrule the results of an inquiry, an order will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. Again, although I see the merit in that, it would outweigh some of the advantages gained from transferring legislation on railways from the House to inquiries at a local level.
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend passed rapidly over my amendment. However, does he agree that its advantage would be that, instead of debating a controversial Bill for up to six hours on Second Reading and spending four or more weeks in Committee, which would engage many hon. Members in long hours, we could have a debate of an hour and a half only on the Floor of the House? Surely, from my hon. Friend's point of view, that would be a great advantage.
      Mr. Snape: No, it would not. The purpose of the Bill is to take many of those matters from the House and to put them where many of us believe they should be discussed —at a local inquiry. My hon. Friend's amendment would bring them all back again.
      Mr. Spearing: No, it would not.
      Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend says no, but he knows that it would, because—I say this with utmost respect—he is one of the most artful users of the rules of this House. He is as artful as my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish and for Bradford, South.
      The discussion of procedures relating to railway legislation should be transferred to where I believe it properly belongs—inquiries at local level. Therefore, the amendments and the new clause should be resisted.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether I should intrude on the private grief of the Opposition.
      In Committee, we had many interesting debates on how to go forward most effectively. I wish to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the Opposition Front-Bench team for their constructive approach. I also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). This is an important Bill and we are making numerous changes. I hope that the constructive approach that we took in Committee allayed some of the fears of hon. Members.
      I cannot recommend the amendments and new clause 1 to the House. New clause I would mean that every order made under clause 1 or clause 3 where the Secretary of State had modified the inquiry inspector's recommendation would have to be laid before Parliament, however small the modification, and even if the modification had been the subject of a further inquiry. That would introduce an added—and I would suggest unwelcome—procedure into the decision-making process for railway and tramway schemes which does not apply to highways projects or to general planning applications. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). It would introduce further delay and uncertainty into a procedure which railway and tramway promoters —and indeed some Labour Members—already regard as potentially very protracted.
      Amendment No. 66 was tabled by all the Labour hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It refers to "unreasonable delay", but I shall explain why I think that it would add to that delay.
      I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has in mind, in particular, schemes of national significance where, following an inquiry, the inspector recommended major changes which, if accepted, would conflict with the terms of the parliamentary approval. I agree that, as clause 9 is currently drafted, the Secretary of State might be tempted to reject the inspector's recommended changes, but I think that amendment No. 86, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, provides a more satisfactory and practicable solution to that point. However, the new clause would affect all orders—not just those of national significance.
      Decisions on transport developments are seldom clear-cut. Judgments have to be made which weigh, on the one hand, the impact of the scheme on people and the environment at the local level and, on the other, the wider
      504
      public benefits which the scheme might bring. The inspector, having heard all the evidence at an inquiry, will have a view and will reflect this in his recommendation. In cases where the arguments for and against the development are finely balanced, the inspector might, in his report, recommend that the scheme should proceed subject to certain conditions and modifications. Equally, he might recommend rejection, but in terms which would provide a basis for the Secretary of State to reach a different view if he concluded that more weighting should be given to the wider public good.
      Under the proposed new clause, if the Secretary of State decides to turn down the order, perhaps against the recommendation of the inspector, Parliament would be able to do nothing about it. On the other hand, if he makes the order but in so doing rejects, say, certain conditions recommended by the inspector or imposes others, the order would have to be laid before Parliament. Consequently, the effect of the new clause would be to upset the careful balance we have sought to achieve between the interests of promoters and of objectors in favour of the latter.
      As I have said, the new clause would introduce further delay—as much as five months in certain circumstances —and uncertainty. If an order were successfully prayed against in either House, it would be lost. The applicant would then have to start the process all over again because the Secretary of State would not be able to modify an order that he had already made. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might say that this would be unlikely to arise, but I cannot see what purpose the parliamentary scrutiny would serve if it did not provide the opportunity to change the Secretary of State's decision.
      I remind the House that the Secretary of State is required under clause 14(2) to give reasons for his decision on an order. The inspector's report would be published when the order is made, so the Secretary of State would be bound to say why he had departed from the inspector's recommendation. Moreover, his decision would be open to challenge in the courts.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked whether the level of fines should be extended. He is an expert in such matters and I am sure that he is already aware that hundreds of byelaws that create criminal offences are made by the Government and local authorities which are not subject to parliamentary supervision. I do not believe that we are talking about a great extension of such powers.
      Mr. Cryer: Under the provisions of paragraph 12 of schedule 1, some delegation of powers is allowed to virtually any body that is not democratically elected. We are democratically elected—we are soon to be embroiled in an election—and so are local authorities. I understand why local authorities have such delegated powers, and rightly so, but at least there is an element of accountability. That is why I am concerned about paragraph 12.
      Mr. McLoughlin: A balance must be struck, and I believe that the orders would have an important effect.
      This has been a good debate, but I cannot accept the new clause and the amendments. I ask the House to reject them.
      6 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am a little disappointed by what the Minister says. Although he gave us a fair number of concessions in Committee. I hoped that he would have picked one of our amendments to give us a little more parliamentary control.
      I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who served on the Committee, does not want us to rush to a vote at this moment, but I want to explain to the Government that we are still not totally happy with the question of parliamentary control. Perhaps in the other place their lordships may feel that they should try to insist on the rights not only of this House but of the House of Lords.
      Although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) suggested that a general election is imminent, I hope that the Bill will get through before that happens. I realise that the schedule will be tight if the House of Lords is to come up with amendments, but it is important that it considers the questions of parliamentary scrutiny and where Ministers make different decisions from those of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend said that he was not anxious to press the matter to a vote. I think that we should divide on the new clause, because the Minister would unfortunately not even accept my more moderate suggestion that any instrument should be subject to negative procedure. It is therefore important that my hon. Friend should consider the need for a gesture, in the form of a vote, to show that some of us are unhappy that some parliamentary accountability is not being retained in the clause.
      Mr. Bennett: I assure my hon. Friend that I am working in that direction. It is a little ironic that many of our colleagues are at this moment meeting the parliamentary Labour party to consider next week's business, and I suspect that some Conservative Members are in a meeting of the 1922 Committee. It will not be particularly popular with hon. Members in either of those meetings if their proceedings are interrupted by a Division on the Floor of the House. It may be to their convenience, therefore, if I say a few more words on the matter before I press it to a vote. The slight irony of the matter is that, when dealing with private Bills, I must often speak from these Benches at considerable length to delay the procedure.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I understand how the hon. Gentleman is trying to facilitate the business of the House. However, may I draw his attention to the fact that, if the Secretary of State were to make different kinds of orders, he would be required under clause 14(2) to give the reasons for his decision. The inspector's report would obviously be published once the order was made and the Secretary of State would be bound to say why he had departed from the inspector's recommendations. His decision would then be challengeable.
      As for the idea that we are somehow taking the issue out of the domain of Parliament, the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) do not need me to explain to them how they can bring matters to the attention of the House, hold up business and make their views well known. Moreover, I am sure that they are capable of advising any other hon. Member about that.
      Mr. Bennett: The Minister used that argument in Committee. There are all sorts of techniques that hon. Members can use to draw attention to problems. Yesterday, when we heard the Secretary of State for the Environment speaking, one or two of us wondered whether the Mace would be removed.
      Mr. Cryer: He was on Ecstasy.
      Mr. Bennett: Although perfectly legitimate devices for drawing attention to grievances or problems exist, there are advantages in following rules and regulations that encourage and facilitate debates, rather than having to look for ways of breaking rules and regulations to draw attention to a problem. We are asking the Minister to give us a natural channel of rules and regulations to work through, rather than having to look for extra-parliamentary activities.
      I could cry, "I spy strangers," at this point and create a vote. If that is done in the middle of Prime Minister's Question Time, it attracts more publicity to an issue than many hours of debate in a statutory instruments committee. I understand that there are plenty of ways to draw attention to a problem, but let us try to do it properly.
      An even more worrying remark that the Minister made was that the Government were taking matters away from Parliament and giving them to local inquiries. A Minister would then have the power to override a local inquiry. He then said that, if that Minister did not do his work properly, the power would be given to the courts. I resent the idea that Parliament—the high court of the land—should hand over decisions to the judiciary. I do not wish to spin out the debate, even for a minute or two, discussing the merits of our judges, but I have more trust in most Tory Ministers than I have in most judges.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I know about that concern, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford—
      Mr. Cryer: South.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I shall get it right by the end of the night.
      I agree that that would be the last recourse that any hon. Member would take, but any Minister considering changing the order would bear that in mind. The responsibility would not stop at the Minister, because he would be challengeable elsewhere.
      Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that information. However, to send a marker to the House of Lords, it is important that we divide on one group of amendments, and it would be far simpler to divide on new clause 1. The House of Lords may prefer to return to one of the other amendments, but I hope that it will pursue the Government on that.
      Mr. Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the specific point that I tried to address to him? Does he concede that a road inquiry can be just as controversial —probably more so because there are more of them—than a railway inquiry? If the new clause argues that a negative procedure of the House should apply to any situation where a Minister changes or overrules an inspector's decision, why does not the hon. Gentleman apply exactly the same argument to highways, for instance?
      Mr. Bennett: I would second that as a proposal if the hon. Gentleman would care to table it as an amendment. Most highway orders are done by statutory instrument so it would be merely a question of making statutory instruments for highway matters subject to negative procedure, where there is a difference between what the inspector recommends and what the Secretary of State intends to do. The occasions when the Secretary of State decides to modify an order are rare and there is a strong reason for insisting that this decision should be accountable to Parliament.
      Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great distinction between the compulsory purchase of highways, buildings or plant and the creation of a transport system, where power as well as property are involved, and where the making of law as distinct from the purchasing of property is a great feature? Moreover, much of the legal infrastructure for policing and control already exists with regard to highways, whereas in any transport system it must be specific.
      Mr. Bennett: Yes, I accept that.
      I hope that the two meetings to which I referred are now over and that we can divide on the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 173.

      Division No. 89]

      [6.08 pm

      AYES

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Leighton, Ron

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McFall, John

      Bellotti, David

      Madden, Max

      Benton, Joseph

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Carr, Michael

      Nellist, Dave

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Rooney, Terence

      Corbett, Robin

      Salmond, Alex

      Cox, Tom

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Don

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Fisher, Mark

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Vaz, Keith

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Tellers for the Ayes

      Haynes, Frank

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Howells, Geraint

      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Alexander, Richard

      Brazier, Julian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Amos, Alan

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Butler, Chris

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butterfill, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cash, William

      Benyon, W.

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bowis, John

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      508

      Cran, James

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Moate, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Eggar, Tim

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Farr, Sir John

      Needham, Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Forman, Nigel

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Paice, James

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Patnick, Irvine

      French, Douglas

      Pawsey, James

      Gale, Roger

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Price, Sir David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Riddick, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Gregory, Conal

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Ground, Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Hague, William

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hannam, Sir John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hayward, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Shelton, Sir William

      Hill, James

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Jack, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jackson, Robert

      Stevens, Lewis

      Janman, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Jessel, Toby

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Thorne, Neil

      Knapman, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Tredinnick, David

      Knox, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Viggers, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Waller, Gary

      Lord, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Wheeler, Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Wilkinson, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wilshire, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Wood, Timothy

      Mans, Keith

      Yeo, Tim

      Maples, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mates, Michael

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      LOCAL ORDER-MAKING POWER
      '.—()-(1) This section applies where an application made under section 6 above relates to proposals which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are minor and of only local significance.

      509
      (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may determine that an application which is in his opinion minor and of only local significance shall be handled by the local planning authority for the area to which the proposal relates.
      (3) The Secretary of State shall make rules as to the way in which a local planning authority shall determine such applications, including—

      (a) arrangements for seeking views on the application;

      (b) the consideration of objections to the proposals; and

      (c) the handling of appeals against a decision of the local planning authority.

      (4) The Secretary of State shall publish a guidance note setting out the factors he will take into account in determining whether proposals subject to applications under section 6 above minor and of only local significance.'.—[Mr. Snape.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause seeks to introduce into the Bill a means by which minor schemes of only local significance can be determined locally. The Bill does not include a local order-making power as floated in the Government's original consultation document. That is of considerable concern to organisations such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities whose members are at the forefront of the revival in interest in light railway schemes. The subject received cursory attention in Committee and I raise it to press the Government to reconsider.
      The consultation paper on which the Bill's provisions are based said that the Government saw advantage in a three-tier approach
      "with some proposals being considered and approved locally, others by Ministers and a small minority being referred to Parliament".
      The Bill provides only for a two-tier approach, the local tier having disappeared. On the local tier, the consultation paper stated:
      "If some proposals of essentially local significance can be authorised by local planning authorities there are likely to be some time savings. In practice many local and minor schemes may have to come to central government for approval, either because they involve compulsory land acquisition…or because the works require scheduled monument consent. It will be for Parliament to decide whether or not to give local authorities powers to confer a defence on grounds of statutory authority to actions for nuisance which will be involved in many of the proposals at present authorised by private bill. Nevertheless the Government would welcome views, particularly from the local authority associations, about what local decision-making may be practicable."
      What representations were received from local authority associations and why have they apparently been discarded?
      The Association of Metropolitan Authorities strongly supported the local-tier proposal, as did other local authority associations. They argued that it would be especially useful in relation to small modifications to previously approved schemes which frequently arise as a result of detailed design work and implementation following initial scheme approval.
      On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government had examined the scope for a separate regime for schemes
      "so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required."—[Official Report, 2 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 44.]
      We are not able to quantify the demand for that type of procedure, but we are advised that minor modifications to
      510
      schemes are not infrequent and that under the proposed arrangements they would be subject to the full blown order-making procedure. It is certain that as further major public transport schemes are proposed and implemented, the number of such minor proposals will increase. In Committee, the Minister said:
      "Several points were put to us—not least by the Council on Tribunals—as a result of our consultations and we felt that it was best to keep one type of scheme in operation for all the orders"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1992; c. 373.]
      The Minister's officials have been a little more forthcoming. In correspondence with the AMA they raised a number of objections to the local tier of decision making. In a letter to the association, the Department stated:
      "an important feature of all statutory authorised works is that they benefit from a common law defence of statutory authority against actions for nuisance arising from the proper operation of the undertaking. We had doubts about the propriety of delegating to local authorities the power (traditionally in the gift of Parliament of Ministers of the Crown) to confer such a privilege."
      When stripped of the jargon so beloved of departmental civil servants, that means that they do not trust anybody but themselves to take decisions. It is important to remember that the consultation paper says that that issue should be decided by Parliament, but it looks as though it has been prejudged by the Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers.
      The Department of Transport also argued in writing to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that it
      "foresaw problems with defining what constitutes a local scheme."
      That is the opposite of what the Minister said in Committee during discussions about similar matters. I shall paraphrase what he said, and I took him to mean that it was easy to define a local from a national scheme. If he did say that, perhaps he could persuade some of his advisers that that is the case, because they appear to think that the opposite is true. The definition of what constitutes a local scheme applies equally to the definition of schemes of national significance for the purposes of clause 9.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing different parts of what was said in Committee. His paraphrase of what I said is almost correct, and I shall not argue about the small details on which he is wrong. I said that schemes of national significance which were subject to the special parliamentary procedures that were laid down would be easily identifiable. I shall later deal with the problems in the new clause.
      Mr. Snape: I probably did not paraphrase the Minister in as elegant a way as he delivered the original words. I thought that he said that national schemes were easy to quantify. Perhaps I read too much into what he said. I presumed that, if he could obviously identify nation & schemes, it would be fairly easy to say that the rest were local schemes. I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
      The absence from the Bill of a local tier is especially disturbing in the light of what the Minister said about a possible alternative route. Speaking to another clause to which the same principle applies, the Minister said:
      "Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them."—[Official Report, 2 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 44.]

      511
      The phrase "if experience shows" should cause us some concern. There can be no doubt of the existence of this group of minor modifications which require authorisation. For how long will they have to go through those expensive and time-consuming authorisation procedures before the Government introduce a streamlined and preferably locally based alternative route? If the Government cannot see the sense of the new clause, the use of clause 24 would become extremely important, and clarification of the Government's position on that clause is vital.
      Also important in the context of the debate is clause 6(4) which allows the Secretary of State to set different rules for applications for different types of scheme. If the Minister continues to resist the case for including in the Bill a local order-making power, will he agree to use the power in clause 6(4) to streamline the process for minor schemes?
      The adoption of the provisions in the new clause will not only clarify this part of the Bill but make local order-making power easier and more democratic.
      Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says, in some ways the new clause replicates one which we discussed, albeit briefly, in Committee. If my memory serves me right, "briefly" means that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rose and said, "Why not?" and expected an answer.
      I accept that the consultation proposals contained the suggestion that local authorities should be able to decide on applications for orders which were minor and local in nature. I shall explain why we decided to drop that suggestion. We thought that there might be advantages to be gained in terms of time scale by deciding some applications locally. There was some support for the proposal from the local authority associations, but none of their responses identified any obvious or sizeable group of schemes suitable for treatment in this way which we thought would have justified the creation of a separate procedure.
      Other responses to the consultation document, such as that from the Council on Tribunals, highlighted serious deficiencies in the proposal, and I fear that the same considerations apply to new clause 3. Our first difficulty was in deciding how to identify which schemes should be treated under a local procedure. Many small schemes might appear, initially, to be of only local significance because of their size. That factor alone would not, however, take into account the possibility that their environmental or economic effects could extend much more widely than the immediate vicinity of the works.
      6.30 pm
      Some schemes that are definitely minor and local may nevertheless cross local authority boundaries. These would be difficult to handle at local authority level and would probably require us to provide potentially complex procedural arrangements. There would be other handling problems for schemes—of which there could be many—which were promoted by local authorities themselves in their own area. In such cases, there would be understandable concern at the prospect of 'coal authorities applying to themselves for statutory authorisation for
      512
      works, and we would certainly have to provide procedures for appeals to the Secretary of State and for the calling in of schemes by him.
      Many, if not most, orders under the new procedure will be likely to include proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land. It would be contrary to long-established policy for such matters to be decided other than by Parliament or Ministers of the Crown. There are similar doubts in some quarters about the propriety of allowing local authorities to confer statutory authority for works. Such authority carries with it a defence against actions for nuisance arising from the proper operation of an undertaking, and this will be a factor in most applications for railway and tramway orders.
      Finally, we thought that the need to provide a mechanism for appeals to the Secretary of State against decisions by local authorities would remove any potential time benefits of local decision making. That would defeat the main purpose of setting up the procedure in the first place.
      I should also take this opportunity to anticipate the amendments that we are proposing—Nos. 32 to 34—to clause 23 which takes a different approach to local schemes from new clause 3. I undertook in Committee to look again at the scope of the power to transfer classes of application to inspectors; our revised proposal is to exclude from the scope of clause 23 those applications which involve compulsory acquisition powers. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that clause 23 offers a more practical way of dealing with local schemes, and will agree to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Snape: Although I understand the Minister's reluctance to commit himself in the way outlined in the new clause, I find some parts of his explanation less than satisfactory. It is all very well to say that it is hard to define the schemes that should be treated as local; I should have thought that an element of common sense was required here. Obviously, if schemes cross local authority boundaries, they cannot be readily defined as local.
      Some of the minor matters that are currently dealt with by means of the fairly cumbersome procedures of the House—and, in future, will be dealt with by means of the procedures proposed in the Bill, which appear to be equally cumbersome—really ought to be looked at again. We shall consult our noble Friends in another place about whether we should return to that point.
      Surely it would be possible for Ministers to give local authorities delegated powers to deal with statutory agencies. Local authorities frequently act as agents for Her Majesty's Government when it comes to motorway works and repairs. Is there really any difference between that and delegating powers under the Bill?
      As I have said, this aspect of the Bill will be considered again in another place, because we feel that more local democracy is necessary. The further down the democratic pipeline some of these decisions are made, the better. Having listened to the Minister' explanation, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      ORDERS AS TO RAILWAYS, TRAMWAYS ETC
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
      '(3) In exercising his power under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard to the exercise of any power he may have to make any grant towards the cost of the construction or operation of the transport system proposed.'.
      The amendment requires the Secretary of State not to have regard to any of his grant-making responsibilities when determining an order submitted to him under the provisions of part I. It is designed to secure assurances from Ministers on that important point.
      Local authorities with an interest in promoting, for example, light rail schemes broadly support part I, but there is some concern about the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible both for authorising such schemes and for considering whether to grant-aid them. The authorities involved are keen to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the Secretary of State's two roles. Decisions on whether to make an order should relate to the need for the proposal in terms of transport policy, its implications for land use policies and other environmental effects. An order should not be rejected because the Secretary of State is not in a position to provide grant for it or because he fears that it may not meet the grant criteria that he has laid down.
      I do not think that it is the role of the Department of Transport to try to second-guess—or, in the case of some schemes, to first-guess or out-guess—the Treasury. After all, as someone far more eminent than I recently said, as the best brains of the nation are collected together in Whitehall in order to say no to every public-sector scheme put to them, the Department of Transport ought to allow them to do just that, rather than saying no on their behalf for reasons other than those outlined in the amendment. Confirmation that the Secretary of State will distinguish between the two functions is, in our view, vital.
      Authorities' concerns have been exacerbated by the proposal in the draft applications and objections procedure rules circulated recently by the Department of Transport that an application for an order should be accompanied by
      "an estimate (with breakdown of items) of the cost of implementing the proposed order".
      Confirmation that the information on costs requested with an application will be no greater than that required under the current private Bill procedures would also be helpful.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Again, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has made his point well and, in normal circumstances, we agree with the course that he urges on us. That is why, in paragraph 21 of the consultation document "Private Bills and New Procedures", we said:
      "There will be cases where promoters of orders (eg to authorise light rapid transit systems) will also be applying to the Secretary of State for Transport for a grant towards the costs of their scheme. The Government recognises that the dual functions of deciding whether or not to make the order and whether or not to give grant or to approve investment will need to be kept separate. The Secretary of State will decide the case for statutory authorisation and the case for financial support independently and on their own merits."
      I do not believe that there could be a clearer statement of the policy. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it goes further than grant, which his amendment mentions,
      514
      although grants under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 will be important in this context. The operator might also need loan sanction of some kind, or credit approval. That, too, ought to be kept apart from the consideration of the planning merits—in its widest sense—of the order. It is one reason why, in clause 20, we remove the need for BR and LRT to obtain consent before depositing an order, as they must for a Bill. That requirement never applied to local authorities or to passenger transport executives.
      That does not mean, however, that I support the amendment. It is undesirable and unnecessary. It is undesirable because it could be unfair to those adversely affected and to other objectors. If the Secretary of State receives an application for an order and the promoter has no hope of financing the work for the foreseeable future, should the Secretary of State really have no regard to that, even if he has a power to grant-aid the works? His proper course must surely be to turn the applicant away, so as not to inconvenience grossly those whose property and lives would be affected.
      The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is thinking of local authorities, and I am sure that we would all agree that we hope that they would not do such a thing. Would he think the same about private bodies? They, too, are eligible under section 56 for grants. I might add—to forestall the request for an example—that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) put one before us a little while ago.
      The amendment is unnecessary because, in making decisions on these orders, the Secretary of State must have regard only to the evidence presented at the inquiry, if there is one, or to the written representations, if there is not. He must not take account of what he might do about grant or loans or any other extraneous matter. If he were to do that, he could be challenged in the courts, either by the applicant or by the objectors. He must have good reasons for his decisions on orders, and they must be made public. So there is ample opportunity to check that decisions have been made for proper reasons.
      Mr. Snape: If that is the case, why, in the draft procedure rules recently circulated by the Department, is there provision for
      "an estimate (with breakdown of items) of the cost of implementing the proposed order"?
      The Minister will forgive me for being somewhat suspicious if I feel that price has at least as large a part to play in the Secretary of State's decision-making process as necessity.
      Mr. Moate: I have been listening with interest to this exchange. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might also respond to some concern that is felt on this side of the House. I see the difficulty involved in legislating, but my hon. Friend's answer seems to suggest that a Secretary of State could build Chinese walls within himself. On the one hand, he would have to make a quasi-judicial decision; on the other hand, he could be the banker. My hon. Friend has said that there is no problem. Is he saying quite clearly that if, for financial reasons, the evidence of the inquiry were disregarded, the decision could be challenged in court? Is that the point that he is making? If so, the Chinese wall that we like to think might exist will be reinforced.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not using the trick that I understand my noble Friend Lord

      515
      Whitelaw used when he was thinking about the answer to a question—the device of coughing and spluttering, and stopping the interview until he got a message. I shall have no trouble in responding in due course. The trouble about the notes that one receives from one's officials is that one cannot read them. Obviously the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East wishes to make a point, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
      Mr. Snape: Perhaps I should intervene again to enable the Minister to look a little more carefully at his official's note. For all I know, it may well say that the amendment is not only eminently sensible but also acceptable. If it does say so, will the Minister put us out of our misery?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the note does not say that.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that we circulated the draft rules. He has rightly said that they are draft rules. Obviously representations will be made in respect of some of the points that he has raised, and in the light of them amendments may be made. But cost is an important point, as the hon. Gentleman must recognise. Surely he would not want to encourage a local authority to come forward with a scheme that might cause great inconvenience to local people if the authority had no way of funding that scheme. The blight that might be caused is also a serious concern to local residents. We have all seen how damaging blight, or the possibility of blight, can be.
      Let me come now to the matter of the public inquiry. Let us imagine that the objectors question the economic viability of the scheme and successfully demonstrate that there could be no public benefit from construction, that the cost-benefit ratio was so awful that even the hon. Gentleman might not grant-aid it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that money will be free-flowing; nor do I think that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggests that money will be free-flowing, whatever the circumstances.
      Given the other claims for finance that are likely to be faced, would it be right to amend the Bill so that the Secretary of State would have to have no regard to their evidence, even though the objectors, including environmental groups, had shown that the economic case for the scheme was so weak that grant could never be justified? I think not, as I imagine Opposition Members probably think not, because the environmental damage done by the scheme could not be justified as against the public benefit from it. Apart from that, such a provision would mean that the effect of blight would be extended until the grant application had been rejected and the scheme failed as a consequence.
      Let me sum up. First, to achieve what he wants to achieve, the hon. Gentleman should have gone further. Secondly, we have every intention, in normal cases, to keep separate whether a scheme has planning merit and whether it should be grant-aided and, if so, when. Thirdly, if the Secretary of State takes into account improperly the way in which he might use his grant powers when making a decision on an order, he will be subject to judicial review. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is not here, but I should say that I am aware of his point
      516
      about the last stop. Obviously the last stop is considered carefully by the Secretary of State when these points are put forward.
      This amendment is far too rigid and would lead to inquiries and decision which, for the reasons that I have given, could prejudice many ordinary people and environmental groups. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw it.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Snape: I am a little taken aback. First, the Minister tells me how sensible my amendment is; then he berates me for having the temerity to move it in the first place. I must warn him that, after the election, he had better destroy the missive that he somewhat belatedly received. Otherwise, if this is the kind of reaction that we are to expect, we might check the handwriting and take appropriate action.
      I understand only too well the financial implications of some of these schemes. All that my amendment proposes is that those implications should not be the reason for rejection of schemes within the Department. All too often the suspicion is that that is just how things are done. If there is one great thing wrong with the planning procedures, especially in respect of public works in this country, it is that all too often the money is decided first and the scheme tailored accordingly. I am merely trying to prevent the Minister, in his few remaining weeks in office, from falling any further into those bad habits.
      However, having said, as we did earlier, that we are prepared to accept any crumbs that we can get—if not from the rich man's table, then from the Minister's—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      EXTENSION OF SECTION I TO OTHER GUIDED TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'instrument' to 'House' in line 22 and insert
      '; but no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 19.
      Mr. McLoughlin: These two amendments fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to provide what at least the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will regard as a better form of parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial orders that prescribe modes of guided transport and descriptions of works which interfere with rights of navigation and therefore extend the scope of the order-making powers under clauses 1 and 3.
      Ms. Joan Walley: It is always nice to get to the stage of having secured some concessions from the Government. We are grateful for those.
      There is one aspect on which I should like to press the Minister further, relating to Government amendment No. 19. Why does not the amendment apply to the whole of clause 3? Clearly it is important that we have the

      517
      affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps I should try to string out my comments so that the relevant message, in the relevant handwriting, can reach the Minister.
      As things stand, I do not know whether the Minister has been generous in respect of amendment No. 19, or whether he is trying to give the impression that it relates to all the concerns that we expressed in Committee. What worries me is that what he has come up with, in the shape of amendment No. 19, relates only to such things as tidal barrages, and not to the wider issues of canals and rivers. How generous is the Minister actually being? Why do these amendments not go further? Why do they not extend to the whole of clause 3? Can the Minister, either at this stage or at some later stage, give us some assurance about this matter?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment certainly fulfils the commitment that we gave in Committee. I think that I pointed out in Committee the difficulties that we would have in extending this all the way along the line, and that there was not the need. We shall come at a later stage to some of the points about waterways that the hon. Lady may want to talk about.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      ORDERS AS TO INLAND WATERWAYS, ETC.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'use' and insert 'operation'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
      '(4) The reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) above to rights of navigation in waters does not include any right to use or keep any vessel on those waters.'.
      Government amendment No. 53.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Somewhat unusually, I find myself in the position of moving an amendment with the support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am almost sure that he ought to be moving the amendment, because I added my name to the amendment after he had tabled it.
      As members of the Committee already know, I have listened carefully to the advice of those who represent users of inland waterways. We have been grateful for their constructive comments, and have agreed that some adjustments to the Bill, like this one, are desirable. The effect of changing the term "use" to "operation" will make for consistency between the clause 3 and the clause 1 order-making power. It will also reassure the users of waterways that the essential purpose of the Bill is for orders to deal with the construction and management of works rather than their abandonment or redevelopment. I am sure that the House will support amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendment to the long title in amendment No. 53.
      I understand that amendment No. 54 reflects the concerns of the Inland Waterways Association to protect the position of houseboat owners in certain waters. The association has noted that the parliamentary orders under the Transport Act 1968, which we propose to preserve under amendment No. 24, include the power to interfere with the right to keep a vessel or craft on a canal or inland waterway. The IWA's argument is that ministerial orders
      518
      under clause 3(1)(b), which deal with matters outside inland waterways, should not have that power because they are not subject to parliamentary approval.
      I cannot accept that it would be reasonable to fetter the Secretary of State's powers as the amendment proposes. Currently, if a Transport Act order is not required, the arrangements for houseboat owners in a works scheme can be made under a private Bill, and there is no reason why a future order under this Bill should not be allowed to make similar arrangements. The position of moorings may be crucial to a particular works scheme under clause 3(1)(b), but it would be for the promoter to convince the Secretary of State and any local inquiry that his proposals were justified. The objections of local boat owners would have to be taken into account, along with the provisions of any existing local enactments and local mooring contracts. Compensation would be available to anyone who had proper rights to moor.
      My officials have discussed amendment No. 54 with representatives of the IWA and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. I hope that, in view of its impracticality, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will agree not to press it.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful to the Minister for adding his name to amendment No. 1. It will go some way towards reassuring canal users. However, some of them feel that a move is afoot to increase mooring charges. If some of the moorings that are lost are cheap moorings, people may be forced to pay substantially more for new moorings. I realise that this issue overlaps issues that are dealt with in the private Bill which, I believe, is still in the other place. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will make it clear that this clause is not intended to be used as a reason for increasing mooring charges on canals.
      Ms. Walley: It is strange for an amendment to be tabled not just in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport but also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It shows that genuine concerns were expressed by the Opposition in the early stages of the Committee proceedings.
      It would be appropriate at this stage to remind the Minister of the widespread concern among those who are worried about the future of our inland waterways. I am grateful that the amendment has been tabled and that flexibility about amending the Bill has been shown in order to meet many of the concerns expressed by the Inland Waterways Association and others. There are about 24,672 readers of Waterways World. I have it on good authority that each copy of that magazine bought is react by three other people. The amount of correspondence that we have received shows that absolutely everybody connected with inland waterways is concerned about this issue. That is why the amendment is so important.
      It would be worth while to set out how we have reached this stage. We debated this issue for many hours in Committee. We appreciated the opportunity to have consultations with the Minister. However, those consultations ought to have taken place much earlier. There might never have been so much misunderstanding, mistrust and suspicion among all those who use our inland waterways if consultation had taken place much earlier. Nevertheless, amendment No. 1 does not go—surprise, surprise—far enough for us. I intend to explain briefly why.

      519
      We accept that it is perfectly in order for work on canals to take place or for new transport systems to be constructed over, on or below them. However, we do not believe that the definition should be widened. Mistrust has been created by our attempts to try to clarify where responsibilities begin and end. We do not believe that they are set out clearly enough in the definition. I agree with those who criticise those parts of the Bill that deal with inland waterways that ancillary works necessitated by new transport systems could still be carried out under clause 1 and clause 3. No one could blame those concerned for being suspicious. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the fact that a private Bill is being considered in another place which is causing even greater anxiety than there was to begin with.
      There appears to have been piecemeal privatisation of the inland waterways, which has caused much concern and outrage. The question is whether amendment No. 1, to substitute the word "operation" for the word "use" in clause 3, with consequential amendment of the long title to correspond, will remove the general powers aspect from the Bill and ensure that only orders referring to the operation of waterways rather than to their use or extinguishment come within the scope of the clause.
      My concern is that orders relating to use or extinguishment could still be made under clause 3. The use of a waterway could be terminated or curtailed as a matter ancillary to the carrying out of works under clause 3. We need an absolute assurance from the Minister that, as the Bill stands and as it might stand under future regulations, we have secured this narrow definition of what would or would not be approved under the order-making procedure.
      Orders about use or extinguishment might be made as a matter ancillary to the construction or operation of a waterway. For example, a main line waterway might gain more water for its operations by filling in a branch that took water to work a lock. These are fairly technical matters, and not ones with which I am wholly familiar. I understand, however, that my hon. Friends are very concerned about this issue, too. The abandonment of a branch would be ancillary to the operation of the main line, and could be carried out by order under clause 3. I hope that that will give some idea why we feel that even the new definition in the amendment does not take us far enough.
      On consultation generally, we are still concerned that there is no parliamentary procedure for orders under clause 3. I accept that we might return to this matter, but it relates to the scope of the amendments before us. The Minister may point out that there is provision for consultation and appeal in the public inquiry process, but most of that will be left to discretion and subordinate legislation. We are concerned that subordinate legislation will be involved. We would like an assurance that no loss of consultation or right of appeal will result from the substitution of a system of orders under the Bill for the private Bill system that exists now.
      Amendment No. 54 is designed to clarify what is meant by "rights of navigation" in clause 3(1)(b)(i). It is intended to prevent a temporary order from interfering on a long-term basis with a boat mooring, landing stage or anything else that a person has a right to keep on the
      520
      rivers. We would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether "rights of navigation" are intended to include the right to keep a vessel or anything else on the waterways.
      7 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on the question of the width of the canal, because I am concerned about traditional boats being able to get through? I understand that, in at least one example, the British Waterways Association has fractionally narrowed the width of a lock gate and, as a result, a whole group of boats is unable to use that stretch of canal.
      Ms. Walley: When I said that my hon. Friends knew more about these technical matters than I do, I did not expect such an immediate example. My hon. Friend has made a good point. If the width or gauge—or whatever is the correct navigational term—is too small and is preventing the effective operation of the waterways system, my hon. Friend is right to press the Minister for an assurance that the waterways system will not be restricted because of such a technical matter. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that.
      As I said, amendment No. 54 deals with the right to keep a vessel or anything else on the waterways. It is important because the definition in the Transport Act 1968 is wide. It relates specifically to the right to keep a vessel or craft on the water. The problem is that there is no definition in the Bill. Therefore, there is an anomaly. We should know what the Bill is supposed to cover, and I hope that the Minister can clarify it.
      It is fair to say that all those connected with the waterways movement—avid readers of Waterways World, those who keep boats on the waterways or those who just enjoy walking along them—are concerned that no attempt has been made by the Government to restrict the powers in the Bill to temporary works on waterways. The Inland Waterways Association and its friends continue to remain suspicious that the Bill's real intention is to close waterways and build transport systems along their dry beds. I should be concerned if we did not get the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has asked. We do not want to see the decline of our waterways in that way.
      No protection against temporary closure exists in part VII of the Transport Act 1968, and none is proposed in the Bill. Rights of navigation still exist on rivers. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that any modification or suspension of navigation rights will be temporary and will be kept within reasonable time limits should works be proposed on rivers under clause 3.
      I should like to remind the Minister that consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council exists for only two thirds of inland waterways in the country. It is concerned only with waterways under the ownership or management of the British Waterways board, whereas the Bill affects all waterways. It is important that some consideration should be given to whether the IWAAC's remit could be extended to cover all waterways since it is clear that many important issues are related to the operations that could come about as a result of the Bill and the amendments. If we are to feel that we have the safeguards we want, IWAAC needs some teeth in any Government review.

      521
      I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the issues that I have outlined. Such reassurances might further reduce the suspicion that still exists among those who use inland waterways.
      Mr. Spearing: I must declare an interest, as I have been a member of the Inland Waterways Association for many years. I said in Committee that the way in which the Government have handled clause 3 is totally unsatisfactory and does not bring any assurance of their good faith. That was said time and again in Committee, and it should be said again now and quoted chapter and verse.
      The canals in Britain have been a matter of controversy for many years. The foundation Act, the Transport Act 1968, which was the responsibility of my noble Friend Lady Castle was a landmark—or a watermark. For the first time, it provided protection for amenity waterways that were part of the landscape and heritage of the country and not just for recreational or transport use. The water was first ruffled—to use an analogy—during the passage of the Water Bill in 1973, when there was a proposal to absorb the whole of the then co-ordinated waterways system under the British Waterways Board into the regional water authorities then being proposed. An enormous public campaign ensued and the canals were detached, fortunately, from that important Act.
      After that, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council was appointed by the House as a statutory body specifically to look after the amenity aspects of the waterways. Yet, as we saw in Committee, in the Government's response to the Select Committee on Procedure's report on private Bills, there was no hint that inland waterways would be an integral part of the Bill.
      The original hearings of that Committee dealt with harbours. In a harbour, particularly at its upper end, there is frequently a relatively short stretch of inland waterway or impounded harbour. That was the first issue that we were aware of that related to waterways. In Committee, I challenged the Minister to say when these matters were first brought to the attention of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.
      We heard in the end—the Minister cannot deny this —that, as late as October last year, the Minister's official representative on that waterways statutory Committee did not give any notice of the intention to include new clause 3. When the Minister replied to the quotations from parliamentary answers which I read into column 118 of the report of the Committee's proceedings, he could say only that the hon. Member had the Command Paper from which I read, but he could not deny my charge that inland waterways were not included. We got off to a bad start, and I hope that the Minister will agree that I have not been unfair in my broad description of events.
      It is even more of a shame that we cannot make further progress on the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) properly said that one part of a waterway will have an intimate effect on another, even the impounding of the headwater which forms the reservoir at the summit of any canal system. A reservoir usually has no navigable connection with the rest of the canal system but is an amenity which is usually and almost entirely owned by the British Waterways Board. It is very valuable property.
      522
      The board has large areas of land adjacent to canals and it also has the advantage of being able to sell water. They are an integral part of the drainage system which has grown up for a century or more around the canals.
      One of the board's most valuable assets, to which my hon. Friend referred in passing, is the wayleave. One of the features of the canal which we know as the Regent canal, or the Grand Union canal, running from Greenford to what was the Regent's canal dock in Limehouse, is that much of the towpath is used for high tension electricity lines. They are easily installed, easily accessible and easily maintained. British Waterways receives some rent, and good luck to it, but the value of such a wayleave can hardly be exaggerated.
      The use of the adjacent land to which I referred is often governed by the original canal Acts, which date from when the canals were constructed a century, or in some cases two centuries, ago. As we know from earlier debates, the Minister, with the powers in clause 3, can change any of those Acts. The Minister may know of a controversy at the moment in the Watford area. I do not know what the future holds for those canals, but I know what it would hold if the party of my noble Friend Lady Castle had anything to do with it. However, I also know what will happen if we have the misfortune of a continuation of the present Administration.
      If the Bill is passed, the Government will have in their hands powerful statutory instruments of power if, alas, they are able to use them—I do not think that they will be so able. I do not think that they deserve to. Whatever amends may have been made with a few concessions here and there, their general behaviour on the issue of inland waterways and the lack of proper notification to the statutory bodies bodes ill for their future. Therefore, the safeguards which I and my hon. Friends wish to write into the Bill have every justification. If they are not accepted here or in another place, suspicion will not be dispersed but will, properly—and for good reason—increase.
      Mr. McLoughlin: We have gone over the course of the consultation and when the issue first appeared in the Bill on numerous occasions. I return to the question of the private Bill and the new procedures—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Just say sorry.
      Mr. McLouglin: The hon. Gentleman says, "Just say sorry," but I have made my views on consultation clear. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) for the constructive way in which we proceeded when the problem was brought to my attention. However, the issue was covered in the Government's original consultation document published in June 1990 —Command Paper 1110, paragraph 49. I shall not read it out.
      Ms. Walley: I do not wish to go over ground that we have covered again and again in Committee, but does the Minister believe that the problem is that one part of the Department of the Environment did not know what the Department of Transport was doing?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady can draw her own conclusions, and she has. Whatever I say will not change them, so I shall not waste the House's time in trying to do so.

      523
      There was definitely an attempt to reach a general agreement, and I accept that a reassurance was needed. I now know that the editor of Waterways World is a constituent of mine. I can assure the hon. Lady that, for a number of reasons, I shall try to placate and meet the representations made by that publication and that those reasons may not be unconnected with the events that may occur in the next few months.
      I was asked a number of specific questions which I shall try to answer. Some of the general questions will be dealt with during debates on other amendments, so I shall not attempt to deal with them now. That is true especially of some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked whether there would be an increase in charges. Even before I had received a note from the Box, I had written on my own notes that we see no reason why charges should be increased. The measure is not designed specifically to increase them.
      Temporary work closures will be covered during the debate on the next group of amendments and general powers will be covered in the debate on Government amendment No. 20. The question of width reduction requires an order under the Transport Act 1968. If Government amendment No. 24 is passed, it will continue to do so. Therefore, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in convincing the House of the need to accept that amendment.
      The consultations and meetings held during the Committee stage were undoubtedly useful. Government amendments Nos. 1 and 53 go some way—not all the way, because there are more amendments to be considered—to meeting some of the concerns expressed to us.
      Ms. Walley: Knowing what I now know about the relationship between the Minister and his constituent—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I was a little remiss. The hon. Lady needs the leave of the House to speak again.
      Ms. Walley: With the leave of the House, I should like to draw attention to the Minister's remarks about the editor of Waterways World. If we have not been granted all the concessions, perhaps we can look forward to further concessions in another place in view of the impending general election.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 2, line 13, at end insert
      'or Part VII of the Transport Act 1968'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may also consider the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
      '(4) Nothing in this section shall in any way supersede the provisions of Part VII of the Transport Act 1968.'.
      Government amendment No. 24.
      No. 60, in schedule 1, page 33, line 12, at end insert
      'other than land under an inland waterway'.
      No. 55, in clause 11, page 6, line 34, at end insert
      `and
      (c) where such an order as is mentioned in section 5(6) above is required so as to give effect to any of the
      524
      proposals, any person who is entitled to be consulted under Schedule 13 to the Transport Act 1968 in respect of that Order.'
      No. 56, in clause 15, page 9, line 14, at beginning insert
      `Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      No. 57, in page 9, line 18, at end insert—
      `(3A) Regulations under this section shall not—

      (a) exclude the application of any provision in Part VII of the Transport Act 1968; or

      (b) modify the application of any such provision so as to deprive any person of the right to receive notification of any matter or of the opportunity to make representations or objections in relation to any matter.'.

      No. 58, in clause 62, page 30, line 34, after 'transport', insert
      `(other than transport over an inland waterway)'.
      No. 59, in page 30, line 41, at end insert
      `(and for the purposes of this definition the definition of "harbour" in section 57(1) of that Act shall have effect as if after the words "sea-going ships" there were inserted the words "of at least 500 deadweight tons")'.
      Ms. Walley: I shall be brief, because it is important that we make progress.
      Under Government amendment No. 26, the Secretary of State is given discretion not to make an order if it can be achieved by other means. Therefore, if it does not go far enough to remove from the scope of the Bill matters which at present are firmly within part VII of the Transport Act 1968, there is an anomaly with the Harbours Act 1964.
      The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain why, if it is right to exclude matters whose primary object can be carried out under the Harbours Act, it is not right to exclude matters under the Transport Act when the primary object is a matter under the Transport Act. That harks back to what the Government's intentions really are. We feel that it would be easy for the Minister to accord the Transport Act 1968 equal status with the Harbours Act 1964. An assurance along those lines would go some way towards removing much of the suspicion that still exists.
      Amendment No. 55 was tabled to ensure that, when an order was made by the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council or another organisation entitled to be consulted under schedule 13 to the Transport Act 1968, and that body told the Secretary of State that it wanted a hearing, the Secretary of State would be obliged either to give it a hearing or to have a local inquiry.
      We should like an assurance that nobody will lose rights of consultation as a result of the new procedure—we are returning to ground that we covered in Committee. We want to know why the IWAAC is not named on the face of the Bill. So far, I have not been convinced by the arguments that it has much greater powers than the Transport Users Consultative Committee, and that therefore it does not need to be named. I should like an assurance that the IWAAC will be consulted. I know that I dwelt briefly on the subject on a previous group of amendments, but we still believe that it is reasonable for a statutory body to be given such an assurance. I shall listen closely to the Minister's reply.
      Amendment No. 57 is a substantive amendment, aimed to give amendment No. 56 the force that we would like, by providing in the amendment to clause 15 that an order under part VII of the Transport Act 1968 will continue to be required. The Government have ensured that clause 15 will apply where part VII orders are needed, but under

      525
      clause 15(3) the Secretary of State may make regulations modifying the effect of part VII to ensure that proceedings are taken concurrently.
      The amendments are designed to ensure that the regulations will not exclude the application of any provision of part VII of the 1968 Act—we come back again and again to the difference between the Bill and the 1968 Act. The amendments are also intended to ensure that no person who had a right to be notified under the 1968 Act would lose that right as a result of the Bill. Again, we need an assurance that the Bill will not prejudice the rights listed in amendment No. 57. I do not want the Government to wriggle out of their responsibilities under the 1968 Act. In Committee, we talked time and again about the safeguards already existing under the 1968 Act, and we feel that the Government could easily give us an assurance that those safeguards will continue, and will not be replaced by new order-making procedures under the Bill.
      Amendment No. 58 is an amendment to the definition of the term "guided transport". We imagine that that term was not intended to apply to waterways, and I hope that the Minister will agree. The amendment is designed to ensure that the term cannot be used to cover circumstances in which boats are towed or pushed by external means.
      I have already said that the Bill involves many technical matters, and I am learning about them all the time. The matter is not as easy and straightforward as it looks. Although the Minister has given reassurances, I do not believe that he would wish there to be any doubt about the definition of the term "guided transport". Will he reassure us that that term will not be used in relation to that aspect of inland waterways? It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, an order under clause 1 could be made in respect of an inland waterway system in which vessels were towed rather than proceeding under their own power. Why is such a system not excluded under clause 1? Perhaps the Government have no intention of including such a wide definition, but I should like reassurance on the point.
      Amendment No. 59 would amend the definition of the term "inland waterway". It was intended to ensure that orders under the Bill could be made in respect of the inland part of the waterways managed by harbour authorities. Will the Minister assure me that the Harbours Act cannot be used for orders in respect of inland waterways? I do not know whether he has already accepted the point—we may be debating an issue which is not really an issue. However, there is only one way of settling the matter—the Minister could do it easily by taking our amendment on board, and relating the provision to ships
      "of at least 500 deadweight tons".
      That would satisfy us that the Harbours Act could not be used for orders relating to inland waterways.
      Schedule 1 is extremely wide—we have found that out in our discussions in Committee. The Government may say that, in relation to waterways, the schedule can be used only in the context of clause 3, but we have already seen that clause 3 is wide open, so that the inland waterways system could be destroyed, or at least radically reduced.
      Amendment No. 60, to paragraph 5 of schedule 1, is designed to clarify whether agreements on land apply to land under water. Why is water not mentioned in paragraph 5, although it is mentioned in paragraph 4? What I have said about rights over land and rights over water may he simply a drafting point, but there is an
      526
      inconsistency. The Government do not seem to have thought the matter through, so we should like an assurance on it.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I shall bring the House up to date with our conversations with the inland waterways interests. We wrote to the organisations before tabling our amendments, to explain what we intended to do. When we saw the amendments—other than amendment No. 95, which came later—officials of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport sought a meeting with the IWAAC and the Inland Waterways Association in order to gain a better understanding of the amendments. A meeting took place on 10 February. I believe that those present found it helpful. Officials explained why we thought the amendments that they sought were not necessary and, in some cases, not really in their interests. Officials also touched on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. (Mr. Bennett). I shall repeat what was said.
      I shall also comment at this stage on a letter sent to a number of hon. Members by the chief executive of the Inland Waterways Association after the meeting to which I have just referred. She raised five points. First, she said that the powers in the Bill were extremely wide. That is a matter of judgment. Secondly, she said that the Bill could be used for closing waterways. If amendment No. 24 is carried, that will not be the case. The third point in the letter was that the Bill could alter the constitution of the IWAAC and the British Waterways Board. If amendments Nos. 20 to 22 are carried, that will not be the case. The fourth point was that rights of navigation could be extinguished. That is possible, but not on the BWB canals, because there are no rights there.
      The fifth point in the letter was that the powers will exist without parliamentary sanction or binding requirement to consult. We discussed that at great length in Committee. Closure of a waterway will be subject to parliamentary sanction—that comes under part VII of the 1968 Act—and consultation must take place on orders under this Bill, because that will be in the rules which we have already circulated.
      The letter also mentions temporary closures. Nothing in part VII of the 1968 Act prevents temporary closures for maintenance. Indeed, the duty of maintenance could not be carried out without them. The Bill makes that position no worse, since no authority is required for temporary closures. If the IWA thought that a waterway authority was abusing its powers, it would have recourse to the courts. That is the only possible solution.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister talks about safeguarding the rules. I hope that he will confirm that it is up to the Government to change the rules if they wish to do so.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that. We went some way to meet the concern about the rules by ensuring that the instruments could be debatable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves. We discussed at great length in Committee why there should be rules which were not necessarily on the face of the Bill because events and circumstances change. There was a general acceptance of the reason for rules.

      527
      7.30 pm
      The amendments fall into a number of sub-groups, and the first comprises amendments Nos. 95, 3 and 24. Government amendment No. 24 fulfils the promise made in Committee and in correspondence with the IWAAC. It preserves from amendment, by order under clause 1 or clause 3, those sections of the Transport Act 1968 that deal with closure and other events concerning inland waterways. It is superior to either amendment No. 95 or amendment No. 3, in that it covers clause 1 as well. Amendment No. 95 really does not help. Unlike orders under the Harbours Act, orders under part VII of the 1968 Act cannot authorise works; they can only give consent to certain of them taking place. If amendment No. 24 is carried, the consent sections of part VII will he preserved. Amendment No. 95 is therefore redundant.
      We have looked at part VII to see whether we should have included any more sections, as amendment No. 3 would. Section 111 deals with access agreements. Access agreements exist under countryside legislation to provide the public with access to open country. They are dealt with by local planning authorities and are discretionary, depending on agreement with landowners. The effect of section 111 is to limit the scope of access agreements to BWB's remaining waterways. These days, I doubt whether the House would favour such a limitation. So the preservation of section 111 is likely to make access worse, not better. Section 113 is about byelaws and can have effect only if the waterway owner wishes. Since he also initiates orders, there is little point in specifying that that section must be preserved.
      I must confess to being slightly confused by the logic of amendment No. 60. If it is intended to safeguard land under inland waterways, a similar exclusion should have been proposed for paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 1, which deal with the acquisition of land and rights in land. The purpose of paragraph 5 is to make it clear that orders under clauses 1 or 3 can adjust or rescind private agreements or contracts relating to land affected by the proposed works. If the Secretary of State were to sanction such a provision, he would be bound by the rules of natural justice to ensure that proper arrangements had been made for protection of the interests affected by this provision and, where necessary, for financial compensation. I can see no reason why inland waterways should be excluded from such provisions.
      The effect of amendment No. 60 could be very undesirable. It could, for example, fetter the ability of the Secretary of State to authorise an order for a new railway under the River Thames—or under any other inland waterway for that matter. That is clearly unacceptable, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) will not press the amendment.
      On amendments Nos. 55 to 57, I recognise the desire of Opposition Members to expand the protection afforded in the Bill to the interests of inland waterway users. I fear, however, that the amendments will not, in practice, have that effect.
      I turn to amendment No. 57 and the linked amendment No. 56. If Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are carried, it will simply not be possible to do in regulations the second half of what amendment No. 57 seeks to prevent. Regulations under clause 15 will be able only to assimilate two procedures so that the process of giving notice and public inquiries can be run in parallel. It cannot oust the rights of anyone. The first part of amendment No.
      528
      57 is positively undesirable, because it would mean that we could not line up schedule 13 to the 1968 Act with the procedure under the Bill. We have explained in detail to the IWAAC what is proposed and shall, of course, consult on the draft of the regulations, which are subject to the annulment procedure. But since what we shall propose would make the promoter—not the Minister—propose closure, and would give a longer objection period and a better inquiry procedure, the IWAAC rather favours what we are doing—or so it said at the meeting.
      As a consequence, amendment No. 55 is unnecessary. Schedule 13 already gives, in substance, the rights that amendment No. 55 would confer. Since the regulations to be made under clause 15 displace those rights, organisations representative of waterway organisations will still be able to insist on an inquiry.
      I make the general point to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that, as a result of the Bill, we are moving the locus standi. That is genuinely welcome, because it gives bodies such as the IWAAC and any other body more rights than they had previously. Most people have welcomed that change.
      Amendment No. 58 is misconceived. I understand that the Inland Waterways Association which suggested the amendment had in mind that orders could be made under clause 1 to authorise the operation of horse-drawn barges or remote controlled ships on inland waterways. That is wrong, because those vessels would not in themselves constitute a transport system. The system is the inland waterway and any proposal relating to the construction or operation of inland waterways which needed statutory authorisation would come under clause 3.
      On amendment No. 59, the definition of "inland waterway" in clause 62 has deliberately been drafted to provide a clear dividing line between waterways to be covered by the Bill and those technically defined as harbours, for which provision is already made in the Harbours Act 1964. The amendment I moved in Committee on 23 January was designed to tighten the definition so that it includes waterways that are owned by harbour authorities, but are not managed by them in their capacity as a harbour authority.
      Opposition Members may have reasons, which I must admit I do not see, for wanting to include waterways that are harbours in the scope of part I. I am not aware of any significant advantages of one system over the other, and it would therefore seem practical to let the existing harbour order procedure have precedence. Indeed, I believe that the amendment would considerably muddy the clear delineation we have provided and possibly allow a promoter to apply for a works order under both pieces of legislation. There would be plenty of scope for confusion, both for the applicant and for the Minister responsible for making decisions.
      I hope that I have gone some way to explain how we came to our decisions. We have taken on board seriously many of the points raised on numerous occasions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North for her part in that. Government amendment No. 24 goes some way to meet some of the concerns. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, but to support Government amendment No. 24.
      Ms. Walley: We have had a technical and complicated response to technical and complicated amendments. We have set out our concerns time and again, and we accept

      529
      that the Government have gone some way to meeting them. I note what the Minister has said. There are some outstanding concerns and we are not sure whether the Government's response to the points made by the IWAAC and by others connected with the waterways shows that their concerns have been taken on board.
      I am mindful of the fact that the Bill has not completed all its stages. Indeed, there may be some doubt about whether it will do so before our positions are reversed. Given that the Bill will be considered in another place, and having regard to the Minister's comments about the consultation that has already taken place and about the consultation that he envisages will take place on the regulations, in a spirit of co-operation I ask the Minister to continue with the process of consultation which seemed to be interrupted before the Bill was printed. The Minister has already given an assurance that he will continue that consultation. I hope that it will be taken on board before the Bill goes to its next stage.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert
      `; and any such statutory instrument shall list all those bodies which have been consulted about its content.'.
      The amendment is eminently sensible, but as the Secretary of State has not added his name to it, I suspect that the Minister will come up with some excuse for not accepting it. I will listen with interest.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) caught me out on a number of occasions in Committee by the brevity with which he moved amendments.
      I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to explain why we thought that it was not appropriate to accept his proposal. The essential purpose of this amendment is, I understand, to make it easier to check on compliance with any requirements in the procedure rules which we have drafted to consult particular bodies. It seems to me that doing that at the end of the process when the Secretary of State decides on the application is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
      Surely it is more logical for the matter of compliance with the rules to be verified as soon as an application has been made. Then, if there has been an unintentional failure to comply with some small requirement, say, it will be possible to correct it before the process of considering the application gets under way. If, however, the rules have been deliberately flouted, the application can be turned away at once.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment also touches on the important subject of consultation before an application is made, which I know some would like to be the subject of comprehensive statutory requirements. I do not intend to rehearse at length my explanation in Committee of the practical difficulties of doing that. Suffice to say that we shall expect all applicants to consult properly with relevant persons as they work out their proposals—applicants will suffer only needless delay to their schemes later if they do not do so. One needs to promote what one will do and try to get general agreement.
      It is, of course, reasonable for those who will be affected by schemes to want to find out about them and to comment on them at an early stage. I do not believe, however, that a wide-ranging statutory requirement to
      530
      consult would help in that respect. The requirement in the draft rules for prospective applicants to consult the local planning authority about proposals in orders for development, and the requirement which will apply in many cases for applicants to prepare environmental statements, will help to ensure that their projects could not be kept out of the public domain for too long.
      The stage at which we shall impose statutory requirements on applicants will be when they submit their draft orders in final form to the Secretary of State. The draft procedure rules make comprehensive provision about the people and the organisations to whom they will have to give notice of their application and, in some cases, provide a full set of application documents.
      We intend to add to the procedure rules a requirement for applicants to submit an affidavit demonstrating proof of compliance. That will be available for public inspection, and if someone discovers from it that they have not been notified of an application when they should have been, they will, if necessary, be able to seek redress from the courts.
      I hope that the change that we intend to make to the rules goes some way toward reassuring the hon. Gentleman of our attempt to try to meet some of his points. I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have the Minister's comments on the record. There is a slight irony about this part of the Bill. The Government told us that they were keen to consult, and that everything would be all right. However, the evidence is that consultation did not take place at the right time. There is some advantage in having the longstop, but when the order is made, it must list all those people who have been consulted.
      Since we need to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      DESCRIPTION OF WORKS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 3
      Amendment made, No. 19, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'instrument' to 'House' in line 20 and insert
      '; but no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.

    Clause 5

      SUBJECT-MATTER OF ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS I AND 3
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'any' to 'which' in line 28 and insert 'statutory provision'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 30, leave out from '3' to end of line 34.
      Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
      No. 105, in page 2, line 34, at end insert
      'provided that both Houses of Parliament have approved by resolution a list or schedule of changes provided for in the order, and that such a list or schedule shall have been laid before each House of Parliament for two months prior to such approval.'.
      No. 106, in page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
      7.45 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: I undertook in Committee to reconsider the drafting of clause 5(3)(b) because we accepted that the powers that it would confer on the Secretary of State were too wide. As drafted, the provision would allow him to alter permanently legislation which is of general application, without any reference to Parliament—a point on which we had a good debate led by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was about Henry VIII.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Exactly. I probably learned much about parliamentary procedure. I recommend that hon. Members read some of our debates in Committee, as they were well rehearsed.
      The Joint Committee recognised that many orders will involve changes to works which have previously been authorised by private Act; so it must be possible for orders to make changes in the law which applies specifically to the works in question, in the same way that private Bills already do. The amendments that we are now proposing will make it clear that that power is to be restricted to Acts and instruments which are of local application only.
      It may help the House if I give some examples of what the amendments would and would not allow orders to provide for. They would allow changes in provisions of local application in previous private Acts and hybrid Acts which relate to working or operation of a railway or an inland waterway. The example that I quoted in Committee —the change in the Severn Navigation Act 1842—is one such Act. If, for example, the railway works provided for in the Channel Tunnel Act needed alteration, an order could achieve that, as long as the provisions were of local application only. An order could not alter public legislation or private legislation of a general nature. Thus it would not be possible to change by order the general duties which are contained in the British Waterways Board Bill, presently in another place, should it pass into law.
      The amendments will not affect the scope of clause 5(3)(a), which provides for an order to modify or exclude enactments relating to the subject matter of the order. That power properly includes enactments of general application, because it may be necessary to make adjustments to the way in which public general Acts apply where they do not fit the circumstances of a particular case.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will not press his amendment. It would mean that orders could not amend legislation of local application and that, by inference, measures which required that should all come to this House as private Bills. I hope that his amendment was a fly cast across the water in order to raise the fish on the amendment paper in my right hon. Friend's name.
      Similarly, I ask the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) not to press amendment No. 105 on this subject. Although it at least retains the possibility of orders amending legislation, it would mean that any order which sought to amend legislation of local application would have to come to Parliament for approval. There are likely to be many instances of that. For example, most orders with compulsory acquisition powers will disapply the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. It would be unreasonable to delay the aproval of such orders when we have agreed that the essential purpose of the reforms is to remove consideration of local matters from Parliament.
      532
      Referring to amendment No.106, I appreciate that the purpose of clause 5(4) is perhaps a little obscure. I can nevertheless assure the hon. Member for Newham, South that it does not amount to a licence for the Secretary of State to include in orders all sorts of provisions way beyond the scope of the Bill. It is concerned with rather technical matters which have long been included in private Bills.
      Subsection (4) is essentially a "sweeping-up" provision. It would sanction, for example, a provision extending a time limit for the exercise of powers granted in a previous order, or a provision which prescribed different dates for the coming into force of different parts of an order. There is nothing more sinister in subsection (4) than that, but, without it, there would be a definite risk that applicants would have to come to Parliament to be sure of getting all the powers necessary to bring their proposals to fruition. That is clearly undesirable, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree not to press amendment 106.
      I invite the House to endorse amendments Nos. 20 to 22.
      Mr. Spearing: The Minister has referred to amendments Nos.105 and 106. As he has reflected, amendment No.105 would enlighten the House. He said that it would bring the House back into play in matters which it wishes to remove from its purview. Clause 5(3)(b) states that an order may
      "make such amendments, repeals and revocations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of the order or otherwise in connection with the order",
      and that they should be listed, be known and receive the approval of the House.
      My great worry about most of the Bill is not only about the removal of the procedure, over which there can be a legitimate difference of view, but it carries with it the power of the Minister to alter legislation passed by the House. When people believe that their rights are entrenched, if those rights are removed without due notice even to the House, confidence in our procedures could be undermined.
      How often have we heard people say, "It is all right: it is entrenched in an Act of Parliament"? People make the reasonable assumption that only another Act of Parliament can repeal or amend a provision. It is a common-sense attitude. As I said earlier, most Members of Parliament probably do not know that an Act can, indeed, be changed or repealed by a statutory instrument, let alone one which, following our earlier discussion, will not even come before the House.
      The Minister says that we must have in the Bill the words that I quoted from clause 5. He says that it will not be outside the scope of the Bill. But the scope of the Bill is—I will not say beyond the horizon—tremendous. So I am afraid that the words penned by the Secretary of State or someone else, with the intention of being reassuring, are not in the least reassuring, because the scope is so wide.
      Amendment No. 106 seeks to remove the whole of clause 5(4). It is one of the most stringent parts of the Bill. I shall read out subsection 4(a) and connect with it the latter part of subsection 4(a)(iii). It says:
      "any provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to— … an instrument made under an Act of Parliament before that time, and which is of a kind which could be included in an order under section 1 or 3 above;".

      533
      "That time" is the time at which the Bill comes into force. In other words, the subsection is a specific formula which allows any Secretary of State to amend any instrument made under an Act, perhaps a long time ago, which comes within the scope of the Bill.
      We are talking about retrospectively changing legislation, and not even by means of a new statutory instrument. I still object to the measure in principle. I am afraid that the words that the Secretary of State used are far from reassuring, although they may have been designed with that objective. Alas, I find the reverse.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have come late to this part of the Bill, but has the hon. Gentleman got it the right way round? Reading subsection (4)(a)(iii), it strikes me that the Secretary of State's power is to give effect to a provision contained in an Act of Parliament. It does not seem to relate to making an order which does not seek to fulfil the purposes of an Act of Parliament passed before this Bill gave the Secretary of State the order-making power. Or have I misunderstood?
      Mr. Spearing: I will intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech, if I may Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the provision gives the Secretary of State power to change legislation retrospectively when an Act comes within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, any legislation that sets up a railway, tramway, waterway, inland harbour, barrage or anything similar would surely come within the scope of subsection (4)(a)(iii). Therefore, once the Bill is enacted, the Minister will surely have strong retrospective powers. That is entrenched in the Bill.
      Mr. Bottomley: My reading is that the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to give effect to a provision in an Act of Parliament. Subsection (4)(a)(iii) does not enable him to destroy a power created in a previous Act of Parliament. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to reinforce an Act and make it effective.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The Bill allows an order to overcome provisions in a local act of local significance, as an order can overcome a private Bill. In Committee, hon. Members expressed anxiety that the original powers were far too wide and could overcome any legislation. Today we have sought to tighten and tidy up the powers in response to the points made in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 2, line 31, after 'revocations', insert
      'of statutory provisions of local application'.
      No. 22, in page 2, line 34, at end insert
      'and for the purposes of this subsection "statutory provision" means provision of an Act of Parliament or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament.'— [Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 6, at end add—
      '(6) An order under section 1 or 3 above shall not extinguish any public right of way over land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied—

      (a) that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or

      (b) that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 6, at end add—
      534
      '(6) An order under section 1 or 3 above shall not extinguish any public right of way over land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that a reasonably convenient alternative right of way exists or will he provided.'.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment fulfils another promise which I gave in Committee to consider whether further provision was necessary in the Bill to protect footpaths and bridleways which may be affected by works proposed in orders under clauses 1 or 3 of the Bill.
      As I told the Committee, I should prefer to base a provision about this on section 251 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because that example allows the Secretary of State some discretion in deciding whether the circumstances of a case justify the provision of an alternative right of way. However, I understand that the Rights of Way Review Committee favours amendment No. 6, proposed by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). This is based on section 14 of the Highways Act 1980 and would mean that in any case where an order under clauses 1 or 3 included a provision for extinguishing a right of way it would be necessary to provide a reasonably convenient alternative route if one did not already exist.
      While I have much sympathy with those who are concerned to protect our footpath network, I consider that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is a little too inflexible. It would clearly not be sensible to oblige an applicant for an order to incur the cost of providing a diversion if it would not be used. I gather that, because of this restriction, the definition of "reasonably convenient" has been stretched somewhat when new roads have been built. But the amendment is a bad way of proceeding. Our amendment is much clearer. We shall, of course, issue guidance to applicants about how rights of way issues will be assessed, and I shall be happy to consult the Rights of Way Review Committee about that in due course.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Southport will not feel it necessary to press his amendments as I have given an assurance that I will meet the wishes of the Rights of Way Review Committee.
      Mr. Snape: I shall be brief. I wish to ask the Minister whether the rights of way referred to in an amendment include rights of way over water as well as over land. I do not expect him to give me an instant reply, but if they do not, that would sit rather oddly with Government amendment No. 33, which specifies that rights of way over land include rights of navigation over water, and paragraph 10 of schedule 1, where rights of way over land are specified as including rights of navigation over water. I hope that those who, if not walk on the water, sail on it, are not to be treated worse than those who enjoy rights of way over land. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point.
      Mr. Fearn: In view of what the Minister said, I have no wish to press amendment No. 6. Earlier, I raised a point about the disabled which has still not been dealt with. I t may come under this amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the point now.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) may not want to press amendment No. 6, but my name was added to it and I believe that it has some merits over Government amendment No. 23. The term "reasonably convenient" would be useful in the Bill. I am certainly conscious that the Rights of Way

      535
      Review Committee includes the Ramblers Association and other bodies that are experts on footpath matters, at least nationally. However, such bodies tend to depend on volunteers. In some parts of the country, they do not have the coverage that they or I would like, so one finds that often footpath matters have to be taken up by someone who does not know all the details of the legislation.
      If "reasonably convenient" is included in the Bill it will be a good hint or guide to anyone pursuing a case that he has a line of argument or attack when a closure or diversion is proposed by an organisation. There is a great deal of difference between providing an alternative and providing a "reasonably convenient" alternative. The Minister ought to make it easy for people who may be affected by legislation to appreciate the rights and arguments that they can use without needing to consult national bodies which are experts on such matters or seek legal advice from a lawyer.
      The Minister should reconsider the matter to find out why the phrase "reasonably convenient" cannot be on the face of the Bill, because it is the sort of phrase that a lay person will understand. It is important that legislation is easy for people to understand if it diverts footpaths.
      The Minister says that he cannot accept amendment No. 6 and insert those words in the Bill because it would mean that an alternative path would have to be made, even if no one used it. The Minister knows that, if no one uses a path, it is easy for it to be closed. A notice is served and no one objects to the closure if no one uses the path. Therefore, there is no difficulty. If people use a path, it is not satisfactory to put in an alternative. It is important that it is a reasonably convenient alternative.
      I hope that, if the Minister does not accept amendment No. 6 now, he will consider whether the words can be inserted in the House of Lords—I know that he is keen for no amendments to be made there—so that people outside who have to work with this legislation and who are not experts will get a hint from the wording of the Bill.
      8 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: To answer the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—as I was not able to do in an intervention—rights of way over water are in effect rights of navigation. Both are covered by the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) asked earlier about the rights of disabled people, and he also asked me about their rights in relation to the provision of crossings which may be affected by closing the rights of way over railways. When we consider crossings, we bear in mind rights for disabled people. We try to accommodate them. They do not have many rights at level crossings of any description at present, because of the roughness of the ground and the rail tracks. However, I am sure that that will be improved as a result of earlier amendments, because it will obviously be taken into consideration, although it is a matter for the operator to decide.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked me to consider his amendment more fully. Of course I shall consider it in the light of the representations that he has made. I am prepared to meet the Rights of Way Review Committee to discuss what it is proposing and to try to achieve some agreement. If we
      536
      cannot get agreement, it may well be pursued in another place, but I hope that we can achieve a general agreement which will satisfy the people involved.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister hopes to have a further meeting before the legislation moves to another place, can he tell us the timetable in another place? Is it true that the Bill has to be finished by 16 March?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I shall deal with this place and worry about the timetable here. I hope that we can make progress tonight. On that understanding, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      SCHEMES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
      Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 5, line 8, at end insert
      'unless that provision gives effect to modifications of the proposal which have themselves been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 85, in page 5, line 8, at end insert—
      (5A) Where the findings of any public inquiry held under section 11 of this Act are inconsistent with the proposals approved by a resolution in accordance with this section an order shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Amendment No. 86 would enable the Secretary of State to invite Parliament to vote for a new resolution relating to a scheme of national significance in circumstances where he wanted to modify the order in such a way that it would conflict with the terms of the original resolution approved by Parliament. Although we would expect that to be a rare occurrence, we think that circumstances could arise when—probably following a public inquiry and in the light of the inspector's subsequent recommendations—the Secretary of State would want to make changes to the order which were not wholly consistent with the terms of the resolution.
      As clause 9 is currently drafted, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to make those changes, even if there was a broad agreement that they were desirable or necessary, without starting the whole authorisation process from the beginning. We think that that is too inflexible and could militate against good decision-making, because the Secretary of State might be tempted to turn down desirable modifications in the interests of making progress with the project.
      The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State would be able—subject to Parliament's approval to a new resolution—to modify the order in a way which properly reflected the outcome of the inquiry and the inspector's recommendations. However, before going back to Parliament, the Secretary of State would have to proceed in accordance with the procedures in clause 13(3). That would involve notifying every person who would be affected by the modifications to the scheme and giving those persons an opportunity of making representations to him.
      In certain circumstances—for example, where new statutory objectors insisted on a right to be heard—the

      537
      public inquiry would have to be reopened to examine the proposed changes. It might also be necessary for the applicant to prepare a supplementary environmental statement. The Secretary of State would almost certainly want to publish the Inspector's report at the same time as he announced that he was minded to make changes to the order.
      Assuming that the Secretary of State was satisfied, following the outcome of further consultations, that the amendments should be made, he would table a new resolution, which would be debated in each House. He would also arrange for all relevant supporting documents to be deposited in Parliament. The timing of the debates would be a matter for the business managers but would have to allow Members of this House and the other place sufficient time to have read the additional material, including the inspector's report, and to have received representations from the public.
      I hope that the way in which we have moved forward meets some of the concerns expressed by members of the Committee, and that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) will not press amendment No. 85, on the basis that our amendment achieves what he wants but does not fetter the Secretary of State's discretion.
      Mr. Fearn: I am afraid that I must still press my amendment No. 85, because I wish to release public inquiries from the straitjacket which seems to surround them, even with the amendment tabled by the Government. That straitjacket will be worn if clause 9 is unamended.
      Many organisations, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the National Trust, are concerned that clause 9 has reversed the procedure recommended by the Government in their consultation paper. They believe that Parliament would have inadequate information on which to base its considerations. Since detailed objections will not have been heard, Parliament will be in no position to judge the reasons for public decisions or concerns. What is even more serious is that it is inevitable that, once Parliament has blessed a project in principle, the terms of reference of any public inquiry will be severely constrained. That will give rise to frustration on the part of objectors and to limitations on the scope and value of any public inquiry.
      The danger is that public perception of the impartiality of public inquiries will be affected. Such inquiries command public confidence because inspectors are seen to be genuinely impartial and feel free to make recommendations which have radical or minor significance.
      The Secretary of State has recognised some of the difficulties by moving his amendment, but that does not go far enough. Under my amendment, if a public inquiry makes a recommendation which is inconsistent with the original recommendation passed by Parliament, the Secretary of State must bring the matter back before both Houses for approval, even if the draft order is consistent with the original resolution. In other words, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the scheme again when in full possession of all the facts and evidence and has knowledge of public opinion.
      I listened intently to what the Minister said about his amendment, but it does not go far enough. My amendment will put the matter right.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I do not see what point the hon. Gentleman's amendment would serve. If Parliament has already agreed in principle, I see no point in Parliament agreeing to it again. Parliament should be consulted if there is a major change, but it should not be asked to confirm something to which it has already agreed.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In certain circumstances, the situation could change. There could be a general election and a different Parliament might be involved. That would make it a different issue. [Interruption.] If the Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way. If he wants us to stay here a long time, I shall also be happy to oblige. I point out to him that I moved an amendment very quickly, and I could move another series of amendments quickly. However, if the Whip wants to prolong the debate by making such interventions from a sedentary position, I shall oblige by continuing to talk.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has said that, if a general election takes place or if there is a change in the political circumstances, Parliament might want to review the matter. I take that point, but it would be open to the Secretary of State not to make the order.
      Mr. Bennett: It would be left to the Secretary of State to decide to make the order, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware that issues such as this do not necessarily divide the House on party political lines. What divides hon. Members who are more interested in conservation from those who are not sometimes depends on whether they represent urban or rural constituencies.
      If the public inquiry is to have the chance to air the issues, and if we are concerned about the democratic process, those on the inquiry will not only try to influence the inspectorate, but they should also try to influence the whole country. If strong arguments emerge at that inquiry, Parliament may want to take them into account.
      The Minister has a dilemma with the Bill. All we can do is see how in practice it will work. I suspect that, sooner or later, Parliament will give approval to something as a result of initial consideration, and an inquiry will be held and various points will be starkly brought out. The Minister, believing that Parliament has already approved the matter, will want to give the go-ahead. However, if Parliament were tested, it might decide that as a result of the public inquiry, circumstances had changed.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11

      INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, amendment No.113 in page 6, line 19, after `heard', Insert
      subject to section 11(7) below.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to take the following amendments: No.114, in page 6, line 20, at end insert—
      `(2A) The Secretary of State may give a person who makes an objection in accordance with rules under section 10 assistance with legal and administrative costs incurred before, during and after an appearance before a person appointed by the Secretary of State.'.
      No. 115, in page 6, line 34, at end insert

      539
      `and (c) any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out;'.
      No. 116, in page 6, line 35, leave out 'paragraph (a)' and insert 'paragraphs (a) and (c)'.
      No. 117, in page 6, line 38, at end insert
      'and for the purposes of paragraph (c) above, community and environmental group means conservation, archaelogical, art or environmental or similar group.'.
      No. 118, in page 7, line 4, at end add—
      `(7) No person shall be appointed by the Secretary of State without approval being sought from the community and environmental groups under section 11(4)(c).'.
      Mr. Hughes: Such is the bizarre nature of our business that I sprinted over to the House an hour ago thinking it was time to move my amendment. I have had time to watch two television programmes since then.
      Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman should have been listening to the debate.
      Mr. Hughes: I have been in and out of the Chamber.
      The amendments have three interrelated aims. Amendment Nos. 113 and 115 attempt to widen the number of people who are consulted about an application. Amendment No. 114 seeks to give groups financial assistance when they appear before a public inquiry. Amendment No. 118 will give the local community some say in the selection of inspectors at a public inquiry. I hope that it is clear to the House that the theme which connects the amendments is a desire to give community groups a greater say in planning applications.
      Traditionally, much of the private business that has gone through the House has been of relevance to London Members. One of the strongest arguments against changing the procedures governing that business and transferring much of it from the House is that we spend a great deal of time dealing with railway and underground legislation that has specific relevance to Members representing London. The King's Cross Railways Bill, for example, has occupied much of the House's time.
      I have been here for nine years, and in most of that time, we have passed one or more private Bills that have affected Southwark and Bermondsey. It is often a difficult battle to try to get the legislation right and to force the promoters to accept a change. Therefore, in many senses the idea of replacing a parliamentary debate and Committee stage in two Houses with a public inquiry is a welcome one. However, the proposal has defects, and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my amendments.
      I listened to the earlier debate about the timetable to which the Government are working. I noted that the Minister was careful not to talk about the timetable in the other place. I understand that the Government are not keen to accept amendments in this place, but I hope that if the Minister considers that they contain good ideas, he will redraft them and re-present them as Government amendments tabled in another place.
      8.15 pm
      Amendment No. 115 would add to clause 11 as another category eligible to give evidence at a hearing
      "any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out".
      540
      The amendment is designed to ensure that such groups are included in any inquiry, but that those groups have links with the area in question. A traditional complaint about public inquiries is that too many interest groups try to muscle in. Often those groups may represent general environment and community interests, but have no specific area interest.
      Under the Bill as it stands, the only people to be consulted are those directly affected by the compulsory acquisition of land under application and the local authority. I want to make it abundantly clear, by adding a third category, that area community groups should also be included.
      I have sought to define what I mean by environmental and community groups in amendment No. 117, which lists them as any
      "conservation, archaeological, art or environmental or similar group."
      Such groups should exist within the relevant local authority area that is affected by a prescribed order.
      Sometimes community groups feel that their local authority does not adequately represent their views—some feel that more strongly than others. The London Underground Bill is now in another place between its Committee and Report stages. When the Bill was in Committee in this House, the tenants association of the Canada estate of Rotherhithe petitioned the Committee and sought to persuade it that there was a risk to the well-being and structure of the estate if the line ran directly under it. The association managed to secure the agreement of the Committee that a survey should be carried out.
      The tenants association then put its case to the Committee in the other place—I was witness at both Committees. It did not succeed in persuading that Committee, and it felt that one of the reasons for that failure was that the local authority, Southwark, withdrew its original petition of support. As a consequence of that decision, the tenants association felt let down and felt that it could not rely on the authority.
      It would be a bad state of affairs if the only way in which community groups could be represented was via a local authority that, for one reason or another, might not want to represent their interests.
      The other simple purpose of the amendments is to ensure that those groups who represent certain interests are those that relate to the specific area affected. The Minister will be aware of the Thameslink proposal which will cross London north to south. That proposal will have severe implications in terms of demolition around the Borough market in Southwark by London Bridge station. Listed buildings, including the hop exchange in Southwark street, are also under threat.
      The residents association in the Southwark cathedral area has been conscientious in looking after the interests of the area, as has the North Southwark community development group. Their concern about that Bill rightly prompted the suggestion that this Bill could be amended in this way. They speak for many groups around the country in relation to many Bills or public inquiries. I hope that their case will be heard.
      Amendment No. 114 deals with financial assistance. As the Minister and his Department know, local groups often cannot hire professionals to pay for promotional expertise to present their case. Extremely high costs are often involved in public inquiries. People lose wages or salaries

      541
      through taking time off work and community groups must pay for documents that provide evidence. The amendment seeks to build in an entitlement to financial assistance.
      I recently asked the Minister's Department whether the families of those who died and those who survived the Marchioness tragedy could have legal assistance in giving evidence to the inquiry on river safety that the Government have announced. So far, the answer has been no. The families feel aggrieved about that.

      The fact that people do not have financial assistance in planning inquiries is a common cause of complaint. It is a great unfairness because on one side there are public authorities, Government Departments, British Rail and London Underground; on another there are private companies to which huge amounts of money are available, and sometimes rich individuals; a third group is composed of individuals, often on low incomes, or community groups with no significant resources, representing areas where the residents have low incomes. It is about time we had a fair system, and this would be an appropriate time to achieve one.
      On amendment No. 118, one of the problems of the public inquiry system is that no one other than the Secretary of State has a say about who the inspector should be. I do not wish to complain about any particular inspector. In my nine years as an MP, I have been to many public inquiries and I did so in my previous job. However, there should be some arrangement to ensure that, where possible, there is consultation on the inspector and that a list of possible inspectors is available, in the same way as we have lists of approved contractors for local authorities. In that way, inquiries could be made to ensure that the inspector meets the approval of the community as a whole.
      All inspectors could then be approved and selected. Just as in industrial tribunals, where trade unions and employers each traditionally nominate a member and there is an independent member, so there should be some say in ensuring that the planning inspectorate is fair and representative.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: In tribunals, people cannot pick those who will hear their case. They may be part of an organisation that helps to nominate people, but they cannot have their unfair dismissal case heard if people are allocated.
      Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly valid point, but there is a difference. Represented groups at tribunals participate in the process, whereas there is no participation process in relation to Government-appointed inspectors, and no one else has a say.
      If we are in favour of open planning processes, giving the only right to appoint an inspector to the Government of the day cannot be the fairest way to proceed. The amendment seeks to suggest a fairer way. I should be grateful for a positive response from the Minister to that amendment, as to the others. I am ever hopeful, and I hope that, even if the Minister cannot give me all that I seek now, he will say that it can be achieved before the Bill is enacted.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He will be holding his breath for a long time if he is waiting for a positive response to the points that he has raised today. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's admission that he had come to the Chamber an hour
      542
      earlier and, on seeing that his amendments were nowhere near being reached, went to watch television rather than following the progress of the Bill. This is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has made an appearance at the Bill's Committee or Report stages. For those of us who have been following the Bill from the outset, it comes as a surprise that the hon. Gentleman expects a positive response.
      On amendment No. 114, the case for the public funding of objectors attending public inquiries has been presented many times in recent years. However, the Government remain of the view that those participating in public inquiries can reasonably be expected to meet their own costs. Although local objectors have every right to express their individual or collective views in defence of their interests, it would not be right to provide public funds for that purpose. Any funding scheme would involve a process of selection that could give rise to an accusation of bias and call into question the Secretary of State's impartiality in deciding the schemes. That could arise either from the Secretary of State's choosing to distribute funds among objectors or because he was seen to be favouring objectors over prospective developers.
      Furthermore, to make an exception for the purpose of the Bill from the long-established policy against paying objectors' costs would be an undesirable precedent with potentially far-reaching implications. It would inevitably lead to similar claims being made by objectors at public inquiries into other work schemes, and the scale of the potential costs to the taxpayer is self-evident.
      Mr. Cryer: Is not the Minister in a good position as regards clause 10? Happily, the Committee amended clause 10 to allow him to make a statutory instrument subject to anulment. Subsection (5) says:
      "Rules under this section may make different provision for different cases".
      That means that rules can be a useful guide and could be set as a statutory instrument. Therefore, the Secretary of State would not be seen to be being dragged into individual allocations. Assistance would be provided according to rules and he could then single out, under the rules, poverty-stricken tenants groups, for example, and exclude the fat cats from the corporations who wish to object. That would create a basis of fairness.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether that is a commitment that Labour Members may want to make. I have expressed the Government's position—we do not see funds being made available for those cases. The hon. Gentleman may be right. As the Bill stands, the hon. Gentleman could increase public expenditure in that area and those cases if he so wished.
      Mr. Snape: If the Minister is conceding defeat at this early stage in the election proceedings, that is a significant matter. Perhaps he should be back in his constituency knocking on a few doors in case the defeat washes him away.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am fairly confident that those schemes for objectors will not be funded for a considerable time, irrespective of the outcome of the general election, whenever it may happen. We serve no useful purpose by debating the outcome of an election. No one knows what will happen, but I am fairly confident that we shall remain on this side of the Chamber and the Opposition will remain on theirs.

      543
      I should like to explain to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey the advantages of the Bill as opposed to the old system of private Bills. Groups will not have to prove locus standi, and the costs of appearing at a public inquiry are far lower than those of appearing in Parliament. The Bill will give many more opportunities to groups that wish to present a case to a public inquiry than the present private Bill procedure does. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
      The other amendments seek to establish a statutory role for community groups. How can a community group represent a local authority area? That is a job for a local authority and Members of Parliament. I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's somewhat dismissive attitude towards what the Southwark authority had done, bearing in mind that the Liberal Democrats usually stand so firm behind the rights of local councillors, and state that they are the best people to make decisions, come what may. He does not seem to want to follow that policy through.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want to enter a party political debate. However, local authorities may or may not do a good job—they are not normally representative due to the electoral system, but we cannot do anything about that. Members of all parties, including Liberal Democrats, make the perfectly valid argument that community groups and voluntary sector groups should be able to speak separately from the local authorities, as they may have different interests.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Amendment No. 115 states:
      "any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out".
      I have to go by what the amendment states, not by what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may have meant it to mean. Earlier, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) say that he understood why the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wished to divorce his remarks from those of Tower Hamlets council—I can understand that.
      Amendment No. 118 seeks a role for community groups for vetting the appointment of inspectors. That is absolute madness and clearly wrong. It is of the utmost importance to uphold the impartiality of inspectors. Inquiries have to be fair, and be seen to be fair, by all those involved, including the promoters. That position could not be sustained if appointments were subject to the approval of specific groups on one side of the argument or the other.
      Inspectors are chosen for their experience in dealing with the subject matter and their availability. I know of no instance where the selection of inspectors has been controversial. The hon. Gentleman will next be saying that the prosecution should have a vetting right over a judge in a court case. I do not think that his suggestion stands up to scrutiny, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall take the last point first. The Minister chose the wrong analogy. In a court, the defendant has the right to challenge members of the jury, who are the people who make the decision.
      Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Irvine Patnick): It is not the jury.
      Mr. Hughes: No, that is the fallacy. The Whip is making a fallacious point. It is not the judge who makes the decision, but the jury, who can be challenged. The defendant has to put up with whichever magistrate he or she is given. However, I am trying to find the best system for planning inquiries.
      On the Minister's rejection of my point about community groups, he either does not understand or does not want to understand that a local authority interest is often different from the interests of those who are representative of an area that is smaller than that of the local authority. In authorities with thousands of residents —for example, Tower Hamlets or Southwark—all the residents will not necessarily have the same view. Those living around Southwark cathedral, or Rotherhithe, or Surrey docks, or Bow or Poplar will not necessarily have the same views.
      The Minister has put his case clearly. If the Government hold to that view, the community and voluntary sectors will study their policies with interest. I think that they will become much more sympathetic to the Opposition's argument on the future of the planning system and will react adversely to the Conservative view.
      The Minister said that the Government are not willing to fund people who otherwise might find it difficult to raise the money. It may or may not be cheaper to take time off work to attend and prepare for a public inquiry than to take time off to prepare for a Committee in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I do not necessarily think that it would be. The same expenses are generally incurred. Lay people often have to battle against lawyers, and the process is unfair.
      It is typical of all parts of the Tory Government to want to preserve the status quo that is to the advantage of those who are well-off, with resources, and to the disadvantage of those who are less well-off and who do not have resources. I leave it to those who read the debate and are interested in the subject to decide. As always, the Tory party is never willing to look at ways of making the system fairer, when given such a golden opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wish to say something about the hon. Gentleman's speech before he goes back to watching television, or whatever he was doing before the debate.
      My experience of reading inspectors' reports is that inspectors are often affected by what ordinary people say on their own behalf, which is a good sign of confidence in the system. Inspectors prove far more challenging opponents of those who are professionally represented, and often gain modifications in the proposals of public authorities. One person, without much experience of appearing before public inquiries, can come and say what their interest is and what they would consider a better proposal. Sometimes, people want to build bridges worth half a million pounds so that a farmer's divided land can be united, or want to move part of the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, or make some other adaptation because of the location of someone's house. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make partisan points and betray the fact that he thinks that there will soon be an election.
      The Bill is designed to make life easier for ordinary people. If people read the report of the debate, I hope that they will have the confidence to make objections or put their argument at any form of hearing, and find that they are well represented and receive a good hearing.
      Mr. Cryer: It would be a good idea to study amendment No. 114 to see whether it is possible to provide for minimal costs for people appearing before the Minister or an inquiry. I realise that there could be a problem, as other similar inquiries could then be said to justify such expenditure. However, it is worth keeping that point in mind when considering the procedure.
      I do not agree that various groups should vet the inspector. That would prompt accusations of partiality if the inspector were to be approved by one side. The other side might well argue that, as the inspector had been approved by side A, he or she must be opposed to side B.
      There was a great argument over the proposed Aire valley trunk road, when, as a matter of course, the inspector was appointed by the Department of Transport. As a matter of routine, inspectors come from the Department, but people simply did not trust the inspector. That was not because he had exhibited prejudice, but because he came from the Department promoting the proposed trunk road.
      I believe that, as a result of that outcry, which occurred in 1978, inspectors are now appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they have an impartial status. I think that the Minister may well confirm that. If that is not true of the Department of Transport, it should be. People are anxious to ensure that the inspector is not identified with the Department—a valid point.
      In 1978 the Department of the Environment of the Labour Government separated the inspectors from the Department as a result of pressure from a local inquiry to which there was bitter opposition. The inquiry was felt to be so prejudiced that it was broken up. When the inspector tried to keep members of the public out of the room, doors were knocked down and the public simply burst in.
      That background is relevant to the Bill, as nobody has been appointed under the new legislation. The Minister should ensure, in the limited time left available to him, that inspectors are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they are seen to be independent, not as appointees who are subordinate to the Minister's Department.
      Mr. McLoughlin: In a trunk road inquiry, the inspectorate is appointed by a panel approved by the Lord Chancellor. For planning inquiries covered by the Bill, inspectors would be chosen from a planning body. In that respect, it is separate from the Department.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 6, line 25, after 'shall', insert 'without unreasonable delay'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 13, page 7, line 38, after 'shall', insert 'without unreasonable delay'.
      No. 68, in clause 13, page 7, line 49, at end insert—
      '(2A) If, in the case of an application for the purposes of which an inquiry or hearing is held, the Secretary of State has not given notice of his determination under section 13(1) above before the end of the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which the inquiry or hearing is closed, he shall, if requested to do so by any person to whom notice of the determination must be given under section 14(1) below, specify the date on or before which he expects to give notice of his determination.'.
      Mr. Snape: The amendments address the important question of the time scales that are likely to he involved in the determination of an order submitted under the provisions of part I of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 require the Secretary of State to act without unreasonable delay in exercising his powers in relation to requiring a public local inquiry to be held and in reaching a final decision on an order. Amendment No. 68 provides an applicant for an order with the right to demand an indication from the Secretary of State of when he expects to make a decision if the Secretary of State has not done so within nine months of the completion of the inquiry.
      The matter of time scales for the determination of such orders was discussed in Committee, and in response to amendments the Under-Secretary said:
      "I have concluded that this matter is not suitable for statutory attention. However, I am prepared to consider the publication of guidelines relating to time scales for determining orders … But the Secretary of State could not be bound by them".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 January 1992; c. 205.]
      There is considerable support for the publication of guidelines from groups with an interest in this part of the Bill, and they include the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Passenger Transport Executive group. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he has reached a conclusion on the subject of guidelines.
      However, there are serious concerns that guidelines alone will not be enough. The amendments are designed to give added weight to the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the decision-making process without creating problems for the Secretary of State which the Under-Secretary of State argued would arise from the amendments that we considered in Committee.
      There are a number of important factors behind the concern of the promoting authorities. Private sector contributions towards the cost of, for example, light rail schemes are increasingly important, particularly in view of Government policies. An applicant for an order would normally seek to have private funding guaranteed before starting the costly exercise of applying for an order. It is essential that private investors know the extent of their commitment, not only in terms of cost, but in terms of how long the commitment would last. Without the certainty of knowing when a decision would he made, it would be difficult to persuade an investor to make a financial commitment in the first place.
      The second important reason relates to the changes in relation to blighted property introduced by the Bill. Under the current private Bill procedures and planning procedures, property is blighted only when the Bill is enacted or planning permission is granted. It is recognised that this can cause unfairness, and the Bill provides that land is blighted once an application for an order has been made. This change will impose a considerable financial burden on promoting authorities, such as passenger transport executives, which may have to buy blighted properties long before a decision on an application is made. Speedy decision-making is essential if the financial implications of this change are to be kept to a minimum.
      The concern about the timetable for decision making on orders under this Bill is in part a result of authorities' experience with highway orders. A case in Barnsley illustrates the problem.
      Mr. Patnick: That is well off beam.
      Mr. Snape: It may be, but it is not far from Sheffield.

      547
      Barnsley authority submitted to the Department orders in relation to a road scheme in the borough. What is known as a side roads order was submitted to the Department on 15 July 1991, followed by a compulsory purchase order on 30 September 1991. The last dates for objections to the orders were 9 September and 7 October 1991 respectively. There are a small number of outstanding objections to the orders, and the authority is currently negotiating with those concerned with a view to enabling the objections to be removed.
      On 25 November 1991—four months after the first order was submitted—Barnsley borough council received a letter from the Department of Transport raising a number of points of concern about the content and drafting of the orders. The authority replied to these points on 10 December. As of the end of last month, the authority has still received no indication from the Department as to when an inquiry can be held. That was the unsatisfactory position almost six months after the first order had been submitted. This case clearly illustrates the need for these amendments, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will revert to his earlier, more conciliatory, self when he replies.
      Mr. Moate: In Committee, I moved an amendment requiring quite precise time limits. It was unsuccessful, but I was grateful to the Under-Secretary, who was fairly helpful, responsive and understanding. I am not in the habit of accusing the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) of being moderate or reasonable, but in this instance his amendments are reasonable and moderate. Essentially, the amendments propose that there should not be any unreasonable delay. That is hardly a great imposition on Departments. I suspect that the Minister agrees that it is reasonable for Departments to be subjected to some sort of discipline. I think he said that he could not accept a precise timetable, but that he would accept the logic of guidelines or target dates.
      8.45 pm
      One understands the difficulty of placing precise guidelines upon the way that Departments deal with planning applications. Some of them can be immensely complex and difficult and one can see all sorts of legal snares if one tries to apply rigid rules. However, the public, and especially applicants and promoters of schemes, are entitled to speedy replies and to some certainty or some understanding of how long it will take so that they can judge the viability of a project and decide whether it should be backed.

      I fully understand why the Minister is logically and sensibly constrained by the whole planning ethos in the Department of the Environment as well as in the Department of Transport. Fundamentally, we are on the right lines, and I hope that we shall emerge from this debate and others with more sensible disciplines and constraints upon local authorities and upon the way in which Ministers and civil servants deal with such matters. I hope that the Minister will be helpful.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for the way in which he moved the amendments and to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for the constructive part that he played in Committee. I have no doubt that the amendments are well intentioned. [Interruption.] I hope
      548
      that no one will prejudge my speech. I cannot comment in detail on the Barnsley case to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East referred, but I shall write to him next week and I shall look into the matter of the delay. It is difficult to comment on a case about which one has not been forewarned.
      Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister write without unreasonable delay?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I will reply in a reasonable time, and that means before next Thursday.
      Amendment No. 66 would require the Secretary of State to cause an inquiry to be held without unreasonable delay. Aside from the difficulty of applying appropriate sanctions where the Secretary of State did cause unreasonable delay, the amendment overlooks the fact that the inquiry rules to be made under powers conferred in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 will contain a pre-inquiry timetable within which the Secretary of State would be expected to work. In practice, the timing of the inquiry is likely to be a matter for the applicant to decide, taking into account the outcome of any negotiations that he wishes to hold with objectors. I do not think it wise to try to force the Secretary of State to arrange an inquiry earlier than the promoter wishes. He may well want to enter negotiations to try to overcome some of the objectors' concerns.
      Amendment No. 67 also suffers from the problem of what sanction could helpfully be applied to the Secretary of State if there were unnecessary delay in making or refusing an order following, if necessary, an inquiry or a hearing. As I said in Committee, I am prepared to consider publishing guidelines relating to timetables for determining orders, I suggest that they would be of more practical value than the rather imprecise wording proposed in the amendment. I am prepared to go a little further, and say that we shall almost certainly publish such guidelines; but flexibility will be needed.
      Amendment No. 68 has several drawbacks. It appears to be based on the assumption that, by the end of nine months from the conclusion of an inquiry, the Secretary of State would have at least received the inspector's report. That may not be the case, because the inquiry may have been long and complex, and the inspector is likely to require double the length of the inquiry to produce his report. To require the Secretary of State to specify the date on which he expects to give notice of his decision on the order in circumstances when he cannot be sure when the inspector's report will be received, or what it will contain, would be meaningless.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really suggesting that a large number of inquiries will take more than nine months to be completed? If that is so, and if it is likely to take 18 months for the Secretary of State to receive the inspector's report, a long period of blight is probable.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am not saying that; I am saying that that might happen in some cases, and that specifying a figure in the Bill would lead to serious dangers and difficulties. I sincerely hope that the inquiries will not take as long as that. I realise that the aim is to do away with the private Bill procedure, but I must say that, if a nine-month moratorium were imposed on private Bills, the hon.

      549
      Gentleman would probably succeed in stopping almost every private Bill from reaching the House for quite some time.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We do have at least a 12-month block. The amendment merely requires the Secretary of State to give reasons if the process lasts longer than nine months. Normally, if a parliamentary Session lasts for 12 months, a carry-over motion is necessary; and, in a sense, that is the purpose of such a motion—to explain why such a long time has been taken.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that, but in such circumstances the Secretary of State would probably specifiy in the order a date several months ahead, to avoid being criticised for failing to meet the date. That would be of no help to anyone. Finally, if the Secretary of State specified a date and that date was missed, what sanction would apply?
      A general comment on enforcement may help the House. If the Secretary of State behaves unreasonably in any way, he may be subject to judicial review. He will always have that in mind. The amendments require the Secretary of State to behave reasonably, and that would have to be enforced—again—by judicial review.
      I hope that the House will agree that the amendments do not advance the cause espoused not only by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, but consistently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will agree to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Snape: I must confess to some disappointment with that reply. We do not appear to have progressed very far since Committee. We cannot lay down a fixed time, because no sanctions are imposed on the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should be dragged out of his office and shot if he fails to make a decision at the proper time; perhaps he should be given a good cuff round the ear from time to time, but nothing more serious. However, we still do not know any more about the guidelines that the Miniser promised us in Committee. He has given us no further information about them tonight.
      I have some bad news for the Minister. According to the latest "Newsnight" opinion poll, Labour is leading by 42 per cent. to 38 per cent. Time is slipping away. Unless the guidelines are published very shortly—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. McLoughin rose—
      Mr. Snape: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
      Unless the guidelines are published very shortly, the Minister will not be in a position to do much about them.
      Mr. Bennett: On the basis of the good news that he has announced, will my hon. Friend tell us what guidelines he will work to?
      Mr. Snape: I knew that I should have given way to the Minister in the first place. Let me correct my mistake immediately.
      Mr. McLoughlin: May I caution the hon. Gentleman about relying on BBC "Newsnight" polls? At the time of
      550
      the by-election in which I became a Member of Parliament, they got it wrong, and they have got it wrong many times since then.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. After that little interlude, let us return to the amendment.
      Mr. Snape: I shall bear your strictures in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as they have been rejected, the amendments are less interesting than the result of the opinion poll.
      We regret the Minister's hesitancy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for describing my amendments as moderate and reasonable: I note that he and I have tabled similar amendments relating to a later clause, and, as he will move his first, I may have an opportunity to reciprocate with moderation and helpfulness. We may well get some moderation from the Minister; whether he will be helpful remains to be seen, but, bearing in mind the fact that he has done his best on earlier occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 13

      MAKING OR REFUSAL OF ORDERS UNDER SECTION I OR 3
      Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where an application has been made to the Secretary of State under section 6 above and he considers that any of the objects of the order applied for could be achieved by other means, he may on that ground determine not to make the order (but this subsection is without prejudice to subsection (2) below).'.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]
      Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister tell us what "other means" he has in mind?
      Mr. McLoughlin: That point was raised in Committee. Concern was expressed about a possible flood of applications dealing with matters for which procedures already exist. In particular, some Members feared that unscrupulous applicants might seek to use the new orders to sidestep the established procedures for extinguishing rights of way, where such a proposal was not related to a works matter that belonged to the new procedure. Our proposals were broadly welcomed for that reason.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Rights of Way Review Committee and the Ramblers Association are delighted with the amendment. If I had realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was going to speak, I might have expressed my welcome for the measure, but I thought that we were trying to make progress.
      Mr. McLoughlin: That is why I moved the amendment formally.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—
      '(5) Where the Secretary of State determining the application has for the time being general responsibility for transport matters he shall, in appropriate circumstances, consult the Secretary of State for the time being having general responsibility for planning matters before doing so.

      551
      (6) The circumstances referred to in subsection (5) above relate in particular to the environmental and land use implications of the proposals.'.
      Where an order was being determined by the Secretary of State for Transport, the amendment would require him to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposal concerned had major environmental or land use implications. The amendment is designed to explore a relatively unclear area in relation to the implementation of part I of the Bill.
      Many schemes promoted under the Bill's provisions will have major environmental and land use implications. In some cases—for example, light rail schemes—the proposals could well be part of a transport strategy designed to reduce the environmental impact of people's ever-increasing demand to travel. Such schemes undoubtedly have significant local and environmental impact, particularly in terms of noise and vibration, and also have major implications for land-use patterns.
      The draft applications and objections procedure rules circulated by the Department of Transport in Committee rightly emphasised the importance of environmental impact statements in ensuring that sensible decisions are made. There is, however, some concern about the extent to which the Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for making decisions on major environmental issues. The purpose of the amendment is to secure clarification of the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment in the decision-making process envisaged in the Bill.
      9 pm
      As ever, the wording of the Bill itself, with its standard reference to an anonymous Secretary of State, is of no great help. The draft regulations refer to the role of the Secretary of State for Transport but, in parentheses, add the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy. The consultation paper on which the provisions of part I of the Bill are based states:
      "Decisions on orders which included deemed town planning permission would be made by the Secretary of State for Transport after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment (for projects in England) and the Secretary of State for Wales (for projects in Wales)."
      The consultation document goes on to say that, where other formal ministerial consents were required—for example, listed building consent—a single public inquiry would examine all the issues, and the decision on the order would be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister responsible for the other consent. Thus, if, for example, an application were made for listed building consent as part of an order, the Secretary of State for the Environment would be jointly responsible for deciding whether the order should be confirmed.
      The Under-Secretary made a similar point in Committee when he said:
      "Where it is the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for deciding on an application, he will naturally want to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about the planning implications of a scheme. That Department holds the relevant expertise in that area and it is unthinkable that it would not be consulted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 Janaury 1992; c. 208.]
      In order to clarify what the Minister said on that occasion, as well as this whole area, it would be extremely helpful if the Under-Secretary were to say in what circumstances the
      552
      Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for making the decision about an application, and when other Ministers will have primary responsibility.
      It would be helpful if he were to indicate also in what circumstances the Government envisage decisions being taken jointly by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Are the circumstances confined to those in which listed building consent is involved, as I have already set out?
      Finally, in what cases will the Secretary of State for Transport consult the Secretary of State for the Environment, what form will the consultation take, and will the existence and the outcome of consultations be made public?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have no quarrel with the basic intention behind this amendment, but it is another attempt to introduce on to the face of the Bill rigid procedures that are undesirable and inappropriate. The references throughout the Bill to "Secretary of State" without further identification is deliberate. It is a term that is unlikely to be affected by changes in ministerial responsibilities. It takes into account—as this amendment does not—the fact that the relevant Secretary of State will not always be the Minister in charge of a Department that has general transport responsibilities.
      For example, tidal energy barrages will be determined by the Secretary of State for Energy or, in Wales, by the Secretary of State for Wales, and inland waterway schemes by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The term also ignores the planning responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales for developments in Wales. It is within the political memories of most of us—including the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, (Mr. Snape) I am sure —that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment were once the same and that for some years the former did not encompass maritime and aviation matters.
      We accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales should be consulted about every draft order submitted under clause I or 3 involving planning issues that would be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport or by the Secretary of State for Energy.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really saying that the Secretaries of State will be interchangeable? If so, is it right to assume that a Secretary of State will not be the Minister to make the decision in respect of a scheme in his own constituency?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, in government, that sort of situation is well protected. There are very clear guidelines. No Minister —whether a Secretary of State or a junior Minister—would involve himself in matters that directly affected his constituency.
      I can give the House an assurance that consultations such as I have referred to would take place. If hon. Members need further evidence of our good intentions, they should be aware, first, that, under the application rules, the local planning authorities will be statutory consultees, and copies of every application, with supporting documents, will have to be deposited with every local authority in whose area the proposed development is situated. Secondly, applicants will have to produce an environmental statement for every scheme

      553
      except the very smallest, and this will be available for public inspection. If policy issues arise on these documents, it is to the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales that we shall turn for guidance.
      With those assurances, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Snape: I confess to a sense of disappointment. The Under-Secretary congratulates me on the moderation of my amendments or, at least, gives an implicit nod to the moderation with which I move them, yet he says that they are not necessary. If an anonymous Secretary of State is mentioned in the Bill, it is not clear, not only in law but to interested parties who may well be, or wish to be, involved in a local planning inquiry or in direct representations, what Secretary of State is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept my amendments, he might think about speaking to the parliamentary draftsmen about using the words "the appropriate Secretary of State"— that is, the appropriate Secretary of State depending on the matters before that currently anonymous person.
      Once again, in the interests of amity in these proceedings, I beg to ask leave, though somewhat reluctantly on this occasion, to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15

      CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'or permission' and insert `, permission or licence'.
      No. 28, in page 9, line 11, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 13 and insert—

      '(a) the procedure for obtaining, or otherwise relating to, the consent, permission, licence, order or confirmation, and

      (b) the procedure relating to the application made under section 6 above,

      are wholly or partly assimilated (and in particular that proceedings relating to the one may be held concurrently with proceedings relating to the other)'.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]

    Clause 16

      TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
      Mr. Moate: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 9, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—
      '(2A) Subject to subsections (2B) and (2C), planning permission shall he deemed to be granted for development for which provision is made by an order under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
      (2B) Development is not permitted by subsection (2A) if it consists of or includes—

      (a) the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building, bridge, aquaduct, pier or dam, or

      (b) the formation, laying out or alteration of a means of access to any highway used by vehicular traffic,

      unless the prior approval of the detailed plans and specifications of the appropriate authority is first obtained.
      (2C) The prior approval referred to in subsection (2B) is not to be refused by the appropriate authority nor are conditions to be imposed unless they are satisfied that—

      (a) the development (other than the provision of or works carried out to a dam) ought to be and could reasonably to be carried out elsewhere on the land, or

      554

      (b) the design or external appearance of any building, bridge, aquaduct, pier or dam would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury.

      (2D) In subsections (2B) and (2C) "appropriate authority" means—

      (a) in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the local planning authority,

      (b) in a National Park, outside a metropolitan county, the county planning authority, and

      (c) in any other case, the district planning authority.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69, in page 9, line 33, at end insert—
      '(1A) Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 shall apply to an order made under section 1 above as if it were an order made under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964.'.
      Mr. Moate: The amendment provides that, once an order under clause I or clause 3 is made, the development for which the order provides would have the benefit of deemed planning permission in the same way as is the case for development authorised by a private Bill at the present time or by a harbour revision order. The provision made by the amendment is in exactly the same terms as part If of the 1988 order. Therefore, it provides exactly the same planning safeguards as those that currently apply in the case of development authorised by private Bills or harbour revision orders.
      This question was considered in some respects in Committee and has been the subject of subsequent representations and discussions with the Minister. I put on record my appreciation of the way in which the Minister received representations and has endeavoured to meet these anxieties. However, I am still extremely worried, as I think others are, about the way that the Bill might work in practice with regard to a number of orders. Efforts have been made to satisfy those concerned that there is no cause for anxiety, but people are still very anxious because they believe that the Bill will not work in the way that it is intended to work.
      My hon. Friend knows that I regard the present private Bill procedure as totally unsatisfactory in many respects, particularly for railway matters. The new procedure will be very much better. However, at the moment, the private Bill procedure means that, once all the parliamentary hurdles have been overcome and a Bill becomes an Act, there is certainty about planning permission. Our concern is that under the new proposals the same certainty will not apply once an order has been made.
      I do not believe for one moment that the Minister, or anybody else, wants to cause further procedural delays, but my worry is that, as the Bill stands, it may be possible for an order to be made by the Secretary of State and for there then to be another planning procedure, another inquiry, which could cause considerable delay. The very fear of that second bite at the cherry could worry promoters and cause great concern and indecision about whether to proceed with a certain project.
      As it stands, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State only to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to have been granted. However, the terms on which planning permission is granted are left entirely to the Secretary of State, in contrast to the present planning rules.
      I understand that the intention to leave it in this optional form is not designed to make life difficult for

      555
      British Rail or any other promoter: it is intended to be helpful. None the less, the fact remains that the Secretary of State has the option, if he so wishes, not to grant full planning permission. If we assume that normal planning permission would be granted at the same time as the order is made, that could happen only if—this is another anxiety —the promoters had submitted all the detailed design work so that the whole matter could be considered at the same time.
      That is a risky process. If the very principle is in doubt, the promoter is risking enormous investment in planning all the gradients, all the work on the bridges, the design work and the like for a scheme about which there is some element of doubt.
      We are then told that that is not necessarily what will happen. The promoters need only seek outline planning permission for the details to be resolved thereafter, perhaps with the local planning authority. That presents a problem because, on a controversial scheme, the local planning authority could make unreasonable demands and, in effect, call for another planning process to deal with all the details. We would then have had one order-making procedure, perhaps involving a public inquiry, determined by the Secretary of State, followed by another planning and consideration process.
      Nobody wants the procedure to be drawn out. We want it to be streamlined and efficient. No one is suggesting that the public and the planning authorities should not have full input into the proceedings. However, it is paramount that it is wrapped up in one procedure. My concern is that, as the Bill is drafted, it might now always work that way.
      I am satisfied that it is the intention of my hon. Friend the Minister and the planning authorities that it should be done in one procedure, but we cannot be certain that the statute would always be followed in that way. It is reasonable to place in the legislation the certainty that is currently in the private Bill procedure. All one is asking is that planning permission shall be deemed granted once an order has been approved. All that means is that, before making an order, the Secretary of State must go through all planning considerations and take into account all the representations and the detailed and outlined work. British Rail is the body most concerned about this, but it could be any body. Any promoters need to know that they can go ahead with certainty.
      I hope that my hon. Friend can meet those anxieties and accept my amendment or that tabled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), which has the same result.
      Mr. Snape: At the risk of extending even further this mutual admiration society, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on the content of his amendment and the way in which it was moved. I hope that I do not depart too much from the attitude of concensus if I say that amendment No. 69 is even better than his amendment, but I think that his is pretty good. I hope that the Minister can accept the principle behind both amendments and the chapter and verse of one.
      Clause 16(1) as drafted would empower the Secretary of State on making an order under clause 1 relating to railway works and so on to direct that planning permission be granted subject to any conditions that he may specify. That is different from the position that obtains now under
      556
      the private Bill procedure, which we are supposed to be reforming or improving, or under a harbour revision order.
      At present, if Parliament agrees a scheme or a harbour order is approved, there is deemed planning permission for the scheme, subject to reservation of detailed matters under part II of schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1988. Reserved matters to be dealt with by the local planning authority would consist of the detailed designs of erections or extensions of buildings, bridges or the formation or alteration of a means of access by any highway used by vehicular traffic. The local planning authority could not refuse such detailed matters unless it was satisfied that the development could be carried out elsewhere on the land authorised for the works or that the design or external appearance of the buildings would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and could be reasonably modified.
      At present, the promoter of a scheme will not have to consider the planning side as a separate and distinct application from the overall consideration of the merits of the scheme. Planning issues such as environmental assessment and the scheme's relationship to local authorities' local plans and structure plans are all to be considered. Essentially, an overview is taken of the total project.
      9.15 pm
      In Committee, the Minister stated in column 229 of the report of the proceedings that planning merit should be considered on a case-by-case basis, which would enable the necessary planning conditions attached to the order to be tailored to suit a particular case and he said that matters such as the design details of a building or bridge could be approved by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, he stated that, in some cases, planning permission would not be required or might already have been granted.
      Under the draft rules for the application for orders, there will have to be a prior notification of any scheme to the local authority and a certificate from the local authority about the status of the scheme in relation to the structure or local plan. All the various planning issues will be considered at a public inquiry, where one is held, as opposed to being considered under the private Bill procedure as at present.
      However, there seems to be no justification from the Government of why there has to be an added complication in having a specific planning application before the Secretary of State. All the usual planning material will come before the inspector at the inquiry and the promoter will have provided sufficient detail to prepare the necessary plans and sections and for a clear description of the works. However, he will not necessarily have the design of buildings completed to the finest degree. Although he may have a pretty clear idea of the overall scheme, he may wish to hold back on further commitments of staff resources on a very detailed design until he or she has received the overall approval—that is, precise formation of station shelters or station buildings, if we are to use British Rail as an example.
      If planning permission has already been granted by a local planning authority or it is not required, there is no particular planning issue for the Secretary of State to consider, and in such a case, the deemed planning permission provision need not apply. Where required, however, the present arrangements should apply.

      557
      In essence, while the same substantive issues are to be considered under the present and proposed procedure, the new procedure creates an unnecessary further application and complication. It gives complete control to the Secretary of State even on the detailed matters which are much more likely to be of great interest to, and, indeed, considered with greater awareness by, the local planning authority. In short, the Minister has not made a clear case for changing the present arrangements or planning procedures which have worked satisfactorily and are extremely clear and simple.
      In tabling amendment No. 29, the hon. Member for Faversham sought the reintroduction of the present planning arrangement, but our amendment is framed in such a way that it equates with what the Government even now still propose for harbour orders—a deemed permission procedure. It is illogical, to say the least, that the deemed permission can apply only to harbour works, not railway works.
      Again, I return to the central point of the Bill. It is supposed to simplify the procedure. If amendment No. 29 —or amendment No. 69—is accepted, it will do so. If not, it will further and unnecessarily complicate the procedure.
      Mr. Cryer: I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). Amendment No. 29 is similar to amendment No. 69. It provides for safeguards for major works so that local authorities have some planning consent, but allows the planning procedure to be integrated into the making of the orders. That is very important because otherwise it could lead to British Rail, for example, being involved in significant costs in the preparation of designs and plans when development might be delayed or might come to nought.
      Amendment No. 29 deals with major works such as
      "the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam"
      and various means of access to highways which should be the prerogative of the local authority. This is not an erosion of local authority planning rights—it ensures merely that the planning procedure is not dealt with as an entirely separate matter so that expenditure is not made needlessly by a public body which is already very short of money for any new development. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept either amendment, as the issue has cross-party support.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and to the lion. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). As my hon. Friend said, I also met him a short time ago to discuss the issue behind the amendments. I shall try to explain why I do not support the idea of a General Development Order approach. I do not agree that a convincing case has been made for amending the Bill. We considered adopting the General Development Order approach, but concluded that section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 offered the most flexibility both to applicants and to the Secretary of State in determining orders. I shall explain why.
      First, promoters will be able, if they wish, to make separate applications for planning approval to the local planning authority. Such a facility was proposed in the Government's consultation paper, "Private Bills and New Procedures", on the basis that applicants should be
      558
      allowed the option of applying separately for planning permission. For example, the applicant may already have obtained planning consent, or may have been advised by the local planning authority that planning permission was not required when applying for a works order. That frequently occurs on preserved railway schemes which are subject to light railway orders.
      The GDO approach, involving automatic planning permission to be deemed to be granted with the order, would encourage objectors to raise planning issues at the local inquiry, which under the section 90 approach the inspector would be able to disallow. The amendment could therefore seriously prejudice the interests of certain applicants, and result in two planning determinations on the same development.
      Secondly, the procedure enables designs and specifications to be prepared in sufficient detail for planning consent to be deemed to be granted without the need for an application to obtain separate planning permission from the local planning authority. Perhaps, on very large schemes, the promoter would not want to risk heavy detailed design costs until an order had been made, but on smaller projects, where the promoter could be reasonably confident that the order would be authorised without significant amendment, it might be worth while for detailed designs to be submitted with the draft order, as that would save the time that would be spent in going separately to the local planning authority. The decision, however, would rest entirely with the applicant. If he wanted to adopt an arrangement on design work similar to that provided for in the General Development Order, he would be able to do so.
      Finally, the Secretary of State has greater freedom on the conditions that he wishes to attach to a particular order. That might help the applicant, without prejudicing the position of the objector. For example, the Secretary of State might restrict the categories of construction works which need to be subject to separate planning consent to a shorter list than that contained in the GDO, or he might impose tougher conditions on the grounds on which the local planning authority might object to the detailed designs. Of course, much would depend on the amount of information provided about the scheme with the draft order. Consequently, the question whether outline or full planning permission was deemed to be granted would have to be considered case by case. But as the applicant would be in the driving seat concerning the level of detailed designs that he provided with an order, I cannot see how he could be prejudiced by the approach we have adopted.
      Mr. Moate: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, understand what he is saying now, but he said earlier that on a larger scheme an applicant—a promoter—might wish simply to lodge outline information, because he would not wish to go to the expense of providing extensive design work until he was more sure that the scheme would be approved. It is important to establish whether my hon. Friend accepts that, in those circumstances, there would have to be a subsequent planning procedure, which would incur further delay and costs.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I intend to deal with that point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be happy—or, if not happy, at least content—with my answer.
      It has also been suggested that, as the deemed planning permission would not be automatic, and the power in

      559
      clause 16 is discretionary, the applicant could not be certain that the permission would be granted with the order. The power is discretionary rather than mandatory because, as I have said, some applications will not require planning permission. Although that means that the Secretary of State could, in theory, withhold or delay deemed planning consent, one has to ask why he would want to do so.
      The planning merits are likely to be such an important and integral aspect of the approval process where development is involved that it is scarcely conceivable that the Secretary of State would approve an order without at the same time granting planning permission. The promoter would be bound to question the decision of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State would have to provide reasons. Such a decision would probably be unlawful, because it would be unreasonable, and no reasonable Secretary of State would have made it. We come back again to the position of a possible judicial review.
      Amendment No. 69 would tie the orders to harbour orders. As we shall see when we come to amendment No. 123, harbour provision orders sometimes disapply the GDO because it is too inflexible. It enables them to deal with planning permissions more sensitively. I suspect that, if we were beginning again, we might use the provisions in clause 16 for harbours too.
      For those who remain sceptical, I can give an unqualified assurance that, on all applications in which planning permission is sought as part of an order, the Secretary of State would always make a determination on the works order and deemed planning permission at the same time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggested that the promoters of orders, such as British Rail, would not want to commit expensive design resources before the order was determined, and so would only be able to obtain outline planning permission. That would in turn leave them at the mercy of local planning authorities. British Rail, for example, would have to go to such an authority to obtain detailed planning permission. That may be true, but the same applies under the General Development Order. The local authority could refuse planning permission to the works, such as bridges, excluded from the permitted development, or could impose conditions on the means of access to the site.
      It is a moot point whether certain other conditions, such as the imposition of working hours and noise insulation measures, which are not imposed under the GDO, should apply to railway developments. Those matters would almost certainly be raised at a local inquiry, and the Secretary of State would want to ensure that they were dealt with properly before approving the order. In any event, not all promoters would want to leave the detailed design for approval to the local authority. Some will see the advantage of going for detailed planning approval as part of the order and thus avoiding the need to apply separately to the local authority.
      Our approach gives flexibility which the GDO does not. I hope that the reassurances that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Opposition Members show that our approach is the most flexible and does not disadvantage either promoters or objectors. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendment.
      Mr. Moate: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
      Some of us find ourselves in some difficulty. The Minister's arguments are not unfamiliar and I am sure that they are backed by considerable expertise and by considerable authority. However, there are authoritative and expert views—I know that from many years of experience, especially of British Rail—which are sceptical about whether matters will work as my hon. Friend has said. We do not pretend to be planning lawyers and it is especially difficult to make precise judgments about what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that he understands that there is genuine concern that matters will not necessarily work in the way that he has described.
      I am not sure what I am asking my hon. Friend to do. Without disrespect to the eminent consultant who has, no doubt, advised him so far, will my hon. Friend take a second opinion? That is not an unreasonable thing to do, because there is genuine concern. In some ways, my hon. Friend's words on the record are helpful. He said that the Secretary of State would "always" make a determination. As a statement on the record, that is helpful, but it does not bind my hon. Friend's successors and it is not in the statute. Sometimes the promoters could be at the mercy of a local authority after they have gone through all the previous procedures, so there is some alarm.
      I do not feel that we can press the matter further at present. It is right that we should have registered concern and I urge my hon. Friend to get others to have another look at the issue to see whether there is some way in which to import certainty into the procedures so that we can be reasonably certain that at all times there is one procedure, not two, and that promoters are able to put forward a proposal with the certainty that there will not be undue expense.
      That would be in the interests, especially for railways, of speedy construction and sensible streamlined planning procedures, coupled with fairer opportunities for public representation. I hope that my hon. Friend will look again at the proposal before the Bill goes to the other place. If he will do that, I am happy not to press the amendment.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 19
      COAST PROTECTION ACT 1949
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 10, line 21, leave out `at the end' and insert 'after paragraph (g)'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Clause 23

      EXERCISE OF SECRETARY OF STATE'S FUNCTIONS BY APPOINTED PERSON
      Amendments made: No. 32 in page 11, line 36, after `(3)', insert
      `Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      No. 33, in page 11, line 47, at end insert—
      `(3A) An order made on an application dealt with by a person appointed under this section shall not authorise the compulsory acquisition of land, or the compulsory creation or extinguishment of rights over land (including rights of navigation over water).'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. McLoughlin: 1 beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 12, line 11, at end insert—
      '(5A) If the Secretary of State exercises the power conferred on him by subsection (5)(a) above, he shall give reasons to the appointed person for revoking his appointment.'.
      It might help if I make a few comments on amendment No. 34. It requires the Secretary of State to give a reason to the appointed person if his or her appointment is to be revoked. The amendment stops short of publication, because it is possible that the appointment is being revoked for reasons that that person would not want to be divulged. For example, it might be on health grounds or for some other personal reasons which should not be made public. I think, however, that this amendment meets the spirit of the one tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and I hope that the House will support it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 41

      APPROVAL OF WORKS, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
      Amendment proposed, No. 87, in page 21, line 28, at end insert
      'and other periods of use before sufficient information is available for a decision to be made on an application for approval'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: This amendment is concerned with testing. I note that we have passed over part II, chapter I, which has a few clauses about a different sort of testing, to which it might be possible to return on Third Reading.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      STOPPING UP AND DIVERSION OF RAIL CROSSINGS
      Amendment proposed, No. 38, in page 34, line 34, after `to', insert `(a)'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 39, Government amendment No. 7, in page 34, line 35, leave out from 'practicable' to end and insert
      'either—

      (a) to improve the safety of the public at the crossing; or

      (b) to divert the path or way; or

      (c) to replace the crossing with a bridge or tunnel.'.

      No. 8, in page 34, line 40, at end insert—
      'and showing the alternative highways which run between the ends of that part of the path or way being stopped up'.
      No. 9, in page 34, line 40, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where an order made under this section or under section 119A below has been confirmed, the highway authority may erect, and maintain for a period not exceeding ten years, such signs as it considers expedient for informing the public of the closure of the crossing of the railway line; and, before making an order under his section or section 119A below at the request of a railway operator, a council may require the operator to enter into an agreement with them or with the highway authority to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specified in the agreement towards, the expenses incurred by the highway authority in providing and maintaining such signs.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 40 to 42.
      No. 11, in page 35, line 26, leave out from 'practicable' to end and insert
      'either—

      (a) to improve the safety of the public at the crossing; or

      (b) to replace the crossing with a bridge or tunnel.'.

      No. 12, in page 35, line 34, at end insert,
      'and which is substantially as safe and convenient to the public'.
      Government amendments Nos. 44 to 45.
      Mr. Fearn: I refer to amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. In Committee, on 21 January the Minister said that he accepted the principle of what was then the last part of new clause 1. That would enable the Secretary of State to direct the railways board to provide a tunnel or bridge if he or she believed that there was no other way of making the crossing safe. The Minister also stated that grants would be given to ensure that crossings were as safe as possible. I welcome both statements. However, the Minister also said:
      "It is important that costs be kept low".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 January 1992; c. 294.]
      We should recognise that, above all else, our amendment deals with safety. I do not believe that any expense should be spared to make crossings as safe as possible, especially when protecting human life. However, the years of continuous neglect under Governments of differing complexions will make it difficult to meet all safety costs in one go. Nevertheless, that should not be an excuse not to attempt any improvement.
      An additional benefit to be gained from my amendment is that it specifically lists alternatives to closure of a path. I further believe that pedestrians' rights should be considered equally in regard to road and rail. The amendment would put the rights of pedestrians affected by road and rail alterations on an equal footing. In Committee, the Minister stated that the Government would table their own amendment on the issue, but I hope that he is willing to accept my amendment in the belief that it is a reasonable step forward which may save lives.
      Amendment No. 8 aims to improve security and scrutiny of any rail extinguishment order. The Bill requires that the plan should show the path which is being stopped up. The amendment would ensure that users could clearly see what alternative routes would have to be used if the order was confirmed. The measure would enable potential footpath users to pass judgment on the relative safety and convenience of alternatives to the existing plan.
      Support for any measure that places information in the hands of local people should be maintained within the House. That is the purpose behind the amendment, and it is my aim that it should be achieved at no cost. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 deal with safety. As all five amendments that I have mentioned deal with safety, perhaps the Minister will spend some time telling us what we can conclude from the fact that safety is not mentioned that often and is not mentioned in his amendment.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and me. They have been sent in by the Ramblers Association. I am aware that the Minister has given some assurances to the rights of way review committee that he will try to meet many of its points by means of regulations. I hope that he will reinforce those assurances when he replies and will deal with at least some of the specific problems.

      563
      First, where a closure takes place and an alternative route is proposed, it is important that local people know what the alternative is. They must be able to examine it and see whether it uses roads. We must ensure that, when we divert people away from a dangerous railway level crossing, we do not simply divert them to a section of dangerous road where there is equal hazard. It is important that local people know not only that the crossing will be closed but what the alternative will be. If a closure is approved, it is important that proper signs are provided to show that the route has been closed and the alternative route.
      The Minister will realise that many people who go out walking use ordnance survey maps. Although it would be nice if maps were kept up to date, that is not always the practice. Today I walked down to the London map centre near Victoria and looked through three or four of the maps on sale. I looked especially at the outdoor leisure map for the Conwy valley. It is based on a map that was produced in a provisional series for the 1920s. Major revisions have been made since, but some of the footpaths go back to that era. The forestry activities in the area have made some of the paths impossible to follow. If someone is working with a map which may be five, six or more years out of date in an area where a level crossing has been closed and an alternative route provided, it is important that the route is clearly described.
      I hope that the Minister will spell out the duties on a local authority which approves a closure to ensure that there are adequate signs to show that the crossing has been closed. Obviously, a crossing will be closed only if it is dangerous, so it is important that people do not use it and that the alternative is clearly signed and marked. I hope that the Minister can give that assurance and confirm that, at a further meeting with the Rights of Way Review Committee, he will give assurances that the regulations will meet the points that the committee has made.
      Mr. McLoughlin: If I may begin with the last point first, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet the Rights of Way Review Committee and try to meet any outstanding points.
      The Government amendments seek to deal with concerns raised in Committee and in our consultations with the rights of way review committee that the provisions in schedule 2 on rail crossing extinguishment and diversion orders did not include a power enabling councils to recover the costs of erecting any signs or barriers in connection with the orders.
      Part of amendment No. 39 and amendment No. 42 require the council or the Secretary of State to take into account arrangements for the placing and maintaining of appropriate signs and barriers when confirming a rail crossing extinguishment or diversion order. The second part of amendment No. 39 and amendment No. 44 enable the council to require the railway operator to enter into an agreement to recover in part or in whole the cost of erecting and maintaining barriers and signs before making a rail crossing extinguishment or diversion order.
      The enabling powers for erecting signs on public paths and ways are contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Draft regulations prescribing the size, colour and nature of the signs will be prepared. In the case of an extinguishment order, the intention is that a sign capable
      564
      of being retained for a period of 10 years will be placed at the intersection of the extinguished path or way and other paths or ways warning users that the path or way shown on the ordnance survey map has been closed.
      The other amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend are consequential tidying up provisions.
      I commend the amendments to the House. They have the support of the Rights of Way Review Committee, and I am sure that they will be of real practical value when paths or ways crossing railways have to be stopped up or diverted on safety grounds.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) should not get too carried away because safety measures are not mentioned in the Bill. The ethos underlying it is to try to help and to have proper regard for safety matters. He makes too much of saying that safety is not on the face of the Bill.
      I hope that Opposition Members will not press amendment No. 9, on the basis that it is less comprehensive than ours. It does not, for example, include the provision of barriers.
      Turning to the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, amendments Nos. 7 and 11 seek to qualify the circumstances which the council and the Secretary of State should take into account in confirming, respectively, unopposed and opposed orders. We accept that the practicability of diverting a crossing rather than simply stopping it up should be considered, as should the possibility of replacing the crossing with a bridge or underpass.
      On the other hand, the term
      "improving the safety of the public at the crossing"
      suggests that measures might be taken which, although an improvement, still did not make the cross safe for use. We think that that would be an unacceptable watering down of the safety provisions in the Bill. Our view, more broadly, is that the amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from taking into account other circumstances which may be relevant to the decision. That cannot be right.
      I have some sympathy for the intention behind amendment No. 8, but we think that that could be dealt with in the regulations which would be made, prescribing the information which the railway operator would have to provide with his request for a rail crossing order. We shall come to that when we debate amendment No. 72.
      Amendment No. 12 is good in parts. We agree that the new point of termination of a diverted path or way should be safe for use by the public. That would be considered by the council and the Secretary of State in deciding whether to confirm a rail crossing diversion order. Neither authority would be prepared to confirm a diversion order where the diverted path or way was demonstrably unsafe.
      However, it might be reasonable for a rail crossing diversion order to be confirmed where the point of termination of the path or way was not substantially as convenient to the public. Where safety is involved, a less convenient right of way might be more acceptable to the path users than the loss of the right of way altogether—which might be the only other practicable option. The Secretary of State or the council must have regard to the relative convenience of the diverted path or way, and would turn away an order where the diversion was so inconvenient as not to offer a reasonable alternative, but those matters are best left to guidelines rather than

      565
      prescription in the primary legislation. We have covered that, but I give an undertaking to meet the Rights of Way Review Committee if there are other concerns. We have already met the committee, and the amendments that we have tabled are a result of those meetings.
      I hope that the hon. Member will feel able not to press his amendment.
      Mr. Fearn: The Minister has given reassurances, and he mentioned the word "safety" twice, so I shall withdraw the amendments in my name.
      Mr. Speaker: We do not need the pleasure of a withdrawal.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 39 in page 34, line 35, at end insert
      ', and
      (b) what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the order is confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained.
      (4A) Before determining to make a rail crossing extinguishment order on the representations of the operator of the railway crossed by the path or way, the council may require him to enter into an agreement with them to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specified in the agreement towards, any expenses which the council may incur in connection with the erection or maintenance of barriers and signs.'.
      No. 40, in page 34, line 44, after 'section', insert
      '—
      "operator", in relation to a railway, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way;'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment: No. 10, in page 34, line 44, leave out from 'railway' to end of line 46 and insert 'does not include tramway'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 13, in page 36, lin 32, leave out from 'railway' to end of line 34 and insert 'does not include tramway'.
      Mr. Bennett: Why does the Minister have to apply the proposals for crossings to tramways? My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) described graphically the problems for the drivers of high-speed trains and the horror that they could experience if they were involved in an accident on a level crossing. We can all understand that there is a balance between the requirements of safety and the problems that they present for the railway on main lines, with trains travelling at considerable speeds. How does he envisage the same problems applying to a tramway, as in most instances at some time or other they will run through a town centre? Why is it necessary to consider the closure of footpath crossings on tramways?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that the provisions in schedule 2 apply mainly, if not wholly, to railways. There are, for the moment, only two tramways in England and Wales operating passenger services—Blackpool and Great Orme—but in both cases I am told, there are substantial lengths which do not run on the street. The Manchester metro and other new light rail systems will also include sections of segregated tramway. It is possible therefore that a path or way crossing a tramway operated off street could become unsafe.
      566
      For example, a new caravan park might result in increased use by people unfamiliar with the tramway and it might be necessary to stop up or divert the crossing on safety grounds. Although I agree, therefore, that the provisions are basically there for railway crossings, we cannot rule out entirely the need to use them for tramways, and because of the important public safety considerations, this provision must be comprehensive. I hope that I have given the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman requires.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister certainly has not. I do not remember which hon. Member gave a long reminiscence in Committee about travelling on the Great Orme tramway.
      Mr. Snape: It was me.
      Mr. Bennett: I am sorry that I failed to credit my hon. Friend.
      If the Minister had experience of that tramway, he would realise that it was not driven at such great speeds that it was not safe to walk across the track. I can understand that there are circumstances in which it is not safe to be in front of a Blackpool tram, but that is only on the carriageway. It seems odd to say that people can walk to and fro on the carriageway, but if the trams run on a small section that is not on the carriageway, people cannot walk across that. That is totally illogical and inconsistent.
      The Minister has asked about new circumstances. I hope that the new Greater Manchester tramway system will be operating by the end of the month. Sections of that line towards Altrincham and Bury use what were railway lines, which have been downgraded for trams. I cannot envisage a situation in which trams will travel so fast along that section of track that the footpath will have to be closed, yet on other parts of the route, the same trams will run along carriageways in which people will be free to walk backwards and forwards across a track without any difficulty.
      If the Minister wants to reassure ramblers and others that he is not setting out to close footpaths on a wholesale basis, which is totally unnecessary, it would be far better for him to make one more concession and accept the amendment. I know that he is not keen to have amendments moved in the House of Lords or to delay the progress of the Bill, but I am tempted to push this to a vote.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 41, in page 35, line 25, after 'to', insert—
      '(a)'.
      No. 42, in page 35, line 26, at end insert
      ',and
      (b) what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the order is confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained.'.
      No. 43, in page 35, line 34, at end insert—
      '() A rail crossing diversion order may make provision requiring the operator of the railway to maintain all or part of the footpath or bridleway created by the order.'.
      No. 44, in page 35, line 48, at end insert—
      '(aa) any expenses which the council may incur in connection with the erection of maintenance of barriers and signs;'.
      No. 45, in page 35, line 52, leave out 'or'.
      No. 71, in page 37, line 2, leave out 'written'.
      No. 72, in page 37, line 4, after 'railway', insert—

      567
      '(aa) the request is in such form and gives such particulars as are prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
      No. 73, in page 37, line 40, at end insert—
      '7A. In section 325 (provisions as to regulations, schemes and orders) in subsection (2)(a), after the word "section", there shall be inserted the words "120(3A) or".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 59

      HARBOURS
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 29, line 21, at end insert—
      '(3) In section 35 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (which excepts certain operations from the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's consent under section 34) in subsection (1) there shall be added after paragraph (h)—

      "(i) any operations authorised by an order under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964.".'. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Schedule 3

      AMENDMENT OF HARBOURS ACT 1964
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 38, leave out lines 32 and 33.
      Schedule 3 hangs on clause 59 and relates to an entirely different matter. We have shifted from tramways and railways to the much more ancient travel facility—the harbour. There are about 600 of them around our coast and many are relatively small. Most harbours were important to their regions years ago, but the change in shipping techniques has often left them to inshore fishing or perhaps leisure use.
      The powers with which I am concerned are contained in schedule 3. The Bill transforms section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964, which enabled the then Minister of Transport to change harbour constitutions. Many of those harbours were entreched in Acts of Parliament of long ago. Some small ports obtained their own Acts of Parliament, many of them unique and highly localised, with a good deal of local loyalty and concern.
      There was some contoversy over the passing of section 14 because it allowed the then Minister to change the constitution of those harbour boards by statutory instrument, even when those harbours had been established by an Act of Parliament. The provision was not confined to small harbours. The constitution of the Port of London Authority engaged the House in many debates between 1906 and 1910. Two or three long Second Reading debates took place on the establishment of the Port of London Authority. Its constitution was changed more or less in secret overnight by a statutory instrument. Therefore, in the past, harbour revision orders have not been used just for small ports.
      Schedule 3 changes those powers. It is legislation by reference to section 14 and it enables the Secretary of State to issue a statutory instrument that closes part of the harbour, reduces the facilities available in a harbour, or disposes of property not required for the purposes of a harbour. As I said in Committee, closure of part of a harbour could mean the closure of as much as 80 or 90 per cent. It could effectively close 100 per cent. of a harbour.
      568
      Indeed, it could do much more, because schedule 3, paragraph 1(4)(c) states:
      "for the words 'repealing and amending' there shall be substituted the words 'excluding or modifying any provision of any Act or of any instrument made under any Act (including this Act) and for repealing'.".
      In other words, it gives the Minister the power to modify not just harbour Acts but any Act for any purpose and, in this respect, it is related to a harbour.
      I take exception to that provision, because it transgresses the principle that an Act of Parliament should be amended only by another Act of Parliament. If it is contentious, it should be debated as art Act and not smuggled through in a statutory instrument, still less one that has no powers of annulment and is not even subject to an affirmative resolution. Here, we have that in extenso.
      Amendment No. 122 seeks to delete the power to dispose of property that is not required for the purpose of the harbour. As the Minister has powers to close virtually all the harbour—there is no limitation on his power in that respect—he also has the power to dispose of property around the harbour. Such places are often of considerable scenic beauty and local amenity, are much prized and of high value. I do not object to the fact that the provision includes the power to change the facilities in a harbour for vessels that are not just sea-going ships, which is the original definition. Subsection (2) says:
      "there shall be added the words 'or in the interests of the recreational use of sea-going ships'"
      Although those small harbours can be closed, they can also be changed to function as marinas. As you, Mr. Speaker, know, as you were in the House at the time, marinas can sometimes be controversial. I remember the legislation on the Brighton marina, which surged to and fro through the Chamber like a wave for two or three Sessions, and provoked highly controversial and emotional speeches.
      I do not say that the powers will be given to 600 Brighton marinas, but they will be given to about that many small ports and harbours throughout the country. People believe that the rights and usages of such harbours —usually of high civic value—are entrenched in Acts. If enacted, the Bill will sweep those away and give the Secretary of State enormous powers that I do not believe he should have. Therefore, I hope that he will explain why he wants that power, which I do not believe the House should give him.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) dealt partly with the next two groups of amendments, to which I shall come shortly. I do not believe that his argument is as weighty as he might imagine.
      As I said in Committee, an order cannot provide for the complete closure of an harbour or enable the authority to get rid of its statutory function. The Minister must be convinced that he ought to give powers to dispose of the land in the interests of the harbour. The Bill changes nothing in principle, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which would merely leave the 1964 Act in its present confusing state, which would not benefit anyone.
      Mr. Spearing: I accept that my speech strayed on to amendment No. 123, but I do not accept the Minister's explanation. He said that he cannot complete the closure of a harbour, but I never said that he could. I said that the Bill virtually gave him the powers to do so if he so chose.

      569
      We all know that harbours are viable only if certain facilities are available and fully used. I cannot withdraw the amendment, but no doubt the Minister will try to negative it on the voice.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 38, leave out lines 41 to 43.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 124, in page 39, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
      Mr. Spearing: I have already partly covered this point, as it related to amendment No. 122. However, the amendment also covers an equally stringent provision contained in paragraph 2(3) of schedule 3 where, in relation to the original legislation—the ports and harbours orders—
      "after the words 'any other enactment' there shall be inserted the words 'and provisions for excluding or modifying any provision of any Act or of any instrument made under any Act (including this Act)".
      For the reasons I gave a few moments ago, I cannot believe that it is right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us an explanation for the inclusion of paragraphs I (4)(c) and 2(3) in schedule 3. I do not believe that he should have those powers.
      Mr. Cryer: Why does the word "excluding" replace "repealing" and the word "modifying" replace "amending"? I suppose that the power will no longer enable the Minister to repeal a section of an Act, but he will be able to exclude a section of an Act from an order that he is making. It is not very clear. I think that paragraph 1(4)(c) of schedule 3 means that his powers will be slightly reduced. Will the Minister confirm that, and state why the section is being retained?
      Mr. McLoughlin: Section 14(3) of the Harbours Act 1964 provides for inclusion of provisions repealing or amending provisions in local Acts. Paragraph 1(4)(b) widens the power to enable the order to disapply or modify the application of general statutes but not to repeal or amend them. Harbour revision orders, unlike private Bills, cannot be used to modify or disapply provisions in general Acts or subordinate legislation of general application except in special cases such as section 43(3) of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966.
      570
      Paragraph 2 makes similar provision for harbour empowerment orders under section 16 of the 1964 Act. Section 16 did not, however, provide for the repeal of the amending of local Acts that section 14 did. Because it is by nature a harbour empowerments order, it sets up a harbour authority for an area where there was previously no harbour authority and no local legislation relating to harbours.
      The commonest example of this application of general statutory provisions in private Acts relating to harbours is the disapplication of General Development Orders. Similarly, for the purposes of harbour revision orders it may be preferable to deal with planning authorities about the development as a whole instead of relying on GDOs for part of the planning permission or orders.
      The effects of paragraphs 1 and 2 will be to give greater flexibility, especially where part of the proposed development is subject to normal planning permission. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      To be further considered tomorrow.

  NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL [LORDS]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) to be considered tomorrow.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Government Whip has not moved the 10 o'clock business motion, did he make any change to the information on the Annunciator? As you have seen, Mr. Speaker, there is a petition on the Order Paper and it seems unfair—[Interruption.] I hope that I shall be able to continue without the interruption of raucous shouts from pinstripe hooligans from the Whips Office. It might be worth trying to encourage Government Whips to ensure that business changes are made clear on the annunciator. That is what the annunciators are for, and it is daft to spend thousands of pounds installing information television sets throughout the Palace of Westminster and then not inform people when business is changed at a moment's notice.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order. I do not know when the decision was made. It was Conservative Members who had petitions down, and I suppose that they might well have been informed. It is not a matter for me.

Dyslexics (Diagnosis and Treatment)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I am pleased to have the Adjournment debate and the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). The debate is on the subject of the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia. I shall start by repeating the words of an eight-year-old child to his mother. The child said, "Do you know what I think? I think God has put my brain in upside down." That shows the problem facing many children suffering from dyslexia.
The signs and the symptoms of dyslexia are that those suffering from it have difficulty with literacy skills and sometimes some aspects of numeracy. They have a short-term memory weakness, auditory or visual. That means that they cannot take down dictation from the blackboard or orally because, by the time five words have been put on the blackboard, they have forgotten the first words. They have language and sequencing difficulties and left-right confusion and mixed dominance. They have motor problems, are clumsy and suffer from the reversal of letters and words. There is a short attention span and dyslexics lack concentration. They also suffer from disorganisation, erratic performance and hyperactivity.
In infant school, such children may be articulate and appear bright, but they may appear shy and have problems with speech and language. They find it hard to settle down to work; they may be clumsy and untidy because of the difficulty that they have in dressing. They may not have decided whether they are right or left-handed. Attempts to write, draw and cut may be very immature. They will experience difficulty in forming letters correctly: they may mirror-write, and not be aware that what they are producing is wrong. They may reverse stem letters, and invert "u" and "n", "m" and "w", more than other children in the class.
Such children have difficulty in associating sounds and symbols. If they are mastered, the children may have difficulty in using sound and symbol knowledge. They may have auditory discrimination problems: for example, "f", "v" and "th" sound the same to them. They may have visual memory and discrimination problems. They do not know how to learn, and cannot learn, by the "look and say" method of teaching children to read. They have trouble following instructions; if they understand them, they often forget them very quickly.
The children have a poor sense of time. They will be late; they will be disorganised. They have difficulty with sequencing—with days of the week and the alphabet, or with counting. If a child cannot read, his teacher may say, "Do not worry. He is a slow developer; he will read when he is ready." And so it goes on in that teacher's class, as the seven-year-old becomes an 11-year-old. Such children may well be frustrated; they may well switch off and daydream.
Typically, the signs are the same in the junior school child, but they become more pronounced. Children will have language problems. They may have difficulty in thinking of the name for something. Conversations will be peppered with "watchermacallit", "thingummyjig" and similar expressions, which give the children time to think what they really want to say. They will have trouble with multiplication tables, days of the week, months of the year
572
and the alphabet. Again, they will be clumsy and disorganised. They will probably develop behavioural problems. Such a child will either be the class clown, or very withdrawn, shy and dispirited. Eventually, he will probably play truant and absent himself from school
Such behaviour is not put right even when the children attend secondary school. Reading and spelling ages will be well below the ability range; reading ability will be adequate, while spelling problems persist. Typically, such children will not read for pleasure. They may have very slow reading speeds. They may get the gist, but get it very inaccurately. Essay writing and written exam performance are well below the standard of oral contributions. Pupils have difficulty in taking notes, and in memorising materials for exams. They will be disorganised, and have difficulty in planning their time and keeping track of materials as a child of 12, 13 or 14 might be expected to do.
The children may have limited vocabularies, and little interest in words. They may interpret language very literally. They will have poor concentration. They will have daydreams, or become fidgety. They will find French, or any foreign language, extremely difficult. Handwriting and presentation may still be poor, and inaccurate copying may present problems.
The children may continue to experience left-right confusion and sequencing difficulty. They will tend to fall apart under pressure, particularly as regards spelling. The quality of their work will be very variable, depending on the conditions in which the work is produced and on how the child is feeling: he has good and bad days.
The teacher will say that the work that the child produces on a good day just shows how well he can do, and that, if only he would make more effort, he would get there. School reports, typically, will contain remarks such as "Must try harder", "He is lazy", "He is careless", "Oral work good, written work poor", "Must work harder at spelling", "Must read more" and "Exam results disappointing".
All those tendencies are typical of dyslexic children throughout their years of schooling, and they can all be corrected. Such children can develop into very worthwhile people, whether they are very intelligent or very unintelligent. They can be helped in their schools.
What are the remedies? Fundamentally, a dyslexic needs very intensive teaching. Dyslexics are infuriating people to teach. The teacher will have to give them extra attention and will have to recognise their difficulties. They will have to be given support, confidence and motivation. Things that they can remember today they will have forgotten entirely within a week. This means intensive teaching.
They cannot learn to spell or read without the use of phonetics or the phonic word method of teaching. Of course, that is not to exclude other methods of teaching to which they will respond, but, fundamentally, it is not possible to achieve reading and spelling recovery unless phonetics and phonics are used. Their short-term memory and their resulting difficulties with dictation or writing down from the blackboard must be understood by the teacher. Unless a child has taken down his prep from the blackboard or, alternatively, has written down what has been dictated, the rest of the lesson will be lost. The teacher must make certain that the dyslexic child has got the material down and is therefore able to do the work. It is therefore necessary that the teacher spends extra time—not much, but some—with the dyslexic child.

573
Of course, dyslexic children must not be humiliated. Many of them are very conscious of the fact that their friends, who seem to be just about as bright, just the same, as they, can read aloud but that they cannot. They get confused, and then they are criticised and humiliated, with the ridicule that that attracts. That leads to a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. They then turn off completely, and their confidence evaporates. And this happens at the ages of six and seven. They need help and encouragement and patience—indeed, intensive teaching.
Why should we be concerned about this? These are problems with which any schoolteacher is familiar and has seen day in and day out. It is true that 10 per cent. of the school population have dyslexia, whether mildly or very seriously, and that 4 per cent. probably need statementing. However, the rest can be taught in the classroom. They can be encouraged and helped to realise their capabilities within the classroom.
What happens when provision is not made? For example, it has been proven that, of those below the age of 18 convicted of criminal offences, 80 per cent. are dyslexic. This is typical of the results of not teaching and helping dyslexics at an earlier age. These people use their abilities in an alternative way—many of them criminally—to attract attention, fulfil their ambitions and boost their self-esteem. So it is important socially, as well as from a humanitarian point of view, that we try to enable children to realise their capabilities.
We can correct the situation. By doing so we would save massively in the re-education of these children and in subsequent social and even political costs. The problem could be addressed quite simply and quite economically in a five-point programme, about which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond positively.
First, phonics, or the teaching of reading through the use of phonetics, should be compulsorily included in initial teacher training courses and, indeed, in the one-year postgraduate course. We need to make certain that teachers are capable of diagnosing and teaching dyslexics. Provision must be made in the initial teacher training syllabus and in the syllabus for the post-graduate diploma.
Those teachers who are already in post must be enabled to take a recognised qualification in the teaching of dyslexics, such as that promoted by the Royal Society of Arts, which will attract additional salary as recognition of the additional skill. Thus our existing teaching force will be enabled to diagnose and treat dyslexia.
In addition, the extra provision in the budget of each school, to which I referred earlier, is needed so that the teachers may spend that necessary little bit of extra time coping with the infuriating dyslexic—the pupil who needs a little extra time. That must be provided for in the school budget. Dyslexia requires a ring-fenced part of the education budget of approximately 2·1 million, which must be separate from the special learning difficulties provision in the education budget. It must be separate from and additional to that budget. Dyslexia must not be confused with the generality of special learning difficulties, although 4 per cent. of dyslexics will need special treatment over and above what I am talking about, under separate statementing procedures.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been extremely kind and generous in receiving delegations led by me on two occasions in the last six months from the British Dyslexia Association, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon is associated. At our initial
574
meeting with my hon. Friend, he said that he had a number of investigations to undertake and that he intended to invite those undertaking investigations into teacher training to look into the matter and to make proposals to him along the lines set out at the meeting. He kindly asked the delegation to return six months later.
We went back to see my hon. Friend six months later, in January of this year. Again he gave us enormous encouragement by lending his support to the programmes that we put to him and by his understanding of the problems involved. I very much hope that tonight the Minister will be able to give further encouragement to those members of the teaching profession who have to deal with this difficult problem by saying that he will try to implement the five-point programme that I have put before the House.
10.16 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on his excellent speech and on raising this important subject.
Dyslexia is of great interest and concern to my constituents in Basildon and is of particular interest to me. At the age of five, in a class of 50, my mother was summoned to see the class mistress in the excellent school that I attended, St. Anthony's infants school, Forest Gate. She was told that I had very severe learning difficulties. I had a pronounced stutter. I could not make the sounds "st" and "th".
For three years after that, I had elocution lessons—special tuition—and was then denied my rightful heritage of a cockney accent. I am very grateful, however, that my learning difficulties were identified. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the Basildon dyslexia association, led by one of my constituents, Mrs. Christine Haggerty, and her excellent committee.
For some little while, Essex county council was reluctant, as the Minister knows, to recognise that there was such as thing as dyslexia. That is understandable. In this day and age, when parents might have anxieties about their children's educational progress, it is easy to seize on the subject of dyslexia and say, "But so many children have dyslexia." We all know that children can be somewhat cruel to each other. I know that my hon. Friend is wary of identifying children in so highlighted a way that they might suffer teasing from other children. However, this is a very important subject.
Excellent workshops are held at the weekend in Basildon. I have been to see the wonderful work that is being done there. All sorts of techniques are used. The children are making great progress with reading, spelling and their general development. I hope that we shall have an excellent centre in Basildon. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. We both look forward to listening to the Minister's response to our concerns.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on raising dyslexia as an issue for debate this evening. This is not the first time that we have debated the subject. My hon. Friend attended the debate that was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for

575
Worcester (Mr. Walker) some time ago. My hon. Friend has pursued his interest in this subject with great vigour. I recall meeting him and his associates at the Department, when we had more than one positive and helpful discussion of the subject.
Dyslexia is a very wide and important topic. It is capable of supporting continued debate without retreading old ground. This evening, the subject of debate is more particularly the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia, upon which I intend to concentrate.
Everything that my hon. Friend said spoke volumes about the need to catch the problems much earlier than we have. Study after study has shown how important it is to identify dyslexia as soon as possible in a child's development. If we do that, those in the medical, caring and teaching professions can then start to take the appropriate steps leading to early remediation of the difficulty, where that is possible.

It is often not appreciated that there are early signs, even in very young children, which suggest that a child might subsequently develop specific learning difficulties. The signs and the children may be difficult to identify with certainty, even by the trained eye. That is because the signals being given are often mixed or very close in nature to the signs which might, equally, indicate different sorts of difficulties or developmental delays.
The main point is that, if a child is giving some cause for concern, the behaviour and performance should be examined more closely and the child should be monitored very carefully over the succeeding period to try to discover the exact causes. As my hon. Friend knows, dyslexia is not just about getting words jumbled up. It is much more complicated.
Even before a child starts school, a doctor or health visitor might see a child with a very bumpy developmental profile. That should sound an initial warning. The doctor may know if other family members have any history of serious problems with literacy. The child may show signs of clumsiness, or poor co-ordination in gross or fine motor movements, distractibility or poor concentration. There may be a delay in the development of speech and language, or by and large normal development coupled with a difficulty in, say, drawing shapes. Anything requiring sequential ability—for example giving the days of the week in order or repeating patterns or instructions—may give the vital first indication of specific learning difficulties.
Sometimes, specific difficulties unrelated to sensory impairment may become apparent at nursery school. In such cases, the teacher who spots them may be able to seek advice from the educational psychologist or the pre-school specialist teachers. If those difficulties are marked or show signs of developing, careful monitoring of the child will be needed. That means that we must involve the parents at an early stage. They know more about the child than anyone.
By the time the child has got to school, and in the first few years there, the signs of dyslexia or other specific learning difficulties become more easily distinguishable from those exhibited by children with other difficulties or developmental delays. The child with dyslexia is often set apart by the skills shown and by demonstrable intelligence in other areas. The child in his early school days might
576
present as an imaginative and bright child who, for example, rather surprisingly cannot write his or her name, repeat digits or even copy letters or shapes.
The key indicator might again be that the developmental profile is uneven, and those warning bells sound again if there is a family history of literacy difficulties. Again, if there are worries, early referral to the educational psychologist is one way forward. It is only when an accurate profile has been constructed that an appropriate teaching programme can be arranged.
My hon. Friend suggested that the skills required to enable teachers to make a preliminary diagnosis of dyslexia and then to use the appropriate teaching techniques should be included in all initial teaching training courses. Those who provide such courses are already required to equip prospective teachers to teach the full range of pupils whom they are likely to encounter in an ordinary school, and to introduce them to ways of identifying children with special educational needs that includes cases of dyslexia.
Further training is also available for teachers of pupils with dyslexia. Training of teachers to deal with special educational needs in ordinary schools is one of the priorities supported by the Department through the grants for education support and training scheme. The Department has also sponsored the production of an audio-visual pack aimed to assist teachers in ordinary schools to identify children with special needs, one module of which is specifically concerned with dyslexia.
I am delighted to be able to say that the Department has also recently provided £34,000 for research into how dyslexia can be identified as early as possible, so that those needing the sort of specialised teaching methods that I have outlined can take advantage of them without delay. That work is being undertaken by the Hereford and Worcester branch of the British Dyslexia Association in conjunction with Birmingham university, and I look forward to seeing the results.
I deal now with treatment. There is a range of professionals within the child health service who may be able to offer help within an integrated programme of support for the child with special educational needs. Sometimes, emotional and behavioural difficulties are associated with dyslexia. If so, the educational or clinical psychologist has a role. If the child has marked speech or language difficulties, the speech therapist will usually come into it. The paediatric physiotherapist can help if there are gross motor co-ordination difficulties, and the occupational therapist can help if there are fine motor co-ordination difficulties. If the child is easily distractable or over-active on some days and not on others, there may be some other sensitivity or food allergy—in such cases the dietician comes into his or her own. Sometimes, all those professionals need to get together to produce an integrated programme for the individual child, and I urge that they do so when that is going to be of substantial benefit to the child.
Where pupils are identified as having dyslexia, it is up to the professionals concerned to adopt, where necessary, a particular teaching programme to assist the pupil with the areas of difficulty—usually concentrating on r eading and spelling. Examples of such specialised programmes are the Hickey programme, Alpha to Omega, or the Arrow programme. Most such programmes include teaching with a multi-sensory approach in order to give the pupil

577
maximum support through a variety of auditory, visual, and tactile stimuli—each reinforcing the others and lessening the pupil's dependence on any one.
Children are unique, and it is therefore not surprising that their needs are nearly all different in some ways. The key is for the professionals and teachers to discover which of the different approaches will be suitable for the pupil in question.
My hon. Friend suggested that the national curriculum should permit the use of phonics in teaching children to read. I agree. The national curriculum does that. Those parts of the orders for English concerned with reading combine a range of the most widely used and successful techniques for helping pupils to acquire and develop their reading skills. Those include the use of picture and context cues, words recognised on sight and phonic cues.
My hon. Friend also argued that instruction in phonics should be made compulsory in ITT courses. Phonics is already a feature of such courses, at least according to the staff involved, but it is usually presented—I think that this is the core of my hon. Friend's concern—as merely one of the various possible strategies of attack. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education inquiry into the teaching of reading produced some useful evidence on that, and I must ask my hon. Friends to be patient and await the publication of its report, which is imminent. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
As for the support grants and teacher training, the Government recognise that in-service teacher training has a crucial role to play in implementing all aspects of the curriculum. The GEST programme is the principle vehicle. In the current year that programme is supporting LEA expenditure of £170 million in relation to the implementation of the basic curriculum and related assessment arrangements, of which £78 million is for in-service training. In 1992–93, that will rise to £88 million. Of that, about £12·9 million has been set aside by the Government to support local education authorities in the training of teachers and others involved in special educational needs, including those in further education.
My hon. Friend suggested specifically that part of that money should he ring-fenced for courses on specific literacy difficulties and that resources devoted to dyslexia should be kept separate from other SEN resources. We have been conducting a thorough review of the GEST arrangements as they apply to training related to special educational needs. We have considered the number of categories of special educational need training which are eligible for grant under the GEST programme. We have not made the final decisions, but the review is nearing completion and we hope soon to be able to incorporate any changes in the GEST programme for 1993–94. I cannot say much more than that other than that I am pursuing my hon. Friend's specific suggestion.
My hon. Friend also suggested that holders of the Royal Society of Arts diploma in specific learning difficulties should be entitled to receive additional salary allowances, as do at present, for example, holders of qualifications in the deaf, blind and deaf-blind field. I should make it clear that those latter qualifications are mandatory for teachers working in the areas concerned, while the RSA diploma is not, but in any case, the school teachers' review body, in its first report, said that it
578
intended to seek specific evidence on the pay and conditions of teachers in special schools and classes generally as part of its next review. Therefore, we must await its findings on that.
When I addressed the House on the subject of dyslexia last April, I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had asked the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to undertake an inquiry into the preparation of student primary teachers to teach reading. The council was asked as part of that inquiry to consider dyslexia specifically, and its report will be published shortly. I am taking a keen interest in how it will be received as a contribution to improving reading standards. My hon. Friends will find that report contains much of interest, and much that strengthens their case for further reform.
It will be evident from my remarks that improving reading standards is a priority for this Government. We recently announced also a national trial of the reading recovery programme pioneered in New Zealand by Dame Marie Clay. That involves the provision of daily individual teaching in reading and writing for the lowest achieving six-year-olds in ordinary classrooms. Within an average of 12 to 15 weeks, most of those children will have reached the average level of attainment in reading, and we hope that those gains will be sustained.
By providing that tuition for the lowest-achieving pupils at age six, we believe that the number of children in our schools with reading difficulties can be effectively reduced. Funding is concentrated on teacher training in the early stages.
As you, Mr. Speaker, have graced us with your presence tonight, and have a considerable personal interest in the subject, it is appropriate that I should conclude my remarks with a reference to a major development very close to the constituency that you have served so well and so long, for so many years.
When I spoke on dyslexia last April, I mentioned the important research being conducted at the Harris city technology college in Croydon. It is receiving £250,000 of central support over three academic years, and it is already producing interesting results. The intention is to meet the need for further practical investigation into how dyslexia can be tackled.
Our overall aim, building on that research, is to ensure that all pupils have the fullest access to the national curriculum. That research is in midstream, and it will not be finished until the autumn of 1993. There are, however, encouraging signs that research may have helped already towards identifying new ways of grading and diagnosing dyslexic tendencies in children—but more must be done.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising and pursuing this important matter. I welcomed an opportunity to say a few words about the positive steps that the Government have taken, which I hope have been helpful. My personal view is that the Department, local education authorities, and the wider educational world are moving the issue of dyslexia forward. I want the House left in no doubt as to my personal commitment to seeing progress made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Attorney-General how many referrals under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 have been made on the basis of alleged lenient sentences.

  The Attorney-General
  Since February 1989, when this part of the Criminal Justice Act came into force, I have sought the leave of the Court of Appeal to refer 69 cases, including five from Northern Ireland, in which the sentence passed appeared to me to be unduly lenient. Of these, in 36 cases the sentence was increased, seven cases were withdrawn by me, in a further 10 cases the sentence was not changed, in one case the sentence was lowered, and 15 cases remain outstanding.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish the number of applications for registration of title for land currently being dealt with by the Swansea district land registry; and if he will separately distinguish the number of those applications that have already been at the district registry in Swansea for(a) up to three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and nine months, (d) between nine months and one year, (e) between one year and 15 months and (f) over 15 months.

  The Attorney-General
  The Swansea district land registry processes more than 58,600 applications a quarter for registration of title and currently it is holding 47,879 applications of which more than 15,000 are awaiting the results of surveys or replies to correspondence raised by the registry with applicants.

  The numbers within the categories of the question are as follows:

  (a) Up to three months, 25,287.

  (b) Between three and six months: 9,446

  (c) Between six and nine months: 4,461.

  (d) Between nine months and one year: 2,507.

  (d) Between one year and 15 months: 1,638.

  (f) Over 15 months: 4,540.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he wil abolish the facility to pay an extra charge for faster registration of title to land at district land registry offices.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The facility referred to is a very long-standing element of the Land Registry's service to applicants. In the great majority of cases application for the registration of dealings in land are completed under the normal arrangements well before the applicant resells or otherwise deals with the land again. However, the special expedition service is needed to allow applications to be expedited in a relatively small number of cases of urgency, where the normal registration process might otherwise give rise to unacceptable delays in the conveyancing process. The fee for the special expedition service, currently a226
  minimum of £35, is described by the Land Registration Fees Order 1991 and is required to offset the additional cost to the Land Registry of providing the service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Environment Treaties
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory which are concerned with protection of the environment giving, where appropriate, dates of signature, ratification, accession and entry into force.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office treaty index contains details of 12,000 treaties, agreements and protocols, many of which have environmental implications. The United Nations environment programme has 152 major treaties and other agreements recorded as being directly concerned with the environment.

  Qaiser Khan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 446, what further document was requested by the British high commission when Qaiser Khan was interviewed in Islamabad.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The further document requested by the British high commission at Islamabad when the family were interviewed on 22 February 1990 was the marriage certificate of the parents of Qaiser Khan. This is still awaited.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Iranian ambassador or a representative of the Iranian Government to discuss the case of Mr. Salman Rushdie.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have raised the plight of Mr. Rushdie with the Iranian Government on many occasions and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister when they met in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in September 1991. More recently, my hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of State made clear our continued concern during a call made by the Iranian charge, at his own request.

  India
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the Government of India following the publication of the report by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs supporting India's right to retain nuclear weapons capability.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are unaware of the publication of any such report by the Indian Ministry of External
  227
  Affairs. However, the Indian Government are in no doubt about the importance we attach to nuclear nonproliferation. We take every opportunity to raise these issues with the Indians and encourage them to accede to the NPT, most recently when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited India in January.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 February, if he has raised the reports of breaches of the arms embargo in(a) Serbia and (b) Croatia with his European Community partners; and what action he is taking to ensure such breaches do not take place.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Reports of violations of the arms embargo are discussed in the United Nations. When possible, we have also raised the most disquieting reports bilaterally with the authorities of the country in which they are alleged to have occurred.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, upon what principles he will base his policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina after its proposed referendum on 28 February.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The policy will be based on the guidelines adopted by EC Ministers on 16 December 1991 and the circumstances prevailing after the referendum. The guidelines require that the state to be recognised should respect the United Nations charter; guarantee the rights of minorities; respect the inviolability of frontiers except by peaceful agreement; accept commitments on disarmament, non-proliferation, security and regional stability; and promise to settle by agreement questions of state succession and regional disputes.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his European Community partners about the implications for peace in Yugoslavia and in Europe generally of the decision to hold a referendum on independence by Bosnia-Herzegovina and on how this might affect the deployment of British personnel within a United Nations peace-keeping force.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We and our European partners are in regular contact about all aspects of Yugoslavia. These issues including the question of the referendum in Bosnia-Herzegovina were discussed most recently at a meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers on 17 February.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 February, who is currently responsible for the protection of Slovenian and Croatian citizens visiting or residing in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of diplomatic or consular representation, neither the Slovenian nor the Croatian Government have appointed any third government to protect their interests in the United Kingdom.

  United Nations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to publish in each week a record of decisions taken at the United Nations General Assembly and its constituent committees, together with an estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom of implementing such decisions that involve United Kingdom financial commitments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and its constituent committees are published as United Nations documents. Copies are placed in the Library of the House as a matter of course. The budgetary implications of each UNGA resolution are also published in UN documents. We are arranging to have these too placed in the Library as a matter of course. The United Kingdom bears 5·02 per cent. of the costs of all activities financed from the regular UN budget.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Junctions (Pedestrians)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make a statement on his Department's trials into new pedestrian facilties at traffic-signalled junctions including the use of infra-red devices to detect the presence and movement of pedestrians.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Friday 14 February 1992, at column 672.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to review the discount scheme for tolls on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the introduction of the tolling arrangements provided for in the Severn Bridges Act 1992, the discounts for advance payment of tolls will remain at the current rates of 20 per cent. for cars, motor caravans, light vans and minibuses, and 10 per cent. for buses and goods vehicles. The detailed administration of the discount scheme will be a matter for the concessionaire.

  Road Planning
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those public local inquiries into trunk road schemes for which no ministerial decision has yet been announced, with the concluding date for each of those inquiries and, where appropriate, the date on which the inspector's report and recommendations were submitted to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chope
  The following schemes in the national roads programme for England are awaiting a decision following a public inquiry.
  229

  Scheme

  Public inquiry finished

  Inspectors report received

  A4/A46 Batheaston/Swainswick bypass and A36 link

  6 December 1990

  28 June 1991

  A6 Clapham bypass

  4 October 1991

  13 December 1991

  A10 Wadesmill, High Cross and Colliers End bypass

  11 November 1991

  —

  All Stump Cross to A505 junction improvement

  14 November 1991(joint public inquiry)

  —

  A11/A505 junction to Four Wentways improvement

  A13 West of Heathway to Wennington and Wennington to Mar Dyke improvement

  8 February 1991

  13 September 1991

  A17 Leadenham bypass

  20 December 1991

  —

  A19 Easingwold bypass

  3 July 1991

  2 September 1991

  A27 Patching junction improvement

  7 February 1992

  —

  A31 Ashley Heath grade separated junction

  4 September 1991

  21 October 1991

  A31 Stoney Cross junction improvement

  1 December 1989

  23 March 1990

  A43 Silverstone bypass

  3 December 1991

  —

  A47 Walpole Highway and Tilney High End bypass

  21 June 1991

  23 July 1991

  A52 Ashbourne relief road

  27 January 1992

  —

  A63 Selby bypass

  27 March 1991

  1 October 1991

  A65 Gargrave bypass

  5 December 1991

  15 January 1992

  A249/M2 bobbing improvement

  12 July 1991

  30 October 1991

  A435 Studley bypass

  9 January 1992

  —

  M5 junction 18 Avonmouth relief road

  3 October 1991

  16 January 1992

  M40 Waterstock—Wendlebury (Fencott bridge)

  2 July 1991

  15 August 1991

  M56 widening junction 4 and 6

  22 October 1991

  21 November 1991

  M66 Denton—Middleton

  5 February 1992

  —

  M65 Blackburn southern bypass

  27 November 1991

  —

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take in order to counter the increased level of carbon dioxide emissions from catalyst equipped motor vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  Catalyst equipped vehicles are unlikely to be able to achieve the same levels of fuel economy and, hence, carbon dioxide emissions as the same vehicles without catalysts. The fitment of catalysts does, however, provide a reduction of approximately 90 per cent. in emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions from road transport.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government are committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from road transport as part of the target of stabilising these emissions at 1990 levels by 2005. We have been considering, with the motor industry, the various ways in which fuel efficiency, and hence carbon dioxide emissions, might be improved by better vehicle design for all types of vehicle. The 230
  Government are considering how best to provide the necessary stimulus to improve fuel efficiency, whether through fiscal measures or regulation. At the European level, the Government are pressing the European Commission to propose a directive to control carbon dioxide emissions from the whole European car fleet using a system of tradeable credits as an alternative to direct regulation. This system is designed to improve fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide reduction, whilst allowing manufacturers the maximum flexibility to choose the technology that will best suit their individual commercial constraints.

  London Transport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 508, if he will indicate the fees, benefits in kind and receipts other than salary paid to (a) the chairman and (b) board members of London Transport for (1) 1990–91 and (2) 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total emoluments received in 1990–91 by the Chairman and Members of the Board, including salaries, fees, pensions and other benefits, are
  231
  shown in London Transport's annual report for that year. A copy of the report has been placed in the House Library. The corresponding figures for 1991–92 will appear in that year's annual report which will be published later this year.

  Speed Limit Signs, Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport upon what date it was reported to his regional office in Nottingham that official 50 mph signs had been erected in the village of South Luffenham, Rutland; why they have since been removed; what has been the cost to public funds; and whether he will order a departmental inquiry into the procedures involved in erecting speed limits.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: My Department was not aware that 50 mph speed limit signs had been erected and subsequently removed; nor is it aware of the costs incurred. The A6121, which runs through South Luffenham is a local road and, as such, is not the responsibility of my Department. The Secretary of State's involvement is confined to giving consent to any speed limit promoted by the local highway authority, Leicestershire county council. No consent has been granted in this case.

  The system for implementing speed limits is clearly laid down and I do not consider that an inquiry into the procedures involved in erecting speed limit signs is necessary.

  Ham Street Bypass
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the results of the public inquiry into the proposed Ham Street bypass in the county of Kent.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: The Secretary of State expects to publish the inspector's report of the public inquiries into the proposed Ham Street bypass by mid-March.

ENVIRONMENT

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will revise the standard spending assessment formula in accordance with representations received from county councils;

  Apportionment of HRA subsidy between housing and rent rebates

  £ million

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  1992–93 forecast

  1993–94 forecast

  1994–95 forecast

  Housing element

  Positive entitlements

  1,365

  1,155

  1,008

  970

  988

  Negative entitlements

  -915

  -328

  -530

  -582

  -620

  Gross rebates

  2,492

  2,920

  3,277

  3,307

  3,497

  Total HRAS

  3,662

  3,747

  3,755

  3,695

  3,865

  Sum of positive housing element and gross rebates

  3,857

  4,075

  4,285

  4,277

  4,485

  232
  (2) if he will re-examine his financial provision for Warwickshire in response to the county council's representations about its standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Portillo
  In each of the last two years changes to the SSA formulae have been made in response to representations from the local authority associations, including the Association of County Councils.

  The calculation of standard spending assessments for 1992–93, as set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England), was approved by the House on 4 February. All representations from individual local authorities including those made by Warwickshire were carefully considered prior to this.

  Leigh Barton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 226–27, about the historic monument Leigh Barton, near Kingsbridge in Devon; how many days Leigh Barton has been open to the public since English Heritage took over its guardianship in 1984; what is the admission charged to the public; how many members of the public have been admitted in each of the last three years; and what is the estimated cost of maintenance and repair to complete the project.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 11 February,Official Report, column 429. Two supervised group visits, for which no charge was made, have taken place in the last three years; no requests for such visits have been refused. The cost of completing repairs at the property is estimated at £250,000.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table describing the apportionment of housing revenue account subsidy between(a) rent rebate subsidy and (b) general housing subsidy on an outturn and estimated outturn basis for financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1994–95, stating the assumptions employed to produce such figures; and if he will publish a table showing a similar apportionment, if the total cost of rent rebates was met by rent rebate subsidy.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is shown in the table. The actual figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 will depend on annual determinations of subsidy yet to be made. The table assumes that guideline rents and management and maintenance allowances for those years will be increased in line with inflation.
  233

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  1992–93 forecast

  1993–94 forecast

  1994–95 forecast

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Rent increase

  10·0

  8·0

  9·5

  M and M increase

  8·0

  6·0

  6·5

  Water Capital Projects, Cleveland
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of capital renewal to the water supply and sewage currently under way in Cleveland.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for Northumbrian Water, but I understand that in the year to 31 March 1992 capital investment in the Teesside area, which includes Cleveland, is expected to total £18·2 million. A further £1 million is being spent on other sewerage schemes by third parties —for example. Teesside development corporation—under Northumbrian Water supervision.

  Bird Pests
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the introduction of a general licensing system to control the shooting of bird pest species will be delayed until the European Parliamentary Environmental Group and the European Commission have decided whether or how the European birds directive is to be changed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Should such a system be introduced, it would take full account of any changes that may be made to the EC birds directive, and the need to maintain arrangements for sensible and practicable control of pest bird species where necessary.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work his Department is carrying out on preparing for the introduction of a closed season for bird pest species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no proposals for introducing a closed season for pest bird species.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the general rules that should be adhered to by the bidders for city challenge; what is the procedure for awarding city challenge; and how much Government money is available for bids for this year's city challenge.

  Mr. Key
  The general rules and procedure relating to city challenge bids and information about available resources are contained in the documents "City Challenge Bidding Guidance 1993–94" and "City Challenge Financial Guidance Note No. 1" revision No. 2, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his discussions with mortgage lenders and insurance companies on mortgage repossessions; and when he intends to introduce a scheme.
  234
  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 19 December that agreement had been reached with mortgage lenders on a package of measures. The package included pledges by lenders of £750 million for rescue schemes to help borrowers in difficulty, with the expectation that up to £1 billion would be available if necessary.

  Lenders are now coming forward with details of schemes. Six lenders have so far announced schemes—Halifax building society, Nationwide building society, Leeds Permanent building society, Bradford and Bingley building society, National Westminster Home Loans and the Mortgage Corporation. Others are expected to follow soon. Lenders are also introducing improved counselling arrangements for borrowers and have given a commitment that no action will be taken to repossess properties while borrowers are making significant regular payments.

  The Chancellor also announced that the Government would introduce legislation for the temporary suspension of stamp duty on transactions up to £250,000 and for the direct payment to lenders of sums allowed for mortgage interest in income support. Both these measures have now passed their Commons stages.

  The combined effect of these measures is expected significantly to reduce the number of repossessions this year.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect Her Majesty's Government current policy on stabilising carbon dioxide emissions is forecast to have on the concentration levels of carbon dioxide in the atmoshere.

  Mr. Baldry
  The stabilisation of emissions of carbon dioxide, if applied globally, will slow the rate of increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. The impact of the United Kingdom acting alone would be negligible. We therefore strongly support concerted international action to control carbon dioxide emissions.

  Holcombe Moor
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the results of his Department's inquiry concerning Holcombe moor; and if he will make a statement on the proposed future use of the land in question.

  Sir George Young
  The inspector's report of the inquiry was made available to interested parties on 16 July 1991, along with details of the new condition proposed by the Ministry of Defence for limiting its use of the land for training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes shortly to be able to say how he proposes to take matters forward.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the total level of local authority debt; from which sources the greatest proportions are borrowed; and what percentages mature in the short, medium and long term.

  Mr. Key
  Local authority loan debt, ie debt incurred for capital purposes, in England at 31 March 1990 is estimated at £49 billion. This figure includes both internal and external debt.

  The chief sources of borrowing were the Public Works Loan Board—75 per cent.—and internal reserves and balances—20 per cent. Of the external debt, some 5 per cent was due to be repaid within one year, 20 per cent. in over one year but within five years, and 75 per cent. in over five years.

  Building Maintenance, Camden
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take in response to the failure of the London borough of Camden to make the statutory rate of return on its building maintenance work in 1989–90.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the response which the London borough of Camden has made to the notice served on the authority on 1 July 1991, and has today given a direction under section 19B of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 in respect of building maintenance work. The effect of this direction is to preclude the council from assigning housing repair and mintenance work in three of the five districts of the borough to its direct labour organisation without the express consent of the Secretary of State.

  Royal Parks
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the review of the royal parks.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to welcome today the publication of the report of the royal parks review group.

  The review group's report is a key part of our strategy aimed at fundamental changes and improvements in the
  236
  royal parks and how we run them. We are aiming for excellence in the way the parks are kept, quality in what the parks offer and better management and value for money.

  We are grateful to Dame Jennifer Jenkins and her team for their efforts and their expertise. They have produced a stimulating report of interesting proposals.

  The group's proposals will be discussed by local amenity groups, professionals and everyday park users at a conference on 5 March. We will produce a full response to the report once we have heard what they have to say.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Humming Birds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee regarding the transportation of humming birds and other nectar-feeding birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has not made any representations about the transportation of these birds. It has, however, advised that some of these species are difficult to keep in captivity. The committee is consulted about all individual applications to import these birds and and their sensitivity is taken into account in determining the applications.

  Bird Pests
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will be considering the national shooting and farming organisations before introducing a licensing system to control the shooting of bird pest species.

  Mr. Baldry
  Should any such licensing system be introduced, my right hon. Friend would be required to make an order to amend schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Before making such an order, he would be required by the Act to give any local authority, or any other person affected, an opportunity to submit objections or representations.

EMPLOYMENT

  Dignity at Work
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to accept the recornmendation of the European Commission on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work of 27 November 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  By means of the Council declaration of 19 December 1991 the United Kindom Government endorse the general objective of the Commission recommendation.

  Migrant Workers Convention
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to acceding to the European convention on the legal status of migrant workers;

  (2) what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to acceding to the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families.

  Mr. Forth
  We have considered both conventions carefully, but we are unable to sign either. The conventions go beyond this country's existing international commitments on access to labour markets and what is necessary to secure the interests of migrants working here, who already enjoy the protection of the same laws and regulations as British workers.

  Population Statistics, Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the areas and sub-areas which compose the travel to work area of Barnstaple/Ilfracombe and South Molton, together with the number of adults and of young people included in each of them.

  Mr. Jackson
  Barnstaple/Ilfracombe travel-to-work area—TTWA—consists of ward numbers 1 to 11 and 13 to 22 in North Devon local authority district—LAD. South Moulton TWA consists of ward numbers 24 to 29 in North Devon LAD, Taw Vale ward in Mid Devon LAD and Exmoor ward in West Somerset LAD.

  The latest data on age distribution of residents for wards are available from the 1981 census of population and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Similar data from the 1991 census of population should be available towards the latter half of 1992.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hackney (Government Achievements)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty's Government in Hackney since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December at columns 22–25.

  European Assemblies
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the assembly of the Western European Union, which has been sent to him.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 February.

  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.

  Planning Seminars
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the date and location of his national seminar with planners, conservationists and farmers; if he will list the organisations, both government and non-government, which are to be invited to attend; if he will also give the same information for each of the local seminars being organised around the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: A national conference "The Countryside and the Rural Economy" is being held to promote the role of the planning system in balancing the needs to diversify the rural economy and to conserve and enhance the rural environment. It is being organised jointly by the Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will be held on 16 March at the Royal Agricultural Society of England.

  More than 200 invitations have been sent to individual farmers and planners, representatives of conservation, farming, planning and other organisations with an interest in rural development, planning consultants and academics. DoE and MAFF propose to follow up this conference with a series of regional seminars, inviting people and organisations with a similar range of interests and concentrating on issues of particular concern in each area.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  European Community Grant Aid
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect £15·2 million of grant aid to the successful applicants under European Community Regulation 866/90 will have upon the relative competitive position of companies whose projects will not be supported.

  Mr. Curry
  This is an EC-funded scheme and the question facing the Government was whether to allow some United Kingdom applicants to benefit or whether to allow all the money to be spent on helping their competitors in other member states. Given the impact of the internal market in 1993 the effect on unsuccessful companies of United Kingdom participation is likely to be
  239
  minimal, but the overall effect of United Kingdom participation on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom industry will be to show a significant benefit. All companies submitting projects are told clearly that they have no guarantee of success given the limited resources available.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total estimated expenditure of all applications under European Community Regulation 866/90(a) received by the MAFF and (b) recommended by the MAFF to Brussels for the latest round of grant awards.

  Mr. Curry
  The total amount of grant aid sought in applications submitted to MAFF in respect of projects in England for the latest round of awards under EC regulation 866/90 was £27·3 million. Of these, projects seeking a total of £6·8 million in grant were recommended to the Commission.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications under European Community Regulation 866/90 were received by his Department; and how many were subsequently recommended to Brussels for the latest round of awards.

  Mr. Curry
  The total number of eligible applications for grant received by MAFF for projects in England for the latest round of awards under EC regulation 866/90 was 93. Of these, 20 were recommended to the EC Commission.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which FEOGA grants militate against the creation of a level playing field for fair trade in food within the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund grants are paid in all EC countries, and are made according to clearly defined social and economic criteria.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria were applied in assessing United Kingdom applications for grant aid in the latest round of awards under EC regulations 866/90.

  Mr. Curry
  In order to decide which projects to put forward to Brussels under this scheme we have to apply a range of criteria derived from the appropriate EC legislation, in particular EC regulation 866/90 and Commission decision 90/342/EEC. All projects must demonstrate direct benefits to primary producers and special priority is given to projects which improve marketing structures, assist the marketing of high value products, involve substantial technological innovation, reduce the seasonality of supply or cut the costs of prepared products, the recycling of waste or use of organic produce.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications were received in each of the Community countries for grant in the latest round of awards under EC regulations 866/90; how many were successful in each country and what was the value of awards in each member country.

  Mr. Curry
  The information we have through our involvement in the European Commission's management committee under which this grant scheme is administered is shown in the table.
  240

  Member state

  Successful projects

  Total value of awards

  mecu

  £ million approx.

  United Kingdom

  53

  21·7

  15·1

  Netherlands

  54

  6·5

  4·5

  Germany

  124

  11·4

  7·9

  Belgium

  10

  2·9

  2·0

  France

  108

  26·2

  18·3

  Denmark

  15

  5·1

  3·6

  Greece

  15

  13·9

  9·7

  Portugal

  46

  22·5

  15·7

  Spain

  146

  44·0

  30·7

  Ireland

  35

  31·1

  21·7

  Luxembourg

  4

  0·7

  0·5

  We have no information on the number of applications received in other member states. No programme for Italy has yet been agreed.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis it is decided to grant aid to industries which have structural problems due to over capacity.

  Mr. Curry
  Our overall approach has been to target sectors where there is a need for new investment. This would generally be as a result of market opportunities, but can also arise where there is a need for modernisation to improve the technical efficiency of the United Kingdom industry to enable it to compete with that in other member states.

  European Community Intervention Stores
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the location of European Community intervention stores within the United Kingdom and in each case which products they contain.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since the question concerns matters which are the direct responsibility of the chief executive of the Intervention Board executive agency, I am asking him to write directly to the hon. Member.

  Pennines Environmentally Sensitive Area
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the further changes he intends to make to the North Pennines environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Gummer
  In drawing up the Pennine Dales environmentally sensitive area scheme, which I announced on 15 January, I consulted farmers, conservationists and other bodies. I have continued to work closely with local interests, and as a result, I have concluded that further changes are needed. I will announce the details as soon as possible.

THE ARTS

  Lending
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total amount paid from public funds since 1980 to lenders of works of art and heritage objects to museums,
  241
  galleries, libraries and public exhibitions in respect of claims satisfied under the indemnification powers given in section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980; and if he will list the amounts paid in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Renton
  Central records have been maintained only since 1985. The total amount paid under the Government indemnity scheme from then to the present time is £149,000. The amounts paid in each year are as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  0

  1987–88

  78,000

  1988–89

  0

  1989–90

  10,000

  1990–91

  61,000

  There have been no payments this financial year.

WALES

  Sports Council for Wales
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of funding to the Sports Council for Wales; what proportion it represents of total Welsh Office expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Grant-in-aid to the Sports Council for Wales for the current financial year is £5·2 million. This represents just under 0·1 per cent. of the forecast outturn—£5,286 million—for total Welsh Office expenditure as published in Cm. 1916.

  Welsh Office support is also given to other bodies in respect of specific sports-related projects under the urban programme, rural initiative and PRNI—projects of regional and national importance—and SP—special projects—schemes.

  Education (Abergavenny)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to develop Welsh medium education in Abergavenny; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for Gwent county council as the responsible local education authority.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest are currently designated in Wales; what means exist to monitor loss and damage to sites of special scientific interest in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A total of 827 sites of special scientific interest have so far been designated in Wales. The Countryside Council for Wales monitors these sites through its site integrity monitoring programme. 'This process involves undertaking a rolling programme of visits and collecting and examining relevant photographic evidence.

  Leader Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to claw back financial assistance given under the European Community's Leader programme 242
  from the moneys allocated to the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency for the forthcoming financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The likely level of EC receipts arising from the Leader initiative was taken into account in arriving at the grant in aid settlements for the respective agencies for 1992–93.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the average number of NHS general practitioner consultations in Wales per person, per year from 1977 to 1991 according to each age category.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information is readily available only for the years shown in the table.:

  National Health Service general practitioner consultations per person per year by age group1

  0 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 or over

  all ages

  1978

  7

  4

  6

  5

  1980

  4

  5

  7

  5

  1982

  4

  4

  11

  5

  1983

  3

  4

  7

  4

  1985

  5

  4

  7

  5

  1986

  4

  4

  8

  5

  1987

  7

  4

  6

  4

  1988

  5

  4

  5

  5

  1989

  6

  6

  7

  7

  1990

  6

  4

  5

  5

  1 Estimated from responses by households sampled in the General Household Survey.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department is making available to local housing authorities in Wales to deal specifically with problems of condensation and dampness in council housing stock; what is his assessment of the extent of the problem in Wales; and what are the prospects of achieving a solution.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 5 February. The results of the 1986 Welsh house condition survey indicated serious problems of dampness in 0·3 per cent. of the local authority stock.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the projected number of single-person elderly households in Wales for each year from 1986 to 2001; and how many are estimated to be(a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The most recently published estimates of single person elderly households are those in table 3 of the "1989-Based Household Projections for Counties of Wales" a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Comparable figures for 1986 are not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) private, (b) voluntary, (c) local authority and (d) long-stay national health service places were made available for elderly people in Wales in each year from 1977 onwards.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information concerning beds and places is given in the following table:
  243

  Type of premises

  Private nursing homes1

  Local authority residential homes2

  Private residential homes2

  Voluntary residential homes2

  National health service hospitals3

  1977

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  4,208

  1978

  N/a

  7,424

  1,571

  4,263

  1979

  N/a

  7,549

  1,689

  4,285

  1980

  N/a

  7,581

  1,969

  4,383

  1981

  N/a

  7,660

  2,307

  4,468

  1982

  984

  7,732

  2,584

  4,489

  1983

  1,168

  7,682

  3,015

  4,561

  1984

  1,333

  7,758

  3,894

  4,656

  1985

  1,901

  7,700

  4,817

  4,759

  1986

  2,787

  7,844

  5,875

  4,707

  1987

  4,005

  7,669

  6,535

  4,665

  1988

  N/a

  7,559

  7,492

  N/a

  1989

  5,966

  7,350

  7,331

  822

  4,477

  1990

  7,759

  7,119

  7,760

  859

  5,389

  1991

  9,656

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  5,413

  1 Beds designated as elderly/long stay. Information is not available for the years 1977 to 1981. Data for 1982 to 1987 are at 31 December, for 1989 onwards they are at 31 March.

  2 Number of places at 31 March.

  3 Average daily available beds in the specialties of geriatric medicine and elderly mentally infirm/old age psychiatry, not all geriatric beds are designated as long stay. National health service beds are allocated according to the specialty of the consultant using the bed and not to the age group of the patient and, therefore, there will be beds in other specialties apart from the ones included here which at some time will be occupied by elderly patients. Data are for years ending 31 December for 1977 to 1987 and for years ending 31 March for 1989 to 1991. Due to a change in the definition of specialties, data for 1990 and 1991 are not strictly comparable with previous years.

  In-patients
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish figures for in-patient bed days per 1,000 population in non-psychiatric hospitals in Wales in each year from 1979, broken down into age categories;

  (2) how many in-patient admissions per 1,000 population into non-psychiatric hospitals have occurred in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will publish the figures according to age category.

  Year

  0 to 14

  15 to 24

  25 to 44

  45 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 +

  Total2

  In·patient bed days per 1,000 population1

  1979

  378·3

  360·8

  473·3

  1,088·2

  2,684·3

  7,243·6

  1,193·7

  1980

  379·2

  361·6

  475·3

  1,052·1

  2,825·4

  7,662·3

  1,219·5

  1981

  392·6

  366·8

  471·4

  1,051·6

  2,673·5

  7,372·6

  1,199·1

  1982

  370·3

  520·9

  575·8

  959·8

  2,651·2

  7,441·4

  31,236·1

  1983

  392·8

  526·0

  608·6

  1,031·5

  2,805·0

  7,932·0

  1,317·7

  1984

  392·5

  529·9

  595·9

  1,033·1

  2,866·4

  7,707·6

  1,316·7

  1985

  408·3

  520·2

  597·5

  1,092·5

  2,974·1

  8,459·4

  1,403·8

  1986

  399·1

  506·2

  576·2

  1,033·4

  2,860·1

  8,048·3

  1,352·3

  1987

  462·0

  518·9

  584·0

  1,052·9

  2,842·4

  7,756·7

  1,377·3

  1988

  445·0

  514·4

  550·7

  1,009·9

  2,769·4

  7,412·4

  1,327·2

  1989

  481·7

  578·5

  575·5

  1,022·5

  2,775·5

  7,397·3

  1,351·5

  1990

  418·9

  467·6

  506·3

  914·8

  2,424·5

  6,629·0

  41,196·3

  In-patient deaths and discharges per 1,000 population1

  1979

  80·2

  68·8

  75·2

  95·5

  152·2

  239·0

  97·5

  1980

  83·5

  70·8

  78·8

  100·7

  162·0

  255·3

  102·0

  1981

  88·6

  73·7

  80·4

  104·3

  170·1

  272·8

  106·7

  1982

  84·2

  109·7

  103·2

  95·5

  158·7

  261·5

  3113·9

  1983

  95·6

  120·3

  119·2

  113·5

  189·2

  303·2

  131·7

  1984

  100·5

  126·3

  122·9

  118·1

  196·2

  322·7

  137·8

  1985

  102·2

  131·7

  130·3

  124·2

  215·4

  375·4

  143·4

  1986

  106·6

  134·4

  131·5

  128·8

  220·5

  383·7

  147·7

  1987

  106·9

  135·8

  128·8

  129·4

  218·2

  372·7

  151·7

  1988

  109·1

  141·3

  129·0

  131·4

  225·2

  382·0

  154·9

  1989

  110·3

  142·5

  127·0

  128·6

  228·3

  394·5

  155·3

  1990

  110·4

  139·2

  125·5

  124·9

  218·9

  380·1

  4151·8

  1 Figures prior to 1982 exclude Obstetrics and GP Maternity cases. Bed days by age of patient are not available for such cases in those years, but in-patient deaths and discharges per 1,000 population are given separately below.

  2 Includes age not known.

  3 Data for 1982 is believed to understate the true position due to an industrial dispute which affected the completeness of the data.

  4 Provisional.

  244
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information is collected on the basis of in-patient discharges, including deaths, from hospital rather than admissions to NHS hospitals in Wales.

  Bed days and in-patient deaths and discharges per 1,000 population in non-psychiatric NHS hospitals in Wales, by age of patient on discharge, are given in the tables.
  245

  Obstetrics and general practitioner maternity in-patient deaths and discharges per 1,000 population

  Year

  0 to 14

  15 to 24

  25 to 44

  45 to 64

  65 to 74

  75+

  Total1

  1979

  0·1

  45·8

  33·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  15·2

  1980

  0·1

  46·0

  33·7

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  15·5

  1981

  0·0

  45·7

  32·9

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  15·5

  1 Includes age not known.

  Constituencies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the six highest and the six lowest numbers of electors in parliamentary constituencies in Wales; and what is the average constituency electorate in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The six parliamentary constituencies with the highest number of electors and the six parliamentary constituencies with the lowest number of electors in Wales at 1991 are as follows. The average electorate of a parliamentary constituency in Wales was 58,086.

  Parliamentary constituency

  Electors

  Highest

  Pembroke

  73,500

  Carmarthen

  68,833

  Clwyd North West

  68,462

  Delyn

  66,953

  Vale of Glamorgan

  66,852

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  65,947

  Lowest

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  32,754

  Montgomery

  41,334

  Caernarfon

  46,653

  Cynon Valley

  50,000

  Newport East

  50,931

  Brecon and Radnor

  51,738

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the acreage of each of the, six geographically largest parliamentary constituencies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The six geographically largest parliamentary constituencies in Wales are as follows:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Acreage (000s)

  Brecon and Radnor

  744

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  561

  Carmarthen

  525

  Montgomery

  510

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  478

  Clwyd South West

  367

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for the number of people accepted by local authorities in Wales as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985 between January and December 1991, by district, compared with the previous year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the table:246

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985, by district

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  137

  104

  Alyn and Deeside

  474

  499

  Arfon

  77

  93

  Blaenau Gwent

  841

  761

  Brecknock

  269

  318

  Cardiff1

  2,483

  —

  Carmarthen

  189

  227

  Ceredigion

  331

  373

  Colwyn

  103

  178

  Cynon Valley

  623

  1,017

  Delyn

  825

  683

  Dinefwr

  181

  410

  Dwyfor

  162

  127

  Glyndwr

  46

  87

  Islwyn1

  370

  —

  Llanelli

  297

  383

  Lliw Valley

  338

  284

  Meirionnydd

  250

  257

  Merthyr Tydfil

  496

  365

  Monmouth

  281

  388

  Montgomeryshire

  188

  259

  Neath

  610

  656

  Newport

  2,696

  2,936

  Ogwr

  1,332

  1,671

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  303

  340

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  209

  255

  Radnorshire

  64

  45

  Rhondda

  166

  358

  Rhuddlan

  293

  177

  Rhymney Valley1

  439

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  248

  205

  Swansea2

  450

  1,779

  Taff-Ely

  568

  715

  Torfaen

  1,216

  1,038

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,160

  1,184

  Wrexham Maelor

  863

  730

  Ynys Môn

  97

  111

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  1 Information is not yet available for Cardiff, Islwyn and Rhymney Valley.

  2 It is known that the figure for 1990 for Swansea is under-recorded.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients from within Gwent with kidney disorder are treated by dialysis at centres outside Gwent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Gentleman may wish to approach Gwent district health authority about this.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his decision on current planning applications for golf courses in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Planning applications for golf courses at Porthcasseg farm, St. Aryan's Chepstow and at
  247
  Croes Bleddyn farm, Itton, Chepstow were called in for my determination on 7 February. Following receipt of documents from Monmouth borough council, consideration is now being given to holding public local inquiries.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines are issued to local authority planning departments with regard to development in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Planning guidance on development in areas of outstanding natural beauty may be found in the following planning policy guidance—PPG—and minerals planning guidance—MPG—notes issued jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office:

  PPG7 "The Countryside and Rural Economy" (paras: 3.8–3.11);

  MPGI "General Considerations and the Development Plan System" (para: 43);

  MPG2 "Applications, Permissions and Conditions" (para: 39);

  MPG3 "Opencast Coal Mining" (para: 14); and

  MPG6 "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales" (para: 20).

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of all the visits made by Her Majesty's inspectors of education to schools in the Monmouth constituency since September 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All secondary schools and over 70 per cent. of the primary schools in the Monmouth constituency have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools since September 1990. In secondary schools these visits have included surveys of mathematics, science and music; in primary schools they have included two full inspections and surveys of music, Welsh, history, geography, school-industry links and arrangements for teacher appraisal. The monitoring of the implementation of the national curriculum has received priority in the routine visits to schools.

  Monmouth Borough Council
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what announcements he has made regarding the reduction in standard spending assessment for Monmouth borough council for 1992–93 since it was first announced; and what was the reason for the reduction.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The final local authority standard spending assessments were set out in the settlement reports laid before the House on 10 February and debated and approved by Parliament on 12 February. Recalculation of the provisional SSAs laid before the House on 20 January took account of the increase in resources for teachers' pay. To achieve consistency, it was also necessary to take account of other data changes. These altered the relativity of individual district authority SSAs within the overall amount of total standard spending allocated to district authorities which was unchanged.

  Hydatid Disease
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research is available to him regarding(a) the incidence and (b) the effects of hydatid disease on animals and humans in Gwent; and if he will make a statement.
  248
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the incidence of human hydatid disease in Gwent for the period 1974 to 1983 is contained within the published report "The Changing Incidence of Human Hydatid Disease in England and Wales" by S. R. Palmer and Ann H. B. Biffen. The communicable disease surveillance centre (Wales) is currently working on an updated survey covering the period 1984 to 1990. This survey will again include data for Gwent. The results are expected later this year.

  A considerable body of research exists into the effects of hydatid disease in humans, though none specific to Gwent.

  As far as farm animals are concerned hydatidosis is not a notifiable disease, and there are no official statistics available on incidence. The disease causes little discomfort in farm animals affected.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for a renal dialysis unit for Gwent health authority; and what is the estimated cost of such a unit.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for Gwent district health authority. No proposals have been made by the authority to the Welsh Office.

  National Health Service Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the number of staff graded as general or senior managers in the health service in Wales on 1 January 1986; and what was the corresponding number on 1 September 1991;

  (2) what was the number of administrative and clerical staff in the health service in Wales on 1 January 1986; and what is the corresponding figure for 1 September 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: On 31 January 1986 there were 6,805 whole-time equivalent administrative and clerical staff employed by the health service in Wales, including staff employed by district health authorities, by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, and by certain family health services authorities which share the payroll system from which this information is derived, but excluding information for other FHSAs. The figure for 30 September 1991 was 8,733.

  Of the September 1991 figure, 693 whole-time equivalents were graded as general or senior managers, including "second tranche" senior managers reporting to general managers or management board/teams. Due to changes in the grading structure of managerial staff between 1986 and 1989, a comparable figure for 1986 is not available.

  Administrative and clerical staff costs as a proportion of the National Health Service pay bill in Wales have fallen from 12·2 per cent. in 1979 to 10·9 per cent. in 1991. Authorities often differ in their approach to coding jobs for record purposes. Advice is to be issued shortly to ensure that staff figures are derived on a common basis.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing, by range of total income, for those(a) under and (b) over 65 years, the number of increases to the tax yield and estimated average rates of income tax payable in 1990–91, broken down by bands of £1,000s to £10,000, £2,000s to £20,000, £5,000s to £50,000 and £50,000s to £500,000, distinguishing between single persons, married and single persons qualifying for married allowance and other married persons.

  Mr. Maude
  The available information on average rates of tax is in the tables. Estimates of increases in tax yield could be made only by reference to an alternative tax regime.

  Estimated average rates of tax paid by taxpaying individuals aged under 65, 1990–91

  Gross income of individual

  Single people not claiming additional personal allowance

  Husbands and single people claiming additional personal allowance

  Wives

  £ p.a.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Under 4,000

  4

  ֵ

  3

  4,000 to 5,000

  8

  1

  7

  5,000 to 6,000

  11

  3

  7

  6,000 to 7,000

  12

  5

  9

  7,000 to 8,000

  14

  6

  11

  8,000 to 9,000

  15

  8

  12

  9,000 to 10,000

  16

  9

  13

  10,000 to 12,000

  16

  10

  15

  12,000 to 14,000

  16

  12

  16

  14,000 to 16,000

  17

  13

  17

  16,000 to 18,000

  17

  14

  18

  18,000 to 20,000

  17

  15

  19

  20,000 to 25,000

  19

  16

  19

  25,000 to 30,000

  21

  18

  21

  30,000 to 40,000

  23

  21

  25

  40,000 to 50,000

  26

  25

  28

  50,000 to 80,000

  30

  28

  32

  80,000 and over

  34

  34

  36

  All taxpayers

  17

  17

  15

  Number of individuals paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income 1990–91

  Singles not claiming additional personal allowance

  Husbands and singles claiming additional personal allowance

  Wives

  Total income (lower limit) £ pa

  Number of individuals paying tax Thousands

  Tax yield £ million

  Number of individuals paying tax Thousands

  Tax yield £ million

  Number of individuals paying tax Thousands

  Tax yield £ million

  Taxpayers under 65

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  580

  80

  —

  —

  570

  60

  4,000

  690

  250

  30

  1—

  520

  160

  5,000

  700

  410

  150

  30

  440

  170

  6,000

  750

  600

  220

  70

  380

  230

  7,000

  850

  870

  330

  160

  370

  300

  8,000

  840

  1,050

  400

  280

  350

  360

  9,000

  690

  1,020

  540

  450

  270

  350

  10,000

  1,200

  2,070

  1,210

  1,350

  340

  550

  12,000

  1,300

  2,890

  1,780

  2,890

  320

  710

  15,000

  1,060

  3,120

  2,110

  5,110

  340

  1,030

  20,000

  610

  2,740

  1,690

  6,820

  160

  740

  30,000

  170

  1,470

  650

  5,270

  60

  560

  50,000

  60

  1,770

  280

  8,070

  20

  470

  250

  Estimated average rates of tax paid by individuals aged 65 and over, 1990–91

  Gross income of individual

  Single people not claiming additional personal allowance

  Husbands and single people claiming additional personal allowance

  Wives

  £ p.a.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Under 5,000

  3

  0

  3

  5,000 to 10,000

  11

  6

  10

  10,000 to 15,000

  17

  13

  16

  15,000 and over

  26

  23

  23

  All taxpayers

  17

  16

  14

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of revenue from taxation of investment income at(a) standard rate and (b) higher rates as a result of independent taxation of men and women; and how much of this loss results from the transfer of taxable assets for husbands to wives.

  Mr. Maude
  An estimate of the total direct revenue cost of independent taxation was given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1988–89". The further analysis requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date, for 1990–91, his answer of 19 October 1988,Official Report, columns 921–24, concerning investment income, replacing the categories for married couples with and without earned income with (a) married and other persons qualifying for a married allowance and (b) married persons entitled only to a single allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  The updated information is as follows:
  251

  Singles not claiming additional personal allowance

  Husbands and singles claiming additional personal allowance

  Wives

  Total income (lower limit) £ pa

  Number of individuals paying tax Thousands

  Tax yield £ million

  Number of individuals paying tax Thousands

  Tax yield £ million

  Number of individuals paying tax Thousands

  Tax yield £ million

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  70

  1—

  —

  —

  30

  1—

  4,000

  210

  40

  —

  —

  80

  10

  5,000

  170

  70

  20

  1—

  50

  20

  6,000

  150

  100

  130

  20

  60

  30

  7,000

  120

  110

  110

  40

  50

  40

  8,000

  90

  100

  100

  60

  20

  30

  9,000

  80

  110

  110

  100

  10

  10

  10,000

  110

  190

  110

  140

  40

  70

  12,000

  90

  230

  140

  260

  20

  40

  15,000

  90

  300

  110

  340

  30

  100

  20,000

  60

  300

  70

  330

  10

  60

  30,000

  30

  300

  50

  470

  1—

  20

  50,000

  10

  390

  20

  440

  1—

  40

  1 — Less than £5 million or 5,000.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of income tax received on income from overseas for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  Income tax chargeable on investment income received by United Kingdom residents from overseas in the years ending 5 April 1990 and 5 April 1989 and taxed under cases IV and V of schedule D is estimated to be in the region of £170 million and £95 million respectively before allowing for double taxation relief. The amount of such relief allowed is not known.

  Income tax deducted from foreign company and public revenue dividends paid by or through United Kingdom paying and collecting agents in these two years amounted to £201 million and £192 million respectively. Figures are also available for the year ending 5 April 1991 where the amount was £329 million.

  Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 29 July 1988,Official Report, columns 724–25, concerning the distribution of incomes by range of income in excess of £20,000 a year to give the figures for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates for 1991–92 are given in the table. The figures relate to taxpaying individuals following the introduction of independent taxation in 1990.

  Higher rate taxpayers 1991–92

  Thousands

  Total income (£)

  Single

  Husbands

  Wives

  Total

  Under 20,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20,000 to 25,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25,000 to 30,000

  60

  40

  20

  120

  Distribution by total income 1991–92 for higher rate taxpayers

  Single people

  Married couples1

  One taxpayer

  Both taxpayers

  Range of total income lower limit (£pa)

  Number (000s)

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2 3

  Number(000s)

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2 3

  Number(000s)

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief3

  20,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,000

  60

  5,500

  730

  10

  1,300

  750

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  180

  5,300

  700

  250

  2,700

  670

  90

  3,100

  700

  252

  Total income (£)

  Single

  Husbands

  Wives

  Total

  30,000 to 50,000

  240

  750

  70

  1,060

  over 50,000

  90

  330

  20

  440

  Total

  390

  1,120

  110

  1,620

  Total tax liability of higher rate taxpayers

  £ million

  Total income (£)

  Single

  Husbands

  Wives

  Total

  Under 20,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20,000 to 25,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25,000 to 30,000

  390

  250

  120

  760

  30,000 to 50,000

  2,060

  6,170

  620

  8,850

  Over 50,000

  2,420

  9,390

  580

  12,390

  Total

  4,870

  15,800

  1,330

  22,000

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 6 April 1987,Official Report, columns 70–72, showing the estimated amount of mortgage interest relief due to taxpayers with an income in excess of £20,000 a year, to give the figures for 1991–92; and if he will give separate particulars for those with income between £50,000 and £100,000 and in excess of £100,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Equivalent available information taking account of independent taxation is given in the table. The estimates are based on a projection from the 1989–90 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.
  253

  Single people

  Married couples1

  One taxpayer

  Both taxpayers

  Range of total income lower limit (£pa)

  Number (000s)

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2 3

  Number (000s)

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief2 3

  Number(000s)

  Average amount of investment income2

  Average amount of mortgage interest relief3

  40,000

  60

  7,700

  750

  110

  3,700

  660

  170

  4,400

  710

  50,000

  90

  22,000

  750

  160

  11,600

  700

  360

  17,000

  700

  1 With at least one partner liable at the higher rate. Married couples are analysed by joint income range.

  2 Average based on those having investment income or mortgage interest relief as appropriate.

  3 Average reduction in tax liability by virtue of the relief.

  European Community Budget
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net cost of contributions to the European Community, per head of population, in each country for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Maude
  The European Commission does not publish information on member states' net balances in respect of the European Community budget. The latest information available is contained in the European Court of Auditors' report for 1990; this gives information on member states' gross contributions and information on some 85 per cent. of receipts, with administration and research the main elements of internal expenditure excluded. Using this incomplete information, member states' net contributions per head for the last five years for which information is available were as follows. Net recipients are shown as negative.

  ecu per head

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Belgium

  +29

  +73

  +101

  +113

  +77

  Denmark

  -82

  -58

  -64

  -34

  -82

  Germany

  +61

  +79

  +99

  +105

  +88

  Greece

  -128

  -154

  -149

  -202

  -244

  Spain

  -2

  -7

  -23

  -47

  -44

  France

  +10

  +11

  +32

  +52

  +32

  Ireland

  -347

  -311

  -328

  -381

  -540

  Italy

  +3

  -1

  +19

  +4

  +7

  Luxembourg

  +160

  +165

  +180

  +171

  +157

  Netherlands

  -15

  -36

  -78

  -76

  -25

  Portugal

  -21

  -38

  -50

  -63

  -58

  United Kingdom

  +25

  +46

  +36

  +59

  +59

  Note: Although the table shows Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy (except for 1987) as net contributors in each year, none is likely to have been when receipts excluded from the Court of Auditors' Report are taken into account.

  European Community Contributions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net cost per head of population of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC in the current financial year; and what is the projected figure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Maude
  The Chancellor's departmental report, Cm.1918, gives an estimated outturn for 1991–92 and forecast for 1992–93 of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community budget, taking account of public sector receipts, but not those to the private sector, mainly for research. On the basis of these estimates the net cost per head of population for 1991–92 is £21 and the projection for 1992–93 is £50. The figure for 1991–92 is unusually low owing to a refund of contributions paid in earlier years and a high level of abatement.
  254
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net cost per head of population of Germany's contribution to the EC in the current financial year; and what is the projected figure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Maude
  The European Commission does not publish information on member states' net balances in respect of the European Community budget. The latest information published in Germany's contributions and receipts is contained in the 1990 Court of Auditors' report. Information on 1991 will be given in the 1991 Court of Auditors' report, due to be published next December.

  Public Works Loan Board
  Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any changes are proposed in the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Yes. The Public Works Loan Board Commissioners have issued a circular today giving local authorities advance notice of a change in the formula for calculating the quotas for 1992–93, reflecting continued concern about the level of investments held by some authorities expressed, among others, by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in its recent report "Banking Supervision and BCCI: the Role of Local Authorities and Money Brokers", HC26. The modified formula will reduce the quota available to local authorities who hold substantial investments which could be used in place of fresh borrowing. It will have little or no effect on authorities where investments are small. Quota loans are made at rates close to but below market rates: local authorities will still have access to non-quota loans.

  The circular also notified local authorities of two improvements to the board's facilities: the ability to make premature repayments of loans in advance of the day on which it is due will be extended to include variable rate loans, and an option given to replace a fixed rate loan before maturity by a variable rate loan.

  A copy of the circular has been placed in the House Library.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give details of the quantity and content of representations he has received concerning the change to the postponed accounting system for VAT on goods and services commencing on 1 January 1993;

  (2) how many individual businesses he expects to be included in the new postponed accounting system for VAT in each of the years 1993, 1994 and 1995;
  255
  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect on the cash flow of businesses of the postponed accounting system for VAT at the end of 1992.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: No representations directly relating to the postponed accounting system have been received. Businesses have been informed of the change which has been generally welcomed because of the resulting cash flow benefits. Some representations have been received on the proposals that the larger businesses will be required to account for VAT monthly to offset the cash flow loss to the exchequer which is a consequence of the postponed accounting system.

  Some 90,000 businesses will be included in the postponed accounting system and, because they will no longer need to pre-finance the payment of VAT on imports of goods and associated services from other EC countries, these businesses will make a cash flow saving equivalent to deferring payment for six weeks.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the items listed as zero-rated for VAT in table 4B.1 of annex B to chapter 4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1991–92" are safeguarded until at least December 1996.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Yes. In the context of European Community negotiations last year on VAT rates, our right to continue to apply all our existing zero rates was confirmed. The

  Taxpaying single people and married couples1 with investment income in 1991–92

  Single people under 65

  One taxpayer married couples under 65

  Two taxpayer married couples under 65

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average Investment Income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average Investment Income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average Investment Income £ per year

  3,000

  1,700

  560

  90

  640

  —

  —

  7,000

  2,100

  640

  440

  780

  —

  —

  10,000

  2,500

  870

  1,500

  890

  230

  1,300

  15,000

  1,200

  1,100

  1,300

  970

  640

  1,100

  20,000

  750

  1,600

  1,100

  1,200

  1,400

  1,400

  30,000

  160

  3,600

  280

  1,900

  660

  2,200

  40,000

  120

  13,000

  260

  7,700

  660

  9,700

  Single people 65 and over

  One taxpayer married couples 65 and over

  Two taxpayer married couples 65 and over

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average Investment Income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average Investment Income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average Investment Income £ per year

  3,000

  430

  1,400

  10

  220

  —

  —

  7,000

  290

  2,500

  160

  1,300

  —

  —

  10,000

  210

  4,500

  330

  2,500

  40

  4,100

  15,000

  70

  7,900

  120

  3,600

  60

  6,300

  20,000

  60

  14,000

  70

  4,500

  100

  8,100

  30,000

  20

  19,000

  20

  11,000

  40

  16,000

  40,000

  20

  42,000

  10

  21,000

  50

  24,000

  1 Counting married couples as one and combining their incomes.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish for each of the four fiscal years ended on 5 April 1991, the estimated amount of investment income accruing to(a) non-earning and (b) earning married women;

  (2) if he will publish a table in the same form as in his answer of 7 November 1988, Official Report, columns 35–36, showing for 1989–90 and 1990–91 the number of
  256
  agreement reached relates to the so-called transitional period, which, in principle, will end on 31 December 1996 subject to unanimous agreement that the conditions for moving to the definitive system have been met, but is without prejudice to the future of our zero rates thereafter.

  Overseas Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information on gross overseas income for tax purposes given in his answer of 23 March 1987,Official Report, columns 42–43.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The latest estimate for property and entrepreneurial income from abroad, net of foreign taxes, relates to 1990 and is £81,287 million. Estimates for earlier years are given in table 10.1 of the 1991 edition of "United Kingdom National Accounts".

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information on investment incomes in his answer of 25 July 1986,Official Report, columns 671–72, on the basis of income ranges adjusted to take account of inflation.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Estimates are given in the table:

  women and the amount of investment income divided between those with earned income and those without; and if he will add figures for a lower limit of £15,000, £25,000 and £100,000.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Readily available estimates for taxpaying wives with investment income at 1990–91 levels of income are as follows.
  257

  Wives with Earned Income1

  Range of Wife's Total Income (lower limit) (£ per year)

  Number (000's)

  Amount of investment income (£ per year)

  3,000

  2,070

  1,320

  7,000

  1,060

  980

  10,000

  710

  930

  15,000

  360

  650

  20,000

  120

  400

  25,000

  40

  230

  30,000

  40

  230

  40,000

  20

  210

  50,000

  20

  390

  1990–91 levels of income Single women

  Gross investment Income greater than or equal to £1,000 per year

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 per year

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  3,000

  380

  2,300

  1,030

  370

  7,000

  390

  2,800

  930

  470

  10,000

  440

  3,800

  680

  470

  15,000

  240

  4,600

  240

  480

  20,000

  120

  7,900

  130

  540

  30,000

  30

  18,000

  —

  —

  40,000

  30

  39,000

  —

  —

  1990–91 levels of income Married women

  Gross investment income greater than or equal to £1,000 per year

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 per year

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  3,000

  440

  2,700

  1,190

  350

  7,000

  240

  3,500

  630

  340

  10,000

  210

  3,900

  430

  420

  15,000

  110

  5,500

  230

  490

  20,000

  70

  9,300

  90

  540

  30,000

  30

  9,700

  20

  540

  40,000

  30

  25,000

  —

  —

  1991–92 Levels of income Single women

  Gross investment income greater than or equal to £1,000 per year

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 per year

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  3,000

  310

  2,300

  900

  340

  7,000

  350

  2,700

  950

  420

  10,000

  380

  3,800

  740

  420

  15,000

  200

  3,900

  310

  450

  20,000

  150

  7,200

  180

  480

  30,000

  30

  14,000

  20

  370

  40,000

  30

  35,000

  —

  —

  Married women

  Gross investment income greater than or equal to £1,000 per year

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 per year

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  3,000

  330

  2,800

  1,060

  310

  7,000

  180

  3,400

  650

  320

  10,000

  170

  4,100

  510

  390

  258

  1 Wives with income from employment, self-employment or occupational pensions.

  There are estimated 80,000 non-earning taxpaying wives with total investment income of £760 million. It is not possible to provide an analysis of non-earning wives by income range.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish for 1990–91 and 1991–92 the information on investment income of females given in his answer of 6 April 1987,Official Report, columns 81–82; and if he will publish separate figures for females aged over 60 years.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Estimates for female taxpayers with investment income are given in the tables.
  259

  Gross investment income greater than or equal to —1,000 per year

  Gross investment income less than £1,000 per year

  Total income lower limit £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  Number (000's)

  Average investment income £ per year

  15,000

  90

  5,600

  270

  440

  20,000

  70

  8,200

  130

  500

  30,000

  30

  9,800

  20

  540

  40,000

  30

  21,000

  —

  —

  I regret it is not possible to publish separate figures for females aged over 60.

  Company Perks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the reduction in higher rates of tax has had on the giving of perks by companies; what is his estimate of the reduction in the value of such perks since 1979 as a proportion of the amount paid to those paying higher-rate tax; if he will estimate the taxable values in the current year of each class of benefit subject to taxation under special rules; and what estimate he has of the actual value of(a) the provision of accommodation and (b) cheap or interest free mortgages and loans for the purchase of accommodation.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: It is not possible to provide an estimate of the taxable benefits paid to higher rate taxpayers in 1978–79. The available analysis of estimates of the taxable value of benefits in kind and expenses payments in 1991–92 by type of benefit is as follows:

  Type of benefit

  Amount of taxable benefit

  (£ million)

  Car

  4,400

  Fuel

  550

  Beneficial loan

  180

  Private medical insurance

  420

  Car allowance

  190

  General expenses

  20

  Travelling and subsistence

  70

  Entertainment

  40

  Home telephone

  80

  Living accommodation

  110

  Educational assistance

  20

  Goods or services supplied at less than market value

  30

  Vouchers

  40

  Transferred assets

  110

  Other expenses and benefits

  1,100

  TOTAL

  7,360

  It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the actual value of provided accommodation or of cheap or interest-free loans for house purchase.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Seismic Monitoring
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether Her Majesty's Government support any broadband-3 component seismic data monitoring stations in the United Kingdom for scientific research purposes.
  260
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Her Majesty's Government support two broadband-3 component seismic data monitoring stations, and partially support another, in the United Kingdom. Data from these stations are available to the scientific community for research purposes.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total spending on(a) primary—infant and junior—and (b) secondary schools in England each year since 1979 in cash terms and at 1979 prices; and what was the percentage change in the level of spending in real terms between each of those years.

  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February, 1992, c. 525–27]: Following are revised tables showing corrected figures for spending on nursery and primary schools and secondary schools in England.

  Nursery and primary schools2

  Year

  Net recurrent expenditure £ million1

  Net recurrent expenditure at 1979–80 prices £ million3

  Real terms change on previous year Percentage

  1979–80

  1,908·1

  1,908·1

  —

  1980–81

  2,328·2

  1,967·5

  3·1

  1981–82

  2,522·2

  1,943·8

  -1·2

  1982–83

  2,656·1

  1,910·8

  -1·7

  1983–84

  2,765·4

  1,901·3

  -0·5

  1984–85

  2,863·0

  1,874·7

  -1·4

  1985–86

  3,050·9

  1,893·3

  1·0

  1986–87

  3,401·1

  2,043·4

  7·9

  1987–88

  3,829·1

  2,181·9

  6·8

  1988–89

  4,225·4

  2.246·4

  3·0

  1989–90

  4,761·7

  2,377·3

  5·8

  Secondary schools

  Year

  Net recurrent expenditure £ million1

  Net recurrent expenditure at 1979–80 prices £ million3

  Real terms change on previous year Percentage

  1979–80

  2,484·6

  2,484·6

  —

  1980–81

  3,093·4

  2,614·1

  5·2

  1981–82

  3,438·4

  2,649·8

  1·4

  1982–83

  3,691·5

  2,655·7

  0·2

  1983–84

  3,880·0

  2,667·7

  0·5

  1984–85

  4,017·3

  2,630·5

  -1·4

  1985–86

  4,352·3

  2,700·9

  2·7

  1986–87

  4,561·7

  2,740·6

  1·5

  1987–88

  4,906·7

  2,795·9

  2·0

  1988–89

  5,221·7

  2,776·1

  -0·7

  1989–90

  5,539·1

  2,765·4

  -0·4

  1 Net recurrent expenditure includes total expenditure other than costs of financing capital expenditure, less income other than from specific grants.

  2 Spending on nursery and primary schools was not collected separately for years after 1986–87, so expenditure figures cover both nursery and primary schools.

  3 Expenditure figures have been repriced to 1979–80 prices using the current GDP (Market Prices) Deflator index.

  261
  Note: The figures in the tables are derived from local education authorities' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  German Shipyards
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts his Department has made to ensure that German shipyards do not have an unfair advantage over British shipyards in tendering for new contracts.

  Mr. Leigh
  Support for all Community shipbuilders is subject to the terms of the seventh directive on a id to shipbuilding. Under the terms of the directive the European Commission sets the maximum level of support which they may receive for each contract.

  P and O Line
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department gave to British shipyards to tender for the construction of a new cruise liner for the P and O line.

  Mr. Leigh
  No requests for assistance were received.

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Auditing Practices Board over its proposal to introduce a going concern audit test on companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I met the chairman of the Auditing Practices Board recently to discuss its work programme, and he explained to me the board's current thinking on its proposals to revise the existing guidance on the auditor's considerations in respect of going concern.

  Investors (Compensation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the exclusion of promises to pay binding in Scots law from the investors compensation scheme; and from whom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The rules and operation of the investors compensation scheme are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has had about the protected withdrawal of insurance cover for the investors' compensation scheme; and whom those representations were from;

  (2) what representations he has received about the funding of the investors compensation scheme; and from whom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The funding arrangements of the investors compensation scheme are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Beer (Complaints)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received from members of the public in England concerning froth on beer.
  262
  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has received 22 such complaints since the beginning of 1991.

  Post Office (Customer Redress)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Post Office's arrangements for customer redress.

  Mr. Lilley
  As the citizens charter White Paper indicated, I asked the Post Office, in consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council—POUNC—to draw up a report on their present arrangements for customer redress. I have now received reports from the three Post Office businesses: Royal Mail, Royal Mail Parcelforce, and Post Office Counters Limited, together with responses from POUNC in respect of all three businesses. I will place both the reports and the responses in the Library of the House today.

  One of the key principles of the citizens charter concerns redress for consumers when service falls below the standards they are entitled to expect. Of course, getting it right first time is much to be preferred to compensating for service failures. But when things go wrong, it is important that the customer can be assured, first, that Post Office practice matches up to the best in the field; and secondly, that the customer knows what he or she is entitled to.

  On the first of these, the reports demonstrate the continued commitment each Post Office subsidiary is making, in consultation with POUNC, to ensure that they have the right compensation and redress practices for each business. While comparisons are not always straightforward, I am satisfied that Post Office arrangements are comparable to—and in several areas, surpass—those of similar companies or institutions.

  The need for increases in amounts paid in compensation must be carefully evaluated, for it would be wrong for money to be diverted from service improvement into over-generous compensation for poor services. I do recognise, however, that there is some scope for increases where they help stimulate efficiency, and I welcome, therefore, the Post Office and POUNC agreement, for example, on increased payments for added-value letter service failure to up to twice the service fee or a book of 10 first class stamps, whichever is the greater.

  On the question of ensuring a well-publicised and available complaints procedure, I note the commitment by all the businesses to increase the publicity given to compensation and redress schemes. Furthermore, I understand that it is the intention of the Post Office to set out compensation entitlements in the next edition of the "Post Guide", which is to be distributed to every home in the country during the course of this year.

  I am grateful to the Post Office and POUNC for all the hard work and hard thought that has been put into these reports, and encourage both organisations to continue these productive discussions—which are entirely in keeping with the spirit of the citizens charter.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement concerning the duty-free status of Chinese bicycles imported into the United Kingdom;
  263
  (2) if he will press the European Commission to change the import rules so that duty is applied retrospectively to all those imports of bicycles from China in excess of the approved import thresholds in 1991 and in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: Bicycles from China enter the United Kingdom under the European Community's generalised system of preferences —GSP—scheme which allows entry duty-free up to a threshold or ceiling of 9·45 mecu worth of bicycles. After this threshold is reached, duty may be reimposed by the Commission at the request of a member state if they are satisfied that domestic industry is being damaged by such imports. A review of the whole generalised system of preferences scheme is to be held this year. The views of the bicycle manufacturers, as of other sectors of industry, will be sought on changes which might be made to the operation of the scheme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 makes it possible to proscribe terrorist organisations such as the IRA. It also provides powers of examination, detention and exclusion, and also to counter financial assistance for terrorism. These powers are essential for the police to investigate and combat terrorism and form an essential part of the Government's counter-terrorist strategy.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report from the Viscount Colville of Culross QC on the operation in 1991 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have received such a report from Viscount Colville and have placed copies on the Library.

  Policing Costs (Hunts)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines to police forces about recovering costs of policing from fox and deer hunts along the same lines as costs recovered from football and other sporting activity.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Policing inside football grounds and at similar events is provided as a special police service, for which charges can be made under section 15 of the Police Act 1964. The guidance which has been issued on policing at football grounds includes general guidance on the principles of charging for special police services. The decision whether to provide a special police service is a matter for the chief constable concerned.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were held in prison during 1991.
  264
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average population in prison establishments in England and Wales during 1991 was 44,808.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the case of those convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Since 1982, there have been some 200 representations about the safety of these convictions.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are now being held in police cells in Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Lancashire and elsewhere as a result of the riot at Strangeways: and what were the corresponding figures six months ago, nine months ago and one year ago.

  Mrs Rumbold
  There are currently 625 prisoners being held in police cells as a result of the loss of accommodation at Manchester prison. Six months ago this figure was 552, nine months ago 487 and a year ago 582.

  Tobacco (Children)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 will come into force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Act, apart from section 4, will come into force on 1 March in England and Wales, and Scotland. Section 4, which deals with the display of warning statements in retail premises and on cigarette vending machines, will be brought into effect later in the year after separate consultations with the interested parties have been completed.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for an immediate newspaper advertising campaign to outline provision for postal and proxy voting at parliamentary elections.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As soon as the general election is announced, we shall run a newspaper and television advertising campaign, informing electors about their right to apply for an absent vote if they cannot get to the polling station to vote in person. We believe that such a campaign is likely to be most effective if launched once the date of the general election has been announced.

  Police, Leicestershire
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will approve an increase in the number of police in the Leicestershire force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has approved 13 additional posts for Leicestershire from 1 October 1991 and a further 26 police posts with effect from 1 April 1992, subject to confirmation by the police authority that it will meet its share of the cost. These approvals will provide for a police establishment of 1,853; an increase of 148 or 8.7 per cent. since 1979.

  Police, West Cumbria
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will visit west Cumbria to discuss matters relating to policing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no plans to do so at present.

  Community Service
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of community service as a sentence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The introduction in 1989 of monitored national standards for the operation of community service orders has successfully promoted a higher use of the orders by the courts. In 1990—the first full year of operation and the most recent for which figures are available—the number of people who began a community service order was 37,490. This was 10 per cent. more than in 1989 and without any reduction in the proportion of offenders—36 per cent.—who had previously been in custody.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the probation and after-care service.

  Mr. John Patten
  The planned commencement from October of the main provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 will give the 55 probation services in England and Wales an even more important role, especially in preparing advice to the courts and in supervising offenders in the community.

  Visas (Right of Entry)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to resist proposals for visitors to other EC countries on visas to thereby have the right to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  That is already my right hon. Friend's policy. The proposal for mutual recognition of visas which is contained in the draft external frontiers convention does not imply such a right.

  Police, Cambridgeshire
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in the police manpower levels in Cambridgeshire since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of November 1991 police strength in Cambridgeshire was 1,247; an increase since 1979 of 176 officers, or 16 per cent. My right hon. Friend approved 16 new posts from 1 October 1991, six more from 28 November and a further 10 posts from 1 April this year.

  Violence Against Women
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to help protect women against violent crime.
  266
  Mr. John Patten
  Government action in recent years has been directed towards tackling rape and domestic violence. In the light of Home Office research studies, which provided fresh insight into the nature of these crimes, we have taken a number of steps. We have issued guidance to the police on how to improve their response; we have strengthened the powers of the courts to punish offenders and to protect victims; and we have encouraged local agencies to work together to provide help and support to women who are victims of violent or sexual crimes.

  Police (Urban Areas)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the pressures on police in serving urban communities and the appropriate allocation of police manpower.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend considers requests from police authorities for increases in police establishments with the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. In formulating its advice, the inspectorate uses a manpower formula to aid assessment of the relative needs of forces, and one of the factors in that formula is the degree of urbanisation in each force area.

  Lollipop People
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lollipop people are known to be needed in Greater London; what is being done to recruit them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that at 11 February 1992 there were 208 vacancies on a total establishment of 1,350 schools crossing patrol posts. Recruitment effort is being directed to local communities by advertising in schools, libraries and community centres.

  Betting Shops (Evening Opening)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of representations he has received against the evening opening of betting shops has come from greyhound racing interests.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since issuing our consultation document on the evening opening hours of licensed betting offices on 14 October, the great majority of the representations we have received against evening opening have come from the greyhound racing industry and its supporters.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in reported crime since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to recorded crime. Figures for 1979 to 1989 are published in table 2.2 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1989" and figures for 1990 are published in table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 13/91. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  The British Crime Survey provides a measure of reported crime as experienced by adults in England and

  267
  Wales. The most recent available results show that there was a 30 per cent. increase in offences measured by the survey between 1981 and 1987, as against a 41 per cent. increase in comparable recorded offences.

  Murderers on Parole
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of convicted murderers on parole from Leyhill open prison in February 1988, February 1989, February 1990 and February 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the establishment from which ex-prisoners, still subject to a life licence, were originally released is not recorded centrally.

  Northern Ireland Prisoners
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further progress has been made in relation to Northern Ireland prisoners who are serving sentences in gaols in England and Wales to serve the remaining part of their sentences in gaols in Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The policy and practice governing the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions is being reviewed by an inter-departmental working party. We expect to receive the working party's report shortly.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost of the fire service in(a) England and Wales and (b) in the United Kingdom in 1979 and in the last year for which records are available;

  (2) how many fire appliances were in service in (a) England and Wales fire brigades and (b) the United Kingdom fire brigades in 1979 and the most recent year for which figures are available;

  (3) how many fire-fighting personnel were in post in fire brigades in (a) England and Wales and (b) the United Kingdom in 1979 and in the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested in relation to England and Wales is given in the table. Similar questions relating to the fire service in other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  1979

  1991

  Total cost1

  2355

  31,164

  (£ million)4

  825

  1,164

  Number of firefighters5

  48,648

  51,300

  Number of fire appliances6

  3,572

  3,462

  1 Includes local authority current and capital expenditure.

  2 1979–80 outturn.

  3 1991–92 estimated outturn.

  4 Expressed in real terms at 1991–92 prices using GDP deflator.

  5 Wholetime and part-time (retained) firefighters and control room staff.

  6 Pumping and special appliances.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special service calls the fire 268
  brigades of (a) England and Wales and (b) the United Kingdom responded to in 1979 and the most recent year for which records exist.

  Mr. John Patten
  Fire brigades attended 85,568 special service incidents during 1979 and 190,787 during 1990 in England and Wales. Figures for the United Kingdom are 90,508 and 198,868 respectively.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to how many call-outs to fires the fire services in England and Wales responded in(a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which records exist.

  Mr. John Patten
  Fire brigades attended 304,582 fires during 1979 and 400,904 during 1990 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Habib Somai
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make an early decision in the case of Mr. Habib Somai who first applied to remain as a spouse in this country on 22 January 1991, and whose Member of Parliament first wrote to him on 1 August 1991; and whether he will make a statement on the reasons for the time taken to deal with this application.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is about to write to the right hon. Member, conveying a decision on Mr. Somai's application. The delay in resolving this application is due, in part, to the need to obtain further information about Mr. Somai's original visa application in Tunis and to arrange an interview with Mr. Somai and his wife.

  Constituencies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the six largest geographical parliamentary constituencies in England and, in each case, show the acreage.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is set out in the tables. The areas are given in hectares and include land and inland water. A hectare is equivalent to 2·471 acres.

  Parliamentary Constituencies in England: The six largest constituencies, by geographical area

  Constituency

  Area in hectares

  Penrith and the Border

  327,964

  Hexham

  250,992

  Richmond (Yorks)

  233,012

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  231,456

  Skipton and Ripon

  218,136

  Torridge and West Devon

  214,465

  National Criminal Intelligence System
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will have access to the new integrated national criminal intelligence system; how many records the system is expected to hold; and what will be the source of the information held on the system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current project plan only allows national criminal intelligence service staff to input information on to the computer system. However, it is
  269
  intended that police forces and regional crime squads will have terminals for inquiry purposes and that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will be allowed restricted access.

  Until the functional specification has been agreed, it is not possible to say how many records the system will hold. The intelligence will come from police forces in the United Kingdom, regional crime squads and regional drugs wings, Interpol, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and other international enforcement agencies.

HEALTH

  Social Services
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) if he has any plans to compensate health authorities for any additional costs incurred by the failure of local authorities to meet their obligations to clients within the health authority boundaries;

  (2) what steps he takes to monitor additional costs falling upon health authorities as a consequence of industrial action by social services or other staff caring for vulnerable people in their communities;

  (3) what representations he has received from health authorities affected by the withdrawal of services by social services staff in Camden; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not aware of any calculations of excess costs being made by health authorities in these circumstances.

  The strike by social workers in Camden has disrupted social services in the borough, although statutory duties are being carried out on an emergency basis by management. The protracted nature of this dispute is clearly against the interests of the public and Camden residents. The dispute should he resolved quickly by the local authority and its work force.

  Dentists, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients registered with dentists in the Du rham area for each year since 1981 were(a) under 16 years, (b) between 16 and 65 years and (c) over 65 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Patients registered with dentists for the first time when the new dental contract was introduced in October 1990. The only figures available for a complete year are those for 1991. The information requested for the Durham family health services authority is as follows. All figures are for the year ending 31 December 1991.

  Number

  Under 18 years

  73,511

  18 to 64 years

  188,102

  65 or more years

  31,167

  Source: Dental Practice Board GDS Quarterly Statistics.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in Durham have resigned from the National Health Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Toxocara Canis
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table to show for each of the last three years his estimates of(a) the number of children in Great Britain who have been infected with toxocara canis, (b) how many of those infections are attributable to dogs, (c) how many are attributable to foxes and (d) how many are attributable to other canines; and what is his estimate of the level of infected (i) foxes and (ii) dogs in (1) urban and (2) rural areas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Human Toxocariasis is caused by a variety of species in the genus toxocara. Information collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre refers to infection caused by any of these parasites.

  The table lists the total number of laboratory reports of infections due to Toxocara species in children for the period 1988–91. These data cover England, Wales Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man, but not Scotland.

  No information is available on how many of these infections were attributable to dogs, foxes or other canines. The Public Health Laboratory Service is concerned predominantly with human infection and does not have information on the level of infection amongst urban and rural dogs and foxes.

  Toxocariasis

  Age Goup

  Laboratory reports by year

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1 year

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 to 4 years

  15

  8

  12

  11

  5 to 9 years

  9

  5

  8

  6

  10 to 14 years

  5

  3

  2

  1

  TOTAL

  29

  16

  22

  18

  Vapona Strips
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by his Department concerning the adverse effects on some human beings of contact with Vapona strips or similar insecticides.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  All insecticides have to be approved for use under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. Before approval is given advice must be sought from the statutory Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Manufacturers are required under the regulations to state on the product what precautions should be taken by those who are likely to use or come into contact with it. Provided these precautions are taken, it would be most unlikely for any adverse effects to be experienced. We are not aware of any adverse effects being reported from the use of these particular products.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the will state(a) the estimated population of 18 years and over and (b) the number of names on the electoral register.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimate of the United Kingdom population aged 18 and over, relating to mid-1990, is 44·3 million. There were 43·6 million names on the 1991
  271
  electoral register—qualifying date 10 October 1990. Information about the 1992 electoral register is still being collected.

  Prescription Charges
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates and amounts of increases in prescription charges, in pence and percentage terms, since June 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requested information is in the table. One hundred million more items are prescribed free now compared to 1979. One item in six now carries a charge. In 1979 it was one item in three.

  Prescription Charges: increases in pence and percentage terms June 1979 to April 1992.

  Date

  Increase

  Pence

  Per cent.

  16 July 1979

  25

  125·00

  1 April 1980

  25

  55·55

  1 December 1980

  30

  42·85

  1 April 1982

  30

  30·00

  1 April 1983

  10

  7·69

  1 April 1984

  20

  14·28

  1 April 1985

  40

  25·00

  1 April 1986

  20

  10·00

  1 April 1987

  20

  9·09

  1 April 1988

  20

  8·33

  1 April 1989

  20

  7·69

  I April 1990

  25

  8·92

  1 April 1991

  35

  11·47

  1 April 1992

  35

  10·29

  Liverpool Family Service Unit
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Liverpool family service unit respecting funding; and what his response has been.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received a letter from the chairman of the Liverpool family service unit about general funding for the unit. We have also received two applications from the Liverpool family service unit for funding specific projects and these are currently under consideration; it is not however our usual practice to fund local projects from the Department unless they are of national significance.

  In responding to the letter from the chairman of the Liverpool family service unit I have pointed out that the overall standard spending assessment—the Government's view of the appropriate level of local authority expenditure —for children's services in 1991–92 showed an increase of 18·4 per cent. over 1990–91, partly in order to take account of the implementation of the Children Act. In 1992–93, the first full year of the Children Act, standard spending on children's services will be over 27 per cent. higher than in 1990–91, or up nearly 14 per cent. in real terms over the two year period.

  It is for local authorities to decide how to encourage the provision of services by other, in particular voluntary, organisations within their own area. It is also for authorities to determined in the light of local circumstances the distribution of resources for services within their area.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional financial assistance he plans to provide to(a) local authorities and (b) voluntary organisations in order to enable them to carry out their duties under the provisions of the Children Act 1989; and if he intends to review the situation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have allowed for the full implementation of the Children Act in the local authority settlements for 1991–92 and 1992–93. Included in the latter is the introduction of a specific grant of £5·7 million to support expenditure of £8·1 million on the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service.

  We discuss with the local authority associations new pressures on social services expenditure each year to inform the Government's decision on the settlement.

  Voluntary organisations do not as such have duties under the Children Act except in relation to children looked after by them under section 61. This largely repeats their duties under section 64 of the Child Care Act 1980. Where voluntary organisations carry out duties on behalf of local authorities, such as under sections 17 and 47 of the Act, we would expect the authority to enter into a contract which sets out the financial basis upon which those duties are undertaken.

  The Government also provide support to a wide range of voluntary organisations in the child care field under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  Radiation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has issued to the public of the risk to health from the increased ultra-violet radiation resulting from ozone depletion.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Radiological Protection Board advises that its solar monitoring programme has not revealed any increase in ground levels of UV beyond the variations that would normally be expected.

  With regard to exposure to UV generally, the Health Education Authority publications, "Are you dying to get a suntan?" and "Can you avoid cancer? A guide to reducing your risks", contain advice on the health risks from UV light. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Department proposes to seek advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on what further action may be appropriate in the light of the studies referred to in the replies I gave the hon. Member on 20 December 1991 at columns 353–54.

  Patients' Fares
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether trust hospitals will operate the same system for the payment of fares for in-patients and out-patients as health authority hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All national health service units, whether trusts or directly managed, have a statutory obligation to reimburse fares for those in-patients and out-patients who satisfy the eligibility criteria.

  Social Services Training
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work has been done to evaluate the Department of Health's social services training support programme: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government fully recognise the vital importance of training social services staff to meet the challenges of implementing the Children Act, the recommendations of Sir William Utting's report "Children in the Public Care" and our community care changes. The social services training support specific grant will be £29 million in support of £41·4 million expenditure in 1992–93, an increase of nearly 100 per cent. in three years. The arrangements and allocations for local authorities were contained in local authority circular LAC(91)21, issued on 23 December 1991. The training support programme's scope and funding has increased year on year since its commencement in 1988–89, reflecting both its popularity and success in improving the quality and quantity of training for local authority staff. Staff from the voluntary and private sectors have also benefited. Three evaluation reports were published by the Department of Health social services inspectorate on 13 February 1992, on different aspects of the training support programme. Each provides good evidence of the success of the training support programme in increasing the availability of training for social services staff, and an indication of the benefits this brings for service provision.

  Copies of the documents mentioned are available in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Legislation (Plain English)
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will set a timetable for privatising the drafting of Government Bills and statutory instruments with the remit(a) that the draft shall state on its face what it does, without reference save in appendices, to existing legislation, (b) that it shall wherever possible employ comprehensible English terminology and grammar, (c) that it shall avoid ambiguity and alternative possible constructions and (d) that such drafts of statutory instruments unamendable by Parliament shall undergo special scrutiny before being laid before Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There are no plans to set such a timetable. Privatisation is not necessary to achieve the objectives detailed at(b) and (c) of my hon. Friend's question. As to (a), reference to existing legislation is in some contexts unavoidable, and as to (d) I believe that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments already performs an effective service for both Houses.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he will respond to the recommendation in paragraph 130 of the Select Committee on Procedure's third report of Session 1990–91 on parliamentary questions, concerning Government Departments' use of answers pursuant to previous answers; and if he will make a statement.
  274
  Mr. MacGregor
  I am still considering the report and will reply in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) how many children are in families receiving family credit;

  (2) how many families were receiving family credit at the latest available date; and if he will break these figures down into (a) one-parent and two-parent families and (b) one-earner and two earner families.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available information upon which a breakdown on the basis requested can be provided is for the end of July 1991, when there were 754,000 children in the 355,000 families receiving family credit. The latter figure breaks down as follows:

  Number

  (a) One parent families

  133,000

  Two parent families

  222,000

  (b) One earner families

  338,000

  Two earner families

  17,000

  Local Offices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his plans for the development of a new Paisley office; and when he expects works to commence and be completed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The development of local Benefits Agency offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what new-build or capital works were undertaken in relation to the Johnstone office in each year since 1980; and what was the value of these works;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the amount spent on (a) furniture and fittings, (b) interior decorations, (c) carpeting and floor coverings and (d) works associated with office redesign at the Johnstone office in each year since 1980.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  New build/Capital works

  Office redesign works £

  Maintenance (external fabric improvements) £

  1985–86

  nil

  1,821

  1986–87

  nil

  734

  1987–88

  nil

  3,501

  1988–89

  12,714

  1,084

  1989–90

  268,000

  2,885

  1990–91

  358,000

  5,161

  1 Minor refurbishment

  2 Computer installation

  3 Combining public waiting areas

  Figures prior to April 1988 do not include any work projects over £2,500, which were the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
  275

  Other capital expenditure

  Furniture and fittings £

  Interior decoration £

  Carpeting and floor coverings £

  1985–86

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1986–87

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1987–88

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1988–89

  nil

  9,200

  nil

  1989–90

  26,451

  1,000

  21,500

  1990–91

  12,021

  nil

  nil

  The information which I have provided does not include the years prior to 1985–86 as it is not readily available.

  The amount spent on works associated with office redesign has been shown in the new-build/capital figures.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the latest figures showing the spending per head on social security benefits in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Benefit expenditure in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Regional breakdowns of current levels of benefit expenditure are not available.

  Estimated average spending on social security per head of the population in Great Britain in 1991–92 is about £1,225.

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the disposable income available on a wage of £150 per week to(a) a lone parent with two children and (b) a four-person family.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the tables. All assumptions are set out in the published tax benefit model tables. Each family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to its size and to pay estimated average rent and community charge.

  It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people, and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents, so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay. My hon. Friend may further wish to note that the tax/benefit model tables show the total net income on income support for each family type and this information has been included in the tables.

  Year

  Residential care homes £ million

  Nursing homes £ million

  Annual equivalent expenditure £ million

  December 1979

  —

  —

  10

  December 1980

  —

  —

  18

  December 1981

  —

  —

  23

  December 1982

  —

  —

  39

  December 1983

  —

  —

  104

  276

  Single parent with wo children aged four and six

  Gross earnings (£pw)

  Take home pay (£pw)

  Family credit (£pw)

  Child benefit (£pw)

  Total net income (£pw)

  Net income after rent and community charge (£pw)

  150·00

  126·75

  12·55

  22·35

  161·65

  130·92

  Total Net income on income support = £115·06

  Net income after rent and community charge on income support = £84·33

  Married couple with two children aged four and six

  Gross earnings (£pw)

  Take home pay £pw)

  Family credit (£pw)

  Child benefit (£pw)

  Total net income (£pw)

  Net income after rent and community charge (£pw)

  150·00

  126·75

  12·55

  16·75

  156·38

  120·95

  Total net income on income support = £136·97

  Net income after rent and community charge on income support = £101·54

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in the month of January on Merseyside how many people in receipt of income support or housing benefit were registered as in receipt of old age pension, disabled and having children under five years; and how many of those so registered received cold weather payments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Asthma
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue guidelines with a view to assisting compensation claims in respect of industrial asthma being more quickly settled.

  Mr. Scott
  We are not aware of undue delay in deciding industrial injuries benefit claims for occupational asthma.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state for each year since 1979 the total amount paid in supplementary benefit or income support towards(a) private residential care home fees, (b) private nursing home fees and (c) voluntary care home fees including estimated expenditure for the current financial year; and if he will express each element as a percentage of total expenditure for each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is shown in the table:
  277

  Year

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes £ million

  Annual equivalent expenditure £ million

  December 1984

  —

  —

  200

  December 1985

  —

  —

  348

  February 1986

  —

  —

  459

  May 1987

  —

  —

  671

  May 1988

  —

  —

  878

  May 1989

  659 (60 per cent.)

  446 (40 per cent.)

  1,105

  May 1990

  741 (58 per cent.)

  529 (42 per cent.)

  1,270

  May 1991

  888 (47 per cent.)

  984 (53 per cent.)

  1,872

  11991–92

  930 (48 per cent.)

  1,020 (52 per cent.)

  1,950

  1 Figures for 1991–92 are the estimated outturn of total income support expenditure on homes for the year.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for December 1979 to December 1984 are taken from the annual statistical inquiry; figures for December 1985 to May 1991 are taken from the quarterly statistical inquiry and are based on "snapshot" data.

  2. Separate data are not readily available for residential care homes and nursing homes before May 1989 and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost.

  3. Separate data are not collected for voluntary homes.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the value in 1992 prices of child benefit had it, since its inception, been increased annually by the equivalent of the rise in the value of(a) the retail price index and (b) average earnings.

  Mr. Jack
  The full child benefit scheme started in April 1979 when the rate of benefit was £4 a week. Using the movements in the relevant indices between the April 1979 and October 1991 uprating dates the values would have been(a) £9·95 and (b) £12·94. Comparable information is not yet available for April 1992, when we are again increasing both levels of child benefit.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the Government's response to the fourth report of the Social Security Committee, Session 1990–91, and to the first report of the Health Committee, Session 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's response was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions he has used his discretionary power to ensure that beneficiaries of pension schemes wound up because of insolvency have been guaranteed the guaranteed minimum pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: The numbers of occupational pension schemes which wound up, for whatever reason, with insufficient funds to make the necessary payments to buy the members back into SERPS and had those payments treated as paid are in the table. Separate figures in respect of those cases where the employing company had become insolvent are not available.
  278

  Year

  Number of schemes

  1978–79

  1—

  1979–80

  1—

  1980–81

  9

  1981–82

  nil

  1982–83

  6

  1983–84

  38

  1984–85

  55

  1985–86

  60

  1986–87

  119

  1987–88

  97

  1988–89

  74

  1989–90

  63

  1990–91

  49

  21991–92

  47

  Notes:

  1 Information not available.

  2 (to date).

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions the Occupational Pension Board has used the powers under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 to prevent breaches in the conditions upon which a contracting out certificate has been granted.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: I understand from the Occupational Pensions Board that the number of individual contracting out certificates cancelled because of a salary-related occupational pension scheme's failure to meet the financial requirements set by the board has been as follows:

  Number

  1981

  3

  1982

  12

  1983

  19

  1984

  28

  1985

  30

  1986

  29

  1987

  23

  1988

  18

  1989

  107

  1990

  81

  1991

  100

  1 1992

  Nil

  279

  1 To date.

  Note: The upturn since 1989 in the main reflects problems experienced in one life office responsible for a large number of small schemes.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list which pension issues he has referred to the Occupational Pensions Board for its consideration; and if he will list the reports the Occupational Pensions Board has made in respect to each of these references.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: In fulfilling specific remits from successive Secretaries of State under section 66 of the Social Security Act 1973, the Occupational Pensions Board has considered and reported on the following issues:

  Solvency, Disclosure of Information and Member Participation in Occupational Pension Schemes

  (Cmnd. 5904: February 1975);
  Equal Status for Men and Women in Occupational Pension Schemes

  (Cmnd. 6599: August 1976);
  Occupational Pension Scheme Cover for Disabled People

  (Cmnd. 6849: June 1977);
  Improved Protection for the Occupational Pension Rights and Expectations of early leavers

  (Cmnd. 8271: June 1981);
  Greater Security for the Rights and Expectations of Members of Occupational Pension Schemes

  (Cmnd. 8649: October 1982);
  Protecting Pensions: Safeguarding Benefits in a Changing Environment

  (Cm. 573: February 1989).

  The terms of reference for each remit are in each of the reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  In addition, the board has reported on numerous sets of draft regulations referred to it for consideration.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the company in each case where he has used his powers since 1979 to provide guaranteed minimum pensions after insolvency; and what was(a) the total cost and (b) the average remaining pension shortfall in each case.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information is not available in the form requested because the Department deals with pension schemes rather than with the associated companies. Records are not, therefore, maintained of the companies concerned. Similarly, the remaining pension shortfall after the members' rights in SERPS have been restored is not known. The number of occupational pension schemes winding up, for whatever reason, with insufficient funds to buy the members back into SERPS, the amounts for buying back into SERPS that have been treated as paid and the amounts of those payments subsequently recovered are in the table. Separate information in respect of cases where an associated employer has become insolvent is not collected.

  Year

  Number of schemes involved

  Amount treated as paid (£000)

  Amount recovered (£000)

  1978–79

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1979–80

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1980–81

  9

  8

  Nil

  1981–82

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1982–83

  6

  8

  5

  280

  Year

  Number of schemes involved

  Amount treated as paid (£000)

  Amount recovered (£000)

  1983–84

  38

  162

  25

  1984–85

  55

  48

  18

  1985–86

  60

  75

  39

  1986–87

  119

  224

  113

  1987–88

  97

  105

  28

  1988–89

  74

  122

  39

  1989–90

  63

  153

  91

  1990–91

  49

  96

  55

  21991–92

  47

  150

  33

  1 Information not available.

  2 To date.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households, from data taken for the annual statistical inquiry, in 1990 and 1991, are having weekly deductions made from their supplementary benefit or income support, as appropriate, for electricity and how many for gas(a) under £2 per week and (b) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £40 per week.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: The information required for 1990 on deductions from income support for electricity and gas is given in the table. No data are currently available from the 1991 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  Cases with deductions for Electricity

  Cases with deductions for Gas

  Total number of cases with deductions

  98,000

  122,500

  £0·01 to £1·99

  2,500

  1,000

  £2·00

  500

  500

  £2·01 to £3·00

  4,500

  2,000

  £3·01 to £4·00

  7,000

  6,000

  £4·01 to £5·00

  6,500

  7,500

  £5·01 to £6·00

  8,500

  9,500

  £6·01 to £7·00

  8,000

  10,000

  £7·01 to £8·00

  9,000

  15,500

  £8·01 to £9·00

  9,000

  17,500

  £9·01 to £10·00

  7,000

  13,000

  £10·01 to £11·00

  7,000

  11,000

  £11· 01 to £12·00

  4,000

  10,000

  £12·01 to £13·00

  4,500

  6,000

  £13·01 to £14·00

  5,000

  6,000

  £14·01 to £15·00

  2,500

  3,000

  £15·01 to £16·00

  1,500

  1,500

  £16·01 to £17·00

  2,500

  500

  £17·01 to £18·00

  1,500

  1,000

  £18·01 to £19·00

  2,000

  500

  £19·01 to £20·00

  2,000

  —

  £20·01 to £21· 00

  500

  500

  £21·01 to £22·00

  500

  —

  £22·01 to £23·00

  500

  —

  £23·01 to £24·00

  500

  —

  £24·01 to £25·00

  —

  —

  £25·01 to £26·00

  500

  —

  £26·01 to £27·00

  500

  —

  £27·01 to £28·00

  —

  —

  £28·01 to £29·00

  —

  —

  £29·01 to £30·00

  —

  —

  £30·01 to £31·00

  —

  —

  £31·01 to £32·00

  —

  —

  £32·01 to £33·00

  —

  —

  £33·01 to £34·00

  —

  —

  £34·01 to £35·00

  —

  —

  £35·01 to £36·00

  —

  —

  281
  Note: All figures have been rounded to the nearest five hundred. Totals will therefore not match those figures published in the Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1990.

SCOTLAND

  Privatisation (Forestry Commission)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 30 January,Official Report, columns 633–34, if he will make a statement on the basis of the calculation of the privatisation proceeds of the Forestry Commission for 1991–92; how much land he expects to be sold; and how much income has been received to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The sum of £16 million quoted in the answer to which the hon. Member refers is the estimated proceeds from the disposal of Forestry Commission land and buildings in 1991–92, as part of the programme of disposals announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), on 16 June 1989,Official Report, columns 544–45. The commission expects to sell about 10,000 hectares during the year. Some £12 million had been received by 21 January, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to speed up the fixing of hearing dates for compensation claims made by retired industrial workers suffering terminal illnesses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission will shortly be publishing a report on the adverse effects created by the death of parties pursuing certain types of reparation action: the report will pave the way for a reform of the present law.

  Expedited ie "fast stream" procedures for the disposal of certain repatriation actions already exist in the supreme courts and the courts are aware of the need to accelerate in-court procedures where special circumstances apply, subject always to the need to preserve the rights and interests of all parties to a litigation.

  In regard to the sheriff courts, the Sheriff Court Rules Council is currently considering proposals for reducing delays in disposing of actions generally, including compensation claims of the type referred to, and a working group is currently examining ways of improving the programming and scheduling of court business.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future organisation of the Scottish Prison Service.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided that, under the "next steps" initiative, the Scottish Prison Service will become an Executive Agency within the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. I intend that this should be from 1 April 1993. Consultations with the trade unions will begin shortly.

  Traffic Systems, Hawick
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the current timetable for consideration of the internal traffic management systems in Hawick; and when he now expects to be in a position to authorise the funds and capital consents required to enable work to start to alleviate the current congestion.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: I expect a report on proposals to provide improved traffic management in Hawick to be submitted to the Secretary of State by Borders regional council in the course of the next two to three months. Until this report is available it is not possible to estimate the level of funding which would be required.

  A7, Hawick
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he is yet in a position to authorise the local roads authority to make progress on any significant road improvement schemes on the A7 trunk route south of Hawick; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what progress has been made to date on the possibility of improving the A7 trunk route south of Hawick at Colterscleuch; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The work undertaken by the A7 management group, in their second interim report, has allowed the identification of sites at Colterscleuch and between Mosspeeble and Bush as presenting opportunities for the creation of new high quality overtaking sections. Borders regional council and Dumfries and Galloway regional council have therefore been commissioned to carry out design work on two "convoy buster" schemes on the A7 at these sites. These schemes will provide important overtaking opportunities for drivers who can find themselves stuck in convoys for some miles on sections of this route even though traffic is light. The schemes should ease hold-ups, relieve driver frustration and reduce the temptation for reckless overtaking on the road between Hawick and the English border. This design work will start in advance of the conclusion of the full study. Approval for the construction phase will be considered as soon as the design and any necessary statutory procedures and land acquisition have been completed.

  "Convoy busting" schemes such as the two to be designed for the A7 are being developed on a number of Scottish long-distance single carriageway trunk roads as a means of securing real and rapid improvements for drivers on lightly trafficked routes without the inevitable delay and costs associated with complete re-engineering of a route. In many cases wholesale re-engineering cannot be justified given the high cost and limited traffic.

  Excellent progress has also been made in implementing accident remedial measures at ten locations between Hawick and the Border since our proposals were set out in the A7 pamphlet published last year. I look forward to the completion of this work during the current financial year.

  I am confident that these measures will bring direct benefits to many drivers through improved journey times and safer driving conditions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the collection
  283
  of information on road traffic accidents which are occurring on the A7 trunk route between Hawick and Langholm and which are not being reported; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on all injury road accidents reported to the police is provided to the Scottish Office as part of a Great Britain wide system on a report form called stat 19. Damage-only accidents do not have to be reported to the police by drivers and information on them is not therefore collected by the Scottish office. There is no intention of changing this position either for all Scotland or for the A7.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Service
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing, for each of the last three years for which figures are available, how many applications were received and processed for posts in(a) the Civil Service in Northern Ireland, (b) the Housing Executive, (c) each health and social services board and (d) each education and library board; and how many employees each of these bodies had at the beginning of each such year and the end of the last year.

  Staff in Posts

  Beginning 1988

  Beginning 1989

  Beginning 1990

  Beginning 1991

  End 1991

  Civil Service

  —

  29,222

  29,751

  29,469

  28,864

  Housing Executive

  5,113

  5,299

  5,374

  5,051

  —

  Health and Social Services Boards:

  Eastern

  —

  —

  32,342

  31,706

  —

  Northern

  —

  —

  10,732

  10,680

  —

  Southern

  —

  —

  10,523

  10,214

  —

  Western

  —

  —

  8,750

  8,839

  —

  Education and Library Boards

  Belfast

  —

  —

  4,276

  4,195

  4,063

  North-Eastern

  —

  —

  5,505

  5,775

  5,908

  South-Eastern

  —

  —

  4,463

  4,328

  4,073

  Southern

  —

  —

  5,392

  5,469

  5,462

  Western

  —

  —

  5,035

  5,050

  5,098

  Air Pollution
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken by the air quality monitoring network in Northern Ireland to reduce levels of air pollution.

  Mr. Needham
  The monitoring network is an independent, United Kingdom-wide system operated on behalf of the Department of the Environment. Its work is supplemented locally by the monitoring carried out by a number of district councils.

  The data available from all the monitoring systems operating in Northern Ireland provide a basis from which air quality guidelines and targets can be set. and assessments can be made of the efficacy of measures to cut urban pollution. Such measures include the continued introduction of smoke control areas; proposed regulations to control the composition and sale of certain fuels in smoke control areas; catalytic converters in all new petrol-engined cars from 1 January 1993; new MOT emission tests; and tough new standards for diesel vehicles.
  284
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested insofar as it can be readily provided is set out in the following tables.

  Applications received and processed

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Civil Service

  10,153

  20,991

  24,960

  8,231

  Housing Executive1

  —

  —

  7,000

  4,500

  Health and Social Services

  Boards1 —

  Eastern

  —

  —

  28,456

  —

  Northern

  —

  —

  11,131

  —

  Southern

  —

  —

  7,825

  —

  Western

  —

  —

  10,774

  —

  Education and Library

  Boards1:—

  Belfast

  —

  —

  8,776

  6,906

  North-Eastern

  —

  —

  6,450

  5,302

  South-Eastern

  —:

  —

  6,685

  5,633

  Southern

  —

  —

  6,368

  8,087

  Western

  —

  —

  5,241

  6,716

  Notes:

  1. Information about applications in the calendar year prior to 1990 is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  2. All applications received are processed.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to assist job creation in the textile industry in the constituency of South Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The south Down area benefits from the wide range of measures currently undertaken by the Government to promote economic and industrial development throughout Northern Ireland.

  Training Statistics
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been registered on(a) job training programmes and (b) youth training programmes in the constituency of South Down since 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991 and from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991; and, of these, how many have received full-time employment.

  Mr. Needham
  From 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991, 1,436 adults and 2,209 young people and from 1 April 1991
  285
  to 31 December 1991, 632 adults and 868 young people entered the job training programme and youth training programme respectively in the constituency of South Down.

  Information on the destination of these precise cohorts of entrants is not available. However during the periods mentioned the numbers leaving the job training programme and the youth training programme in this area who were known to have moves into employment were as follows:

  Adults

  Young people

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991

  362

  830

  1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991

  231

  286

  In addition, at 31 December 1991, there were 178 trainees who had entered employment and whose training was continuing within the youth training programme.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the Equal Opportunities Commission; how many persons are employed by the Commission; and how many of these employees are from the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities.

  Mr. Needham
  The members of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland are as follows:

  Mrs. Mary Clark-Glass (Chairman)

  Mr. R. A. Coughlin

  Mr. S. B. Dickson

  Mrs. P. Feeney

  Ms. A. Hegarty

  Ms. P. McKeown

  Ms. L. Walker

  Ms. M. Young

  There is currently one vacancy.

  At 1 January 1992 the Commission employed 22 staff and, as indicated in the monitoring return due for submission to the Fair Employment Commission, the religious composition of these staff was as follows:

  Number

  Protestant

  12

  Roman Catholic

  9

  Cannot be determined

  1

  Pay and Display Car Parks
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total income for each month to the Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) since the scheme came into operation from pay and display car parks in Lame, County Antrim; and what additional costs have been incurred per month for supervising pay and display car parks in Lame, County Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  Since the scheme came into operation on 14 October 1991 the monthly income has been as follows:

  £

  October

  2,124

  November

  4,487

  December

  6,166

  January

  4,526

  286
  Supervision costs are approximately £1,100 per month.

  Government Training Centres
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are registered on waiting lists at each of the following government training centres(a) Felden, (b) Ballymena and (c) Ballymoney; and for how long each person has been awaiting training or re-qualification.

  Mr. Needham
  The following is the information:

  Felden training centre—138 (of whom 50 are waiting for short computer courses).

  Ballymena training centre—56 (of whom 21 are waiting for short computer courses).

  Ballymoney training unit—6.

  Information on the length of time that each person has been on the waiting lists could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make it possible for government training centres to purchase training from private sector providers or permit persons seeking training or requalification to do so at their nearest approved training facility even if it is in the private sector.

  Mr. Needham
  It is already possible for training centres of the Training and Employment Agency to purchase training from private and public sector providers in cases where the training required cannot be provided from the training centres' own resources. In practice, however, it is more usual for private sector providers to purchase training from the training centres. Persons seeking training or requalification may do so at any training facility regardless of whether it is in the private or public sector. Government financial support under the youth training and job training programme is available in each case.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional costs will be incurred to public expenditure on transport costs in respect of a trainee normally resident in Larne but required to travel for training to(a) Ballymena government training centre and (b) Ballymoney government training centre.

  Mr. Needham
  The following is the information.

  Ballymena Training Centre

  By Public Transport—£13·00 per week

  By Private Transport—£42·43 per week

  Ballymoney Training Unit

  By Public Transport—£29·00 per week

  By Private Transport—£50.00 per week.

  Car Parking, Larne
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicle parking spaces are available in Lame, County Antrim, for use under pay and display arrangements.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of 409.

  Training
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to meet representatives of community-based training organisations or community workshops to discuss problems arising from block funding arrangements; and if he will make a statement.
  287
  Mr. Needham
  I met representatives of the Northern Ireland Association of Community-based Training Organisations to discuss funding issues on 19 February 1992.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applicants were transferred from the waiting list at Felden training centre during 1991–92 to waiting lists at other training centres.

  Mr. Needham
  During 1991–92 to date, 48 persons were transferred from the waiting list of Felden training centre to Boucher Road training centre and 29 persons from Felden training centre to Ballymena training centre. All such transfers are with the agreement of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is being made for ex GEC/Alsthom employees who are now more than six months unemployed to obtain re-training and re-qualification.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the restart programme—for those unemployed for six months or more—interviews with ex-GEC Alsthom employees began on 15 January 1992.

  To date, all 66 in this group have been interviewed. Twenty-five have made job applications, 17 have applied for training and 19 applied to a job club.

  Of the remaining five, three have registered voluntarily for employment and two have been unable to accept any opportunities offered due to domestic circumstances.

  Metal-framed Windows
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which housing estates the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has replaced metal-framed windows in the past six years; and if he will indicate how old the houses are in each instance and the number of houses improved.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I have been advised by the chairman that the information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Annalong Harbour
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make improvements to the harbour at Annalong, County Down.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been charged with an offence under section 29 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 or the equivalent offence in earlier Acts, giving the numbers charged in each calendar year since the creation of the offence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: No persons have been charged with an offence under section 29 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, nor with the equivalent offence introduced by section 11 of the 1987 Act.

DEFENCE

  ELF Communications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is continuing research into extremely low frequency communications.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The MOD is currently not pursuing research into this field.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of(a) low level, (b) intermediate level and (c) high level radioactive wastes are currently stored at (i) Aldermaston, (ii) Burghfield and (iii) Llanishen; and if he will distinguish between materials being temporarily stored and those being permanently stored.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Wastes from all three sites for which a current national disposal route is available are stored on the sites temporarily only pending transfer to a disposal site. No high level waste is produced at any of the sites of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Low level waste only is produced at Burghfield and Llanishen, and both low and intermediate level wastes are produced at Aldermaston. Long-term storage of wastes, for which no disposal route is currently available, is carried out in purpose-built stores at Aldermaston. The stores are subject to regular monitoring and surveillance, and constitute no danger to the public, the work force or the environment. At December 1991, which is the latest date for which figures are available, the volumes of wastes stored at Aldermaston are 1,800 cu/m of low level waste and 2,100 cu/m of intermediate level waste; at Burghfield no waste is stored; and at Llanishen 19 cu/m of low level waste only is stored.

  Uranium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which subheads of which votes costs are attributed by his Department for enrichment in the United States of British uranium for defence purposes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Such costs are attributed to class 1, vote 2—defence procurement. It would not be in the national interest to reveal further details of vote attribution.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are continuing exchanges of British military plutonium for United States highly enriched uranium.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It would not be in the national interest to disclose such details of the nuclear procurement programme.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date(a) design work and (b) white commissioning started for (i) the A89 building, (ii) the A90 building and (iii) the A91 building at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The dates for(a) design work and (b) white commissioning are as follows:

  (i) A89—design work commenced in 1983; much of the building is already in use, white commissioning of the remainder will begin shortly.

  289

  (ii) A90—design work commenced in 1981; the early stages of white commissioning began in 1990

  (iii) A91—design work commenced in 1982; white commissioning began in 1990.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the problems with new building work at AWE Aldermaston has any implications for the dismantling of British nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date building A45 at AWE Aldermaston was first declared operational.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The building was first declared operational in 1957.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role and function of the A89 building at AWE Aldermaston; on what date construction work on this building commenced; on what date building work was completed; and on what date this building is scheduled to be operational.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A89 provides office, laboratory and other facilities to support buildings concerned with the treatment of radioactive waste. Construction began in 1985 and was completed at the end of 1988. Part of the building is currently in full use, with the rest expected to come into operation later this year.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure on the Trident programme in each year since the beginning of the programme expressed in(a) then year prices and (b) current prices.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Expenditure each year since the beginning of the Trident programme is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Historical (Outturn) prices

  Constant 1991–92 prices and £1 = $1·59

  1980–81

  3

  7

  1981–82

  30

  55

  1982–83

  69

  110

  1983–84

  92

  128

  1984–85

  162

  212

  1985–86

  264

  352

  1986–87

  369

  495

  1987–88

  579

  738

  1988–89

  713

  859

  1989–90

  923

  1,073

  1990–91

  993

  1,080

  11991–92

  1,155

  1,155

  1 The figure for 1991–92 is an estimate.

  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any nuclear-powered submarines that have been decommissioned or are awaiting decommissioning have been moved since 22 July 1991.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No, other than small distances within naval bases.
  290
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long his Department has been carrying out feasibility studies into the options for the disposal of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following a decision in 1989 not to pursue the immediate sea disposal of HMS Dreadnought, studies were initiated into alternative methods of disposal for decommissioned nuclear submarines. These studies continue.

  Terrorists (Dependants' Claims)
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims have been made against the Ministry of Defence by dependants of terrorists killed by the security forces in line of duty in the last five years; and what sums were paid in compensation in each of these claims.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Claims data are not maintained in the format requested. The recorded data does not distinguish between dependants of terrorists and others.

  Arms Control Implementation Group
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date for the maintenance and operation of the joint arms control implementation group; and what commitments have been made to support the group in its role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The joint arms control implementation group (JACIG) was established at RAF Scampton in 1990 and became fully operational on I January 1991. Since then, JACIG has been involved in a full programme of training, exercises and evaluation visits, thus ensuring that inspections in the United Kingdom and overseas are conducted effectively and in accordance with the terms and spirit of the Vienna document and INF treaty; and of the CFE treaty once it enters into force. The initial setting-up cost for JACIG was £1.4 million at current prices; running costs have totalled £3.2 million at current prices to date.

  Seismic Monitoring
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution United Kingdom scientists have made to the group of scientific experts on technical test 2 seismic monitoring system established in April 1991 by the group of scientific experts of the United Nations Committee on Disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The group of scientific experts (GSE), a group established under the auspices of the United Nations conference on disarmament, set up a six week experiment called the GSE technical test. The United Kingdom participated fully in this experiment which involved the transmission of data of each seismic disturbance detected by the United Kingdom national seismic station located at Eskdalemuir, Scotland. The data were used by experimental international data centres to produce a daily bulletin of seismic disturbances.

  Type 22 Frigates
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 632, how many of the type 22 batch 1

  291
  frigates have been modified to provide extra accommodation for young officers; at what cost; how many officers will undertake initial sea training in each ship; for what periods of time; and how many type 22 batch 1 frigates will at any one time be unavailable for normal operations as a result.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Three type 22 batch I frigates have been converted: HMS Broadsword, HMS Brazen and HMS Brilliant, HMS Battleaxe is to follow later in the year. The cost of these modifications to date has been in the order of £514,000.

  The modification provides extra accommodation on each ship for up to 65 young officers who will undertake
  292
  initial sea training (1ST) for eight weeks, seven of which are spent at sea. IST will not affect the operational availability of these ships.

  Tugs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, columns 511–12, whether the costs of the new tugs Impetus and Impulse will be attributed to the Trident programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

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

Horn of Africa: British Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will be supporting the new United Nations humanitarian initiative for the Horn of Africa, and if so, how.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, on 13th February we pledged bilateral food and non-food aid worth around £23 million in response to the recent United Nations appeal for the Horn of Africa. Britain will also meet its share of the European Community's contribution to the appeal, which is likely to be substantial.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am sure he appreciates that the British public have demonstrated incredible spontaneous support for the people in need in Africa and that they will therefore be looking to the Government to do everything possible. Many of us are worried about access to those in need. Can the Minister say something about the pursuance and fulfilment of the Security Council resolution of 23rd January on the situation in Somalia? What is being done about the thousands of refugees in Sudan who are reportedly being moved away from Khartoum into the desert, where there are no facilities whatever? What is being done to handle the law and order situation in Ethiopia?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the House would like to join me in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the work that he did in his previous capacity in focusing everybody's attention on this important area. As he says, the three countries have enormous problems. We have already given aid to Kenya to help that country with the Somalian refugees, and we are watching the situation carefully.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the suggestion made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Cheshire, in his maiden speech that we should supply troops to guard the United Nations food convoys in that part of the world? If no consideration has been given to that, why not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that consideration has been given to that matter. All issues raised in the House are looked at carefully. We have not come to a conclusion because sufficient food supplies are getting through. There are 450,000 tonnes in the pipeline to April. The point of the appeal, in which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was so involved, is to ensure that supplies continue from April onwards.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while the £23 million that the British have contributed is to be applauded, have any other countries or any other part of the United Nations made a similar contribution or provided similar help? If the Minister cannot tell me now, will he write and let me know how our contribution is being administered in the Horn of Africa?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our contribution of about £23 million equates to 40 million dollars. We understand that Sweden has pledged 20 million dollars; Canada, between 20 and 25 million dollars; and the Netherlands, 5 million dollars. Characteristically, we are again among the first to respond and by the largest amount.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much we on these Benches appreciate the tributes that the Minister paid to my noble friend Lord Judd. Is it not a fact, however, that the Secretary-General has asked for funds amounting to 621.6 million dollars for his emergency fund? What funds have been pledged by donors and what funds have been produced towards that emergency fund?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listed the pledges made in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. The appeal was set up for a six-month period. As there is sufficient food in the pipeline to cover until the end of March, the appeal was made to ensure that the pipeline continues thereafter. That is why the pledges are being given. We hope that they will soon be increased and translated into payments.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sorry to have to intervene again. However, is it not a fact that some of the funds are needed not only for food, but for medicines, and that the United Nations Children's Fund has asked for 60 million dollars simply for food? What pledges have been made towards that fund, and what donations have already taken place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know about other countries, but we have made other pledges also and payments of over £8 million for the sort of things that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned, including for seeds and food.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind the grave political, economic and social situation in the Gulf, and the fact that the appeal is one of the first major initiatives of the new Secretary-General, cannot the Government be more positive and direct in what they are doing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, we are among the first. Our pledge is twice that of any other country. Indeed, only three other countries have pledged.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister say something about the British Government's attitude, through the United Nations, to the question of sovereignty? As my noble friend Lord Judd pointed out, one of the major difficulties is gaining access to the people, including the refugees, for whom the humanitarian aid—the food and other things—is meant. Are the British Government prepared, on the

1361
basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution, to override sovereignty in order to get the humanitarian aid through to those people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in certain circumstances where law and order have broken down, it is difficult to get the aid to the people who distribute it. I am sure that we should all like to pay tribute to the marvellous job that the non-governmental organisations are doing in difficult circumstances, especially in some parts of Somalia, where it is extremely difficult to get the food through.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's previous answer, does he accept that nobody is criticising Her Majesty's Government and all those who have given aid in this respect? I thought that the question was, "What are we doing in the European Community and the United Nations to bring greater assistance to that part of the world?"
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we continue to play an active part in the Community and shall continue to work hard to ensure that other countries fulfil the same obligations that we have met.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question about sovereignty?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that, although we all appreciate the steps that the Government have taken, we are not complacent and believe that we should be doing as much as possible. It would be reassuring, however, to hear what the Government are doing to achieve maximum co-ordination and co-operation within the ambits of the United Nations and of the European Community? What are they doing to ensure that supplies get through to those in need? The NGOs and others are becoming disturbed about the fact that it is impossible to get access in countries such as Sudan and Somalia.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree that it is difficult to get access in certain parts of the Horn where law and order have broken down and where there is civil war. However, that is something on which we must work with the Secretary-General of the United Nations; it is not something that we can do on our own.

Iraqi Arms: UN Monitoring
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the light of Saddam Hussein's repudiation of the terms of the United Nations Security Council's resolution imposing long-term monitoring of the Iraqi arms industry.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a special mission headed by the executive chairman of the special commission will arrive in Iraq tomorrow with the
1362
purpose of securing the unconditional agreement by Iraq to implement all its obligations under the relevant resolutions. The mission will stress the serious consequences if such agreement is not forthcoming. We strongly support the mission. We are firmly committed to the work of the UN Special Commission and its calls for Iraq to comply fully with all Security Council resolutions
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will one of the mission's objectives be to ensure that there is a proper investigation of the production of weapons of mass destruction? Will it show full determination to stop that production so long as Saddam Hussein is there?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes; and that will be backed up by another team led by a UK chief inspector which will be going out on Friday.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we warmly welcome what the Minister said about the visit to Iraq of the United Nations commission. We wish it every success. Is not evidence accumulating week by week that the regime in Baghdad is flouting United Nations resolutions? Is there any evidence that any progress is being made by the team which is supposed to be inspecting the stations where there are the weapons of mass destruction referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Has any progress been made?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is because of the anxieties that we, among other countries, have raised, that the special mission, headed by the executive chairman, is going to Iraq, so as to draw to Iraq's attention the serious consequences of not complying with Security Council resolutions. Inspectors have discovered an undeclared biological research programme for military purposes, but no evidence of weapons production; some 46,000 filled chemical munitions; 79,000 unfilled chemical munitions; over 600 tonnes of chemical weapon agent; 3,000 tonnes of chemical precursors; and they have supervised the destruction of 62 ballistic missiles; 10 missile launchers; an assembled 350 mm supergun; and components for a 350 mm and a 1,000 mm supergun.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the United Nations teams which have been to Iraq are greatly to be congratulated on the work that they have done, not just because of what they have discovered, as the Minister has just told us, but because of the great courage and determination that they have shown in achieving those ends? Nevertheless, does not considerable worry exist as to what can be done with that information and what power the international community has to proceed? Can the Minister assist us?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in the first question that he asked, for which I thank him. The investigators and the commission have done an excellent job in somewhat difficult

1363
circumstances. We should await the result of the executive chairman's visit before deciding what further action, if any, is necessary.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if further military action against Iraq turns out to be necessary, will the Government bear in mind that the main reason why the United Nations has not, in the past half century, been able to provide the peace in the world that it was meant to do is now a thing of the past? That reason was the unwillingness of the United States and the Soviet Union to agree about anything. Will the Government do what they can to ensure that United Nations action is taken through the United Nations machinery of the military staff committee, under a United Nations commander reporting to that staff committee, and not by a private collection of volunteer nations as it was last time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord poses some interesting questions, but at the moment they are hypothetical.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the detection of chemical and biological warfare preparations is one of the most difficult forms of verification which has stood in the way until now of an international treaty on that subject? In that context, will he say to what extent the United Nations teams will be in possession of the intelligence material available to the West which makes it clear that Saddam Hussein is still involved in a biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programme.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the inspectors have all the information necessary to enable them to carry out their task.

Next Steps Agencies: Accountability
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to make Next Steps agencies more accountable to Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, Next Steps agencies are already fully accountable to Parliament through their respective Ministers; the Next Steps initiative has enhanced the Government's accountability both to Parliament and the general public through its requirement for agencies to publish their framework documents, annual targets, annual reports and accounts, and, where appropriate, their corporate and business plans. In addition, agency chief executives are accounting officers and as such are answerable to the Public Accounts Committee for the use of resources allocated to them.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that reply. That does not go as far as his opposite number did in another place in November when in a Written Answer (cols. 558–559) he stated:
"The Government have therefore decided to propose to the House authorities that the House should publish all replies from chief executives which are placed in the Library. The Government consider that the replies should be published
1364
regularly and frequently, so that the information they contain is current and useful; that the publication should be available to individuals and organisations outside the House on a similar basis to the Official Report".
The Leader of the House in another place proposed to put the proposals before the House of Commons Administration Sub-committee before the general election, although at that time (November) the Government had not finalised what they would put before the House of Commons Administration Sub-committee. Has anything been placed before the House of Commons Administration Sub-committee? If not, will that be done within the next few weeks?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the matter raised by the noble Lord is of the greatest importance, but it is not germane to the Question on the Order Paper. He is right: it is important that those replies should not just be placed in the Library of the House, but should be readily accessible to anyone who wants to see them. Within the next day or two, the Government will put formal proposals to the House of Commons Administration Sub-committee as to how those replies might be published so as to make them generally accessible. One possibility would be to see that they were published as an annex to the Official Report.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has not the Institute for Public Policy Research sharply criticised the agency, first, because of the constraints placed by the Treasury upon the agency; and, secondly, because of the lack of parliamentary accountability? Further, are there not 48 agencies covering a vast range of different interests, from social security to forensic science, for example? The reports are not coming before Parliament. Is not that a valid criticism? Will the Minister take up this issue with his right honourable friends to ensure that Parliament knows precisely what those agencies are doing? They cannot go on free-wheeling around the country in secrecy.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I find it difficult to accept the criticisms levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Surely the government machine is too big, and its activities too diverse, to be managed as one unit. The success of the Next Steps initiative is that it has improved management in government. It ensures that available resources are used to greatest effect and that the best service is given to the public. There are no problems about parliamentary accountability. The chief executive is accountable to the Minister who, in turn, is accountable to Parliament.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, as a supporter of the concept of the Next Step agencies, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House the following questions: first, whether the chief executives of the agencies are being sought from outside Whitehall—whether any who come from a business background have been appointed. Secondly, given that, as the noble Lord said, they have objectives, business plans and resources, is the remuneration of the chief executives of the Next Step agencies results-related?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can tell noble Lords that it is thought that it may be desirable to move in

1365
that direction. There are more and more examples where chief executives have been recruited as a result of open competition.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and I are certainly not opposed to Next Step agencies. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is difficult to scrutinise public policy, as is shown by the following examples? A Written Question on 24th January in the other place asked how many people were having their poll tax deducted from their benefits. That is a major public policy issue. No Answer was printed in Hansard, but merely a reference to a letter from the chief executive of the benefits agency which was subsequently placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Does the noble Lord agree that it is doubly difficult for your Lordships to track such policies when Answers to Written Questions are not only not printed in Hansard but are not available in your Lordships' Library?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the position is that chief executives who have direct operational responsibility are best placed to give a full, prompt and helpful reply to honourable Members in another place or to noble Lords. They have all the necessary delegated authority to take appropriate action as swiftly as possible. One must face the reality. If the system were not used, all that would happen would be that an official in the relevant department would contact the agency and obtain the reply from the chief executive which would then be repeated by the Minister. It is surely far better that one should go to the fountainhead, the chief executive, who has administrative responsibility, and obtain a reply from him so that he can take the necessary actions.
The question about the publication of the answers is entirely different. I believe that I fully answered it in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. We have always acknowledged that it is a problem. It would be difficult to have the replies printed in Hansard because Hansard is a record of what is said in Parliament by honourable Members or by Ministers. However, it should surely be possible to find a way of making the replies more accessible than they are at present. That is why various ideas have been floated, such as their being printed in an annex to the Official Report.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, to return to the Question, I thank the Minister for the way in which he replied. As the noble Lord indicated, it is desirable to have something similar to ministerial replies to Written Parliamentary Questions. If something along those lines were done, either in Hansard or as an annex to that publication, it would be available to Members of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a helpful suggestion, and he is thinking along the same lines as me.

Iran: Diplomatic Relations
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve relations with Iran.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are in regular contact with the Iranians through diplomatic channels in both London and Tehran about all aspects of our bilateral relationship with them.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that a major obstacle in relations between the two countries is Iraq's continuing human rights abuse? Does he agree that Amnesty International has reported on this and confirmed that mass executions, arbitrary political arrests and torture continue in Iran?
In the light of that, can the Minister say whether the abuse of human rights in Iraq has yet been considered at the present session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva? Can he also say whether Her Majesty's Government will support the extension of the mandate of the UN Special Representative to monitor human rights in Iraq?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is confused between Iraq and Iran. I have to admit that I thought of many supplementary questions that the noble Baroness might ask about bilateral relations but I do not have the answers to her questions. I shall see whether I can find them for her.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept the point made by my noble friend that the Government's relationship with Iran should take into consideration the appalling human rights record there, the number of people who are held in detention and the amount of torture? Is he aware that Amnesty International has for many years been denied access to Iran? Surely those factors should play a high part in determining Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Iran.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, our relations with all countries very much take human rights into account.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, may not part of the clue to the problem be to bring it home to the governments of Iran, Iraq and Libya that their record in human rights does far more harm to the Moslem religion than all the Salman Rushdie novels in the world?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has a point in saying that countries who have bad human rights records do not present themselves in the West in the best possible light.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has the noble Earl read the report in the newspaper the Observer that Iran has reactivated its military procurement

1367
office in London with the knowledge, if not the official blessing, of British authorities? Will he say whether there is any truth in that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can make the situation absolutely clear. Her Majesty's Government decided that the Iranian military procurement office should close in September 1987. We have not subsequently given approval for an arms purchasing mission to be set up in Britain by the Iranian Government.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be more productive to address these questions to supporters of the Government of Iran, and indeed the Iran Government themselves, rather than Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all I can do, like any Minister, is to try my best to answer questions put to me.

Business
3.26 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and, in that event, during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 26th February
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Seccombe set down for 26th February shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Wade of Chorlton set down for the same day shall be limited to two hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Schools) Bill
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Education (Schools) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Clause 5,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Clause 6,

Clause 3,

Clause 7,

Clause 4,

Clause 8,

1368

Clause 9,

Clause 14,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 3,

Clause 13,

Clauses 15 to 21,

Schedule 4,

Schedule 5

—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to

Local Government Finance Bill
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Alteration of lists]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 15, line 19, after ("to") insert ("the whole or any part of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 to 84, 88, 89, 98, 99 and 102.
Amendment No. 80 clarifies the position in relation to a relevant transaction in the rare circumstances where there is more than one freehold on a dwelling. In such cases it means that rebanding is possible where there has been a material increase and any one freehold on the property is sold.
Amendment No. 89 for England and Wales and Amendment No. 102 for Scotland are clarifying amendments which also relate to revaluation following sale. They make it totally clear that in the definition of "material increase", the building, engineering and other operations mentioned should be carried out in relation only to the dwelling concerned. This ensures that the valuation band of a dwelling cannot be increased because of such operations on a neighbouring dwelling or property.
Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 83 and 88 for England and Wales, and part of Amendment No. 99 for Scotland, relate to properties which have a mixed domestic and non-domestic use. They will permit regulations to allow a change in the valuation band of a dwelling which is a composite hereditament when there is a change in the property's use. Amendments Nos. 82 and 99 contain the substance of the provision and Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 88 are consequential.
Composite properties will quite properly be subject to both non-domestic rates and the council tax. Valuation for each will take account only of non-domestic and domestic uses as appropriate and will achieve a fair balance between the two taxes. If the balance of use of a composite changes, or more significantly it becomes or ceases to be a composite hereditament, then its valuation for non-domestic

1369
rating may change. These amendments give the potential for a corresponding change in valuation for the council tax.
Amendment No. 84 for England and Wales and the first part of Amendment No. 99 for Scotland clarify the circumstances in which a listing officer or assessor may alter the initial band shown in a list. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for bringing the need for clarification to our attention. After these amendments, the Bill will contain identical provisions in this respect for England, Wales and Scotland.
Once valuation lists are in place, anybody who believes his home has been allocated to the wrong band will be able to make a proposal to the listing officer or assessor that his home should be in a different band. If the listing officer agrees that the band should be altered, then our intention is that he should be able to alter the valuation list accordingly. That alteration may be upwards or downwards. It may be to correct clerical errors as well as to make the more substantive changes I have described. After amendment Clauses 24(4) and 87(4) will make that clear. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is somewhat disturbing that amendments of this kind in what is supposed to be a simple Bill should be introduced at this late stage of the proceedings. I accept that most of the amendments seem relatively straightforward and I am sure the tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is well justified.
I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 89 which seems to remove the possibility of a change in banding as a result of building, engineering or other operations carried out in relation to other dwellings. The noble Earl explained that that provision referred to changes in an adjoining property. However, is it not the case that this amendment would rule out any changes in the banding as a result of a general improvement in the neighbourhood—for example, gentrification of the neighbourhood?
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to record, first, that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for passing on to me some valuable information which enabled me to table amendments at this stage. I am a slow reader and I did not notice in Committee the defects in the Bill before it was too late to table amendments at that stage. However I tabled amendments as quickly as possible to provide my noble friends on the Front Bench with as much information as possible. I am satisfied that the government amendments allow a valuation officer, or an assessor in Scotland, to correct errors that may have been made. Therefore Amendments Nos. 85 and 100 standing in my name would appear to be unnecessary. Amendment No. 100 would fall anyway because it is pre-empted.
I now turn to Amendment No. 86 to Clause 24 and Amendment No. 101 to Clause 87. I am a little concerned about Clause 24(5) which states:
"The regulations may include provision—
(a) as to who (other than a listing officer) may make a proposal for the alteration of the list with a view to its being accurately maintained".
1370
In the case of Scotland a local assessor would be involved in this matter. I wonder why a listing officer, or in Scotland a local assessor, have been excluded. I feel it is very much the duty of such a person to make an accurate list. That is my reason for asking this rather technical question. The position at present could leave an assessor or other authorities in some doubt.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balfour does me more credit than I deserve. I am grateful for his remarks. However, I am prompted to speak not so much as a result of what my noble friend has said but rather as a result of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He, like all noble Lords, is exemplary in his praise for this House as a revising Chamber. He can hardly complain that this Bill is being revised properly on Report in your Lordships' House when he and I have both been involved in local government Bills where revisions have been made as late as Third Reading after the Bills have passed through another place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful for the final remarks of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. His remarks were correct. I should say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the matter of gentrification is not relevant to Amendment No. 89 and would have absolutely no effect on the amendment. The material increase that I mentioned must be carried out prior to sale and it becomes effective at the time of the sale. As I have said, it can occur only if building and other operations are in relation to the dwelling concerned and not to any other property, such as the property or land next door.
My noble friend Lord Balfour posed a question to the House. I am sure the House will be quite content for us to consider my noble friend's amendments in conjunction with the group of amendments we are discussing. I believe my noble friend has slightly misunderstood how the arrangements for changing the list will work because in practice the listing officer, or the assessor, will make or decline to make changes to the list in response to proposals from others. It would not be appropriate for him to make proposals to himself. The government amendments to the clause give the listing officer or assessor the appropriate powers to make changes to the list, including powers to correct typographical and other such errors. I hope that I have clarified the matter sufficiently.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am satisfied with that clarification and I thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84:
Page 15, line 21, at end insert:
("(iii) the dwelling has become or ceased to be a composite hereditament for the purposes of Part III of the 1988 Act; or
(iv) in the case of a dwelling which continues to be such a hereditament, there has been an increase or reduction in its domestic use,").
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").
Page 15, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) the listing officer is satisfied that—

(i) a different valuation band should have been determined by him as applicable to the dwelling; or

(ii) the valuation band shown in the list is not that determined by him as so applicable; or").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Page 16, line 23, at end insert:
(""domestic use", in relation to a dwelling, means use in such a manner as to constitute it domestic property for the purposes of Part III of the 1988 Act;").
Page 16, line 26, after ("operation") insert ("carried out in relation to the dwelling").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 32, leave out ("physically disabled").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill as currently drafted ensures that only physically disabled people will benefit from the reduction scheme devised by the Government. However, this amendment seeks to widen the definition of disability so that those with severe learning handicaps are also included. In other words, people with learning disabilities who make adaptions or changes to the properties in which they live as a result of that disability should also benefit from the reduction scheme available under the Bill.
It is clear that this was the position following the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 where people who suffered from mental impairment were also included in that list of people defined as disabled who were eligible for reductions in their rates by virtue of the property they occupied. Section 8 of the 1978 Act says that:
"In this Act—'disabled person' means any person who is blind, deaf or dumb or who suffers from mental disorder of any description or who is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or any other disability for the time being prescribed for the purposes … of the National Assistance Act 1948".
That is a much wider list than is included in the Bill. In other words, it was originally intended that anyone with a substantial disability or suffering from long term illness should qualify under the rating Act. I am seeking to find out from the Minister whether the omission from the Bill is accidental or deliberate.
I hope that it is not deliberate because it is clear that mentally disabled people may often need substantial alterations to their property which even though less visible than those for the physically handicapped, are nonetheless necessary. MENCAP, which supports the amendment strongly, has given some examples. To give just one, many mentally disabled people—for example, young men—are not aware of their own strength. They may retain the playfulness of a child but can pull down mantelpieces, knock down doors, break windows or go through a glass door. There may well need to be structural alterations to cope with someone who is prone to self-inflicted violence such as beating his head against a wall—which would therefore need extra padding or insulation—pushing
1372
out a window, or butting into a standard door. MENCAP says, in an evocative phrase, that some parents have had to turn a room into a fortress.
I also know that some mentally handicapped people can be very noisy. Their property may require extra soundproofing. They may be vulnerable and careless with open sockets, appliances and anything made of glass, bath taps which can scald and they may leave on gas cookers with the gas unlit.
When a housing committee which I chaired built a sheltered housing scheme for the severely mentally handicapped we had to spend a great deal of additional capital to make that property suitable for families with handicapped members. We had to spend money on strengthening the fabric, additional heating, soundproofing and the alteration of fixtures and fittings and also on physical security so that people, especially the elderly, did not wander.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it is intended that the Bill should include the severely mentally impaired where their disability gives rise to such alterations as I have outlined. If that is the case I shall be delighted to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I fully understand the point which the noble Baroness opposite was trying to make about the mentally disabled, but she did not appear to appreciate that the terms of her amendment would be more restrictive in certain cases than the Bill. The Bill provides that where someone is physically disabled the concession arises. However, in order to qualify under the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, they would have to be permanently and substantially disabled.
There are many serious disabilities from which people suffer but no one is prepared to say whether they will suffer from those disabilities permanently. That is a much stricter test of disability. I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that in her well-intentioned desire to help the disabled she seems to be tightening up the Bill in a much more restrictive form in respect of many forms of ordinary physical disability.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made. I hope that we may hear from other noble Lords with some positive support for the thrust of the amendment. If it is necessary to revise the amendment in order to provide for the people whom we seek to protect through this amendment, in addition to those already referred to in the Bill, we may have to return to that point. However, we on these Benches support the amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said is supported by MENCAP.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I sympathise with what has been said by the noble Baronesses on the other side of your Lordships' House, but I feel that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a very good point. Perhaps I may say in that respect that I know two wonderful people who many years ago were discharged from the Glasgow infirmary as being

1373
incurable. They went to a bonesetter who lived in Broughton in Peeblesshire for many years. They were practically carried into his home to be treated but after two years' treatment they recovered and now walk about with the aid of nothing more than a stick. Therefore, I feel that the amendment would be unfortunately restrictive. I sincerely hope that the amendment is not pressed because I do not believe that it will achieve what the noble Baroness wishes.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is worth saying that the wording of the amendment has been discussed very closely with and by the groups representing people with disabilities. The impression I gained from those discussions is that they do not want to return to the wording of the rating Act; they want to avoid words such as "handicap", "impairment" or "disorder". I understand that the disability groups feel that the phrases "permanent disability" and "chronic illness" are adequate to cover most situations and most people concerned. After all, it is the terminology of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support what my noble friend said. I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said and it worries me. It would be most unfortunate if we restricted the position by the amendment. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether he would be happy to remove the word "physically" from the phrase "physically disabled" at a later stage so that we were left with the word "disabled".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the noble Baroness—and I quite understand this—seeks to widen the definition to include those with learning difficulties rather than the definition as it stands at the moment. Following on from the point made so ably by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that I can persuade her that not only is the amendment unnecessary but, worse, it is more restrictive than the current provisions as set out the Bill. As my noble friend said in discussing the wording, going further than the words at present in the Bill would limit the alteration of lists to cases where adaptions had been made to make a dwelling suitable for someone with a substantial and permanent disability. The present wording makes no such restriction.
For that very simple reason I hope that the noble Baroness is prepared to withdraw her amendments. I shall go on, I hope, to show that they are simply unnecessary. In passing perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned MENCAP and said that the words were agreed with MENCAP.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister will check he will realise that I did not mention MENCAP but referred to disability groups or groups representing disabled persons.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise for misunderstanding the noble Lord. I just wanted to go on and say that none of the disability groups, or MENCAP or for that matter anyone, brought such ideas to our attention within the department. The noble Baroness waved a MENCAP briefing but that briefing was not brought to our attention. I merely make that point in passing without wishing to make any criticism of those groups.
I wanted to show that the amendments which the noble Baroness put forward are unnecessary. We are dealing with substantial alterations to Clause 24 which could have the effect of placing a property in a lower band. For example, if a lift is installed which takes up a significant proportion of the living space in the home of a disabled person and that makes a large hole in his living room ceiling and is unsightly, then obviously the capital value of the dwelling may well be reduced to such an extent that it would be appropriate to allocate the dwelling to a lower band. Any dwelling which has been adapted to make it suitable for someone with a physical disability will be covered by regulations under Clause 24 as it stands at the moment.
It is not our intention to exclude any group of people who might benefit from these regulations. The people with learning disabilities, who do not have a physical disability—I stress that if they have a physical disability they are covered and there is no problem —are unlikely to require adaptations which reduce the value enough to be significant in terms of the banding of their home. They may well require the removal or adaptation of certain fixtures and fittings which could cause injury, or the provision of special features such as window guards, but I do not consider those significant terms of banding.
I take note of the examples given by the noble Baroness. One was what one might call the person who is not aware of his own strength and the other was the necessity for what one might call padded cell arrangements. I appreciate that the noble Baroness did not say "a padded cell" but to the layman those are the terms in which she was thinking. I do not believe that those examples would necessarily fall into the category of reducing the value. Double glazing, which might be necessary in some cases, particularly in the case of noise, may simply be cost neutral or may increase the cost. That might be the case, for example, with what I refer to as the padded cell syndrome. I am prepared to look at those particular cases to see whether they could be significant or what one might call band significant. Certainly, when we considered these amendments at the time they were tabled, our view was that it would be unlikely that there could be any people not having a physical disability who might need alterations that reduced the value of the property. I should certainly be prepared to consider whether that may be the case.
I believe that it is more likely that adaptations which cater for such disabilities, for example, a ground floor extension or the addition of a second bathroom, would be more likely to add to the value of the dwelling rather than reduce the value. Regulations under Clause 24 will provide that material increases in value resulting from building, engineering or other

1375
work, will be taken into account only when the dwelling is sold. So improvements which add to the value—for example, an extension—cannot affect the banding until the dwelling is sold and therefore will not have any effect on the individual. That applies equally to any improvements made on account of any person with a disability.
There is therefore no question of a higher tax bill because of alterations which increase value. The Bill provides that there could be a lower bill in cases where adaptations reduce the value to such an extent that the banding is inappropriate. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will accept that the amendments are not necessary. As I said, I give the assurance that I shall look carefully at the examples she gave. But I honestly believe that it is very unlikely that there could be cases where adaptations could lead to a reduction in value. I hope she will accept that her amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and possibly would have a deleterious effect. I hope therefore that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to respond to the Minister's helpful and conciliatory tone. I am delighted that he is willing to take away the issue and consider whether the worries of this side of the House and those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can be met.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the disability groups obviously would be happy if the definition were widened. I take on board the substance of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and endorsed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. However, I understand that they agreed on the wording of the amendment because they did not want to get into a debate on where disability begins and ends. Somebody with a broken leg, following a skiing accident, like myself when I smashed an Achilles tendon and was in a wheelchair for six months, may not have a permanent disability but merely a temporary one. In my view, that should not necessarily give rise to a rating reduction. It was to avoid that kind of situation that the wording of the amendment was so drawn.
I accept the Minister's point about substantial alterations—for example, a lift. Obviously where that is necessary —though he doubted whether it would often be necessary—for somebody who is severely mentally impaired, they will drop a band.
But perhaps I may again press the Minister about an issue to which we referred in the earlier debate when we spoke about band A properties and a possible band ZA. Under the Bill, unless they are in band A, disabled people will drop a band if alterations are made to their property which reduce its value. So do we all. They will not be penalised if their property increases in value—neither would any of us. But the Minister also accepted that somebody living in a flat could become severely disabled while in that flat and make perhaps different use of its space. Although he did not change a door, a window or the heating and did not make any structural change, nonetheless he would enjoy the benefit of the discount and drop a
1376
band. The Minister conceded that point. No physical alteration need be made but a physically disabled person could drop down a band.
Perhaps the Minister, with the leave of the House, could respond to that point. We seek from him the assurance that someone who is mentally disabled to the same degree might also enjoy the same concession of dropping a band by virtue of the use made of the property. Report stage may not be the right time to ask for such an assurance. I therefore ask the Minister to come back to this point at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Powers of entry]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 17, line 17, after ("given") insert ("to the owner or occupier").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104. Clause 26 is a peculiar clause. It introduces a new type of officer—a valuation officer—who is mentioned in that clause and in Clause 27 but nowhere else in the whole Bill.
Clause 26 specifies that he must give three clear working days' notice in writing of his intention to go into somebody's home to carry out his survey. In England and Wales he may also authorise a servant of the Crown to do that for him, provided that,
"that person must if required produce his authority".
The clause does not indicate to whom the notice in writing must be sent. As the clause is drafted, the notice could be sent to the next door neighbour, which I consider would be most undesirable. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who assisted me in drafting the amendment to the effect that the written notice must be sent:
"to the owner or occupier".
I should like to have inserted:
"to the owner and/or occupier",
but those words are not usually put into legislation. The valuation officer could have some difficulty finding out who was the owner or occupier. I feel very strongly that this amendment is required. The clause will be defective without it.
In the Scottish mirror clause, Clause 89, notice must be given to the occupier only. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde advised me that that is all that is required. I do not agree. Perhaps I may give the House some examples. I shall choose Scottish examples because in Scotland the local assessor has no powers to delegate his functions except to his depute.
Let us suppose that on a Monday morning he sent an office boy round to deliver letters to the farmers' houses of the five farms that are on my estate, stating that he wished to inspect them on the following Friday. He would be complying with the law as proposed in Clause 89. However, his office boy did not bother to drop a similar letter into my estate office. A week later I discovered that a local assessor had carried out his inspection without letting me know. I would be furious.
In my second example, let us suppose that I or my noble friend Lord Strathclyde were the area manager

1377
of a housing association and the assessor sent his office boy round on a Monday morning pushing letters through the letter-boxes of houses which he thought were four-apartment houses on the housing estate with the purpose of determining that they were four-apartment houses and not, let us say, three or five-apartment houses. If no notification were sent to the area manager I am sure that my noble friend would be furious. If I were the area manager I know that I would be furious.
Thirdly, I have a few very elderly but wonderful old occupiers who tend to become upset if strangers call on them. However, if I, as the owner, am informed that the assessor is seeking entry to any house of mine, I can easily arrange for him to obtain access.
Amendment No. 104 does not ask for much, but if the provision were inserted I am sure that it would lead to friendlier feelings between the local assessor and owners of property in general. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I support the amendment. Clause 89 relating to Scotland refers to "the occupier". Under Clause 26 relating to England and Wales the letter can be sent to anyone. Indeed, there is no specification as to whom it should be sent. That seems an absolute nonsense. Either the Bill should say "occupier" in both places or it should say "owner and occupier." For the reasons that my noble friend has given, I believe that the words "owner and occupier" are right.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, we are becoming far too lax about the delivery of important notices. When I sat as a magistrate a summons had to be personally served. Apparently it can now be pushed in anyone's door. It is no good an individual saying that he has not received it; there is no way for him to deny it. It is all part and parcel of what the noble Earl's amendment seeks to cover.
I support the amendment. If it is an important notice it must be delivered to all the persons concerned with the application. We are becoming far too lax. Perhaps our Acts of Parliament do not carry matters to a final conclusion. However, as the noble Earl said, those who have finally to operate the law are the people to be informed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I do not have a Whip to check the facts for me. But I seem to recollect that the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 provided that notices had to be sent to both owners and occupiers.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I support the amendment. We had a Bill dealing with local government finance which was highly unpopular throughout the country. We now seek to produce a Bill which is a little more acceptable. My noble friend makes a sensible suggestion. It does not affect the Bill but it makes the legislation slightly more acceptable. I believe that the House would be wise to accept the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I know that the amendments relate to an area about which my noble friend Lord Balfour is particularly concerned. I have listened carefully not only to him but to all noble Lords who have spoken.
It may be helpful if I first place in context the use which may be made of the powers provided in Clauses 26 and 89. It is in practice unlikely that valuation officers or assessors will wish or indeed will need to enter the overwhelming majority of dwellings in order to value them. That is not the way in which such valuations are generally carried out. The need to enter a dwelling may arise in particular circumstances; for example, where the information already available to the valuation officer or assessor about a particular dwelling—such as information from the valuation roll —is not sufficient to enable him to make a banding decision.
Another and perhaps more likely circumstance might be that the valuation officer or assessor wishes to double check the valuation of a property which he intends to use as a beacon property in the valuation process—in other words, a measure against which to compare other dwellings.
In the vast majority of cases, dwellings will be valued without the owner or occupier ever seeing the person undertaking the valuation. In cases where the valuer decides that entry is required the purpose of that visit will be to supplement existing information with an on-site inspection. It will not be an on-site valuation per se. For clear, practical reasons, however, the valuer will want to arrange entry with the person best placed to let him into the dwelling. That is the purpose of the notification procedure. In most cases that person will be the person residing in the dwelling.
If, however, no one is resident in the house I am advised that the provisions as they stand in both Clauses 26 and 89 would require the valuation officer's or assessor's notice to be sent to the owner. That is precisely our policy intention.
Turning to the noble Earl's amendments, they specifically require notification to be given to the owner or occupier. As I hope I have explained, that is what the clause as drafted provides. If we adopted my noble friend's amendments, it could allow an unfortunate situation to arise. The amendments could possibly permit an assessor or valuation officer to fulfil his statutory requirement of serving notice by sending a notice to a non-resident owner of a dwelling which was in fact occupied by someone else. I am certain that that is not my noble friend's intention.
I appreciate the concerns of the noble Earl. However, in the context of the circumstances in which those powers will be exercised, I believe that the notice powers are fully adequate. We all acknowledge the anxieties, for instance, of old people at having strangers call. However, the provisions of Clauses 26 and 89 will ensure that in the event of entry being required, full written notice will be given. With regard to the adequacy of the wording of the Scottish clause, I should perhaps advise my noble friend that the clause repeats the wording of Section 9(14) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928.

1379
There is an important point to add. A notice under Clause 26 will not be regarded as duly given if it has been given to anyone other than a person affected by it. For example, a notice given to a next door neighbour will not suffice. In most cases the notice will he given to the occupier since it is his occupation that will be disturbed by the exercise of the power. Clause 89 has exactly the same effect in Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised an important point. Clause 89(2) specifies that the notice shall be given to the occupier. However, Clause 26(2) does not specify to whom the notice shall be given. My noble friend will appreciate that the law relating to the tenure of property is different in Scotland. That is why, for example, the lists which determine liability in England and Scotland as set out in Clauses 6 and 75 are different. Against that background it was considered that a specific reference to the occupier was required in the Scottish clause in order to achieve the same policy effect in Scotland as in England and Wales.
I recognise that this is an important issue and for that reason I have responded to it at length. It was right of my noble friend Lord Balfour to raise it. However, I hope that in the light of my explanation he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wish to raise one matter. He gave a full answer to an apparently simple amendment and said that under Clause 26 the valuation officer has to notify the owner. Where in Clause 26 is that stated?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no, I did not say that. I said that notice had to be given to the occupier since his occupation will be disturbed by the exercise of that power.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am not familiar with the technicalities of English law and am rather defeated by the answer. The provision does not appear to be on the face of the Bill. I cannot take the matter further but perhaps my noble friend will look at the matter again between now and Report. That is all that I can ask. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 39 (Precepting and precepted authorities):
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) above so that a Passenger Transport Authority becomes a major precepting authority for the purposes of this Part as from such date as he may determine and, without prejudice to his powers under section 113(1) below, such an order may contain such modifications of the provisions of this Act as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the amendment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I return to a subject originally raised in 1988 when your Lordships last discussed local government finance. It is the question of the precepting status of passenger transport authorities. The passenger transport authorities and their passenger transport executives play a vital role in providing public transport in the metropolitan
1380
counties. Their responsibilities include funding all local British Rail services, providing socially necessary bus services, securing transport provision for the mobility impaired and providing passenger information, bus stations and bus stops and shelters. Since then, these bodies have developed new light rail schemes, adding to the Tyne & Wear Metro which opened in 1980. They are: Manchester Metrolink, which is about to open; Sheffield Supertram, which is being built; Midlands Metro, which is awaiting approval; and the Leeds Supertram, which has just deposited a Parliamentary Bill.
Before 1990 the PTAs were funded by precepting on the constituent district councils and received grant directly from central government. They therefore needed only to precept on the rates of their district councils for the balance between their total expenditure and their rates support grant. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 changed that and made the PTAs levying bodies. Now they have no direct source of funding. They have to ask the district councils to find the whole of their expenditure from the districts' own resources. Grant goes to the districts but it is impossible to identify how much of the grant is for public transport. Consequently, the districts do not see a direct connection between the bill for the PTA levy and part of the grant which they receive from central government.
The purpose of this amendment is to give the Secretary of State the power to restore the PTAs to precepting status by making an order. It does not, therefore, seek to change the existing situation immediately. I am fully aware from the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Committee that the Minister for Transport is reviewing this very issue at the moment. I should not wish to prejudice that. However, should he decide to restore the PTAs to precepting status it would give the Secretary of State the means of making PTAs precepting authorities without need for further primary legislation.
Your Lordships have twice debated this issue in the past; from memory at 12.30 in the morning. Happily, we debate it now at a reasonable time in the afternoon. I do not wish to detain the House with the same arguments, but I do wish to advise the House of the consequences of what has happened under levying. As several noble Lords predicted, there have been great difficulties in financing public transport in the PTA areas. Between 1989–90 and 1991–92 the district councils increased their contributions to the PTAs by 8 per cent. and their other expenditure by 22 per cent. according to careful analysis by the PTE group. The remainder of PTA expenditure had to be funded from reserves, which in most cases have now been totally exhausted.
Both the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram schemes have meant that their PTAs have had to borrow money to help to finance them. The debt charges have to be paid by the PTA. Even though the Government increase the district councils' revenue support grant to cover these higher costs the districts do not necessarily pass the whole of this extra income on to the PTAs. The result is that other programmes are being squeezed. For example, in Greater

1381
Manchester the concessionary fare for the elderly has increased by 67 per cent. in the past two years and is likely to increase by at least another 15 per cent. soon. Expenditure on transport for the mobility impaired has had to be cut and provision of accessible transport in many areas shelved. These effects are not confined only to Greater Manchester. Taking concessionary travel as an example, there has been the introduction of charges in Tyne and Wear; the quadrupling of the fare in South Yorkshire; the ending of the free off-peak scheme in West Yorkshire; and charging for travel in the evening peak in the West Midlands. In Merseyside there has been a major increase in rail fares.
The amendment merely gives the Government room to manoeuvre on this important issue. I am well aware that if it were decided to make the PTAs precepting authorities it would be necessary to devise a standard spending assessment for them which might take time. Therefore, by giving the Secretary of State flexibility the amendment allows a workable solution to this and any other problems to be devised. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have a sense of déjà vu. As my noble friend said, we debated the matter when dealing with the 1988 Bill. My noble friend on the Front Bench will remember that then I argued that the Government's proposed reversion to the system of levying district councils rather than precepting on them was an unfortunate change. When we originally introduced the regime after abolishing the metropolitan county councils and had the police, fire and transport services under joint boards we provided that all should be precepting authorities. In other words, the amount which they would require to be paid by the charge payers should appear as a separate precept and not be lumped in with the rest of the district councils' spending, as happens under the levy system.
The arguments which my noble friends deployed with sufficient force to convince the Committee on that occasion was that by lumping the amount together with the district expenditure one increases the accountability of the district councillors to their local electors. That is certainly an argument. I submit that it must be balanced by having regard to the difficulties which that system creates both for the district councils and for the passenger transport authorities. Of course, the police and fire authorities were left as precepting authorities.
I need not repeat the difficulties to which my noble friend referred in relation to a number of detailed schemes. However, one difficulty which noble Lords may wish to bear in mind concerns what happens if a local authority is at or near the level at which it qualifies for charge capping. The effect is that it will make every conceivable effort to keep its expenditure below the level at which it would qualify to be capped. Under the levying system, that expenditure, which the authority is trying to keep down, would have to include the levy which the passenger transport authority levies on it.
1382
A neighbouring district council which is keen to see improvements in passenger transport in order to reduce congestion on the roads may be perfectly happy to accept a higher charge because it is nowhere near the level of capping. Yet the combined effect of the levying coupled with the system of capping, which in general I support, means that it must move at the pace of the slowest. The local authority which is least able to bear the size of the levy which the passenger transport authority will wish to impose on it dictates what can be levied from all the rest.
I put to my noble friends that the result may be a level of investment in public transport which is lower than that which the Government would wish to see and for which they had made provision under the SSAs. Under a system of precepting, the passenger transport authority determines its own expenditure and levies its own precept which, of course, is on the bill sent to the charge payer. That is like a county council precept. We are all familiar with the system whereby counties precept on districts. That system would be the same. That was a provision originally contained in the local government legislation which abolished the metropolitan county councils.
There are other difficulties of an extremely complex nature in relation to the problem of capital spending. However, I do not wish to weary the House by going through those difficulties. In practice the result is that district councils are becoming increasingly reluctant to support their passenger transport authorities in developing and promoting the type of major public transport scheme which everyone wishes to see, including my noble friends and the Government, which are needed to tackle the growing problems of urban congestion.
As my noble friend said, we are not banging at a closed door. On the contrary, Ministers in another place have made it clear that they are examining the case which has been put by the local authority associations and passenger transport authorities as to whether it may be right to revert to precepting. I believe that Ministers have quite rightly recognised the nature of the problems to which my noble friend and I have been drawing attention. My honourable friend Mr. Freeman, the Minister for Public Transport, had a meeting with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in July last year at which he acknowledged the problem.
In a letter to the Tyne and Wear PTA in November my honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin, the transport Minister, said that the Government were looking at the possibility of a change in the present arrangements. Indeed during the Committee stage of the Bill my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Portillo, acknowledged that his honourable friend Mr. Freeman was considering representations on the subject. The same point was made in your Lordships' House.
What will happen if Ministers decide that they wish to revert to precepting rather than levying? If the power is not contained in the Bill, we shall have to wait for primary legislation. This amendment commits the Government to nothing. It merely allows them the freedom to revert to the precepting system by order.

1383
I suggest to my noble friends on the Front Bench that given that the Government are looking at the problem and have acknowledged the problem to the local authorities, they should accept the amendment. That would give them a much needed power if they decide that a change is necessary. Without that we may have to wait one year, two years or however long it takes for the Government to find time for another local government Bill. This power enables the Government to make that change by order and I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not share the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for the system of precepting. It is a system whereby charges are imposed by organisations which are not directly responsible to the electorate for the raising and spending of money. For that reason I have very little enthusiasm for the general practice of precepting. However, I do not wish to weary your Lordships by continuing the debate on that issue. I merely wish to make a short point on the form of the amendment.
As your Lordships will see—and I am sorry that no noble and learned Lords who speak frequently about Henry VIII clauses are present—the amendment proposes to give to the Secretary of State extremely wide powers to alter the law as laid down by Parliament. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) above",
and it concludes:
"such an order may contain such modifications of the provisions of this Act as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the amendment".
As far as I can see, there is no provision that the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State should be controlled or regulated in any way by compelling him to use statutory instruments or to obtain orders. It simply proposes to give the Secretary of State, for the perfectly understandable reasons to which my noble friends referred, a power off his own bat, if he feels so disposed, to amend drastically the provisions of the statute. For that reason, I do not like the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved so comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. In his speech he outlined in great detail the duties and responsibilities of the passenger transport authorities and the effect that the change from precepting has had on those authorities.
I was extremely pleased to hear the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who knows full well what happened as regards the 1988 Act. It may be recalled that in Committee I moved an amendment to add to the list of precepting bodies in Clause 39(1) passenger transport authorities for the metropolitan areas. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, if one looks at Clause 39(1), one sees that the list of precepting bodies includes county councils. Therefore, if one accepts the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, county councils would not be precepting authorities.
In Committee I endeavoured to add to the list of precepting bodies the passenger transport authorities
1384
in just the same way as the police authorities, the fire services and civil defence authorities in the metropolitan areas are listed in that subsection. It is not my intention to repeat all the arguments put forward in Committee. I shall mention one important point. The main reason for the passenger transport authorities being originally included by the Government in the list of responsible authorities in the metropolitan areas was so that decisions of transport importance would be taken on a county-wide basis in those areas. That is an important point which should be considered.
An argument arose in Committee regarding the difficulties of SSAs. Mr. Portillo, the Minister concerned, said that it would be difficult to determine how to base an SSA for a passenger transport authority. As recently as January of this year the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—I know because I happen to be president of that body—gave serious consideration to the matter. The passenger transport executives and the passenger transport authorities working closely together arrived at a scheme whereby SSA for PTAs could be accepted by the Government. It may be that since that meeting in January the Government have had discussions with those bodies and arrived at a conclusion.
Before I had concluded my arguments on the amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, intervened and said that all options should be left open. He hoped that I would consider the matter and determine what action I intended to take. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, who I believe is to reply to the debate today, said,
"I should have said that I was grateful to my noble friend for his suggestions [to leave all options open]. The Government do not have a closed mind on the return to the precepting status. We are alive to the views expressed. However, at this stage and for the purposes of this Bill we are not convinced that it is the road we wish to go down".— [Official Report, 28/1/92; col. 1275.]
I was so impressed by that statement that I decided to await the consideration being given to the representations made to the Minister for Public Transport who, we were assured, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, was giving them serious consideration. I decided that the most sensible action was to await that consideration and withdraw the amendment.
Both noble Lords who have spoken emphasised that to accept Amendment No. 93 would not be committing the Government to any action other than a consideration of their intentions. The amendment I moved in Committee would have inserted into the Bill the requirement that the passenger transport authorities be included in the list of precepting authorities.
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us today the results of the serious consideration given to the matter. I recognise that since 28th January there has been little time and he may not be in a position to do that. I hope therefore that he will accept Amendment No. 93 on behalf of the Government. It does not commit them to making the PTAs precepting authorities. However, as was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, if we do not introduce the

1385
provision today we shall have to wait some time before any further consideration can be determined by legislation.
I hope that the Minister is in a position to state either the results of the representations—I hope that they are favourable—or, alternatively, that he will accept the amendment so that should the Government later decide on the principle of the PTA becoming a precepting authority for the purposes of the Bill, it can be carried out by order. If the order is not fully in line with the terms of the legislation, there will be an opportunity at Third Reading for the Government to table an amendment. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for his clear presentation of the amendment and to all noble Lords who have spoken to it. The amendment would have the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to make an order establishing metropolitan passenger transport authorities as major precepting authorities. It would, in effect, return them to their position under the rating system, before they were established as levying bodies under Section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. As I argued in Committee, the Government felt that there were sound reasons for making the change and I am not convinced by the arguments adduced by my noble friend and other noble Lords in favour of restoring their previous position.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out that the amendment was in effect a Henry VIII power. I agree that the order-making power in the amendment would, were the amendment accepted, be subject only to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 112. I would be a little surprised if that were acceptable to noble Lords opposite.
Noble Lords will recall that the reasons for the previous change, which came into effect in 1990–91, were that we believed PTAs, as precepting authorities, to be insufficiently accountable to the metropolitan boroughs for their spending decisions. Also, there were technical problems in devising a grant-related expenditure assessment that reflected their spending needs.
The establishment of PTAs as bodies levying upon the metropolitan districts dealt with those problems. Their expenditure is included in the districts' budgets, and district councillors are now much more directly responsible for those spending decisions as part of their wider responsibilities to the electorate. However, I did say that my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport has been looking at the matter. Since Committee stage we have looked at the position carefully and have reached the firm conclusion that PTAs should not become precepting authorities. The reasons for establishing them as levying bodies are as valid now as in 1988. I cannot therefore advise the House to accept even the permissive amendment moved by my noble friend. We are aware that authorities have perceived difficulties in relation to some major capital projects—my noble friend Lord
1386
Jenkin highlighted the situation where a local authority was at, or near, its capping level—but we remain as willing as ever to approach those difficulties in a constructive fashion.
My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned the South Yorkshire Supertram. It may be helpful for me to use the financing arrangements for the Supertram as an illustration. The costs of the project, around £240 million, are met in part by Section 56 grant and in part by borrowing. The loan charges on that borrowing are split into two categories. Charges on that element, which it is not foreseen could be recouped through the sale and trading profits of Supertram, are fully covered by increases in the SSAs of the district councils and therefore supported by RSG. For the second category—the trading element, which will eventually be recouped from the sale or operation of the system—we have offered the South Yorkshire authorities the opportunity to capitalise their interest payments so that the short-term burden on charge payers or council tax payers is reduced.
The overall effect is that in the long term the authorities will gain a major asset worth £240 million at no cost to local taxpayers. In the short term, if the limited expenditure that they are asked to meet occurs when they are spending above their SSAs more generally, they must make choices about their spending priorities. The main point is that we are already prepared to give local authorities the flexibility that they need in situations of this kind without going back to the old regime with its concomitant disadvantages. Therefore, in the light of what I have said at some length, and I apologise for that, I hope that my noble friend will feel more comfortable about the matter and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I would like to say that I am happy, but I am not at all happy. I inform your Lordships here and now that I am not going to go careering off to the Division Lobbies. That would be totally unwise. However, there are one or two items I wish to discuss briefly before I finally withdraw the amendment. I do not accept the concomitant disadvantages of the old system. I feel that the new system since 1988 has been totally unsatisfactory for all the reasons that I explained. The situation was explained rather better by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, with his experience. My noble friend went into great detail. That gives me encouragement to pursue the matter.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his support and particularly for saying that my approach and the amendment were more satisfactory than the direct approach of having to put the matter back. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter picked up the legal argument. He did not like the situation. From that point on I felt it unwise to proceed. However, this is a situation which has been forced on us and it has not worked. The amendment appeared to be the right formula to overcome the problem.
I shall read with particular care what my noble friend Lord Howe said. As regards his reference to the Sheffield Supertram and other things, I shall consider with care how the Government looked into all these

1387
issues. I reserve the right to come back to the matter at Third Reading. There may be an amendment at that stage. Perhaps I shall not be in the same frame of mind as I am now in withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Power to designate authorities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 38, leave out lines 23 to 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the most important issue of capping or what is called in the Bill "designation." We return to a particular aspect of it which, even if one accepts that it is the Government's intention to impose widespread or even universal capping, still seems to stick out like a sore thumb. It still seems to be the case that there is a particular injustice involved in Clause 54. The clause itself provides that the,
"Secretary of State may designate an authority".
In other words, he may put the finger on it for capping purposes if the amount calculated by its budget is excessive or if there is an excessive increase in the budget. Subsection (4) provides that the calculation of the budget for that purpose shall be less the aggregate amount of any precepts issued to it by local precepting authorities or anticipated by it in pursuance of regulations. In other words, the budget of a district council, if one takes the clause up to and including subsection (4), is the net budget after taking off the precept from the county council, and at the other end, after taking off the precept from a parish council.
Subsection (6) is deleted by this amendment. It provides that the Secretary of State may say that subsection (4) shall not apply. In other words, the precepted amount shall be included in the budget in relation to any financial year specified or any other financial year. Therefore, we are back in the extraordinary position that a district council may have its capping limits set, not on any decisions of expenditure which it takes itself, but on the total of its budget including the precepted amount. It is clearly the intention that that relates principally to parish councils. It is not intended that the provision should apply to the county council precept.
In some cases that does not matter very much. In some of the cases we are talking about, we are dealing with relatively small amounts of money. However, there are district councils for whom parish council precepts are of considerable importance. For the Mid-Bedfordshire District Council, parish spending is 19.5 per cent. of that of the district. In Huntingdonshire, the figure is over 31 per cent. Even accepting for the purposes of this amendment the basic thinking behind the Government's capping proposals—we do not of course, but we are not querying them here—there is an anomaly which has been left. There seems no good reason why a district council should leave itself open to capping because of the decisions of a parish council whose spending is totally outwith the control of the district council.
None of this is said in any spirit of antagonism toward parish councils. I believe that noble Lords who know my record on that issue will accept that that
1388
must be the case. There is something wrong here, and the Government have the chance to put it right. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I made clear when we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, unless an order is made under Clause 54(6), the Bill's provisions continue the current practice whereby parish precepts are ignored in considering whether the budget set by an authority is excessive or represents an excessive increase over the previous year. I must emphasise once again that we are not seeking direct controls over revenue spending by parishes. As I have said previously, we hope that we will be able to rely on the general pressure of accountability to control parish spending. We would not however wish to see the wholesale transfer of functions and spending from district to parish councils, with the result of higher parish precepts, without any accompanying reduction in district spending, as a device—this point was not covered by the noble Lord—to enable districts to avoid the disciplines imposed by capping. In such circumstances it might not be appropriate to continue to exclude parish expenditure from districts' budget requirements for the purposes of capping.
Although we hope never to use this power, it would be imprudent to fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in this respect and I therefore call upon the House to reject the amendment.
Perhaps I may make reference to the Henry VIII power. The power confers no unfettered power on the Secretary of State to vary or amend primary legislation; it simply allows him to decide, in the light of the prevailing circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to bring parish precepts within district councils' budgets for the purposes of exercising his powers under Chapter V of Part I of the Bill. That is not, selectively, a parish or, selectively, a district council. It is parish precepts being within the district council's budget. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not make any reference to Henry VIII provisions in subsection (6) on this occasion. If I had, I might have been tempted to refer to the Henry VIII accusation that was made in relation to the previous amendment. Ministers will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in moving the previous amendment, adapted it and made it more moderate in order to give Ministers an opportunity to be more flexible themselves because they said at the time that the matter was still under consideration.
I was directly challenged on that point because it is known that I look on Henry VIII provisions with disfavour. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, intending to bring back the matter at Third Reading, I would return without the Henry VIII provisions. In other words, I would bring it back on the face of the Bill and without giving the Secretary of State any option that one ought to go back to precepting powers. That is the only possibility now left to those who are concerned about the problems of passenger

1389
transport authorities. However, that is for him and not for me. On this occasion I am not accusing the Government of making any Henry VIII provision. What I accuse the Government of is a case of advanced paranoia. They seem to think that any single option which is available to any local authority to seek to avoid the advancing tentacles of government control of local authority expenditure has to be closed down in advance of any evidence that that is even likely to happen.
I notice that the Minister in her reply did not say that district councils were handing over functions to parish councils in order to avoid capping. She just said that they fear that they might do so in the future and therefore we have to close that potential loophole. If one spends time going around closing potential loopholes then one is destroying any mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual confidence that might exist between central and local government.
The evidence for the Government's claim that they are looking for accountable and responsible local government is not very strong in the light of their reaction to this very simple and straightforward amendment. I am sorry that Ministers feel as they do. I am not satisfied with the reply and I shall have to consider what our response will be on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 38, line 31, at end insert:
("(8) No authority shall be designated under this section before the Audit Commission has reported on the operation of the arrangements for the distribution of revenue support grant on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of local authority services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 returns in a different form to one of the four most important elements in the Bill; that is, the issue of the justice of universal council tax capping and its relationship to the standard spending assessment.
The simple aim of this amendment is to suggest that capping should not be carried out until,
"the Audit Commission has reported on the operation of the arrangements for the distribution of revenue support grant on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of local authority services".
We did not invent those words. They come from Section 27 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 where the Audit Commission is charged, or may be charged, by the Secretary of State with investigating,
"the impact … of the operation of any particular statutory provision or provisions; or … any directions or guidance given by any Minister of the Crown … on economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of local authority services".
If ever there were a case for an inquiry under the Section 27 powers in the 1982 Act, it is this case. If ever there were a case where the claims made by government and the proposals of government could have incalculable consequences for the effectiveness of the operations of local authorities, this is it. That is true both from the point of view of the nature of the capping powers themselves and from the point of view of the standard spending assessments which are to be
1390
taken into account. But, of course, the words "excessive" and "excessive increase" in Clause 54 define themselves in terms of what the Secretary of State, in his opinion, considers excessive. It has been made clear that the definition for the Secretary of State of what is excessive is in excess of standard spending assessments. If the Secretary of State's powers are to be exercised at all, it has been made clear to us that they will be exercised with respect to expenditure proposed above standard spending assessments.
It is not just that. It is proposed that there should be, as there used to be, some flexibility about the way in which this is operated. In the years 1985 and 1986, when standard spending assessments and, the capping powers were first introduced, capping came into effect at a level of 20 per cent. above standard spending assessments. In other words, it was recognised that standard spending assessments were a crude measure—to give them more credit than I think they deserve—of local authority expenditure.
By 1990 the excess allowed over SSAs was reduced to 12.5 per cent. and by 1991–92 and 1992–93 it has been made clear that any level of local authority expenditure above the standard spending assessment may leave the local authority liable to capping if there is an increase which is considered to be excessive in expenditure from one year to another. Therefore, the standard spending assessment having been broadly a guideline, and a fair amount of leeway being allowed on either side of the standard spending assessment, the noose is now tightening on local authorities and the standard spending assessment is being treated as an absolute figure.
At the same time, as a result of the 1991 Act, the exclusion of smaller councils—those with budgets of less than £15 million—has been removed so that now capping potentially applies to all councils, including the smallest councils. That is not acceptable. Clearly it is a confession of failure on the part of the Government. If after having several stabs at it they have produced, in their view, the best possible system of local authority finance then they ought now to be able to return to their original notions of accountability; to the statements made on innumerable occasions by Ministers, by Secretaries of State, by local Conservative politicians, that accountability ought to be in the ballot box rather than Marsham Street. By admitting that they are continuing and increasing the level of capping they are admitting that they have not really solved in their own minds the issue of local government finance and how to make it accountable. Certainly the existence of universal capping casts doubt on solutions proposed by this Government in the Bill for the future of local government finance.
However, it is worse than that because the proposals depend on the validity or otherwise of the standard spending assessment. I spent a considerable time in Committee—some of your Lordships may well have thought too much time —talking about some of the anomalies of the standard spending assessments. I referred to the fact that in many cases they are based on out of date information; that they exclude some

1391
major elements in expenditure; that they give quite extraordinary prominence to other elements of local authority expenditure—for example, visitor nights—as opposed to other possible expenditure on people who come into an area from a travel-to-work area or from a shopping area; and to the fact that they do not take account of a number of matters in the other services sector which are of considerable importance and may involve considerable expenditure. No account is taken, for example, of whether a local authority has a museum, an art gallery, any form of public park, a crematorium, or anything of that sort. An authority may have those amenities. One might say that some of them should make money, like crematoria, but nobody suggests that public parks should pay for themselves; yet they are not taken into account in the standard spending assessment.
The standard spending assessment is fundamentally flawed because it pretends to be the cost of a standard level of service, whereas in practice it is a way of dividing a fixed amount of money predetermined by government. Therefore, it is impossible to relate the standard spending assessment to any identifiable fixed level of service. Indeed, if one could, there would not be anything like the differences between one local authority and another. There might be differences in grants, because grants would take account of resources, but how do the Government explain the fact that, on the basis of a standard level of service, the standard spending assessment per head in Stoke on Trent is £128, in Bristol it is £139 but in Leicester it is £236? It simply does not make sense. The figures are badly done and they are badly done because they are arrived at through a false premise.
To depend for the basis of capping on these deeply flawed standard spending assessments is to turn accountability on its head. It is to put Marsham Street in the position of making the decisions—all the important aggregate decisions—on local expenditure in each individual spending authority. That cannot be right. The amendment would not put that right but by requiring the Audit Commission to produce a report before capping procedures were introduced it would at the very least expose the effect of what is proposed on the day-to-day workings and the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of local government. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with this amendment issues are raised for the first time this afternoon which probably, on broad political grounds, divide the two sides of the House. The Labour Party has always been opposed to capping. It has sometimes found itself in the position therefore of defending outrageously extravagant local authorities which have imposed a heavy burden on their ratepayers, taxpayers and inhabitants. The amendment would have the effect of deferring any exercise of the capping power for a considerable time. That is the intention; there is no concealment about it. It would mean that any local authority would feel itself free to indulge in very high spending indeed without fear of interference from the Government.
1392
I do not see how any responsible government can accept that. One accepts that the great majority of local authorities in this country conduct their affairs responsibly. However, experience over the past few years has shown that there are exceptions and that there are local authorities which have been prepared to squander their citizens' money on wild degrees of extravagance. I find it difficult to see how a responsible government of any political colour could simply stand by and let that happen. The effect of the amendment must be—I speak subject to the correction of my noble friend on the Front Bench—to put the capping power on ice for a certain length of time. I am not very clear about how long, but for a certain amount of time there would be no capping. There would therefore be every encouragement to the minority of squandermaniac local authorities that like going in for excessive spending. That is a conclusive argument against the amendment and I hope that your Lordships will throw it out.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I very much agree with the observations of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We are being offered during the course of the Report stage—I include the elements yet to come—a full range of what I should like to call temporising devices. A temporising device may be defined as a provision which would delay implementation of the provisions of an Act and indeed delay the routine functioning of the Act until various consultations, reports, reflections, cogitations, ruminations and ratiocinations have been completed.
First, there is the device of the affirmative resolution to which we shall come in Amendment No. 116A. I mention here that this amendment immediately follows on a provision for negative resolution, which is, after all, already written into the Bill. Then we have the device of the Secretary of State first having to make a report on something or other. I do not remember what it was now but we certainly had one of those on the first day of the Committee stage. I remember opposing it. Then we have the notion of consultation by the Secretary of State. We shall come to that with Amendments Nos. 97, 107A and 116A. Now we have the interesting device of a report by another body, in this case the Audit Commission.
Some of these devices are interesting. Indeed I think there could be much merit in the report of the Audit Commission which the noble Lord opposite would wish us to have. What is obnoxious, however, is that the whole operation of the Act will have to sit by—be put on ice, as my noble friend puts it—until this interesting report has come forward. There is nothing improper in such suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rebuked me the other day for using the term "wrecking" in relation to one of his amendments and reminded the House, with complete propriety, that it is indeed appropriate for the Opposition to put down what might be termed wrecking amendments when they seek to oppose the provisions of the Bill. That is an entirely reasonable point. Nonetheless it is important to recognise these temporising devices for what they are.

1393
It is not clear to me whether the report of the Audit Commission will be expected to make reference to the local authority which is to be designated. If it has no specific relevance to the local authority in question, it will be a general report of considerable general interest but perhaps with little pertinence to the specific act of the Secretary of State in designating the local authority in question. If, on the other hand, the Audit Commission is to be expected to investigate the efficiency and working of local authority services in every specific regional district where a designation process is proposed, it will be an extremely time-consuming business. My noble friend is completely right to say that it will result in long delays.
Although on this side of the House we must respect the fact that noble Lords opposite are not in sympathy with these procedures in general, it cannot be right, if we are trying to pass a Bill that will work, to have, every time there is an issue of disagreement, a report, a consultation, an affirmative resolution and a cogibundancy of cogitation, to use the term from Nightmare Abbey.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, ran through the list of amendments in the Marshalled List and sought to show that they were unnecessary and that we were trying to upset the passage of the Bill. However, the amendments would not be necessary if the clauses were not in the Bill. The noble Lord must know that we do not agree with the clauses and we do not agree that the Government should be circumscribing the actions of local government in the way that they are. We believe that the Government are embarking on a process of undemocratic centralism.
We do not believe in undemocratic centralism any more than we believe in the so-called democratic centralism of the former Soviet Union. We on this side of the House believe in free local authorities—at least I do; I cannot speak for my Front Bench. I believe in local authorities which are themselves allowed to raise the bulk of their income and to decide for themselves the bulk of their expenditure. They should be answerable to the local electorate. In my book, that is democracy. Anything other than that—and certainly the imposition from Whitehall of controls on that expenditure—is frankly anathema to me because it is not local government.
I served in local government at a time when there was a real partnership between the Government and local government and when Whitehall took account of the need for local authorities to decide things for themselves. Local government certainly had to bear in mind government policy, but its actions were not completely circumscribed by it. We have embarked down a road, which the Government seem to want, where democratically controlled local government no longer exists. The Bill—and especially this clause—is a recipe for town managers. Under the Bill, we would not need elected local authorities because they can do nothing for themselves. The Government might just as well say, "Let's abolish local government and set up a system of town managers".
1394
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to extravagant local authorities, but in almost the next breath he said that most local authorities were highly responsible. Therefore, according to the noble Lord, we are talking about a system that will deal not with the vast majority of local authorities, but with a few rogue local authorities.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Lambeth!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if I may say so, the Bill is taking a huge sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. It is the sort of thing that Hitler used to do. If a small minority of people was against him and did things to undermine him, he used to take innocent people out and shoot them. I am not suggesting that the Government want to take out local authority members and shoot them, but why on earth should we make things difficult for the vast majority of local authorities simply and solely because a few rogue local authorities, which, after all, should be responsible to their own electorates, are kicking over the traces and not doing what the Government tell them?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is suggesting that the Bill will make things difficult for the vast majority of local authorities because the vast majority will not have to be capped and their operations will not therefore be interfered with. He is arguing that, however wildly extravagant and oppressive a local authority may be to its own people because of its high spending and heavy demands upon them, Her Majesty's Government should simply fold their hands and let it happen. That is what the noble Lord is suggesting.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, understands the system or what is happening. The fact is that local authorities have to conform to the Government's standard spending assessment or be capped. What used to be Tory Berkshire is not quite that any more because it has become a hung council since the Tories lost a seat there. But the previously Tory-controlled Berkshire County Council had to conform or be capped—and it did not like that one bit. Is the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggesting that Berkshire County Council is a rogue, irresponsible local authority? I can assure him that it is not. Its expenditure on many services is well below the average, but it is having difficulty and has had difficulty for two or three years in meeting the Government's standard spending assessment. We are talking about perhaps a handful of local authorities that could be described as "rogue" authorities which are making the running for the whole of local government.
The amendment is relevant for another reason: because people simply do not understand the system. I know that I have been over this ground before, but people in this country find it hard to understand why one local authority has to levy what is presently a community charge of perhaps £400 whereas another local authority levies nothing at all or, in the case of

1395
Westminster this year, a charge of only £36. People know perfectly well that that cannot be due simply to the efficient operation of that local authority. They know that there is something else to it. That is why it is right that the amendment provides for an examination of the circumstances of a local authority that is to be capped, as Reading as been capped both this year and last year. There should be an opportunity to examine why a local authority, such as Reading, which has been praised for its efficiency by the Audit Commission, should have to charge about £360 per year whereas people in Wandsworth pay nothing. People do not understand that. The local councillors in Reading certainly do not understand it and, as a charge payer, I still do not understand it, but I very much resent it. The amendment would provide for an examination of what is happening in a local authority that the Government propose to cap.
That is why I support the amendment. Indeed, I should have thought that if the Government wanted to be open, they would be happy to accept it or something similar because it would provide for a proper examination of the circumstances. The Government could not then be accused of being party political in their grant allocations and there would be an independent inspection of what they proposed to do to a local authority. I support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, which will be no great surprise to your Lordships given that we, in the Liberal Democrats, have always supported the accountability of local authorities to their local communities. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put his finger on it when he said that if the provisions in the Bill for capping were suspended, certain authorities would indulge in high spending without fear of interference from the Government. Others of us may say that some local authorities might indulge in high spending, but that they should fear those who put votes in the ballot box.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said the operation of the legislation as a whole would be prejudiced if the amendment were accepted. That is perhaps stretching things a little because the provisions relate only to the suspension of one power until there has been a report by the organisation that we have all been taught to respect as saying sound and wise things about local authority finance.
When I was a fairly new councillor in the early 1980s, I attended a meeting at which someone commented that the number of people who understood local authority finance was probably about the same as the number of people who understood the situation in Lebanon. I do not think that things have got a great deal better—in Lebanon either—since that time.
The amendment would enable those of us in local government to answer the people who quite understandably approach us saying, "Please can you explain why I am so prejudiced against and why things are so different in different authorities?". The Audit Commission's report, pinning the work of local
1396
authorities into the categories of "economy", "efficiency" and "effectiveness" would be a very good thing.
In the outer London boroughs—I do not have the figures for inner London and, in any event, it is probably unfair to compare them—the spending limits for next year per head of population range from the lowest of £619 to more than double that amount. The proportion of expenditure that is funded by the poll tax in the current year is multiplied by a factor of two, from the lowest of just under 14 per cent. to the highest of over 27 per cent.
Speaking as a councillor from Richmond, I should be glad to have the position examined. The borough is second to lowest in block grant per head of population for next year. I can only assume—I know this to be the case—that we are highly economic, efficient and effective. I should be glad to have the stamp of the Audit Commission to tell people that. People deserve to know why there is such a range of charges and why the system is so complex. If there is nothing for them to be anxious about, they should be told that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lord, I too oppose the amendment. I agree with everything that my two noble friends have said about the amendment and what underlies it. I speak as the Minister who carried the first rates Bill through another place. That Bill was eventually passed by this House. It introduced capping for the first time. No one pretends that one introduced it with pleasure or enthusiasm. It became a most regrettable necessity. It was introduced in response to rising pressure and the rising vocal anger of ratepayers, as they were then, against the intolerable burdens being imposed upon them by a number of local authorities. The House will remember that we started with relatively few authorities. There was a general power which, in my estimation and that of a number of my honourable friends, would never need to be used. No one pretends that capping is desirable, but it regrettably proved to be necessary to prevent the extravagant demands that were being made.
When the community charge was introduced it was hoped that, with the combination of measures embodied in the legislation, one would have sufficiently strengthened the accountability of local authorities to their local charge payers (through the multiplier and so on) that capping would be unnecessary. The power was taken as a transitional measure to ensure that too great an advantage was not taken, because, even then, I believe my noble friends will agree, the Government underestimated the determination of local authorities to increase their spending and to choose the opportunity of a change in the system to blame the Government. That became the normal thing.
Yesterday I attended the launch of a new Rowntree publication entitled A New Accord: Promoting Constructive Relations Between Central and Local Government. All of us interested in local government should read what is an interesting publication. I happen to think that it is unrealistic in many respects. It is idealistic. It is in no way rooted in the political realities of the situation, as I am sure the noble Lord,

1397
Lord McIntosh, and his noble friends and my noble friends will recognise. It is the dream of a number of able, well-meaning people. They believe that if only the great, the good and the beautiful could all agree, everything in the garden would be lovely. It contains some interesting proposals.
The report was torn to shreds by one member of the commission, the current chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the very able Labour councillor from Newcastle, Councillor Jeremy Beecham. A number of us had criticisms of it. It is interesting in one respect which is relevant to the amendment. Properly the authors say, as I have said, that on the whole capping is not conducive to the concept of local democracy, and would that it were not necessary! It is interesting to note what the authors say about capping. In general, they are against it, but where there is a transition to a new tax it might be necessary. For such a body to argue that the one case which would justify retaining the capping power is a transition to a new tax is significant. Here we have a transition to a new tax. My noble friends are right in those circumstances to include the capping provision. I equally agree that it would be unnecessary to preface the use of that power by an Audit Commission report.
There is nothing to prevent the Audit Commission from deciding to have the kind of study that the amendment proposes. It might be a revealing exercise if it were to be done; but to make it a condition precedent to the use of the capping power is inappropriate. When a body such as the Rowntree Trust recognises that such a power is justified during a transition, it shows that it is a realistic power which might be used. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, we have ranged far and wide in a fundamental disagreement between noble Lords opposite and my noble friends. Noble Lords opposite believe fundamentally that there should be no limit on local authority spending, and that the Government should take no view about the impact of that aggregate of local authority spending on the national economy. If noble Lords opposite were ever to come to power I do not believe that they could deliver that proposition in practice. At some stage, they would find themselves having to take a view that unfettered local authority spending would have an adverse impact on the national economy. It would be only a matter of time before they would have to resort to some means of control.
I was disappointed, because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not return to accusations of political bias in determining SSAs; but sadly his colleague and noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, did. I shall put the record straight, because it is important that that should be done. First, the factors used to determine SSAs for authorities are applied universally across the country. They are also arrived at in consultation with the local authority associations. It is true to say that the local authority associations have never made the accusation that there is political bias in determining those factors. Even if, at worst, there
1398
were, they are applied uniformly across the country. I want to refute, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin did in Committee, that that is the case.
I shall give some facts. Labour-controlled local authorities receive the greatest external support for spending. The higher SSA-pounds-per-adult go to Labour-controlled authorities. They spend at a much higher level than Conservative-controlled authorities. All local authorities with a community charge of £300 or more are Labour-controlled or have no party in overall control. They have greater support from government. It is recognised that they have more generous SSAs, but still they choose to spend at a higher level and to charge ratepayers more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about putting the capping powers into suspension, and that we should not worry if local authorities are self-indulgent; that it should not be our concern; and that our concern should be about votes in ballot boxes. That is very much the concern of this side of the Chamber. We believe that the people who have to pay the bill for that self-indulgence and extravagance are the people who put the votes into the ballot boxes. It is the responsibility of any government to have a conscience about the people who must pay the bills for excessive spending. Simply to say that we do not care about excessive spending is something with which we on this side of the Chamber cannot agree.
Once again the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, indulged in Westminster bashing: he said that there must be more to it. There is indeed more to it; Westminster is a very efficient local authority. If one compares external support for Westminster in pounds per adult with that for many Labour-controlled authorities in a similar class in London, there is no comparison. Thus, one cannot use that as an argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned that the figure for many of the outer London boroughs varied from approximately £600 to over £1,000. I hope the noble Baroness will accept the differing needs of the authorities in supplying services to their populations. It must be cheaper to provide services for people in Surrey than for those in Tower Hamlets. The needs of the people of Newham differ from and are greater than those of Richmond. That is precisely the rationale for saying that there must be different sums for different authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I accept that there are different needs and that the external grant must reflect them. I said that people paying the poll tax, or what will be the council tax, find it difficult to understand the differences. I was not suggesting that those of us who have had the privilege of a little exposure to the arcane, complex workings of the system do not accept that there are differences in need.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness said but she missed the point that the amendments which she has been supporting during the passage of the Bill, those proposed by the Labour

1399
Benches and supported by the Liberal Benches, as well as the Liberal amendments supported by the Labour Benches, add up to greater complexity. All the information which the noble Baroness is worried about is in the public arena; it is public information. I do not pretend that the information is easily assimilated, but it would not be possible to have a simple system on how one arrives at needs. However, it is public information and local authority associations as well as local authorities have it.
Under the council tax system, we propose that RSG should be distributed to authorities to allow each to set a council tax at broadly the same level for each band. RSG will continue—as under the present system —to make up the shortfall between the amount which authorities expect to receive through income from local residents and from non-domestic rates and their SSAs. We are not proposing any major changes to SSA methodology although we shall, of course, seek to make improvements wherever these are justified on the basis of the available evidence. This year is a case in point. Through consultations with the local authority associations, the issue of capital receipts was addressed and some change was made to the factor that caused a slightly different redistribution.
The fundamental point for the purposes of this amendment is that SSAs—the basis on which RSG is to be distributed—are in no sense whatever a commentary on the efficiency or otherwise of an authority. SSAs represent the Government's view of the appropriate level of expenditure for each authority to incur to provide a standard level of service consistent with our view of the level of expenditure for authorities as a whole. This is measured through the uniform application of the methodology to the particular circumstances—geographical, demographic and social—of each authority's area. The methodology is designed to reflect variations in these characteristics which have a demonstrable effect on variations in the cost of providing services. I challenge both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord if they suggest that that should not be done. We may argue about the factors, but that there should be some recognition of the differing needs of different authorities as a principle is, I hope, not in doubt.
SSAs do not—and nor should they—represent any judgment about the relative efficiency of an authority, its policies, its previous spending plans or its current and future priorities. These are matters for each authority. We are satisfied that SSAs represent a fair and reasonable assessment of the expenditure required to provide a standard level of service. It is for authorities to seek to improve upon that if they can. If they do so, the result will be lower council taxes for their residents. If they do not, it will be higher council taxes. This is fundamental to the enhancement of local accountability.
Capping is concerned with the Secretary of State's judgment about whether an authority's budget is excessive or represents an excessive increase over the previous year. We are not concerned, in designating authorities for capping, with the priorities which an authority has set for itself or the efficiency of its use of resources.
1400
Thus, to delay decisions on capping to take account of a study of the effects of SSA methodology on value for money in the provision of local authority services would be, as I hope is clear to all noble Lords, wholly spurious.
I end where I started. We know that noble Lords opposite believe that local authorities should spend with no limits other than those they put on themselves and that there should be no concern about the aggregate of local authority spending as it impacts on the national economy. On behalf of the Government, I could not accept that as a principle and I call upon the House to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is right in saying that this has been a wide-ranging debate. It has covered the widest range of misconceptions from the Government Benches about local authority finance that we have heard for some time, and the widest range of misunderstandings about the thrust and impact of the amendment that one could have expected.
I sympathise with noble Lords opposite. They have to face the situation that the Conservative Party has held three different views about capping over the past 10 years. Ten years ago Ministers, even some of those who are Ministers now, said that capping was totally undesirable and that it should be left to the local ballot box. Five or seven years ago, with the active participation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, Ministers were saying what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said on one occasion: that capping was an exception which should be used only on rare occasions. As he said, the vast majority of local authorities conduct their affairs responsibly.
Now they have a quite different view. The Government now take the view that capping is a permanent and universal element in local authority finance and that it should be applied to all kinds of councils every year and written into the Bill accordingly. It must be difficult for noble Lords opposite to decide which of the three views to take.
The view they cannot take is that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we on this side are defending extravagant local authorities. We are, of course, doing no such thing. We are saying that extravagance must be controlled, but—as has been the view of the Conservative Party, apart from this recent aberration—it should be controlled by the ballot box rather than by the whim of the Secretary of State. That is a very different situation.
In an interesting intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, sought to change the English language to some extent, partly by the use of the neologisms of Thomas Love Peacock, which I appreciate. He also seems to think that we are using what he called "temporising" amendments. My dictionary says that to temporise is to adopt indecisive or time-serving policies. That is by no means either the intention or the impact of Amendment No. 94. I should have thought that what we seek to do in the amendment is quite different. We seek to bring into the open the workings of local authority finance and to give people

1401
an opportunity to consider them, particularly the Secretary of State, before proceeding with a somewhat rash venture.
The noble Lord also seems to think that what would be required of the Audit Commission is an investigation of each designated authority. No such thing. Clause 54 provides, quite rightly, only for the designation of classes of authority, not of individual authorities.
In a helpful intervention, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the complexities of local government finance as we find them. She thought that few people understood them now, as was the case when she first went into local government. I am reminded of Browning who in his old age was asked about his early poem Sordello. He said that when he first wrote the poem only God and Robert Browning knew what it meant, but now God alone knew what it meant.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has the advantage of me as I have not seen the Rowntree publication to which he refers. It was interesting to hear him acknowledge that when he was responsible for introducing capping it was done so as a transitional measure. The noble Lord said that the power was taken as a transitional measure. I wrote those words down as he said them. If I misunderstood what he said, I apologise; but those were the words he used.
The noble Lord seeks to justify capping in the words of the Rowntree researchers by saying it is all right if one is moving to a new taxation system. I must remind the House that it is the Conservative Party not only in this Government but also in this Parliament that has forced on an unwilling public not one but two new taxation systems. Perhaps the way to avoid capping is to get rid of a Conservative Government and institute a local financial system which works.
The Minister was disappointed that I did not return to an accusation of political bias. I did not return to that accusation because I had not made it in the first place. It is interesting that the Minister should adopt such a confrontational attitude that she is disappointed when I do not act as she wishes. The Minister also seems to think that the word "refute" means the same as to deny. I remind her that refute means to prove the falsity or error of a statement. All the Minister is doing is asserting that our statements are wrong. She is certainly not in any sense refuting them.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I understood him to say a moment ago that Clause 54 makes provision for the Secretary of State to designate a class of authority rather than to designate a specific authority. I am sure I do not understand the Bill as well as the noble Lord; but that is not what Clause 54 appears to say. I understand that Clause 54 empowers the Secretary of State to designate an authority. I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I have misunderstood the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood the matter. Clause 54(2) further states:
"those principles shall be the same either—
1402

(a) for all authorities falling within that class; or

(b) for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under this Chapter".

Class is defined in subsection (3).
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope it will be helpful to state that Clause 54 deals with the designation of classes. However, capping deals with individual authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, capping has to be implemented on designation rules which apply to classes. Of course it has a different effect on individual authorities, but the rules for designation are set across classes. That is what the Audit Commission would be concerned with. The Audit Commission would not be concerned with individual authorities.
As regards the Minister's defence of standard spending assessments, it was couched in such vague terms that it is difficult to reply to it. All I would say about it is that I do not deny—I have never claimed otherwise—that standard spending assessments will be different in different kinds of authorities because they will reflect different local conditions. What we are saying, and what the Minister totally fails to refute, is that standard spending assessments are seriously flawed in the way in which they are calculated. They are based on much out-of-date information. They exaggerate some elements and undervalue others. My fundamental point is that SSAs are simply not good enough to be used as a basis for capping. Ministers and noble Lords opposite are quite right to say this point is a fundamental difference between us. On this occasion it is also right that I should seek the opinion of the House.
5.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 94) shall be agreed to?
* Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kissin, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Diamond, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fitt, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

1403

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Underhill, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Acton, L.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kitchener, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Knollys, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Barber, L.

Lyell, L.

Bauer, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L,

Manton, L.

Belstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Biddulph, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Milverton, L.

Boardman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newall, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pender, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pennock, L.

Cockfield, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Colwyn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Cork and Orrery, E.

Prentice, L.

Craigavon, V,

Pym, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Quinton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Reay, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Rees, L.

Denham, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rennell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Flather, B.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gorell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Haddington, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Hanson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vinson, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Howe, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Huntly, M.

Wise, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wolfson, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 138 names. The Clerks recorded 139 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Clause 65 [Duty to consult ratepayers]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 43, line 44, leave out from ("prescribed") to ("and") in line 45.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 95, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 96. The amendments are technical in nature. Clause 115 provides that prescription under the Bill will be by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That renders unnecessary the references in Clause 65(6) to prescription by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 therefore remove those references. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 43, leave out line 47 and insert ("may be prescribed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of rural areas
—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in carrying out his duties under this Act, to have regard to the needs of people in rural areas.
(2) In carrying out his duty under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult local authorities serving rural areas on the impact of the tax in their locality, in particular—

(a) how the national bands relate to local property prices and average local incomes; and

(b) the impact of second homes on property prices and therefore levels of the council tax in their area.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I should like to move Amendment No. 97 standing in her name. During the course of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats have sought to ameliorate the effects of the council tax on those in rural areas. People living in the countryside will lose under the council tax in several different ways. As we have shown, in some sparsely populated areas the bands will not reflect the true distribution of property and many property owners will find themselves in bands which do not fairly reflect the value of the property. The appeal system will not operate in those circumstances.
On the other hand, in our rural areas second home owners will push up the price of property in many communities beyond the reach of many in those communities. Not only is affordable accommodation not available to the young, which may have a very debilitating effect on the life of the whole community, but the average valuation used for the council tax will be increased. The result will be bills out of all proportion to the wages and other income received by the indigenous population who earn their living in the countryside. There will also be a higher proportion of people living in tied accommodation in rural areas, farm workers being a prime example. We have already pointed out the difficulties under the banding system in relation to tied accommodation.
We failed to convince the Government of the validity of a number of those points, but the amendment will ensure that the needs of rural areas are not forgotten and that the relevant Secretary of State will report back on the impact of the tax on rural areas. It may turn out that the tax will prove nothing but a blessing for rural areas, although that seems extremely unlikely. In that case, the Secretary of State will report back triumphantly. However, it is much more likely that the report will highlight the difficulties being experienced in rural areas. In that case, as noble Lords on all sides of the House would want, steps could then be taken to correct some of the difficulties along the lines which we have already suggested. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this seems to me to be an amendment of doubtful utility. In proposing it, the noble Lord said that the Secretary of State will report back. However, the amendment places no requirement on the Secretary of State to report back. That is in itself a very good thing because such a requirement would make this even more of a temporising amendment than it already is with its duty of prior consultation. When I use the word "temporising"—and I am now addressing myself to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that is a polite way of saying "delaying"; that is what I take the term to imply. there is an element of that in this case in that there would be a duty for the Secretary of State to consult local authorities.
The first part of the proposed new clause is surely of paramount superfluity. It reads:
"It shall he the duty of the Secretary of State in carrying out his duties … to have regard to the needs of people in rural areas".
One would indeed wish that to be the case. However, one would not wish thereby to exclude the needs of people in urban areas or any other areas, such as suburban, which are intermediate between the two. In referring to a class of persons which in terms of area includes more than half the country, although in terms of individuals rather less, the amendment is superfluous.
The second part of the amendment requires the Secretary of State to:
"consult local authorities serving rural areas on the impact of the tax in their locality, in particular … how the national hands relate to local property prices".
It is very difficult to envisage what the Secretary of State will do with that information, even if he learns something in the process of consultation which he did not already know. One hopes that the Secretary of State will keep such matters under constant review. The Bill sets out provisions for the bandings, although it is open to the Secretary of State to modify those under the provisions of Clause 5(4). The noble Lord did not refer to that in particular. The only use that I can see for that proposal would be in relation to second homes in Wales, to which the noble Lord did not specifically refer.
Under Clause 12(2) and (3) there is a possibility for the Secretary of State for Wales to modify the discount provisions for second homes in Wales. One hopes that it is a matter which will be kept under
1406
review. It will need to be, because under the Bill the Secretary of State for Wales, or someone, has the duty to decide whether subsection (2) or subsection (3) should be applied.
One sympathises with the intentions behind this new clause, but it seems to me to be a clause which would not in itself achieve anything at all.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I intervene only because of the use by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, of the word "temporise". To temporise is to adopt an incisive or time-serving policy. Temporising may result in delay but it need not be the only reason for delay. Therefore, the noble Lord should not use it as an alternative word for "delay". Perhaps I may give an example. At the moment the Government are failing to produce a policy for the privatisation of British Rail. That is not temporising. They are failing to do it because there is no effective way of privatising British Rail. The words are different in meaning.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord into the problems of the privatisation of British Rail, but being a man of immense strength of character I shall resist that temptation.
In the matter of temporising, the word "dilatory" comes to mind. In this House and another place we use the word "dilatory" in a very special sense. A dilatory Motion is a Motion which delays the proceedings. Normally, in common parlance, "dilatory" means one is failing to get on with that which one ought to get on with—as I am failing to get on with this debate. Perhaps I am being dilatory.
The only point that I wish to put to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches is that it is not my experience that local authorities are slow to come and make their views known to the Secretary of State if they feel that something is operating to their disadvantage. Indeed, on the contrary, if I were given £100 for every hour that I have spent listening to the complaints of local authorities about the way in which the local taxation system and the grants system were impinging upon them I should be a very rich man indeed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord was given £100 for every hour. He was paid.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I do not think, my Lords, that it was as much as that. I was paid for a whole lot of other things. I am against cluttering up the statutes with unnecessary clauses. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord who moved the amendment, I believe that it is unnecessary.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in view of his constant reference to his dictionary, that the bigger the dictionary the more meanings will be found in it for any particular word or phrase.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I did not realise that the amendment was about a word. I thought that it concerned something much wider. I sympathise with

1407
the noble Lord who moved the amendment. My only sorrow is that he confined the provision to rural areas. Where I live, unfortunately, the position of second homes is reversed. People have their main dwelling in the country and a second home in London. Also rented houses are affecting the situation. Certainly the prices of the houses are affected. The noble Lord has an extremely good point. I am only sorry that he confined it to rural areas.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments would require my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland to have regard to the needs of people in rural areas in carrying out their duties under the Bill. So far so good. We are all in favour of virtue. But we do not need to write our preferences into legislation, and that is what this amendment does. It is merely a preference on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Go hang, if you are urban; go hang, if you are suburban; but if you are rural the Liberal Democrats would have it written on the face of the Bill that you should be singled out as people for whom we should have regard when carrying out and implementing the powers and duties under the Bill.
The system that is in place, and indeed the provisions of the Bill, take into account the needs of all people, wherever they live. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord just one example of how the needs of rural people are met. In determining needs there is a factor called sparsity. It is a known fact that more people have to use buses to take children to school in rural areas and that it is more expensive to provide some services there. However, it is equally true that there is higher expenditure incurred in meeting the needs of people in, for example, the inner cities. It would be quite wrong to put on the face of the Bill a preference for having regard to the needs of people in rural areas when indeed we have a duty to have regard to people in all areas, whether those areas are inner city, suburban or rural areas.
The rest of the amendment is equally unnecessary. We would expect local authorities in rural areas, as in other areas, to take account of the impact of the tax on their areas in setting the tax. There is no reason whatever for the Government to consult authorities about a matter which they are to decide for themselves, subject to the usual constraints of expenditure limitation. We have ensured that nobody will have to pay a disproportionate amount of his income in local council tax by limiting the range between bands and providing rebates of up to 100 per cent. for people on low incomes. People applying for rebates who have homes in the higher bands will be entitled to rebates up to a higher level than those whose homes are in lower bands.
It is also worth saying to the noble Lord that there is no loss of revenue to local authorities for second homes. The amount is made up by the grant that the Government give to local authorities, recognising both discounted people and the loss of revenue as a result of second homes.
Finally, noble Lords opposite should not forget that only some 15 per cent. of local authority spending
1408
has to be met by local people. The remainder is funded by central government taxation and the proceeds of the non-domestic rate.
I believe that the proposals in the Bill ensure that no one will be asked to pay more than his fair share toward local authority spending. I hope that I have persuaded the House that the amendments are quite unnecessary. I wish to convince noble Lords that it would be quite wrong—not just unnecessary or undesirable, but quite wrong—to single out one class of people on the face of the Bill and have nothing to say about all other people in all other areas with differing needs, to whom we have a responsibility.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should have said, as the noble Baroness delicately reminded me, that in moving this amendment I also spoke to Amendment No. 106. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, accused me of either temporising or being dilatory. I shall not embark on the argument as to which word it should be because neither of them is correct. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that we did not lay a special duty on the Secretary of State to report back. But the whole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State keeps these matters in mind and, under the open government which we are always assured the party opposite espouses, will let us know the problems that are met and produce reforms for the occasion. None of the things mentioned would have delayed anything that this Bill attempts to achieve. They could all happen simultaneously or afterwards. Therefore, that particular accusation falls to the ground.
Rural areas have particular problems, especially those with a very sparse population. They need particular attention to be paid to them. I thought that it was a little unfair of the noble Baroness to say that we want to talk about rural areas and do not talk about people anywhere else. My noble friend Baroness Hamwee spent several days talking about all the other people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Lord talks about sparsity. I said that sparsity—in other words, the need of rural areas to provide services to their people—is a constituent factor in determining SSAs. Does he disagree? If he does, can he please say what it is about sparsity that is not recognised in determining SSAs for rural areas?
The noble Lord suggests that concern only for rural people is put on the face of the Bill. He does not suggest that the needs of inner city people and suburban people should also be put on the face of the Bill, does he?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not suggest that the same problems face people in rural areas as those in suburban and inner city areas. No one is more aware than me of the problems of the inner cities.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Than I.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for contributing his learning at this moment. I can see that I shall not get far with the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 [Alteration of lists]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 58, line 35, after ("it") insert (", or any part of it,").
My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 98 in moving Amendment No. 80. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 99 I must point out that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 100.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 58, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert:
("(b) the local assessor is satisfied that—

(i) a different valuation band should have been determined by him as applicable to the dwelling; or

(ii) the valuation band shown in the list is not that determined by him as so applicable; or

(c) the assessor has, under Schedule 5 to this Act, added, amended or deleted an apportionment note relating to any lands and heritages included in the valuation roll; or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 59, line 45, after ("operation") insert ("carried out in relation to the dwelling").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 80. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 103A not moved.]
Clause 89 [Powers of entry]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 105 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 101, insert the following new clause:
Transitory enforcement provisions for England and Wales
(".—(1) Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act (community charges: enforcement) shall he amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 7 (distress), after sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(3A) The regulations may include provision that—

(a) no person shall make a distress unless he is an officer of the authority concerned, or he is a person of a prescribed description and any prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(b) no person making a distress shall seize goods of a prescribed description."

(3) In paragraph 8 (commitment to prison), in sub-paragraph (1) (a), for the words "it appears to the authority that no (or insufficient) goods of the debtor can be found" there shall be substituted the words "the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor".
(4) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Admissibility of evidence
13A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that, in any proceedings before a magistrates' court under any provision included by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) a statement contained in a document of record shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible; and

(b) a certificate which is made with respect to a document of record produced by a computer and purports to be signed by a responsible person shall be admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of his information and belief.

(2) In this paragraph—
'document of record' means a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the authority concerned;
'responsible person' means a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer;
'statement' includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise."
(5) In paragraph 15 (joint and several liability), in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "it appears to the authority concerned that no (or insufficient) goods of that person can be found" there shall be substituted the words "the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the chargeable person.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in part with Amendment No. 70 and in part with Amendment No. 75. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 102 [Council tax benefit]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 69, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consult local authorities about how the arrangements for the alternative maximum council tax benefit are working in practice and within nine months of the coming into force of Schedule 9, the Secretary of State shall lay before parliament a report setting out progress by billing and levying authorities in implementing these new arrangements and, in particular—

(a) the costs of administering the alternative maximum council tax benefit including calculation on whether the maximum or alternative maximum is appropriate;

(b) the numbers of applications for alternative maximum council tax benefit;

(c) the number of claimants in receipt of the 7·5 per cent., 15·5 per cent. or 25 per cent. rebate respectively and the number of students in each category.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment proposes that after consultation with local authorities the Secretary of State report to Parliament on the operation of the second low income reduction scheme within nine months of Schedule 9 coming into force. The report would address issues of the scheme's cost and identify the number of applications.
Why, my Lords? We on this side of the House have argued frequently that the Bill is more internally complex than the poll tax and that its complexity is structural because the provisions seek to graft a poll tax head element on to a basic property tax. Because of that poll tax element, the Bill quite properly tries to weigh the ability of each of two members of a

1411
household to contribute to a bill for which only one may be liable and only one—the liable person—is eligible to claim rebates.
The complexity is compounded—as we see in subsequent amendments which we may discuss at Third Reading—because such issues operate at the interface of the DSS and DoE benefit systems. We are dealing with benefits framed by the DSS, administered by local authorities and reimbursed by the DoE. As drafted the Bill provides that anyone who is a single householder obtains a 25 per cent. discount irrespective of his income. From that flows the concept that other second people such as students or nurses by status—it is a status discount—may be invisible. There is too the rather odd notion—I understand what it seeks to achieve—of second low income adult reductions. That seems to assume that although a second visible adult is present in the household they might as well be regarded as invisible if their income is low enough provided that the second adult is not the spouse. If the second adult has a low enough income the liable person, regardless of his income, can claim a discount of up to 25 per cent.
In other words, a millionaire who is a single householder will receive a discount of 25 per cent. A millionaire who has living with him some other person of low income can also claim a 25 per cent. discount. That person may be his son, a lodger, an au pair, or whoever. But as long as that person is not a cohabitee, that millionaire can claim a discount of 25 per cent. on the second person low income. However, two women friends, each earning about £80 a week on average, can claim nothing either on the liable person or on the second person.
Since the liable person cannot receive rebate on both his income and the second person's income, he has to do a "better buy" calculation as to whether he prefers to claim a rebate on his own income or the second adult low income. I accept that it is a simple calculation if the second person in the household is on income support. It is a straightforward deduction of 25 per cent. But if not, I suggest that it will be very complex indeed. Both the liable person and/or the local authority will have to track all the members of that household through all their work and benefit situations on a daily basis in order to determine the "better buy" solution.
Government are essentially running a discount on the second adult which is not based on status invisibility but on low income. In other words, a discount is being run through the rebate system. That is why the issue is problematic. Local authorities and householders will have to calculate on a daily liability all such changes. They might have to switch several times in as many months between whether they calculate on the liable person or the income of the second person in the household.
Let me give an example. Mrs. Smith is liable for the council tax. She receives a retirement pension and a small occupational pension. She is entitled to a rebate in her own right of about 10 per cent. of the bill. She lives with her son who is in low paid work. Some weeks he works overtime; other weeks he does not. When he works overtime he earns approximately £105
1412
a week; when he does not, he earns approximately £90 a week. When he works overtime Mrs. Smith is better off calculating a rebate on her income. When he does not work overtime she is better off claiming a second adult low income rebate on him of 15 per cent.
Does the Minister seriously believe that operators of the benefit system, householders and local authorities can regularly track that position and award the right benefit? It is no defence to respond, as the Minister may be minded to do, that only a small number of people will be involved. About 10,000 calculations of "better buy" may be involved. We should not be setting up systems which we know in advance will be problematic. Even when the better off calculation is not involved the difficulties in tracking third party income fluctuations are formidable.
The local authority associations have grave reservations about the second adult low income reduction. I accept—I wish to emphasise it—that it is an honourable attempt by Government to face the problem of the second person in the household being poor but it is a problem created because the Government have insisted on retaining a poll tax element in the Bill and at the same time of making sharper the rebate scheme.
If either of those two basic structural flaws were amended, then the problem of the second persons's low income would not arise and the absurd complexities of trying to track alterations in income and switching between rebate on the first person and reduction on the second person's income would not arise.
As the Bill is drafted, despite the efficacy of modern computers, and having myself been through the hassle of trying to make the poll tax rebate scheme work, I suggest in all modesty that the scheme is unworkable. I ask the Minister to take the matter back and consider it again. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness's amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament about the operation of the arrangements for the alternative maximum benefit or second adult rebates which a liable person will be able to receive in respect of a second adult on low income who shares his or her home on a non-commercial basis. Although I shall not make a meal of it, I must say that the amendment as drafted is defective. Schedule 9 will be commenced on Royal Assent and therefore the amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the operation of the alternative benefit in December of this year before the benefit system comes into effect in April 1993.
The Government made it clear as long ago as last April that under the council tax non-dependants on low incomes living as second adults can give rise to a rebate which will be awarded to the liable person. The present amendment would place on my right honourable friend in another place a duty to monitor the implementation of the benefit scheme. I should explain that these rebates will be awarded to help people who would otherwise be affected by the fact that they share their homes with a person who is on a

1413
low income and could not therefore be expected to make a contribution towards the liable person's council tax.
The noble Baroness gave the example of a millionaire who had a person in receipt of a low income living with him. The millionaire's income is not relevant; it is that the second adult living with him has a low income and therefore cannot be expected to make a contribution towards the bill for that house. Second adult rebates are intended to assist such non-commercial situations where a person shares his home with a person on a low income who does not pay rent.
The Government have been anxious to keep the administration of second adult rebates as straightforward and simple as possible. I do not accept the point made by the noble Baroness about excessive complexity. The system we have devised has been simplified to take account of the concerns expressed by the local authority associations. I do not accept that they will not be able to make these arrangements work on a similar basis to the arrangements for non-dependant deductions which local authorities have operated for many years in the housing benefit and rate rebate schemes.
That brings me to the example which the noble Baroness gave about Mrs. Smith in receipt of a small occupational pension. She has a son living with her whose income varies. Exactly the same concerns relate to other benefits, in particular to housing benefit. There will always be people whose income fluctuates from one week to another. It is up to the claimant —in the example it will be Mrs. Smith—to furnish information about gross income of the second adult. Further information about his personal circumstances —for example, whether he is a pensioner—will not usually be needed. The same information is currently collected by local authorities in assessing housing benefit and was collected under the rate rebate scheme before April 1990 or before April 1989 in Scotland. The guidance issued to local authorities for housing benefit states that the onus is on the claimant to provide the relevant information about the incomes of non-dependants. We do not believe that the provision will cause local authorities insuperable difficulties. They have managed with housing benefit and I do not see why they should not manage with council tax benefit, in particular in these days of modern computer systems.
Perhaps I may put these matters into context. Based on the published assumptions for council tax levels we estimate that in total some 190,000 tax payers in Great Britain will receive a second adult rebate; nearly half of them will be pensioners. We estimate that expenditure on second adult rebates will be around £10 million. That will be reimbursed by the DSS and not the DoE, as the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I intervene to ask the Minister to elucidate on that statement. I understood that it would fall within the rebate framework of which local authorities currently receive 95 per cent. reimbursement from the DoE. Is the
1414
Minister proposing some other scheme or is he simply talking about the DSS funding the local authorities via the DoE?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, exactly that system will apply with funding going from one hat to another and then to local authorities.
The amendment also refers to the costs of calculating what she referred to as the "better-buy". I should explain that under the council tax benefit proposals, a person cannot receive at the same time both a rebate in respect of a second adult sharing his property and a rebate based on his own income and personal circumstances. Section 131(9) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, as amendment by Schedule 9, will provide that the claimant will be entitled to whichever is the greater of these two amounts of benefit. That is obviously advantageous to the individual claimant.
We estimate that a relatively small number of cases —around 10,000 tax payers in Great Britain—will be affected by the "better-buy" procedures out of an estimated benefit caseload of 5 million. The administrative implications of this aspect of the benefit system must be viewed in this light. I should also explain that information about both the income and personal circumstances of the liable person, and the income of the person sharing his home, will be available from the claim form. The "better-buy" calculations will therefore be a relatively straightforward matter for the computer systems, which local authorities will be putting in place, to cope with such matters.
I conclude by telling the noble Baroness that we will monitor carefully the introduction of the council tax benefit scheme. The benefit regulations will be subject to formal consultation with local authority associations. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The second person low income discount is an honourable effort to resolve a problem that should not have been built into the Bill. Clearly we should not start from here.
Perhaps I may pick up two points. First, as regards targeting, the Minister defended the propriety of the millionaire with a second low income person in his household receiving a 25 per cent. discount. Perhaps we may think about the matter. Discounts will cost local authorities collectively some £780 million. However, in so far as they were for single person occupancy they were justified on the grounds that the single millionaire would use fewer services than a two-person household. It was justified on the use of services. Clearly if there is a millionaire and a low income son that situation will not apply because the low income son makes it a two-person household. They will be using the services as heavily as a pensioner couple, a husband and wife or the two women friends receiving £80 per week.
Is the discount therefore targeted to poverty and need? The Government's efforts to introduce it are meant to identify hardship and need and in that we

1415
support them in spirit although not in their operational detail. No, it is not, because we are dealing with a millionaire household in which there is no poverty. It is simply that a second person has a low income and the first person has a high income. That cannot be defended as constructed by government. It is not based on the use of services—it is a two-person household —and it is not based on the poverty of a household because one of those people is a millionaire. How then can the Minister defend such a system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I justified it earlier and I continue to give that justification. It is a question of the perceived unfairness that a single person living on his own should pay the same as a household of two or any number of people. The noble Baroness now takes the matter further saying that as regards a single millionaire who has a son or someone else living with him the second adult is the important factor. Again, where two people are in the household one would expect the second adult to make a contribution. If he is receiving a low income he is not able to do so. Therefore, even though the first person is a millionaire it is right and fair that there should be a second adult rebate.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is the most implausible defence of the millionaire's need for a contribution towards his household bills that I have ever heard.
I turn to the second issue; namely, complexity. The Minister emphasises that modern computer systems will overcome the problems created by small numbers. The local authority associations' position on that remains as I have suggested. The ADC and CoSLA expressed reservations as to its administrative practicability and the AMA, the ALA and the London Boroughs Association all took a stronger line and said that they regarded the scheme as unworkable. They said that, although something should be paid, that would frequently be wrong. For example, the income of a second adult in a household may change because of receipt of a bonus, commission or payment for overtime. That person may then fail to tell the liable person and the liable person will continue to claim on the basis of the second person's income. The liable person would then be held responsible for paying back any overpayment.
That is unbelievably complex. I make the point because the poll tax fell ultimately not only because it was conceived to be unfair but also because it was practically unworkable. The poll tax was simpler to administer than the council tax scheme. The Minister and his advisers should take seriously the advice of the local authority associations, the majority of which say that the scheme is unworkable and the other two local authority associations have grave misgivings. They do not say that lightly because they recognise the need to identify and aid low income households. However, if they say it is unworkable, as they do, and the Minister and his advisers walk away from that warning, they have only themselves to blame when in three or six months' time after the operation of the tax the Audit
1416
Commission makes the same sort of detailed and heavy criticism of the unworkability of the scheme as it is currently doing as regards the poll tax.
We have warned the Minister and if the Minister and his advisers choose not to listen, so be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Social Security: Council Tax Benefit]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 112, line 18, after ("resident") insert ("including residents who are undertaking a full time course of education or are student nurses.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to include students in the rebate system. Under the current government proposals students living in all-student households—for example, halls of residence—will be exempt from the council tax. Other students may be liable for the tax but invisible and excluded from rebates. Therefore, although such students are liable, they are excluded from the rebate scheme because as students they are outside the social security network. We seek to identify that problem. Students who live in all-student households would be exempt. However, a student who is liable for the bill and who is sharing with other students is not eligible to claim a rebate because he is outside the social security system.
We welcome the clarification that where a student is personally invisible but liable for council tax and not eligible for a discount, he is eligible to claim the second adult's rebate. That will help a few students. However, we believe that this will be the least workable part of the whole structure of the Bill and therefore few students will wade their way through it.
At present liable students, unlike any other group, will still be left with at least 50 per cent. of the bill to pay without any help from the benefit system, however low their income. They may have a personal status discount of 25 per cent.—in other words, they are invisible—and may also enjoy a 25 per cent. discount because of the low income of the second adult, but they are still eligible or required to pay 50 per cent. of the bill without access to the rebate system, unlike the millionaire who has lots of income but receives a 25 per cent. discount.
As student numbers grow, an increasing number of students will be in that situation. They will be in non-university accommodation sharing with other students. I give the example of all-student house in which one student is a year ahead. He finishes at university in the summer but stays on in the house. He is no longer a student. He receives a low income. However, he will immediately attract a 75 per cent. or, at best, 50 per cent. bill. It is obvious that many problems will result.
I could give many examples from my experience of the university world, but I shall give your Lordships just one such example. A CAB in Surrey reports a mature student who obtained a place on a two-year Ph.D course after being unemployed for more than a year. During that time he had been living on income support with his partner and two children, including a

1417
four month-old baby. He had been awarded a research grant of £103 per week but the university would only allow him to undertake six hours paid work per week. Under the council tax scheme he would have to give up his university place because he and his wife would not qualify for benefits and could not survive on the grant.
There are other cases where hardship would be even more acute. For example, a liable student and a wife, who may receive income support or very low earnings, will not be eligible for rebates under the scheme, particularly if the student is sharing with other than a spouse or partner.
Students are outside the social security system but remain liable for a bill and they may have no income with which to pay it. Therefore, it seems only reasonable in that situation that they should be eligible in their own right for rebate. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the House will not need reminding that the Government do not believe that full-time students should generally receive social security benefits. They should look instead to the educational maintenance system for support. Later on I shall explain what exemptions there are to that generality. The removal of benefit entitlement from students—and this is a matter about which we argued in Committee as regards an identical amendment—did not take place in isolation. At the same time additional resources were made available through student loans and access funds.
Certain vulnerable students with special financial needs, including students who are lone parents or who are disabled, and student couples with dependent children, can claim income support and housing benefit, and they will be able to claim council tax benefit if they are liable to pay the tax. Also all part-time students will be able to claim benefit.
In the case of couples, where one partner is not a student, the non-student partner will be able to claim council tax benefit as a couple. This follows the arrangements which already apply in housing benefit. However, the income of both partners will be taken into account and benefit will be assessed from the applicable amounts appropriate for a couple in their circumstances.
Finally, the Government also intend to ensure that no non-dependent deduction will be made where, for example, a full-time student is living in the household of a liable person entitled to council tax benefit. The income of that student will be totally ignored in terms of the liable person looking to council tax benefit. In other words, the liable person who is not a student will be liable for 75 per cent. of the bill but there will be no non-dependent deduction on account of the income of the student, whatever that may be.
I should also make clear that students who are liable to pay council tax will be able to claim council tax benefit in the form of a second adult rebate, as the noble Baroness recognised. In other words, if a student is living with just one other person who is not a student, he will be liable for 50 per cent. of the bill
1418
because he will be able to claim status discounts both as a single person and in the form of a second adult rebate.
I should also make clear that students who are liable to pay council tax will be able to claim council tax benefit in the form of a second adult rebate. I should explain that Section 131(7) of the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as substituted by this Bill refers to the second resident not to the claimant for benefit. If the second resident is a person who falls to be disregarded for purposes of discount then no second adult rebate is payable in respect of him. This provision, however, does not prevent a liable person who gives rise to a discount from being entitled to benefit for a second adult.
We have responded very positively to anxieties about the position of students under the council tax. Where liability does exist there will be special arrangements for helping vulnerable groups through the benefit system; for example, disabled students, lone parents, student couples with dependent children, pensioner students, students under 19 in further education, students undergoing employment training and the spouses of students. We have not overlooked the fact that students are able to look to the educational maintenance system to provide for their specific needs and expenditure patterns. It is a system which has been considerably enhanced over recent years. The Government cannot accept the amendment and I trust therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. With the leave of the House perhaps I can clarify a point. Where a student lives with a partner they are jointly and severally liable. If she applies for rebate—the case of the spouse, as the noble Lord indicated—will she obtain a rebate on 100 per cent. of the bill? That would effectively be 75 per cent. Or will she only obtain a rebate on 50 per cent. of the bill? That would be 50 per cent. of the 75 per cent. In that case who would be expected to pay the balance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that her rebate would be assessed as being what her portion of the bill would be; that is, 50 per cent. of the bill. In the case of a student living with a non-student that would be 75 per cent. and therefore the rebate would be 37½ per cent. The student would be liable for the rest.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that clarifies the issue. On that basis the student with no income other than a maintenance grant, which has been recognised in legislation by making students invisible—
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I wish to correct something I have just said. My understanding is that the full bill could be rebated in those circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, logic has been sacrificed for compassion, but let me not object to that. There still remains the case of the liable

1419
student and the friend on income support—a non-cohabitee. Under the Bill they will still each face a 50 per cent. bill. How does the noble Lord suggest the student should pay that 50 per cent. of the bill? The second person is on income support and obtaining all the discount entitlement related to that because the second person has no income. The liable student is on a basic grant which has been recognised in all other contexts as being so modest that, because students are outside the benefit system, when it is an all-student household they pay nothing. If a student is living with someone on income support and the person on income support is obtaining the maximum rebate eligible of 25 per cent., where will the student find the 50 per cent. of the bill for which he or she is liable when the logic that an all-student household should pay nothing has been accepted?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise again with the leave of the House, and this will be the last time I intervene. We considered that it was to the educational system that the student must look for support. But certain vulnerable groups of students, as I mentioned, may be protected. The student in that case will be liable for the bill if he is not one of the vulnerable groups.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I realise that we are at the Report stage. The Minister has made clear that if students live together, under the educational maintenance scheme they are judged to be too poor to pay anything towards the council tax bill and are therefore exempt. But when they live with someone on income support, that same person goes from having a nil liability to a 50 per cent. liability while still on the same educational support system.
I hope that the argument suggests that the logic of the Government's position is indefensible. Students are outside the rebate system but retain a liability when their only income is that of an educational maintenance grant which in other circumstances—for instance when they live in an all-student dwelling—renders them exempt from paying anything. So be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 112, line 35, after ("percentage") insert ("which shall not be greater than 15 per cent.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 109A relates to the issues of taper. I make no apologies for returning to this for two reasons. First, increasing the generosity of the taper targets help to those who most need it. The more generous the taper the more it enables those just above income support levels to gain help. A 15 per cent. rather than 20 per cent. taper softens the cliffs of the poverty trap. Some 50,000 families, as was mentioned at Committee stage, will face marginal tax rates of over 90p in the pound when one interlocks family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. For many it will represent 97p in the pound.
That must be a perverse disincentive. If someone is working three days a week or 24 hours and has the opportunity to work four or five days a week and thus has less claim on family credit and so forth, why should they bother when the taper for each additional hour they work is 97p in the pound? It is thought to be punitive if those on £40,000 a year have a marginal tax levy of 40p in the pound; yet someone in the position I outlined has a marginal tax rate of 97p in the pound. That cannot be other than a perverse incentive to avoid taking up work opportunities, especially when the travel costs and so forth are likely to produce a marginal tax rate of over 100 per cent.
The more gradual the taper, the better. It is not a significant addition in cost when one thinks of the totality of the benefit bill. We are speaking of around £60 million which would reduce the taper from 20p to 15p in the pound, as it was under the old rates scheme. It is little more than the additional grant that the Government will be throwing at district councils in which their grant will exceed their spend, and only a fraction of the £780 million bill being spent on discounts.
The second reason for advancing the argument for a taper of 15 per cent. is that it would float people and local authorities off the administrative complexity of the cases we have been exploring, whether on joint and several liability or second adult low income households. A more generous rebate scheme for the liable householder—remembering that the rebate scheme ends at £75 a week for someone on an average headline bill—would help low income people by going a little higher up the income scale for eligibility. It would withdraw the taper more gradually, reducing the severity of poverty trap cliffs, and would also render it unnecessary for local authorities and the people involved to do the better-off calculation between their rebate and that of the second person low income. As a result we would have simplicity of administration.
The amendment comes with the support of RADAR. Many disabled people, three-quarters of whom are in benefit and the rest on low wages, will be disproportionately affected by the steep taper of 20p in the pound. Secondly, it comes with the support of CAB. The problems of indebtedness often occur at precisely the point where people shade off income support levels and where any modest help that we can target on people in poverty will help them avoid facing the poverty trap. Thirdly, it comes with the support of the local authority associations. It will avoid increasing the claims on second adult low income discounts and instead confine the rebate scheme to the liable adult with much reduced complexity of administration.
Finally, the amendment comes with the support of all the Opposition Benches and many on the Cross-Benches. It is a scheme costing relatively little that would, unlike the single person discount, help those in greatest need. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was open minded about the amendment when I first read it on the Marshalled

1421
List. To tell the truth I could not entirely understand it. However, the noble Baroness explained it well and made an excellent case for it. I gladly support it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was interested to note that the noble Baroness thinks £60 million is not much money. We obviously have different perspectives.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, knowing the Minister would say that, I was careful to say, "within the context of the benefit system."
Lord Henley: My Lords, within the total context of the benefit system it may appear to be small. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that even within the context of the benefit system £60 million is a large sum.
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the proposed rebate system has to be judged as a whole. Claimants for rebates will be entitled to rebates of up to 100 per cent. which will also help tax payers with incomes above income support levels. All beneficiaries, including those non-householders who will not be liable to pay any council tax, will gain from the Government's decision not to claw back from 1993 any of the amounts included in income-related benefits to help pay the 20 per cent. contribution towards the community charge. This decision will mean that, from April 1993, income-related benefits will, at 1992–93 prices, be some £680 million more than would have been required to compensate for inflation since 1989.
Also, the council tax system will help people who are living alone—for example, widowed mothers with children—by means of the discounts to be awarded under Clause 11 of the Bill. Non-householders will no longer be directly liable for local taxation. The council tax benefit taper needs to be considered in this context. Taking all these decisions together, the higher taper means that under the council tax benefit entitlement will extend to people with broadly the same levels of income as were helped by community charge benefit. Retaining the same taper as in community charge benefit, that is the 15 per cent. as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would have entailed expenditure of some £60 million more than the 20 per cent. taper that we have proposed.
That would have led to a marginal deduction rate which could get as high as 96 per cent. as opposed to 97 per cent. that it can reach under the 20 per cent. taper. In other words, the noble Baroness is suggesting £60 million expenditure for a reduction in the marginal—I stress "marginal"—deduction rates from 97 per cent. to 96 per cent. I have to tell the noble Baroness that we do not consider that priority can be given to expenditure in this area.
We considered the structure of the new rebate system very carefully. Like other income-related benefits, council tax benefit will have to be reduced as income rises above income support levels. I am sure that even the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, accepts that when income rises above income support levels, benefit has to be reduced gradually. To stop benefit precipitately at a given level, as we would all accept,
1422
regardless of the claimant's circumstances, would be fundamentally flawed, and would have an adverse effect on work incentives. The benefit taper ensures that an increase in income above income support level does not lead to an equal cut in council tax benefit. On the government's proposals, if a claimant's weekly income is £10 in excess of his or her applicable amount, the level of council tax benefit will be reduced by only £2 a week, the same as prevailed under the rates. Under this amendment £10 a week of excess income would reduce benefit by £1.50 a week, all at a cost of £60 million.
It is important to look at the whole thrust of our proposals for the council tax and not see one aspect, like the higher benefit taper, in isolation. Unlike the community charge with its universal liability, many people will not be liable to pay the council tax. They will not have to claim council tax benefit, and they will therefore not be affected by the higher taper; indeed for them the 20 per cent. taper will be irrelevant. In view of this, and in view of the cost of an amendment of this kind, I trust that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. The Government cannot accept it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that £60 million is not a small sum, but it is a sum which will be targeted to the most needy, the disabled, the low-wage earner, the person in part-time work and the like. That is unlike the system of discounts which we have talked about and the sum of £780 million. Those discounts are going to people without any relevance to their ability to pay. In some cases it is going, as we said just now, to two-person households of high income who will still be enjoying such discounts.
The Minister has made it clear that he cannot accept the amendment and I do not propose to press it tonight. At the end of the day, this amendment targets a modest sum to groups such as the disabled, those on low pay and in part-time work who are facing severe taper problems. They would enjoy not only a higher level of benefit because on something like £62.50 a week the difference between a 15 per cent. and a 20 per cent. taper is about £1 a week which is a significant difference. We may need to return to this matter. I am very disappointed that the Minister does not accept the moral disparity between discounts irrespective of the ability to pay and a taper which is now harsher than under the poll tax for those who are the most necessitous in our society. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("Rate appeal refunds
—(1) In this section—
(a) "relevant rates" means the aggregate of

(i) any rates which a rating authority within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967 has repaid under section 79(2) (a) if that Act in

1423
respect of any period of rate prior to 1st April 1990 in consequence of any relevant alteration; and

(ii) any rates which a rating authority has refunded under section 9(1)(a) of the General Rate Act 1967 in consequence of a relevant alteration.

(b) "a relevant alteration" means any alteration made in a valuation list by virtue of sections 71 to 78 of that Act after 1st April 1990.
(2) In the chargeable financial year commencing 1st April 1992 a charging authority shall be entitled to deduct and retain from the amount (the provisional amount) which it is liable to pay to the Secretary of State for that year under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act an amount equal to relevant rates repaid by it prior to 1st April 1993 in consequence of any relevant alteration.
(3) In any subsequent chargeable financial year a charging authority shall be entitled to deduct and retain from the amount (the provisional amount) which it is liable to pay to the Secretary of State for that year under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act an amount equal to the relevant rates repaid by it during that financial year in consequence of any relevant alteration.
(4) For each chargeable financial year from 1st April 1992, the Secretary of State shall credit to the account kept by him under Part 1 of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act a sum received from the Treasury equal to the aggregate of the amounts deducted and retained by charging authorities during such year pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to this amendment that is on a subject which we considered at Committee. I return to it for two reasons. First, I did not do justice to the argument when I introduced the amendment; and, secondly, the Minister in his reply did not do justice even to my inadequately expressed argument. In moving the amendment, I failed to make clear the peculiar anomaly as regards rate appeals relating to the period before the introduction of the poll tax on 1st April 1990 which are to be charged to the local authorities concerned. That is only for a very short period. Until 1989–90, rate appeals of this kind—there were rate appeals which resulted in more revenue as well as those which resulted in a decrease in revenue—were fed into the block grant for the following year. The refunds or increases were borne by all ratepayers, but the most important factor was that they were treated as affecting the local tax base and they were not counted as expenditure. They were not counted against spending targets for local authorities.
That is a very fundamental point. Until 1989–90 we did not have the anomaly of the effect of appeals which were counted against spending targets. That was at a time when capping was much less widespread than it is now or is going to be in the future under this Bill.
The second element that I did not make clear concerned rate appeals after 1990. Under the national non-domestic rate, refunds, as a result of rate appeals, affect the national pool and not the individual authority. We have a situation where before the period we are talking about and after it, there is no effect on individual authority's spending targets, but in the period we are talking about there is. It appears to be a complete anomaly in that respect. It would not be out of keeping to correct that situation.
The reason why I said that the Minister's response was inadequate on that point was particularly related to what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about
1424
the ILEA. He attributed blame to that body for the circumstances leading to the fact that the London Residuary Body has to increase its levy in 1992–93 to cover the refunds. I pointed out to him that even the London Residuary Body did not realise that the refunds would occur. It was difficult to suppose that the ILEA expected that. I failed to point out that even if it had, it could not possibly have included the provision for the refunds in its accounts because the ILEA was not a rating authority. Therefore, the idea that full provision could have been made in the final accounts is irrelevant. Rate refunds would have been included in the authorities' calculations of rateable values notified to the ILEA for the penny rate purposes. The ILEA itself would have had no knowledge of refunds being taken into account, much less the level of future liabilities. It will be helpful if the Minister sets that matter straight.
I understand from a circular which was sent out on Tuesday from the Department of the Environment to local authorities, that there is to be a scheme of supplementary credit approvals to cover the cost of late rating adjustments. Clearly, that is a very poor second best as far as we are concerned. We would much rather it were attributed to the national non-domestic rate pool. But even allowing for the fact that this is an improvement on what Ministers were able to say when we last debated the matter, I must question the fact that paragraph 4 of the letter states:
"The arrangements which the Secretary of State is minded to adopt would involve issuing to an authority an SCA"—that is, a supplementary credit approval—
"equal to a specified percentage of the amount by which a sum, calculated as described in the enclosed schedule, exceeds a threshold".
The value of that concession, if it is a concession, depends entirely, first, on the specified percentage, and secondly, on the threshold. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of what is in the mind of the Government, particularly in view of the fact that responses to the circular are required by 6 p.m. on Tuesday. If the Minister does not intend to give Parliament any idea of what is to happen, it will be very difficult for us to consider the matter at the last stage of the Bill next Thursday. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was the noble Lord himself at Committee stage who made the comment that this was a pending reply. I said to him then that I was not certain that we would be able to come back with an answer before Report stage. I hope that what I say will satisfy him and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord has explained that in essence the new clause would provide that when calculating what they must pay to the national non-domestic rate pool, districts and London boroughs would be entitled to deduct amounts in respect of late rating adjustments. The clause also provides that the Treasury should make up any shortfall in the NDR pool to which such deductions would inevitably lead.
As I have explained, late rating adjustments result from rating appeals for 1989–90 and earlier years which have been decided since the introduction of the

1425
current system. The costs of these adjustments are shared between tiers, reflecting the fact that all tiers shared the rate income in the first place. In inner London that means that part of the costs are passed onto the London Residuary Body since the LRB is the successor to the Inner London Education Authority and that authority received a share of the original rate income.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the costs of late rating adjustments are not borne locally but by the national taxpayer. That would mean, among other things, that in inner London the LRB had no costs which it had to meet. We do not believe that would be justified, since, as I have made clear, the ILEA originally received part of the rate income which has, in effect, been found to have been overstated. What is more, in part at least, the amounts to be refunded to ratepayers will depend on local circumstances, and on local authorities' past decisions on the level of their rates, which points, we believe, to these adjustments being a local matter.
Noble Lords will recall that when we discussed this issue in Committee we made clear that authorities have traditionally dealt with these adjustments themselves, by making provision for them when budgeting. The sad fact is that, in the case of the ILEA, full provision for such costs was not made in its accounts. That is why the LRB is now having to increase its levy for 1992–93 to enable it to meet its share of the costs. But we do not see that as a reason for the national taxpayer having to pick up the bill. Other consequences of the welcome demise of ILEA have been dealt with within London, and we believe it is right that that should continue.
However, we have recognised that in certain cases the circumstances of these late rating adjustments are such that special assistance is justified. In the case of inner London boroughs we have said that we would be prepared to grant directions enabling an authority to capitalise that part of the LRB levy which is attributable to those costs. We believe that capitalisation will help the boroughs to accommodate the levy within their budgets for 1992–93. In other cases, where authorities are facing serious budget difficulties as a result of their own costs of meeting these adjustments, we are also prepared to consider granting such directions.
As to supplementary credit approvals to cover these costs, we are considering a number of requests from inner London boroughs with regard to the LRB levy for 1992–93. We shall consider each case on its merits, but the House should know that we have already made clear that we do not have additional spare resources for 1992–93. I can, however, tell the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced that he is minded, out of resources which are available as a result of certain SCAs not being taken up to the anticipated extent in 1991–92, to issue SCAs to provide some assistance to those authorities most affected in 1991–92 by those late rating adjustments of which they could not have been aware with certainty when setting their budgets for that year. He has invited authorities, including of
1426
course, all London boroughs, to provide him with information about their late rating adjustments in 1991–92, after receipt of which he intends to decide the level of assistance which would be appropriate in the circumstances. There is nothing that I can add to that statement in answer to the request of the noble Lord. I hope that what I have said has given him some peace of mind and that he will therefore be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that my peace of mind matters very much at all. It is the local authorities and their rate payers and taxpayers who matter. I am afraid that the Minister has gone no further than did the Under-Secretary of State in response to my questions when I introduced the amendment. What we have is not even a second best, but very much a third or fourth best. We have a form of supplementary credit approval which still means that local authorities have to pay for it: it is just that they have to pay for it out of capital spread over a longer period rather than it being accepted that this is a national responsibility. The specified percentage has not yet been made clear and neither has the threshold; therefore, the amount is very indeterminate. That is a particular problem for local authorities, because although their bids have to be in by next Tuesday at 6 p.m. they will not have an answer in time for the budgets they have to produce—if they have not done so already—in the next week or so.
It is not as if the Government did not know the extent of the problem. Councillor Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the AMA, wrote to the Secretary of State as long ago as September of last year pointing out the problem in detail. The replies have been unsatisfactory and in the strict sense, temporising, until now—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is not here to hear the word used properly. It is a fact, and I am sorry that the Minister did not admit it, that the ILEA could not have made provision. Even if it had, the effect on the London boroughs would have been entirely different according to how the ILEA precept affected them.
This is a real example of the way in which the Government have failed to take account of legitimate pleas and protests expressed in moderate terms that have been made to them. To leave it until now, towards the end of February, when they have been aware of the problem for a very long time and then to make this unsatisfactory answer is doubly unsatisfactory. I am worse than disappointed in the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 [Savings and transitional provisions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 79, line 8, leave out ("section 101") and insert ("sections 101 and (Transitory enforcement provisions for England and Wales)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 112 was spoken to with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 79, line 11, after ("4") insert ("and 6(11)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 113 I should like to include Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 and Amendments Nos. 121 to 125. This is a group of amendments to paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 12 to the Bill, and are intended to improve the operation of the national non-domestic rate pooling arrangements. I am able to give explanations of what each of these amendments is about if the House so wishes. If not, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 80, line 12, after ("44(c)") insert ("44A").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 114 should have been included in the groupings with Amendment No. 43. Noble Lords may not have noticed that I omitted to include it. It is entirely consequential upon Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 80, line 20, after ("sections") insert ("(Transitory enforcement provisions for England and Wales) and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Local Government Finance: England and Wales]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 118, line 5, at end insert—
("1. In section 43 of the 1988 Act (Occupied hereditaments: liability) in subsection (5) for the formula—"AxB/Cx5"
there shall be substituted the formula—"AxB/Cx10"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It brings the mandatory rate of exemption from non-domestic rates of buildings occupied by charities into line with the rate of mandatory exemption for those owned by charities but at the time unoccupied. Charities are currently entitled to 80 per cent. rate relief on buildings that they occupy and 90 per cent. on unoccupied buildings. Local authorities have discretion to award further relief. This affects voluntary organisations that own or rent offices, charity shops, community centres, advice centres and training workshops. Rate relief has always been an important element of support for those bodies. According to Charity Trends in 1991, voluntary groups received £145 million in reliefs in 1989–90; and £23 million of that was discretionary relief.
Under the existing system of rate relief a charity which uses a building to provide a charitable service must pay a higher rate than if it were to leave the building idle. This is a financial disincentive for the charity to make the best possible use of all premises. The amendment would harmonise the rates at little cost. Charities have reported difficulties in obtaining discretionary relief from local authorities.
Additionally, some charities are having problems in gaining access to even the mandatory relief to which they are currently entitled. Local authorities give revenue capping, community charge collection difficulties and the gap between central government grants and resources needed for statutory duty provision as reasons for refusing relief to charities.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the extension of 90 per cent. mandatory rate relief to all charities and charitable organisations, whether or not their premises are currently being used, will cost the Exchequer between £3 million and £4 million per annum. This deferred amount would be met by the non-domestic rate pool and would not be a burden on local authorities. It is a very small sum by most standards. When we are arguing about £60 million being a small sum or £187 million being a small sum, and when, these days, we are positing millionaires to exist in many houses, £3 million to £4 million does not seem a great deal.
It is a small sum especially when one considers the 2.5 per cent. VAT surcharge imposed on voluntary organisations to help pay for the poll tax. The increase in VAT has cost voluntary organisations approximately £33 million to £35 million in 1990–91. Furthermore, at a time of recession when the demands made on voluntary organisations are increasing, no financial penalty should be imposed on voluntary organisations attempting to make the best possible use of their premises. The existing legislation on rate relief imposes an extra 10 per cent. burden on those organisations which are using their premises. The amendment will rectify that situation. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, at the Committee stage, the House considered an amendment which would have completely removed the rates liability on many charities. We explained then how charities had already benefited from the move to the new business rate and why we felt that any further concessions would not be appropriate.
As I said then, all charities benefit from services provided by local authorities. Many have high street outlets which profit from the particular services provided there; and there is a range of tax incentives which are designed to increase the funds available to them. Under general rates, the level of mandatory relief to charities was 50 per cent. but during the passage in 1988 of the Local Government Finance Bill we were persuaded to increase this to 80 per cent. because we saw that many charities were likely to face substantially increased bills. On top of that, those facing increases have benefited from the transitional arrangements which we introduced to protect ratepayers from the impact of the revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate in the first years of the new system. I should like to hear what evidence the noble Lord has that charities have not obtained the mandatory relief to which they are entitled. The reason could possibly be that they are mainly commercial enterprises as opposed to being mainly charitable enterprises. For the purposes of the relevant legislation that is a critical distinction.

1429
The noble Lord referred to the cost of extending relief. The 80 per cent. mandatory relief cost £280 million in 1990–91. The cost of extending relief by 10 per cent. would be about £35 million.
Charities' mandatory relief is borne by the national non-domestic rates pool, as is 25 per cent. of the cost of any additional top-up relief. The remaining cost of the top-up relief is met by local charge payers. It is not clear from the amendment how the proposed increase in the level of mandatory relief for charities would be financed. Someone would have to pay for the concession: would the cost fall on the community charge or council tax payers, other non-domestic ratepayers, or taxpayers in general?
For these reasons we did not think that we should remove the burden of rates from charities entirely, and nor do we now think that the extent of relief should be increased. It is worth repeating that the discretion which authorities have to top-up relief means that the relief can be extended if the authorities think that this would be appropriate having regard to the interests of their community charge or council tax payers. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it did not appear a great deal to ask, but as the Government do not seem to be in a giving mood tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 116B:
Page 118, line 14, leave out ("in the same ownership which") and insert ("which—
( ) are owned by the same person,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 116C to 116E. These amendments are a series of related changes to the existing amendment to Section 64 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 concerning the ownership of multiple moorings and a recasting of the wording of the amendment inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Multiple moorings, my Lords? What does that mean?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, moorings are things that boats tie up to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how does that come into the amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may give a slightly fuller explanation. I am dealing with Amendments Nos. 116B to 116E. The amendments simply make technical changes to the provisions in paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Bill dealing with the rating of multiple moorings. Paragraph 2 enables regulations to be made concerning marinas and other places where there are several moorings in one ownership but which are occupied by, for instance, different pleasure boat and yacht owners. The provisions honour a commitment we made during the passage of the Local Government and Housing Bill
1430
1989 to re-enact similar rules to those under the old rating system which were in the Rates Act 1984. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord with that fuller explanation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 116C to 116E:
Page 118, line 18, leave out ("the owner") and insert ("that person").
Page 118, line 21, leave out ("occupied by the same owner") and insert ("owned and occupied by that person").
Page 118, leave out lines 23 to 33 and insert:
("(3B) Regulations under subsection (3A) above may provide that—

(a) where a valuation officer makes a determination as mentioned in that subsection, he shall, if prescribed conditions are fulfilled, supply prescribed persons with prescribed information;

(b) while such a determination is in force—

(i) the person who on any day is the owner of the moorings (or the moorings and land) which constitute the hereditament shall be treated for the purposes of sections 43, 44A and 45 above as being in occupation of all of the hereditament on that day; and

(ii) no other person shall be treated for those purposes as being in occupation of all or any part of the hereditament on that day."

(2) After subsection (11) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(12) In subsections (3A) and (3B) above 'owner', in relation to a mooring, means the person who (if the mooring is let) is entitled to receive rent, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any other person, or (if the mooring is not let) would be so entitled if the mooring were let, and 'owned' shall be construed accordingly."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 120, line 24, leave out ("In each of sub-paragraphs (8), (9) and (10)") and insert ("In sub-paragraphs (8) and (9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 118 and 119:
Page 120, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert:
("(10) For sub-paragraph (10) of that paragraph there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—
"(10) If the amount notified under sub-paragraph (6) (b) above is less than the provisional amount, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) if he believes that the amount so notified is not likely to have been calculated in accordance with the regulations under paragraph 4 above, inform the authority of his reasons for that belief;

(b) if he is not of that belief, pay to the authority, at such time as he decides with the Treasury's approval, an amount equal to the difference between the amount so notified and the provisional amount.").

Page 121, line 17, at end insert:
("(11) For sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(2) Such a calculation shall be made on the basis of the information before the person making the calculation at the time he makes it; but the Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) requiring a calculation under paragraph 5(2) or (3) above to be made on the basis of that information read subject to prescribed assumptions;

1431

(b) enabling a calculation under paragraph 5(6) above to be made without taking into account any information as regards which the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) it is not reasonably practicable for the person making the calculation to take it into account; and

(ii) it was received by the authority after a prescribed date (which may be before or after the end of the year in question)."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 125, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The calculation made under subsection (1) above shall not cause the aggregate of the amounts payable in respect of revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates to exceed the authority's budget requirement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would return to an amendment worded in the same way as one that was moved in Committee only if I was dissatisfied either with the way in which we had presented it or with the answer. As the argument was presented by my noble friend Lady Hollis, I shall not say that I was dissatisfied with that. I was, however, dissatisfied with the Government's answers.
We are dealing with what is called "negative tax" —in other words, the provision whereby an authority's revenue support grant and its redistributed non-domestic rate income can exceed its budget requirement. On the face of it, that does not seem to make sense—and I still think that that is the case. I do not think that the argument was adequately answered in Committee.
I wish to refer particularly to the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at col. 217 on 4th February, that the amount of grant saved would remain with the Exchequer because an authority's entitlement to RSG and non-domestic rate are set before their budgets are known. The noble Lord failed to take into account the fact that under paragraph 15 of Schedule 10 there is power for the Secretary of State to issue amending reports at any time before the end of the financial year following the financial year concerned. In other words, it is perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to recycle to all other authorities grant which has been saved instead of taking it back into the maw of Great George Street. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to mean that he is arguing that there is some inequity in allowing a district council—the authorities that would in practice be affected by this amendment—to hold on to more revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates than it needs to meet its budget requirement. The surplus in such cases would have to be paid into the collection fund to offset the county precept for the area.
We had a very full discussion of this amendment in Committee. My noble friend Lord Henley explained that we were simply seeking to preserve the ability of councils in this position to pass on the benefits of their good housekeeping to the people who elected them.
1432
We are having to make special provision because of wider changes in the system of local government finance.
Revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates are at present paid into the collection fund administered by charging authorities in respect of all local authority services in an area. The charging authority sets its community charge to meet the balance of its own and precepting authorities' demands on the collection fund. However, under the council tax RSG and NDR will be paid directly to billing authorities and major precepting authorities. Each authority will set its own council tax to cover the gap between its RSG and NDR entitlements and its budget requirement. These amounts will be distinguished in the demand notice.
A district council with more RSG and NDR than it needs to meet its budget requirement will not need to set a council tax on its own account. We are proposing that it would pay the surplus into its collection fund to offset the county precept for its area. In the rare event that the surplus exceeded the amount needed to offset the precept, the balance would remain in the collection fund. Any estimated collection fund surplus at the end of the year would be shared between the billing authority and major precepting authorities in the following year.
Already, under the present system, the community charge in some areas is needed only to finance spending by the county council. This effect is not apparent to charge payers because RSG and NDR are paid into the collection fund and the community charge is set to cover all local authority spending in an area. The wider changes in the local government finance system that I have just described mean that special provision is needed to enable district councils to pass on the benefits of low budgets to council tax payers by transferring surplus RSG and NDR to their colleciton funds. We are making this special provision in response to representations from district councils.
Noble Lords opposite suggest that districts will only have surplus RSG and NDR because of defects in RSG and NDR distribution, or because they are spending well below their standard spending assessment. They propose that surpluses of RSG and NDR should be spread among other authorities.
The reason why some districts will have surpluses is not necessarily because they are low spenders— though some may be—or because their SSA is high, but simply because their income from other sources such as investments and asset sales covers such a high proportion of their expenditure. It does, indeed, reflect the good housekeeping that is apparently scorned by noble Lords opposite. Now they seem to be suggesting that we should change the rules to deny the fruits of good housekeeping to the people who elected those authorities.
Some 30 districts would have lost RSG and NDR as a result of this amendment if the council tax had been in place in 1991–92 and if those districts had set the same budgets. Not all are in prosperous parts of the country. Some cover important industrial towns;

1433
others cover agricultural areas. They represent a broad cross-section of authorities, albeit in the southern half of the country.
I have spoken at length because the matter is complex. I hope that I have reassured the House that there is no inequity in what we are proposing. We are merely seeking to safeguard the position of local people from the consequences of wider changes in the system of local government finance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to claim that in moving the amendment we are opposing good housekeeping. No such thing! We are pointing out that there is another side to the coin of the inadequacy of the standard spending assessment as a basis for capping. That is the basis on which the Secretary of State forms his opinion about what is excessive expenditure. It is because the standard spending assessments are inadequate as a basis on which to set grants that they are inadequate in both directions. If they are set too high for some people, they are set too low for others. One needs to look only at the list of the 30 district councils that would benefit from the Government's proposals—those which would suffer if negative taxes were outlawed, as proposed by our amendment—to see that those authorities comprise largely the shire counties in the Midlands and the South of England. In other words, with almost no exceptions, they are authorities that are strong Conservative supporters. The only exceptions that I can see in the list are Slough and Plymouth. I point that out as a matter of fact without making any allegations of deliberate bias.
It is the defects of the standard spending assessment that have led to this ludicrous situation. It is clear that authorities need money to provide services. It is only because the grant system has been so distorted that we have this absurd and paradoxical result. It is one of the many things about the Bill that will have to be reversed by a new government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 [Payments to Local Authorities by Secretary of State: Scotland]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 144, line 46, after ("calculate") insert (", in such manner as may be prescribed,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 122 to 126:
Page 145, line 21, leave out ("timeously")
Page 145, line 29, at end insert:
("(12) Where the Secretary of State has suspended payments under sub-paragraph (9) above by reason of the authority's failure to make the calculation required under sub-paragraph (5)(a) above in the manner prescribed, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (10) above sub-paragraphs (8) and (9) above shall apply to differences between the provisional amount and the certified amount as they apply to differences between the provisional amount and the notified amount.").
Page 145, line 33, at end insert ("—(a)").
Page 145, line 35, at end insert:
1434
("(b) enabling a calculation under paragraph 11(5) (a) above to be made without taking into account any information as regards which the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) it is not reasonably practicable for the person making the calculation to take it into account; and

(ii) it was received by the authority after a prescribed date (which may be before or after the end of the year in question).").

Page 153, line 7, at end insert:
"Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c.57)
44A. The power conferred by section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (power of local authorities to obtain particulars of persons interested in land) shall not be exercisable with a view to performing any functions under Part I of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a simple, straightforward Bill. It was taken through the other place by Mr. Keith Raffan as a Private Member's Bill. It has the full support of all four political parties in Wales. It is strongly backed by the Wales Tourist Board. In a parliamentary Answer on 15th January, the Secretary of State for Wales confirmed that the Government support the Bill's intentions. In Committee in another place, the Minister of State, Welsh Office, Sir Wyn Roberts, who has special responsibility for tourism, welcomed the Bill.
The Bill completed its Committee stage in another place in 40 minutes, without amendment. If the Bill is to become law in this Session, it is important that its progress through the House should be equally speedy and that there should be no amendments. I fear that the consequence, if any amendments were passed, would be that the Bill would be lost.
Clause 1(1) would allow the Wales Tourist Board to deploy resources in order to supplement the work already undertaken by the British Tourist Authority. Clause 1(2) would ensure the co-ordination of the activities of the Wales Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority, thus meeting the Secretary of State's requirement that the board will not exercise its powers unless it has undertaken full consultation with, and obtained the agreement of, the British Tourist Authority before undertaking any overseas marketing activity, and also that it will not open separate offices overseas.
Under that subsection the Wales Tourist Board has to have the consent of the Secretary of State who has, in his turn, to consult the BTA. Under the terms of the 1969 Act, the Wales Tourist Board is not allowed to incur expenditure overseas in order to market Wales. Its role is that of a co-ordinator: to bring together industry funds which enable overseas marketing schemes to be then undertaken through the BTA.

1435
The Scottish Tourist Board was similarly confined until amending legislation was passed in 1984 to allow it to undertake overseas marketing. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is also allowed to do so under legislation passed by Stormont, and the English regional boards, which are not statutory bodies, also market their regions abroad, although the English Tourist Board is still confined by the 1969 Act.
The Bill therefore removes an anomaly so that the Wales Tourist Board can use some of its grant-in-aid to support BTA activities abroad, with the object of increasing the Welsh share of the market, which, historically, is low—about 2 per cent.—compared with Wales's share of the UK market, which is about 10 per cent. The Wales Tourist Board believes that the change will give it greater leverage in co-ordinating the overseas marketing activities of the tourist industry in Wales. It has been told by some representatives of that industry that they would then be in a position to put in additional funds; that is, so long as the Wales Tourist Board can support supplementary marketing activities in the way that will become possible if the Bill is passed.
The Bill is drafted along lines similar to the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act 1984. The Scottish experience is encouraging. The Scottish board says that it has been able to sell, through the example of its own activities, the real benefits of overseas promotion to the industry, and especially to the smaller operators which had to be convinced of the value of such promotion. Even more important, it has been able to offer them the opportunity to take part in joint ventures and programmes which have given businesses the confidence to develop their own overseas marketing strategies.
The board has also been able to concentrate the activity of Scottish companies on markets which have special potential; for example, Japan. Wales has attracted more overseas investment from Japan than any other part of this country or, indeed, any country in Europe. The links with Japan are close. It follows that the potential for similar initiatives by the Wales Tourist Board in that country is obvious, but it is by no means the only possible target.
The Welsh share of overseas business has, for many years, been disappointingly low: under 3 per cent. of overseas bednights, and under 2 per cent. of expenditure. During the time that I was at the Welsh Office, we gave urban development grant to the Holiday Inn in Cardiff. One of our reasons was to secure a major new hotel, well connected in the international booking circuit. It was something that had not previously existed. Hotels in Wales had not been linked into that vital marketing organisation which most overseas tourists find so important. Since that time, Wales, I am glad to say, has attracted more such hotel development. Other new hotels of a high standard have been opened in the Principality. I am sure that improved hotel facilities, combined with better marketing, are an obvious route towards increasing the contribution of overseas tourism to the Welsh economy.
Clause I would allow the board to pump-prime trade sales missions to key markets; to initiate direct
1436
mail campaigns; to target markets; and also to work with the Welsh Development Agency and other Welsh organisations in raising the profile of Wales overseas. There are some obvious recent examples of where that would have been possible. For example, the Welsh National Opera has, in recent years, had successful overseas tours in Japan, the United States and Italy. Linked with those successful activities, the Welsh Development Agency and others launched important programmes to raise the profile of Wales, to tell other countries about Wales and the attractions that Wales has to offer. It would obviously be valuable if the Wales Tourist Board could take part on such occasions.
I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, could not be with us tonight. Before the debate, he told me that he regretted that he could not be here. I am sure that as a former chairman of the Wales Tourist Board he would have confirmed the importance of tourism for Wales. It is a major industry, employing some 95,000 people (about 9 per cent. of the workforce) and it brings in £1.5 billion a year. The importance of overseas visitors is that when they come they tend to stay longer and spend more than visitors from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am delighted to hear that the Government have increased the resources of the Wales Tourist Board by over 20 per cent. for the coming financial year to £13.529 million, and that will, no doubt, allow the board to increase its expenditure on marketing, and to do so in this especially exciting year, when the National Garden Festival will take place in Ebbw Vale. It is not just because I selected the site for that festival that I believe it will prove to be one of the most dramatically exciting of all the garden festivals that have been held; it is a site quite unlike any of the others. There has been time to prepare it better than in many other cases. I believe that it will be an especially exciting festival which will attract a large number of visitors.
It will not be the only event in Wales this year. The Secretary of State has launched "Valleys Live" which is an extensive, ongoing programme of arts events in the valleys of Wales which will take place in a sense linked to the National Garden Festival. Thus the year opens up good prospects and it is absolutely appropriate that this year we should seek to strengthen the powers available to the Wales Tourist Board.
I have referred to Clause 1 subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (3) confirms that the granting of additional powers to the Wales Tourist Board does not prevent the BTA from exercising independently its power to promote Wales overseas. Clause 2 is the normal finance clause in such measures and Clause 3 sets out the Short Title and provides for the commencement of the Act.
This is a useful Bill, it has long been desired by the Wales Tourist Board and it has all-party support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Crickhowell.)
7.41 p.m.
Lord Ogmore: My Lords, from these Benches we give the Bill the warmest possible welcome. It deals with a longstanding grievance in Wales, and as I understand it it has the support of the majority of Welsh people. I am pleased that the Government have offered it their support. My only plea is that the Bill should find its way on to the statute book, despite the increasing pressures of parliamentary business.
As has already been mentioned, the current position means that the Wales Tourist Board is unable to incur expenditure overseas, with its role limited to raising funds from local authorities and the tourist industry for schemes then undertaken through the British Tourist Authority.
The Wales Tourist Board tells me that when a specific project arises that it wishes to pursue, 66 per cent. of the project's cost must be found. Contrast this with Scotland which gained its right to market itself abroad in 1984. The Bill seeks parity for Wales with Scotland, which must surely be right. It seeks to supplement and complement the work of the British Tourist Authority with additional resources for promotion. That too is important.
The benefit will be there to see. One is not suggesting a Welsh tourist office in every capital of the world. I know that the Wales Tourist Board is happy with the present arrangements, working through the British Tourist Authority, for example as in New York. We do not suggest an excessive budget for the board. Instead, we want it to have the power to project Wales in a favourable light by means of targeted resources.
The "Wise Wales" scheme currently running in the United States is yielding results. The Welsh Sales Executive in New York, paid for jointly by industry and the Development Board for Rural Wales, can legitimately claim credit for the fact that over 100 additional American travel agents now specifically include Wales.
The tourist industry is vital to the Welsh economy. It is a growing feature of our economy, employing 9 per cent. of our workforce against 6 per cent. in England. In 1990, the income from domestic tourism for Wales amounted to £900 million against £117 million from overseas visitors. That represents some 9 to 10 per cent. of the domestic share of tourists against only between 3 to 4 per cent. of foreign tourists.
Too many overseas visitors get hooked on to the London-Oxford-Bath-Stratford circuit. Too few visit Wales. Tourism remains essential to our rural areas, the border country, Dyfed and Gwynedd. Without tourism, there is often little left, so we must get this right.
I am confident that Wales has the right product—some of the most scenic countryside in these islands. But to date it has been unable to market it correctly. The Bill remedies that and we on these Benches welcome it wholeheartedly.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as the Bill clearly has all-party support, I think it right that I should speak briefly from the Cross-Benches in its support, although I need hardly add that, as always, I speak only for myself and not necessarily for any of my Cross-Bench colleagues.
In a recent debate on the Welsh economy, I concentrated my small contribution on the tourist industry. I pointed out, to the pleasure of some and the amusement of others, the great delights of the Welsh countryside and the pleasures that await people who visit my country. I also mentioned the achievements of the Wales Tourist Board and that the only matter that worried it at that time was the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, drew our attention this evening in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. It was that, unlike the board's opposite numbers in Scotland and in the English regions, it was not entitled to market Wales overseas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, the Bill puts that right. It is not an attempt by the Welsh to steal a march on the English or the Scots —which we are frequently accused of trying to do and sometimes succeeding. The Bill attempts to catch up. There is no question of any clash with the British Tourist Authority or any confrontation with it about responsibilities. Whatever the Wales Tourist Board does will be done in consultation with the British Tourist Authority and with the consent of the Secretary of State.
In moving the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned one aspect of special interest. That is the investment by foreign countries in Wales, perhaps more notably and spectacularly the Japanese. When the Bill reaches the statute book, it will enable the Welsh and the Wales Tourist Board to capitalise on the relations and associations that exist between the Welsh and the Japanese for the purpose of marketing tourism in Wales overseas.
As I said at the beginning, since the Bill clearly has all-party support, there is no need for passionate advocacy on my part or that of anyone else. Therefore, I express my warm support for the Bill and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for moving its Second Reading.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I have great pleasure in welcoming this short but useful Bill. I hasten to assure the House that we are anxious to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for his contribution in introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House.
It seems to me that in Wales the tourist industry starts with many advantages. It is a singularly beautiful country with its mountains, moorlands, valleys, lakes, rivers and its long coastline indented with attractive bays and small harbours. Nowhere in Wales is one too far removed from the heritage of the past or from a bilingual landscape. I refer to Cymru, Wales. As we have heard, today tourism in Wales is

1439
making a powerful contribution to the Welsh economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, it employs about 95,000 people, mainly in a mixture of small or medium-sized businesses whose facilities have been improved and promoted by the Wales Tourist Board. The board has long sought the overseas marketing powers which this Bill will provide.
I have checked the wording of the Bill with that of the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act 1984 and the wording is textually identical. I noted that the latest order concerning tourism in Northern Ireland—that came before the House about a month ago—empowered the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to undertake overseas activity. This Bill does not therefore break new ground. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the Bill removes an anomaly. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the Bill enables the Wales Tourist Board to catch up.
Yet, when I first read Clause 1(2), I wondered a little whether the arrangement in that subsection would work effectively and smoothly in practice. On the one hand, I wondered whether it was too restrictive; and, on the other hand, whether it might lead to unnecessary duplication or competition. However, I have been assured by both the chairman and the chief executive of the Wales Tourist Board that they are satisfied that the arrangement set out in the subsection is working well in the Scottish context.
This evening the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has emphasised—this has also been emphasised in another place—that the power contained in the Bill will be used to complement and supplement the work of the British Tourist Authority. I assume from that statement that the Bill will have implications for the budget resources of the Wales Tourist Board but that it will have no such implications for the budget of the British Tourist Authority. When the noble Baroness replies to the debate, I hope she can confirm whether those are valid assumptions. Will the Government specify or confirm that the financial and staffing resources now applied by the British Tourist Authority in promoting Wales overseas will not be diminished as the result of the passing of this Bill? That assurance would be comforting.
I should mention, too, that I have discussed the Bill with my noble friend Lord Parry who is a former distinguished chairman of the Wales Tourist Board. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has said, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, greatly regrets that he cannot be present in the House this evening to express his hearty support for this Bill. Finally, it is proper that I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who have served the Wales Tourist Board since it first came upon the scene. To them I would say, Diolch yn fawr.
7.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I join in the all-party welcome to this Bill. Tourism with its 6,000 businesses and 95,000 employees generating over £1 billion of earnings is of vital importance to the Principality, and its significance is certain to grow.
1440
The industry currently deals with 9 million customers a year and it has to deal with them as individuals in an increasingly competitive market.
The credo of the Wales Tourist Board, which reflects government policy, is to seek to develop and market tourism in ways which will yield the maximum economic and social benefit to the people of Wales. Implicit within this statement is the essential need to sustain and promote the culture and language of Wales and to safeguard the environment and heritage. Our approach is to develop the industry in a way which will provide on-going benefit to Welsh communities and Wales.
In the past decade or so, the quality of the tourism product in Wales has matured with new and improved attractions, significantly better hotels, customer care training, improved standards of cooking and more focused and cost effective marketing. The principal architect has been the Wales Tourist Board with its carefully considered and sympathetic strategies in different market sectors which have acted as a catalyst in encouraging and assisting these improvements.
We are particularly fortunate in Wales that so many of our public agencies, local authorities and the vital private sector are working towards the same goals. None of us can fail to be impressed by the massive environmental clearance schemes undertaken by the Welsh Development Agency, the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation together with the Countryside Council for Wales, the Sports Council and the Development Board for Rural Wales. All of them realise just how important tourism is to the local economy and environment.
The 1990s will not be an easy time for those involved in tourism and none of us can fail to be aware of the opening of Eurodisney, just outside Paris, or of the Channel Tunnel and the increasingly easier travel to previously remote parts of the world. The customer has never been so sophisticated, so demanding and so discerning. But I believe that in Wales we are in the 1990s more fortunate than ever before. Never before have there been so many attractions, man-made or natural, which have been so accessible. Never before have there been such high standards of care, choice and value. Already the benefits of that position are manifest. A few weeks ago, Cardiff, one of 17 cities surveyed around the world including Madrid, Tokyo, Frankfurt and, dare I say it, London, was awarded the accolade of being the best city in terms of value for money tourism, thus scoring top marks. That is good news.
I hasten to comfort the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is not envisaged that the Wales Tourist Board will require additional resources for overseas promotion activities during 1992 to 1993. Although the Government do not envisage supplementing the Wales Tourist Board's budget for that specific purpose, in future years the Secretary of State for Wales will retain his discretion to work within the block arrangements should circumstances change. The Wales Tourist Board already has a substantial budget from which to fund marketing and promotional schemes. It already identifies preferred allocations within that budget for specific purposes according to

1441
determined and agreed priorities. Future budget provision will be a matter for consideration at the appropriate time in the light of developments in tourism and of competing demands from other programmes. As usual, resource allocations will need to be fully justified in value for money terms.
This Bill is intended to supplement the good work of the British Tourist Authority in promoting and marketing the United Kingdom overseas. There will be no reduction in the BTA's activities as a consequence of this measure and there will be no plans to reduce staff or resources. There is no intention to reduce the budget of the BTA as a result of this Bill; rather this Bill will complement its work. There is no reason to look to the BTA for offsetting savings.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised a point which I hope my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will agree that I should answer. The WTB was involved in 37 joint marketing schemes promoting Wales oversees in 1990–91. Some £347,496 was raised by the industry in Wales and matched by the BTA with some £137,100. It is a considerable achievement on the part of the WTB to lever that money from the private sector. It indicates the opportunities which exist for the private and public sectors to work together to help promote Wales overseas.
The Government are fully confident that the Bill will succeed. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for taking it through this House. The Bill carries our full support.
8 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords in all parts of the House who have spoken tonight and who have so warmly supported the Bill. In response to the noble
1442
Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the point about the Wales Tourist Board not seeking to open offices in every capital, I understand that the board has specifically undertaken not to open any overseas offices. That forms part of the conditions which the Secretary of State has laid down. There is no case for doing so. It can use effectively the offices which are already available under the auspices of the BTA.
I am very appreciative of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who has perhaps been more instrumental than most in bringing overseas visitors to Wales through the tremendous part he has played over the years in encouraging and presiding over the International Eisteddfod at Llangollen—another very good reason for visiting the Principality.
I have only one other point to make, which is again to express the hope that no amendments will be put down before Committee stage. That is the one outstanding threat to the successful passage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.

  VOLVO: LOCATION PROPOSAL
  VOLVO: LOCATION PROPOSAL
  CIDER: TAX CATEGORY PROPOSAL
  CIDER: TAX CATEGORY PROPOSAL
  ROYAL PARKS: REVIEW GROUP'S REPORT
  ROYAL PARKS: REVIEW GROUP'S REPORT
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT—OPERATION: REPORT
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT—OPERATION: REPORT
  EAST TIMOR
  EAST TIMOR